Prince's Evangelical Obsession

[Carmel]

Nick Treklis:
I'm certain that if you were to analyze your world-view you will find that you make generalizations all the time, and make critical decisions based on them because you do in fact find them useful.

Carmel:
Sure, They can be useful, they can also be harmful, dependant upon one's motive. Actually, Cory and I already discussed this recently in another thread, not sure if you saw it. It was in the "women have no soul?" thread.

Using generalizations to understand your environment does not preclude the use of modifiers i.e. many, few, some, most, etc. and, in most cases, the modifiers would make your statement more accurate, as it allows for exceptions. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

[Blair]

I see Dan hasn't ponied up with his evidence of how an ugly monkey evolved into Bellucci.

Perhaps he's working on it, or perhaps he doesn't care, because he's so confident in his horseshit theories about evolution.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I see Dan hasn't ponied up with his evidence of how an ugly monkey evolved into Bellucci.

Perhaps he's working on it, or perhaps he doesn't care, because he's so confident in his horseshit theories about evolution.

He only has to explain why it is that you don't see an ugly hairless confused ape when looking at Bellucci.

[Carl G]

Carl,

Similar? This is so general as to be useless for the purpose of the argument. And incoherent besides, birds not being a species, but a genus comprised of many species, some of which can fly and some which cannot.

Again Carl, you miss my entire point. It is irrelevant whether my hypothetical example is correct or not, I gave an example merely for structure. We are discussing why generalizations are so important for both deductive and inductive reasoning.

Excuse me. I've never seen anyone give a purposely irrelevant example to prove a point.

Each involve either studying a population of similar things, and making conclusions down to the individual or studying a small sample of similar things, and making conclusions up to the population.

You're trying to get all scientific on me when this is really about ridiculously sweeping statements which have nothing to do with logic. I've pointed out the most glaring ones -- which are useless for the purposes of which you speak, and show only your ignorance, lack of thinking skills, extreme carelessness, or predjudice, or all of the above. And yet you defend yourself. You are blind to your own machinations, and I'm beginning to conclude that you do not wish to see, or are unable.

Each involve a generalization of sorts. Plus, when a philosopher generalizes, exceptions are usually implied, so for you to nick pick my use of words constantly shows me that you continue to ignore the big picture, while having an inclination to criticize small details that aren't as important.

See above.

However, this is not to say that you are wrong when you suggested the use of the word genus instead of species, that is correct, but the truth of my example wasn't the main focus here.

Accuracy on your part obviously wasn't important at all. But I guess my pointing that out is just another "nit pick." Wake up, and smell the specificity. You call yourself a philosopher and a scientist. Act like one. Stop hiding behind the masks of vagueness and justification, and own up to your actual words, ergo, your thinking.

And you asked earlier if I was on prozac because my retorts seemed mild, well no, I do not take medications for my mental state, and the passion is not needed in retorts as observed in some of my previous posts, sometimes I use the passion to cause a jolt in the reader, but mild can be very effective as well, Solway's posts are almost always mild.

And very often not effective. I was first impressed by Kevin's posts, by the unflappability behind them, which appears as sageliness. Then, after reading many exchanges, including with myself, I realized that he often speaks circularly, repeating the same point, and then tangentially, losing the plot, and then when confronted, disappears. You have done the same.

(Look there - another generalization about Solway's posts. See how important they can be - I thought back to individual instances of Solway's posts, and realized that most of the ones I read were mild, which allowed me to generalize to all of Solway's posts. A generalization allows me to make a statement about all of Solway's posts without actually reading them all. It is numbers game. For instance: Suppose I read 500 of Solway's 2200 posts, and all were mild. Statistically speaking, that should be enough for me to generalize an accurate observation to all of Solway's posts based on only the 500 I read, got it? You cannot reason without generalizations!

Yawn. And you call that philosophy?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You cannot reason without generalizations!

Yawn. And you call that philosophy?

Genius, or essential philosophy always ends up stating the bloody obvious. Then again, ignorance is all about missing the bloody obvious; the illusion of living on some advanced, complex and detailed surface while becoming increasingly disconnected from the foundation making it possible.

[Nick]

Sure, They can be useful, they can also be harmful, dependant upon one's motive.

Usefulness and harmfulness are not mutually exclusive either.

Using generalizations to understand your environment does not preclude the use of modifiers i.e. many, few, some, most, etc. and, in most cases, the modifiers would make your statement more accurate, as it allows for exceptions. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't disagree with that, but sometimes when making generalizations about people, I think it's better not to allow for exceptions, because if you do, then everyone will think they are the exception. Don't you agree?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Steven wrote,

Lovin' me some Carmel.

Dejavu wrote,

(:D) Me too Steve.

Carmel is so much brighter than Nick, she should probably just kick him in the nuts and save him the pain.

Carmel wrote,

lol!Steven and dejavu...I love you guys too. :) and lest there be any confusion...it's love in the pure sense, for the same reason that I love prince. You speak your own truth, not somebody else's.

Shine on you crazy diamonds!

Oh barf, the evil and ego stroking that happens on this forum is deplorable. Where's a puke bucket, I'm going to be sick....

