Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheri
Not everyone thinks like you Jillio. If he stated "All" Catholics that would mean every individuals in that group supports the death penalty as a whole, which he did not stated that. And not every Catholics follows the Pope John Paul II's opinion either. Everyone has their own freedom of thoughts.
|
No, Cheri, it is simply that you do not uderstand the concept of group as a sociological reference. Her referred to Judge Scalia's affiliation with the Catholic Church, would indicate his membership in a group known as "Catholics". He then cited Judge Scalia's support for the death penalty as an individual, which implies, by his reference to the judge's membership in the group, that it has an impact on the judge's personal belief system. An individual can claim membership in many different groups. For instance, Judge Saclia is not just a Catholic, he is also a member of a group divided by gender (men), another group known as "parent", and most importantly, a group decided by profession "lawyer". One group can have more of an impact on an idividual's personal stance depending upon the topic. Quite obviously, them important influence in the case of Judge Scalia is not his membership in a group known as "Catholic", but in the group defined as "lawyer". The group influence of lawyer created more of an impact on his development of his personal value system in regard to the death penalty than did his membership in the group known as "Catholic." That is exactly why his individual opinion regarding the death penalty does not reflect the group value adopted by Catholics as a whole.
And that is why it was irrelevent when Jiro brought it up, and why I pointed out the irrelevence based on Catholic group values as opposed to individual group member values.