Logical Fallacies: The Broad Brush

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pUrinqgFSA

           When I was in High School, one thing we made a study of was Native American history. One incident we examined, I don’t remember what it was called, entailed white settlers angry because, apparently, when harmed by a white man, the natives had a tendency to retaliate against any white man. But as the natives in the conflict in question were glad to point out, the reverse was true as well.
           Joseph Stalin was a brutal tyrant. There is some evidence to indicate that he was an atheist. Therefore, all atheists are blamed for his brutal tyranny, as if we all had a hand in it.
           A group of white supremacists demonstrates, carrying signs displaying statistics about how many times in the previous year a certain brutal crime was committed by members of a certain ethnic group. This is, of course, offered up as proof that this ethnic group is intrinsically more violent than theirs.
           Someone who happens to be gay commits a rape and when local media report the event, they emphasize his sexual orientation over and over again, as if that particular characteristic is somehow more responsible for the fact that this individual committed this crime than any of his or her other characteristics. Of course, someone responds by suggesting that this means that homosexuals in general are more likely to commit rape.
           Mexican drug cartels have a practice of covertly planting cocaine fields in sparsely-populated, seldom traveled parts of the United States near our southern border. Critics describe this as "what those Mexicans are doing now," as if all Mexicans, or even a significant portion of them are participating.
           A band of Muslims hijacks four planes, leading to the deaths of about 3000 citizens of the United States. Afterward, all Muslims are blamed, as if all the Muslims in the world had a hand in it.
           More recently, a single Muslim organization threatens the lives of the producers of an animated comedy. Yet again, all Muslims are blamed.
           A single person, or a single party, commits a certain injustice and the blame for that injustice is applied categorically to all people who share, or allegedly share, a certain characteristic with that person or party. I give you the negative side of this particular fallacy. There’s also a positive side.
           A comment taken from the correspondence of George Washington can be interpreted (without much stretching) as an endorsement of Christianity. Subsequently, Christianity is credited with winning the Revolutionary War, and subsequently, all Christians are heralded, in the name of patriotism, for practicing such a triumphant religion, as if every last one of them lead the revolution. Nevermind that the vast majority on the British side were also Christian.
           By the same token, the Mujahedeen, a Muslim organization, successfully drives the Soviet occupation out of Afghanistan. All of Islam is credited for this accomplishment, and subsequently, all Muslims pat themselves on the back for practicing such a triumphant religion.
           But in each case, it’s the same problem. How do we know, assuming it’s true, that Stalin’s tyranny is any more attributable to his lack of god beliefs than to his mustache? How do we know that the violence of the members of the ethnic group in question is due directly to their ethnic group instead of, perhaps, the best effort of members of that group to survive and cope in the niche society has shoehorned them into? How do we know that this individual’s commission of rape is due to his or her sexual orientation instead of, perhaps, Mercury being in retrograde? How do we know that the drug cartels are planting the cocaine because they are Mexican, instead of just because it is profitable? How do we know that the Muslims carried out the hijackings because they were Muslim, and not just because they had been manipulated, through their beliefs, into seeing those in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as evil? How do we know that the Muslim organization in question made the death threats just because they were a Muslim organization, and not just because that one particular organization has some trouble grasping the manner of treatment any given religion receives in the democratic world?
           How do we know that the religious beliefs of Washington had anything whatsoever to do with his victory in the Revolution? How do we know that the religion of the Mujahedeen played any part whatsoever in their victory against the Soviets?
           We don’t. None of these conclusions are supported by these bases. This is a kind of hasty generalization known as the Broad Brush.
           A certain group belonging to a certain religion applies the same label to everyone who does not practice that religion. Then two groups to whom this label can be applied, that is two groups who do not practice this religion, express differing views and the original group belonging to the religion paints this as one group contradicting itself and subsequently losing credibility instead of two distinctly different groups just expressing differing views, which in and of itself, is hardly surprising or unreasonable.
           A billionaire made his fortune by developing innovations. This segues into the practice of calling all billionaires "innovators," as if such is the only way to make or increase one's fortune.
           It happens, sometimes, that one group of scientists will rely on radiometric methods to date a layer of rock strata and use the results to suggest the age of the fossils contained therein. Young-Earth-Creationists indicate this and say that scientists determine the age of fossils based on the age of the strata.
           Other times, another group of scientists will rely on radiometric methods to determine the age of the fossils within a certain layer of rock strata and use that to suggest the age of that layer. Young-Earth-Creationists then indicate this and say that scientists determine the age of the strata based on the age of its fossils.
           "So," says the YEC, "they use the age of the rock to determine the age of the fossils and the age of the fossils to determine the age of the rock. So this whole notion of an earth that existed billions of years ago is based entirely on circular reasoning."
           This last is an example of the Strawman, the Lie by Omission and probably Quote Mining as well, but the road to it is paved with two strokes of the Broad Brush.