[FairfieldLife] Re: Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote: Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing about muslims. If Vaj wants to live in a nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it. What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions? My above statement is not a conclusion. Its a conditional statement. Perhaps you are providing another data point in my general thesis of over generaization -- and its cousins: basically seeing something that is not there. Next, as you may know from a number of posts, I don't draw conclusions, as in truth claims. I have opinions, some of which I assess as highly probable. But none are 100%. And I am willing to change the probabilities at any time. I work form a series of interrelated flexible, adaptive working hypotheses, not conclusions. Though I suppose I may use the term conclusion, I don't believe I do, but I will keep it in mind, for a very local, specific outcome of a logical chain. An it implies just that. A logical outcome, not Truth. So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? What about human rights in general? I juxtaposed tha above statement, with past statements you have made about the ominous and growing threat of islam an muslims. Not just radical, but most all if I have understood you correctly. These two elements together, led my the the possibility that you might structure the above, If Vaj wants to live in a nation .., a sa non-zero probability event -- a possibility. A conditional statement is just that. If A then B, If Not A, then Not B. It is not an assertion or a claim. of fact. And per my juxtaposition above, perhaps I have mis read your prior statements. I, and everyone is prone to misreading intent, via word symbols. Or perhaps, you once held such beliefs and they have changed, evolved, been restructured with new information or logical appraisal. So if I implied (not my intent) that you never did, or do not currently hold a position, along the lines of, or some subset of the following, then wonderful. You are certainly free, to clarify my impressions. I am open to your refinement of your views and my understanding of them. My understanding of Vaj's prior statements, generalized: there is an ominous and growing threat of islam and muslims. Not just radical, but most all, [or many] [brackets clause just added, to clarify my intended conditional statment. Correct and clarify.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Over Genralizations, over Claiming of Casusal Relations -- and the Pheonix
On Sep 26, 2007, at 11:47 AM, new.morning wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:34 AM, new.morning wrote: Vaj and Dixon, I think you are overgeneralizing about muslims. If Vaj wants to live in a nation that disallows work, tourist or any entry to any muslim, or racial groups with which Islam is associated, then go for it. What on earth would ever make you jump to such bizarre conclusions? My above statement is not a conclusion. Its a conditional statement. Perhaps you are providing another data point in my general thesis of over generaization -- and its cousins: basically seeing something that is not there. Next, as you may know from a number of posts, I don't draw conclusions, as in truth claims. I have opinions, some of which I assess as highly probable. But none are 100%. And I am willing to change the probabilities at any time. I work form a series of interrelated flexible, adaptive working hypotheses, not conclusions. Though I suppose I may use the term conclusion, I don't believe I do, but I will keep it in mind, for a very local, specific outcome of a logical chain. An it implies just that. A logical outcome, not Truth. So if what some are saying comes true, and if 50-100 years France and Germany become majority Muslim states, do you feel these states will be better or worse off for non-Muslims and women? What about people who are not of the book, like , Atheists, Hindus and Buddhists? What about human rights in general? I juxtaposed tha above statement, with past statements you have made about the ominous and growing threat of islam an muslims. Not just radical, but most all if I have understood you correctly. These two elements together, led my the the possibility that you might structure the above, If Vaj wants to live in a nation .., a sa non-zero probability event -- a possibility. A conditional statement is just that. If A then B, If Not A, then Not B. It is not an assertion or a claim. of fact. And per my juxtaposition above, perhaps I have mis read your prior statements. I, and everyone is prone to misreading intent, via word symbols. Or perhaps, you once held such beliefs and they have changed, evolved, been restructured with new information or logical appraisal. So if I implied (not my intent) that you never did, or do not currently hold a position, along the lines of, or some subset of the following, then wonderful. You are certainly free, to clarify my impressions. I am open to your refinement of your views and my understanding of them. My understanding of Vaj's prior statements, generalized: there is an ominous and growing threat of islam and muslims. Not just radical, but most all, [or many] [brackets clause just added, to clarify my intended conditional statment. Correct and clarify. Thanks, I'll pass.
