|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:16 am
I think the title speaks for itself, ladies and gentlemen. It is rare that I stumble upon an ED topic that hasn't had some moron come by to spew a broad and unsupported generalization. Yet, I have seen some regulars slip up and generalize just a bit as well. They are usually quickly countered on those generalizations, unless, of course, they are one of those smarties that most people are afraid to speak with because they are more often right than wrong.
There are two fundamental ways to avoid generalizing in a debate.
One can either get in the habit of using "some," "a few," "many," "most (with discretion)," "several," and what have you to instantly dissolve any risk of generalizing, or, one can actually learn about the simplicity of the subject that they are generalizing.
For instance. "Christians hate homosexuals." In this, it is implied that all Christians hate homosexuals. We know this is not true. While some hate homosexuals, that is not to say that all do. Let's consider what all Christians do have in common. They believe in Jesus Christ as their saviour... and they believe in YHVH. Op, that's about it! Everything else is determined either by what sect of Christianity one belongs to, or their individual behaviours.
That's just one example. Find what one group in particular does have in common, without a doubt, then you can successfully avoid these generalizations.
It's the most careless mistake one could make in ED, and more often than not, you will be thoroughly tackled by someone who catches it.
/endrant
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:17 pm
I've gotten in the habit of using "most" or "usually," and not using "always" or "never." Basic debating rule, here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:46 am
There are ways of deciding if something is a typical or probable outcome, though. So it's not a failsafe lose.
And it's not a way to "lose a debate". Having an argument mangled with a generalization doesn't cast out the rest of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:58 pm
well, we can't say that any generalization will always lose your argument can we?
that would be a tad inconsistent with its own premise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:48 am
I've noticed that a good deal of generalizing done in the ED is towards men, women, Muslims, and Iraqi citizens. There's probably much more but those are the ones I encounter the most.
I tend to generalize cutters and the kids who follow the emo trend. I know, I'm bad for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:35 pm
chessiejo well, we can't say that any generalization will always lose your argument can we? that would be a tad inconsistent with its own premise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:58 pm
A lot of people do generalize, and although it can be very offensive, people often throw out good points becasue of it. I try to make "rough" generalizations, using "some," "a few," "most," etc. That way, if someone spams your entire argument for one generalization, you can quote yourself and say "I did NOT generalize, thankyouverymuch." This is fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:09 pm
Pallas Parthenos chessiejo well, we can't say that any generalization will always lose your argument can we? that would be a tad inconsistent with its own premise. Har har, though I never made such a claim, unless you've taken the title to mean what you want for it to mean. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:07 pm
<3<3
Yes, I almost never use never. [/bad pun] But
<3 <3 <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:17 pm
While it can easily knock out the previous argument, I think the obsession with stopping generalization is a tad overrated. In times where it is insulting to the person it is directed at, yeah, that is bad. But to say "all fashion dolls are a bad influence" is a matter of opinion. Some people may think only one doll is while another few may think the whole lot is evil. That is more dependant on opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:31 am
That was one of our lessons in debating while in high school, to generalize a statement is to put your weakest foot forward, because one can always think of a coutneraxample to generalizations. It's just not in your ineterest to generalize.
Also, I particularly hate when people begin their argument with the following sentence: "from my experience people have..." whether those are used in gender debates, religious debates, whatever case there may be when we talk of a certain demographic, you should not take your own limited experience as an accurate description for that demographic. That's what STATISTICS are for, use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:46 am
chessiejo well, we can't say that any generalization will always lose your argument can we? that would be a tad inconsistent with its own premise. Well to say that any generalization is assured of losing an argument, is to make a generalization in itself. PirateEire didn't say that all generalizations lose argument, he just said that they 'tend' to do that, or 'often' do that. Simply because when we talk of people, due to our textured span of individualities, it is almost impossible that we will find an entire community agreeing on everything. certain generalizations that I've seen made before: "All women are emotional" -classic "All women are physically weak" -any reasonable person knows this is not true. "Men are always protective" -well I know a few men who would rather run away to save their own asses. "All black girls are rude" -erm, what? "All asian people are smart" -this one, I would say, is one of the most illogical things I've ever heard. First of all, if they were ALL smart then how the ******** would they make society run? If all people went to school and nobody sold food, or raised cattle, or worked in a factory, then how the ******** is China(ie) a major business powerhouse in the world? You need a string of information ordered in such a way as to make a convincing argument to prove your theory. All you need is ONE counterexample to disprove it. Doesn't matter if 99% of your theory is right, if it's less than 100% right, then it's wrong. This is why generalizations lend themselves to being false, simply because it's a really large risk. If you say most, then there is a range for your theory to be right, from 50-100%, if you say few you mean something like <20%. But it really works for you to not make generalizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2008 1:01 pm
poweroutage "All asian people are smart" -this one, I would say, is one of the most illogical things I've ever heard. First of all, if they were ALL smart then how the ******** would they make society run? If all people went to school and nobody sold food, or raised cattle, or worked in a factory, then how the ******** is China(ie) a major business powerhouse in the world? Why are you implying that one must be stupid to be able to do factory work or sell food?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
