Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I have admitted my mistake and not asked you to take responsibility for it. That you are stating that you are not responsible here suggests either you are attempting a time wasting tactic or you misunderstood my post (something you seem extremely good at to the point of it seeming deliberate)

[b] if you want to clarify what you meant, go back copy ...[text shortened]... herent, not up to me to go back through the whole thread. Again, I suspect time wasting tactics.

"Time wasting tactic" Lol.

Go back and copy paste all those exchanges and show me what it is you are complaining about. After that look up "generalisation" again and ensure it still means what you discovered it meant last time you didn't realise you didn't know what it meant.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why are you refusing to answer my questions? Will it expose your guilt?

"Guilt"? If you tell me again that you didn't realise what a "generalisation" was and had to look it up, I'll let you know what it feels like.

Originally posted by divegeester
"Time wasting tactic" Lol.

Go back and copy paste all those exchanges and show me what it is you are complaining about. After that look up "generalisation" again and ensure it still means what you discovered it meant last time you didn't realise you didn't know what it meant.

Why should I copy and paste the whole thread? If it is not a time wasting tactic then why are you asking me to do that? You are definitely in the flat earthers club.

Originally posted by divegeester
"Guilt"? If you tell me again that you didn't realise what a "generalisation" was and had to look it up, I'll let you know what it feels like.

Can't answer the questions can you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why should I copy and paste the whole thread? If it is not a time wasting tactic then why are you asking me to do that? You are definitely in the flat earthers club.

I did not ask you to post the whole thread, just the exchanges where you were explaining how you didn't understand what the word "generalisation" meant, how my replies to you and your subsequent replies to me over the next pages got to the point where you needed to present a false dichotomy whereby I was either failing to read or was I lying, but you were without blame. Let's remember it started with you explaining how you thought the OP did contain a generalisation (but was the generalisation was not not proven) until you realised you didnt know what "generalisation meant".

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can't answer the questions can you?

Not interested. Tell me again that you, twhithead, said you thought the OP contained a generalisation until you realised you misunderstood the word "generalisation". That's probably my favourite bit.

Originally posted by divegeester
I did not ask you to post the whole thread, just the exchanges where you were explaining how you didn't understand what the word "generalisation" meant, how my replies to you and your subsequent replies to me over the next pages got to the point where you needed to present a false dichotomy whereby I was either failing to read or was I lying, but you wer ...[text shortened]... eneralisation was not not proven) until you realised you didnt know what "generalisation meant".

Here you go:

Originally posted by twhithead
It appears that I was either wrong about the meaning of the word 'generalization' or wrong about its meaning in this context. My understanding of the word was that it implies someone is making a general statement about a group of people. It appears from the dictionary definition that it implies more than that ie the assumption that an observation applies to a larger group than was observed.
Generalizations in this later context are often valid (despite your implied claim that they are not) and the OP could have been an generalization - except that its writer has since clarified that it was not.
What it most definitely was not, is a generalization based on one example as you originally claimed and are yet to admit you were wrong about. (unless I missed a post where you did?)

Originally posted by divegeester
OK, so at last we agree that you were wrong and that the sentence in the OP is a generalisation. Thank you for admitting it.

(FAIL). Either you misunderstood my post or you lied.

Originally posted by divegeester
Not interested.

Not surprised.

Tell me again that you, twhithead, said you thought the OP contained a generalisation until you realised you misunderstood the word "generalisation". That's probably my favourite bit.
I twhitehead apparently incorrectly believed the word 'generalization' to mean 'talking in general', or generally making a statement about all or most of a group. It appears from the dictionary that the word means more than that.
At least I am mistaken but honest. You are just plain dishonest.

(notice the word 'generally' above? It seems the dictionary agrees with my understanding of that word at least).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Either you misunderstood my post or you lied.

Here is a definition and some examples of "generalisations"

"A generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that applies to a group of people or things. Oftentimes, generalizations are not entirely true, because there may be examples of individuals or situations wherein the generalization does not apply.

