Why do atheists care. [rhet]

Originally posted by divegeester
Let me be clear for you as you are find this such a difficult concept:

We agree it was a generalisation about Christians.

I agree it was a generalization given one specific definition of that word. I know from experience that you have every intention of manipulating that definition to falsely claim I have agreed to something I have not.

The sentence was derogatory about Christians frequently harping on about persecution
Not all Christians do frequently harp on abortion persecution
Once again, the sentence was not about all Christians.

The generalisation is incorrect and derogatory
Please define 'generalization' as you are clearly using a different definition than any you have posted to date. Certainly the definition you posted from a dictionary with a very long list of examples does not support your current usage.

Better yet, simply make your argument without using the word 'generalization'.

I believe you are claiming:
1. That the statement was about all Christians.
2. That the statement was claiming that it was supported by one example and only one example and that example was being used to prove the statement.

Obviously 1 and 2 are false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree it was a generalization given one specific definition of that word. I know from experience that you have every intention of manipulating that definition to falsely claim I have agreed to something I have not.

[b]The sentence was derogatory about Christians frequently harping on about persecution
Not all Christians do frequently harp on abortio ...[text shortened]... example and that example was being used to prove the statement.

Obviously 1 and 2 are false.

No, you are clearly wrong. Why should I make my argument without using the word "generalisation"?

Why are you agreeing with me based on "one specific definition" when you have already said that definitions are not a good tool for debate? What definition of generalisation do you agree with me on and what definitions do you not agree with me, and why?

I'm not manipulating any definition, I'm not using a definition. You making out that I am is plainly not true. If you have not agreed to something what is it? Are you now saying you don't agree that the sentence is a generalisation? If so why?

I've laid out my case, I'm still waiting for you to take each of my points and demonstrate, without using "definitions" why I'm wrong?

Here is again for you;

We agree it was a generalisation about Christians.
The sentence was derogatory about Christians frequently harping on about persecution
Not all Christians do frequently harp on abortion persecution
The generalisation is incorrect and derogatory
As a Christian myself who does not harp on abort being persecuted I pointed this out

There it is.

Again.

Originally posted by divegeester
No, you are clearly wrong. Why should I make my argument without using the word "generalisation"?

Obviously because you wish to dishonestly manipulate the definition to make false claims.

Why are you agreeing with me based on "one specific definition" when you have already said that definitions are not a good tool for debate?
You are not making sense. There is no contradiction in my stance on that.

What definition of generalisation do you agree with me on and what definitions do you not agree with me, and why?
Why does it matter? Why the desperate attempts to sidetrack the discussion back to definitions?

I'm not manipulating any definition,
Yes, you are. You presented one definition as the one you are using, but when you actually use it, you interpret it to mean something else. That is the very definition of 'manipulation'.

I'm not using a definition.
It is impossible to speak without using a definition.

If you have not agreed to something what is it?
I have made it very very clear what I do not agree to.
Here it is again:

I believe you are claiming:
1. That the statement was about all Christians.
2. That the statement was claiming that it was supported by one example and only one example and that example was being used to prove the statement.

I DO NOT AGREE TO THOSE TWO CLAIMS.

Are you now saying you don't agree that the sentence is a generalisation?
I have made it abundantly clear that I believe the sentence is a generalization by one specific definition. That you would ask me if I am saying that I don't agree, without specifying which definition you are using is nothing short of blatant dishonesty on your part.

I've laid out my case, I'm still waiting for you to take each of my points and demonstrate, without using "definitions" why I'm wrong?
The sentence in question taken on its own is ambiguous as to whether it is talking about all Christians. If you can't accept that then go take an English course.
The ambiguity is cleared up by looking at both context and later posts by the writer.

The post as a whole does not say, nor imply, that the statement is based on one example. The statement is made and then an example is given as illustration.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Obviously because you wish to dishonestly manipulate the definition to make false claims.

[b]Why are you agreeing with me based on "one specific definition" when you have already said that definitions are not a good tool for debate?
You are not making sense. There is no contradiction in my stance on that.

What definition of generalisation d ...[text shortened]... ent is based on one example. The statement is made and then an example is given as illustration.

I'm not sure I'll come back to this argument; I've lost my appetite for this topic. Thanks for the fight though, you are a formidable and tenacious opponent.

