(Y)What I was trying to describe is the complexity of these moral problems. — Noble Dust
Well, looks like we need a different metric to answer my question. Can you think of another way to decide which is more insulting, 1 or 2? — TheMadFool
What you are discussing, isn't the degree of badness of an insult, but the way an insult is transmitted socially — Reformed Nihilist
I still don't think the binary "this or that" is the right way to look at those underlying moral problems. — Noble Dust
Well, quantity is inherent in the statements, — TheMadFool
Imagine yourself an American. Take the two statements below:
1. All Americans are pedophiles
2. All pedophiles are Americans
According to you, 1 is more insulting because it talks about ALL American. — TheMadFool
What I'm saying is 2 is also about ALL Americans, although it's subtle and not captured by the logical structure of the statement. How did you feel, as an American, when your fellow citizen was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? It wasn't ALL Americans that were killed. Yet, ALL of America went to war. (Sorry to stoke painful memories here but I needed a good example.)
So, quantity fails to make the distinction which of the two, 1 or 2, is the bigger insult. — TheMadFool
...but as I pointed out, both statements insult all men. — TheMadFool
So unless you are going to set up specific criteria by which to judge the "bigness" of an insult, then all is left is pointless semantic games. — Reformed Nihilist
What do you mean by a "bigger" insult? — Reformed Nihilist
How do you see the difference between ''like'' and ''love'', between ''dislike'' and ''hate'', between ''Abraham Lincoln'' and ''Hitler''? I appeal to that sense of discrimination. — TheMadFool
So you prefer to remain vague? — Reformed Nihilist
You said statement 1 based on ''all'' men being labelled fools. I showed that statement 2 is also about ''all'' men. You didn't reply after that. — TheMadFool
But the matter of insults, the response to them, are vague. Vagueness comes with the territory. I don't know how precise we can make the perception of insults. — TheMadFool
I'm looking for something simpler. — TheMadFool
As for which is more insulting to men, as a gender, the second, clearly, because it's explicitly stating that men can be fools where women can't. — PeterPants
it does not logically follow that women can't be fools. — Sapientia
But it does follow from (2) that no women are [fools]. — Srap Tasmaner
1. If a man then a fool.
2. If a fool then a man.
I still say the implied comparison in (1) doesn't have much bite if all or nearly all women are also fools; same for (2) if no or nearly no men are fools. — Srap Tasmaner
You could argue that being called a fool is bad whether anyone else is or not, but since the insult is targeted at whole classes (men, Americans, whatever), it's hard for me not to see an implied comparison between members and nonmembers of the class. — Srap Tasmaner
Have I failed the test? — Srap Tasmaner
I largely agree, but only that (1) is probably more of an insult. — Srap Tasmaner
If "All men are fools" is on the table, why not "All women are fools" too? Subtlety has already been tossed aside. — Srap Tasmaner
The thing is, we all know that generalizations like (1) are usually, well, stupid. It's more damming of the person saying it. But (2) style claims sometimes fare better. Compare:
1. All humans kill for sport.
2. Only humans kill for sport.
(1) is dumb, but (2) is disturbing if true. — Srap Tasmaner
Wouldn't the (2) style claim be "All sports kill for humans"? — Sapientia
No, the pair of conditionals was (1) sufficient condition and (2) necessary condition, so the other way to say that is "All x are y" and "Only x are y."
Oh wait, you were kidding. — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.