![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... Take one sentence out of context, and of course it sounds like a generalization. In context, however, I was referring to situations like the one described The context was about airplanes. Your comment specified cars. How can you possibly claim that your comment was NOT a generalization. You specifically generalized from airplanes to cars, and from a specific stranger to all strangers generally. [...] That's one notch up from being a "total" stranger and different than some stranger offering you a ride at random. Thus the problem with generalizations. When you fail to qualify your statement, it becomes inaccurate. Just because someone else is vouching for a person, that does not keep them from being a total stranger. It simply makes them a different kind of total stranger. Thank you for illustrating exactly the problem with generalizations I was talking about. And believe it or not, there are people who still hitch-hike. Some risk? Sure. But flying with someone you know doesn't preclude risk either. EXACTLY. That was the point! In the scenario being discussed, I wasn't hitching an airplane ride. Because you refused, true. But it's reasonably analagous to hitch-hiking, which is not a uniformly dangerous practice. Yes, and that was Jay's original question, if anyone has ever refused to fly with someone. Actually, his question was "Have you ever refused to fly with someone you felt was not entirely safe?" That's a very different question from "have you ever refused to fly with someone you did not know to be entirely safe?" The person you described was not someone you had any reason to believe "was not entirely safe." The only reason for declining the ride was your lack of knowledge about him, not some specific knowledge about him. Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote:
Thus the problem with generalizations. When you fail to qualify your statement, it becomes inaccurate. This seems a little silly to me ... what you claim was my "generalization" did not make my comment "inaccurate". It was part of a discussion about differing attitudes about offering and accepting airplane and car rides from strangers. No accurate or inaccurate about it, just added a comment to the topic; but feel free to dissect the words and phrases and label each if you feel that need. Just because someone else is vouching for a person, that does not keep them from being a total stranger. It simply makes them a different kind of total stranger. Agreed. But in the scenario I was talking about, no one had vouched for anyone. The minute you begin to learn things about someone, they become less of a stranger, and what you've learned influences decisions about things like accepting invites for flights or rides. Pilots and passengers at major airlines are usually total strangers too; however, their business is offering rides for money, you are in need of the ride, and even though you don't know the pilots or the mechanics, there is *some* implied assurance that these people had certain qualifications for their jobs, and the pilots now have a little more implied assurance that passengers aren't going to be dangerous. Even with all that, there's still some risk. But that's still different than going to an airport and approaching any stranger standing next to any airplane to take you to your destination...or to hop into your airplane with you. Thank you for illustrating exactly the problem with generalizations I was talking about. I am aware of the problem with generalizations, but I'm not sure what your problem is with my comment. You're free to think it's fine to accept plane rides from some random person on the field or to expect that any stranger you offer a ride to will assume you're a competent pilot if that's your opinion. But it's reasonably analagous to hitch-hiking, which is not a uniformly dangerous practice. Maybe you need to take some of your own advice about generalizations. I don't know where you live, but many would disagree that hitch-hiking "is not a uniformly dangerous practice." Quite the opposite. The person you described was not someone you had any reason to believe "was not entirely safe." The only reason for declining the ride was your lack of knowledge about him, not some specific knowledge about him. Actually, I didn't have "specific knowledge", but I did have *reason* to believe he was not entirely safe. He wouldn't go away while I was trying to preflight, he bragged about having 3000 hours and no accidents, and his overall arrogant attitude was *more* than enough for me to feel he "was not entirely safe." That may be an inaccurate assumption, maybe he's one terrific pilot; but the feeling I had about his attitude and arrogance was real enough to be a red flag *to me* about flying with him .... which WAS Jay's question. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
... [...] I am aware of the problem with generalizations, but I'm not sure what your problem is with my comment. Your comment was a generalization. I simply said one should be careful about making generalizations, such as the one you made. Your blanket statement is not correct 100% of the time (a common problem with generalizations). [...] Actually, I didn't have "specific knowledge", but I did have *reason* to believe he was not entirely safe. He wouldn't go away while I was trying to preflight, he bragged about having 3000 hours and no accidents, and his overall arrogant attitude was *more* than enough for me to feel he "was not entirely safe." You know all that about the guy, and yet you call him a total stranger? At the same time, you equivocate about what constitutes a total stranger with respect to my examples? You are funny. Thanks for the giggle. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Peter Duniho" wrote:
Your blanket statement is not correct 100% of the time (a common problem with generalizations). But that didn't keep you from making one. Actually, I didn't have "specific knowledge", but I did have *reason* to believe he was not entirely safe. He wouldn't go away while I was trying to preflight, he bragged about having 3000 hours and no accidents, and his overall arrogant attitude was *more* than enough for me to feel he "was not entirely safe." You know all that about the guy, and yet you call him a total stranger? You are funny. Thanks for the giggle. Yes, he was/is a total stranger. I never saw the guy before. After a few minutes of conversation, only thing I *knew* was that in my opinion, he was an arrogant blowhard. As another poster said, some traits on the ground may or may not also present in the cockpit. Reasons for "not feeling a person is entirely safe" for some of us DO include a person's attitude, regardless of how many hours he says he has. Think I'm funny and giggle if you want ... I'm not THAT desperate to fly. And that *was* Jay's question. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|