For someone who extols the importance of understanding history the statement "The only institutions anywhere on earth seriously dedicated to preserving and expanding knowledge were Islamic." is incredible. Has the writer not heard of monasticism? The great monastic organisations from which grew hospitals and universities and by which governing institutions arose were essential in the formation of modern Europe.

yep twisting history to confirm ones ideology. Clueless!

Runner, if you want a reliable source of history, I would suggest to you and others of your faith, the Bible is not the place to look.

David

'Runner, if you want a reliable source of history, I would suggest to you and others of your faith, the Bible is not the place to'

I would suggest David that the Lord Jesus Christ is infinitely more truthful and reliable than you. Oh that right you have no moral basis for truth anyway.

Makes perfectly good sense to me. Much learning was preserved in the monasteries. However, such learning was unavailable to the general public. During the Dark Ages Christians outside of the clergy were prevented from reading the Bible. Their religious information was supplied by clergy who often were pretty ignorant themselves. In general the Bible was not translated into the vernacular. Wycliffe translated the Bible into the English of his time. His followers, the Lollards, were declared heretics, and Wycliffe's corpse was dug up and burned. Some of the King James Version includes Wycliffe's work.

The Renaissance was based on connection with pre-Christian, classical knowledge, the Enlightenment was to a large extent freed European humanity from the power of the church to stifle free inquiry.

Having succeeded during the Dark Ages in keeping the masses of European humanity in abysmal ignorance some Christian apologists have tried to rewrite history and credit their superstition with freeing European humanity from ignorance.

Runner, It isn't Jesus who I am concerned with. It is the very fallible people who followed him who are responsible for distorting the details of his life, death and resurrection.

David

thanks for the article.

Can you please try to get it printed in our daily newspapers, particularly The Australian, sometimes dubbed as The Catholic Boys Daily.

"Tony Abbott's call for a reformation within Islam demonstrates his lack of historical comprehension. And history is vital to understanding the terrorism problem"

Bollocks.

As if fundamentalists care about history, traditions, culture or anything outside of trying to impose their totalitarian religiopolitical system on others. They are knuckle-dragging thugs, the men and women alike.

Sam Harris (“The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation”) was right, “The idea that Islam is a ‘peaceful religion hijacked by extremists’ is a fantasy, and is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge”.

Harris added that there was nothing remotely racist about his criticisms of Muslims: “I criticize white, western converts in precisely the same terms,” he said. “In fact, I am even more critical of them, because they weren't brainwashed into the faith from birth.”

He added: “There is no such thing as “Islamophobia.” This is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia. And it is doing its job, because people .. have been taken in by it.”
(Independent, Apr 13, 2013)

'The Australian, sometimes dubbed as The Catholic Boys Daily.'

yeah Chek I am not a fan of the Catholics but not nearly as perverse and deceitful as the feminist girls daily rants on the abc/fairfax

I think the author gilds the Islamic lily somewhat: many 'rescuers' of old Greek and Roan documents were Jews and Christians. Much of the maths came from India, through Zoroastrians in Persia and south-central Asia.

It's a pity that the author doesn't elaborate on his statement:

"The critical decision that led to the disastrous state of Islam today was the banning of the printing and the importation of virtually all printed books in the mid 1500s. In Europe knowledge expanded while in the Turkish Caliphate it froze, leading eventually to economic and military failure."

The invention of the printing press, very early in the Renaissance, facilitated a billion books to be circulated across Europe by 1500, mostly in Latin. In turn, that led to demands for books in local vernaculars, which in turn led to the opportunity for vastly more people to hold sacred texts up to the light. Hence, the flowering of the Renaissance, the movements to break away from the Catholic church, and the beginnings, baby steps forward and painful steps back, of the Enlightenment.

As absolutists, the Turkish Sultans were in the business of power, not any search for knowledge. As the Caliphs as well, they had as much interest in propagating knowledge in the vernaculars, as the Catholic Church of the time, especially as they watched Catholic Europe unravel in the early sixteenth century and onwards. Hence no printing press in the Muslim world until 1824.

Religion generally is inherently reactionary, in the old Marxist sense of responding negatively, and often brutally, to any new advances in science or human rights. As we can see now, Islam is not only not immune from that reactionary tendency, but an archetype of it. In its extreme forms, Islamism is fairly obviously a reactionary form of a pretty reactionary religion.

But totalitarians of the world seem to be uniting around it. For example, the SAF (Socialist Apologists for Fascism). It's going to be a long war.

Get stuck in.

Joe

Was there ever a more misguided individual than Tony Abbott, apart from some of his myopic fellow reactives?

What a shame for the future of this country that the Chicken Little fears of life beyond the fowl run have been exploited so thoroughly by Abbott, Murdoch and Howard to the detriment of this nation and minority groups doing their best to get on with life without all the hot air Muslim Hecht.

Hi Paul,

News: Abbott is no longer prime minister. Nor is Howard.

But if it helps, we could wait until they die and then dig up their bodies and kick them around the cemetery. That'll show 'em.

Joe

You are a goose, loudmouth (apt).

Re-read the article- from the beginning.. the issue is still current.

The reason it is still current is because of Abbott's and his string- puller Murdoch's hysterical nonsenses and the fall out from them.

Syd Hickman blew it in his first paragraph, when he claimed that Muslim behaviour has no relationship to the Koran. What a load a crapola , Syd. Everything about Muslim life is laid down as law in the Koran, including which hand you must use to eat with, and which had you must use to wipe your backside. How anyone could write something like that so obviously potty is beyond me.

Credibility is important, Syd. Once you blow it, nobody will believe a word you say.

And I am afraid that you got a lot of Islam's history backwards, Syd. Tony Abbot is sort of right when he says that Islam must undergo a reformation. We all know what he means by that. But you see, where Tony and yourself got it wrong, is that Islam is already undergoing a Reformation.

You see, Christianity was started by a Jewish pacifist, and his teachings extol the virtues of pacifism. It is true that Christianity morphed into a very violent religion, because this protected the interests of the Church and the State. But the invention of the printing press, and the translation of the Bible into the various national languages, began the process of turning Christians away from violence.

Islam was different. It was begun by a warlord who wanted his new religion to justify his military expansion, and to make his warriors invincible in battle. That worked a treat for hundreds of years. Islam became incredibly wealthy by virtue of the fact that it occupied the trading routes between Europe, China and India. Then it decayed when the Vasco de Gama sailed around Africa to India.

Today, Islam is the most backward civilisation on the planet. Muslims think that the reason why Allah has abandoned them is because they are not religious enough. They are now going back to the original scriptures of Islam to try and be powerful again. And the Koran tells them how to do it. Keel the infidels. Take their property. Make their wives your sex slaves. Take over the west through immigration and birthrate differentials.

LEGO " But the invention of the printing press, and the translation of the Bible into the various national languages, began the process of turning Christians away from violence."

Is that so? So we have no violent Christians now do we?
I think that would be untrue in the extreme.
Violent people will be violent, regardless of what religion, if any, that they have.

Just think of the Christian Yugoslavs, Germans and Irish during their various conflicts, killing each other and other groups of people quite violently as I recall.
Then let's remember the two world wars...plenty of Christians violently killing others in those wars wasn't there?

I would hazard a guess there are Christians being violent in many places in the world right now, Africa being one such place.
And all this long after they had read their bibles...

LEGO,

Jesus was not a pacifist:

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NIV)

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." (Luke 12:51 NIV)

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36 NIV)

"I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war." (Revelation 19:11 NIV)

It all depends on how one chooses to cherry pick their holy book. As a fan of war (yet somehow pacifist when is suits), I'm sure you'll be delighted by the info I've provided (http://www.salon.com/2015/12/14/scientists_claim_this_is_how_jesus_christ_really_looked). I even specifically chose the NIV interpretation of the Bible so that you could not be accused me of selectively choosing the old, more blood-thirsty versions of the Bible. But Never fear, your Aryan Jesus loved war too.

What this article leaves out is the fact that the Islamic nations have all been moving towards secularism and modernisation, but this has been mostly thwarted by Western intervention.

Wherever the move towards secularism in the Islamic nations coincided with socialist principles, the Western nations moved to overthrow their regimes. Mossadeh in Iran in 1953, the leftist government of Afghanistan in the 1970s, the secular Ba-athist regime in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the Jamahriya government in Gaddafi's Libya and now Assad in Syria ...

The West has a track record of propping up Islamic fundamentalist regimes in order to preserve Western pro-capitalist interests. It also has a track record of destabilising nations that do not adhere to Western pro-capitalist interests - whether theocratic or secular.

The current preoccupation with the history of violent Islam is just a furphy. Wherever populations come under severe political distress, they tend to turn to religion to alleviate their suffering. And they resort to terrorism and guerilla warfare to preserve their national integrity. Islam is no different.

To Susieonline

Most Christian people completely reject the pacifism taught by their Prophet, unless they are "fundamentalist" Christians like the "Quakers." Most Christians agree with the concept of violence for self defence, and the concept of a "just war." But it is the underlying pacifism and the commitment to tolerance that Christian teachings advocate, which makes Christian (especially Protestant Christian) societies the most peaceful, just, and desirable countries on Earth today. Like all socialists, Hitler hated religion, but he praised Islam as a "warriors religion", and bemoaned the fact that Christianity was fundamentally a pacific religion.

Islam is different. Islam is a religion/legal system/political ideology which is inherently violent. It was started by a warlord, so it obviously must differ fundamentally in ideology from a religion started by a pacifist. It is a "religion" which openly seeks world domination, and it's holy scriptures encourage war, extreme violence towards non believers, extreme intolerance towards non believers, committing genocide on opposing cultures through making the females of defeated enemies sex slaves, and outright terrorism. It is hardly surprising that "fundamentalist" Muslims are not pacifists. Nor is it surprising that when Genghis Khan was trying to make up his mind which religion his Hordes should adopt, he rejected Christianity and embraced Islam.

How a supposedly "intelligent" woman like yourself can even try and equate Islam with Christianity is beyond me. How you can indirectly defend a "religion" who's beliefs are diametrically opposed to what socially "progressive" people think, is also beyond my comprehension. I suppose you are another one of those curious people who has accepted the Three Monkey Ideology You think that you can Save The World and stop war, if only every race, creed and culture is treated absolutely equally.

Sorry to destroy your idealistic illusions, Suze, but every race, creed and culture are not equal. And you don't have to be too intelligent to figure that out. I have always been astounded at how a commitment to an ideological fantasy can completely over ride a person's objective observance to self evident reality.

Suseonline's monkey is the one she carries on her back as a result of her strict (Irish?) Catholic upbringing. It is also why she has a complex about 'fathers'.

There wouldn't be a day (hour?) go bye without Suseonline paying out the 'holy fathers' who apparently did her wrong. Oddly, the nuns don't get a mention, just the 'fathers'. The nuns, who are not those hated men, must have done(sic) her right.

Where oh where would radical feminism be without all of those ex-Catholic girls? Then again, some go back to the RC church in time. Strange that is.

Hi Suse,

Murder, rape and slavery in the name of ANY religion is evil - in fact, in the name of anything, it's evil.

Currently, that includes Islamism, Salafism, Wahhabism, ISIS-ism, Islamo-facism, whatever you want to call it. Currently, they are the forces of evil, of death over life, of terror, that even rivals the fascism of the Serbs in the nineties.

Islamism. This is now. This is where we are. These are the vile enemies that we have to defeat.

We can go on and on about the terribly dreadful things that others have done in the past - Tongans and Fijians butchering each other, the Mongols, Tamurlaine, the Belgians in the Congo, Pakistanis and Indians, Aztecs and Zapotecs, etc., etc.

But here and now, it's the Islamists. Soon at a venue near you.

Joe

Lego, I am afraid Suzie is one of those that the Islamists call;
"Useful Idiots"

This is a tag that the mullahs have placed on those that are
apologists for Islam by blaming all Islams troubles on the "west".

Susie like many secularist remain blissfully ignorant to the bible (truth). That is why she has no hope of getting Islam right. Her blind feminist dogmas makes no room for truth.

LEGO, no, the Christians can still be as violent as anyone else. They are all part of the human race.

Onthebeach, wrong again. I disliked the nasty nuns every bit as much as the rest of the Catholic rabble I grew up with. You have no idea. With all your issues with women, I assume you must have multiple problems with your mother and all female relatives over the years. Sad really.

Bazz, charming as always...nasty, with no substance to your arguments at all.
It always amazes me how I don't even need to mention Islam or Muslims, because all you telepathic blokes just say it all for me.
Pathetic really.

Dear Bazz,

Please cite your source for Islamists calling anyone ‘useful idiots.’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot tells about it.

suseonline makes very good sense. We can worry about Islam and ignore our own actions.

Jesus said:

Matthew 7:3 (KJV) And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Philip Jenkins wrote “The Great and Holy War.” All the Christian nations of Europe went to the WW1 slaughterhouse with the firm belief that God approved of the enterprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties

"The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I was over 38 million: there were over 17 million deaths and 20 million wounded, ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history."

Bush, Blair and Howard lied us into the Iraqi War. That war possibly resulted in more deaths than the total of those caused by Islamic terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

"Various scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time.[1] A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion.[2] Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.

For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely. A total of 4,491 U.S. service members were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2014.[3] Regarding the Iraqis (see Tables section below), however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less precise and less consistent. Estimates of casualty levels are available from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, and from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media."

It’s easier to concentrate on those evil Muslim terrorists.

"It’s easier to concentrate on those evil Muslim terrorists."

Precisely, for they are here and now and we ignore the potential for terrorism in our Muslim population at our peril.

david f, "It’s easier to concentrate on those evil Muslim terrorists"

For the apologists of Islamism (and goodness knows why the leftists would ever support the toxic creed and political system that is Islam), it is easier to divert the discussion onto:

- Muslims in order to label critics as 'racists' etc., because Islam is indefensible, and,

- other religions to spread the blame and muddy the waters.

Islam
http://tinyurl.com/Islam-is-BS

Government needs to explain to the electorate why it allows the diversity tail to rule the immigration policy dog. -Continually giving preference to migrants (and smuggled economic migrants where Labor and the Greens are concerned) from high risk countries with traditions, cultures and political systems that are known to be incompatible with Australia's.

Where migrants are concerned it is a buyer's market. Yet Labor and their Greens sidekicks in particular are notorious for knocking back the hundreds of migrants from countries like Germany, Ireland, Canada and so on with skills that are sorely needed. Labor and Greens would preference unskilled, welfare dependent Somali Islamists with social adjustment and health problems instead, who present a risk to women in the host country, Australia.

All to rub everyone's nose in diversity apparently and to garner votes from more lifelong welfare dependents.

Hi Suse,

If we were having this conversation twenty years ago, we would be quite justifiably ripping into the Serbs and their fascist attacks on Croats, Bosnians and Kosovars.

And it's perhaps coincidental, but I do recall arguing with 'leftists' then about whether fascism should dictate to 'smaller ethnicities' how they should live and under whose heel they should exist, while Milosevich and Mladic and Karadzic were being held up by the 'left' as paragons of virtue against US imperialism. Monsters like Clinton.

What ?

And somehow East Timor too: the 'left' was, to say the least, ambivalent about their struggle too: US imperialism was so obviously the real enemy, not the Indonesian fascists, as they certainly were back then. 'Back then', Christ, it's only sixteen years ago.

Yes, somehow, US imperialism was the enemy there and then. I forget how, but if you ask one of your older mates, they could tell you.

And lo and behold ! it's still the enemy. Against your friends beheading, burning, raping, enslaving to their hearts' content.

Sweetie, the Islamo-fascists may not specifically call you a useful idiot, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, ....

So, you think your head will be the last to roll ?

Joe

Is Mise wrote:

"It’s easier to concentrate on those evil Muslim terrorists."

Precisely, for they are here and now and we ignore the potential for terrorism in our Muslim population at our peril.

Dear Is Mise,

There are four sources of terrorism in the Muslim community – the mosques, the schools, radicalised individuals and reactions to our actions. By giving tax exemption to the mosques and subsidies to the schools taxpayers are supporting the mosques and the schools. We should not give tax exemption to any religious group or give subsidies to any religious school. The assumption is false that religion is always beneficial. No religion is always beneficial. No religion deserves any tax subsidies. If parents want to send their children to religious schools they should have that right, but there is no reason our taxes should help pay for it.

If tax subsidies do not support the mosques and Islamic schools there will be fewer radicalised individuals.

The public schools can be a great source of integration. Children of different backgrounds can learn together, play together and grow up together.

We also have to look at us. We can be welcome to people of different backgrounds.

We can try to avoid future wars like the Iraqi War. ISIS is very likely a consequence of that war. Its command structure is apparently composed mainly of former officers in Saddam Hussein’s army. One way is to limit the power of the prime minister to put us into war when we are not attacked. Entry into such wars should not be allowed unless the matter is debated and the public approve the action in a referendum.

We cannot erase the memory of the years of western colonialism where all Muslim countries with exception of Afghanistan and Turkey were colonies of western powers. We can recognise that past as Obama did in his Cairo speech. We can try not to repeat it, but we cannot undo it.

Forced marriages, FGM and other criminal cultural practices must be prosecuted.

Dear onthebeach,

The White Australia policy is dead.

David f, it is a bit hard to tie down any saying that is currently
in popular usage. It is at least in popular vogue assigned to the
Islamic clerics.
It belongs to them now even if they did not originate it.
How many sayings could you list like that if were of a mind to.

The link is interesting, shows that it has been in wide spread use so
it is quite likely that the Islamists used it.
Still I would have thought there are more important things to argue
about than the origin of phrases.

I wonder how much the victims relatives are worried about Christian atrocities ?
I suspect they are more worried about the here and now, than pre-reformation.

You said;
Bush, Blair and Howard lied us into the Iraqi War. That war possibly
resulted in more deaths than the total of those caused by Islamic terrorism.

Valid, except there is a lie frequently promulgated about that war;
Saddam Hussein definately was working towards nuclear weapons.
I saw him boast about obtaining equipment needed to build nuclear weapons.
He held up something he said was on the banned list.
Certainly Israel thought he was on that path because they bombed the reactor.

These things are never totally clear but you must always take them at their word.

David f,

Spain was a colony of the Moors for nearly eight hundred years. Since the Ottomans conquered Turkey, it has been under their heel heel for nearly six hundred years. And produced: Turkish pizza. Wow.

How long were "all Muslim countries with exception of Afghanistan and Turkey were colonies of western powers" ? Fifty years ? Egypt for what, eighty years ? Algeria, for 120 years ? Iraq, for 25 years ? For God's sake, get a grip. Save us your tears.

So what ? Dreadfully evil colonialism ? So frigging what ? Does that give some scummy bunch of Islamist thugs some right to rape and murder and enslave people now ? What the hell did the Yazidis ever do to anybody ? What the hell is that matter with the left these days ?

What a pack of gutless wonders.

Have you lost all sense of decency, Mr. f ?

Joe

Dear Bazz,

It may be hard to tie down a statement. However, when you ascribe to someone or some group you also should supply evidence that the one you say made the statement actually did. Otherwise you are putting words in their mouth. I would not say that somebody said something if I didn’t have any knowledge that they said it.

You also wrote: "Still I would have thought there are more important things to argue about than the origin of phrases."

Then why are you arguing about it? I think truth is quite important.

After Israel bombed the reactor there was no evidence that Hussein was working on nuclear weapons. Bush lied about Hussein getting yellow cake from Nigeria, lied about a connection of Hussein with Al Qaeda and lied about Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. Blair lied about Hussein having super weapons that would go into action 45 minutes after an invasion. Howard lied about no Australian troops being involved before the war when SAS forces were in Iraq two months before the war. The three criminals lied their countries into war.

You also wrote: "These things are never totally clear but you must always take them at their word."

I see no more reason to take Saddam Hussein at his word than I see to believe Shorten or Turnbull. In the world I live in politicians and heads of government lie shamelessly.

david f, "The White Australia policy is dead"

That is your introduced irrelevancy.

Again, Government needs to explain to the electorate why it allows the diversity tail to rule the immigration policy dog. -Continually giving preference to migrants (and smuggled economic migrants where Labor and the Greens are concerned) from high risk countries with traditions, cultures and political systems that are known to be incompatible with Australia's.

Yet where migrants are concerned it is a buyer's market.

Loudmouth wrote: "Have you lost all sense of decency, Mr. f ?"

Please curb your hysteria and insults. Speak to the point with a logical and coherent response. If a sign of losing decency is disagreement with you, then you are not worth arguing with.

David f, It was you that started arguing about phrases.

When someone like Saddam Hussein said Iraq was building nuclear weapons
would you take the gamble that it was a bluff ?
Especially when it was not a bluff.
It was known that Iraq had bought a single centrifuge from Germany.
A prototype ?
With something like that there is no gamble.

Hi AJ, where have you been? I was worried about you.

Jesus Christ was a pacifist. His most famous quotes clearly indicate his pacifist convictions.

Love thy enemies

If a man strikes thee, turn the other cheek.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

Turn your swords into ploughshares.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Your first two "Jesus" quotes can easily be discerned as a poetic way of saying that he has come to cause trouble. Your last is not a quote from Jesus at all, and it deals with the End of Days and Armageddon. The only one that can reasonably be considered to support your wrongful assertion is the third quote. Christian theologians claim is this was simply Jesus instructing his disciples at the Last Supper to arm themselves with a couple of swords ('two will be enough"), in order for Jesus to fulfil his destiny as an arrested and soon to be executed leader of a band of brigands.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm

Anyway, the question I would like to put to you, is why do you, as a supposed intelligent person and a card carrying "social progressive", defend a "religion" like Islam which quite plainly wishes to create a world wide caliphate, and who's holy scriptures advocate the use of violence and terrorism to attain that goal? Don't you consider your position somewhat bizarre?

Everything which Islam advocates is the diametric opposite of what a socialist believes, yet you defend Islam, tooth and nail. It appears that you and people like Suzie are as passionate about your own humanitarian ideology as any religious True Believer. You can Save The World if everybody is treated exactly equally (except of course, white people, Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen, because they are beyond the pale.)

So like an educated clergyman from the 19th Century who knows that Darwin is correct, you oppose what you know is right, and support what you know is wrong, because you think that ideology is more important than reality.

To Susieonline.

Christians can be just as violent as everybody else, but if they are as violent as everybody else, then they are behaving in contradiction to their religious teachings.

Muslims can be just as violent as everybody else, because their religion praises and rewards them for being violent on behalf of their God. Being violent on Allah's behalf does not contradict their religion.

Which societies today are clearly the more peaceful, Susie? Muslim or Christian ones? Why do you think that would be?

Think real hard. You can do it Suzie. Clear your mind of your your multicultural prejudices, turn on your critical analysis circuit, collate all data dispassionately, and use objective thinking.

LEGO, you are getting hysterical again because Davidf and I won't agree with you?
Certainly I wouldn't question your intelligence just because you are so wrong about some subjects.

