More From The Religion Of Peace!

[Paprika]

That's what you pointed out the first time

Because you don't seem to be getting it.

that doesn't hold, however, given that this is a rarely reported occurrence, even though the situation of mixed-religion refugees and immigrants at sea is probably very common.

Reporting would need certain conditions to happen, eg 1) a tense enough situation for the killings to occur, 2) killings occurred but 3) some Christians survived to tell the tale.

The conjunction of the three are unlikely hence pointing to the general case is insufficient warrant to rebut the generalisation.

[Sam]

Because you don't seem to be getting it.


Reporting would need certain conditions to happen, eg 1) a tense enough situation for the killings to occur, 2) killings occurred but 3) some Christians survived to tell the tale.

The conjunction of the three are unlikely hence pointing to the general case is insufficient warrant to rebut the generalisation.

The unlikeliness of those certain conditions occurring and the resulting paucity of reports, if it invalidates the rebuttal, invalidates the accusatory assumption itself.

[Paprika]

invalidates the accusatory assumption itself.

How so? The accusatory assumption, given the unlikely conditions, would precisely result in a paucity of reports regarding lifeboat situation. This is hardly to claim that the paucity proves the assumption but that paucity alone cannot be used to disprove it because paucity is to be expected.

[Sam]

How so? The accusatory assumption, given the unlikely conditions, would precisely result in a paucity of reports regarding lifeboat situation. This is hardly to claim that the paucity proves the assumption but that paucity alone cannot be used to disprove it because paucity is to be expected.

If paucity of examples do not support an accusation of normative behavior, then such an accusation of normative behavior can not be made with only a few examples, especially if the sample set is quite large. Here we have a large sample set and one example. Therefore, a generalization of normative behavior cannot be made. As I originally said:

Given the number of refugees and immigrants arriving to their destinations by sea, it is highly unlikely one could maintain the OP's generalization even given that subset.

Arguing that we should expect to hear about only a few examples does not support the generalization, as it's arguing from the absence of evidence.

[Paprika]

If paucity of examples do not support an accusation of normative behavior, then such an accusation of normative behavior can not be made with only a few examples, especially if the sample set is quite large. Here we have a large sample set and one example. Therefore, a generalization of normative behavior cannot be made.

I think an argument of generalisation is possibly sound on this basis (though you have to take into account that seer clearly have this instance of Muslim violence in mind), which I wasn't objecting to. But you were also arguing that paucity of similar examples clearly refute the assumption, which is false.

Arguing that we should expect to hear about only a few examples does not support the generalization, as it's arguing from the absence of evidence.

Did you actually read?

This is hardly to claim that the paucity proves the assumption but that paucity alone cannot be used to disprove it because paucity is to be expected.

[Sam]

I think an argument of generalisation is possibly sound on this basis (though you have to take into account that seer clearly have this instance of Muslim violence in mind), which I wasn't objecting to. But you were also arguing that paucity of similar examples clearly refute the assumption, which is false.


Did you actually read?

Actually, what I wrote was:

Given the number of refugees and immigrants arriving to their destinations by sea, it is highly unlikely one could maintain the OP's generalization even given that subset.

"it is highly unlikely one could maintain the OP's generalization" is not equivalent to "the OP's generalization is clearly refuted."

To the best of my knowledge, my reading comprehension is above average.

And, no, the generalization of a single event, absent evidence supporting the generalizing of that event, is not sound. It is, in fact, fallacious.

[Paprika]

To the best of my knowledge, my reading comprehension is above average.

Then I'm not sure why you have to discuss argument from silence when my reply had clearly ruled that out.

And, no, the generalization of a single event, absent evidence supporting the generalizing of that event, is not sound. It is, in fact, fallacious.

My apologies, I intended 'argument against generalisation' instead of 'argument of generalisation', hence the 'though...' (which should be Seer has more than this instance in mind).

[Sam]

Then I'm not sure why you have to discuss argument from silence when my reply had clearly ruled that out.


My apologies, I intended 'argument against generalisation' instead of 'argument of generalisation', hence the 'though...' (which should be Seer has more than this instance in mind).

So long as we're agreed that this is an invalid generalization, meaning that it's highly unlikely that seer's assumptions hold even given the subset of "mixed-religion immigrants on a boat", I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything of substance.

