Dear, it is a literary reference. In the book written by Dante, The Inferno, which is set in Hell, there was a particular circle of Hell which was for the punishment of people who committed the sin of being a 'Violent Waster'. What this was, was a tradition that existed in Europe at the time (when Dante wrote the book), in which wealthy people, in order to sort of brag about how wealthy they were, would take some of their money and goods, and publicly burn them in a large fire. In order to sort of brag via this act about how wealthy they were, that they could afford do this.
You'll get no argument from me about the wasting. In fact, I'm probably far more aware of the wasting of food and goods in the US than you are. I have, in fact, gotten into trouble a few times with the police for 'stealing' the precious garbage of people and stores, and either using it myself, or giving it to poor people, because the asshats would rather have their precious garbage wind up in a landfill and be destroyed, than let anyone else get some use out of it.
Regarding weapons, there are good uses for some weapons. Guns are often used to fend off criminals. A nuclear bomb could possibly be used to divert a large asteroid from hitting the earth.
As for your assertion that waste and weapon making are the sole accomplishments of developed countries, shall I take it that you don't have any lightbulbs in your house? Thomas Edison was an American.
Septithol, so by stating that muslims go out and pray at certain times of day in same para, what are you trying to convey? Are you not generalizing?? The Christians too go to pray at certain times of week. The devout do it more often.
I am not trying to 'convey' anything, in the negative sense that you seem to be using. It is a fact that some behaviors, criminal or otherwise, are more likely if you are from a certain culture. If someone goes out and prays at certain times of day, which are the prayer times for Muslims, it's a fairly safe assumption (though not 100% certain) that they are a Muslim. If someone is written about as being a violent waster, then they are probably either a medieval European.
Septithol, The topic is - "generalization, a human problem". How did the word crime creep in??, are you suffering from same problem?? An assumption cannot be safe, its mischief.
As I said, certain behaviors are far more likely to be committed by people from certain cultures, and this includes certain types of crimes. Violent wasting, in the form of publicly burning goods and money, was something done mainly in medieval Europe. It is no longer done, at least in that particular form, though I agree, as you said, that there are many other forms of wasting going on in developed countries. But 'violent wasting' in the sense that Dante wrote about, is pretty much obsolete, it is not a sin that very many people commit any longer. It is not 'mischeif' to assume that someone written about in a book as a violent waster is a Medeival European. It's generalization, but it's a very *likely* (though not 100% certain) generalization. It is certainly physically possible for someone today to commit the sin of being a violent waster, if they decide to do so. But most people no longer do so.
What would be a BAD generalization, is not assuming that a violent waster is probably a Medieval European, but rather, making the opposite generalization; that since almost ALL violent wasters were medieval Europeans, this therefore means that almost all Medieval Europeans were therefore violent wasters. And this second generalization is not at all true. MOST medieval Europeans were NOT violent wasters.
Another crime that seems to be becoming obsolete is that of being a cut-purse, or someone who cuts the pocket (or purse) of someone with a razorblade, in order to steal. I read an article about it yesterday, it said that in the entire city of New York, there are exactly 109 cutpurses, and the police there know who each of them are, because it is such a rare crime nowadays (it's becoming obsolete). Apparently it requires a great deal of skill to do this, nearly on par with that of a surgeon, and theives nowadays just aren't interested in learning it, when there are easier ways to steal. In fact, all the known cutpurses were born before 1950 (the oldest one is in his 80's!). This being the case, assuming that this particular crime continues to become obsolete, it would be a fairly accurate generalization for someone from the future to assume that if someone is described in a book as a cutpurse, that they were born before 1950, but it would be a wrong generalization on the part of future people to assume that because of this, most people born before 1950 were cutpurses.
The same is also true for Muslims. Although there are certain crimes today which are committed mainly by Muslims, such that it is very likely that if such a crime is committed, the perpetrator is probably a Muslim (or thinks he is a Muslim), the opposite generalization, which many people tend to make, is not true, it does not mean that MOST Muslims commit that particular crime.
All of these wrong generalizations are actually a logical fallacy, known as 'affirming the consequent'. This logical fallacy takes the following form:
Explanation
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is committed by arguments that have the form:
(1) If A then B
(2) B
Therefore:
(3) A
The first premise of such arguments notes that if a state of affairs A obtained then a consequence B would also obtain. The second premise asserts that this consequence B does obtain. The faulty step then follows: the inference that the state of affairs A obtains.
Examples
(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss!
Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.
This argument is clearly fallacious; there are any number of reasons why Fred might be going to have a word with the boss that do not involve him wanting to get me sacked: e.g. to ask for a raise, to tell the boss what a good job I’m doing, etc. Fred’s going to see the boss therefore doesn’t show that he’s trying to get me fired.
Another example:
1. If Fred is a violent waster, then he is a Medieval European.
2. Fred is a Medieval European!
Therefore:
3. Shame on Fred! He is a violent waster!!
This is obviously a fallacious argument, most Medieval Europeans were not violent wasters, most of them were far too poor to waste anything!
Yet another example:
1. If Ahmed wants to stone women to death, then he is a Muslim
2. Ahmed is a Muslim.
Therefore
3. Ahmed wants to stone women to death.
And this again is fallacious, most Muslims do not want to stone women to death.
Is it a safe assumption that someone who has their house lit by a lightbulb invented by an American, but asserts that the sole accomplishments of all Americans are wasting and weapons building, is probably a 'hater' of America, and is 'prejudiced' against that country?
