11-07-2011, 09:46 PM
I responded to a fallacy that you committed. Perhaps you didn't intend to be taken that literally. But a generalized characterization, as the one you made, is indeed fallacious on its face. Up until now I have stayed out of this (subject matter) as it is not my main focus, but a fallacy is a fallacy all the same.
As a point of common sense, even if your criticism was valid in this case--a point with which I do not concur, but even if it was--still it is illogical to observe an individual's behavior in one area and conclude that the behavior is typical of them in all areas.
So, now that you are limiting your criticism to this one subject, it is also unlikely that an individual would be consistently original in all other areas and the opposite in just this one area. Possible? Yes. Probable? Nope. But that is another subject.
As a point of common sense, even if your criticism was valid in this case--a point with which I do not concur, but even if it was--still it is illogical to observe an individual's behavior in one area and conclude that the behavior is typical of them in all areas.
So, now that you are limiting your criticism to this one subject, it is also unlikely that an individual would be consistently original in all other areas and the opposite in just this one area. Possible? Yes. Probable? Nope. But that is another subject.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)