Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by divegeester
You wrote a generalisation, I politely called you on it ....

When you called him on it, what problem did you see with it? What exactly is wrong with generalizations? Merely labelling it a generalization does not make it inherently wrong or bad. There must be something about it you feel was wrong or bad. Can you describe that without simply repeating 'its a generalization'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that it matches one possible definition of the word 'generalization' - and have done so consistently from the beginning of the thread.
I also claim that it doesn't matter one whit whether or not it matches the definition. Matching a definition provides exactly zero information or argument. Definitions are about communication and brevity, nothing more nothing less.

When I have a little more time I will look back at what you said.

I've been saying it is a generalisation from the beginning and so have you. Sounds like we agree which is strange after so many pages of arguing.

I also don't particularly care about definitions, but it was you who brought "definitions" into the fray, which is also strange considering you are apparently so well known for not hold them in much regard.

Originally posted by twhitehead
When you called him on it, what problem did you see with it? What exactly is wrong with generalizations? Merely labelling it a generalization does not make it inherently wrong or bad. There must be something about it you feel was wrong or bad. Can you describe that without simply repeating 'its a generalization'?

Nice attempt to move the goal posts.

Let me ask you; when I called him on it being a generalisation, what triggered you to get involved? Seeing as you also viewed it as a generalisation, why did you bother to step in? Can you describe why it was important to you?

Originally posted by divegeester
When I have a little more time I will look back at what you said.

You do that. Given that you keep asking the same questions and getting the exact same answers I suggest you get your memory checked too.

I've been saying it is a generalisation from the beginning and so have you. Sounds like we agree which is strange after so many pages of arguing.
Yes, it is strange. I wonder why you just can't seem to get past repeating over and over 'It's a generalization' and never actually get to the point as to why you think that matters. Perhaps because doing so might require admitting you are wrong?

I also don't particularly care about definitions, but it was you who brought "definitions" into the fray, which is also strange considering you are apparently so well known for not hold them in much regard.
I never said I don't care about definitions. They are clearly important for good communication. I only brought it into the fray because it was clear that different people were using different definitions.
What I am well known for is saying that definitions cannot be used to make a logical argument - an error theists frequently make in this forum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You do that. Given that you keep asking the same questions and getting the exact same answers I suggest you get your memory checked too.

[b]I've been saying it is a generalisation from the beginning and so have you. Sounds like we agree which is strange after so many pages of arguing.
Yes, it is strange. I wonder why you just can't seem to get pas ...[text shortened]... ions cannot be used to make a logical argument - an error theists frequently make in this forum.[/b]

Near the top of the thread I pointed out why it was a generalisation that it was supported by one one example and why it mattered. You disagreed then and you'll disagree now.

Originally posted by divegeester
Near the top of the thread I pointed out why it was a generalisation that it was supported by one one example and why it mattered. You disagreed then and you'll disagree now.

So it being a generalization doesn't actually matter to you at all? Nothing at all wrong with that? It is only the claim that it was supported by one example that is an issue?

Are you now satisfied that he was not, as you original claimed "using this one incident to generalise against and stereotype billions of Christians"?
I think that it has been firmly established that that is not the case.
Do you still deny it?
Do you also think the earth is flat?
Is the horizon always at eye level?
Will you continue to make a fool of yourself rather than utter three simple words: 'I was wrong'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So it being a generalization doesn't actually matter to you at all? Nothing at all wrong with that? It is only the claim that it was supported by one example that is an issue?

Are you now satisfied that he was not, as you original claimed "using this one incident to generalise against and stereotype billions of Christians"?
I think that it has been fi ...[text shortened]... ill you continue to make a fool of yourself rather than utter three simple words: 'I was wrong'?

It's a generalisation about all Christians supported by one piece of evidence (or example). It matters because being a generalisation, it missrepresents those Christians who do not frequently harp on about being persecuted. It's not dificult. I've nothing to admit to being wrong about. Silly jibes about a flat earth just underline your need to insult and belittle. You agree it's a generalisation despite having to look up the definition despite admitting that the definition does not support the discussion. So what is your issue - that is not about Christians or that the one example is more than one example?

Originally posted by divegeester
It's a generalisation about all Christians supported by one piece of evidence (or example).

No actually, it isn't. As has been pointed out to you many many times over the course of the thread.

Saying the Earth is flat 100 times wont make it so.


It matters because being a generalisation,
What exactly about 'being a generalization'? Which definition are you drawing on for this and which aspect of the definition. As I have said multiple times already, merely giving something a label has exactly zero evidential value.

it missrepresents those Christians who do not frequently harp on about being persecuted.
It would if it was about all Christians. It isn't. And being a generalization doesn't make it so, unless your definition of 'generalization' is 'a statement about all members of a group' in which case it isn't a generalization.

