Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

I didn't read it that way.

"Christians in particular also frequently harp on about how they are being persecuted," is no different than saying "Dogs in particular frequently bite postmen." It is implicit in both statements that the speaker is not saying that 'all' Christians harp on about persecution or 'all' dogs bite postmen. (But that 'some' out of the categorized grouping behave that way on a frequent basis).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"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 ...[text shortened]... f us do that, most of the time) as long as we clarify the term with such adverbs as 'often' etc.

The sentence isn't prefixed with anything and the way it is constructed indicates that "frequently" is referring to "Christians". It is the isolated use of "Christians" that makes it a generalisation of all Christians, not whether or not all Christians are frequently or infrequently doing something.

Originally posted by divegeester
The sentence isn't prefixed with anything and the way it is constructed indicates that "frequently" is referring to "Christians". It is the isolated use of "Christians" that makes it a generalisation of all Christians, not whether or not all Christians are frequently or infrequently doing something.

I take your point, but when a Christian starts a sentence with "Atheists often..." i give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not speaking about 'all' atheists.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 communicat ...[text shortened]... ken in my understanding of the word and that it is merely that some dictionaries are incomplete.

You say you couldn't care less whether the sentence in the OP matches or does or does not match your particular definition; and yet you have spent countless pages over several days defending your position by claiming your revised definition of a generalisation fits with proving the OP is not a generalisation whereas your initial understanding of it didn't.

It sounds to me like you simply don't know what to think and are just being obstinate. I've asked you to explain this revised definition you have and you can't. You're a fine one to talk about embarrassment 🙂

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.

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

Interpretation of your meaning has got absolutely nothing to do with it. In terms of me arguing that you have made a generalisation, I don't need to "interpret" anything. I've just given you and exhaustive list of generalisations and most of them are grammatically the same as your sentence in the OP.

You seem to be trying to defend what you meant, rather than what you wrote, which is an error on your part.

Originally posted by divegeester
It sounds to me like you simply don't know what to think and are just being obstinate. I've asked you to explain this revised definition you have and you can't. You're a fine one to talk about embarrassment 🙂

All that demonstrates is your failure to follow a conversation. Go read through it again.
I have not got a 'chosen definition' nor a 'revised definition'. There are apparently two distinct definitions in use in this thread and that is causing confusion. I note that you would love it to remain that way in the hope of not having to admit that you were wrong (and are still wrong, and know it).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I take your point, but when a Christian starts a sentence with "Atheists often..." i give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not speaking about 'all' atheists.

The conciliatory attitude you are describing is not "generally" applied by "some" atheists to "some" theists here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All that demonstrates is your failure to follow a conversation. Go read through it again.

No.

What this actually demonstrates is your inability to defend your position. You incorrectly assumed that I wouldn't take the time to review the various online definitions of "generalisations" and "to generalise", but I did. I found that actually the dictionary definitions are quite abstract or refer to scientic descriptions of generalisations such as on species classification and they don't really support your defence in this thread. Whereas what I posted (the big list), is in fact much more akin to describing what we are all taking about I.e. Common generalisation in casual conversation. Even if you wont conceded that you are wrong, I suspect that you know I have a point.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All that demonstrates is your failure to follow a conversation. Go read through it again.
I have not got a 'chosen definition' nor a 'revised definition'. There are apparently two distinct definitions in use in this thread and that is causing confusion. I note that you would love it to remain that way in the hope of not having to admit that you were wrong (and are still wrong, and know it).

Also no to your second point.

You initially conceded that the sentence in the OP was a generalisation and then changed you mind based on your research into definitions of "generalisations" and despite using this research to claim you had found a definition which proved that the sentence n the OP was not a generalisation, you are since claiming that you couldn't care less about definitions - interestingly just after I asked you to use your new definition to prove your point.

Here's the interesting dynamic in all this from my POV twhitehead: You disappoint me. Despite you and I not really getting on, I've always respected your posting, but in this thread you have chosen to reveal a side to you which I'm surprised at and disappointed in.

But I won't disappoint you because you look down your long nose at me, don't you. You judge me and homogenise me with other theists whom you openly despise, as you have pointedly highlighted in this thread.

So who is really the loser is this sad ridiculous exchange.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"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 ...[text shortened]... f us do that, most of the time) as long as we clarify the term with such adverbs as 'often' etc.

That's what I thought when I wrote the piece.

I did, and still do, think it's perfectly clear that I am not doing what dive is accusing me of.

I'm glad I am not the only one...

In fact so far dive seems to be the only one who doesn't see it the way I intended.

Originally posted by divegeester
You incorrectly assumed that I wouldn't take the time to review the various online definitions of "generalisations" and "to generalise", but I did.