Statements of Generalization:
All parents try to make life difficult for their children.
Every salesman lies to make more money on a sale.
Homework is very easy.
Homework is very hard.
The United States is colder than Europe.
Women all want to have large families.
Men are all afraid of commitment.
The best way to make new friends is to just start talking to people.
Nobody really believes that the Earth is flat.
Most politicians are greedy and manipulative.
No American thinks staying in Iraq is the best solution.
Cats are nicer than dogs.
Dogs are smarter than cats.
Most people find church very boring.
Everyone likes a little bit of excitement and variety in their life.
Only a fool would believe what that commercial says.
Learning to drive isn’t difficult.
College is the only way a person can be properly educated.
Everyone who goes to college is an elitist.
Rich people are greedy.
Poor people are lazy.
Men don’t enjoy window shopping.
Everyone is a cynic these days.
No one could complete a marathon without the appropriate training.
It’s impossible for children to appreciate art.
Children should be seen and not heard.
If you believe you can do it, you will always succeed.
All success is brought about by good luck.
Gentlemen with his kind of upbringing are very trustworthy.
No one is born evil.
Everybody loves a trip to the theme park over the summer.
Police officers are corrupt.
Police officers are heroes.
Girls don’t enjoy playing with cars the way boys do.
Boys don't enjoy playing with dolls the way girls do.
The only way to learn another language is to visit the country where it is spoken.
It’s never a good idea to drink coffee after noontime.
To be an author, you need to have a large vocabulary.
Only dead fish go with the flow.
All criminals have troubled backgrounds.
All criminals can be rehabilitated.
Nobody truly thinks the world is going to end.
Everyone thrives on drama.
Photographers can’t earn very much money in this economy.
A long commute to work makes a person much less productive.
Cooking isn’t difficult; all you need are the right ingredients.
Anyone can learn to cook if they only try.
Everyone loves a delivery of flowers and a box of chocolates.
All women want men to be romantic.
Your family will always be there for you.
Friends are people who will never let you down no matter what.
Men all want the same thing – money, power, and fame.
Football players are arrogant, cocky people.
Nerdy kids are all going to grow up to be rich.
Pretty people are always stuck up.
Overweight people always overeat.
The customer is always right.

These are a few of the many examples of generalizations that exist. Next time you find yourself making an overly broad statement about a topic or a group of people, stop and thinking about whether you are making a generalization yourself."

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-generalization.html#Iw4stlMFTW8xb1q8.99

Here is the sentence in the OP:

"Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

It's a generalisation, it's obviously a generalisation. You have yourself admitted in this thread that it is a) ambitious and b) it's a generalisation (prior to reading up on generalisations because you were unsure what one was).

As it is you who are lacking the basic understanding of what a generalisation is, I suggest you go back to your dictionary and have another look. Better still read around the subject. Better still take a course maybe, expose yourself to more generalisations so you can become experienced in arguing about them on the internet and become more efficient at "wasting time" and pedantry 🙂

Originally posted by divegeester
Here is a definition and some examples of "generalisations"

"A generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that applies to a group of people or things.

Interesting. Now that is the meaning that I attributed to the word, but the dictionary (and Wikipedia) disagree. Good to see though that I was not entirely alone in my understanding of the word.

Here is the sentence in the OP:

"Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

It's a generalisation, it's obviously a generalisation.
Not by the dictionary definition. It is by the definition you have now quoted, and I agree that by that definition it is a generalization.

As it is you who are lacking the basic understanding of what a generalisation is,
There appear to be at least two distinct meanings for the word.

I suggest you go back to your dictionary and have another look.
I have. Several times. The other dictionaries I consulted do not include the meaning you have given here.

Better still read around the subject. Better still take a course maybe, expose yourself to more generalisations so you can become experienced in arguing about them on the internet and become more efficient at "wasting time" and pedantry 🙂
And my advice to you, is to try and be a little bit more honest and to admit when you are wrong before it gets out of hand and it becomes too embarrassing for you. The time wasting has all been cause by you refusing to admit when you are wrong. (and your overblown reaction to the OP.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Interesting. Now that is the meaning that I attributed to the word, but the dictionary (and Wikipedia) disagree. Good to see though that I was not entirely alone in my understanding of the word.

