What I was trying to describe is the complexity of these moral problems. — Noble Dust

(Y)

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?

(Y) Thanks for the inspiring poem.

Please read here

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

But the reason I tried to show those moral complexities is because I think they show that the question of which statement is more insulting is not relevant, from that moral perspective. Maybe my points were too much of a tangent, but I was trying to get at the underlying moral problems in the situation that you set up here. I still don't think the binary "this or that" is the right way to look at those underlying moral problems.

Got it. That's not essentially different than what you originally said on the matter. No need to repeat.That's not however a criteria of the badness of an insult. A criteria would be "scale" or "magnitude", or something else that I can't think of at the moment. If you wanted a clear answer, from the criteria, you could then devise a means to measure each scenario against that criteria, and then you would have a clear answer, that would tell you that either one of the scenarios was more insulting, or that they are both equally insulting, or that there isn't sufficient information included in the question to determine the answer. If you're not prepared to do that, this is a pointless discussion.

From that point, if people disagreed with the criteria, they could.

What you are discussing, isn't the degree of badness of an insult, but the way an insult is transmitted socially.

1. is more insulting, but also more true. Truth is often insulting.

What you are discussing, isn't the degree of badness of an insult, but the way an insult is transmitted socially — Reformed Nihilist

Well, quantity is inherent in the statements, both of which contain ''ALL''. So, asking the question which is a bigger insult seems natural. Most people think ''all men are fools'' is worse than ''all fools are men'' but as I pointed out, both statements insult all men.

I still don't think the binary "this or that" is the right way to look at those underlying moral problems. — Noble Dust

Ok. Morality is vague and ambiguous enough to preclude any definitive solution to my problem. Thanks for clearing that up. Can you think of another method to make the distinction I asked in the OP?

Well, quantity is inherent in the statements, — TheMadFool

But quantity isn't necessarily the measure of how big an insult is. If you say I'm annoying, I might be mildly insulted. If you say I'm a pedophile, I'll be greatly insulted. The latter is a bigger insult, but I'm the only one insulted. It is the degree, not anything to do with quantity in both cases, that determines how big am insult is. 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.

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

I can't decide. I tried to think it through, but all I could think about was guns and Twinkies.

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 in all seriousness, my position remains unchanged and there seems little more to say. It's like we're merely repeating the same act with a different setting, but it's the same old story. If we were to compare 9/11 to a 9/11 in which a greater number of people were killed or injured, and if you were to ask me which of the two would be more harmful to Americans, then I'd answer that it'd be the latter.

And you're inconsistent in your example: you switch from all Americans to all of America. All Americans did not go to war, and if the reason that they didn't was because they'd all been killed in the attack, rather than only some, then that would indeed have been a worse attack, in which a far greater number of people were killed.

Hopefully you won't come back with something like "But what if we were in England in 1645 and you were a Royalist? Which would be worse: that all Royalists are lubberworts or that all lubberworts are Royalists?". My logic isn't going to suddenly change just because you've tweaked the setting.

...but as I pointed out, both statements insult all men. — TheMadFool

No they don't. Only one does. Stop equivocating.

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

Well, what do you suggest? What criteria do you think works here?

Ok but it's still not clear which statement's your choice and why.

Ok but it's still not clear which statement's your choice and why. — TheMadFool

It is.

You asked the question. I offered an answer based on two possible criteria. Normally, when you ask a question, you are trying to actually determine something. If you know what you're trying to determine, then the criteria should flow naturally out of that. What do you mean by a "bigger" insult?

I don't know about the insult business, but I think you do have a kind of point here.

There's an implicit comparison between two groups.

Let's say all Americans are fools. It could also be that all non-Americans are fools too, in which case neither group is less foolish. People do often respond to attacks in just this way. If it's unlikely that all people, American or not, are fools, then it is likely that Americans are the more foolish group, maybe very likely, but that's all, and it could be that nearly all non-Americans are fools, and thus Americans are only barely more foolish.

Now let's say all fools are Americans. Then we would have to say there are no fools in the class of non-Americans, and therefore the non-Americans are a less foolish group.¹ But it's true even if there's only one American fool (I don't see why we should name him), so again maybe Americans are only barely more foolish. Not that it seems likely there's only one fool, so it's also likely that Americans are more than barely more foolish.

(1) leads to squabbling over how many non-American fools there are; (2) leads to squabbling over how many (American) fools there are. Both can result in comparisons that fall on a gradient, including near parity of the two groups, but both making it likely that Americans are noticeably the more foolish group, I think.

