|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
I thought it was the Romans who killed Jesus, according to the traditional story? All the Jews did was ask them to. So "Jews killed Jesus" isn't so much an example of ignoring exceptions as of oversimplifying facts.
It seems like a less controversial example could be used.
I agree. I can't think of a better example, but could someone else please think of one and change this?
Why is it *called* the fallacy of "accident"? That point isn't clear.
Someone replaced the generalization example -Jews vs Jesus- with the -Nazi Germans- one. So, I guess now it's the Germans' turn to edit this article, ain't it so ?
Could there not simply be an example which doesn't necessarily offend? For example 'Liberals are atheist'/'Some liberals are atheist', the former statement could still be used to argue (for example to a predominately fundamental/religious party), but it doesn't have the same inherently negative connotations as 'Germans are nazis' or 'Jews killed Jesus'. I'm sure some one can come up with a better idea than that, I just find the page mildly offensive. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Revert: Razor blades vs. scalpels
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accident_%28fallacy%29&diff=119039033&oldid=113693212 (This may be arguable since scalpels might be considered more like razor blades than knives).
Editing this out, there is no argument as scalpels have handles and razor blades do not. Razor blades encased in a handle structure are commonly called "box knives". From answers.com definition of "knife": "A cutting instrument consisting of a sharp blade attached to a handle."
I've also decided to revert the other parenthetical as it blatantly states what the example is trying to demonstrate. WTH?!?! Waste of time and space. 126.96.36.199 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC) User:Formerly the IP-Address 188.8.131.52