Its always easy to spot evil – it has a loyal fan club that shows sentimental satisfaction to the most horrid of mundane safe views.

Kunga wrote,

but women have been repressed throught history....you canno't in all your wisdom deny that fact.

That is a cope out. In some industries, women have been excluded, but ones profession is such as shallow thing compared to the wisdom gained from philosophy. The fact is that Women were not permitted from reading, writing or thinking about the universe, in many cases, women in the developed world had more time for intellectual leisure than men, but they never took advantage of it. History does not lie about women's relative poor contribution to science, philosophy, and mathematics.

A good example of women being held back is in the middle-east. The men control and restrict their movements in most areas of life, it is a very unjust thing that I disagree with, but if what you said were correct, you would think that these women would meet in secret with books and be expanding their minds. However, in most cases, it is the opposite. The secret meetings of women involve sharing make-up that is banned, reading romance books and magazines from the western world, and talking about sex and sexual expression. A woman's focus is primarily on romance, not philosophy.

Carl wrote,

Yawn. And you call that philosophy?

Diebert made a good point. Refer to it, study what he has said, and throw away your conspiracy books because the excitement you derive from those outlandish half-truths makes the basics of reasoning seem boring to you.

[Carl G]

Diebert made a good point. Refer to it, study what he has said, and throw away your conspiracy books because the excitement you derive from those outlandish half-truths makes the basics of reasoning seem boring to you.

Oh barf, the evil and ego stroking that happens on this forum is deplorable. Where's a puke bucket, I'm going to be sick....

Its always easy to spot evil – it has a loyal fan club that shows sentimental satisfaction to the most horrid of mundane safe views.

Ryan, I'm beginning to think you are hopeless, and simply not cut out for wisdom. I hope you are learning a good profession to fall back on, perhaps plumbing, something like that.

[Robert]

Thank Christ for Ryan and a few others like him around here, they're the ones that continue to make genius worth reading.

Current posters of note: Animus, Nick, Diebert, Ryan, Elizabeth and Steve (in small doses).

[Kunga]

i know i've made sweeping generalizations Ryan...but saying it's a cop out to say women have been repressed through history is a cop out...LOL

Women are conditioned to be women
Men are condidioned to be men

You can't deny that.

Rare is it for either sex to deviate from societies norms. (a generalization)

I was always interested in philosophy, poetry, art,science,truth,
and i balanced being a woman and loving men..and all that stuff....

my life is based on philosophical ideals....not what the hell i'm gonna wear...i don't consider myself to be the typical woman...although i love being a woman and love makeup and fancy perfume....it is rare that i ever indulge in stuff most women are addicted to....i've lived my life fully as a normal woman...loving men, life,philosophy,art,poetry,truth science,music, people.....in other words...i've had a pretty well rounded life....


the only reason there are not more women doing things men excel in , is because of evolution & genetics ...physical evolution as well as social evolution...it has nothing to do with women being inferior intellectually....look at all the morons sitting in bars and in jails...it is rare for a man to be great...just as much as for a woman....the more women are conditioned towards education instead of childrearing...the more women will be creating works of art and scientific theory......is it to mans' advantage that women pursue philosophy rather than childrearing ?

Funny..but a lot of women in male dominated fields are very masculine...and vice versa....

[Carl G]

Thank Christ for Carl and a few others like him around here, they're the ones that continue to make genius worth reading.

Current posters of note: Animus, Carl, Nick, Diebert, Elizabeth and Steve (in small doses).

Thanks, Robert, I really appreciate that.

[Robert]

Thank Christ for Ryan and a few others like him around here, they're the ones that continue to make genius worth reading.

Current posters of note: Animus, Ryan, Nick, Diebert, Elizabeth and Steve (in small doses). Carl, however, should think about taking up a new hobby. Sword swallowing or shooting up heroin, for example.

Thanks, Robert, I really appreciate that.

No problem.

[Carl G]

Thank Christ for Carl and a few others like him around here, they're the ones that continue to make genius worth reading.

Current posters of note: Animus, Carl, Nick, Diebert, Elizabeth and Steve (in small doses)

Thanks, Robert, I really appreciate that.

No problem.

Love ya, man.

[Robert]

Love ya, man.

Why I outta... !

[Gurrb]

Diebert made a good point. Refer to it, study what he has said, and throw away your conspiracy books because the excitement you derive from those outlandish half-truths makes the basics of reasoning seem boring to you.

Oh barf, the evil and ego stroking that happens on this forum is deplorable. Where's a puke bucket, I'm going to be sick....

Its always easy to spot evil – it has a loyal fan club that shows sentimental satisfaction to the most horrid of mundane safe views.

Ryan, I'm beginning to think you are hopeless, and simply not cut out for wisdom. I hope you are learning a good profession to fall back on, perhaps plumbing, something like that.

Was the exchange between you and Robert supposed to be ironic based on your above statement? Where's my 'puke bucket'?

[Gurrb]

i see what you did thar, substituted carl in for ryan

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Carl reminds me of that grumpy paranoid android Marv in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with his brain "the size of a planet" being excluded from near everything but the lowest grade assignments. Like Marvin, Carl is really clever but seems way too obsessed. He's already figured out 'the truth of truth ' but is at a loss what to do with it really.

