Although there are patches of burnt grass and clouds sometimes darken the skies, these items don't invalidate the claim that the sky is blue and the grass is green.Why do many on the left believe that use of a generalization renders an argument invalid?
ND... I have pondered this myself, it's their way of neutralizing an otherwise irrefutable argument. It's equivalent to a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty so he bogs down the litigation process with red tape and delays. God bless.Why do many on the left believe that use of a generalization renders an argument invalid?
So you'd be fine if I generalized the right as ';Gun toting anti-choice homophobic uncaring racists'; as an argument for why politicians that lean to the right shouldn't be allowed in office?
I wouldn't think so, because this generalization would force unfair punishment on some people who don't fit that at all. In fact, that like most stereotypes either isn't the majority at all or isn't a very large majority. Its a terrible thing to base an argument on. Instead, why not base an argument on actions such as ';Violent people aren't fit to have children'; Which is much different then ';Rappers are violent, and should not be allowed to have children.'; If such a case leads to a majority of a certain group being in trouble so what? They shouldn't have been preforming that action. On the other hand, if all of a group is argued against then even those who don't do said action are harassed for no reason.
actually it is all relative. Perhaps the grass is only green is watered properly and the sky is only blue because that is how it looks from a lights perspective. A person can only be violent is there is a basic definition of violence. The logical saying which you are referring to is actually logically correct and more than one way. If you look at it as stating that there are only a few things that are 100% true and this being one of them then of course if can be seen as a perception test and that can actually nullify the saying because that saying you just stated - makes itself untrue (cancels itself out). Or you can see it as there are few things that are 100% true in life, which can include this sentence. Which states that the sentence in itself is not 100% true but may be true to the point that it does hold some validity. Make sense? perception is how you see things, and you see things based on what you know and you know things based what you have experienced, and you experience things based on how you perceive them and the way you perceive them changes every time depending on the context its in
The problem with a generalization is that its a Logical Fallacy. And you're right just because the argument is not valid does not negate its effect. However, because it is a fallacy it will open up the argument to being undermined by the exceptions you noted.
So when one makes a generalization one has to be conscious of this. Generalizations are made for emotional effect validity is pointless because politics is about human emotions.
Reasoning in politics will occasionally come into play but just think about it unless an argument ';feels right'; how often are you convinced of its validity?
It is actually kind of funny, because the answer to this question resides in a shade of gray. Humanity is doomed to be different, it is in our genes. The way we think and act is just different. It isn't just on the left, it is everywhere. And it doesn't really render it invalid, not totally. It really lies in the way one is to interpret it. And because each individual person in different, people will interpret generalizations differently. In a democratic society, many people's beliefs can be voiced. It doesn't mean that they are heard, but the simple fact that they are there, gives the people a sense of diversity. It only seems this way because it is the way we interpret it.
Actually many on the Right seem to believe that as well. Over generalization can lead to ridiculous extremes like claiming that all liberals are anti war...a COMMON charge from the Right that is so obviously false.
Lemontree: I doubt you've actually surveyed Black people on their watermelon eating habits. In my experience, like any other fruit, not all Black people are fans.
Generalization doesn't make an argument valid because it is a fallacy. Debate the idea, and do not make illogical, irrelevant claims that do not apply.
It's only correct and true when it benefits them for the most part. For more information, refer to the recent question about Sonia S. and Reps being racist. Then refer to the leftist answers. Especially by some tiger who calls everyone a racist.
Put it this way...if you have a good argument, you don't use generalization as your trump. If you don't have a good argument, you'll spout all kinds of specious crap.
Arguments can be made without generalizing. Generalizations are subjective, not objective.
- Libertarian/Minarchist
Liberals drink way too much Kool Aide and smoke way too much Wacky Tobacco.
You mean like when right wingers believe that use of a generalization renders an argument invalid?
It's an excuse, since their arguments are invalid anyway.
like ';black people like watermelon'; that's a stereotype yet i have not seen it proved wrong
Liberalism is a mental disorder
For the same reason that many on the right use them, they save time.
No comments:
Post a Comment