[b]Here is the sentence in the OP:

"Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

It's a generalisation, it's ob ...[text shortened]... been cause by you refusing to admit when you are wrong. (and your overblown reaction to the OP.)

Perhaps you can cite your chosen definition(s) and explain how it(they) demonstrate that the sentence in the OP is not one. You will need to take into consideration that a "generalisation" and "to generalise" can mean different things depending on context, i.e. a scientific generalisation is different to a sweeping generalisation or a universal generalisation. And that to generalise can refer a range of differing generalisations. Furthermore sentence prefixes and even suffixes can alter the meaning. I'm sure you are comprehensively informed by now though.

Originally posted by divegeester
Perhaps you can cite your chosen definition(s) and explain how it(they) demonstrate that the sentence in the OP is not one.

My position on definitions is well known. I couldn't care less whether the sentence in the OP matches a the definition of the word 'generalization'. What matters is what the sentence in the OP actually means and whether or not it is correct and whether or not any bad logic was involved. The only purpose for using the word 'generalization' is to communicate something about the sentence. If we cant agree on the definition then it is not helping with communication.

So, back to to the OP. Without using the word 'generalization' explain what you think is wrong with it. Is the statement false? Do you still insist despite all evidence to the contrary that the OP is making an argument based on a single example?

It is clear to me that the statement is true and that your claim that is was based on a single example is given the clarification from the author, quite obviously false.

You will need to take into consideration that a "generalisation" and "to generalise" can mean different things depending on context, i.e. a scientific generalisation is different to a sweeping generalisation or a universal generalisation. And that to generalise can refer a range of differing generalisations. Furthermore sentence prefixes and even suffixes can alter the meaning. I'm sure you are comprehensively informed by now though.
Yes, I have kind of been saying all that all along. Good to know you agree with me and took the trouble to prove that I was in fact not mistaken in my understanding of the word and that it is merely that some dictionaries are incomplete.

Originally posted by divegeester
Here is a definition and some examples of "generalisations"

"A generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that applies to a group of people or things. Oftentimes, generalizations are not entirely true, because there may be examples of individuals or situations wherein the generalization does not apply.

Not according to the OED it isn't

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization

However, if we go with your definition.

"A generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that applies to a group of people or things"

My statement was still an observation the some/many members of a particular set do a particular thing.
Even under your definition it still was not written as a generalisation.

To read it as a generalisation under your definition you have to misinterpret my meaning.

Which was not necessarily an unreasonable thing to do... Up until the point where I clarified my meaning.

Which happened quite some time ago now.

I suspect your biggest thing is the part you had in bold "Oftentimes, generalizations are not entirely true,
because there may be examples of individuals or situations wherein the generalization does not apply."

Which does not apply because I was making the true observation that there are Christians frequently claiming
persecution.

As I was not generalising to all Christians, the fact that there are Christians that don't do this in no way invalidates
my point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Not according to the OED it isn't

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization

However, if we go with your definition.

"A generalization is defined as a broad statement or an idea that applies to a group of people or things"

My statement was still an observation the some/many members of a particular set do a particular ...[text shortened]... istians, the fact that there are Christians that don't do this in no way invalidates
my point.

"Theists here [well everywhere] often ask why atheists should care about what they
believe, and why they should care about how they act. Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted."

For what it's worth, i think your use of the words 'often' and 'frequently' in your OP negates any charge of generalization. Their use makes clear that you are not saying theists 'always' ask why atheists should care about what they believe or that Christians 'down to a man' and 'constantly' harp on about how they are being persecuted.

To use such group terms as 'Christians' or 'atheists' does not automatically mean a generalization is being made (most of us do that, most of the time) as long as we clarify the term with such adverbs as 'often' etc.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
To use such group terms as 'Christians' or 'atheists' does not automatically mean a generalization is being made (most of us do that, most of the time) as long as we clarify the term with such adverbs as 'often' etc.

The sentence on its own is ambiguous in that one possible reading is that '....all Christians frequently harp on...'. Another possible reading is that it is frequent for Christians to harp on (without saying how many Christians are involved in the practice.) Given the context of the OP it seemed clear that the latter meaning was intended and the writer has since clarified that that was the case.