(2) sets a maximum to how much of humanity can be foolish; if it's thought that many people are fools, (2) is strengthened. (1) sets a minimum; the bigger the proportion of fools, the weaker (1) gets.

I think which is the more damning claim would have to depend on where you estimate the proportion of fools to fall.


1. To make that really work, you must also assume that there are fools, and therefore foolish Americans, but that's not much a stretch. And in real life the universal carries existential import anyway.

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.

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.

I'm looking for something simpler.

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? I already offered two answers that would answer to reasonable interpretations of "bigger", but you didn't like those answers, and preferred your own (strange to ask a question if the only acceptable answer is the one you have already determined). It is a certainty that if the question is non-specific, then the answers will not be specifically correct or incorrect, useful or useless. worthwhile or pointless. That's the nature of questions and answers.

So you prefer to remain vague? — Reformed Nihilist

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.

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

I did reply. I dispute that statement 2 is about all men, and I've been consistent in that regard. It's about all fools, not all men. You're taking advantage of an ambiguity to make your point. Let's just agree to disagree and avoid talking past one another.

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

We can make them as precise as we choose to. Clarity and specificity aren't properties of the world, they're properties of how we speak and think about the world. So when you ask a question, you can assign a clarity to the question by saying specifically what you mean. When you are asking what is the bigger insult, specifically, what are your trying to determine? How could you know that your question was answered? If you don't know this, then I don't think that what you did actually qualifies as asking a question, but instead engaging in a speech act that mimics a question.

If you think in vague terms and ask unspecific questions, then your answers will be imprecise and unclear. Some people seem to prefer this approach, no doubt for many reasons. One of the reasons appears to me to be that they can come up with vague and non-specific answers to nearly any question that are vaguely justifiable, and they can never be shown to be specifically wrong. That offers some sort of social or ego gratification. What it doesn't offer is answers that one can reliably act upon in the world, so in those terms, their answers, and the questions attached, end up being a waste of time. I'd suggest that you'd be better off not embracing this paradigm.

Only immoral men can draw comfort from statement 1, so i largely discount that element.

I find statement 2 to be FAR more insulting to me, because it insults my intelligence, not all fools are men, there are fools everywhere, i CAN however sympathize with the statement that all men are fools, because come on, everyone is a fool, obviously.

as for which is more insulting to men, as a gender, the second, clearly, because its explicitly stating that men can be fools where women cant. its drawing an uncharitable comparison against the only other 'group' that we can really be compared against.

I'm looking for something simpler. — TheMadFool

Then admittedly I'm not your guy.

Works for me, though. I enjoyed the analysis and it's something I had never thought about. I fully expect to use it again on something else.

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

No, it does not explicitly state that, and it does not logically follow that women can't be fools. Look again. It states that all fools are men, from which it logically follows that no fools are women.

It's clearly more insulting to a gender to insult every member of that gender by calling them a fool, than to suggest that, as a member of that gender, you might be a fool or you might not be.

All is greater than some, and to call a man a fool is an insult. The rest follows. This is a relatively simple logical test, and some people have failed it, including yourself and TheMadFool who presented it.

it does not logically follow that women can't be fools. — Sapientia

But it does follow from (2) that no women are:

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.

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.

Have I failed the test?

But it does follow from (2) that no women are [fools]. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I know.

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

Yes, but they are just unknown possibilities, so why should I care? The opposite could be true for all we know. We must decide based on the statements, and what can be deduced from them.

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

But the question was which is more insulting to members of that particular class. Surely insulting all members of the class, i.e. the entire class, is more insulting to the class than insulting some members of it.

Have I failed the test? — Srap Tasmaner

Not as badly as others.

I largely agree, but only that (1) is probably more of an insult. If "All men are fools" is on the table, why not "All women are fools" too? Subtlety has already been tossed aside.

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.

I largely agree, but only that (1) is probably more of an insult. — Srap Tasmaner

Congratulations. You've passed the test. X-)

If "All men are fools" is on the table, why not "All women are fools" too? Subtlety has already been tossed aside. — Srap Tasmaner

Well, if you look at the table, you should be able to see that the latter is simply not there. You could add it to the table, but then we'd be discussing something else.

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"?

Anyway, I agree with what you say about those stupid generalisations, about them being damning to the person saying them, and about your example comparison, but these are side issues.

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.

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

Half-kidding. I was pointing out the mismatch between:

1. All men are fools
2. All fools are men

&

1. All humans kill for sport.
2. Only humans kill for sport.

But obviously "All sports kill for humans" doesn't make sense.

Statement 1 is the greater insult because it is the more comprehensive; it insults all men, both individually and as a class. Statement 2 insults all men as a class, but it does not insult all men as individuals.