# How to speak of large groups like Muslims, Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184 "2005-02-03T16:13:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/21 "2005-02-09T22:03:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I can see how you may be frustrated when a discussion hits a standstill and it turns to talk of the fallacy of division, however I think this is reasonable. Are you suggesting that this fallacy is not valid? It appears that you are trying to concoct a way in which this fallacy would not apply. I contend it is a logical fallacy because it will always apply, and is especially pertinent in the example you gave of the particular sects of Muslims. I am not saying that the fallacy of division is not fair, in fact, I have gone out of my way to say I think it is not only fair but reasonable in some instances. I just think that its use as a rhetorical device to ignore the fact that noisy minorities often lead majorities (frex: neocons and Republicans) and hence can be an obstacle to reason. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/22 "2005-02-10T12:02:01Z")
**duffer** , be careful that you don’t get carried away, here. The discussion (brief as it has been) has been pretty civil up to this point. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/23 "2005-02-10T12:13:07Z")
> [@](#): > > By the same token, Muslims can be held accountable for their sexist, woman-stoning, terrorist brethren, and Republicans may be held accountable for their Klan Lite faction. I would suppose, from this, that you would have no trouble with **Aldebaran** ’s repeated assertion that Americans should be held accountable for the arrogance and disrespect for sovereign nations that “they” continually exhibit? Atheists should be held responsible for their “hand-stabbing” attitudes toward theists? (Certainly, there are some members of these groups who are not correctly defined by these images, but clearly there are highly visible members of those groups who have portrayed those traits in connection with their membership.) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/24 "2005-02-10T15:14:36Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would suppose, from this, that you would have no trouble with **Aldebaran** ’s repeated assertion that Americans should be held accountable for the arrogance and disrespect for sovereign nations that “they” continually exhibit? > > Atheists should be held responsible for their “hand-stabbing” attitudes toward theists? > > (Certainly, there are some members of these groups who are not correctly defined by these images, but clearly there are highly visible members of those groups who have portrayed those traits in connection with their membership.) I don’t know if I go with a blanket accusation of arrogance and disrespect, but we Americans CAN be held responsible for what has happened in Iraq. We DID elect Bush after he invaded Iraq, and even those of us who opposed Bush and Iraq must share some of the blame, because we support the American system, which is what has put Bush in power. I would say that anyone who is not in violent opposition to the U.S. government right now must shoulder some of the blame for the arrogance and disregard Bush showed in invading Iraq unilaterally, more or less. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/25 "2005-02-10T18:27:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know if I go with a blanket accusation of arrogance and disrespect,… I’m not sure how that is much different than your original claims as to what Muslims and Republicans could be held accountable. What is the specific difference between accepting some (not quite clearly defined) level of accountability and accepting an accusation of the underlying traits that lead to that accountability? More importantly, why bother? If some percentage of a group is “responsible” for any behavior or attitude, then why not simply say that you oppose or support _that percentage_ of the group, rather than insisting on coming up with a blanket indictment of the group? And what is the objective standard that allows you to “hold responsible” some entire group, but allows you to deflect that charge to “some _[undefined]_ responsibility” when the same charge is leveled at you or a group of which you are a member? How violent, for example, does one’s opposition to Bush have to be before one is no longer culpable? Protests in the streets? Supporting Kerry and one’s local opposition candidates with time and money and petitioning one’s Republican legislators to oppose U.S. foreign policy? Armed revolution? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/26 "2005-02-10T18:35:17Z")
“some _[undefined]_ responsibility” s/b “some _[undefined]_ blame” ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184/27 "2005-03-30T20:02:49Z")
This discussion seems to have turned into the same thing as [At what point am I responsible for the behavior of groups I join?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=309184), never mind the paradox that it started after this thread. My opinion is that if you call yourself the member of a group, you are open to other peoples assuming you believe what is written down in “The Big Book of My Group’s Beliefs” Now, I realize this gives me an out, since atheists might hold the work of one author in high regard, but not all do, so there is no one book. However, I am free to assume certain things of people who call themselves christians or muslims, since they do have a book. What’s that you say? You don’t agree with all the teaching of your book? Tough. You call yourself a christian, so I assume you are a misguided person until I see otherwise. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. P.S. I fully realize this is nowhere near the sophistication of earlier arguments in this thread, but it’s how I feel. It’s horribly simplistic, you say? Then convene a counsel and have all of the barbaric parts edited out of the Official™ version of your holy book. Until then, ciao. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-to-speak-of-large-groups-like-muslims-republicans/288184.md?page=1)