POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Yep. Taxed 10 different ways. Plus owners must collect the taxes of their employees for the feds; for free.
That's just for beginners.
My fault. I should not have engaged you.
Description of Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:
Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such as people and their political views.
Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed instances) is too small, it is important to have samples that are large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to do this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed numbers as to what counts as being large enough. If the population in question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for example) then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly large sample would be needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the population. Obviously, a very small population will not support a huge sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose of the sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would (obviously) be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be far too small.
People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.
One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.
Examples of Hasty Generalization
Description of Hasty Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form:
- Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
- Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
- X% of all observed A's are B''s.
- Therefore X% of all A's are Bs.
Small samples will tend to be unrepresentative. As a blatant case, asking one person what she thinks about gun control would clearly not provide an adequate sized sample for determing what Canadians in general think about the issue. The general idea is that small samples are less likely to contain numbers proportional to the whole population. For example, if a bucket contains blue, red, green and orange marbles, then a sample of three marbles cannot possible be representative of the whole population of marbles. As the sample size of marbles increases the more likely it becomes that marbles of each color will be selected in proprtion to their numbers in the whole population. The same holds true for things others than marbles, such as people and their political views.
Since Hasty Generalization is committed when the sample (the observed instances) is too small, it is important to have samples that are large enough when making a generalization. The most reliable way to do this is to take as large a sample as is practical. There are no fixed numbers as to what counts as being large enough. If the population in question is not very diverse (a population of cloned mice, for example) then a very small sample would suffice. If the population is very diverse (people, for example) then a fairly large sample would be needed. The size of the sample also depends on the size of the population. Obviously, a very small population will not support a huge sample. Finally, the required size will depend on the purpose of the sample. If Bill wants to know what Joe and Jane think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would (obviously) be large enough. If Bill wants to know what most Australians think about gun control, then a sample consisting of Bill and Jane would be far too small.
People often commit Hasty Generalizations because of bias or prejudice. For example, someone who is a sexist might conclude that all women are unfit to fly jet fighters because one woman crashed one. People also commonly commit Hasty Generalizations because of laziness or sloppiness. It is very easy to simply leap to a conclusion and much harder to gather an adequate sample and draw a justified conclusion. Thus, avoiding this fallacy requires minimizing the influence of bias and taking care to select a sample that is large enough.
One final point: a Hasty Generalization, like any fallacy, might have a true conclusion. However, as long as the reasoning is fallacious there is no reason to accept the conclusion based on that reasoning.
Examples of Hasty Generalization
- Smith, who is from England, decides to attend graduate school at Ohio State University. He has never been to the US before. The day after he arrives, he is walking back from an orientation session and sees two white (albino) squirrels chasing each other around a tree. In his next letter home, he tells his family that American squirrels are white.
- Sam is riding her bike in her home town in Maine, minding her own business. A station wagon comes up behind her and the driver starts beeping his horn and then tries to force her off the road. As he goes by, the driver yells "get on the sidewalk where you belong!" Sam sees that the car has Ohio plates and concludes that all Ohio drivers are jerks.
- Bill: "You know, those feminists all hate men."
Joe: "Really?"
Bill: "Yeah. I was in my philosophy class the other day and that Rachel chick gave a presentation."
Joe: "Which Rachel?"
Bill: "You know her. She's the one that runs that feminist group over at the Women's Center. She said that men are all sexist pigs. I asked her why she believed this and she said that her last few boyfriends were real sexist pigs. "
Joe: "That doesn't sound like a good reason to believe that all of us are pigs."
Bill: "That was what I said."
Joe: "What did she say?"
Bill: "She said that she had seen enough of men to know we are all pigs. She obviously hates all men."
Joe: "So you think all feminists are like her?"
Bill: "Sure. They all hate men."
no, the killshot of this election is if she passed out - and Trump catches her, keeping her from yet another head injury/concussion/blood clot
I like it! Excellent strategy honestly.
I mean if the cops come into the black neighborhoods shooting and expecting people to obey the law the least the BLM movement could do is bring riots to the upscale neighborhoods.
I mean that makes sense!
Ya that's when it'll get real. When rich people get effected, government takes action
I'd pay good money if instead he spiked the football, so to speak.
Buy a bunch of uneducated maggots! If you dont listen the officer and you have a gun you will get smoked!! How hard is that to understand! So since your black you dont have to abide by the law? WTF AM I MISSING HERE? A BUNCH OF GARBAGE!!!
Why is he doing an interview in a car on the side of the road? How did that come about?
Like I said, it's not about race. It's about a certain minority (not race) controlling everything.
Oh so you agree that your explanation could be used for both sides then?
Which once agains begs the question of how did I originally prove you right by saying Charlotte the protests are uncalled for and the cop is in the right however in Tulsa I'd understand yet no one there is making a big fuss.
Kind of odd really.
FYI, a conversation on catpaw is not an engagement...... Please try to understand I know your wanting to hold yourself high on some pedastal like your some know it all, it's your thing so it doesn't bother the people smart enough to see it a mile away.
Keep on explaining my side of the conversation for all to see though it helps me to not have to!
