Alright, but you’re literally doing the exact same thing right here. You’re using a generalization about a group to make conclusions about the behavior of that group.
What group am I making generalizations about? What conclusions? Genuinely asking - I’m quite certain I am not.
In reference to members of a group engaging in negative behavior, you characterize those people who engage in that behavior negatively. I’m a person, and I resent the implication that I might also unfairly dogpile someone discussing this topic based off the actions of this group.
Hmm, If this is what you are referring to perhaps we need to clarify something. Generally selecting a group to make a statement about is not inherently wrong… Its what you do with it that can be.
Example:
“children’s minds have not fully developed” vs “children all reek of bo”
Both of these statements select [most/all] children generically as a group. One is based in fact… And one contains opinion. Presenting that opinion in a way that might hurt somone isn’t a crime… Although it can be presented in bad faith. The major issue is really where somone presents a counter opinion and they are rebuked for it. As before, I imagine you can see some parallels here.
What group am I making generalizations about? What conclusions? Genuinely asking - I’m quite certain I am not.
Hmm, If this is what you are referring to perhaps we need to clarify something. Generally selecting a group to make a statement about is not inherently wrong… Its what you do with it that can be.
Example:
“children’s minds have not fully developed” vs “children all reek of bo”
Both of these statements select [most/all] children generically as a group. One is based in fact… And one contains opinion. Presenting that opinion in a way that might hurt somone isn’t a crime… Although it can be presented in bad faith. The major issue is really where somone presents a counter opinion and they are rebuked for it. As before, I imagine you can see some parallels here.