On no post or thread have I seen where either myself or Davidf have 'defended a religion like Islam', as neither of us believe in religions or deities, so that is just a lie.
All I am saying is that as far as I am concerned, religion is often at the root of all evil in this world, no matter which religion.

You certainly can't say that Christian people over the centuries haven't gone out to be violent and murderous in the name of Jesus or their God? It still happens today within all religions.
The bible is full of stories of how so and so led armies to destroy so and so's city because they had apparently upset their God, or the Godly men. The bible never said these killers were evil for doing all that did they?

For God's sake, Suse, that was more than three thousand years ago ! Is that the best (worst) you can do ? What sorts of innumerable atrocities do you reckon have been committed around the world since then ? Everywhere ?

If apologists for relativism are so gutless that they have to go back that far, in order to avoid calling out Islamism for what it is, fascism in our own era, then I have to assume that there is no 'left' any more. And perhaps there hasn't been for decades.

David f,

I'm roughly the same age as the Rosenberg boys. My parents were the same age as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. That framed our lives. It never occurred to us to abandon our beliefs in a better world, we were just a bit more circumspect about how we went about our daily lives. Was it worth it ? Of course. Those were the days.

But now, no, there is no more Left left. They couldn't survive the Russia-China split, and the degeneration of both. So, bereft, they fell back into cultural relativism and gutless non-judgmentalism, i.e. making no decisions, judgements, stands, against anything, except the standard boogeyman, the US.

Joe

My point Loudmouth is that Christians of today still follow a book written by humans thousands of years ago, just like Muslims do. So they shouldn't be knocking that religion or followers. They are very similar.

If you want recent Christian violence, I believe Africa has problems between them and other religious groups, as well as the killing of abortion clinic staff by so-called Christians. I think the 2 world wars are fairly recent too, and it will take a long, long time for Muslims to knock off as many people as those Christian -led wars did, don't you think?

As I have said, I think all religions and Gods are man-made creations, designed by old men to ensure they control their follower's lives. Islam is no worse than Christianity in my opinion. They should both be outlawed...

Thanks for asking, LEGO.

<<...where have you been?>>

I’ve been posting here on an almost daily basis since you last abandoned me. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17794&page=0#315553) Talking mostly about what it looks like we may be about to discuss, funnily enough.

<<Jesus Christ was a pacifist.>>

No, a pacifist is against war in all circumstances. That’s why I gave you examples of the pro-war Jesus.

You don’t need to quote Jesus’ gentler quotes to me. I was a Christian for about half my life. Like the Quran, the Bible is certainly not short on contradictions.

<<Your first two "Jesus" quotes can easily be discerned as a poetic way of saying that he has come to cause trouble.>>

Not when you read them in their contexts. Particularly the second verse. Jesus made it pretty clear that his intent was division and conflict. Even if you were right, it wouldn’t be very characteristic of a pacifist.

<<Your last is not a quote from Jesus at all...>>

I know. But the “He” in that verse was Jesus.

<<...the third quote. Christian theologians claim is this was simply Jesus instructing his disciples at the Last Supper to arm themselves…>>

Again, not very characteristic of a pacifist.

<<...why do you, as a supposed intelligent person and a card carrying "social progressive", defend a "religion" like Islam…>>

I don’t. I never have defended Islam. In fact, I’ve criticised it a few times on OLO. It is a violent and primitive religion. Much like its fellow Abrahamic religions. Islam, however, is still going through its Dark Ages.

<<Everything which Islam advocates is the diametric opposite of what a socialist believes, yet you defend Islam, tooth and nail.>>

“Tooth and nail”, eh? Since when? And what makes you think I’m a socialist? You see what happens when you pigeonhole people into convenient little boxes? You make a goose of yourself.

Yes, ISIS are fascists. And fascists are bad. We should oppose fascism. But let's not lose our sense of perspective here. At the very least, let's not lose our sense of geography or tactics.

What ISIS are doing in the middle east is reprehensible, in much the same way that what the Nazis were up to in their own patch of land was reprehensible before they rolled out the Blitz. But the Krauts had a navy (I'm pretty sure ISIS don't have a navy) and a Luftwaffe (I'm pretty sure ISIS don't have an airforce) and V2 rockets (I'm pretty sure ISIS don't have inter-continental ballistic missiles), and posed a serious and credible threat to countries like England. ISIS have launched no attacks against Australia, and as far as I can tell don't have the capacity to do so. Put it this way: I can't see them bombing Darwin or sending midget subs into Sydney harbour any time soon.

Should we be willing to commit troops and resources to a properly thought out, coordinated military response to this new fascism? My oath we should. Should we have a re-run of Dresden and just carpet-bomb them back to the stone age? I vote no - oh please won't somebody think of the children? Should we entertain the idea that we, in Australia, are under some sort of direct and material threat from a mob of fascists half a world away with no easy way to reach us and highly effective navy ready to repel them? Only if we're really, really paranoid.

I'm more worried about sharks.

"I'm more worried about sharks."
Me too Toni Lavis, both the fish and the human kind of sharks ...,

To Susie.

I rarely read DavidF, DavidG, or Arjay, because I think that they are all dribbling loonies. Their views are so extreme that even Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama bin Laden, and Stalin would consider them extremists.

The reason I always bash your intelligence is to make you think. I am convinced that most trendy lefties like your good self simply parrot the slogans of multiculturalism because you have been conditioned to believe that this is what "intelligent" people do. Your compulsive need to think that you are "intelligent" has forced you to accept a fanciful Kumbaya ideology that you have never thought about objectively. In this, you are no different to those "believers" who accept religious ideologies that are contrary to the laws of physics.

Your premise that all religions are the root of all evil is not quite right. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were all atheists. Their religion was socialism. Your religion is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is causing most wars around the globe at this time. The fact that two cultures with diametrically opposed value systems can not exist peacefully in the one territory, where immigration or birth rate differentials threaten the primacy of one culture, is as immutable as the Law of Gravity. But you want to "believe" that it can be done.

So I have to keep reminding you of how dumb your thinking is, in the hope that it might get you to think straight. It happened to me. I was a trendy too until I realised that it was an ideology not only full of contradictions, it depended upon portraying my own race as the world's greatest criminals.

Races are not equal Cultures are not equal. Religions are not equal. . Individual people are not equal, not in intelligence, physical beauty, physical ability, or personality. All can be judged better or worse than others, depending upon your point of view. If the ideology you advocate to create world peace depends on everybody being equal, then you are believing in an ideology that is just as illogical as any religion.

Another apologia for mass murderers, but then the Left are past masters.

Suzi "As I have said, I think all religions and Gods are man-made creations, designed by old men to ensure they control their follower's lives." Spot on. It is a pity that Runner doesn't agree, but he can't think for himself on matters of religion, like a lot of people on OLO.

Lego. You are wrong about Hitler, he was actually a devout Catholic and not on unfriendly terms with the then Pope.

David

Wrong again LEGO. Multiculturalism does not cause wars, people cause wars.
And they go to war because of disputes over land, resources and religion.

Australia is one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world, and we haven't been a warring nation as such for some time have we? People like the Israelis and Palestinians have been killing each other regularly for centuries...over land. There is not much multiculturalism happening in Israel, that's for sure.

I dislike pigeon-holing people as 'leftists' and 'righties' etc, because that means they can only hold some certain rigid views on subjects. I have always voted for the National party, so I don't think that puts me as a 'leftie'. I am also not certain that climate change is man-made, but I am keen to see pollution decrease, and polluters pay a price.
So what 'hole' should I fit in?

There’s a Chinese saying: “Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me.”

It was already known how Bush 1 orchestrated Gulf War 1.

Jean Edward Smith wrote “George Bush's War” which tells the story. When the liars and war criminals, Bush 2, Blair and Howard tried to frighten their countries into Gulf War 2 a lot of people knew enough not to be fooled twice and marched in their thousands in protest. However, the criminals had their war, and we’re still suffering from it. The warmongers built up a tinpot dictator who was not a menace to the US, the UK and Australia into an avatar of Hitler.

If you want to believe that brutal, expensive, disastrous and unnecessary war was justified go ahead. Shame on you.

Dear Lego,

The important thing is not whether Christians follow their teaching or whether Muslims follow their teaching. The important thing is what they do. In the Christian nonsense there is a nugget of good sense:

Matthew 7:16 (KJV) Ye shall know them by their fruits...

Christians define themselves not by what Scripture says but by what they do. That's how we all define ourselves.

The flaw in both Christianity and Islam is that they both believe they have the truth and therefore have an obligation to put their truth on others. That is the prime source of the problem of both missionary religions. When one thinks one has the truth one becomes intolerant of those who don’t accept it.

Don’t worry about whether others believe what you do or not. Just act decently toward them and they will probably act decently toward you.

Ghosts and gods exist only in human imagination. The idea that a virgin was impregnated by a ghost is nonsense, and the idea that God gave an illiterate camel driver the word is also nonsense.

Both religions are nonsense. Ttreat all human beings with dignity and respect if you can. Sometimes you can’t and survive.

Why argue about the merits of two kinds of nonsense? Belief in nonsense rots the mind. Don’t follow either.

Suseonline, "I have always voted for the National party..So what 'hole' should I fit in?"

Time to buff up that image?

You do come across as a self-loathing green leftist.

Maybe you just don't know what you want and are just stirring, striking back at the nameless few who have harmed you some way in the past.

Then again, life is rather protected, comfy and routine in far-off Fremantle or thereabouts, where you have been shielded so far from the negative consequences of the Green leftist policies you have promoted for yonks on OLO.

Dear Loudmouth
,
You wrote: “But now, no, there is no more Left left. They couldn't survive the Russia-China split, ...”

The left still exists.

In the pre-revolutionary French parlement the nobility and clergy sat on the right and the commoners sat on the left of the speaker. That was the origin of the term left and right applied to politics. The commoners were the rich who were neither clergy nor nobility. The original left were the French Bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie wanted to have an equal vote with the clergy and nobility.

http://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/tennis-court-oath/ describes their effort to do so. The left became equated with revolution because the efforts of the bourgeoisie to get an equal vote in parlement were the first in a series of events that led to the French Revolution.

The words, socialist and socialism, emerged in the early 19th century. See Raymond Williams’ “Keywords” for details. A federation of working-class socialist parties formed the First International in 1864 with the support of Karl Marx. In 1876 the First International was dissolved. It was dissolved because followers of Bakunin opposed followers of Marx.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin tells about Bakunin. He saw the tyranny inherent in Marxism.

From that website:

“Bakunin criticized "authoritarian socialism" (which he associated with Marxism) and the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat which he adamantly refused.”

Bakunin said:

“If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”

The second International was formed in 1889 and broke up in 1914 due to the strains of WW1. However, the anti-Marxist anarchist movement stayed alive and well.

The Soviet Union in 1917 founded the Third International. The Trotzkyists broke with the Stalinists and formed the Fourth International in 1938.

There is also a non-Marxist democratic socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism tells about it.

Anarchists, Trotzkyists and democratic socialists still exist and were not involved in any way in the Russia-China split. Until recently there were three anarchist groups in Brisbane – Catholic anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and humanist anarchists.

david f, "Why argue about the merits of two kinds of nonsense? Belief in nonsense rots the mind. Don’t follow either"

One is left with the suspicion though that if the thread was about the flaws of Christianity you would be direct to that point and wouldn't be rushing in to lead discussion off up a dry gully with endless criticisms of Islam.

"Others are equally bad" is a beaut way of burying the truth.

//Their religion was socialism. Your religion is multiculturalism.//

If socialism and multiculturalism are religions, so is conservatism...

Welcome, brother LEGO, to the First Holy Church of People Who Aren't Actually Religious At All. We officially don't worship on Tuesdays, Thursdays and alternate Saturdays (not being religious we don't worship on any other days, but only in a purely unofficial capacity). We celebrate no religious holidays but we still like public holidays which are historically based on religion. We are very ecumenical and can't wait for the day that Jedi becomes a real religion, so that we can have May the 4th off as well. Our holy book is whatever book is your favourite book; I favour the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. We don't have any religious strictures on dress or diet. We don't perform charity in an official capacity (you're welcome perform private, non-religious charity) but we won't ask for your money either (possibly a first for a religion). You aren't required to pray, contemplate or meditate. We don't worship idols, and our version of the cross, crescent, hexagram et. al. looks like this:

http://www.this-page-intentionally-left-blank.org/

We think you'll feel right at home here, Brother LEGO, because this is the only Church in the world where entirely secular ideologies that have no particular stance on religion will be validated as a bona-fide religion. Because we are definitely a religion. At least for tax purposes...

//The fact that two cultures with diametrically opposed value systems can not exist peacefully in the one territory, where immigration or birth rate differentials threaten the primacy of one culture, is as immutable as the Law of Gravity.//

I dunno about that... I seem to recall when I was a wee lad seeing lots of stuff on the news about two 'diametrically opposed value systems' trying to exist in the one territory merrily blowing the crap out of each other... that territory being Northern Ireland.

I'm not sure how much of was about Catholicism vs. Protestantism, and how much was about the Irish being unwilling to have their land invaded by a foreign power. Probably a bit of both. But they do seem to have stopped blowing the crap out of each other, and the English haven't buggered off. I just think that wiser heads prevailed on both sides and realised that not blowing the crap out of each other was preferable to the alternative.

Multiculturalism hasn't caused any wars in Australia. There have been a few scuffles spotted here and there during our history, but nothing on the scale of the 'Troubles' (best euphemism ever). Certainly nothing on the scale of the English civil war. We're a pretty peaceful mob who seem to rub along all right together despite our differences.

Dear onthebeach,

I think you are a kind and generous person. If you prefer one form of religious nonsense to another form of religious nonsense fine.

If "people" cause wars, Susie, then the only way that you can prevent wars, is to abolish "people."
People also start wars on behalf of idealistic ideologies. The 30 million murdered and deported by Stalin died because he and his Party wanted to create a class free, ethnically blind, and profit free society. The 30 million who starved to death under Mao died because he was too stupid to figure out that socialism and collective farms could not work. Two million Cambodians died in the killing fields because their socialist leaders wanted to create the perfect society. Whoops, I suppose you did not want to mention that, because all of these idealist ideologies are getting too close to your own idealistic ideology.

Multiculturalism failed everywhere. The leaders of Germany, Austria, Britain and Italy have all made public statements saying that multiculturalism is dead in their countries. Your claim that Australia is "the world's most successful multicultural nation", sure looks funny with the crowd in their tens of thousands at the MCG in Victoria today being searched for weapons and bombs. Two days ago, a 14 year old boy was arrested for planning a terrorist attack. The authorities said that they may have to keep him locked up "indefinitely" until he can be deprogrammed. This is what our multicultural society has sunk too. We now lock up kids without trial. Some triumph of multiculturalism there.

I could easily write 1000 words giving examples of how Australia's society has changed for the worse under multiculturalism. You will still be saying Australia is the "world's most successful multicultural country" when the Muzzies start demanding Sharia Law in "their" areas, and Muslim patrols in your own neighbourhood are calling you a whore. That is already happening to Australian women driving through the Muslim suburb of Auburn.

david f,

Again, one is left with the suspicion though that if the thread was about the flaws of Christianity you would be direct to that point and wouldn't be rushing in to lead discussion off up a dry gully with endless criticisms of Islam.

"Others are equally bad" is a beaut way of burying the truth.

Thanks David,

I guess you know where I'm coming from. My grandad was a Wobbly: he distrusted the Bolsheviks much more than his daughter did later, and his idiot grandson much later again. We seemed never to have had much contact with other similar-minded people - I suppose, by the fifties, there were barely a few thousand communists in the whole of Australia, so we were an endangered species even then. I hit Maoism in about 1962, abandoned Stalinism around 1976 after reading Solzhenitsyn, and then Maoism around 1985, after reading Simon Leys' account of the murder of Lin Piao: that account made too much sense. And I came to realise the absurdities of Marxism, its inherently totalitarian nature, as a whole probably only in the last twenty years. Bu8t I still have soft spot for Marx :)

But as for a 'Left': no, I don't think there is anyone actually thinking (since they would abandon Marxism a damn lot quicker than me if they did), except to use Marxism as a handy bludgeon to beat mainly the US with, in other words, purely opportunistic. Which, I suppose, is why mobs like the Socialist Alliance for Islamist Fascism come across as so incredibly shallow: sluts for hire.

Popper and Berlin and Hayek were socialists in their youth, so I'm interested in what they learnt, no doubt painfully, that changed their philosophies. Popper wrote that he wanted to synthesise the best of both socialism and liberalism.

Both Popper and Berlin were extremely mindful of the totalitarianism inherent in any 'Utopian' theory, like Marx's: that a readymade blueprint demanded single-minded obedience, even when it - inevitably - had to be modified: whoever questioned, or didn't obey quick enough, was an enemy. That's how all Utopias seem to go.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi AJ

I find it amusing that two atheists are arguing theology.

The context of the first quote simply uses the "sword" as a metaphor. Jesus goes on to babble about turning sons against father, daughters against mothers, etc. etc. But he was not talking about war or violence.

The context of the second quote is hard to discern, because it looks like Jesus was smoking some pretty good shiit. It rambles on about how to be a good Christian using all sorts of bizarre examples. No mention of war, except he encourages masters" to "stripe" lazy and disobedient servants. I suppose that could be classed as promoting violence, but I think giving the giving a slack servant a good thrashing was considered fair enough in those days, even for a pacifist.

The third quote has already been explained.

The last is from "Revelations" I could say that we need to say no more. It has been seriously considered by many people that "Revelations: was written by a pothead on LSD. It is a chapter so bizarre that even Christians regard it with mirth. I would not take anything seriously from Revelations.

I repeat the premise that Jesus was a pacifist. He carried no sword, threatened no one with any sword, and did not use a sword on anyone. He did not tell anyone to "Kill the non Christians wherever you find them". "Lay ambushes for them." "Strike terror in their hearts". 'Cut off their fingertips". "Cut off a limb from opposite sides of the body." 'Make them see harshness in you."

We both know who said that.

Now, the reason I think you are a socialist, is because you oppose everything I write. I am a right wing racist, and you therefore, must be my diametric opposite. Unless you are simply a professional naysayer, or a part time devil's advocate?

And on the subject of stereotyping making a "goose of myself", everybody stereotypes AJ. They do it because that is how people think. People think by forming concepts based upon stereotypes of what they want to think about.

LEGO ". I am a right wing racist.."
Good on you LEGO for finally speaking the truth.

I don't like to label myself, as I think that just limits what you actually stand for.
But you go right ahead, and take your comrade Onthebeach along for the ride too...
I don't think there is anything left to say on this recurring subject that hasn't already been said.

Dear Loudmouth,

I regard Marx as a noxious bigot. Some converts try to get in good with the new milieu by denigrating their previous connections. Marx was one of those. His father was a yuppy lawyer who was freed from the restraint suffered by the Jewish population when Napoleonic forces occupied the Rhineland and removed those restrictions. Napoleon was always looking for cannon fodder to swell his ranks, and Jews thankful for their liberation fought ferociously for him. To keep his position after the Rhineland was reoccupied Heinrich Marx converted from Judaism to Lutheranism and converted Karl when Karl was six. Karl knew very little about Judaism and accepted the prejudices of the Lutheran milieu. Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” could have been written by a Nazi. An extract from that document:

“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man’s work and man’s existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it.

The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.

The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination.

It is in this sense that [in a 1524 pamphlet] Thomas Münzer declares it intolerable

“that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free.”

continued

continued

Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold.

The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.

The groundless law of the Jew is only a religious caricature of groundless morality and right in general, of the purely formal rites with which the world of self-interest surrounds itself.”

The above could be appreciated by a Nazi. Marx had been removed from the culture of his ancestors and knew little about Jews. However, he knew the attitudes toward Jews held by many Germans. The first pogrom inspired by the czarist regime to divert attention from the government’s own failings was in Kishinev in 1881. Although Marx was still writing prolifically at that time he had nothing to say on that subject. Apparently he was still a Jew hater.

Marx saw nations in various states of development. This was a Hegelian concept, and Marx was a Hegelian. Thus he could favour the Polish desire for freedom from Russia as he thought Poland was in a higher state of development than Russia. He could by the same token oppose Greek freedom from Turkey as he thought Turkey was in a higher state of development than Greece.

Marx was a terrific writer and creator of aphorisms. His writings inspired many. I regard it as a tragedy that such a bigot had so great an influence. His Manifesto was well written and encapsulates his philosophy in a vivid manner.

I believe the Manifesto was a recipe for the Marxist terrors that followed.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 points you to “Why so many Corpses” which I wrote. It’s an analysis of the tyranny manifested in the Communist Manifesto.

In my opinion Marx was a nasty piece of work.

continued

continued

About a hundred years ago my father lived in an anarchist commune in northern Manchuria. I have been connected with the humanist anarchists in Brisbane. My father’s brother was a Bolshevik arrested by the czarist police. After 4 years of Lenin he came to the US in 1921 completely cured of Bolshevism and was most happy to be a loyal American. At the age of 98 he was in his bedroom in full dress ready to go a formal affair. He fell back on the bed dead but dressed and ready to go.

When I was in university there was a movement on campus to free Willie McGee, a black man, supposedly wrongly accused of raping a white woman. The movement really didn’t give a damn about Willie McGee. They were recruiting for the CPUSA.

I have found the most useful commentary on Utopian visions to be Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies” and Talmon’s “The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.”

I always tell the truth, Susieonline. I might make mistakes and say things that are untrue. But I always believe they are true, and I am willing to be corrected.

If you do not like to label yourself, how about I do the job for you? Labelling is quite normal and everybody does it. The reason why you probably say that you do not like to label, is because some idiot in your peer group told you that labelling is a PC sin, and you bought it without even thinking about it. The words "racist", "redneck" and "bogan" are all labels, and you probably use them yourself. You even have stereotypical concepts of what constitutes these labels. If you didn't, then these nouns would have no meaning to you.

Anyhoo, going by what you say, I can get a fair idea of who you are by your stated attitudes.

OK, so who is Susieonline? What is her label? She is almost certainly has some tertiary education, believes in the "stolen generations" claptrap, hates all religion, and even tries to equate Islam with Christianity. She thinks that all religions are the font of all evil. And, (from memory) seems to think that everybody is equal. All races are equal. All cultures are equal. All religions are equally bad. Her formulae to fix the world is for everybody to be equal. No discrimination (unless it is to make dysfunctional minorities equal). So unsurprisingly, she is totally anti racist. She would never concede that any race is different, or a problem, even if onthebeach put her on The Rack for a week.

So. Suze. You are a trendy lefty. Specifically, a Socialist humanitarian. Such people commonly have contradictory views. They think that superior people know that everybody is equal. As "Internationalists", they renounce any form of tribalism or nationalism, as a way of displaying their membership of a tribe of people with supposedly high intellects. They fanatically abhor censorship, except when it applies to their opponents. They hate the Establishment, while trying to be the new Establishment. They are social climbing Socialists.

Lol LEGO, I would have to say that some of what you said about me is certainly true.
I do believe all humans should be treated equally as humans, except of course if they are criminals, then they should be punished.

