I have encountered this same phenomena many times at the dope, to my great dismay. Why would anyone assume the word “all”? It is a very sweeping term that, normally, requires a level of support or data that is impractical if not impossible to have. I’m not picking on you, because I’ve had the same charge levelled at me a million times, I’ve just come to accept it and rephrase some of my statements (like this one: to me “rephrase my statements” is perfect English, and the word “some” adds no meaning, but…). It feels awkward and stilted to me.
I don’t know that I’d necessarily assume something to be a rock-hard absolute, but a statement phrased without any specifics reads as general - and this reading actually requires the fewest assumptions.
And in the specific case in this thread, if we were to assume it’s not at least talking about some significant proportion, it just becomes pointless or banal to have even mentioned it - for example:
“The only reason some Christians pretend to be peace loving now, is because they no longer have the ability to use murder and torture…”
-Doesn’t really make sense - The Only flavour of some ice cream is chocolate.
And that’s why I asked for clarification.
I should probably also apologise, because picking at stuff like that is habitual for me - most of the time, it’s fairly benign - occasionally, it yields interesting results - it’s not always a bad thing to look for exceptions to what appears a blanket condition.
I agree that it reads as general without a qualifier, and I would maintain that “general” is just what is intended, but not “every element of the set,” which is the qualifier “all.”
But what about, “Some ice cream is only chocolate-flavored.” 
Now, of course, I must disagree with myself as “some” does have meaning there, but due to the word only, and now I see your point more clearly. 
Still…
“The only reason some Christians pretend to be peace loving now, is because they no longer have the ability to use murder and torture…” I think this is substantively different (but does make sense) from “The only reason Christians pretend to be peace loving now etc.” The former implies a limited bit of Christians (some of them, not e.g. most), while to me the latter is, as you say, general.
I guess my point is: “Ice cream is yummy” is decidedly not a statement that the individual likes all forms of ice cream (who, exactly, can say this?). The absense of a qualifier should imply words like ‘some’, ‘most’, or ‘generally’, but, in everyday use, never ‘all,’ unless ‘all’ is being used for exaggerated effect (which does happen).
Hammurabl had his famous code, which is probably what you were thinking of. He wasn’t a monotheist. I think you combined the two figures.
I used “Christians” in the standard mode of meaning “the majority of Christians”. And yes, assuming that means “every single Christian” requires deliberate misinterpretation; and the same people would have interpreted “many Christians” to mean “a tiny minority” or as weasel words.
But if you’re not using weasel words you’re making a fairly substantive claim, which should be backed up by more than your say-so, though I have absolutely no idea how you could back up the claim you made.
I promise I’m not making any deliberate attempt to misunderstand you - in fact I find the suggestion somewhat hurtful. 'What, all of them?" is just a pithy way of saying “please be rather more specific”.
Now that you have been more specific - and specified that you’re talking about the majority, I’m still a bit taken aback.
To recap: It sounds like you’re saying the majority of Christians would like to torture and murder, but they can’t, so they pretend to be peace-loving instead.
If that is what you’re saying, and I haven’t just misread you again, that’s almost as shocking to me as if you had said it was all of them. How could such a majority of Christians (who are, after all, humans) be in such consistent control of their murderous urges?
Yes, that’s what he’s really saying.
Der Trihs, from here:
Most posters here strongly disagree with a libertarian approach, but they all argue that libertarians are simply mistaken, even foolish – except for you, who says that libertarians are sociopaths who just want to get government out of the way so that they can take advantage of other people. Most posters here strongly disagree with the war in Iraq, and many (myself included) even think there’s an ethical obstacle to joining the U.S. military in the context of that war – but you’re the only one (or nearly the only one) who says that all American servicemen are murderers. Most posters in this forum, probably, are atheists, and many of them like to criticize religion in general, and Christianity in particular – but you’re one of a small, vocal handful which maintains that Christianity (and, in fact, Christians) are just plain evil. There are hundreds (possibly thousands) of posters who can’t stand Republicans, but you’re the only one that I’ve seen who explicitly holds that Republicans support the things they do because they are cartoonish, mustache-twirling villains who like to gloat over the suffering of others.
