07 Nov 13
Originally posted by ZahlanziI am sorry to inform you that an example does not prove a rule.
in the second case, that event is used as a proof that group X is stupid.
it is a generalization from small numbers. especially since X really includes Y(a small subgroup) who holds the views C was talking about.
And I never made any such generalization.
every aspect of a comment in a debate matters.
But it doesn't mean that you can read between the lines and add aspects that simply weren't there.
why did you use "theist" and not "human"?
Because they were theists.
why didn't you use "a mammal said this incredibly offensive thing?".
For starters, it was only offensive to you. I never said it was offensive nor believed it to be so.
What they said, only makes sense if the speaker is a theist. What I said does not however imply that all theists would say that.
why did it have to be theists, a group that you know for sure has lots of decent, open minded people?
Which you clearly aren't.
in fact, nobody uses "theist" when referring to a westboro baptist.
I can assure you that they do.
nobody uses "theist" when referring to a muslim that advocates the destruction of all infidels.
Yes they do.
why did you? you expect me to believe you have no motive? why should i when you repeatedly said how i am no different than rjhinds?
Of course I had a motive. My motive was to give my experience. You however took it upon yourself to do some mind reading, then took it upon yourself to insult people you know next to nothing about. You are far worse morally than the people in question.
07 Nov 13
Originally posted by twhitehead"I am sorry to inform you that an example does not prove a rule."
I am sorry to inform you that an example does not prove a rule.
[b]it is a generalization from small numbers. especially since X really includes Y(a small subgroup) who holds the views C was talking about.
And I never made any such generalization.
every aspect of a comment in a debate matters.
But it doesn't mean that you can read betwe ...[text shortened]... lt people you know next to nothing about. You are far worse morally than the people in question.[/b]
i know.
"And I never made any such generalization."
yes you did. "religious people don't need evidence" "theist people said this". as a response to metal brain who generalized himself.
"But it doesn't mean that you can read between the lines and add aspects that simply weren't there."
no, i should guess what you mean.
and if you were fair, you would realize i didn't accuse you at first of generalizing. i told you to talk to better freakin theists. i gave you the benefit of doubt, and i responded as if you only talked about those particular awful theists which made you see red and trigger this idiotic discussion.
"Because they were theists."
they were also human. could it be that you didn't use "some humans said this" because you wanted to make it clear you didn't share their views, that you aren't a part of their group? if you get agitated that i have no reason to feel included in that group, why did you use theists and not zambians?
looking at this further, they were probably christians, why didn't you use that term? why didn't you use "catholics"? why didn't you use "fundamentalists"?
"What they said, only makes sense if the speaker is a theist."
why would it make sense only if the speaker is a theist? i am a theist and that absolute crap of an opinion doesn't make sense to me. you yourself admit that not all theists would say that. if it is an opinion not shared by all theists why would it make sense to them?
would nazism make more sense to germans? why would this attitude make sense to theists?
"Which you clearly aren't."
an opinion you hold that i won't lose any sleep over. i am not going to take seriously the assesment of a person that looks at me and rjhinds, at what we posted on this forums over the years and sees no difference.
"Yes they do."
that's a bloody lie. they don't. they don't even use muslims, so as not to offend the numerous muslims that aren't psychopaths. they use extremists, fanatics, jihadists, deranged.
in fact, nobody uses the general term when talking about a group of people unless they do want to make a statement about the larger group. you don't use mammal when talking about how americans enjoy baseball. you use mammal when saying that americans are endothermic amniotes.
you just cling to that technicality in order to be right. and yes, you are right. you didn't say "all theists". you are safe. you subtly insulted theists while staying in the safe zone. i was more fair. when i heard about your "theists", i made my opinion heard. clearly. that they do not represent all theists, that you should find better theists to talk to. and that they are fundamentalist asholes.
"You are far worse morally than the people in question."
words cannot describe the amount of fuks given by my about this opinion of yours. after doing some research, i think "zero" might be appropriate.