Then I have the utmost respect for your cooly detached and utterly passionless objectivity. That style of rhetoric has been the model for all 'correct' arguments for some time now. Just out of curiousity - are you wearing a lab coat and carrying a clipboard right now?
As a matter of fact, I am. All I am saying is that if you're going to make a sweeping generalization, people often like to have that backed up with more than a smarmy attitude and a vague reference to having personal experience.
And what I'm saying is that making a disclaimer before every generalization that the generalization is, in fact, a generalization should be unecessary when one makes that generalization before a reasonably intelligent audience. Or, at least, before an audience who isn't motivated by some personal agenda to demand a to-the-letter chart of facts and figures. And, since the subject has come up, this seems like an important issue to you mrpaige - will you be making a movie about it soon?
Just wanted to know what you were basing your "fact" on. Now that I know you were just pulling it out of your ass, my curiosity is satisfied. I would expect that if I made something up and posted it, people might well question me on it.
I think there is a lot of middle ground between performing a scientific double-blind peer-reviewed study and making something up. Most of us don't have access to a panel of scientists and a polling team to make our judgments for us like you apparently do mrpaige - does that mean everything we say is just pulled out of our ass? One encouraging thing here though - The entirely unobjective passion you are now displaying (by the way - it's not nice to insult people) would probably go very far towards making an epic artistic statment, you auteur you.
No, I'm saying that you pulled this 'fact' out of your ass and now seem quite offended that someone would dare challenge the essense of your made-up fact. My entire agenda was hearing where you came across this information. You immediately copped an attitude, accused me of having an agenda and all that has followed. I know it's not nice to insult people, which is why you probably shouldn't have done it in the first place by claiming that the vast majority of poor people have no morals in regard to theft. And I'm certainly not overly objective. I've mentioned that time and time again on this board and elsewhere. But there is a difference between objectivity and simply slamming a group of people for no reason and with absolutely nothing to back it up (and getting offended when someone questions your stereotype). If I posted a thread about people who go by the name "thadeus" being, by and large, pederasts, you might well want to know what has led me to believe such a thing. I'm not sure I would immediately get offended that you dare question the authority that is me like you have.
No way! I have a scientific poll saying that you are far more offended than I am. Are your armpits sweaty in that lab coat?
By the way, I'm sure all the poor people I just direly offended are grateful that you have chosen to respond in their defense.
So what have we learned from this argument? thaddeus doesn't like poor people and believes the vast majority of them don't steal out of fear rather than because they believe stealing to be wrong. And he backs this up with a vague claim of "personal experience" which he finds better than any in-depth analysis or study. He finds objectivity to be bad and is offended if anyone asks where his information comes from. This leads to accusations of an agenda and smarmy comments that essentially make fun of people for trusting in-depth scientific studies over someone else's vague experiences. Have I about got it?
I wasn't coming to their defense. I was asking you where you got your information. If you had something to back it up, I would've accepted that. But since it apparently all stems from some prejudice you have against poor people, it is an insult. And one who engages in such insults really doesn't have much leg to stand on when someone insults them.
Difficult question, but it was nice of you to type out the correct and objective answer for everyone. I have to admit, I've been torn between autobiography to argue my point (as I have before, in other threads, with a tinge of later regret) or just letting this little argument run its course - and have decided in favor of the latter. Carry on! By the way - it's "thadeus" with a single "d." This is an important distinction because all people named "thaddeus" are pederasts, or so I've heard.
You know, the whole "people used to believe the earth was flat" thing is mostly a myth. It's the exception rather than the rule. But, it has now become a popular rhetorical device, so it's unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
I didn't say anything about a large number of people believing the Earth was flat, I asked if you were one of the Flat Earth Society folks. As far as I know, you are not a large number of people. I mean, I've looked around and I dont see any curves in the thing. Should I trust the science, or just go with what I've experienced?
How exactly would you design a poll to verify the accuracy of the statement I made? What would make an in-depth study valid in respect to the statment I made? I think the issue at hand here has far less to do with the non-objectivity of my statment than it has to do with the manner in which my statement based on personal experience clashes with your opinion based on idealism. Maybe there is no poll to prove me correct, but do you have a poll that shows you're correct? It's far easier to attack an idea than it is to advance one. If the only argument you have against me is that I don't have an objective standard to verify my statement - then you're correct. If you're saying that, without this phantasm of objectivity, my statement is incorrect, then you'll have to prove that as well - and, preferrably, with a poll of some sort. Maybe personal experience is the only way to make a statement like this. What do you think? And here's a massive generalization (DISCLAIMER) that I believe in: Most people rename their fear and discomfort "morality." An ancillary: Plenty of people would have trouble saying "No" to a bum who asks them for money on the street at night. So, they give them the money - but, later, they'll probably claim they did it out of the goodness of their hearts. I distrust all claims of morality when it's simply a decision to go with the easier option and call it "good."
