(November 1, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I would also like to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion without generalizing. There is nothing wrong with making the generalization that "men are taller than women." People should be smart enough to recognize that a generalization is by its very nature an expression of normative properties. People who need all manner of qualifications like "some" and "most" and "many" aren't being reasonable. If I say that political progressives are left-wing, I suppose that could mean that some progressive some where is a right-winger, but no one would call that normative. So it doesn't make sense to call it false equivocation. If someone makes an thread or post about "Christians" it isn't hard to figure out if they are thinking about Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. I don't need anyone to qualify their generalizations. But heaven forbid anyone make a generalization about atheists suggesting that they are by and large naturalists or moral relativists even though those are clearly normative traits.
Let me clarify that by "generalizations", in the context I was using, I meant things like "Christians are idots", "Atheists are pompous ass holes", "republicans are racist", "liberals are hypocrites", .... Or making threads to back up these generalizations by posting a story every time someone from one of these groups does something bad.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh