Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Following that logic, we should be able to assume everyones gender without asking.
Following that logic, we should be able to treat everyone as a liar until proven otherwise. Because most people are dishonest.
Gneezy et al. (2013) - In a meta-analysis titled "Cheating in a Context of Social Norms," Gneezy and colleagues reviewed multiple studies and concluded that dishonesty is common and often occurs among over half of participants when given the opportunity.
Following that logic, men should treat the vast majority of women as non committal because the vast majority of women file for divorce and break up with men. So on the offset men should treat women horribly.
Or maybe, you should go based upon how they act and what you know about the individual first before making assumptions.
Because 1. Most men are not sexual assaulters. Whereas my examples are most.
2. YES If they were looking to be saved and they were unable to help themselves and get away.
3. This has to do with acceptable judgments based upon an assumption.
Following that analogy, you ought to murder those 10 men. You dont want to take that chance!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
Good question! Given their own position requires an article of faith regarding the "moral" start of the right to life beyond the scientifically proven one consistent with the definition of life for all other life on this planet.
Although nearly all major religions recognizing the right to life at conception consistent with the scientific definition, The fact that 1 agrees with the other does not mean you are one or the other.
I don't think I've seen any reason given by a pro-life person that doesn't link back to religion in some way.
I don't think I've seen any reason given by a pro-choice person that doesn't always try and shift the conversation dishonestly towards a god.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And that does not give you justification to go ahead and genetic fallacy.
Generalizations are a normal human nature.
We avoid things that hurt us like snakes, spiders, sharks though not all are known to attack or be deadly. We say we don't like a certain genre of music or film though we've not seen or heard every single one.
When the vast majority of opinions on something leans in one direction it's kind of silly to not generalize.
>>Generalizations are a normal human nature.<<
Oh brother. The whole natural argument. Rape is also natural. Bedbugs rape to procreate.
Just because something is natural, does not mean its warranted or one ought to do it.
Furthermore, strawman.
Generalizations are fine. Assumptions are not.
>>We avoid things that hurt us like snakes, spiders, sharks though not all are known to attack or be deadly.>>
Thats precisely why evolution does not account for truth. Which is also (unfortunately for you) you can't use the nature argument.
>>When the vast majority of opinions on something leans in one direction it's kind of silly to not generalize.<<
Again. Strawman.
Generalizations are NOT the same thing as hasty generalizations, appealing to the majority, and a genetic fallacy.
You dont get to label something a "generalization" when thats not what it is.
Assuming someone is religious and using that as a way to dishonestly curb the conversation towards a religion when there's zero evidence that the individual is religious is not "a generalization"
A generalization involves extrapolating from a few examples to a broader group.
A faulty assumption is a mistaken belief or conclusion without adequate evidence.
Assuming someone is in fact religious on grounds that they disagree with the pro choice movement is not adequate evidence to generalize.
You can claim it is. But youd be wrong.
Here’s why this is an issue:
Over-simplification: Generalizations rarely capture the diversity within a group. Even if a pattern holds true in many cases, individuals within that group can be completely different.
Inaccuracy: Generalizations are often based on limited experiences, which can lead to faulty assumptions about individuals who don’t fit that pattern.
Unjust: Prejudice treats people unfairly by not giving them the chance to be seen for who they are. It reduces them to a stereotype based on incomplete information.
Prejudice based on a generalization ignores the individuality of the person and assumes characteristics without real evidence. That's why it is unjust and can lead to discrimination or bias.
I guess since blacks are more likely to be arrested, we should treat all blacks like criminals.
I mean its just a generalization.
Generalization: Most people believe or do x thing.
Over generalization: Because most people believe or do x thing, therefore YOU believe or do x thing.
Faulty generalization: Because most people believe or do X thing, therefore ALL of that group believes or does that same thing.
Therefore i can assert you are the same thing without any evidence.
That is just counter to actual reality, counter to logic and coherent thought.
I stopped reading after you said rape is natural. What in the actual fuckery.
Lol. You got wrecked. Its a FACT that bed bugs engage in rape to reproduce.
Rape IS natural. They didn't say it was good.
If you're sexually assaulted by 90 men out of a hundred at random, would you take a chance a random 10 would be ok? No