As I said, you seriously should consider reading through it again. Your going through various dictionaries actually vindicated me. Why would I assume that you would not do so? If I had known about the variety of definitions earlier it would have been to my benefit.

I found that actually the dictionary definitions are quite abstract or refer to scientic descriptions of generalisations such as on species classification and they don't really support your defence in this thread.
Sorry to say that my defence has never once relied on a dictionary definition for support. To think it did shows your ignorance of what definitions are and a major logical error you have been making since the start of the thread.

Definitions are nothing more than a means to communicate. A definition in and of itself is neither true nor false nor holds any logical power whatsoever. What definition you use really makes no difference whatsoever in an argument so long as everyone knows what definition is being used for the sake of communication.

Whereas what I posted (the big list), is in fact much more akin to describing what we are all taking about I.e. Common generalisation in casual conversation. Even if you wont conceded that you are wrong, I suspect that you know I have a point.
I fully agree that the big list you posted is much more akin to describing what we are all taking about and as I have said repeatedly is the definition I was using through much of this thread. I do not need to conceded I was wrong, because I wasn't wrong. Your big list was not in contradiction to anything I have said.

The real question is now that you have posted a big list, what does it demonstrate? Choosing a definition that fits the sentence in the OP proves what exactly? As I have said above, definitions in and of themselves prove nothing. They have no power. They do not provide logic.

What you need to show, is not that the sentence in the OP fits a definition, but that it has some sort of problem with it. I am sure that what you initially wished to claim at the start of the thread is that generalizations are wrong (or bad or whatever) and that the OP is a generalization therefore the OP is wrong. You must first show that generalizations by whatever definition you choose to use are wrong before you can claim the OP is wrong.

Originally posted by divegeester
Also no to your second point.

You initially conceded that the sentence in the OP was a generalisation and then changed you mind based on your research into definitions of "generalisations" and despite using this research to claim you had found a definition which proved that the sentence n the OP was not a generalisation, you are since claiming that y ...[text shortened]... initions - interestingly just after I asked you to use your new definition to prove your point.

It is very simple. My understanding of the word 'generalization' was 'a general statement about a group'. I therefore, from the beginning of the thread said that the statement was a generalization. At no point did I base any of my argument on this.
It was then brought to my attention that several dictionaries listed a different definition that does not match the sentence in the OP and do not list the above definition. I admitted my apparent error. At no point did this change my argument in any way. It only affected the words used to communicate, nothing more.
You then found that I was after all not alone in my original understanding of the word. You then pretended that I had somehow agreed with your original claim when I had done no such thing. You have since tried your best to avoid dealing with the original claims and side track the discussion into an argument about definitions.

Here's the interesting dynamic in all this from my POV twhitehead: You disappoint me. Despite you and I not really getting on, I've always respected your posting, but in this thread you have chosen to reveal a side to you which I'm surprised at and disappointed in.
I too had a lot more respect for you than I do now. You clearly simply cannot admit when you are wrong. Tell us, is the horizon at eye level or not?

So who is really the loser is this sad ridiculous exchange.
Well I don't know about looser, but the dishonest one is clearly you. I have suggested multiple times that we stop the bitching about the definition of 'generalization' and go back the the original statement and address what you really think is wrong with it and whether or not it is really claiming to be based on a single example and every time you have deflected the suggestion and tried you best to keep the discussion on the definition issue.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is very simple. My understanding of the word 'generalization' was 'a general statement about a group'. I therefore, from the beginning of the thread said that the statement was a generalization. At no point did I base any of my argument on this.
It was then brought to my attention that several dictionaries listed a different definition that does not m ...[text shortened]... have deflected the suggestion and tried you best to keep the discussion on the definition issue.

Before I get into the detail of these two posts, and I will, let's be clear on something that seems to be coming through here; are you saying that you agree with me that the sentence in the OP is a generalisation?

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's what I thought when I wrote the piece.

I did, and still do, think it's perfectly clear that I am not doing what dive is accusing me of.

I'm glad I am not the only one...

In fact so far dive seems to be the only one who doesn't see it the way I intended.

You seem to not understand what this extended argument is about. You are repeatedly fixated on what you "thought when you wrote the piece". What you thought, what you meant, the veracity of that thought and the legitimacy of your intention is not in question. What you actually wrote is in contention. You wrote a sentence which is a lazy generalisation and have not had the honesty to admit it but instead have tried to make me out to be wrongly pointing it out and then insulting me and "shouting" at me in captilisation because you are upset. You wrote a generalisation, I politely called you on it in my first post in this thread and since then you and twhitehead have been hemming and hawing over semantics and definitions in an attempt to belittle me. I simply decided that I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Before I get into the detail of these two posts, and I will, let's be clear on something that seems to be coming through here; are you saying that you agree with me that the sentence in the OP is a generalisation?

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.