Discussion, not Provocation

[Tiberius]

Sure, but for every racist conservative you find, there's multiple non-racist ones. It's a false equivocation to say that conservatives are racists. What is more accurate is that some conservatives are racist, or perhaps that most racists are conservative.

Maybe what you need is a Safe Zone Forum so no one's "personal space" is invaded?

And in the Safe Zone everyone can be free from ever having to think about anything "icky."

You might also consider changing the name of the site to the CUTE KITTY FORUM because, you know, religitards get upset just thinking that there are atheists in the world who are not impressed with their bullshit.

Or perhaps you should be asking yourself what you or anyone else gets out of you misrepresenting or outright lying about a person's political beliefs. What is the point of having a discussion if one side is prepared to label the other without good reason? It starts the discussion off with a person having to defend themselves over something that they shouldn't even be addressing in the first place.

This isn't about safe zones or about limiting people from having to think about "icky" things. This is about having reasonable discussions. It's not reasonable to label someone as racist simply for being conservative, nor is it reasonable to label a Catholic as a pedophile, or a liberal as a fascist. These are things that reasonable people know just aren't true, and people shouldn't have to address them or defend themselves against known falsehoods.

This isn't about not having people get upset either, I don't care if people get upset if someone disagrees with their beliefs, that's their problem. People shouldn't have to deal with lies being spread about them or used as the basis for a discussion, because what's the point?

[Edwardo Piet]

With that being said, I do really like that you guys (the mods) had already been talking about this for a while, even before Neo started doing it. I think you guys are being really fair and as far as I can see, there is no hypocrisy on ya'lls end at all.

Hallo... she's after something...

Take those laxatives! You know what she's after!

---

I think generalising isn't really the problem, but rather unfair/untrue generalising. Particularly when done for the purpose of not initiating discussion.

Yup. I am pretty sure I could make a thread called "All dead people are braindead" in the humor section and not get called a bigot for speaking ill of the dead

---

Yeah, I wonder where we ever got that idea?

---

---

Oh.  Right.

Sure, but for every racist conservative you find, there's multiple non-racist ones. It's a false equivocation to say that conservatives are racists. What is more accurate is that some conservatives are racist, or perhaps that most racists are conservative.

Perhaps the problem is that "conservatives are racists" doesn't specify whether you mean some or all. "All conservatives are racists" is certainly bigoted.

After a frustrating argument with an unintelligent theist I can be sometimes found saying things like "Holy crap theists are so dumb" but I'd NEVER say "Holy crap all theists are so dumb".

[Losty]

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

[Foxaèr]

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

Yes. It's through English class and having to write papers that I learned it is best to state "some" or "most", so as to not imply "all".

There are exceptions, of course. Like if I state, "I personally perceive all theist as delusional due to their belief in god."

[Edwardo Piet]

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

I think that sometimes depends on context.

Saying "X people are Y" is usually understandably taken as "All X people are Y" and it is seen as labeling and it's not incorrect to interpret that way due to that labelling. Technically there is no specification though and I often use it to mean "some" or "most".

I definitely wouldn't start a thread called "Theists are dumb" because it could very reasonably be misinterpreted to mean "all theists are dumb" and I'd be doing myself nor anyone else any favors (if I ever made a thread like that I really would be trolling. Which is why I'd never make a thread like that unless it was a parody thread in the humor subforum and a clear joke).

But within threads and during general conversation I often say "X are Y" when I'm being flippant. But I'd never explictly state "all X are Y" unless it was true by definition like "No squares are curved" or "no married people are bachelors".

I pointed out the distinction because I am trying to clean up a possible confusion between Tiberius and Min. I can imagine that Min genuinely believes that he has evidence that most conservatives are racist but even I can't believe he believes that not a single conservative on the planet is non-racist. I take his "Conservatives are racist" statements to be hyperbole rather than statements that "every single conservative on this planet is a racist".

---

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

Yes.  It's through English class and having to write papers that I learned it is best to state "some" or "most", so as to not imply "all".

It's No wonder that most of my statements are taken as absolutist and I'm asked how I know X is true when I'm merely speaking in shorthand and find it a waste of time and energy to constantly use the words "I think" and "some" in every single one of my freaking posts when I state any opinion about anything ever that isn't so obvious it's true by definition, then.

But seriously . . . nah I think it's all contextual in honesty.

And when it comes to making blanket statements about groups of people . . . I think the context thing applies with regards to whether you're making some flippant secondary statement that isn't your key point . . . or whether what you're saying is your key point or you've gone out of your way to make a whole threads stating that X people are Y.

If it's your key point and not clear hyperbole or some flippant secondary point, or you make a whole thread about it, then it's very clearly labeling a whole group of people. With regards to saying any X group of people are Y it is understandable to usually interpret that as "all X are Y".

Perhaps I myself should never state that a group of people are X and I should specify "most" or "some" when I make statements about groups of people. But I can't really always say "some" whenever I make any statement about anything that isn't true by definiton, because then I'd be inserting the word "some" into basically every single one of my statements about anything ever. Which would get incredibly annoying. It's also the same reason I don't ever bother to say "I think" in my posts anymore whenever stating an opinion . . . because if I did that every time it was just my opinion I'd be prefixing basically every single statement I make in every single one of my posts with "I think", and, again, that would be really annoying.

When it comes to labeling people perhaps I should take more care to assume that non-specified is usually taken to implicate "all". Although technically it doesn't, technically it's unspecified, and I'd rather be both easily misunderstood and very pedantic but nevertheless sincere than even more annoyingly repetitive than I already am.

[Catholic_Lady]

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

That's how I see it too. When I'm going to make a comment like that, I'm always very careful to put the word "some" in there.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

That's how I see it too. When I'm going to make a comment like that, I'm always very careful to put the word "some" in there.

Been there, done that. If you are a conservative it still doesn't matter. You can provide an abundance of context and your position will still be misconstrued and you'll be accused of racism. The mods intentions are pure, but I doubt it will be enforced. Just a little cynical lately.

[Edwardo Piet]

Isn't it largely your own threads you have to worry about?

[Little lunch]

I think Min's witty one liners are clearly his opinion, so wouldn't be a problem. That said, if we have to start labeling everything we say that's opinion, that's baloney.

I'm going to start calling you guys The Babysitter's Club.

But Neo started it, I had it first and he just took it off me, it's not fair!
Owww, Charlie bit me....and that really hurts.

[vorlon13]

In English when you say "theists are dumb" doesn't that imply that you mean all? I always read it as all if you don't specify that you mean some.

That's how I see it too. When I'm going to make a comment like that, I'm always very careful to put the word "some" in there.

It's tough generalizing about Christians, that's for sure. Things that were gospel universal truths about 'all' US Christians when I was a kid back in the 60s are by and large looked at askew these days. Even our more strident Jesus people here come across as a 'flaming liberals' when eval'd by the standards that I learned in Sunday School.

Weird, ain't it, how fast an Eternal and Unchanging God can rewrite the rules in less than one human life span ??

It's far easier generalizing about Mormons as they are eager to excommunicate members of their flock who stray into heresy and apostasy. Mormons, at least, recognize quality control and consistency of their product. Most 'mainline' Christian denoms seem to put folks with 'funny ideas' in charge these days . . . .