And now, in a completely unsurprising development, you’ve declared that the overwhelming majority of those who oppose abortion rights do so because they hate women.
So I’m really curious: why is it that, on so many issues, those who disagree with you are evil, instead of merely mistaken? Why is it that other people’s errors are driven by greed, spite, or malice, while yours are apparently in good faith?
Admitting that the other side in a political argument is outright evil is a taboo in this country.
Because most people pick a definition of murder that conveniently excludes anyone in uniform. If I killed anyone for as little reason as we are killing people in Iraq, I’d get convicted of murder - but then, I’m not in a uniform.
And how much of that is because others aren’t willing to take the flames I get ? I’ve gotten words of support for my attitude towards religion -OFF the board. Not everyone wants to put up with the Christians screaming at them for pointing out just how horrible a belief system they follow.
And no, I won’t tell you who they are so you can harass them and threaten them.
Whining about how the Republican side aren’t villains lacks a certain oomph when they invade countries and torture people. Among other things. They ARE villains; monsters, in fact. And if they were in power in some other country few on this board would hesitate to call them that.
Because they consistently act to harm and oppress women.
But they aren’t. I call the people I consider evil, evil; I call the people I consider stupid, stupid; I typically don’t call people I think who have made honest mistakes anything at all.
As for why I feel that way on so many issues; it’s because America and to some degree the world are just that bad.
Very, very little.
Who do you think I am? What a bizarre thing to say.
This isn’t really addressing what I’m after. I know it’s something of a tall order, asking you to almost psychoanalyze yourself in a way, but could you maybe explore this a little more? All you’re saying here is that you call lots of people greedy and hateful because you’re right. What I’m saying is that it’s an unusual stance for a person to take so frequently. This may sound offensive (though I don’t mean it to), but this attitude that says ‘the other side wants to do things differently because they’re evil’ is something most people abandon as they reach adulthood. That is, most eventually come around to the idea that the people on the other side of the big issues aren’t there because they like suffering, but because they have a different idea about how to avoid suffering.
Why, do you think, are you so often different in this regard? Is it because something is wrong with those who are more sympathetic? I’m really asking for your opinion.
But sometimes, the otherside IS evil. What then? Should one refrain from saying so?
My list may not be as long as DT’s, but there are people I would list as morally lacking without hesitation. There is also significant overlap on our lists.
Logically, of course that makes perfect sense and would represent a good reason why they are the other side (i.e. a reason for not siding with them).
For me, it’s not so much the length of the list, but the intensity of the accusations, and the implied insight that at times borders on mind-reading. I mean, really - the majority of Christians are latent murderers and torturers?
Given that Christians appear as fallible as everyone else in everything I can think of, how is it that this majority doesn’t keep slipping up and murdering an awful lot?
Thanks again Voyager, I am on this site to learn, and to check facts.
Monavis
In most cases, probably, yes. Saying so just isn’t helpful if you’re looking to promote conversation.
It also depends on what you mean by “evil.” Taking Republicans as an example, if you think they’re evil in the sense that the policies they support tend to have deleterious effects on mankind, then for god’s sake just say that. On the other hand, if, like Der Trihs, you think Republicans are evil in the sense that they’re comic book super-villains without the special powers, then I guess you just have to call them evil; you’re going to sound pretty damn silly to any mature adult, however.
Exactly. There’s hardly ever even an implied chain of logic in these accusation **DT **makes. He just declares that Group X does Y because they enjoy evil. It’s . . . weird. I’m really not trying to give him a hard time here, it’s just an interesting question to me why he approaches disagreements in this fashion. It’s also a relevant question any time he takes a prominent role in a GD thread.