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm not sure I'll come back to this argument; I've lost my appetite for this topic. Thanks for the fight though, you are a formidable and tenacious opponent.

In the end, Christians always give up. (*A jovial generalization).

😉

Originally posted by divegeester
Here is again for you;

We agree it was a generalisation about Christians.
The sentence was derogatory about Christians frequently harping on about persecution
Not all Christians do frequently harp on abortion persecution
The generalisation is incorrect and derogatory
As a Christian myself who does not harp on abort being persecuted I pointed this out

There it is.

Again.

We agree it was a generalisation about Christians.

Then you are both wrong, it was nothing of the sort.
It was an observation and not a generalisation. By any [given or valid] definition.

The sentence was derogatory about Christians frequently harping on about persecution

Whether it's derogatory or not. It's undeniably true that many Christians do this.
I provided examples, and can provide many many many more.

Not all Christians do frequently harp on abortion persecution

Nobody ever said otherwise. Which is kinda the point.

The generalisation is incorrect and derogatory

My observation was neither a generalisation, nor was it incorrect. And it's not my fault that you are part
of a religion many members of which do things [as part of that religion] that are unpleasant or distasteful to you.

As a Christian myself who does not harp on abort being persecuted I pointed this out

As a Christian who took umbrage at an imagined slight you wasted pages and pages of thread space
whining about the imagined slight in a desperate attempt to distract from the real issues raised in the
OP that you claim to oppose, but find it much more important to close ranks and defend your religion
rather than deal with the harm that it, and members of it, are causing.

There it is.

Originally posted by divegeester
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 an ...[text shortened]... s in an attempt to belittle me. I simply decided that I'm not going to let you get away with it.

You seem to be having even more trouble with the English language.

Ghost of a Duke was saying that "For what it's worth, i think your use of the words 'often' and 'frequently'
in your OP negates any charge of generalization...."
in other words, he read it pretty much exactly as I intended [and so, it seems has every else who has
chimed in, apart from you] and I was saying that "that's what I thought" as in I thought it was clear that
that's what I was saying when I wrote it.

Basically everyone else that has commented seems to have understood what I meant... except you.

That implies that it's less that my meaning isn't clear enough, but that it's your ability [or willingness]
to understand it.

You wrote a sentence which is a lazy generalisation and have not had the honesty to admit it

I don't admit to being wrong when I'm not.

You have singularly failed to demonstrate that there is anything wrong with my OP.

Everyone else seems to have been able to understand it.

It was not a generalisation of any kind.

since then you and twhitehead have been hemming and hawing over semantics and definitions in an attempt to belittle me

You belittled yourself.

I simply decided that I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Good luck with that.

Being innocent of the crime you accuse me of, I will never ever back down.

So you can have an unending fight, or lose. pick one.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There it is...

You are correct that this is unending fight and yesterday I made my decision not to continue with it. But so you are clear about my motivations for fighting in this thread:

I am not one to "close ranks" with Christians in fact most of my posts are arguments with other Christians. I am a Christian but I don't see myself as part of today's mainstream Christianity, much of which I despise.

I conceded, several times in the thread, that I agree with your core point that some Christians do frequently harp on about persecution. In fact I had an exchange with one elsewhere about something similar related to the France situation.

My motivation was driven mainly by stubbornness and a refusal to be belittled over my opinion about the alleged [insert the G word] in your opening post. I don't think I was wrong [about that bit] but I fully accept, and said so in the thread several times, that I know you didn't mean it to be a "G".

Yesterday I just couldn't find the motivation to bitch about it [the alleged G] anymore.

Well done you for standing your ground.

Originally posted by divegeester
You are correct that this is unending fight and yesterday I made my decision not to continue with it. But so you are clear about my motivations for fighting in this thread:

I am not one to "close ranks" with Christians in fact most of my posts are arguments with other Christians. I am a Christian but I don't see myself as part of today's mainstream Ch ...[text shortened]... otivation to bitch about it [the alleged G] anymore.

Well done you for standing your ground.

Don't worry about those guys. As Donald Trump would say, "They are losers."

Your main problem is not believing what Jesus says about eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. Repent and believe.

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD ! Holy! Holy! Holy!