Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by divegeester
There is no ambiguity - you said "Christians", not some, not many, not a few, not lots of, not those I know, not most, not plenty. And just because twhithead supports you in this still doesn't make you right. Neither does CAPITALISING your words make you right nor more coherent. I don't know why you seem to be are getting tense about this, it's not like I'm disagreeing with the point of your OP and my original call out on it was quite polite.

No, I'm right because the rules and common use of the english language back me up.

For example.

Humans frequently write stories.

Only an idiot would argue that this sentence necessitates that ALL humans write stories.

Replace Humans with Christians, and write stories with "harp on about being persecuted" and you have
the sentence from my OP.

Only an idiot would argue that that sentence necessitates that ALL Christians "harp on about being persecuted".

You sir, are acting like that idiot. For page after page of whining to distract from the point of the OP.

I'm not right because anyone else agrees with me, Those agreeing with me are just also right.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, I'm right because the rules and common use of the english language back me up.

For example.

Humans frequently write stories.

Only an idiot would argue that this sentence necessitates that ALL humans write stories.

Replace Humans with Christians, and write stories with "harp on about being persecuted" and you have
the sentence from my O ...[text shortened]...

I'm not right because anyone else agrees with me, Those agreeing with me are just also right.

I have refrained from being abusive or insulting, you haven't.

By the way...

Moslems are terrorists
Atheists are rude and aggressive
Chess players are boring nerds
Germans are Nazis
Footballers are cheats
Politicians are liars
Christians are narrow minded
Artists are overrated

All false generalisations.

Hindus hold cows as sacred

Is not a false generalisation as all Hindus do hold the cow as sacred.

Originally posted by divegeester
I have refrained from being abusive or insulting, you haven't.

By the way...

Moslems are terrorists
Atheists are rude and aggressive
Chess players are boring nerds
Germans are Nazis
Footballers are cheats
Politicians are liars
Christians are narrow minded
Artists are overrated

All false generalisations.

Hindus hold cows as sacred

Is not a false generalisation as all Hindus do hold the cow as sacred.

I have refrained from being abusive or insulting, you haven't.

And?

By the way...

Moslems are terrorists
Atheists are rude and aggressive
Chess players are boring nerds
Germans are Nazis
Footballers are cheats
Politicians are liars
Christians are narrow minded
Artists are overrated

All false generalisations.

They are all false, they may or may not in various contexts be generalisations.

None of them have any baring on the discussion at hand.

None of those sentences follow the construction of the sentence I actually used, and thus whether or not
they are generalisations [or false] is utterly irrelevant to whether or not what I said is a generalisation.

Originally posted by googlefudge

I have refrained from being abusive or insulting, you haven't.

And?

[quote]By the way...

Moslems are terrorists
Atheists are rude and aggressive
Chess players are boring nerds
Germans are Nazis
Footballers are cheats
Politicians are liars
Christians are narrow minded
Artists are overrated

All false generalisations. [/qu ...[text shortened]... eralisations [or false] is utterly irrelevant to whether or not what I said is a generalisation.

If these don't bare any relevance, then how does your "humans frequently write stories" bare any relevance?

Originally posted by divegeester
If these don't bare any relevance, then how does your "humans frequently write stories" bare any relevance?

The sentence "Humans ARE monkeys" is telling you that ALL humans are members of the
set of Monkeys.

The operation ARE in the sentence is doing something rather different from the operation
performed by FREQUENTLY WRITE which was what I wrote.

Here is my original sentence in context.

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.

Breaking it down:

"Christians in particular" telling you that this particular group is particularly prone to doing this.

"also" telling you that this sentence is continuing on themes from earlier in my post.
where I was talking about Theists often asking atheists certain questions [and I note that you are not trying
to claim that I was saying that ALL theists ask atheists these questions, despite using the same sentence
structure].

"Frequently" telling you this happens often.

"Harp on about how they are being persecuted." telling you what the particular group frequently does.