[Paprika]

So long as we're agreed that this is an invalid generalization

I did, of course, (intend to) say that he clearly has other examples of Muslim violence in mind so it's hardly an argument from just one instance. It should be very clear from the topic title alone that he is just bringing up one of the latest examples for discussion.

[Sam]

I did, of course, (intend to) say that he clearly has other examples of Muslim violence in mind so it's hardly an argument from just one instance. It should be very clear from the topic title alone that he is just bringing up one of the latest examples for discussion.

But your point initially was that using the much broader sample set "Muslims" was inappropriate:

Considering that most Muslims are not placed in a literal lifeboat situation this objection amounts to nothing.

By the same token, allowing seer to expand his sample set to "Muslim acts of violence" is inappropriate. We're either talking about "Muslims in a "lifeboat situation" with at least some passengers of another religion (e.g., Christians)" or we're talking about "Muslims". If the former, you can't allow seer examples outside of that subset. If the latter, you have to allow the larger set without restriction.

[Paprika]

But your point initially was that using the much broader sample set "Muslims" was inappropriate

My initial point was that using the much broader sample set "Muslims" for a specific purpose, ie. to use the paucity to disprove the assumption, was inappropriate. That is hardly to rule out the proper use of the sample set for other purposes.

[fm93]

So, this, in your poor challenged way of thinking, is somehow on a par with people pouring into the streets firing AK-47s in the air shouting Death to America?

I explicitly said that it is not.

So, insulting a gay person, in your mind, is on a par with sawing somebody's head off, or strapping explosives to yourself and killing innocent people....

No, but it does mean that people should be wary of getting on a religious high horse regarding Islam--the fact that your own religion's members don't frequently commit terrorism doesn't vindicate it much if members do bad things in the name of the religion in other areas.

[Cow Poke]

I explicitly said that it is not.

Yet you pose it as an example.

Look at all the people celebrating Indiana's "religious freedom" bill and standing by pizza makers who refuse to do something as simple and polite as making a few pizzas that gay people wish to consume at weddings.

Remember, the thread is about the "religion of peace", and you are working like a redheaded stepchild to equate Christianity's "atrocities" with Islamic terrorism.

[fm93]

I'm not going to deal with the other examples you mentioned, but claiming that Anders Breivik's acts of terror was an act of Christian terror is just ridiculous. There's no way an honest person acquainted with the facts could in good conscience claim that Breivik was even close to being a genuine Christian after having read the pertinent section of his manifesto (mainly the section about cultural Christendom).

You think I've read every section of his 1500+ page manifesto? But let's look at your phrase "genuine Christian." I certainly agree that Breivik held to a twisted, highly politicized idea of Christianity that is a mutation from what it's commonly held to be, but your response is essentially the same as that which Muslim scholars make regarding Islamic terrorists--that they're holding to a twisted, highly politicized idea of Islam instead of some nobler expression that Muslims far more commonly hold it to be.

Yeah, there's a HUGE difference between an act of terror being committed by somebody who happens to be a Christian (or have any link to Christianity) and somebody who clearly terrorizes in the name of, and for the sake of, a particular religion or supposed deity.

There's a technical difference, but I don't consider it a "huge" difference. A Christian who commits an act of terror, even if it wasn't specifically motivated by some thought process like "I am doing this FOR my God," is still somehow capable of doing the mental gymnastics necessary to reconcile such evil with the morals of Christ--which is the foundation for terrorism motivated specifically by religion.

Besides, as I already mentioned, there are examples of terrorists who specifically saw themselves as upholding Christian morality--the Ku Klux Klan, for instance.

[Cow Poke]

You think I've read every section of his 1500+ page manifesto? But let's look at your phrase "genuine Christian." I certainly agree that Breivik held to a twisted, highly politicized idea of Christianity that is a mutation from what it's commonly held to be, but your response is essentially the same as that which Muslim scholars make regarding Islamic terrorists--that they're holding to a twisted, highly politicized idea of Islam instead of some nobler expression that Muslims far more commonly hold it to be.

Actually, many Muslim scholars and leaders use the Koran to justify their terroristic actions - a CHRIST follower cannot do the same thing. It's just idiotic to try to say that.