Originally posted by dottewell
"Many who will eagerly take up arms."
Would you say the majority of Muslims in a country like Britain would "eagerly take up arms"? Or not? And if not, why it the minority more representative of the religion than the majority?
Suppose X has a number of good points and a number of bad points.
Just how many bad points does X have to have, and how bad to those points have to be, relative to the good points, before one is warranted in asserting that X is bad?
Or suppose that X is bad, in many severe ways, in context C1, but not in context C2. Is one is warranted in asserting that X is bad, or not?
What makes the question even more complicated is that X could be called bad, not because it is manifestly bad, but because it is latently bad; or not because it is bad in its peripheral respects, but because its essence is bad.
So, if I only lie some of the time, I still get labeled a liar.
And then, of course, there is the question of (a) what X is, and (b) whether X and nothing else gives rise to the alleged good or bad effect. If X is definitionally loose, or casually confounded with Y and Z, then preferred preconceptions will likely affect conclusions.