I don't believe all races or religions are 'the same' though, as of course there are many differences in people of different races or cultures or religions.
That doesn't mean that any are any better than others, just that they are different.
I certainly don't like the cultural practices of some countries, but as long as they are legal in those countries, then I have to respect that.
Anyone who comes here needs to follow our laws.

Now, let's try and discuss you as the rightie racist.
You believe your culture, race, country and religion are superior to all others, and you don't want anyone from those inferior places coming to Australia.

You support white, European-based immigration above all else, because that is what you are. Better though if no-one else at all should be allowed here because that might impact upon the limited resources that you think you deserve more than they do.

You believe the only way climate can change is if your God changes it.
You support Christian, white, middle aged men as the only politicians needed in Australia, and....you have Onthebeach as your special good ol' mate on OLO :)

suseonline,

Heh, heh, there you go again, stirring, when LEGO was trying to compliment you to engage in discussion.

You need to 'fess up and disabuse the well-meaning LEGO who thinks you are a "trendy lefty...a Socialist humanitarian", when you get your rocks off by getting angry and hissing at your targets, while rattling their chains.

You have an awesome sharp tongue that could reduce a Jarrah to wood chips.

It gets a bit quiet way out in the orderly, predictable burbs of SouthWest Oz and there is not much to do? Those men have a lot to answer for, eh?

Here you go, just sing a song instead,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZ35Ar3r2k

..Hunker down, incoming! LOL

Onthebeach, the truth hurts aye?
Did you recognize yourself in my analysis of LEGO's online character?

Your little link didn't work, but I have no doubt I wouldn't have liked it anyway.
Any nastiness I could muster up could never live up to your masterful levels....

Awesome.

Here is that link again, just sing along now,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZ35Ar3r2k

To Susie.

You seem to have me confused with fundamentalist racists. Think of me as a "moderate" racist.

I do not think that my race is superior to all others, just that races are different. Some run better, some swim better, some have better solar protection for their skin, some are more intelligent, and some more prone to criminal behaviour than others. I think that the Asians are as a general rule, more intelligent than whites, and their cultures are often superior to western culture in many ways. I must be an Asian supremacist.

I am an atheist who is grateful for the Protestant Christian culture upon which the laws and culture of western democracies are largely built.

I live in a generally peaceful and prosperous society and I want to keep it that way. However much I would agree with you that there are good people in every race, creed and culture, the fact remains that the indiscriminate importation of people into western countries who hail from third world cesspits has been a social and economic catastrophe for the west. It will eventually lead to serious social strife, bankruptcy, terrorism, civil war, and national disintegration. This is already manifest.

I think that the idea that all cultures and religions are equal is just too ridiculous for words. I know that the culture of white protestant Europeans largely defines the modern world, and I am intensely proud of that fact. Those cultures which largely adopted our ways are doing very well. Those that rejected them went backwards. Those dysfunctional countries are the priest, mullah, commissar, President for Life, and witch doctor ridden societies who reject national cultural unity, gender equality, rule of law, scientific inquiry, objective reasoning, democracy, free markets, secular government, and free speech.

On the topic of climate change, I agree that the climate always changes. I agree that human factors can contribute to climate change, and I have no problem with governments encouraging alternative sources of energy production. But I don't buy the idea that the sky will fall unless we all become Amish

I am sorry LEGO, I didn't realize you were an atheist. You mustn't be too bad then :).

I don't agree that any race is more intelligent than another, but rather that some countries have more opportunities for realizing their people's intellectual abilities than others. Poverty or third world conditions does not necessarily mean the people are less intelligent at all.

As far as mixing races and cultures around the world, I would suggest that multiculturalism IS the new way of life for people these days. So many are on the move, and we have so much more methods of transport and ways to move/migrate to other countries than back in the good old days.

No longer can any country expect to live in isolation to the rest of the world, and we need to deal with that fact and just get on with it. Australia hasn't been an isolated country since before Europeans invaded it, so you shouldn't be surprised.
Embrace it rather than be afraid.

Thanks David,

I think we are probably now on the same page. It's characteristic that writers like Marx and Engels and Lenin always seem to be behind the play: they write about conditions which have already been transformed, but stick to their convenient narrative - and impose it, unchanged and perhaps unchangeable - on their Utopian blueprints. And like you and Popper, I would see such 'unchangeable' blueprints, no matter how well-intended, as the mark of totalitarianism.

And one aspect of any Utopian dream is that, unfortunately, there are always groups, classes, races, that don't quite fit into the blueprint, and so regrettably have to be 'extracted' or removed. If necessary, by the millions.

Popper advocates incremental improvement, which our impatient young friends would have no time for. I was just reading Popper's 1973 article 'For s Better World' and was reminded that, in policy studies as in Utopian day-dreaming, supposedly brilliant experts deliberate and come up with a formulation for the best policy. Then they go home.

But Wildavsky and Elmore showed that - just as in Utopian blueprints - that's just when the problems start, at the implementation stage, so there has to be a constant, to-and-fro adjustment, re-thinking, re-implementation process - what Popper would advocate as learning from trial and error - and Utopian thinking simply can't admit failure at that initial point. But there is no telling where policy may lead and what unforeseen hassles might arise - in other words, where the brilliant experts would completely cock it up on their own.

Utopian blueprints inevitably turn fascist: their authors are not possessed with all knowledge, time passes and circumstances change under their feet, and in effect, they are trying to implement something that is both defective and out-moded even when they begin.

[TBC]

[continued]

Not to mention that 'a dictatorship of the proletariat' does seem to have totalitarianism built into it from the outset. I could never understand Mao's 'On the People's Democratic Dictatorship': if it was democratic, with the people in power, then why a dictatorship ? But to my shame, I relegated it to my back-brain, never allowing it to interfere with my front-brain, justifying it in terms of class enemies everywhere.

Charles Lindblom wrote some wonderful stuff in the 70s and 80s on Soviet economics and its complete unworkability. His advice on policy was to devise systems that 'muddled through', that had in-built re-thinking, re-formulation, re-implementation mechanisms, adapting as you learnt - again, as with Popper, by trial and error. What worked, what didn't ?

There is no room for that sort of humble thinking in grand Utopian blueprints.

And, to get back to topic, Islam is the most rigid, the 'grandest', but the most out-of-date of Utopian blueprints, and taken to its logical limits, perhaps the most fascist doctrine ever devised.

Thanks again, David.

Joe

To Susieonline.

Asian counties like China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and even Japan, were very poor societies only 50 years ago Despite being resource poor, they are now economically and socially successful countries, and they mainly did it all by themselves. South Korea in particular suffered from every problem imaginable. Colonialism, extreme poverty, civil war and national division. They are now the fourth biggest economy in the world.

Most Muslim Arab countries are floating on oil, and they should be rich and successful. What makes them failures is their religious culture which keeps them dumb and poor. All cultures are not equal.

Every single black run country on Earth is a dysfunctional failure. Many black countries have resources (gold, diamonds, minerals, oil) that the Asians can only dream about. Black countries have been deluged with foreign aid for decades, but their situation just becomes worse and worse. Even within successful western societies, black people and Muslims form welfare dependent and crime prone minorities, while even Asians from poor countries like Vietnam become upwardly mobile. Your claim that people have equal intelligence just does not stack up. Even within schools in western Sydney, which supposedly have equal resources, the Asian kids generally do better than the whites, the Muslim boys are a pain in the butt, and the black kids drop out.

Two thirds of the NT education budget goes towards aboriginal kids, who make up one third of the pupils. And the only outcome is that there is a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN testing. The socialists wish to remedy that embarrassing difference by banning NAPLAN testing.

I would love to believe that everybody is equal, but it just isn't so. Education and nutrition can improve intelligence, but no amount of nutrition or education can turn a basically dumb person into an Einstein.

Human beings evolved separately in different parts of the world, and that is why they have different physical characteristics and different physical abilities. To say that different environments can evolve in humans equal mental characteristics does not make sense.

LEGO, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Saudi Arabia is one of the richest places on earth? Aren't they predominantly Muslim?

There are 'dumb' people in all groups of people on the earth, so your theory that any one race or culture is less intelligent doesn't always fit does it, or wouldn't all members of one race, colour or culture be the same?

Barrack Obama is the most influential man on this Earth, and that must really upset you, as he doesn't seem to fit your racial stereotype does he?

Hi Suse,

You're right, Saudi Arabia - on aggregate - is one of the richest countries on earth, because of its vast oil deposits. That - being rich without having to work, what they call a 'rentier economy' - may fit the Islamist model, which has always disdained productive work, but it's hardly applicable to the rest of us.

I also agree with you that no particular ethnic group is all that much smarter than any other, it depends very much on opportunity: give any group of people opportunities, and some will grab them, some will not.

Of course, stand in their way, implement bullsh!t 'opportunities' and they won't. In the case of Aboriginal people, in remote communities, the 'option' of non-English has condemned children for a couple of generations now to the most rubbish education, which has left communities totally unskilled and powerless, totally at the mercy of the outside world on which they depend.

Meanwhile, mainly in urban areas, forty thousand Indigenous people have now graduated from universities. One in seven or eight adults. One in five women, one in ten men. In remote 'communities', people are closed off, spatially and culturally. In urban situations, people have access to an open society, standard schooling, access to the economy, and to standard trades training and tertiary education.

Keep people shut out of opportunities, and yes, they will seem to be stupider than others. But wrong policy can take generations to remedy.

Cheers,

Joe

Here we are banging on about race again, there is only one human race and we all belong to the that race.
Race is man's most dangerous myth.

The Saudis are floating on an ocean of oil, Susie. And what have they done with their wealth? Led space exploration? Invented any new life saving surgical techniques? Produced any wonder drugs? Are they renowned for their manufactured goods? Would you like to live in Saudi Arabia? The only Muslim countries which have any money and no oil are those with a bunch of Chinese running their economy.

I am glad that you are smart enough to figure out that whatever the race, some people are very dumb, some mildly dumb, most with average intelligence, some with above average intelligence, and some who are very smart. What is your explanation for this? Are all babies born with equal intelligence? And do they simply develop different intelligences through their life because of environmental reasons? Or does genetics play a big part?

If you have the smarts to figure out that intelligence can be heritable, and that genetics must play a part in any person's IQ, then you have just crossed the Rubicon.

Human races have different proportions of people with very low, low, average, above average, and high intelligence. That is not to say that there are no smart blacks or dumb Asians. But the different races have different bell curves of intelligence.

In most modern societies, the smartest (or most ruthless) people are at the top, and the dumbest are at the bottom. Smart people in the lowest class do not stay there because they are upwardly mobile. My own mother was a barefoot girl on a farm, a waitress, an usherette, a cook on sheep stations, and she became an executive on a TV station. As a former Housing Commission tenant, I know that most "disadvantaged" people are just plain dumb. Most criminals come from the "disadvantaged" classes because they are dumb.

And as with populations, so to with civilisations. There are some civilisations which are smart and successful, and some which are dumb and poor. And their success or disadvantage pretty well equates with the mean intelligence levels of their populations

Suseonline, "I believe Saudi Arabia is one of the richest places on earth? Aren't they predominantly Muslim?"

There is your compartmentalised mind at work again and your convenient short memory.

Would that be the same Saudi Arabia that has 100,000 large air-conditioned tents standing idle in a tent city that houses up to 3 million for Islamic knees-ups (and the Saudis turn a profit out of those tents!). The huge tents are also fireproof and equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities.

However, Saudi Arabia has left it to Europe to take those Syrian 'refugees' you say Australia should be taking as well?

The Saudis take short term guest workers, but no way that they will offer a home to those Muslims from Syria and elsewhere. Not something you and would accept of the Australian government.

However Saudi Arabia is more than willing to fund mosques in western democracies.

One would think that you would be criticising the 'religion of peace'(sic) for largely being unresponsive to the crisis and not even taking care of its own (as you would slam Christian churches if they did similar), but of course you never do.

Well done Joe and onthebeach, I got the distinct impression that our arguments made Susieonline think twice. Her last post was feeble and simply consisted of a few sneery one liners.

I doubt if it will last though. Susie appears to be an Egalitarian who really does think that all humans are equal. Therefore, if any minority is not doing well, it is because somebody is "oppressing" them, or not giving them a fair go. She will go on advocating this philosophy, because she thinks that fighting against "oppression" and discrimination will stop wars and Save the World.

She does not know what to do if her philosophy is revealed as a fantasy. So she will keep on advocating this nonsense forever. She claims that she hates religion and does not support Islam. But her defence of Muslim immigration into western countries amounts to the same thing. She is doing exactly what the imams and mullahs want her to do.

Angela Merkel responded angrily to the fact that Saudi Arabia did not offer to take even one Syrian "refugee", but instead gave billions to Islamic organisations in Germany to build mosques for the millions of Muslims now pouring into Germany. Any intelligent person can see that the leaders of Islam see immigration and demographic change as the way to turn Europe (and Australia) Muslim. And it is a tactic which is working just fine because of people like Susie.

But Susie refuses to look at what she does not want to see. She will go on defending Muslim immigration into western countries because to oppose it would be "discrimination" and "racism", and according to her ideology, she can never support what she believes is morally wrong. Even when she knows that it is practical and the only answer.

So she is in a quandary. She hates religions and knows that Islam is utterly reprehensible. She does not want to live under Islam herself. She wants to live in western countries with their personnel freedoms, but she can't bring herself to oppose Islamic immigration because it contravenes her ideology.

LEGO, "Susie appears to be an Egalitarian who really does think that all humans are equal"

Then how come she has apparently spent years on this site alone doing her trademark drive-bys, caustic bullets aimed at 'white' men and so on?

Why is she determined as other self-loathing leftists (as opposed to the real Left -Jazz loving 'outlaws' who would never support a toxic, freedom-denying religio-political system that is Islam) to have endless diversity? The obvious answer applying Occam's' Razor is that Suseonline and other green leftists such as Greens Sarah Howling Young just hate the guts of the 'Whites' they despise and the inherited traditions from the UK and just because!

There are many before you who tried to reason with Suseonline and her tag-team, but to no avail. It is all water off a duck's back. There is nothing to see there but a feminist dino left over from the previous Millenium, half a century ago, who gets a buzz from her random drive-bys from arguing, and at the same is getting square with those men and the (RC) church who did her wrong.

Ever seen old dragons on public transport indulging themselves (and depressing other passengers) with the same life-wasting rituals? -Nags who dump on their in-laws, husband, friends, you name it? Sad compensation for lost youth and for the decisions they made, or should have made, in their own sorry lives? They get off the bus seemingly refreshed by their rituals. Everyone else gets off depressed - should have moved seats out of earshot, they observe.

You are earnest and kind, two positives of many that will see you have a happy life if you do not fall into the 'caring and rescuing' traps.

Just thinking, mothers really need to brief their boys and male youth on how to care for themselves. Along with telling them how to separate the wheat from the chaff, and not to waste the years of decent young women of course.

Hi onthebeach

I formed part of a tag team with an American journalist who actually managed to "convert" a really smart chick from an Australian university, who had two degrees (one on Law) , and who had handed out "The Green Left Weekly". So it can be done. She admitted that she was having doubts, and she came on the debate site to test her own opinions. Her legal training helped her be totally objective, and she was swayed only by reasoned logic. She said that the yank and myself had "thoroughly outpointed" the opposition.

The young lady admitted that she had been completely immersed in the leftist ideology because it was simply the thing to do at university. She had never really thought about it, she just accepted that "smart" people espoused leftism and she needed to fit in with her peer group.

Susie is probably the same. Catholics make the best leftists because they have been brought up in an absolutist culture which preached heaven after death, and they simply exchange it for another absolutist culture that preaches heaven on Earth.

Leftist ideology is full of contradictions and double standards. The trick is, to keep forcing the "Susie's" to face those contradictions and double standards. The most obvious, is that the lefties all champion equality, while thinking that they are superior human beings themselves.

Susie ran out of steam when I mentioned that people are not equal in intelligence, and that dumb people inhabit the lowest class. As a smart chick, she already knows that. And as a nurse, she must have had practical experience in nursing people from the lowest class who have injured themselves because of complete stupidity.

Most people do not injure themselves or become sick because they are "discriminated against" or because of "racism". They do it because they are stupid. And stupid people most commonly live in the lowest class. Smart people don't eat crap. Smart people eat good, nutritious food. Smart people exercise. Smart people are not the main customers in Emergency Units in hospitals.

I also had an encounter with a Green Left Weekly salesman. He told me that if he had the power he would limit publications to those which were against capitalism so the people would not be misled. I pointed out that we live in a capitalist society which allows the publication of the Green Left Weekly. The capitalist society we live in is also a free society which allows different points of view in the assumption that people can make their own choice. Capitalist societies can be democratic or undemocratic. Socialist societies can be democratic or undemocratic. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Democracy and dictatorship are political systems. Nevertheless, he was for the dictatorship of the proletariat and a thorough totalitarian who would deny other people the freedom he was enjoying. I believe I made absolutely no impression.

Hi David,

Thanks for your valuable insights. I have to admit to thinking when I was a kid, in a communist family (or maybe I'm 'remembering' from much later), and after the 1951 referendum which allowed the Communist Party to remain legal, that, after all, we WERE plotting and planning to overthrow the entire system, so perhaps it was understandable if any sensible government would seek to keep such forces in check.

As for the proletariat, somewhere I read that the actual number of workers in manufacturing peaked in about 1966 and has been in decline ever since. These days, barely 10% of workers - in all areas: agriculture, manufacturing and services - are in unions, whose total membership is overwhelmingly professional. The proletariat is far smaller, more highly skilled, better paid, than fifty years ago. And in fact is more likely to be looked down on by the Left these days as 'bogans', too materialist for their own good, betraying their true destiny.

But even back then, about the time I started working in factories, the 'proletariat' was substantially non-Anglo - migrants who had come to Australia to make better lives for themselves away from war-zones, and who were totally prepared to work like buggery to contribute to Australia's economy. In some factories, I was often the only locally-born Anglo apart from the 'bosses'.

But the Left was oblivious to this: I associated with a mob called the Worker-Student Alliance for a few weeks in about 1972 and had a few arguments with them about the multi-ethnic nature of the 'proletariat', which they hotly denied. Of course, they would have had no means whatever to reach such workers. They were probably at least twenty or thirty years behind the times, perhaps fifty years or more, even back then.

And, in one place, about 1973, when the men did a sort of dirty deal with management against the women, that was it for me.

So the likelihood of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in Australia is pretty low, and shrinking fast.

[TBC]

[continued]

Of course, there is one idiot strategy that I suspect some are still attached to: given, as they think, the continued immiseration of the working class, and therefore its inevitable overthrow of the capitalist system, if that can be hastened by making the condition of the working class actually WORSE, by inciting the evil capitalist state to be MORE repressive, then that will eventually enrage the working class to rise up and overthrow the system, and bring about a communist system.

Seriously.

No, seriously.

I think that was the dumb-dumb strategy which the CPA was employing before and during the War - that a victory for fascism would be temporary (see above: repression etc.) and after that short period of fascist victory, the workers would rise up etc. etc. Hence don't worry about a 'temporary' fascist victory. Hence the sabotage throughout the War by CPA-controlled unions: strikes, go-slows, outright sabotage. I was partly named after one such union boss, Jim Healy.

But hope springs eternal: the dumb-dumb 'urban guerillas' in South America - Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Peru - from the sixties onwards tried the same strategy: force the system to get more repressive, and the inevitable overthrow of capitalism would follow. Workers' paradises would rule.

So how did that go ?

Playing with other people's lives, hoping to sacrifice the lives of perhaps thousands of workers for the victory of a party clique - this approach has been an evil assumption ever since Marx's hopes for the Paris Commune in 1871. And, come to think of it, how did that go, apart from the slaughter of workers against the walls of Pere-Lachaise ? Nearly 150 years ago.

Religious thinking is a strange beast - it depends on which god one believes in. And Utopian blueprints can so easily generate into that way of thinking, godless religions maybe, but still religions for all that, based typically on unchanging - and unchangeable - dicta. In that way, they all become reactionary and repressive, and utterly out of touch with reality.

Thanks again, David. Merry Christmas.

Joe

LEGO,

Generalisations are always wrong. And your defence in your last post to me, that stereotyping is just what everyone does, is the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html).

This is the problem with your arguments, they sound as if they are well reasoned to the naive, yet are based purely on fallacious reasoning.

<<Catholics make the best leftists because they have been brought up in an absolutist culture which preached heaven after death...>>

How is this any different to Protestantism?

<<...and they simply exchange it for another absolutist culture that preaches heaven on Earth.>>

Communism might. There you go generalising again.

<<Leftist ideology is full of contradictions and double standards.>>

So is Rightist ideology. This is why there are many out there who cannot be clearly labelled as Left or Right. They are aware, to some degree or another, of the inherent contradictions in ideologies.

<<The most obvious, is that the lefties all champion equality, while thinking that they are superior human beings themselves.>>

Really? All of them? How do you know this?

<<Susie ran out of steam when I mentioned that people are not equal in intelligence, and that dumb people inhabit the lowest class.>>

Or perhaps she saw the futility of arguing with you? I, for example, have already explained to you the complexities surrounding the relationship between socioeconomic status and intelligence numerous times, and yet here you are making the same simplistic assumption.

Now you’re making more simplistic assumptions about low socioeconomic status and health care, assuming that it’s all about intelligence without factoring in access to preventative care due to distance, language or cultural barriers; the cost of healthier lifestyles; lower education levels; biological factors; psychological factors, etc. (http://www3.nd.edu/~wevans1/class_papers/Adler_1994_Health.pdf).

Then you play the victim card by assuming that all the blame is directed towards the demonisation of white people, despite myself having corrected you on that numerous times too. It’s mostly the educated upper-middle class that aren’t vaccinating their children anymore. Are they dumb too?

Your entire worldview is a network of over-simplifications and generalisations, making it so easy take down.

Hahaha AJ!

You said that "all generalisations are wrong". THAT IS A GENERALISATION, you fool. You made a generalisation about generalisations. And your generalisation must be wrong, because you claim that all generalisations are wrong. Thank you for putting your foot right in it and proving that I was right. People think by making generalizations or stereotypes about everything. They may be generalisations that may be right, or they may be wrong. But you have to generalise to form concepts in your mind. To say that people should not stereotype or make generalisations "because they might be wrong", is exactly like saying that people should not think "because they might be wrong."

Then what did you do? You made a generalisation about my arguments, saying that all of my arguments are based on "fallacious reasoning." All you are did, was prove that my premise was correct again. My arguments are therefore not based upon "fallacious reasoning" because you have twice proven that I was correct. Your generalisation was incorrect again.

And what do you mean by "rightist ideology?" Please tell me what that "rightist ideology" is without making generalisations.

What makes anyone "right wing" is simply nationalism. That is why people like yourself consider a socialist like Hitler as "right wing." He may have proclaimed himself a socialist, and bragged about saving Europe from "Jewish-Bolshevik socialism" with "real socialism." But because he was a nationalist, you think he was "right wing." Nationalism is simply loyalty to ones own country and people (what went wrong with you?) Since when was loyalty an ideology?

Anytime you want to debate me on race, social dysfunction, and intelligence, go right ahead. But I demand that you submit arguments justifying your position, instead of simply attacking everything I say and using links instead of arguments. And you can bet that I will come down on you like a ton of bricks every time you make generalisations or stereotype. Have fun thinking up an argument without doing that.

Hahaha.

Hahahaha, LEGO! You missed the point of the paradox, you fool! Hahaha!

Seriously though. Loved the nervous laugh there.

<<People think by making generalizations or stereotypes about everything.>>

Hahaha! You used a generalisation to justify a generalisation. That's circular reasoning, you fool!

Not all the time.

Worse still, that's a fallacious argument and I just finished pointing that out to you. Restating your point doesn't change that.

<<They may be generalisations that may be right, or they may be wrong.>>

Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations. So your analogy with thinking is invalid.

<<But you have to generalise to form concepts in your mind.>>

There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype.

<<You made a generalisation about my arguments, saying that all of my arguments are based on "fallacious reasoning.">>

Correct. I cannot recall one that wasn't.

<<Please tell me what that "rightist ideology" is without making generalisations.>>

Describing an ideology is not a generalisation.

<<What makes anyone "right wing" is simply nationalism.>>

No, there's a lot more to it than that: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics. Rightism is an ideology because it is a network of ideas, not just loyalty.

<<That is why people like yourself consider a socialist like Hitler as "right wing.">>

No, Hitler was also right-wing because he hated and arrested socialists, banned trade unions, favoured individualism over collectivism, segregation over racial tolerance, merit over equality, competition over co-operation, militarism over pacifism, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, common sense over theory, and pragmatism over principles. The Nazi party's name was a legacy and a misnomer (like the 'German Democratic Republican') left there because socialism was popular at the time.

<<Anytime you want to debate me on race, social dysfunction, and intelligence, go right ahead.>>

Brave talk for someone who had failed three times already. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259&page=0, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534&page=0)

By the way, links can support arguments. You're just sour because nothing scholarly supports your simplistic assumptions. Ignore them all you like, but being so audience-focused, you do so at your own peril.

Hi AJ.

You made a generalisation about "generalisations," when you claimed that "generalisations were always wrong." Of course I made a generalisation about generalisations when I opposed your stupid statement. I can do it, but you can't. I know everybody does it because that is how people think. You are in an awkward position, AJ. You say it is wrong to generalise, then you went and did it yourself. Twice. You have not thought this out, have you? Keep going AJ. I love to see you squirm.

Now you are qualifying your generalisation about "generalisations" and saying that " "generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations." OK, now take note AJ, I have just cut and pasted your quote about how wrong it is to "generalise large populations" in my "AJ clangers" file. You can never make any negative generalisations about Americans, Nazis, One Nation supporters, Bogans, right wingers, white people, or, for that matter, any group of people at all, ever again. As a matter of fact, you can not even conceptualise what these groups of people are, because that would force you to create a stereotype in your own mind so that you could create the concept. Hahaha. This is going to be funny. Every time you name a group of people, I am going to ask you to define that group of people. Then I am going to throw your quote back in your face. By the way, what is a "redneck?"

Now you are saying that it is wrong to judge people based upon a stereotype. That is going into your "clangers" file too. So, how do you judge any group of people when you can't even form a stereotypical concept of what constitutes that particular group? And if it is wrong to form stereotypes of entire groups of people (positive or negative) , you sure are going to get some stick from me when I catch you doing it yourself. I have been down this road many, many times with fools like you, AJ. And I always catch them out

C’mon LEGO. Let’s not pretend I wasn’t referring to talking about groups of people.

<<You made a generalisation about "generalisations,"...>>

So your first paragraph can largely be disregarded. But’s let’s take a look at this for a moment...

<<I know everybody does it because that is how people think.>>

So what? That doesn’t make it good or right unless, again, you want to appeal to the Common Practice fallacy.

<<Now you are qualifying your generalisation about "generalisations" and saying that " "generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.">>

Correct. I didn’t think you were silly or dishonest enough to need that qualified in the first place.

<<OK, now take note AJ, I have just cut and pasted your quote about how wrong it is to "generalise large populations" in my "AJ clangers" file.>>

Yes, I’m sure you have. Strange that you never get to use these “clangers” again.

<<You can never make any negative generalisations about Americans, Nazis, One Nation supporters, Bogans, right wingers, white people, or … any group of people at all, ever again.>>

Again? Have I ever done that before?

<<...you can not even conceptualise what these groups of people are ... Hahaha.>>

So now you’re a thought cop? How deliciously evil. You should have said, “Muhahahaha!”

<<Every time you name a group of people, I am going to ask you to define that group of people. Then I am going to throw your quote back in your face.>>

Cool, got it.

<<By the way, what is a "redneck?">>

It’s a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US.

Again, defining a term isn’t generalising. You’re still not getting this, are you?

<<So, how do you judge any group of people when you can't even form a stereotypical concept of what constitutes that particular group?>>

Simple. Either don’t, or use qualifiers such as “most”, “many”, and “some”.

<<...you sure are going to get some stick from me when I catch you doing it yourself.>>

O-o-o-o, this'll be exciting. I bet there’ll all sorts of fallacies from you along the way too.

Oh, I'd better clarify further, before you get too excited again, LEGO, that I'm referring to the more fallacious sweeping generalisations (e.g. All poor people are stupid, all Lefties think [insert sweeping generalisation here]).

I can never be too careful with you, or assume more that you understand what I'm referring to. Not when you're desperate to find anything you can latch onto and twist the meaning of to score a cheap point from, at least.

C'mon AJ. Let's not pretend that you did not understand that stereotyping is relevant to everything, including groups of people. I think that you got yourself in a dark corner and thought about it, then realised that I was right. People form stereotypes to create concepts so that they can think. But you can't admit that, because that would be a particularly unpleasant piece if crow to eat.

Saying that "Stereotyping groups of people doesn't make it right" is exactly like saying that "thinking about groups of people doesn't make it right."

Now you propose that "definitions are not stereotypes". Well, let's see. Your definition of a "redneck" is a "politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US." If you believe that, then that is your stereotype of what a redneck is. Your stereotype is not exactly correct, but it does not need to be. It only needs to be correct enough for you to form a concept of what you think a redneck is. I do not agree with your generalised stereotype of rednecks. But I can not criticise you for the act of stereotyping. That is just how you conceptualise "a large group of people" you call "rednecks."

Your definition/stereotype of a redneck also includes stereotypes. Calling rednecks "political reactionaries" is a negative prejudgement, and that negative prejudgement becomes part of your stereotype. "Working-class white person from the southern US," is implying that being a "political reactionary" is endemic among white working class Southerners. That is a racist stereotype.

I hope you learn something from this, AJ. Some idiot in your peer group has said that "stereotyping, labelling, and prejudging people is wrong." And you just accepted it, hook, line and sinker. I am different to you. I don't run with your pompous herd and parrot the accepted wisdom. I question and I think.

Everybody generalises. Everybody stereotypes. Everybody labels. And everybody makes pre judgements. It is all part of a process called "thinking". And that is a concept that you are having trouble with, AJ.

LEGO,

I already addressed your first paragraph when I pointed out your fallacious appeal to common practice. All I would add is that there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations.

<<Saying that "Stereotyping groups of people doesn't make it right" is exactly like saying that "thinking about groups of people doesn't make it right.">>

I didn’t say "stereotyping groups of people doesn't make it right".

<<Now you propose that "definitions are not stereotypes".>>

Correct.

<<If you believe [your definition of what a redneck is], then that is your stereotype of what a redneck is.>>

Incorrect.

“Redneck” is a term used to describe a type of person. I would only be stereotyping if I were to, say, claim that all Texans are rednecks. Labels are not stereotypes.

Is this starting to sink in yet?

<<Your stereotype is not exactly correct, but it does not need to be.>>

I haven’t provided a stereotype, only a definition. So the rest of your paragraph there may be disregarded. If you don’t like the definition, however, then take it up with Oxford.

<<Your definition/stereotype of a redneck also includes stereotypes.>>

Definitions and stereotypes are two completely different things. Consult a dictionary.

Stereotype:
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=define:stereotype

Definition:
http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Adefinition

<<Calling rednecks "political reactionaries" is a negative prejudgement…>>

Take it up with Oxford then. There are people who fit the definition. If someone doesn’t then they’re not a redneck. Stereotyping only occurs when a label is *indiscriminately* applied to an entire group.

You can’t honestly be this thick.

Anyway, you’ve been mighty quiet on the issue of over-simplifications. Do you not contest that your worldview is full of them?

Hi AJ.

Thank you for implying that stereotyping is "common practice." It is common, all right, because everybody does it. And if everybody does it, it can't be wrong. It is a normal and natural way of thinking.

A "definition" is simply a statement about the exact meaning of a word. When you apply definitions to what constitutes particular groups of people, things start to go pear shaped. You have to deal with the fact that some people in that group may not exactly fit the dictionary definition of what constitutes that group of people. That does not mean that groups of people can not be defined (or even must not be defined) on the grounds that no definition of any group of people can be exact. It just means that groups of people can not be defined exactly. But you need to think about groups of people. So you accept an inexact definition of that group so that you can think about it. You, or your own group, form a stereotype (which can be based upon a definition, an observation, or a deduction, of what constitutes that group of people that you need to think about. You know that it can not be exact, but it is exact enough to think about them and form judgements and opinions about them.

A definition of a group of people can be a stereotype of that group of people. Or it can used to form a stereotype of that group of people.

Your "definition" of what a "redneck" is, becomes your stereotype of what your concept of a redneck is. It is not entirely correct, but it is correct enough for you to form judgements and opinions about "a large group of people" called "rednecks". Your definition of rednecks included the judgement that rednecks have "reactionary views." If you include reactionary views in your definition of a redneck, then you are applying that characteristic to all rednecks. You are stereotyping all rednecks as having "reactionary views."

You just stereotyped. Naughty, naughty.

It’s no problem, LEGO.

<<Thank you for implying that stereotyping is "common practice.">>

I’ve only done it four times now.

<<And if everybody does it, it can't be wrong. It is a normal and natural way of thinking.>>

Now you’ve committed the Appeal to Nature fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). You’re on a roll. You’ve also ignored my distinction between merely ‘thinking in stereotypes’, and moving past them in order to reason in more complex situations.

<<A "definition" is simply a statement about the exact meaning of a word.>>

Correct.

<<When you apply definitions to what constitutes particular groups of people, things start to go pear shaped.>>

Yes (that or their labels), but only if it is done based on some other unrelated factor.

However, you didn’t ask me to apply the label ‘redneck’, or its definition, to a particular group of people. You asked me what a redneck is.

<<You have to deal with the fact that some people in that group may not exactly fit the dictionary definition of what constitutes that group of people.>>

No, you don’t. Because if the definition doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply. How can a classification of person, include people who do not fit that classification?

<<A definition of a group of people can be a stereotype of that group of people.>>

No. To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.

This is the inconvenient point you keep dodging around.

<<Your "definition" of what a "redneck" is…>>

Once again, it’s the Oxford dictionary’s definition, but I'm happy to accept it as a valid definition (which, by fiat, automatically excludes an individual who does not fit the definition). If you don’t like it, then take it up with Oxford.

Your entire reasoning is based on your erroneous conflation of definitions and stereotypes.

AJ.

Instead of indulging in mental gymnastics by trying to avoid the question, why don't you just admit that you are wrong, and that I am right?

I asked you to tell me what "rednecks" are, and I had a feeling that you were going to do something devious to avoid answering the question. When you submitted a dictionary definition instead of giving a personnel definition, I knew it was because you had figured out that you could not explain what "rednecks" were without stereotyping. So you gave a dictionary definition, that you realised was also a stereotype. But at least you could disown it as not your own words, and thereby avoid answering the question while pretending that you were answering it.

Cute.

Look, AJ. It is as obvious as the nose on your face that you know I am right. The more you squirm and prevaricate, the sillier you look.

Well, you are not off the hook yet. If you refuse to come clean and admit that you were wrong, and you still intend to try your luck debating me on anything, then I can make your life miserable by continually bringing up the very question that you most desperately do not want to answer. You have got a serious problem and you know it. You are going to have to be careful and never say anything good or bad about any group of people, because you know I will ask you "What are the characteristics that identify that group?" That is really going to crimp your style. And then you will have to play silly buggers again and think up some way to avoid answering the question, without losing credibility with your pityingly few admirers.

My prediction is, that you will stand on your dignity and angrily deny that you have done anything wrong, and pretend that you are debating in good faith. Well, that will work for a while, but you know that I now know your weakest link, and that I intend to amuse myself by sawing away at it whenever I feel the inclination.

Yoo hoo, AJ. Where arrrrrre youuuuuuu?

C'mon boy. You keep bragging about how you always beat me. Stop hiding and show us all how smart you are.

Sorry I don't sit at my computer clicking refresh every five minutes, LEGO. In case you haven't noticed, it's Christmas, and being an Australian with Finnish heritage who married an Australian, I get to celebrate Christmas on both Christmas eve and Christmas day. As it is, I'm being told to get off my phone now as I type. For what it's worth, I only brag about handing your arse to you on a plate because of your unjustified hubris and obsession with 'winning' debates.

I could imagine that distinguishing between two definitions would look like mental gymnastics to someone who is incapable of understanding the difference.

<<Instead of indulging in mental gymnastics by trying to avoid the question, why don't you just admit that you are wrong, and that I am right?>>

When you've got nothing left, just ask your opponent to say that you're right.

<<I asked you to tell me what "rednecks" are, and I had a feeling that you were going to do something devious to avoid answering the question.>>

No, I told you.

"It’s a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317570)

No deviousness required.

<<When you submitted a dictionary definition instead of giving a personnel definition, I knew it was because you had figured out that you could not explain what "rednecks" were without stereotyping.>>

"...if the definition doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply. How can a classification of person, include people who do not fit that classification?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

This still applies to a personal definition. You "knew" nothing.

<<So you gave a dictionary definition, that you realised was also a stereotype.>>

No, I've already explained why a definition isn't a stereotype:

"To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

Your comprehension skills are appalling.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Look, AJ. It is as obvious as the nose on your face that you know I am right.>>

Then provide some reasoning for your claim.

<<The more you squirm and prevaricate, the sillier you look.>>

Yes, the only one here who is able to respond to direct quotes and link back to what they've already said, is "squirming". Good luck convincing your audience of that.

<<...I can make your life miserable by continually bringing up the very question that you most desperately do not want to answer.>>

Oh please, ask away. I don't even know what you're referring to.

Yay, back again, AJ? I was hoping that you would be back. I see that you are maintaining your usual pose of outraged superiority, while playing word games about the singular or plural use of the word "redneck." Anything to muddy the water, confuse the issue, and hopefully slip away with your dignity intact, eh AJ?

Your premise was that, "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations. So your analogy with thinking is invalid."

You also say that you "accept" the Oxford dictionary definition of a "redneck" as "a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US."

"Rednecks" is the plural of "redneck." "Rednecks", therefore, are politically reactionary working class white PEOPLE from the southern US.

According to your above reasoning, it would be 'wrong" for anyone to use the term "redneck" (or "rednecks"),because the Oxford dictionary's definition is an inaccurate generalisation "which can not be applied to large populations." You do not need to be a working class person, or live in the Southern US, to be labelled a "redneck". I am a redneck, and I do not live in the Southern US. Yet you "accept" the Oxford definition, even though it is a classification "which includes people who do not fit that classification,"

Using the term "redneck" is also "wrong" (according to your logic) because even if it applied to white working people everywhere who work in the sun,(and therefore have "red necks") it implies that all white people with red necks have "reactionary views." "Redneck" is, once again, a generalised stereotype which is inaccurate. Yet, once again, you have admitted that you "accept" it.

Thirdly, it is a plainly racist term that defines people's attitudes and behaviour based upon the colour of their skin. If I did that, you would scream I am a racist, and shreik about how utterly wrong and evil racism is. But you do it and it doesn't even register on your befuddled brain.

You can not claim that generalisations and stereotyping "are invalid" when you accept generalised terms and stereotypes "applied to large populations" yourself.

AJ & LEGO,

Who gives a toss ? Get a room.

Joe

Joe,

I realise it must hurt to witness the drubbing of a person with whom you are politically aligned (yet somehow convince yourself you’re a Leftie), but no-one’s asking you to read this. I’m not going to stop having fun just because someone pokes their head in and says, “Who gives a toss?” We’ll be here for a few months yet purely because I get a devilish delight in watching such an unjustifiably arrogant person have his arse handed to him. If you insist on staying, how about you say something more constructive like, “It’s over LEGO. Give it up.” Fat chance of that, eh?

Really, LEGO?

<<I see that you are maintaining your usual pose of outraged superiority…>>

I thought the tone of my last response was quite calm.

<<…while playing word games about the singular or plural use of the word "redneck.">>

Really? How so?

<<Your premise was that, "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.>>

Correct.

<<You also say that you "accept" the Oxford dictionary definition of a "redneck" as "a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US.">>

Correct.

<<"Rednecks" is the plural of "redneck." "Rednecks", therefore, are politically reactionary working class white PEOPLE from the southern US.>>

Correct again. You’re doing well. Keep it up.

<<According to your above reasoning, it would be 'wrong" for anyone to use the term "redneck" (or "rednecks"),because the Oxford dictionary's definition is an inaccurate generalisation "which can not be applied to large populations.">>

Oh, and you were doing so well for a moment there!

No, it wouldn’t be wrong, because a definition is different to a sterotype.

<<You do not need to be a working class person, or live in the Southern US, to be labelled a "redneck".>>

Correct. Anyone can label someone a redneck.

<<I am a redneck, and I do not live in the Southern US.>>

So you’re not a redneck according to the Oxford dictionary’s definition. Big deal.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Yet you "accept" the Oxford definition, even though it is a classification "which includes people who do not fit that classification,">>

Hey, I’m just going to label myself and ‘Asian’ now. Does that mean dictionaries are now wrong stereotyping because of my arbitrary decision? No.

<<Using the term "redneck" is also "wrong" (according to your logic) because even if it applied to white working people everywhere who work in the sun,(and therefore have "red necks") it implies that all white people with red necks have "reactionary views.">>

No, because if they don’t have politically reactionary views, then they’re probably not rednecks.

Get my logic right first, then we can discuss what is and is not according to it.

<<"Redneck" is, once again, a generalised stereotype which is inaccurate. >>

Nope, and I’ve just demonstrated that it isn’t. See above.

<<Thirdly, it is a plainly racist term that defines people's attitudes and behaviour based upon the colour of their skin.>>

Not if it's not describing everyone of that skin colour. Definitions just describe the usage of a word. If people started regularly applying the term 'redneck' to some other type of person as well, then the definition would eventually change to include them too.

<<You can not claim that generalisations and stereotyping "are invalid" when you accept generalised terms and stereotypes "applied to large populations" yourself.>>

“To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

Not doin’ too well here are ya, ol’ mate?

A definition is different to a stereotype, AJ?

A definition is supposed to be a "definite" meaning, while a generalization is supposed to be a general meaning. . But the problem with making "definite" definitions, is that some words are abstract, relative, or generalised terms themselves. A definition can become a stereotype, or the definition can be defined by generalisations, which are stereotypes. One "definition" of a "generalisation" is "a stereotype."

If you accept the Oxford dictionary's definition of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes, then that becomes your stereotype of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes. Here is Hilgard’s definition of the word "stereotype" as it applies to the behaviour of groups of people.

Hilgard's Psychology page 289

"A stereotype is a set of inferences about the personality traits of a whole class of people."

Got that? The definition that you accepted from the Oxford dictionary conforms to what a behavioural psychologist calls a stereotype. The Oxford definition not only defined "rednecks" as white working class people from Southern USA, it even defined their personality traits as being "reactionary." But you claim that generalisations are always wrong when applied to "large populations", because not everybody conforms to that generalisation. I could point out that the Oxford definition of what constitutes a "redneck", or any other term based upon the attitudes or skin colour of "a large population", must also be wrong on the same grounds. If you think that it is "invalid" to stereotype " large populations" because some may not conform to the stereotype, you should also be saying that it is "invalid" to define any group of people for exactly the same reason.

"Definitions" are supposed to be "definite" descriptions of what a word means. What is "definite" about the Oxford dictionaries "definition" of "redneck"? It is making generalisations about the location, class, and beliefs of people with "red necks", and saying that they must be working class people who live in the Southern USA. That "definition" is not "definitely" accurate. It is therefore a generalisation, a stereotype.

LEGO,

It’s fascinating to watch you attempt a different angle each time you post. Yesterday it was plurals, today it’s 'definite definitions'.

<<A definition is different to a stereotype, AJ?>>

Correct.

Definition:
A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/definition)

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<A definition is supposed to be a "definite" meaning, while a generalization is supposed to be a general meaning.>>

Incorrect.

Generalisation:
A general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization?q=generalisation)

<<If you accept the Oxford dictionary's definition of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes, then that becomes your stereotype of what a redneck is, and what a redneck believes.>>

Incorrect.

"...if the definition doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

Rednecks are not a group of people defined in some other way. As I said pointed out earlier…

"To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

You keep trying to dodge around this, but this is the nail in the coffin for your entire position.

Incidentally, the Oxford’s definition also doesn’t specify what a redneck believes.

<<The definition that you accepted from the Oxford dictionary conforms to what a behavioural psychologist calls a stereotype.>>

Only you’re once again forgetting that if an individual doesn’t fit the definition, then they’re not a member of that class.

<<But you claim that generalisations are always wrong when applied to "large populations", because not everybody conforms to that generalisation.>>

Correct.

<<I could point out that the Oxford definition of what constitutes a "redneck", or any other term based upon the attitudes or skin colour of "a large population", must also be wrong on the same grounds.>>

Only you’d be wrong. See above.

<<[Oxford’s definition] is making generalisations about the location, class, and beliefs of people with "red necks"…>>

Incorrect. A redneck is not just someone with a “red neck”.

I have to try different angles to get simple concepts across to you, AJ. I have been down this road before, many times. And most people can grasp that everybody stereotypes in order to think, much earlier than yourself. It is said that those who have high mathematical intelligence (or mathematical "talent") often have poor literary intelligence. (Oops, another stereotype.) So don't worry, you may have trouble with comprehension, but you are probably good at maths.

Here is another angle. If I was to say to you that "there is a flock of birds sitting on a car", you would understand what I said. You could visualise in your mind the concepts, even though they would be imprecise ones. That is because I have used three stereotypes in everyday speech. "Flock", "bird" and "car" are stereotypes. There may be "definite" definitions which say exactly what each of these words mean. But the meaning of all three words are generalisations. And a generalisation is a stereotype. People stereotype in order to think. They simply complex concepts by concentrating on the salient points. And if people stereotype in order to think, then stereotyping can not be wrong. If it is wrong to stereotype, then it is wrong to think.

"Redneck" is a stereotype just as much as a "flock", "bird", and "car". Or "herd", "reactionary", "right wing", "socialist", or "fish". All of these concepts are generalities. You do not need to know exactly what they mean to use them in a sentence. They are for each person, the standardised concepts or images which are the organised beliefs and knowledge that each individual holds about people, events, objects, and situations. They allow us to conceptualise them, and to react to them. Some people may angrily dispute the defined meanings of some words, or insist that they hold different connotations, especially if they are regarded as derogatory. Regardless of what the definition of the word "redneck" means, or even if that definition is accurate, the stereotype of "redneck" can be considered an insult or a badge of honour, depending upon your point of view.

LEGO,

The reason you keep trying different angles is not because I’m having troubles comprehending what you say, but because your arguments are shown to either be fallacious or beside the point. I see today’s angle is ‘collective nouns’.

<<If I was to say to you that "there is a flock of birds sitting on a car", you would understand what I said. You could visualise in your mind the concepts, even though they would be imprecise ones.>>

No, that sentence contains one collective noun and two labels. No stereotypes to be found there.

Collective noun:
A count noun that denotes a group of individuals (e.g. assembly, family, crew).
(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/collective-noun?q=collective+noun)

<<"Flock", "bird" and "car">>

Collective noun, label and label.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<There may be "definite" definitions which say exactly what each of these words mean. But the meaning of all three words are generalisations.>>

Incorrect.

Generalisation:
A general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization?q=generalisation)

<<They simply complex concepts by concentrating on the salient points.>>

And if they stray at all from those salient points, then they no longer suit the label or fit the definition.

<<If it is wrong to stereotype, then it is wrong to think.>>

Only according to one who doesn’t understand the differences between stereotypes, collective nouns, labels and definitions.

I look forward to your next angle of approach.

To AJ

Here is a definition of "Stereotype" from "Understanding Psychology", page 101.

Stereotypes are convenient mental short cuts employed by our perceptual system. This despite the negative associations associated with prejudice and discriminatory behaviour. Stereotypes then, are organising strategies based upon habits, experience, and cultural folklore, that allow an individual to assess a new experience in their environment. Stereotyping involves identifying some salient feature of an object or event, and using this to predict other aspects of this object or event.

"Understanding Psychology" page 101.

Psychologists use the term "schema" to refer to a mental representation of a class of people, events, objects, or situations. Stereotypes are a type of schema because they represent classes of people, for example Italians, women, and athletes.

"Psychology" page 289.

The definitions I posted do not invalidate your own definition, nor are they different to yours. They are simply definitions that apply more to how human beings think. Human beings think by stereotyping. If I were to say that there is a flock of birds sitting on a car, your mind creates an image based upon your stereotypical concepts of a "flock", a "bird", or a "car."

Like stereotyping rednecks or socialists, the stereotypes of a flock, bird, or car, does not have to be accurate. Only accurate enough to form a concept. You do not need to know how many make up a flock, what type of bird it is, or what type or brand of car it is. You mind only need to blend together your stereotypical images of these concepts, and your mind understands what is being said.

Human beings think by stereotyping concepts. People also use stereotypes as an aid to memory. Unless you stereotype, you have no concept at all of what a Zulu or an Eskimo even looks like. Nor what they live in, eat, wear, or the sort of environment that they usually reside in.

AJ Generalisations are always wrong.

LEGO Your stereotype about "generalisations", is that they are always wrong.

AJ This is the problem with your arguments, they sound as if they are well reasoned, yet they are based on fallacious reasoning.

LEGO Your stereotype of my arguments is that they based on fallacious reasoning.

AJ Your entire worldview is a network of over-simplifications and generalisations, making it so easy take down.

LEGO. Your stereotype of my worldview is that it is a network of over simplifications and generalisations. By stereotyping me, you have over simplified and generalised my worldview.

AJ Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.

LEGO Your (revised) stereotype of "generalisations" is that they are always wrong when applied to large populations.

AJ There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype.

LEGO You can not form a concept unless you stereotype what it is that you want to form a concept about.

AJ. Rightism is an ideology because it is a network of ideas, not just loyalty.

LEGO. Your stereotype of "rightism" is that it is an ideology.

AJ So what? That doesn’t make it good or right unless, again, you want to appeal to the Common Practice fallacy.

LEGO Paste up the Common Practice Theory and I will point out the stereotypes.

AJ (A redneck is) ....a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US.

LEGO If you agree with the Oxford dictionaries definition of a redneck, then that is your stereotype of a redneck.

AJ (In response to me asking you "how do you judge groups of people?") Simple. Either don’t, or use qualifiers such as “most”, “many”, and “some”.

If you use "most" people, you are stereotyping "most" people. If you use "many" people, you are stereotyping "many" people. If you use "some" people, you are stereotyping "some" people.

AJ Labels are not stereotypes.

LEGO. Wrong. Labels can be stereotypes, especially derogatory labels. That is why the same idiots who say that "it is wrong to stereotype", also say it is "wrong to label.

LEGO,

I see your next angle of approach is concepts, and confusing them with stereotypes.

<<The definitions I posted do not invalidate your own definition, nor are they different to yours.>>

You mean the Oxford’s definition that I accept, but yeah.

<<They are simply definitions that apply more to how human beings think.>>

“…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

Appeals to nature and common practice are fallacies because being natural or common practice is not indicative of its goodness or rightness. Stereotyping can be very harmful, and that’s what makes it wrong. Rape and wife beating are also natural with psychological-evolutionary explanations for them, but that doesn’t make them good or right. Furthermore, even if labelling a car a “car” were stereotyping, there would be no harm in doing so.

<<Human beings think by stereotyping.>>

Not always. Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.

<<If I were to say that there is a flock of birds sitting on a car, your mind creates an image based upon your stereotypical concepts of a "flock", a "bird", or a "car.">>

Not quite.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

The operative words being “fixed” and “oversimplified”. The concepts that I draw on would not necessarily be either of these.
<<Like stereotyping rednecks or socialists, the stereotypes of a flock, bird, or car, does not have to be accurate.>>

You’re confusing stereotypes with concepts.

Concept:
An abstract idea (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept)

As for all your quotes used to try to make it look like I’m contradicting myself, I’ve already explained those and how they differ from what I’m arguing against, so posting them up like that only makes you look like a fool with the memory of a fish. You've also misquoted me, demonstrating your dishonesty and harming an innocent strawman in the process.

I look forward to your next angle of approach.

AJ Appeals to nature and common practice are fallacies because being natural or common practice is not indicative of its goodness or rightness.

LEGO "Goodness" and "rightness" are relative terms. Hitler believed that he was both good and right.

AJ Stereotyping can be very harmful, and that’s what makes it wrong.

LEGO If you say that stereotyping is wrong, then you are labelling the act of stereotyping with a negative prejudgement. That is stereotyping. In addition, telling the truth can be harmful. Is telling the truth therefore wrong?

AJ Rape and wife beating are also natural with psychological-evolutionary explanations for them, but that doesn’t make them good or right.

LEGO People stereotype to think. How you can equate the means by which people think with wife beating is beyond me,

AJ Furthermore, even if labelling a car a “car” were stereotyping, there would be no harm in doing so.

Thank you for admitting that you need to stereotype to conceptualise "a car." You must be like a wife beater. If you have finally figured out that you need to stereotype to conceptualise a "car", then it must be sitting uncomfortably in your mind that you need to stereotype to conceptualise events, situations, or people, too.

AJ Intelligent people are able to look past (stereotyping) and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.

LEGO You have finally recognised that people need to stereotype to think, haven't you AJ? Great, you just crossed the Rubicon. I am getting somewhere.

AJ You are confusing stereotypes with concepts.

LEGO. No, I am saying that everybody, including "intelligent" people, use stereotypes to form concepts in their mind.

AJ As for all your quotes used to try to make it look like I’m contradicting myself, I’ve already explained those and how they differ from what I’m arguing against, so posting them up like that only makes you look like a fool with the memory of a fish. I look forward to your next angle of approach.

LEGO I am quite happy with the approach I have.

I've got you now, AJ.

LEGO,

This gets easier and easier the more I’m simply able to respond by quoting myself.

<<"Goodness" and "rightness" are relative terms. Hitler believed that he was both good and right.>>

We can still roughly measure these things by determining the harm caused, or not, by our actions.

<<If you say that stereotyping is wrong, then you are labelling the act of stereotyping with a negative prejudgement.>>

I said “can be” wrong. There was no prejudgement either, because my statement is backed by evidence and reason.

Prejudice:
Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudice)

<<That is stereotyping.>>

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

The operative words being “fixed” and “oversimplified”. When one qualifies their statement with “can be”, there is nothing “fixed” or “oversimplified” about what they said.

<<In addition, telling the truth can be harmful. Is telling the truth therefore wrong?>>

In situations where the harm in telling the truth outweighs the harm of lying, yes.

<<People stereotype to think.>>

“…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

“Intelligent people are able to look past [stereotypes] and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<How you can equate the means by which people think with wife beating is beyond me,>>

I explained how I could. You even quoted it. The severity of the two were beside the point.

<<Thank you for admitting that you need to stereotype to conceptualise "a car.">>

I didn’t.

"The operative words being “fixed” and “oversimplified”. The concepts that I draw on would not necessarily be either of these." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<You have finally recognised that people need to stereotype to think, haven't you AJ?>>

Not entirely. See above.

<<I am quite happy with the approach I have.>>

If you think misrepresenting people and attacking strawmen is acceptable, then it explains a lot.

By the way, that’s now three fallacies you’ve committed.

<<I've got you now, AJ.>>

Apparently not.

AJ I said “can be” wrong. There was no prejudgement either, because my statement is backed by evidence and reason.

LEGO You have gone from saying "generalisations are always wrong", to "generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations", to saying that "stereotypes can be wrong." Since you have shifted your position twice, you are tacitly conceding that you now realise that your absolutist position is indefensible. You are retreating to a more defensible position by qualifying your premise. Keep retreating AJ, you are not safe yet.

AJ Prejudice: A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

LEGO "Prejudice" literally means "to pre judge." Everybody does that too. We all have to make judgements and assumptions about the matters which affect our lives, even though we can never be sure whether our data is correct or unbiased.

AJ Stereotype: A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

LEGO The Oxford definition about stereotyping implied that "the images" were oversimplified. My "Collins" dictionary made no judgement about "oversimplified images". It simply defined "stereotyping" as "a standardised image or conception shared by all members of a group". All you have proven is that even among those who make "definite" definitions, the definitions can be more general than specific.

AJ In situations where the harm in telling the truth outweighs the harm of lying, yes.

LEGO. . "Thinking" can be "harmful" too. Especially, harmful to potty egalitarian ideologies. Are you therefore proposing that people should not think?

You seem to be grasping the fact that people stereotype to think. Have you finally recognised that people do stereotype to think?

AJ Not entirely. See above.

LEGO "Not entirely?" So you partially agree that human beings stereotype to think. Which part do you agree with?

AJ If you think misrepresenting people and attacking strawmen is acceptable, then it explains a lot.

LEGO. You are suggesting that there is something sinister about my motivations and character. You just labelled me with a negative stereotype.

LEGO,

<<You have gone from saying "generalisations are always wrong", to "generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations",…>>

Yes, most people would have been smart enough to know what I was referring to in the first place. For you, I had to clarify.

<<…to saying that "stereotypes can be wrong.">>

Yes, as you’ll see, I misquoted myself because you had misconstrued what I said with the same wording. I had said “Stereotyping can be very harmful”. Because sometimes it won’t be as harmful as others, depending on, say, how loudly one voices opinions based on stereotypes, or one's position of power.

My position has remained consistent.

<<…you are tacitly conceding that you now realise that your absolutist position is indefensible.

No, I haven’t. And my position has never been “absolutist”. You are merely incapable of seeing shades of grey, so a generalisation about car (as far as you’re concerned) is no different to a generalisation about an entire race. The same goes for pre-judging…

<<Everybody [pre-judges].>>

Yes, but Intelligent people are able to look past they’re pre-judgements. Simpler folk stop at them.

<<The Oxford definition about stereotyping implied that "the images" were oversimplified.>>

And “ideas”. You dropped that part out.

<<My "Collins" … simply defined "stereotyping" as "a standardised image or conception shared by all members of a group".>>

Then you desperately need a new edition.

Stereotype:
“a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.” (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/stereotype)

<<"Thinking" can be "harmful" too … Are you therefore proposing that people should not think?>>

Now you’ve committed the Reductio ad absurdum fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). That makes four fallacies now.

<<Have you finally recognised that people do stereotype to think?>>

“…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

<<You are suggesting that there is something sinister about my motivations and character.>>

Yes, as demonstrated by yourself.

<<You just labelled me with a negative stereotype.>>

No, I didn’t.

Stereotype:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/stereotype

AJ Yes, most people would have been smart enough to know what I was referring to in the first place. (when you said ""generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations")

For you, I had to clarify.

LEGO You are stereotyping "most people" when you say that "most people know what I was referring to".

And even though you did not realise it, you just defended the whole concept of stereotyping. You said that when you generalised, "most people know what I am referring to." That is right. Everybody generalises, and "most people" know that a generalisation a just that, a generalisation. But you are a member of a classification of people who are stupid enough to think that making generalisations about groups of people is utterly wrong. Even though you "doublethink" and do it yourself.

AJ Yes, as you’ll see, I misquoted myself because you had misconstrued what I said with the same wording. I had said “Stereotyping can be very harmful”. Because sometimes it won’t be as harmful as others, depending on, say, how loudly one voices opinions based on stereotypes, or one's position of power.

LEGO But you stereotype yourself. A stereotype is the mental classification of "a large population" of people. You have a derogatory stereotype of a classification of people who have been labelled with the racist title of "redneck". You are contemptuous of what rednecks believe, based upon a generalised and out of date definition of that word from the Oxford dictionary. And here you are stereotyping "pacifists". (AJ "No, a pacifist is against war in all circumstances.") Not according to WIKI they are not. You are stereotyping "pacifists" by making a generalisation which WIKI disputes.

AJ My position has remained consistent.

LEGO Consistently contradictory.

AJ Yes (everybody prejudges) , but Intelligent people are able to look past they’re pre-judgements. Simpler folk stop at them.

LEGO So, "intelligent people" may prejudge, but "simpler folk" may not, because "simpler people" are too stupid. You just endorsed inequality. And you simultaneously prejudged and stereotyped both "intelligent people" and "simpler folk."

LEGO,

Sounds like you’re panicking and growing evermore desperate now.

<<You are stereotyping "most people" when you say that "most people know what I was referring to".>>

As per the Oxford and Collin’s dictionaries, there is not nothing ‘fixed’, ‘oversimplistic’ or ‘unfair’ about qualifying a statement with “most people” to avoid a sweeping generalisation. You see everything as black and white: either one is stereotyping/generalising or they are not; and if it’s alright/harmless to stereotype in one situation, then it’s alright/harmless to do it in every situation.

This is why it had to be explained to you that generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.

<<But you are a member of a classification of people who are stupid enough to think that making generalisations about groups of people is utterly wrong.>>

Once again you misrepresent me. Here’s a clarification that for cutting and pasting later on:

Generalisations about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation. On a moral level, each generalisation is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful.

<<You have a derogatory stereotype of a classification of people who have been labelled with the racist title of "redneck".>>

No, because if one doesn’t hold views I find offensive, then I wouldn’t label them a redneck in a derogatory way.

<<You are contemptuous of what rednecks believe…>>

If they’re racist, yes.

<<…based upon a generalised and out of date definition of that word from the Oxford dictionary.>>

“Out-of-date”? That’s a laugh. The Oxford dictionary is widely considered to be the most authoritative English dictionary. You’re the only one who has provided an out-of-date definition.

<<You are stereotyping "pacifists" by making a generalisation which WIKI disputes.>>

The Oxford definition is consistent with what I’ve said (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pacifist). Even if I’m wrong, a misunderstanding of the meaning of a word does not constitute a stereotype. Intent counts.

<<So, "intelligent people" may prejudge, but "simpler folk" may not, because "simpler people" are too stupid.>>

No, I neither said nor implied that.

AJ Generalisations about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation.

LEGO Not if they are rednecks, according to your stereotype.

AJ No, because if one doesn’t hold views I find offensive, then I wouldn’t label them a redneck in a derogatory way.

LEGO Your stereotype of a "redneck", is that they all have views that you find offensive So, you have negatively classified every individual member of that group by their group association. And you can't see that as stereotyping? I think that you think that way because you think that all stereotypes are inaccurate, and therefore wrong.. That is wrong for two reasons. People use stereotypes to think. If all stereotypes are wrong, then all thinking is wrong.

Secondly, you can stereotype sporting shooters accurately as simply "people who like guns". Stereotypes can be completely accurate, partially accurate, inaccurate, or wildly inaccurate. You can criticise the accuracy of a stereotype, but you can not criticise the act of stereotyping.

AJ “Out-of-date”? That’s a laugh. The Oxford dictionary is widely considered to be the most authoritative English dictionary. You’re the only one who has provided an out-of-date definition.

LEGO Words change over time. The term "redneck" is now used everywhere, and applies more to attitudes than where somebody lives.

AJ The Oxford definition is consistent with what I’ve said (about pacifists) Even if I’m wrong, a misunderstanding of the meaning of a word does not constitute a stereotype. Intent counts.

LEGO Your stereotype of a "pacifist" is inaccurate, according to WIKI.

AJ No, I neither said nor implied that.

LEGO You classified people into two categories with different qualities. One group is "intelligent," and knows how to prejudge correctly, The other group are "simple folk" who do not, know how to prejudge correctly. That is stereotyping. One reason why you oppose stereotyping is because you says it is "hurtful" to those who are negatively stereotyped. Yet you have no qualms at all about how "hurtful" your stereotype is towards the Simpletons that you negatively classified

LEGO,

<<Not if they are rednecks, according to your stereotype.>>

Incorrect.

"To be a stereotype, [“rednecks”] would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<…you have negatively classified every individual member of that group by their group association. And you can't see that as stereotyping?>>

"...if the [negative classification] doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply [as far as I'm concerned]. How can a classification of person, include people who do not fit that classification?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<…you think that all stereotypes are inaccurate, and therefore wrong..>>

To some degree or another, yes.

<<If all stereotypes are wrong, then all thinking is wrong.>>

No, because not all thinking is done in stereotypes. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts that are not always taken.

"...there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

<<…you can stereotype sporting shooters accurately as simply "people who like guns".>>

No, not “accurately”. Because sporting shooters are never simply (i.e. ‘merely’ or ‘just’ (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/simply)) "people who like guns".

<<The term "redneck" is now used everywhere, and applies more to attitudes than where somebody lives.>>

I'd agree with that. Luckily the definitions mention more than just location to account for this.

<<You classified people into two categories with different qualities.>>

Correct.

<<One group is "intelligent," and knows how to prejudge correctly, The other group are "simple folk" who do not, know how to prejudge correctly.>>

Incorrect. I didn’t say that at all. Here’s what I actually said:

“…intelligent people are able to look past they’re pre-judgements. Simpler folk stop at them.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317986)

<<Yet you have no qualms at all about how "hurtful" your stereotype is towards the Simpletons that you negatively classified>>

Obviously, in that context, a person, dumb or smart, is what I’m classifying as “intelligent” if they’re able to look past their prejudices.

I’m sorry you didn’t make the cut.

AJ "To be a stereotype, [“rednecks”] would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.")

LEGO Oxford defined "rednecks", and you agreed with that definition. When you use that definition to form a concept of a redneck, that becomes your stereotype of a redneck.

AJ "...if the [negative classification] doesn’t fit an individual, then the label automatically doesn’t apply [as far as I'm concerned].

LEGO Oxford attributed "reactionary views" as a defined characteristic of all rednecks. You agreed with that definition. You even claimed that this characteristic was not a stereotype because all rednecks held reactionary views. Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong. So, if a common characteristic existed, then it could not be a stereotype. That presumption was wrong. Stereotypes can be accurate.

AJ No, because not all thinking is done in stereotypes. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts that are not always taken.

LEGO So, I say that there is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car."

You say, "There is an unspecified number of endothermatic (warm blooded) creatures characterised by having a beak with no teeth, the laying of hard shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, who generally have the ability to fly, resting with legs folded and their hindquarters on the ground, on a road vehicle, which has generally four wheels, and which is generally powered by an internal combustion engine, which can carry an unspecified number of people."

In order to think about concepts like groups of people, animals, collective nouns, verbs and objects, you quite obviously need to quickly form concepts about what they all are in your mind. You do that by creating simple stereotypes of what you need to think about.

AJ "...there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations."

LEGO You can"t even express a simple situation like "a flock of birds is sitting on a car" without stereotyping. How the hell can you figure out a complex one without doing it?

LEGO,

Well, you think you know more about criminology than criminologists. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that you think you know more about the English language than Oxford.

<<Oxford defined "rednecks", and you agreed with that definition.>>

Did I have much of a choice? If it were defined differently, then I would have to agree with that instead since I am not an expert on the English language.

<<When you use that definition to form a concept of a redneck, that becomes your stereotype of a redneck.>>

No, it doesn’t.

"To be a stereotype, a definition would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<Oxford attributed "reactionary views" as a defined characteristic of all rednecks.>>

Actually, that was my paraphrasing. Oxford say especially those with reactionary views.

<<You even claimed that this characteristic was not a stereotype because all rednecks held reactionary views.>>

No, I said they’re probably not rednecks.

"...if they don’t have politically reactionary views, then they’re probably not rednecks." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317776)

<<Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong.>>

And still is - when applied indiscriminately to a class of people.

<<So, if a common characteristic existed, then it could not be a stereotype.>>

Correct.

<<That presumption was wrong. Stereotypes can be accurate.>>

How so? Your last ‘sporting shooter’ example flopped.

<<So, I say that there is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car." You say, "There is an unspecified number of endothermatic (warm blooded) creatures characterised by … etc.>>

No. You’re confusing concepts with stereotypes again.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

Concept:
An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept)

<<How the hell can you figure out a complex [situation] without [stereotyping]?>>

Use concepts instead.

LEGO,

Since this is apparently so difficult for you, let me do a breakdown of where you’re going wrong and why.

From what I can tell, you identify first and foremost as a racist. This identity is important to you and in order to justify it, you overlook the immense harm that can come from stereotyping. In order to ignore just how destructive stereotyping is, you confuse ‘concepts’ and ‘stereotypes’ to convince yourself that, not only does everyone stereotype, but that it is impossible to think without doing so, and, therefore, in doing so, you are apparently absolved of any wrong doing - according to your logic. And with no regard whatsoever to the differing levels of harm between different stereotypes, too, I might add.

With a conscious effort, it is possible to think beyond stereotypes and even bypass them altogether, but even if it weren't, appealing to this would be both the Appeal to Nature fallacy and the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy, if you were to argue that stereotyping was thusly either good or right.

On another note, Joe asked a good question before. He asked, “Who gives a toss [about what we are discussing]?” The answer to that, of course, is that you give a toss because of what I’ve pointed out above.

I too will freely admit that I give a toss as well, and that’s because you have dangerously stupid opinions that need to be fought at every opportunity. Unfortunately, everyone else on this forum is too mature to entertain your crap to the extent that I am, and so you get to run around and claim victory because you assume that those who have the final word are the winners of debates (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317490).

And that, my friend, is why I’m not leaving. This is never going to end for you, LEGO. This topic goes to the heart of your entire worldview, and so I would like to be able to link to this thread every time you make the same silly justification for your dangerously ignorant opinions in the future.

Twenty years ago, I became interested in learning how people think. I was not looking for any academic justification of my social or political ideas, it was just my usual thirst for knowledge. I purchased a bunch of very expensive university text books on Psychology and Sociology and read them all. Psychologists explained how people think by simplifying complex ideas about objects, people, and situations, by forming stereotypes of those ideas, blending them together, and using them to think, or speak. And when you think about it, of course they are right. 2+2 equals 4.

Then along comes a bunch of ideologues who claim that everybody is equal, and they say that you must not prejudge, label, or stereotype any group of people to prove they are not equal. That's funny that is. Because they are saying that you must not think. Because if you do think, of course you will come to the conclusion that people are not equal.

Then along comes an acolyte like your good self, who simply parrots this idiotic mantra that people must not think. My task therefore, is to make you think and see the obvious. That saying you should not prejudge, label and stereotype means that you should not think. That should be easy. After all, 2+2 equals 4. Unfortunately, after debating against Creationists, I have learned that many Idealists will refuse to make even the simplest and most screamingly obvious connections that violate their faith in their ideology. They get angry and insult, they stonewall, they prevaricate, and they muddy the water till the cows come home.

This concept has fascinated me. History has displayed example after example of people making the most idiotic and catastrophic decisions because they hold ideology to be more important than reality. I think that one reason why the North Europeans began to think straight before every other culture, was because we were always at war with each other. In war, the guys that think straight usually win. While the ones who rely on ideology, astrology, God, or obsolete preconceived ideas, usually lose

AJ Well, you think you know more about criminology than criminologists. I guess it shouldn’t come as a surprise that you think you know more about the English language than Oxford.

LEGO Stereotypical academic arrogance. The same arrogance that the Royal Society used to deny a village carpenter named John Harrison his acclaim for solving longitude.

When you use that definition to form a concept of a redneck, that becomes your stereotype of a redneck.

AJ No, it doesn’t.

LEGO According to Oxford, the word "redneck" is defined by "a politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US." Instead of writing or speaking, about "politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US", (which would be a real mouthful) you simplify it into a stereotypical concept of that definition. Therefore, the term "redneck" is the stereotype of a "politically reactionary working-class white person from the southern US."

Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong.

AJ And still is - when applied indiscriminately to a class of people.

You are saying that you can not judge individuals by their group membership. Are you going to invite individuals from the Comanchero Motorcycle Club over to your next party? Would you invite individuals who are members of HAMAS to a Bar Mitva? Would you allow individual members of a class of people known as "paedophiles" to run a day care centre? Or would you form a judgement of the individuals by their group association? "Know them by the company they keep".....Jesus Christ.

How the hell can you figure out a complex [situation] without [stereotyping]?

AJ Use concepts instead.

Stereotypes are used to create concepts.

AJ From what I can tell, you identify first and foremost as a racist. This identity is important to you and in order to justify it, you overlook the immense harm that can come from stereotyping.

LEGO. No, like any person with any claim to any intelligence at all, I live by the ideal that "the truth should be told, though the heavens may fall."

You’re just like a creationist, LEGO. Understandable given you’re old, debunked 19th century ideas.

<<Stereotypical academic arrogance. The same arrogance that the Royal Society used to deny a village carpenter named John Harrison his acclaim for solving longitude.>>

I like how you have to hark back to before the Enlightenment to find an example. It’s the same as creationists boasting that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist. Everything is evidence-based now. In LEGO’s world, we’re still worked on an assumption/faith-based level.

<<Your presumption was, that stereotypes are always wrong.>>

I have presumed nothing. Everything I have said is evidence-based. Which is why you’re struggling so much here.

<<You are saying that you can not judge individuals by their group membership.>>

Where have I said that?

<<Are you going to invite individuals from the Comanchero Motorcycle Club over to your next party?>>

No.

<<Would you invite individuals who are members of HAMAS to a Bar Mitva?>>

No.

<<Would you allow individual members of a class of people known as "paedophiles" to run a day care centre?>>

No.

<<Or would you form a judgement of the individuals by their group association?>>

“To be a stereotype, a [classification] would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

<<Stereotypes are used to create concepts.>>

No, they’re not.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

Concept:
An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate), and thus plays a part in the use of reason or language. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept)

AJ You’re just like a creationist, LEGO. Understandable given you’re old, debunked 19th century ideas.

You have just negatively prejudged me by implying my attitudes conform to the negative stereotypes that you have of "Creationists" and "old people." You have "hurt" me, but did not care. Define "hypocrisy".

AJ I like how you have to hark back to before the Enlightenment to find an example. It’s the same as creationists boasting that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist.

LEGO Pathetic analogy. My stereotype of academic arrogance must have really hit home.

AJ I have presumed nothing. Everything I have said is evidence-based. Which is why you’re struggling so much here.

LEGO A psychiatrist would regard that statement as evidence of delusion.

AJ Where have I said that? (you can not judge individuals by their group membership.)

LEGO Right here. (AJ quote. "There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype")

You admit that you would not invite individuals from certain social groups to social functions where their presence would be inappropriate. The reason why is obvious. Everybody must form judgements of people to determine their character, whether they can be trusted, or if their presence would cause problems. Unless you know them personally, or have people who can vouch for them, you have to form prejudgements of individuals based upon their group associations. You stereotype their values, attitudes and behaviours, based upon the stereotypical known (or assumed) knowledge of their, (or an analogous group) known values, attitudes and behaviour. You just did it yourself to me. You judged me by likening my supposedly negative attitudes to those of "creationists" and "old people."

LEGO Would you form a judgement of these individuals by their group association?

AJ “To be a stereotype, a [classification] would need to be attributed to a group of people based on some other unrelated factor or broadly defined categorisation.”

LEGO You dodged the question. I didn't ask you for a definition of "stereotype", I asked you if you would you judge individual Comanchero bikies, HAMAS members, or paedophiles, by their group associations?

No, I haven’t pre-judged you, LEGO.

<<You have just negatively prejudged me by implying my attitudes conform to the negative stereotypes that you have of "Creationists" and "old people.">>

Because you already demonstrated this before I came to my conclusion.

<<You have "hurt" me, but did not care.>>

No, I don’t care, because you have the option of changing, unlike people who have been born into certain groups. You have no-one to blame but yourself in this instance.

<<Define "hypocrisy".>>

No need, apparently.

<<Pathetic analogy.>>

No, it wasn’t. Because you had to look back to pre-Enlightenment times the same way creationists have to.

<<A psychiatrist would regard that statement as evidence of delusion.>>

Only if there were evidence that I had indeed presumed something, contrary to my denial of having done so.

<<Right here. (AJ quote. "There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype")>>

That’s not saying that one cannot judge individuals by their group membership. Group memberships are also not stereotypes.

<<You admit that you would not invite individuals from certain social groups to social functions where their presence would be inappropriate.>>

Correct.

<<The reason why is obvious.>>

Please enlighten us.

<<Everybody must form judgements of people to determine their character, whether they can be trusted, or if their presence would cause problems.>>

In certain circumstances, yes. “Must”? No.

<<Unless you know them personally, or have people who can vouch for them, you have to form prejudgements of individuals based upon their group associations.>>

Correct. But the difference is that the members of the groups you mentioned have chosen to be a part of that group, so it says something significant about who they are. Skin colour, for example, doesn’t.

<<You judged me by likening my supposedly negative attitudes to those of "creationists" and "old people.">>

Correct. Because you have demonstrated that.

At least you’re not saying it’s a pre-judgement anymore.

<<…would you judge individual Comanchero bikies, HAMAS members, or paedophiles, by their group associations?>>

Yes, I would, and for the reasons outlined above. I had dodged nothing.

AJ No, I haven’t pre-judged you, LEGO. Because you already demonstrated this before I came to my conclusion.

LEGO I am faced with somebody who claims that stereotyping is wrong because it "hurts" people, but who routinely does it himself, refuses to admit he is doing it himself, and could not care less who he hurts when he does it himself. Wow.

AJ That’s not saying that one cannot judge individuals by their group membership. Group memberships are also not stereotypes

JK Excuse me? You have just made a statement which is a complete contradiction. Sometimes, AJ, one of my opponents makes a statement which is so idiotic it simply takes my breath away. Now, either you are a complete loony, or you are rationalising this in some peculiar way. The only logic which could make any sense to me, is that you think that "stereotyping" only applies to races and ethnicities? Stereotyping does not apply to any other social group? That would explain how you routinely make barefaced stereotypes of social groups yourself, and then deny that you are stereotyping.

OK. Lets look again at the two definitions of "stereotype" which you posted.

Stereotype: A widely held but fixed or over simplified image or idea about a particular type of person, or thing.

"A type of person" is a reference to a "classification" of people.

Stereotype: A stereotype is a set of inferences about the personality traits or physical attributes of an entire class of people.

"An entire class of people" is a reference to a "classification" of people.

Trendies renounce stereotyping, because they object to individuals being classified and criticised as a classification. For nearly twenty years, I have debated this concept with dozens of people like yourself, and every one of them understood that "stereotyping" was in reference to any class of people. Except you. Jesus. Some mothers do have 'em.

Look mate, you had better make a statement right now explaining what classifications of people you think stereotyping applies to. Because you and I are just going around in circles unless you clear this matter up

LEGO,

<<I am faced with somebody who claims that stereotyping is wrong because it "hurts" people…>>

Not just people, but societies as well.

<<…but who routinely does it himself, refuses to admit he is doing it himself…>>

I have not done so in this discussion and you have not caught me out doing it.

<<…and could not care less who he hurts when he does it himself.>>

Well, not only did I not stereotype, but I also explained why I didn’t care:

"...because you have the option of changing, unlike people who have been born into certain groups. You have no-one to blame but yourself in this instance." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318107)

You’re making the same error in reasoning that you used to make with your old nom de plume (redneck) (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6232&show=history) when you thought you’d caught people contradicting themselves when they said that you really were a redneck. You failed to see that rednecks have choices about who they are, while a person of a particular heritage cannot help their heritage, so the two forms of slurs cannot be equated.

<<You have just made a statement which is a complete contradiction.>>

No, I didn’t. Group membership is not a stereotype.

Membership:
The fact of being a member of a group. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/membership)

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<The only logic which could make any sense to me, is that you think that "stereotyping" only applies to races and ethnicities?>>

How do you get that from what I’ve said?

<<Stereotyping does not apply to any other social group?>>

Of course it can.

<<That would explain how you routinely make barefaced stereotypes of social groups yourself, and then deny that you are stereotyping.>>

Try giving one example.

<<OK. Lets look again at the two definitions of "stereotype" which you posted.>>

One of those was your out-of-date definition. Not mine.

<<…you had better make a statement right now explaining what classifications of people you think stereotyping applies to.>>

Any group is vulnerable to being stereotyped. I have never suggested otherwise.

Once more for the dummies.

The reason why socialist humanitarians loudly proclaim that groups of people should not be prejudged, labelled, or stereotyped, is because they believe that individuals must not be judged by their group associations. Dictionary definitions of "stereotype" define this word in terms related only to people. All dictionaries, in one way or another, define stereotyping as the determination of an individuals personality or behaviour from their group classifications. If you make any inferences about an individual from a group membership, you are stereotyping them.

The problem with the socialist humanitarian ideology, is that psychology text books go further than dictionaries in defining stereotyping. Psychologists explain stereotyping in broader terms. It apples not only to people, but to objects, ideas and situations. And they also explain how stereotyping is used. In order to form a concept of anything, you have to have a stereotypical idea of what the subject is. Stereotyping is therefore used to think. Saying that you must not stereotype is exactly the same as saying you must not think.

One sterling example of the validity of that is the sentence is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car." You have to form stereotypes of a "flock", "a bird", "sit" and "car", and blend them all together instantly to understand what is being said. And you only need to think about that to realise it is true. Human beings stereotype to think. Even you should be able to figure that out, AJ.

Group membership is not a stereotype. But if you make inferences about any individual persons behaviour from their group membership, you are stereotyping them. And you have done that. And you will continue to do that. Because you have to do it to think.

You’re just like a creationist, LEGO.

You are judging an individual (me), by equating me to a group of people called "Creationists", a group who's individual members you obviously hold in contempt. You just stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists."

Poor LEGO. Academia is once again conspiring against you. This time, with the use of dictionaries.

<<The reason why socialist humanitarians loudly proclaim that groups of people should not be prejudged, labelled, or stereotyped, is because they believe that individuals must not be judged by their group associations.>>

No, it’s because pre-judgements, stereotypes, and often labels, are inaccurate and, therefore, unfair and potentially harmful.

What about capitalist humanitarians?

<<Dictionary definitions of "stereotype" define this word in terms related only to people.>>

No, they don’t

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or THING. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<If you make any inferences about an individual from a group membership, you are stereotyping them.>>

Only if it's unfair or an oversimplification.

<<The problem with the socialist humanitarian ideology, is that psychology text books go further than dictionaries in defining stereotyping.>>

Allowing you to commit the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

We've already demonstrated that the psychological definition is not a problem.

<<In order to form a concept of anything, you have to have a stereotypical idea of what the subject is.>>

Either that or a concept of it.

<<Stereotyping is therefore used to think.>>

Sometimes.

<<Saying that you must not stereotype is exactly the same as saying you must not think.>>

No, it's not. See above.

<<One sterling example of the validity of that is the sentence is "a flock of birds is sitting on a car.">>

You're confusing concepts and stereotypes again.

<<Group membership is not a stereotype.>>

Correct.

<<But if you make inferences about any individual persons behaviour from their group membership, you are stereotyping them.>>

Only if it's unfair or an oversimplification.

<<And you have done that.>>

When?

<<You just stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists.">>

No, I haven't.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

AJ Poor LEGO. Academia is once again conspiring against you. This time, with the use of dictionaries.

LEGO It can be. But everybody does it to think.

AJ No, it’s because pre-judgements, stereotypes, and often labels, are inaccurate and, therefore, unfair and potentially harmful.

LEGO Thinking is often inaccurate, unfair and potentially harmful. Are you suggesting people should not think?

AJ What about capitalist humanitarians?

LEGO To conceptualise that statement, you had to stereotype in your own mind what a "capitalist" and a "humanitarian" are. And thank you for showing that even the definition of "stereotype" which you provided accepts that objects as well as people are stereotyped. That validates what I have been saying all along.,

AJ Only if it's unfair or an oversimplification.

LEGO To think about everything we simply the concepts of everything. This can be unfair, but we all do it to think. Should we stop thinking?

AJ We've already demonstrated that the psychological definition is not a problem.

LEGO Oh, where?

You stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists."

AJ No, I haven't.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.

LEGO Here is what you wrote about me.

AJ You’re just like a creationist, LEGO. Understandable given you’re old, debunked 19th century ideas.

LEGO Your statement is plainly a negative prejudgement of me. It is an oversimplification of me which is unfair, and hurts me. It stereotypes "19th century ideas as "debunked" and therefore implies that all "19th century " ideals are debunked. That is an oversimplification of "19th century" ideas which is obviously unfair and inaccurate.

You have also likened my attitudes to those of Creationists. Your stereotype of a Creationist is probably a stupid and ignorant religious nutcase who thinks in absolutes. I would agree that your stereotype of "creationist" is accurate, but it is still hurtful. But your stereotype of me, equating my values, attitudes and behaviour to an entire class of people, is an inaccurate oversimplification and a hurtful stereotype.

Not always, LEGO.

<<But everybody [stereotypes] to think.>>

There are many other cognitive techniques people use.

<<Are you suggesting people should not think?>>

Reductio ad absurdum. You just don’t learn.

<<To conceptualise that statement, you had to stereotype in your own mind what a "capitalist" and a "humanitarian" are.>>

No, I didn’t. I just had to understand what capitalism and humanitarianism are. Neither of these ideals say anything else about those who believe in them and nor was I suggesting anything.

<<And thank you for showing that even the definition of "stereotype" which you provided accepts that objects as well as people are stereotyped. That validates what I have been saying all along.>>

How so?

<<To think about everything we simply the concepts of everything.>>

You’re missing a word there. Were you suggesting that we stereotype to develop concepts? If so, then no, we don’t…

Concept:
An idea or mental image which corresponds to some distinct entity or class of entities, or to its essential features, or determines the application of a term (especially a predicate... (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/concept)

<<Oh, where?>>

Actually, it would have been more accurate of me to say that you hadn’t yet demonstrated that the psychological definition of ‘stereotype’ was an issue for some, because your attempt to do so was fallacious. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<You stereotyped me, and every individual in the group called "Creationists.">>

No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist.

<<Your statement is plainly a negative prejudgement of me.>>

"No, I haven’t pre-judged you, LEGO. Because you already demonstrated this before I came to my conclusion." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318107)

<<It stereotypes "19th century ideas as "debunked" and therefore implies that all "19th century " ideals are debunked.

At no point did I suggest that all 19th century ideas were debunked.

<<You have also likened my attitudes to those of Creationists.>>

No, not your attitudes, but the extent to which many of the beliefs you've expressed on OLO are old and discredited.

The two reasons why you are losing this argument, is firstly because human beings stereotype to think. Specifically, to think about people, objects, ideas, and situations. I seem to have made some progress in convincing you that everybody does this, but you appear to accept it in principle, and then oppose it in detail.

My sentence "a flock of birds is sitting on a car", which clearly displays that people form stereotypes about objects (and people) to think, seemed to have rocked you. You changed your attitude markedly after that, and concentrated more on a moral argument than a criticism of stereotypical thinking. But now you are backsliding and writing about "capitalist humanitarians", where the same principles of conceptualising people and objects applies, but you claim it is different.

The second reason why you are going belly up, is because your moral argument does not wash. It assumes that you do not stereotype yourself, and of course, that is nonsense. You have to conceptualise objects and people just like everybody else. But what you are really are talking about is using stereotypes to make judgements of people. Everybody does that too. I told you that I would catch you doing it yourself, and it did not take long to do so. I would have done it much earlier, but this is not a discussion where we are routinely evaluating individuals and groups.

I see that you are attempting to deconstruct my argument which explained why you are stereotyping, using every red herring and water muddying technique that you can dream up. But you are caught in your own contradiction, and I have cut and pasted it in your "clangers file," so that I can throw it back in your face every time you claim that stereotyping is wrong.

It is not a classic stereotype, because it likens my attitude to a group which I do not identify with. But you are the one which is classifying (stereotyping) me as thinking like a Creationist, so it is still a stereotype, and it will do until I catch you doing it again.

Yes, LEGO, I’m “losing” this argument. *Snigger*

<<The two reasons why you are losing this argument…>>

The argument was won a long time ago, and certainly not by the one here who is leading 4-0 on the use of fallacies. I’m just having fun now, waiting to see how many months you’re willing to repeat yourself in the hope that I get bored and leave so that you can have the last say and feel like your dangerously ignorant worldview is still justified.

<<…firstly because human beings stereotype to think.>>

Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.

<<…you appear to accept [stereotyping] in principle, and then oppose it in detail.>>

I accept that it’s done by everyone from time to time, but reject that it’s useful when applied to classes of people.

<<My sentence "a flock of birds is sitting on a car", which clearly displays that people form stereotypes…>>

No, that was an example of the use of concepts.

<<You changed your attitude markedly after that, and concentrated more on a moral argument than a criticism of stereotypical thinking.>>

No, that’s when I started differentiating between stereotypes and concepts.

Speaking of which, though, you can quit pretending that your feelings are being hurt. It doesn't make me look hypocritical. From a moral/ethical point of view, avoiding stereotypes is more about harm minimisation on a macro level. I could argue that by publicly discrediting your nonsense, the benefits of hurting your feelings outweigh the costs.

<<But now you are backsliding and writing about "capitalist humanitarians", where the same principles of conceptualising people and objects applies, but you claim it is different.>>

Yes, “backsliding”. *Snigger*

"I just had to understand what capitalism and humanitarianism are. Neither of these ideals say anything else about those who believe in them and nor was I suggesting anything." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<The second reason why … is because your moral argument does not wash. It assumes that you do not stereotype yourself…>>

No, it, differentiates between harmless mental shortcuts and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes.

Yes, the argument was won long ago. Human beings form stereotypes to think. And the people like yourself who claim stereotyping is wrong, routinely do it themselves. Finally, stereotyping is a tried and true tool used in business, marketing, and law enforcement. Marketers divide the community into differing demographic groups, and submit their sales pitches in ways that will appeal to the psychological needs of the differing demographic groups. Gambling bosses prefer to place slot machine palaces in disadvantaged (dumbass) areas, knowing that people from these areas are most at risk of developing gambling obsessions. Social workers stereotype when they oppose the building of poker machine palaces in disadvantaged areas, because they know the gambling bosses stereotype of "disadvantaged" people is right.

The owners of the "Supercheap" franchise know better than to place their retail outlets in upper class areas. Upper class people are not interested in the sort of cheap commercial goods which "Supercheap" sells. And upper class people would not be caught dead in a place named "Supercheap". The police routinely stereotype criminal suspects as having "Middle Eastern Appearance", 'Pacific Islander appearance", or "Caucasian appearance." "Profilers" catch criminals by classifying them and stereotyping how they think.

AJ Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.

How do you create a concept without a stereotype of what it is you are trying to conceptualise? Do you consult a dictionary every time you use a noun in a sentence? Or do you have a stereotypical concept of it in your mind already?

AJ I accept that (stereotyping) is done by everyone from time to time, but reject that it’s useful when applied to classes of people.

Excuse me? "Everyone? Including yourself? Well, you just lost the debate.

AJ No, that’s when I started differentiating between stereotypes and concepts.

You mean you rationalised around an obvious truth that you did not wish to accept.

AJ No, it, differentiates between harmless mental shortcuts and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes.

You do it yourself. And you admitted doing it yourself.

The caravan moves on, but the dogs keep barking.

LEGO,

Either you’re really, really slow, or you’re skimming my posts again.

<<Human beings form stereotypes to think.>>

“Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<And the people like yourself who claim stereotyping is wrong, routinely do it themselves.>>

"[There are] harmless mental shortcuts [which are also stereotypes] and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

I’m glad you mentioned stereotyping in law enforcement. That’s one of the areas in which it is the most harmful. It results in both over-policing and under-policing, mistrust of police amongst certain groups, and the penchant for stereotyping that many officers naturally develop can lead to instances of bullying of officers that belong to certain groups.

Marketing is a notoriously inaccurate pursuit. As for gambling, I don’t think I need to explain why placing more pokies in poorer areas is a socially destructive thing to do, despite the fact that some will still benefit from it. This just looks to me to be another appeal to common practice.

<<How do you create a concept without a stereotype of what it is you are trying to conceptualise?>>

By drawing on the features of an entity or a class of entity that make it distinct or are essential to it. I’ve been linking you to the definition of ‘concept’ because it hinted at that. I didn’t think you were reading the definitions. Which probably explains why we’re still here.

<<Do you consult a dictionary every time you use a noun in a sentence? Or do you have a stereotypical concept of it in your mind already?>>

I usually know what the noun is already, but consult a dictionary whenever I’m uncertain - which is really easy now with smartphones.

<<Excuse me? "Everyone? Including yourself?>>

Yes, I’ve said and alluded to that many times now. What’s wrong with you?

<<Well, you just lost the debate.>>

How so?

<<You do it yourself. And you admitted doing it yourself.>>

I know, nothing in that statement of mine that you were responding to suggested that I thought otherwise.

AJ wrote

AJ "I accept that (stereotyping) is done by everyone from time to time, but reject that it’s useful when applied to classes of people."

Wow, everybody stereotypes. It only took me about 20 posts to bludgeon you into admitting that. You know, of all the people I have debated in the last 15 years, you were the slowest to come to that conclusion. Of course, every one of them, when confronted by their own stereotypes either apologised, and said they would never do it again(they could not keep their promise), or they went a bit quite as they started to figure out that their sacred ideology was wanting.

But not you. You are still saying that stereotyping people is naughty, even when you got caught doing it yourself. Your excuse was, to claim that when you classified my attitudes as conforming to the "19th century" attitudes of "an entire population" of people called "Creationists", you were not stereotyping at all. It just goes to show how powerful a force cognitive dissonance can be.

Did you like the way I hit you from another direction? I still have another angle up my sleeve. So now I have demonstrated that everybody stereotypes and you have finally accepted that. A little slow, but you got there in the end. You are still claiming it is wrong to stereotype people, but you got caught doing it yourself. So you have a problem there.

I submitted that stereotyping is an essential business tool, and police forces routinely use it too. In the case of marketing, a study of psychology is now an essential prerequisite in the study of marketing. And last I heard, advertising was a worldwide, $2 trillion dollar industry. How you can claim marketing is "inaccurate" is beyond me. It just goes to show that the devotees of Mammon are a lot smarter than the acolytes of Gaia.

Finally, I submitted that police forces routinely use ethnic descriptors when identifying suspects, and that classifying criminals through profiling is now considered a normal and valued tool of police work.

Please keep up with the discussion, LEGO.

<<Wow, everybody stereotypes. It only took me about 20 posts to bludgeon you into admitting that.>>

No, it didn’t…

"...there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

"Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<You are still saying that stereotyping people is naughty…>>

"[There are] harmless mental shortcuts [which are also stereotypes] and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Your excuse was, to claim that when you classified my attitudes as conforming to the "19th century" attitudes of "an entire population" of people called "Creationists", you were not stereotyping at all.>>

No, that wasn’t a justification for anything at all. Just a general comment.

<<I submitted that stereotyping is an essential business tool, and police forces routinely use it too.>>

And I explained just how harmful that can still be.

<<How you can claim marketing is "inaccurate" is beyond me.>>

Because stereotyping is oversimplified and inaccurate. (http://contentequalsmoney.com/avoid-stereotype-marketing)

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<Finally, I submitted that police forces routinely use ethnic descriptors when identifying suspects…>>

No, you never said that. But that’s a description of a potential suspect, not a stereotype.

<<…and that classifying criminals through profiling is now considered a normal and valued tool of police work.>>

No, there are actually efforts to reduce it. And I already explained why it’s more counterproductive than constructive…

[Law enforcement is] one of the areas in which [stereotyping] is the most harmful. It results in both over-policing and under-policing, mistrust of police amongst certain groups, and the penchant for stereotyping that many officers naturally develop can lead to instances of bullying of officers that belong to certain groups." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318228)

Stereotyping is toxic for police culture.

Do keep up, ol’ chap.

Sorry, LEGO. I misread this…

<<Your excuse was, to claim that when you classified my attitudes as conforming to the "19th century" attitudes of "an entire population" of people called "Creationists", you were not stereotyping at all.>>

I blame all the wine.

I explained why I wasn’t stereotyping but you never addressed it…

“No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

Which was…

“I like how you have to hark back to before the Enlightenment to find an example. It’s the same as creationists boasting that Sir Isaac Newton was a creationist. Everything is evidence-based now. In LEGO’s world, we’re still worked on an assumption/faith-based level.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318070)

I also see that you were referring to offender profiling when you said…

<<"Profilers" catch criminals by classifying them and stereotyping how they think.>>

No, profilers don’t catch criminals all the time. You’ve been watching too much Criminal Minds.

Profilers are rarely ever successful and for that reason, are only ever called in when the police have absolutely no leads whatsoever. Australia only has nine profilers, trained in the US. And even then, they’ll call them over from the US when we have a serial killer. Profilers were called in for the Claremont killer and they didn’t help at all.

Profiling is a controversial technique amongst criminologists and police because it is seen as more of an art rather than a science. It is often inaccurate and can lead police off on the wrong direction, allowing offenders to get away with their crimes.

AJ "Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so"

LEGO That is a generalisation about "intelligent people". And it is a contradiction of....

AJ "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations. So your analogy with thinking is invalid."

LEGO Haha. Caught again.

AJ "[There are] harmless mental shortcuts [which are also stereotypes] and foolishly stereotyping entire classes of people without attempting to look past such stereotypes."

LEGO You "foolishly" stereotyped "an entire class of people" when you stated that "intelligent people understand in what situations it is appropriate to" (stereotype.)

AJ No, that wasn’t a justification for anything at all. Just a general comment.

LEGO You stereotyped me by claiming my attitudes conformed to those of "Creationists". You stereotyped "Creationists" as having "debunked" 19th century views. You stereotyped "19th century views" as "debunked."

AJ I explained why I wasn’t stereotyping but you never addressed it…

LEGO Your statement regarding "Creationists", implied that I was like a Creationist, because Creationists had claimed Newton was a Creationist. The implication being, that Creationists were all idiots, so I was an idiot too It is still a stereotype. . Unless you have another explanation? In which case the onus is on you to post it up.

AJ Because stereotyping is oversimplified and inaccurate.

LEGO Generalisations do not need to be completely accurate, only accurate enough to form a concept. And you do it yourself.

LEGO Finally, I submitted that police forces routinely use ethnic descriptors when identifying suspects…

AJ No, you never said that. But that’s a description of a potential suspect, not a stereotype.

LEGO I put that one in as a trap for you. The use of ethnic descriptors has been widely criticised by the PC brigade as "stereotyping." Looks like you are not conforming to your PC stereotype.

AJ No, profilers don’t catch criminals all the time.

LEGO I made a generalisation about "profilers"

AJ Profilers are rarely ever successful and for that reason.....

LEGO You just stereotyped "profilers" as being "rarely ever successful."

Once again, LEGO, please do try to keep up.

<<That is a generalisation about "intelligent people".>>

"Obviously, in that context, a person, dumb or smart, is what I’m classifying as “intelligent” if they’re able to look past their prejudices." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318011)

How about this instead…

Some people, whom I would look upon more favourable in this instance, are able to look past their stereotypes/prejudices.

Same thing.

<<Haha. Caught again.>>

HaHa. No, I wasn’t. I have demonstrated the accuracy of that statement over the course of this discussion.

<<You "foolishly" stereotyped "an entire class of people" when you stated that "intelligent people understand in what situations it is appropriate to" (stereotype.)>>

See above.

<<You stereotyped me by claiming my attitudes conformed to those of "Creationists".>>

"No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<You stereotyped "Creationists" as having "debunked" 19th century views.>>

No, I was referring to all the views I’ve seen you express.

<<You stereotyped "19th century views" as "debunked.">>

"At no point did I suggest that all 19th century ideas were debunked." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<Generalisations do not need to be completely accurate, only accurate enough to form a concept.>>

So you’ve given up on trying to claim that stereotypes are necessary to form concepts? Good. You’re slowly learning. Just remember, generalisations aren’t needed either. One can use the essential features of an entity or class of entity to form a concept too. And a more accurate one at that.

<<I put that one in as a trap for you.>>

Oh, well I’m sorry it didn’t work then.

<<The use of ethnic descriptors has been widely criticised by the PC brigade as "stereotyping.">>

No, they’re legitimately used all the time when given by witnesses. That’s not stereotyping.

<<I made a generalisation about "profilers">>

No, you exaggerated the usefulness of a technique that has proven to be fairly useless.

<<You just stereotyped "profilers" as being "rarely ever successful.">>

No, I didn’t, because what I said was not an oversimplification about their success rate.

AJ "Obviously, in that context, a person, dumb or smart, is what I’m classifying as “intelligent” if they’re able to look past their prejudices."

LEGO If you classify a group of people according to their attitudes (or anything else), especially if you give them a label, you are stereotyping them all into a labelled classification. That is stereotyping them.

AJ "How about this instead? Some people, whom I would look upon more favourable in this instance, are able to look past their stereotypes/prejudices."

LEGO You just stereotyped "some people". "Some people" are a classification of people who you say are "able to look past their stereotypes." You have labelled these people, "intelligent people." You are therefore also judging them all as "Intelligent" If you use that previous judgement in future to describe these people, you are using a prejudgement.

LEGO You stereotyped me by claiming my attitudes conformed to those of "Creationists".

AJ "No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationists."

LEGO "Stereotype" literally means "to make two of." If you liken somebody, or liken a group of people with another group of people, you are stereotyping them all together as having common and conforming views.

LEGO You stereotyped "Creationists" as having "debunked" 19th century views.

AJ "No, I was referring to all the views I’ve seen you express."

LEGO If you liken all the views that I express to Creationists views, you are stereotyping me as having Creationist like views. If you say that Creationists have "debunked 19th century views" you are stereotyping all Creationists as having "debunked 19th century views." And, your stereotype assumes that all 19th century views are "debunked." That is an "oversimplification."

LEGO You just stereotyped "profilers" as being "rarely ever successful."

AJ "No, I didn’t, because what I said was not an oversimplification about their success rate."

LEGO You said that profilers "are rarely ever successful" You are judging a named group of people as "rarely successful". That is a negative stereotype of an entire group of people

Keep obfuscating, LEGO. Perhaps you’ll confuse your audience and “impartial observers” enough to give you the benefit of the doubt?

<<If you classify a group of people according to their attitudes (or anything else), especially if you give them a label, you are stereotyping them all into a labelled classification. That is stereotyping them.>>

No, because, being contextual, my statement was not fixed.

Stereotype:
A widely held but FIXED and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

<<You just stereotyped "some people".>>

“Some people” is a non-descript term, not a class. If an individual doesn’t fit my description, then they are not part of that “some people”. No-one is unfairly included or described. Therefore, I did not stereotype.

<<"Stereotype" literally means "to make two of.">>

Now you've committed the Etymological fallacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). That makes five fallacies now.

<<If you liken all the views that I express to Creationists views, you are stereotyping me as having Creationist like views.>>

Only the views I’ve seen you express. Still no sweeping statements to be found.

<<If you say that Creationists have "debunked 19th century views" you are stereotyping all Creationists as having "debunked 19th century views.">>

Sure, if that’s what one says.

"No, I was referring to all the views I’ve seen you express." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318273)

<<And, your stereotype assumes that all 19th century views are "debunked.">>

No, it only refers to debunked ones.

<<You said that profilers "are rarely ever successful">>

Correct.

<<You are judging a named group of people as "rarely successful".>>

No, I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use.

You’re getting more and more desperate to spot an instance of stereotyping. Even if you eventually succeed, it will mean very little given that I’ve pointed out that there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. It wouldn’t then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues is suddenly justified.

This is just getting funny now. I don’t think you’re capable of following this discussion, sorry.

AJ Keep obfuscating, LEGO. Perhaps you’ll confuse your audience and “impartial observers” enough to give you the benefit of the doubt?

LEGO There is no one here but you and me, AJ.

AJ No, because, being contextual, my statement was not fixed.

LEGO You made a fixed classification of a group of people who you labelled as "intelligent", and you stereotyped them all, as understanding "in what situations it is inappropriate to stereotype." To oversimplify, "intelligent people" do not stereotype people. That is both a stereotype and a contradiction. No context there.

AJ “Some people” is a non-descript term, not a class.

LEGO "Class" is derived from "classification." If you classify "some people" for whatever reason, you put them in a class. And if you name an attribution typical of that class, you are stereotyping that class of people with that attribution.

AJ If an individual doesn’t fit my description, then they are not part of that “some people”. No-one is unfairly included or described. Therefore, I did not stereotype.

LEGO If "Intelligent people" do not stereotype people, then they conform to your stereotype of what "Intelligent" people are.

AJ Only the views I’ve seen you express. Still no sweeping statements to be found.

LEGO Your stereotype of my way of thinking conformed to your stereotype of the way "creationists" think. You stereotyped me, and you stereotyped Creationists.

AJ No, I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use.

LEGO If you think that profilers are "rarely successful", then being "rarely successful" is an attribute that you think is typical of all profilers. Your have a stereotype of all profilers being "rarely successful."

AJ You’re getting more and more desperate to spot an instance of stereotyping.

LEGO No, I am finding it easier and easier. Because you are discovering that it is impossible to judge groups of people without stereotyping them. And I do not care about whatever "harm" it does. All I am concerned about is displaying to you that everybody stereotypes people.

Oh, I don’t think so, LEGO.

<<There is no one here but you and me, AJ.>>

I had a debate that went for eight months and there were still many onlookers given how many piped up occasionally. But either way, that’s fine. Given that what we’re discussing goes to the heart of your dangerously ignorant and toxic views, I just want to have this thread to link back to when you use your naive ‘stereotypes’ as justification for them. So I’m not going anywhere, sorry.

<<You made a fixed classification of a group of people who you labelled as "intelligent"…>>

No, it was contextual.

"Some people, whom I would look upon more favourable in this instance, are able to look past their stereotypes/prejudices." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318273)

<<"Class" is derived from "classification.">>

Correct.

<<If you classify "some people" for whatever reason, you put them in a class.>>

Correct.

<<And if you name an attribution typical of that class, you are stereotyping that class of people with that attribution.>>

Not always.

"If an individual doesn’t fit my description, then they are not part of that “some people”. No-one is unfairly included or described. Therefore, I did not stereotype." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<If "Intelligent people" do not stereotype people, then they conform to your stereotype of what "Intelligent" people are.>>

I never said they didn’t stereotype.

"Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<Your stereotype of my way of thinking conformed to your stereotype of the way "creationists" think.>>

“No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<You stereotyped me, and you stereotyped Creationists.>>

How did I stereotype creationists?

<<If you think that profilers are "rarely successful", then being "rarely successful" is an attribute that you think is typical of all profilers.>>

No, it’s a critique of the method they use…

"...I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

Squirm away, AJ. Lets examine what you and I said again. I said, if "Intelligent people" do not stereotype people, then they conform to your stereotype of what "Intelligent" people are.

You said, "I never said they didn’t stereotype." Then you added, "Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so."

OK, you have admitted that everybody stereotypes. But you said that it is wrong to stereotype people. And you have submitted that "intelligent people" know when not to use them (stereotypes)." The clear implication is, that "intelligent people" do not stereotype people. Unfortunately, you did not say that directly. But you and I both know that is what you meant. You know I am painting you into a corner and you are getting desperate. So, I predict you will claim that this is not what you meant. But you won't say what you meant, because, backwards into the corner you go.

But you might as well come clean now, because it is only a matter of time before I catch you again. I have been down this path many, many times, and I always catch them out again. The reason is simple. In order to form judgements of groups of people, you need to say what the attributes are in their collective identity that makes them a group in the first place. So you stereotype them.

You are also playing "muddy the water" with your plain stereotype of "profilers". It is just too bad that there is a 350 word limit on what we write or I would dissect that as well. But my best bet is to simply wait until you stereotype people again, and watch you squirm around trying to dodge admitting what you are beginning to understand is true.

I will make this a double post because I wish to make this point. I had an opponent named "Brian Ross" who was very formidable. He never stopped saying how wrong it was to prejudge, stereotype, label, or make generalisations about people

Yes, LEGO. The only one here who hasn’t yet had to resort to fallacies is “squirming”.

You’re a riot!

<<You said, "I never said they didn’t stereotype." Then you added, "Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.">>

Correct.

<<OK, you have admitted that everybody stereotypes. But you said that it is wrong to stereotype people.>>

More so classes of people. And more that it is harmful to varying degrees and will always be incorrect to some extent due to the fact that it’s an oversimplification.

But, yes.

<<And you have submitted that "intelligent people" know when not to use them (stereotypes)." The clear implication is, that "intelligent people" do not stereotype people.>>

No, more that they’re able to look past them when they catch themselves out doing it or see other people do it.

<<You know I am painting you into a corner and you are getting desperate.>>

Funny. It’s actually the other way around. I have shown no indication of getting desperate. You, on the other hand, are now resorting to more and more absurd allegations of stereotyping. Now, even a success rate for an activity is a stereotype. According to you.

<<So, I predict you will claim that this is not what you meant.>>

Well, that wasn’t a very good prediction now, was it?

<<But you might as well come clean now…>>

About what?

<<…because it is only a matter of time before I catch you again.>>

What? Stereotyping? You haven’t even caught me doing it once yet.

<<In order to form judgements of groups of people, you need to say what the attributes are in their collective identity that makes them a group in the first place. So you stereotype them.>>

Or you make use of concepts that don’t contain oversimplifications.

<<You are also playing "muddy the water" with your plain stereotype of "profilers".>>

Ignoring for a moment that it wasn’t a stereotype, how so?

<<I will make this a double post because I wish to make this point.>>

I can’t wait!

Here is one of your egalitarian contemporaries who's views on stereotyping (and everything else) are a stereotype of your own.

Brian Ross quotes

"I don't judge people on their membership of a group."

"Erik, you are a sporting shooter and displaying their typical hot headedness."

"You are a whinging Pom."

"I would suggest in fact that the reason why the American civil rights movement has seen their dreams vanish into degradation, is because of a concerted move by white society in the US as "uppity" and "troublesome" blacks."

"American capitalists are such rich little piggies, always wanting their cake and eat it too."

"The Quebequios are very insular and parochial, and ambivalent in their attitudes to Quebec."

"Many Americans have insufferable hubris and almost completely lack empathy for any other point of view but their own. Their ignorance of any other society is yet another annoying feature. Their belief in exceptionalism is another feature as well. Oh, and their propensity to elect fools to lead them, but perhaps that is a symptom of the previous points?"

"Every time I lift up a rock and find a lot of slaters underneath, who hate the light being shone on their activities, that is how I feel about the US government and it's activities."

"I don't detest Americans. In fact I quite like them. They provide me with hours of amusement and they do have considerable potential, once they shed their arrogance and become sensible people."

"Orthodox Judaism is even more backwards than fundamentalist Islam in many way."

"Ignorance is very attractive to conservatives as it allows them to maintain their control of the group."

"Enoch Powell is an interesting character, Mr. Edriess. Like Blainey, he was very much a product of his generation. His views were very much expressing the xenophobic fear of the time that many held then, and still do today."

There were no good Nazis.

Sorry, LEGO. I'm not sure what the point of that last post was. Nor do I know what it means for someone's "views on stereotyping (and everything else)" to be a "stereotype of [my] own."

Incidentally, calling someone a "whinging Pom" isn't stereotyping. Saying that all English people are whingers is, but you cannot, by definition, stereotype one person.

Stereotype:
A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stereotype)

“a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.” (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/stereotype)

Anyway, since you still seem to think that catching me stereotype will be such a golden moment for you, let me remind you of something I said earlier:

"Even if you eventually succeed [in spotting me stereotype], it will mean very little given that I’ve pointed out that there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. It wouldn’t then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues is suddenly justified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

You have broadened the definition of 'stereotype' so much as to be inclusive of damn near anything so that you can fallaciously appeal to nature and common practice to justify an ignorant worldview filled with oversimplifications.

Wow! It really doesn't sound good when you put it like that, does it?

The point of my last post, was to point out to you that you were not the only one preaching egalitarianism, who claimed that stereotyping is wrong, but who did it themselves. This is the contradiction of this philosophy. Brian was an extremely polished debater and he was infinitely better than you. He did not just sit back and heckle. He really believed in what he was saying, and he would write long and well reasoned arguments emphasising that it was utterly wrong to judge people by their group associations. He would solemnly declare, it was wrong to generalise about groups of people, stereotype them, label them, or prejudge them.

He used to drive me nuts. Until one day, I worked out what was going on. You see, it is so common for egalitarians to defend their favoured minorities from criticism from the people who generalise, stereotype, label and prejudge them, and then do it themselves to the groups of people that they despise, that it took a long time for the penny to drop.

The people who claim it is utterly wrong to judge people by their group associations do it themselves. And my reading of psychology told me why. People stereotype every thing in order to form concepts and judgements about everything. People stereotype to think. Once I realised that, I only had to apply that essential truth to everything Brian said about the groups of people that he despised, and I had him licked. And since that happy day, I have enjoyed making life miserable to every other egalitarian who unfailingly gets caught in their own contradiction.

Along comes AJ, another one claiming (in effect) that judging people by their group associations is wrong, but who does it himself. He refuses to admit it, and no amount of reasoned argument will ever convince him that he is preaching the same contradiction. But he is in a very vulnerable position. Because he can never judge or criticise any group of people he does not like without making generalisations, stereotyping, labelling, or prejudging them.

LEGO,

The longer we’re here for, the more I get to copy and paste old comments of mine that you’re overlooking. This is great!

<<The point of my last post, was to point out to you that you were not the only one preaching egalitarianism, who claimed that stereotyping is wrong, but who did it themselves.>>

"...there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. [Just because everyone does it on occasion, that doesn't] then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues [(the worst kind)] is suddenly justified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<Brian was an extremely polished debater and he was infinitely better than you.>>

Wow! He must have had you for breakfast then.

<<He did not just sit back and heckle.>>

Ah, you’re pulling that one again. I was wondering how long it would take.

Heckle:
Interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/heckle)

You can’t stand the fact that I’m able to so concisely portray the absurdity of what you say with due mockery, while still addressing what you say adequately, so you write it off as heckling.

<<The people who claim it is utterly wrong to judge people by their group associations do it themselves.>>

Well, luckily I haven’t claimed that then.

