Is it a valid argument, or a conversation derailer?
Not all drunk drivers kill
Not all bombs explode
etc
>>81150446
If you have a tumor do you let it fester or remove it? Is my response all the time to this question.
>>81150446
Well that depends what you're trying to justify with it.
>>81150446
"Today class, we will learn about the religion of Islam. All Muslims believe that Allah is the one true god and Mohammad was his messen.."
"OMG U CAN'T GENERALIZE 1.8 TRILLION PEOPLE U FUKIN WHITE MALE"
>>81150446
It depends on whether ____ is necessary or not.
>not all drivers cause fatal accidents
>not all gun owners kill
>not all muslims are terrorists
Can you live without cars? Not comfortably. Cars are necessary in our society.
Can you live without guns? Not for long. Guns are necessary for our freedoms.
Can you live without muslims? You sure can. Muslims aren't necessary at all.
>>81150764
#NotAllCells
>>81150764
Guys not ALL tumors kill baka
>>81150446
To make a broad generalization is a fallacy
It isn't a fallacy to say that not all X are Y
If they try and say that they arent X because of Y then it is a fallacy
It's banal, completely pointless
just ignore it
>>81150446
>dude, not all muslims are terrorists
>okay, MOST muslims are terrorists
>Sandy Hook happens
>BAN EVERY GUN BAN ALL GUNS BAN WHITE MALES
>Muslim attack #57834 happens
>#NotAllMuslims #ReligionOfPeace #I'llRideWithYou
Can we just put the media magnates on trial for being the treasonous fucks they are now
>>81150609
Yes, just because one soes not do something it does not mean that the majority will follow. But it opens to "Not all men rape" or "Not all white people are racist", the difference is the bombs are meant to explode, so the problem is clearly the object. However, in "Not all drunk drivers kill"; they are not meant to kill, but we still would not let a drunk drive, that leaves open to "Not all men rape" in the same position. What am I missing? Is it that the source of the problem is not being adressed and we are only pointing at the first characteristics we see?
>>81150446
It is literally the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Anytime you hear someone say "not all ......" just tell them they are committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
>>81150609
>>81152194
you have to look at it rationally.
>not all drunk drivers kill
true, but they do so at a much higher rate than sober drivers, and there simply is no reason to allow it. therefor drunk driving is illegal.
>not all bombs explode
this is just unrelated retardation. bombs are made to explode, and when properly handled, they generally WILL explode.
>not all men rape
men do rape. women beng wary around male strangers, especially when alone and at night, is wise and correct behavior.
>not all muslims are terrorists
but all muslims promote a religion that is openly hostile towards unbelievers. i am an unbeliever, therefor that makes all muslims my enemy.
furthermore, muslims carry a higher terrorism rate than any other religion. why would i want to take that risk? does it do me any good to let them into my country? in fact, it doesn't. in fact they're generally harmful to my society and way of life. there's absolutely no reason for me to allow harmful and hostile foreigners into my country.
>>81150446
It's the No True Scotsman fallacy.
It is certainly not an argument.
The problem is that the media say so and the majority ALWAYS goes with the media.
Despite the fact that it's written RIGHT THERE in the Quran that infidels must be killed as a prime directive for most muslims which should tip people off, normies would rather appear politically correct so their own career/friendships/interest partners don't find something "wrong" or "different" with them, not because they love mudslimes.
It all comes down to self-preservation and our appearance in society, notice how people behave differently when they think they're among same minded-individuals and how they behave when among peers they do not know.
I know a lot of girls that would rather fuck a dog than a black man but they still say they like BBC in public to not appear racists.
>>81153353
Seems like drunk drivers and the muslims are kind of in the same the same group: they are more propense to do something. Why are muslims more propense to do it? Not because of inhability to do otherwise (No drunk driver wants to crash, but they can't, at an extent, not do it) but because they are like the bomb that explodes; being a bomb involves the mechanics necessary to explode, being a muslim involves the ideology that makes you more propense to commit acts of terrorism.
>>81150446
You have a plate of M&M's. 10% of them are laced with cyanide. Do you still eat them?
>>81150446
Generalizations are never good and should be avoided. But opening your borders to random muslims and niggers is just retarded.
>>81154056
It's more genetic than anything, middle eastern people are prone to rape and violence even when they don't follow their religion, same as Southern Italy despite them being all fervent catholics or Mexican drug lords behaving like Aztecs and sacrificing people in the year 2016 despite believing in the virgin Mary.
>>81154755
#NotAllUnenlightenedPeople?
Maybe this is why the NWO is a thing
>>81150446
#no true Scotsman
>>81154755
Mexicans are barely Catholic anymore. Their veneration of "Santa De Muerte" is some fucked up hybrid of Aztec blood sacrifices and Catholic imagery.
>>81154985
Who cares, here we celebrate Easter by making symbolic image of cuming penis with balls like our glorious pagan ancestors did. Yet we're the truest christians!
>>81154985
>>81154985
La Santa Muerte worshippers are concentrated in the absolute poorest zones of cities and some small towns. But the Catholic Church is corrupted anyways
20% is surely not a majority, but it's a damn high percentage and enough reason to send them all back.
>>81155585
isnt this santa muerte thing basically a death cult that people created in reaction to all the casualties and civilian deaths from the drug war?
>>81150446
I only count the most vocal members of a group as the representation.
Depends. For example: "not all men" is a valid response to "all men are rapists", because men are such a diverse group and have literally zero influence on what they were born as, so brushing literally half of the world's population as rapists would be extremely dishonest. It would also be justified to say "not all men" because otherwise you would be just sitting there and taking a blame on something attributed on you because of your dick.
But then there's something like "not all muslims are terrorists" response to "all muslims are terrorists", and it would be a completely different thing, because muslim/islam is an ideology one must accept in order to be part of it.
It's just a complicated version of the no true scotsman fallacy, and the same rules apply on both versions.
>>81153353
>Drunk drivers kill at a much higher rate than sober drivers, and there simply is no reason to allow it. therefor drunk driving is illegal.
Religious extremists declare genocide and war against innocent human beings at a much higher rate than non believers. Why is religion not illegal then?
>>81150446
enough X are like that to make a rule.
>>81155863
The cult stared in the 60's, not likely
>>81151434
>Can you live without guns? Not for long. Guns are necessary for our freedoms.
quality shitpost m8
>>81157368
this isn't actually correct, at leat not if you look at the entirety of history.
if you only take into account recent events, it certainly is true for islam though. and i'm all for outlawing islam.
