OmSigDAVID wrote:mellow yellow wrote:Merry Andrew wrote:Insufficient data.
On the face of it, it's a vast generalization, therefore highly suspect as a premise. On the other hand, I can see where a pro argument could be made. But you have to make the argument before it can be rebutted.
I concur on the last statement, though sweeping generalisations as premises are not at risk (of losing their validity) due to their scope alone; it would depend on the conclusion etc.
Of course, as a conclusion, 'You can't change the world without bloodshed.' is not such a heavy claim on the nature of man- political man. As is, the conclusion is vague; with some qualification, a good inductive argument could be made.
Your opinion?
The conclusion has been
disproven innumerable times.
Beyond major (bloodless) changers of the world, Edison, etc,
the numbers of men who have bloodlessly changed the world
in
SLIGHT n subtle ways cannot be counted.
Well, the statement does not constitute a theorem, and it can be false depending on its context etc; which is to say that it can be the cl. to an invalid argument and so on. But what it refers to specifies a context- albeit lightly and "through" the words, as it were.
My opinion is that the author of it is referring to a general conception of our state "in" life- or socio-politically- and brings up the sentiment that social and political "change" (in man) may be a function of heavy-handed authority driven to
demand it rather than request it through an electorate. "Man is man," it is suggesting, "...and little seems to be done for the better without a force to bring it out."
The Leviathan by Hobbes considers this sentiment.