That's not what a generalization is. Generalization is making a broad claim about a group. It isn't saying that a group has no redeeming qualities...unless, of course, that was the generalization itself.
...
Yes, a hasty generalization is making a broad statement about a group, such as assuming some group is without sufficient integrity. Hasty generalizations are any assumptions made and extrapolated to a group that cannot be exhaustively demonstrated for the entire group. For example, it is a demonstrable generalization that all darker skinned people have more melanin. It is not demonstrable that all darker skinned people are lacking in some virtue.
Your experience does not change the posting guidelines, regardless of how valid
you feel it may be. Hasty generalizations are not about the speed at which the generalization was arrived at, but the expedient of extrapolating broad characterizations.
Here and in society, both theism and atheism are protected rights of the freedom of thought. It would be a straw man to assume I ever suggested otherwise.
How do you control for bias when assessing the intellectual honesty of people you adamantly disagree with?
Sample size does not justify hasty generalization, unless it can be demonstrated a innate feature of a group, at which time in becomes an empirical generalization. All of your experience is anecdotal.
Did you forget your posts talking about how their behavior is immoral?
Yes, their
behavior. Can you quote where I supposedly said "gays are wrong" or an equivalent such as "homosexuals are wrong, immoral, etc."? That is rhetorical because I know you cannot. "Homosexuality" (behavior) is not synonymous with "homosexual" (an individual of same-sex orientation). Homosexuality necessarily includes the behavior of same-sex sexual relations, while a homosexual individual may or may not engage in same-sex sexual relations or any sexual relations at all.
Again, the behavior can be differentiated from the individual.
Again, do "good" excuses pardon harmful behavior? What about the thirteen year old who was bullied for being a virgin and used that as an excuse for raping a seven year old? Where is the line that makes an excuse good enough to overlook harmful behavior?
But you are right about one thing. Whether orientation is a choice can be largely immaterial when simply considering the harmful behavior that we do know people can exercise choice over.
Society deems rape to be aberrant behavior, largely due to the harm it causes. It is not generally considered bigotry to condemn harmful behavior.
You can't hold a moral position without believing in oughts or ought nots.
Go read up on meta-ethics.
What science "suggests" is quite different from what science can demonstrate.
If someone said that homosexuality was morally equivalent to rape and pedophilia then they would need to explain how forceful and non-consensual acts are morally equivalent to consensual ones. They would be on a very short rope to do so.
Do you think they're morally equivalent?
I thought you were just going on about how "you don't need to make an explicit statement to be obvious". If I say the moral equivalence would need explaining, it stands to reason that I am saying that from my own understanding. Still too vague for you to infer from?
No, I do not think they are morally equivalent. That is why I contrasted non-consensual with consensual.
Are you suggesting that because we could, in theory, stop people from "being homosexual" by torturing them sufficiently that they no longer display their homosexual tendencies in fear of being tortured again, that such a course of action means we can lump homosexuals into the same pool as people who willingly and knowingly harm others through rape, pedophilia, or discriminatory behavior?
Please, for the love of sanity, tell me you see the error in your constant and (honestly, quite obtuse) generalizations
You seem to be the obtuse one here. I did not "lump homosexuals into the same pool as people who willingly and knowingly harm others through rape, pedophilia, or discriminatory behavior". I lump them into the group of people who have a significantly higher rate of high-risk sexual behavior with regard to HIV transmission. Are you saying that is not knowingly harmful?
Discrimination is not always bigotry. There are very good reasons to be wary of religionists. For example, the fact that they have an incredible history of hostility toward those who don't agree with them, ranging from "mere" discrimination to outright war. As Jung put it, "The wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in human history." Of course he overlooked Genghis Khan, but his point is still well taken.
You are no more warranted in characterizing all "religionists" by the history of a subset than you are to similarly characterize all white males by the subset of past slave owners.
Considering you seem to think rape is actually about sexual pleasure suggests you probably haven't done much reading at all.
Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power. Most rapists do not have a preference for rape over consensual sex.[11][12][13][14][15][16] In one study, male rapists evaluated with penile plethysmography demonstrated more arousal to forced sex and less discrimination between forced and consensual sex than non-rapist control subjects, though both groups responded more strongly to consensual sex scenarios.[17] -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_sexual_violence#Sexual_gratification
And what point did you hope to make by gleaning that answer?
Seems like an evasion.
