Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JayGalt
In my field to say all women or all men is just unthinkable. Individual differences are paramount.

And that kind of duplicity doesn’t do your credibility any favors. You were explicitly told the statement you objected to was a generalization.

Intentionally conflating generalizations with a universal premise is a time-worn tactic of liberal mendacity, and unfit for anyone who claims to be a person of goodwill.

I note a measure of conciliation in your post for which I am grateful. Nevertheless, you wrote what you wrote, and that’s all I can go by.

If you insist on maintaining the interchangeability of the sexes with regard to politics and “patriotism” with nothing but anecdotes and ad hominem insinuations for support there’s really no way to change your mind, even if you’re wrong.

36 posted on 07/14/2018 11:50:47 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: papertyger
You have an interesting point of view. If I understand you believe it is more defining to be a woman vs a man than to be an individual.

I consider that a given woman may have any trait to a greater or lesser extent than any man and the sum of the traits & behaviors defines the individual, not the gender. To me a mind is not gendered and people who cherish honor, responsibility and kindness are kindred spirits whatever the color, gender, age or race.

Gender is a characteristic of a person and is immutable like race but is just one of many that describe a person. I see my point of view is alien to you but isn't that actually the purpose of places like FR? For trying to express my belief system honestly so that we might better understand each other, and both gain in the exercise you accuse me of duplicity. I can only be myself, I can be no other.

Intentionally conflating generalizations with a universal premise is a time-worn tactic of liberal mendacity, and unfit for anyone who claims to be a person of goodwill.

This statement delivers no context to me. If I do not accept your premise as true then a universal premise is a is merely a generalization. For the record I was not even a liberal in my youth and now I am old.

39 posted on 07/15/2018 2:07:23 AM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: papertyger

In trying to make sense of your position I looked into the terms you use and came up with this site which appears relevant. semanticscholar.org There are several chapters that review the connections between universal premise & generalization. To read the material without downloading one can access the cache. I submit that universal premises are shaky ground on which to stand and they often lead to generalizations, a viewpoint that the author expresses with much more elegance and rigor than I could bring to bear.

Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions ... - Semantic Scholar
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2OovvTf4QPwJ:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
/4d78/270ce80da87624e09f04df5d2cf408c3fc02.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1

Syllogistic Reasoning with Generic Premises:
The Generic Overgeneralization Effect
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:88aeAIyhaJ0J:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3044/e3556eee948d10fab53fa02f2cfd9a6682b6.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1


40 posted on 07/15/2018 2:26:20 AM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson