(it posted on the wrong blog before. it posted on inkfell rather than here)
demographics can’t have opinions without dogma.
a person of a group can’t say their opinion on a topic represents the group. they can however say that a document represents the the opinion of the group. this is to avoid a bunch of logic issues:
- perhaps the individual is unable to articulate and communicate the meaning.
- perhaps the individual disagrees with the group but is unaware of it. thus can’t give testimony out of ignorance
- perhaps the individual has banal/inane comprehension of the implication or directive.
- perhaps the individual has ulterior motives to self-aggrandize in search for power.
but the point is, demographics can’t have a formal or active opinion unless their opinion is defined by a dogma manifest in document.
: can have a formal opinion. only creeds can have creed; non-creeds aren’t ideological classes, they have no ideological relation. demographics can have an informal opinion- a tendency to believe something. this tendency to believe or act in accordance concordant with one logical premise doesn’t necessitate the implied character trait to be universal, merely correlative to group membership.
that is, you don’t need proclamation to have vallid character assessments, although it is quite likely that the members of the group assessed will find the measurements uncanny.
also noticing that two members of a group disagreeing of a point/topic doesn’t contradict the premise of the group, if the premise of the group is from evidence rather than logic. a demographic also may have a limited scope, which you can’t reasonably exaggerate beyond, but which also like all other opinions of the group- can’t only be alleged to be set, if not set in ink or stone.
some probably feel cause between a rock of passive-aggressive honesty (via qualifiers), and a hard place of hyperbole. if you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, why not pick the most appreciated premise and style of expression? because it is unintentional bullying. bullying is fine but you should be at least aware you are doing it. and if you say that group-1 behaves a certain way, or believes a certain thing, you can’t really be relying on anecdote. you either have to then provide sample size and other data, or you will be suspected of bigoted generalizing based on class confusion. that is, you seem to think a non-ideological group have a concensus regarding a topic, but you don’t have any statistical or (possible) deterministic evidence to satiate the need for validity/veneration.
the point is you can talk about beliefs, or tendencies, or meaning, or paradigm of a non-creed group if and only if there is allot of data collected. attributing an opinion to an large and arbitrary population which makes up more than 5% of the population, when the population isn’t defined by an ideological trait but rather an external, simple/generic, and physical one is an extremely difficult thing to do. consensus almost never happens, especially in arbitrary nonsensical groups.
a reducto ab adsurdum of this is: “what is the opinion on the-topic which humans hold?” it just doesn’t work for opinions.
you can only evaluate expressed behavior. and even then you have to be sure you aren’t projecting a misindentification of the target observed. it must be a creed- an ethnic group. and the conscious concience must not be arbitrary dogma at the speakers discretion, unless the speaker can be shown to be the ideological source- the prophet.