[Tomas]

Carl reminds me of that grumpy paranoid android Marv in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with his brain "the size of a planet" being excluded from near everything but the lowest grade assignments. Like Marvin, Carl is really clever but seems way too obsessed. He's already figured out 'the truth of truth ' but is at a loss what to do with it really.

Old-timers never drown, they just wade away.

[Gurrb]

better to drown out than to wade away?

[Carl G]

Carl ... 's already figured out 'the truth of truth

The truth of the truth. Wow, you heard it, folks. I'm enlightened.

And truly, what an honor to have Diebert be the one to say it.

[Carmel]

Nick Treklis:

Usefulness and harmfulness are not mutually exclusive either.

Carmel:

Yes, but I'm not talking about some philosophical abstractions about the meaning of the words "harmful" and "useful". I meant it in a more worldly, practical way, in that, if someone's motive's aren't pure, they can use generalizations to justify their bigotry or in an effort to feel superior to someone else.

Nick:
I don't disagree with that, but sometimes when making generalizations about people, I think it's better not to allow for exceptions, because if you do, then everyone will think they are the exception. Don't you agree?

Carmel:
No, I don't agree. My concern is the accuracy of my statement. Using modifiers makes generalizations more accurate.

[Nick]

Yes, but I'm not talking about some philosophical abstractions about the meaning of the words "harmful" and "useful".

I'm not being abstract at all. I really can't be more straight-forward, actually. Something can be useful at accomplishing a larger goal, yet it can also have both positive and negative consequences depending on how you want to look at it.

I meant it in a more worldly, practical way, in that, if someone's motive's aren't pure,

Everyone's motives are pure. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

they can use generalizations to justify their bigotry or in an effort to feel superior to someone else.

That doesn't say anything generalizations, it does say a lot about the people who use them though. People can use anything they want to justify bigotry or to bolster their ego.

No, I don't agree. My concern is the accuracy of my statement. Using modifiers makes generalizations more accurate.

You talk about practicality, but not only is being 100% accurate not empirically possible, it's not even necessary depending on what you're trying to accomplish which is why I mention usefulness.

You're making generalizations about how people use generalizations for the very reasons you say people shouldn't use them. If you reflect on the content of your posts, you might notice how you manage to instill some kind of superiority in yourself with many of the statements you make, as if you've so been there and done that, or you're so above it all, when in fact you are really, truly, clueless. Go ahead, laugh it off, we both know you will.

[Carmel]

Nick,

You're obsfucating. Throwing out distrators and ad hominens that aren't relevant to the core issue.

Back to the original issue.

You can use generalizations to understand your environment and still incorporate modifiers to allow for exclusions.

You originally said: "I don't disagree with that" but...followed by another distractor. That's your standard modus operandi.

[Nick]

You're obsfucating. Throwing out distrators and ad hominens that aren't relevant to the core issue.

I don't see how I personally attacked you.

You originally said: "I don't disagree with that" but...followed by another distractor. That's your standard modus operandi.

So I'm a distractor now? Talk about ad hominen.

You can use generalizations to understand your environment and still incorporate modifiers to allow for exclusions.

Yes, and I have no disagreement with this, but straight generalizations can also be useful. You're falsely finding fault (three F words in a row) with generalizations, when you should be finding fault with the agenda that people use generalizations to support.

[Kunga]

Kunga wrote,


but women have been repressed throught history....you canno't in all your wisdom deny that fact.


Ryan wrote:

That is a cope out. In some industries, women have been excluded, but ones profession is such as shallow thing compared to the wisdom gained from philosophy. The fact is that Women were not permitted from reading, writing or thinking about the universe, in many cases, women in the developed world had more time for intellectual leisure than men, but they never took advantage of it. History does not lie about women's relative poor contribution to science, philosophy, and mathematics.

A good example of women being held back is in the middle-east. The men control and restrict their movements in most areas of life, it is a very unjust thing that I disagree with, but if what you said were correct, you would think that these women would meet in secret with books and be expanding their minds. However, in most cases, it is the opposite. The secret meetings of women involve sharing make-up that is banned, reading romance books and magazines from the western world, and talking about sex and sexual expression. A woman's focus is primarily on romance, not philosophy.


Kunga Wrote:

Romance for women ....Rapeing for men
Meeting secretly and giggling for women.....secretly planning terrorist attacks for men


So woman has committed the ultimate sin of wasting her life on trivial things...when she could of been searching for the truth....the truth is also in simple everyday things...like caring, loving, cooking, cleaning,sewing,etc, etc etc........without woman to do these things...man would have to take them up...and then man would not have time for his philosophical pursuits.....so you can thank woman for giving you the time and inclination towards philosophy and making this world what it is today....all the great art, scientific discoveries, architecture, math,philosophies,medicine, etc man can take credit for the majority of contributions to society.....women have contributed nothing .

Let's imagine all the women died on earth...no more females...in any aspect of nature...all life would die.

Then what ???

Maybe that's the whole point...to eliminate life...so there would be no more suffering .....i can totally understand.