3 ms·

Arguing from the specific to the generic is an obvious logical fallacy and a darn slippery slope unless you also want to kick all Christians out a country based

• pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  Isn't the policy about immigration? I'm talking about chosen ideological association. Do Christians, as a group, claim an ideology that demands violent oppression? Yes the OT has stories of it, but Jesus - whom Christians claim to follow (cf. Gandhi) stood for equality and peaceful resistance. As far as anyone knows Jesus didn't kill anyone, nor call for violence against anyone; the opposite in fact. Yes, plenty of Christians are murderous and immoral. If the leader of group A says kill people who won't join our group, or tax them heavily, your choice. And leader of group B says give everyone tea and cake if they want it. You're saying that if an adherent of group B happens to kill someone you should treat group B the same as group A. I say that's wrong. To be specific again, this works for the KKK to, or people idolising Hitler, or ... if they admit that and want entry it seems good ground on which to refuse; even if that person doesn't ever intend to act on the ideology, or is unlikely too as far as can be established. (Aside, there's no fallacy in establishing general rules based on specifics, unless scientific method is fallacious; even if it were fallacious the Fallacy Fallacy applies, ie fallacies don't indicate the truth value of any particular proposition).