Thrown out of an FBO...

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ed72116dcbb99a

More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used. There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

[...]
If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...6c40345ef84ce4

"You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?"

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true. And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ed72116dcbb99a

Peter: "blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place."
Peter: "I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket
generalization is offensive"

So here is a blanket generalization: Spring flowers are pretty.
Can you actually support your statement that blanket generalizations (which you
carefully identified as a separate type of generalization) is offensive without
"finding it amazing" that you might actually be asked to explain your reasoning?



More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used.

Perhaps, but you said "generalizations are so offensive." Perhaps you meant to
say that "insulting ___ are offensive?" If that's the case, then the offensive
item is the insult, not the generalization as you stated above.


There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

It would certainly help you from making more of your false generalizations about
generalizations.



I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

You keep falsely accusing me of not understanding something, yet you have been
unable to justify what you said. You said that generalizations are offensive.
You said blanket generalizations are so offensive. When I provide evidence to
the contrary, your response is to create another fallacy.
You are good at providing examples of fallacies though such as calling me
idiotic (Poisoning the Well fallacy), complex questions, begging the question,
and now the false dichotomy above.



[...]
If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

I don't believe something is offensive just because it is a generalization. You
stated that generalizations are "so offensive." Again, that statement is not
always true.



You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:


There are lots of words in the post, which ones are you discussing? If you take
the time to read what you cite, you will learn that I stated no such thing that
you claim, to wit that I "admitted" not understanding some concept....





"You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?"

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true.

Absolutely not true, and another false dichotomy fallacy. I was admitting no
such thing, additionally your premise is false. I was asking you to explain
yourself. Instead of doing so, you prefer to claim I am "admitting" some of
your nonsense.

And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

I comprehend just fine, Peter. I am not the one who thinks blanket
generalizations need be offensive. Furthermore, I don't resort to just blindly
claiming that somebody said something which they clearly did not say or
manufacturer fallacies. .