Nowhere in that sentence do I explicitly say, imply, or require that ALL Christians do this thing. OR that
all theists ask these questions.

This is a completely different sentence structure from "Moslems are terrorists".

You are therefore not comparing like with like.

File under "whoda thought, different sentences mean different things" 🙄

Originally posted by googlefudge
The sentence "Humans ARE monkeys" is telling you that ALL humans are members of the
set of Monkeys.

The operation ARE in the sentence is doing something rather different from the operation
performed by FREQUENTLY WRITE which was what I wrote.

Here is my original sentence in context.

[quote]Theists here [well everywhere] often ask why atheist ...[text shortened]... ring like with like.

File under "whoda thought, different sentences mean different things" 🙄

But twhitehead (your tag partner in this parody) has agreed it's an (unproven) generalisation and earlier you were explaining how it wouldn't be a generalisation IF it had "many" prefixed to it. Now, you are claiming it isnt a generalisation because you have "frequently" in the sentence. You're reaching.

The "frequently"in your sentence structure refers to the collective group noun "Christians" who are frequently doing something. It doesnt say "some Christians frequently do such and such"

You just need to be more careful when you are talking about large groups of people.

Originally posted by divegeester
But twhitehead (your tag partner in this parody) has agreed it's an (unproven) generalisation and earlier you were explaining how it wouldn't be a generalisation IF it had "many" prefixed to it. Now, you are claiming it isnt a generalisation because you have "frequently" in the sentence. You're reaching.

The "frequently"in your sentence structure refe ...[text shortened]... nd such"

You just need to be more careful when you are talking about large groups of people.

But twhitehead (your tag partner in this parody) has agreed it's an (unproven) generalisation

twhitehead and I are not coordinating, and do not always agree. Lets stick to my arguments rather than his,
because I am accountable only for what I say, and not what anyone else says.

and earlier you were explaining how it wouldn't be a generalisation IF it had "many" prefixed to it.

I just re-checked the whole thread and I cannot find me saying anything of the sort.

Now, you are claiming it isnt a generalisation because you have "frequently" in the sentence. You're reaching.

No, I'm claiming it's not a generalisation because it's not a generalisation.

I am not taking one small subset, or observations of a sub set and extrapolating to a larger set.
I am therefore by definition not generalising. because that is what that word means.

I am also entirely consistent in my view throughout the entire thread.

The "frequently"in your sentence structure refers to the collective group noun "Christians" who are frequently doing something. It doesnt say "some Christians frequently do such and such"

"Humans frequently tell stories".

That sentence does not require that ALL humans frequently tell stories, it just requires that humans as a
collective frequently tell stories.

That is exactly the same sentence structure as the sentence in my OP you have freaked out about.

This is basic english comprehension ffs.

You just need to be more careful when you are talking about large groups of people.

No. When people are as desperate as you to take offence rather than deal with the substance of a post
there is nothing you can do to avoid them finding something to freak out about.

Originally posted by googlefudge

But twhitehead (your tag partner in this parody) has agreed it's an (unproven) generalisation

twhitehead and I are not coordinating, and do not always agree. Lets stick to my arguments rather than his,
because I am accountable only for what I say, and not what anyone else says.

[quote] and earlier you were explaining how it wouldn' ...[text shortened]... ance of a post
there is nothing you can do to avoid them finding something to freak out about.

You just "checked the whole thread" - jeez you have got this stuck right up your windpipe haven't you!

And you still couldn't find where you used the example of putting "many" in front of "Christians" a couple of pages ago to explain how it wouldn't have been a generalisation...

I'll find it for you on my coffee break later this morning. Will you promise not to shout at me in block capitals or fling insults when I find it.

Originally posted by divegeester
But twhitehead (your tag partner in this parody) has agreed it's an (unproven) generalisation

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
I'll find it for you on my coffee break later this morning. Will you promise not to shout at me in block capitals or fling insults when I find it.

Here it is:

Go look at a dictionary.

'Generalisation' means going from a specific example and extrapolating to a wider set.

