Just A Reminder To Those Who Have Left The Forum

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

There is no contradiction. I've been very plain about the 'apostolics' who practice such theology. As I was in my last post.

The contradiction was where you'd argue this behavior was a part of BEING apostolic then when you got called on it you'd admit it was not ALL Apostolics.

Then later you'd start all over again and generalize about Apostolics

[Praxeas]

Ding dong!

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You implied it just as you implied we all do the "snippet dance" and other inuendos.

Saying apostolics do x is not implying that all apostolics do x. It can just as easily mean some, many, quite a few, or even most apostolics do x.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

This is an example of a group of people who stick their heads in the sand rather than discuss less than admirable issues within their sect.

Originally Posted by jfrog

Saying apostolics do x is not implying that all apostolics do x. It can just as easily mean some, many, quite a few, or even most apostolics do x.

Sorry Jfrog, but that is simply not true.

He refers to the GROUP. That is generalization

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
As the example indicates, dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debate rounds. Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

That isn't painting ALL 'apostolics' with a broad brush. I specifically referenced those 'apostolics' who practiced a theology which resulted in the suffering, and sometimes death, of children.

I certainly stand by my statement.

BROAD does not mean ALL Jfrog. If you read his comments he seems to suggest ALL or MOST Apostolics do it but not all or most OPs do it because not all OPs are APostolic

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Sorry Jfrog, but that is simply not true.

He refers to the GROUP. That is generalization

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).
As the example indicates, dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debate rounds. Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out why the sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point. Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using the Latin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Y chromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct).

Just because a group does something or has a tendency to do something or some I the group does something does not mean that every member of that group does something.

I can say tigers are bigger than lions but I can still find some lions that are bigger than some tigers. I can say a group does something and still only be referring to part of the group

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The contradiction was where you'd argue this behavior was a part of BEING apostolic then when you got called on it you'd admit it was not ALL Apostolics.

Then later you'd start all over again and generalize about Apostolics

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BROAD does not mean ALL Jfrog. If you read his comments he seems to suggest ALL or MOST Apostolics do it but not all or most OPs do it because not all OPs are APostolic

So broad does not mean all but you are saying he contradicts himself by implying all?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Just because a group does something or has a tendency to do something or some I the group does something does not mean that every member of that group does something.

I can say tigers are bigger than lions but I can still find some lions that are bigger than some tigers. I can say a group does something and still only be referring to part of the group

The Group DOESN'T do something nor does it have that tendency.

Second a broad brush need not apply to ALL the group. There is a reason why it's called a sweeping GENERALIZATION.

And if you said "tigers are bigger than lions" you would be wrong. They are NOT bigger than lions. That is a generalization that simply is not true.

I can say pink unicorns on Venus have propellers that pop out of their rear ends and fly them around the planet and not really mean there are pink Unicorns on venus that do that. But the fact is if you SAID IT, whether you meant it or not, it's still a statement that will be judged based on the statement itself.

If I said "Non-Apostolics are going to hell"..is that true? Does that refer to ALL non-Apostolics or just a certain undefined group?

Most people will read that,Jfrog, and conclude I meant the GROUP called "non-Apostolics" are going to hell.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So broad does not mean all but you are saying he contradicts himself by implying all?

Broad brush does not mean all, it means painting with a broad brush to include those that should not be included.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The Group DOESN'T do something nor does it have that tendency.

Second a broad brush need not apply to ALL the group. There is a reason why it's called a sweeping GENERALIZATION.

And if you said "tigers are bigger than lions" you would be wrong. They are NOT bigger than lions. That is a generalization that simply is not true.

I can say pink unicorns on Venus have propellers that pop out of their rear ends and fly them around the planet and not really mean there are pink Unicorns on venus that do that. But the fact is if you SAID IT, whether you meant it or not, it's still a statement that will be judged based on the statement itself.

If I said "Non-Apostolics are going to hell"..is that true? Does that refer to ALL non-Apostolics or just a certain undefined group?

Most people will read that,Jfrog, and conclude I meant the GROUP called "non-Apostolics" are going to hell.

I know quite a few really believe all non apostolics are going to hell. Based on m experience that would play into figuring out what you meany by it.

I guess my problem is that I don't think we have to mandate every poster must always include the word some or most in their post so they can be logically correct when we all understand the point being made and the reaction of you didn't say some is just silly.