-Removed-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.
-Removed-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.
-Removed-
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.
-Removed-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.