Does bigotry make you stupid, or vice-versa?

[Cainad (dec.)]

My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.

By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.

By very strict definition, unique would be something that no one else has.

</language schmuck>

[Kai]

My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.

By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.

By very strict definition, unique would be something that no one else has.

</language schmuck>

THIS.

[Kai]

I think what you are going for Nigel is whether that unique character or set of characters makes a person interesting.

[Cainad (dec.)]

My point was simply that claiming you are unique in order to lend weight to your argument only works if you have a kind of uniqueness that you can logically expect very few other people to have.

By the very definition of 'unique', it would have to be something that very few other people have. Otherwise it wouldn't be unique.

By very strict definition, unique would be something that no one else has.

</language schmuck>

THIS.

And the great thing is, I have no idea what's going on ITT.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For example, take Wade: most likely none of OUR great grandmothers woke up in the Ukraine one morning as a child to see their backyard full of dead soldiers. However, her experience was not very likely to be the only one where a child woke up, in the Ukraine or elsewhere, to see dead soldiers in their vicinity. So is he unique? Absolutely. Is his grandmother's experience categorically unique? Nope.

If you are going to claim uniqueness to lend weight to an argument, it only adds weight if the uniqueness holds up. For instance, if you are in an argument about homosexuality, and you wish to add weight to your side of the argument because you yourself are gay, you will only look foolish if you are arguing with people you met in a gay bar.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think what you are going for Nigel is whether that unique character or set of characters makes a person interesting.

Nope, not it.

[Kai]

For example, take Wade: most likely none of OUR great grandmothers woke up in the Ukraine one morning as a child to see their backyard full of dead soldiers. However, her experience was not very likely to be the only one where a child woke up, in the Ukraine or elsewhere, to see dead soldiers in their vicinity. So is he unique? Absolutely. Is his grandmother's experience categorically unique? Nope.

If you are going to claim uniqueness to lend weight to an argument, it only adds weight if the uniqueness holds up. For instance, if you are in an argument about homosexuality, and you wish to add weight to your side of the argument because you yourself are gay, you will only look foolish if you are arguing with people you met in a gay bar.

Oh, so you aren't arguing from the standpoint of uniqueness, but from differences in relativity to your....fuckit, I don't even know how to word it.


Edit: Nevermind. You are talking using a claim based on uniqueness. It only works if that character is unique for a given set of conditions (for example, the only straight man in a gay bar). If the character is not unique for the given set of conditions (for example, being gay is not unique for  Joe the gay man as a member of the human race. There are other male humans who are gay) then it is not valid as an argument

[Kai]

Also, by level of uniqueness you mean the SIGNIFICANCE of the unique characters in relation to the given conditions.

For example, whether the uniqueness of one person makes them "special".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Edit: Nevermind. You are talking using a claim based on uniqueness. It only works if that character is unique for a given set of conditions (for example, the only straight man in a gay bar). If the character is not unique for the given set of conditions (for example, being gay is not unique for  Joe the gay man as a member of the human race. There are other male humans who are gay) then it is not valid as an argument

YESSSSS exactly, you nailed it!

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

If I remember correctly, the evidence for the OP supports education level as a factor but it also is strongly linked to social class, the local economy, and relationships between population density.

I'll post the article and related text sometime in the next 24 hours depending on how soon I can get to my resources.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Lots of relevant information here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7LCBELRG

If you want to look at the references just ask.

edit: smaller file size