If I observe many Christians claiming to be persecuted and then say "many Christians claim to be persecuted" then I have not a made a generalisation, I have made an observation.

and he is correct. He said nothing about the prefixing of the word 'many' changing whether or not it was a generalization. You either missed the point he was actually making or deliberately misrepresented it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Here it is:

Go look at a dictionary.

'Generalisation' means going from a specific example and extrapolating to a wider set.

If I observe many Christians claiming to be persecuted and then say "many Christians claim to be persecuted" then I have not a made a generalisation, I have made an observation.

and he is correct. He said ...[text shortened]... alization. You either missed the point he was actually making or deliberately misrepresented it.

You just quoted it!

He's saying if he said "many" prefixed to his actual sentence then it's not a generalisation. I fully agree with him. But that is not what he did.

Furthermore you said it was a generalisation yourself at one point a couple of pages back. A generalisation but not proven I think you said.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... nally claimed and are yet to admit you were wrong about. (unless I missed a post where you did?)

The two things are exclusive.

1) it was a careless sentence which is written as a generalisation

2) the evidence given for the argument is singular.

The post is written as a generalisation supported by only one piece of evidence.

Let me be clear also:
I accept that googlefudge was not intending to generalise. It's semantics. It's not even poor grammar, just a careless sentence construction. Googlefudge could have accepted and acknowledged that and it would have ended but he didn't, and you didn't and so here we are.

You are both wrong and you lack the humility to admit it.

Originally posted by divegeester
He's saying if he said "many" prefixed to his actual sentence then it's not a generalisation.

No, he is not. Yes, he prefixed 'many' in his example but he is not saying that that is what stops it from being a generalization.

Furthermore you said it was a generalisation yourself at one point a couple of pages back. A generalisation but not proven I think you said.
Yes, I did say that. I have since said that I appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 'generalization'. I can be wrong and can admit it, unlike you apparently.

Originally posted by divegeester
The two things are exclusive.

1) it was a careless sentence which is written as a generalisation

2) the evidence given for the argument is singular.

In what way are they exclusive? I am fairly sure that both could be true (except neither is).

The post is written as a generalisation supported by only one piece of evidence.
Not true.

Let me be clear also:
I accept that googlefudge was not intending to generalise. It's semantics. It's not even poor grammar, just a careless sentence construction.
As I said, it is an ambiguous sentence which could be misinterpreted the way you did by someone wishing to do so (as you did).

You are both wrong and you lack the humility to admit it.
It is blatantly obvious that it is you that is both wrong and lacking in humility. You seem to have taken tips from Freaky on how to remain a flat earther despite all evidence to the contrary. Simply ignore anything anyone says and keep repeating your claim in the hope that everyone eventually gives up on you as a lost cause. (although what you gain from it is beyond me).

Lets go through this again. Read this carefully and answer all questions honestly. If I say 'reporters frequently use catchy headlines to gain viewers'. Am I or am I not claiming that all reporters do so? In my opinion, clearly the sentence is ambiguous but it is reasonable to assume that not all reporters are implied.
Secondly, if I then say 'as an example of this, reporter A used catchy headline B'. Am I or am I not saying that:
1. my example proves the claim.
2. my claim is based solely on the example.
3. my claim is a generalization based on the example.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, he is not. Yes, he prefixed 'many' in his example but he is not saying that that is what stops it from being a generalization.

[b]Furthermore you said it was a generalisation yourself at one point a couple of pages back. A generalisation but not proven I think you said.
Yes, I did say that. I have since said that I appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 'generalization'. I can be wrong and can admit it, unlike you apparently.[/b]

His sentence in his OP did not include the word "many" . This one below he used in your quote and what was referring to does include the word prefix "many"

"If I observe many Christians claiming to be persecuted and then say "many Christians claim to be persecuted" then I have not a made a generalisation, I have made an observation."

I agree that using the word "many" as a prefix turns the generalisation into a non-generalisation. If googlefudge was meaning something else then he again needs to be clearer in his communication.