It's not dificult.
Then why do you keep refusing to explain your position and refusing to answer any question that might highlight the problems with your position, and spending whole pages trying to sideline the discussion?

I've nothing to admit to being wrong about. Silly jibes about a flat earth just underline your need to insult and belittle.
They just underline my need to point out how silly you are being refusing to accept something right in front of your face all because you have difficulty admitting when you are wrong.

So what is your issue - that is not about Christians or that the one example is more than one example?
I have two issues with your claim:
1. The statement is not about all Christians.
2. It is not argued that the statement is true based on one example.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No actually, it isn't. As has been pointed out to you many many times over the course of the thread.

You and Googlefudge "pointing something out" does not make you right. I wish I had a £ for every time you said "as has already been pointed out to you". It's as though you think that rereading your own words gives them some sort of validity - a bit like Grampy Bobby reposting all his stuff.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No actually, it isn't. As has been pointed out to you many many times over the course of the thread.

Saying the Earth is flat 100 times wont make it so.


[b]It matters because being a generalisation,
What exactly about 'being a generalization'? Which definition are you drawing on for this and which aspect of the definition. As I have said mult ...[text shortened]... not about all Christians.
2. It is not argued that the statement is true based on one example.[/b]

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly through this thread [sic]...

I've explained above "go back a re-read my post".

Having to explain to you why it is not a good idea to generalise (you admit it was a generalisation, right) about an entire religious group (Christians) is astonishing.

Originally posted by divegeester
You and Googlefudge "pointing something out" does not make you right. I wish I had a £ for every time you said "as has already been pointed out to you".

Yes, we all wish we were richer. Having a £ for every time I said it still wouldn't make me wrong.
Why don't you actually explain why I am wrong rather than simply saying repeating it 'doesn't make you right'? Oh yes, I know why, because you know I am right.

It's as though you think that rereading your own words gives them some sort of validity - a bit like Grampy Bobby reposting all his stuff.
I, unlike Grampy, am willing to discuss things and get to the bottom of them.

So tell us, what makes you think the sentence refers to all Christians? Also, explain why you are apparently the only person who thinks that whereas every other person who has commented on it disagrees. Have you considered the possibility that your grasp of the English language may be not quite as good as you thought?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, we all wish we were richer. Having a £ for every time I said it still wouldn't make me wrong.
Why don't you actually explain why I am wrong rather than simply saying repeating it 'doesn't make you right'? Oh yes, I know why, because you know I am right.

[b]It's as though you think that rereading your own words gives them some sort of validity - a ...[text shortened]... ll his stuff.
I, unlike Grampy, am willing to discuss things and get to the bottom of them.[/b]

Well let's be clear about you think I'm wrong about. I asked you a few posts up but you haven't replied.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, we all wish we were richer. Having a £ for every time I said it still wouldn't make me wrong.
Why don't you actually explain why I am wrong rather than simply saying repeating it 'doesn't make you right'? Oh yes, I know why, because you know I am right.

[b]It's as though you think that rereading your own words gives them some sort of validity - a ...[text shortened]... ll his stuff.
I, unlike Grampy, am willing to discuss things and get to the bottom of them.[/b]

Let me be clear for you as you are find this such a difficult concept:

We agree it was a generalisation about Christians.
The sentence was derogatory about Christians frequently harping on about persecution
Not all Christians do frequently harp on abortion persecution
The generalisation is incorrect and derogatory
As a Christian myself who does not harp on abort being persecuted I pointed this out

There it is.

Again.

Originally posted by divegeester
I've explained above "go back a re-read my post".

Which post. Please quote it here. I know from experience with Lemon lime that if I simply go back and read the post I think you are referring to you will deny that that was the one and tell me to go find another and another in the hope I will never find it. Is copy/paste really that difficult?

Having to explain to you why it is not a good idea to generalise (you admit it was a generalisation, right) about an entire religious group (Christians) is astonishing.
Yet for some reason you seam incapable of doing it. Cat got your tongue?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which post. Please quote it here. I know from experience with Lemon lime that if I simply go back and read the post I think you are referring to you will deny that that was the one and tell me to go find another and another in the hope I will never find it. Is copy/paste really that difficult?

[b]Having to explain to you why it is not a good idea to ge ...[text shortened]... s) is astonishing.
Yet for some reason you seam incapable of doing it. Cat got your tongue?[/b]

Never mind I've just reposted it for you. Lets take it from here.