For the sake of understanding, without me giving some long winded, half-witted paragraph on how to some degree or another everything is a generalization and at the same time is not, why not give me something positive to work with, so that I can see where you’re headed here?
Ah so you begrudgingly admit that all is a generalization.
Name one category, type in science which is not a generalization?
Now you would also agree that what one mind considered a generalization too complex to grasp is for another not so. For example to a Neanderthal, like you, the concept of humanity is far too general a term for it to wrap its tiny little mind around, yet for a modern more sophisticated mind it is not, given that it deals with finding patterns in its own limited experiential data base to project general rules and types.
In science this experiential base is compounded due to multiple contributions to the data base.
Quid pro Quo, boy.
I answer one of yours you answer one of mine.
Have you ever gotten laid?
I’m just asking you to clarify your views. Calling me names makes me think you’re not serious about doing that. If you don’t wanna just say you don’t wanna.
Did you not insult me in your interesting post?
Here let me remind you because it was a full ten minutes ago and dogs have a short attention span:
I’ve underlined the part you must have forgotten.
Quid pro quo, boy
Have you EVER gotten laid?
No flame wars here. I recently removed a couple of posts because I got two reports of flaming. One was from Satyr. You don’t want flames - I’ll make sure there aren’t any.
It’s clear who is instigating, here. I love you both, but this won’t continue. I suggest you take it to Rant House.
Or this baby gets locked up tight.
I bet he, and you, would love that.
it would end a two year 164 000 and counting run.
Your most popular thread ever.
Still waiting for a reply to see where the boy is headed.
No, it wouldn’t. I never lock 'em forever. Your thread is safe. And i wouldn’t love it.
So as not to disrupt the thread any further, anything else I have to say i will say in PM. Which will include a warning if this gets out of hand.
I intend to be “schooled” on generalizations and how inappropriate they are, even if all of science is based on generalizations and simplifications.
Eventually he’ll tell me about my “misogyny” because any comments on anything he was told is wrong and inappropriate automatically means “hatred”.
This is fun.
Can’t wait.
You transposed “me giving” when you read my post. It appears as though you read it as “giving me”. I think it’s in the underlined part. I’m doing the best I can here to help you prove your point clearly.
Are you even reading the conversation here? Don’t be like the old police officer who just shoots into the dark. We are crazy people. So yes, sometimes we say ridiculous things, but part of being a crazy person is sometimes saying normal things.
Go on with your “ripping me apart” then.
Where did we leave off?
Ah…no generalizations…and?
I did that, too, Smears. Sorry. I am reading the conversation. I just read that one wrong. Carry on, and keep it clean.
“ripping you apart”? Does this topic bore you? I’m asking legitimate questions here!
Proceed.
I’m not trying to descontruct your position, I’m trying to get you to construct it in a way that I can understand.
I believe you.
Trust me…I do.
Am I to understand that you have no desire to clarify your position in a positive way? Attacking those who attack it is all well and good, but I’m not attacking it. I’m trying to understand it fully so that I can form a valid opinion. Are you unwilling to break it down into simpler bits so that I might have that opportunity?
I am with you…I’ll give you ten more minutes to proceed.
No generalizations…We agree.
Science deals in generalizations…all of empiricism deals in generalizations and simplifications…continue…
If not post one example to the contrary.
Quid pro quo or no go.
Have you ever gotten laid?
I just said, “I think it has to do w/ generalizations”. I’m looking for something beyond the esoteric here. I want to get to the meat of what you’re trying to say.
I understand the problem of referring to two objects w/ the same term, and that this entails a degree of generalization. I’m not trying to post counterexamples to anything. I’m asking you to postulate something that will lead me to the understanding that you were trying to produce in the reader of your essay.
I’m not trying to trick you into a socratic dialogue here.
And I said I believe you and that I will answer your questions, as you post them, and you will answer mine - quid pro quo.
Now ask away.