Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

27 Nov 2007, 5:05 pm

Ragtime wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
There's a difference between generalizations and over generalizations.

A generalization is a statement that is generally true, while not in every single case. It is the most common way humans communicate, and is usually understood by its hearers that is was not meant as an exact representation of reality.

An over generalization is a statement that is not generally true, giving a false impression of reality.


I may have over reacted a bit to generalizations in general. :) However, what I'm really trying to criticize is that people are making conclusions about a broader category of specificity than they actually are talking about by using the word religious instead of what they seem to really mean, Christian.


Yes, that's a pet peave of mine, too. When people bash "religion", they make it obvious that they're just bashing Christianity.


I think the reason they do it is to force you to say they are talking only about Christianity. Then they can accuse you of being narrow minded because you must not realize that there are other religions out there when, of course, you do.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

27 Nov 2007, 5:07 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
There's a difference between generalizations and over generalizations.

A generalization is a statement that is generally true, while not in every single case. It is the most common way humans communicate, and is usually understood by its hearers that is was not meant as an exact representation of reality.

An over generalization is a statement that is not generally true, giving a false impression of reality.


I may have over reacted a bit to generalizations in general. :) However, what I'm really trying to criticize is that people are making conclusions about a broader category of specificity than they actually are talking about by using the word religious instead of what they seem to really mean, Christian.


Yes, that's a pet peave of mine, too. When people bash "religion", they make it obvious that they're just bashing Christianity.


I think the reason they do it is to force you to say they are talking only about Christianity. Then they can accuse you of being narrow minded because you must not realize that there are other religions out there when, of course, you do.


Yep, it's just a tactic.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

27 Nov 2007, 5:11 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Yes, that's a pet peave of mine, too. When people bash "religion", they make it obvious that they're just bashing Christianity.

well, I suppose we get the generalization or over generalization that all christians are like this and like that, when the bashing may be targeting just the conservative type of christianity, I guess.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

27 Nov 2007, 5:27 pm

greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Yes, that's a pet peave of mine, too. When people bash "religion", they make it obvious that they're just bashing Christianity.

well, I suppose we get the generalization or over generalization that all christians are like this and like that, when the bashing may be targeting just the conservative type of christianity, I guess.


Yes, that is a pet peeve of mine, that people use the term "Christianity" as if that were descriptive enough to describe every Christian. Sometimes it is, but usually it isn't.



Angelus-Mortis
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 438
Location: Canada, Toronto

28 Nov 2007, 11:51 am

Let's use a logical diagram here, shall we?

All Christians are religiously intolerant.
Some Christians are religiously intolerant.

The entire diagram (rectangle) consists of all people, labelled "U".
The yellow circle labelled "C" represents all Christians.
The orange circle labelled "R" represents all religiously intolerant people.

Image

The first statement above is obviously false, considering there is some point in the yellow circle that is not a part of the orange circle--if the yellow circle were inside the orange, circle, then C-->R, and you might be justified in saying that all Christians are religiously ignorant. But that's only the case if you suggest that all Christians are religiously intolerant. But that's obviously not what the generalizer refers to.

The second statement suggests that there is some point (ie, the dot between the two circles) where Christians are religiously intolerant (ie, in both C and R) that is true, but this need not be the case. There is also some point in C that is not in R. This most likely is the diagram generalizers refer to. When you say some (I guess most applies here too, as long as you don't say "all") "A" are "B", there is at least one A that is B, but it does not mean that there is an A that isn't B.

So what's wrong with that generalization, if generalizers refer to the diagram above, and not C-->R?


_________________
231st Anniversary Dedication to Carl Friedrich Gauss:
http://angelustenebrae.livejournal.com/15848.html

Arbitraris id veneficium quod te ludificat. Arbitror id formam quod intellego.

Ignorationi est non medicina.


richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

28 Nov 2007, 11:58 am

the author of the thread must be a christian and is upset that others are speaking about his religion in general terms



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

28 Nov 2007, 3:19 pm

Angelus-Mortis wrote:
Let's use a logical diagram here, shall we?

All Christians are religiously intolerant.
Some Christians are religiously intolerant.

The entire diagram (rectangle) consists of all people, labelled "U".
The yellow circle labelled "C" represents all Christians.
The orange circle labelled "R" represents all religiously intolerant people.

Image

The first statement above is obviously false, considering there is some point in the yellow circle that is not a part of the orange circle--if the yellow circle were inside the orange, circle, then C-->R, and you might be justified in saying that all Christians are religiously ignorant. But that's only the case if you suggest that all Christians are religiously intolerant. But that's obviously not what the generalizer refers to.

The second statement suggests that there is some point (ie, the dot between the two circles) where Christians are religiously intolerant (ie, in both C and R) that is true, but this need not be the case. There is also some point in C that is not in R. This most likely is the diagram generalizers refer to. When you say some (I guess most applies here too, as long as you don't say "all") "A" are "B", there is at least one A that is B, but it does not mean that there is an A that isn't B.

So what's wrong with that generalization, if generalizers refer to the diagram above, and not C-->R?


There is nothing wrong with that generalization. I was over-reacting to generalizations in general. What I mean to be upset about is that some people seem to be making conclusions about all religious people based on a narrowly defined group of Christians, which is an over generalization and illogical.



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

28 Nov 2007, 5:52 pm

you say tomato, i say tamato!



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

28 Nov 2007, 6:04 pm

richardbenson wrote:
you say tomato, i say tamato!


Tomato is spelled the same either way you choose to pronounce it.



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

28 Nov 2007, 6:06 pm

is it? i guess you could say i spell things the way they sound then. muahaha