Good lord man. When you use one example to explain an entire segment. That is a logical fallacy. It taints your thought process. It was never about whether or not Charlotte protests were uncalled for, I wasnt arguing that you troglyditic monkey. When you make claims that define an entire populace over one incident, you are employing a logical fallacy.
See this is why its bad to engage you. Its the same as engaging a potato.
Just put me on ignore. Please.
So a white cop really shot the guy in NC, not a black cop. And it was a book not a gun.
Boy can't believe black cops go so far out of their way to help white cops.
Boy can't believe black cops go so far out of their way to help white cops.
Have you ever noticed that the sun and the moon are never around each other? Is that coincidence? I don't know? Seems to me that might be enough evidence to suggest there really the same thing!
You act like these aren't related. People in Charlotte aren't just upset about the shooting there. People are tired of cops $hit. Like the CT cops caught on video making up charges so they could arrest a guy for filming them. Cops have been out of control for years and have literally gotten away with murder or planting evidence/making up stories for decades. Why you think they don't want body cams or that they magically stop recording at the most convenient times.
And the good ones help cover it up or stay silent.
Yeah it sucks to be a cop right now, but they are paying for decades of neglect and dishonest dealings with minority communities.
Why do terrorists always seem to get captured, while armed, without being killed? Yet a black kid moves to the left when they say move to the right and they are shot down.
There's more outrage from whites about Colin Kaepernick kneeling than unarmed black people being shot to death over jaywalking, car trouble, shoplifting, being compliant, whatever.
You are being too literal. I get it's a message board and not the constitution. My point was some can say and do as they please, and nothing is done. Others get threats or worse for stating their opinions.
Could I have been reported and banned for what I posted...possibly. It would just prove my point about the weak left. I don't care about anyone's feelings, and I care even less if anyone cares about mine. Sick and tired of people being offended by every little thing.
experimental new web comedy from Jerry Seinfeld?
Black Lives Matter Activists In Cars Getting Coffee........and Issuing Threats To White Suburbs
Cardkilla, why do you hate white people so much? you are the biggest racists posting on this board? it is uncalled for really. all the hate, the bigotry from you.
Don't know what the laws are there but, go to neighborhoods like that here in Oklahoma and you don't have to worry about the cops. Many businesses and people are armed will shoot if you enter to loot, break in, etc....
And when that homeowner or business owner decides to use lethal force, what happens? More torched buildings? More screams of racism? Or does someone finally wake TF up and realize that looting, stealing and threatening aren't covered by the Constitution and the individual was fully within their rights to shoot them?
Have we come to this?
Have we come to this?
I don't know where you work or what you do for a living, but the company I work for is "profit focused". "Profit focused" has provided many jobs in this company over the years. It's pretty simple. No profits, no company. No company, no jobs.
I'm trying to make sense of the posts here. People are against government unless it's a cop deciding to execute someone without a trial. Is that pretty close?
Who is using one example? Seems to me your totally confused about what you are saying IMO.
Since when is rioting, looting, burning, attacking people not a crime? Why are these hoodlums not arrested? Sooner or later a bunch of these idiots going to be met by armed citizens hellbent on protecting their property and people are going to die.
Are you going off script or is this what the Hillary campaign fed you? Pretty telling either way.
Well if that is the case then why wait until there is a cop shooting in that area? Why not just riot all over the US instead of waiting for a shooting?
Also, as tired as blacks apparently are of the cops shooting people why do they not also address non cops shooting black people?
Serious question and I'm only being fence with LEK because he confuses himself. I'd like you, Cardkilla, to please explain that so I can better understand.
Well for starters, how many times are terrorists apprehended in a day, compared to the number of blacks apprehended? like 1:1,000? 1:10,000?
Also, if cops are sooo bad and soooo off their rocker.. wouldn't they be capping all these terrorists? Lets say they are all super big racists, even the black ones.. the black ones hate their own kind, too, in this theory.. They STILL are going to hate terrorists?
So maybe.. maybe the reason terrorists aren't getting shot is because of *their* actions when they are apprehended. Maybe the AA community needs to take note?
In the past 5 years.. how many of these "cop-killings" were truly when someone, black or white, sat his ass on the ground, put his hands up in the air, and said "yeah, I have some drugs and a gun on me, you caught me, I surrender, what do you want me to do next?"
IIRC, the first one was this past week. Didn't get a chance to look into it (this whole thing has been a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, so I was doing.. almost anything else), but heard one of these killings was an AA TRULY surrendering? If that's the case, then 100% agree it's atrocious, cops should be jailed, justice should be served.
But they rarely ever wind up that way, do they?
IIRC, the first one was this past week. Didn't get a chance to look into it (this whole thing has been a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, so I was doing.. almost anything else), but heard one of these killings was an AA TRULY surrendering? If that's the case, then 100% agree it's atrocious, cops should be jailed, justice should be served.
But they rarely ever wind up that way, do they?
Where in the video did he go for their gun?
This single case is a citizen that may not been of his wits being shot down by the people that suppose to help,
Four cops and none them can use a baton or some other form on non-lethal force?
From what I see them walk away to consul the shooter and not even check on the guy.
No first aid, not even checking a pulse, wtf?
I'm just trying to make sense of what I read here.
Well, we agents get huge notebooks almost daily. Who has time to read all that?
Similar threads