<<People stereotype every thing in order to form concepts and judgements about everything.>>

"Or [they use] concepts that don’t contain oversimplifications." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318359)

<<People stereotype to think.>>

"Or [they use] concepts that don’t contain oversimplifications." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318359)

<<Along comes AJ, another one claiming (in effect) that judging people by their group associations is wrong, but who does it himself.>>

"...there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. [Just because everyone does it on occasion, that doesn't] then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues [(the worst kind)] is suddenly justified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<He refuses to admit it…>>

"OK, you have admitted that everybody stereotypes." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318329)

Like I said earlier, LEGO, I don’t think you’re capable of following this discussion, sorry.

AJ "...there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. [Just because everyone does it on occasion, that doesn't] then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues [(the worst kind)] is suddenly justified."

There are varying degrees in harmfulness in telling the truth. But "may the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

AJ You can’t stand the fact that I’m able to so concisely portray the absurdity of what you say with due mockery, while still addressing what you say adequately, so you write it off as heckling.

You have yet to write a complete paragraph with more than four sentences. You claim that stereotyping people is wrong, yet all you can say is that it is "harmful" to do so. Some argument. Criminal profilers stereotype criminals all the time. Would you like to submit 100-150 words explaining how wrong it is for profilers to stereotype career criminals, rapists, child molesters, and serial killers in order to catch them?

Another group that stereotypes people "wrongfully" are advertising executives. In the 1950's, advertising was simply the advertisement of wares containing claims of the products being the best available. But a revolution in advertising began when the services of psychologists were employed to figure out the basic needs, drives, instincts and thought processes of the different demographic groups in society. Try telling advertisers that stereotyping "entire populations of people" is wrong and they will laugh in your face.

Insurance companies too adjust their premiums according to their knowledge of the different levels of responsibility within the different demographic groups in society. People from the dependent and criminal class are very seriously over represented in irresponsible driving and serious car accidents, and people from those areas pay a higher premium. People from upper class areas are known for their responsible behaviour, and pay lower premiums. Premiums are also adjusted for age.

Stereotyping a normal and intelligent way to think. Only ideologues who are more concerned with egalitarian ideology than self evident reality think otherwise

//Stereotyping a normal and intelligent way to think.//

Yes of course it is, dear.

That in itself does not constitute ‘heckling’, LEGO.

<<You have yet to write a complete paragraph with more than four sentences.>>

But yes, I did boast of my ability to be concise. No obfuscation, just straight to the point.

<<You claim that stereotyping people is wrong, yet all you can say is that it is "harmful" to do so.>>

No, I’ve also pointed out some ways that it can be harmful.

"[Stereotyping in law enforcement] results in both over-policing and under-policing, mistrust of police amongst certain groups, and the penchant for stereotyping that many officers naturally develop can lead to instances of bullying of officers that belong to certain groups." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318228)

So I don’t know what you mean by “some argument”.

<<Would you like to submit 100-150 words explaining how wrong it is for profilers to stereotype career criminals, rapists, child molesters, and serial killers in order to catch them?>>

I didn’t say it was wrong. I said it was inaccurate. It can be harmful, though, in the sense that it can lead police off in the wrong direction.

<<Another group that stereotypes people "wrongfully" are advertising executives.>>

Correct. Not only is marketing a notoriously inaccurate profession, but it can be harmful when advertising agencies play a little too heavily on a stereotype that is damaging to a demographic.

<<Insurance companies too adjust their premiums according to their knowledge of the different levels of responsibility within the different demographic groups in society.>>

Premiums and excesses are more expensive for under 25s because their frontal lobes haven’t yet developed fully and they’re more likely to make bad decisions because of that. That’s not much of an oversimplification in the context of risk management though.

<<People from the dependent and criminal class are very seriously over represented in irresponsible driving and serious car accidents, and people from those areas pay a higher premium.>>

Some postcodes are more expensive than others because more thefts occur in those areas, not because insurers are stereotyping their customers in those areas.

AJ "That in itself does not constitute ‘heckling’, LEGO."

LEGO Perhaps your stereotype of what "heckling" is, does not conform to what my stereotype of what "heckling" is?

AJ "So, I don’t know what you mean by “some argument”."

LEGO My stereotype of a "reasoned argument" is one which consists of much more than a single sentence, which is only a brief opinion anyway. Your one sentence attack on police stereotyping procedures is an example. It is hardly valid if the worldwide law enforcement community displays it's collective contempt of your brief opinion by ignoring your PC ideology altogether.

AJ "I didn’t say it was wrong. I said it was inaccurate. It can be harmful, though, in the sense that it can lead police off in the wrong direction."

LEGO If it is so inaccurate, police forces worldwide would not use it. Obviously, it is accurate.

AJ "[Stereotyping in law enforcement] results in both over-policing and under-policing, mistrust of police amongst certain groups, and the penchant for stereotyping that many officers naturally develop can lead to instances of bullying of officers that belong to certain groups."

LEGO It also solves crimes. The reason why you hate it, is because it rightfully assumes that certain ethnicities are prone to criminal behaviour.

AJ "Not only is marketing a notoriously inaccurate profession, but it can be harmful when advertising agencies play a little too heavily on a stereotype that is damaging to a demographic."

LEGO If you listen real hard, you can hear the cashed up professionals in Madison Avenue, Saatchi & Saatchi, and Mojo laughing their heads off at that one.

AJ "Premiums and excesses are more expensive for under 25s because their frontal lobes haven’t yet developed fully and they’re more likely to make bad decisions because of that. That’s not much of an oversimplification in the context of risk management though."

LEGO Advertising agencies stereotype target consumer demographics. Insurance companies adjust premiums using statistical data which makes judgements about different demographics. Everybody does it. Including yourself.

No, that’s not what stereotyping is, LEGO.

<<Perhaps your stereotype of what "heckling" is, does not conform to what my stereotype of what "heckling" is?>>

That’s a concept or a definition. One cannot, by definition, stereotype a singularity.

<<My stereotype of a "reasoned argument" is one which consists of much more than a single sentence…>>

That’s also not a stereotype. Either way, most of your arguments are wrong at such a basic and fundamental level that they only require one sentence to debunk. See above, for example.

<<Your one sentence attack on police stereotyping procedures is an example.>>

I could link you to evidence, but we both know you’ll either ignore it or fob it off somehow. Besides which, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that stereotyping will result in both over-policing and under-policing.

<<It is hardly valid if the worldwide law enforcement community displays it's collective contempt of your brief opinion by ignoring your PC ideology altogether.>>

It doesn’t. And I could equally point out the same about the collective contempt of criminologists of your brief assumptions regarding the use and effectiveness of stereotyping in law enforcement.

I’ll also point out that you’ve ‘moved the goalposts’ from ‘profiling’ to ‘entire police institutions’ by responding to what was a comment on profilers alone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts). That makes six fallacies. Further to that, this is also the Appeal to Common Practice fallacy.

By the way, stereotyping is not usually used as an official policy, but creeps in as a bad habit.

<<It also solves crimes.>>

At the cost of ignoring others (i.e. under-policing), and building resentment and losing their legitimacy amongst certain groups. Nice plan, Sherlock. You should be commissioner.

<<If you listen real hard, you can hear the cashed up professionals in Madison Avenue, Saatchi & Saatchi, and Mojo laughing their heads off at that one.>>

How witty. Now THAT is what ‘not presenting a reasoned argument’ is. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Why do you think marketers are moving away from stereotyping and towards data mining?

*Crickets chirping*

Look that one up.

AJ "That’s a concept or a definition. One cannot, by definition, stereotype a singularity."

LEGO. A flock of birds is sitting on a car.

AJ "I could link you to evidence, but we both know you’ll either ignore it or fob it off somehow. Besides which, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that stereotyping will result in both over-policing and under-policing."

LEGO Read your link and submit it in your own words. I don't debate against links. I don't tell you to go and read Psychology books.

AJ "It doesn’t."

LEGO So, when is the FBI going to close down the Serial Killer course at Quantico, Virginia?

AJ "And I could equally point out the same about the collective contempt of criminologists of your brief assumptions regarding the use and effectiveness of stereotyping in law enforcement."

LEGO Are they the drop kicks at the Australian Institute of Criminology who claimed that ethnic crime was a figment of the public's imagination? And the ones who attended the "Violence,Crime and the Media" conference in Canberra, who claimed that there was no link between media violence and real life violence? I will happily take their brickbats as a badge of honour.

AJ "By the way, stereotyping is not usually used as an official policy, but creeps in as a bad habit."

LEGO I would say it was simply normal thinking. I suppose you could call "thinking a "bad habit" if you were a wild eyed PC zealot like you.

AJ "At the cost of ignoring others (i.e. under-policing), and building resentment and losing their legitimacy amongst certain groups. Nice plan, Sherlock. You should be commissioner."

LEGO We had a PC commissioner like you in NSW. He was imported from Britain, and as Detective Sergeant Tim Priest pointed out in his book "To Protect and Serve", he managed to fudge the crime figures so well that Dover Heights supposedly had more crime than Cabramatta.

LEGO,

We can be here for the next two months or we can be here for the next two years. It's really up to you. But playing dumb is not going to get rid of me...

<<A flock of birds is sitting on a car.>>

A flock denotes multiples, not a singularity.

<<Read your link and submit it in your own words.>>

I already have. Both journal articles and textbooks.

<<I don't debate against links.>>

"Ignore them all you like, but being so audience-focused, you do so at your own peril." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317542)

<<I don't tell you to go and read Psychology books.>>

I've never asked you to read an entire book. You don't even have to read a journal article I link to. But refusing to do so does not then give you the key to brush aside what I had said as mere opinion. Not unless you want to embarrass yourself in front of your "impartial readers", at least.

<<So, when is the FBI going to close down the Serial Killer course at Quantico, Virginia?>>

Uh, uh. You were talking about entire police institutions. Now you've switched back to profiling? Tsk, tsk. That's the Shifting of the Goalposts fallacy again.

<<Are they the drop kicks at the Australian Institute of Criminology who claimed that ethnic crime was a figment of the public's imagination?>>

No, the ones you continually refer to when you think they support your racial theories. You still haven't shown where they made such a claim, despite my requests. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310247)

<<And the ones who attended the "Violence,Crime and the Media" conference in Canberra, who claimed that there was no link between media violence and real life violence?>>

Another claim you won't be able to support, I take it?

<<We had a PC commissioner like you in NSW.>>

Interesting. That doesn't negate my claim that you were responding to, though.

Oh, I know what you were suggesting now, LEGO…

<<We had a PC commissioner like you in NSW…>>

You were suggesting that there is yet another grand international conspiracy, that somehow no-one blows the whistle on, involving all criminologists in multiple countries, in which data is manipulated in order to make it look as though if police resources are concentrated too heavily in one area, then other areas will be neglected.

Hmmm… I can’t imagine that would be too hard to fudge. Can you?

On another topic, I was just thinking. You consider yourself to be a master debater who is a force to be reckoned with on the discussion boards, and yet you don't even have a basic grasp of the common forms of fallacious reasoning, or how to formulate an argument without them.

That being said, there's something off with your Brian Ross story. This guy was supposedly "infinitely better" at debating than me and yet he was apparently unable to spot the fallacious reasoning peppered throughout your arguments.

You know what I reckon? Either he wasn't as good as you say he was, and you just needed a put-down to fire off in my direction; or he grew tired of your aggressive and unpleasant method of communication (as I suspect so many others do) and left the discussion, allowing you to get the last word in and feel like you had won the debate.

My bet is on the latter.

Hi AJ.

I don't know how you measure success in a debate, but I am very happy with my performance to date on this one. You seem to think that unless I can convince you that you are wrong, I have lost. Your response is typical of people like creationists who can not think beyond absolutes. No amount of reasoned argument can ever make a dent in the thinking of absolutist ideologues.

Who wins a debate is more about who makes the most sense, and that can only be judged by an audience. Unfortunately, we don't have one on this topic. I have been on two debate sites in the past 15 years where there was no 24 hour post limit, or 350 word limit, and where a "quote" function was used. On such sites, if either of us were to make a statement not in accord with reality, numerous debaters would pop up and give their opinion on what we have said. Unfortunately, that option does not apply on this site.

My premise is, that I am miles ahead of you on points. Our debating styles are totally different. I can stick my neck out and write entire posts on one reasoned argument because I understand the topic in question. Your position is to say as little as possible and only attack what I say. It is just like our little debate on racism. Either races are equal or they are different. Your position was to only attack my premise that they were different, but you refused to support the premise that races were equal.

I concluded in that debate that you were perfectly aware that races were different. You were therefore a typical ideologue who was more concerned about ideology than reality. Nothing in this debate has changed my opinion of you. You cannot write any reasoned arguments in support of your own position because you do not know your subject. All you can do is seize upon everything I say and get as much mileage out of it as you can by casting doubt.

No, LEGO.

<<You seem to think that unless I can convince you that you are wrong, I have lost.>>

All you have to do is provide a rational response.

<<Your response is typical of people like creationists who can not think beyond absolutes.>>

Really? I’d challenge you to provide an example. I won’t, however, hold my breath for an answer.

<<No amount of reasoned argument can ever make a dent in the thinking of absolutist ideologues. >>

If you could name an absolutist ideology, then I’ll correct it right here and now.

<<Who wins a debate is more about who makes the most sense…>>

Absolutely!

<<…and that can only be judged by an audience.>>

No, reasoned argument can be a judge of that too.

<<Unfortunately, we don't have [an audience] on this topic.>>

Oh, I’m not so sure about that. I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of your loser conservative allies reading this thread, and grinding their teeth at every word I say. This is, after all, an extremely conservative forum.

<<I have been on two debate sites in the past 15 years where there was no 24 hour post limit…>>

Oh, you must share. How I would love that! Let’s not forget, however, that the Ggeneral section of this forum allows members to post eights posts per day. But you’re not aware of the General section, unfortunately.

<<My premise is, that I am miles ahead of you on points.>>

Oh please, mention just one point and I’ll walk away with my tail between my legs.

<<I can stick my neck out and write entire posts on one reasoned argument because I understand the topic in question. Your position is to say as little as possible and only attack what I say.>>

"...most of your arguments are wrong at such a basic and fundamental level that they only require one sentence to debunk. See above, for example." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318499)

Continued...

Continued….

Your posts consisting of full paragraphs are not clever posts that are well reasoned, but posts that respond to strawmen while giving the impression of a reasoned argument because they at least look like full responses. Even when you attempt to quote me line-by-line you still manage to stuff things up by misquoting me, or responding to something other than what you quoted.

<<It is just like our little debate on racism. Either races are equal or they are different. Your position was to only attack my premise that they were different, but you refused to support the premise that races were equal.>>

No, I asked you to define “equal” because you slipped between ‘perfectly equal in every way’ to ‘deserve to be treated as equals’ when it pleased you. You refused to provide a definitive definition of ‘equality’. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284116)

<<I concluded in that debate that you were perfectly aware that races were different.>>

Indeed.

<<You were therefore a typical ideologue who was more concerned about ideology than reality.>>

Nope, check out my links.

Hi AJ.

You have a point when you say that there is more than one way to win a debate. Another way is to wait until my opponent makes a statement and then contradicts themselves. And left wing ideology is just full of it. I know that you said that right wing ideology was the same, but you did not provide any support for that premise.

As a former young leftie, I already know my left wing theology. Left wing theology appeals primarily to young adults, and they tend to grow out of it as they grow older and mature. The contradictions and double standards just become too glaring. What happened to you? The only ones who seem to get stuck in a left wing time warp are academics, cashed up inner city elites, and government "workers." I think it is because they live in a bubble where inbred views become normalised.

Anyhoo, I was surprised when you submitted some quotes from me from my old "redneck" avatar. (I would still be "redneck" today, but I got my username mixed up with my password.) I had thought you were a recent phenomena who had only just materialised on OLO several months ago. But if you have been keeping quotes of mine since my "redneck" days, you must have been gunning for me for years, and I did not even know it.

OK, that's good. You and I are now sworn enemies. I like enemies. Enemies are honest. They make no bones about wanting to get you, which is more than you can say about some "friends." There is nothing like a good enemy to keep you on your toes. Somebody you hate so much you will do anything to get the bastard. I feel sorry about people about whom others say they "did not have an enemy in the world." They must been completely inconsequential people

Damn, AJ. Here I am sitting in my easy chair with my morning coffee, ready for my morning joust with you, and you didn't post last night.

Well anyhoo, I was going to ask you a favour? Since this topic is going to drop off the page soon, I need to speed things up if I am going to paint you into a corner. Now the stereotypical trendy lefty claims that it is wrong to judge entire groups of people by their group associations, so they claim it is wrong to think about the ways that everybody thinks to make those judgements. Ipso facto, they say that people must not make generalisations, stereotype, label or prejudge groups of people.

Now, my problem is, I have not got all the quotes from you that I need saying exactly that. All I have so far is you saying about generalisations....

Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.

And one about stereotyping.....

There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype.

That one only suggests that stereotyping is wrong. Could you clarify that for me? You know, something like "stereotyping large groups of people is wrong", sorta thing.

And I have another vague one on judging groups of people,

That’s not saying that one cannot judge individuals by their group membership.

This one is a double negative. Could you write it out as a positive statement? Like, "People can be judged by their group membership". Although, I would point out to you that this is a contradiction of your whole ideology, so you had better think hard about that one.

Now, unfortunately, I have not been able to entice you into making any judgements about prejudging or labelling. You have come close, but no cigar for me. Help me out here, and show your commitment to your own fuzzy concept of your own ideology, by making direct statements about these two PC sins. You know, "Prejudging and labelling large groups of people is wrong."

Ta mate.

I wouldn't worry about this discussion "dropping off", LEGO. There are plenty of discussions on OLO that go past the one month mark. People here don't seem too fussed about having to alter the settings to view older discussions.

<<[Left-wingers] say that people must not make generalisations, stereotype, label or prejudge groups of people.>>

Well, one can also use concepts that are not oversimplified too. But, yeah.

<<Now, my problem is, I have not got all the quotes from you that I need saying exactly that.>>

Here it is...

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<Could you clarify that for me? You know, something like "stereotyping large groups of people is wrong", sorta thing.>>

O-o-o-oh. I know you're doing now! This goes back to what I've pointed out once before about you requiring your opponents to hold simplistic and caricature-like opinions in order to rebut them.

I've given you a statement that's better than the one you've requested (quoted above), because it not only says that stereotyping classes of people is wrong, but it also explains in what way it's wrong. Just as you once refused to explain what you meant by "equal" so that you could switch between and conflate ‘perfectly equal in every way’ to ‘deserve to be treated as equals’ when it pleased you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284116), you're now asking me to simplify my position to a more ambiguous and sweeping 'stereotyping is wrong' so that you can switch between and conflate different notions of 'wrong' (i.e. immoral and inaccurate) when it suits you. I realised this was the case when you kept oversimplfying my position, causing me to make clarifications such as the one above.

Continued...

...Continued

<<And I have another vague one on judging groups of people,>>

No, there was nothing vague about that. It only looks like it was vague because you've quoted me out of context. That being said, the double negative was appropriate in that instance. By "That's", I meant something that I had said that you'd misconstrued.

<<Could you write it out as a positive statement? Like, "People can be judged by their group membership".

No, because that's not what I was saying at all. Please don't take me for a fool.

<<Although, I would point out to you that this is a contradiction of your whole ideology, so you had better think hard about that one.>>

No, you just need to l look at what I was responding to. I had even quoted what it was that I was responding to.

<<Now, unfortunately, I have not been able to entice you into making any judgements about prejudging or labelling.>>

I've made a few statements with regards to prejudice. But I've broadened my above self-quote to be inclusive of this too.

AJ "I wouldn't worry about this discussion "dropping off", LEGO. There are plenty of discussions on OLO that go past the one month mark. People here don't seem too fussed about having to alter the settings to view older discussions."

LEGO. I am happy with the pasting I have given you already. "I rest my case, M'lud."

AJ "Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful."

LEGO Thank you so much. I have managed to put up about 30 posts on this topic dismissing your claim/implication that generalising, prejudging, and stereotyping is wrong. Your whole argument against amounts to these two sentences.

AJ "O-o-o-oh. I know you're doing now! This goes back to what I've pointed out once before about you requiring your opponents to hold simplistic and caricature-like opinions in order to rebut them."

LEGO Excuse me? All I have asked, is that you state where you stand. After you have done that, you can give a your paltry excuses for thinking that way.

AJ "No, there was nothing vague about that. It only looks like it was vague because you've quoted me out of context."

LEGO OK, I don't agree that I quoted you out of context. But I can be gracious and let you withdraw your statement. So, why then did you not give the "correct" version of what you meant about judging groups of people, when I brought it up? Is it the old problem that you hate stating your position, because you know you will have to stand by it later?

AJ "No, you just need to l look at what I was responding to. I had even quoted what it was that I was responding to."

LEGO Then clarify. State your position plainly and simply. Do you think judging people by their group associations is wrong?

I don't think you really mean that, LEGO. Not one of your arguments has stood even the weakest criticism.

<<I am happy with the pasting I have given you already.>>

Of course, if there's something that's slipped my mind, then please remind me and I'll humbly walk away declaring you the winner...

Didn't think so.

<<Thank you so much.>>

For what? Most of that statement was a copy and paste from an old post.

<<Your whole argument against amounts to these two sentences.>>

No, that's just the crux of it.

<<All I have asked, is that you state where you stand.>>

Then why wasn't it good enough the first ten times?

<<OK, I don't agree that I quoted you out of context.>>

LEGO: "You are saying that you can not judge individuals by their group membership." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318068)

AJ: "Where have I said that?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318070)

LEGO: "Right here. (AJ quote. "There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype") (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318101)

AJ: "That’s not saying that one cannot judge individuals by their group membership." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318107)

<<But I can be gracious and let you withdraw your statement.>>

I'm not withdrawing anything. You misquoted me. See above. At no point did I say that it was alright to judge individuals by their group membership.

<<Is it the old problem that you hate stating your position, because you know you will have to stand by it later?>>

Try giving one example of that.

<<State your position plainly and simply.>>

I already have, many times.

<<Do you think judging people by their group associations is wrong?>>

I already said it was in my last post. Here it is again...

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

On the subject of me "misquoting " you. Once again, I asked you a simple, direct question about what your position is, even presenting it to you so that you could give a simple "yes" or "no" answer But you used your customary muddying technique and beat around the bush. My last post was directly concerned with you answering that one, simple question about where you stand, and unsurprisingly, you still have not answered it. Your claim that I had misquoted you was just a red herring to throw the wolf off the trail of what you are too scared to answer. I can tell a lot more about my opponents from the questions that they consistently refuse to answer, than I can tell about what they actually say.

You are determined to never answer any plain, simple question that will tell me where you stand, because you are terrified that I will pin you down and catch you in your own contradictions. You know what I have been saying for 30 posts is correct, everybody stereotypes to think about everything, everybody generalises about everything, everybody prejudges and labels, and everybody judges individuals by their group associations.

Look dummy. This is the reason why am beating you. I have no trouble at all telling you exactly where I stand, and I have no trouble at all justifying my position with reasoned arguments. Your tactic is to simply criticise everything I say, only imply your position, and keep your opponent guessing about what it is.

Any member of an audience would immediately smell a rat. Anyone who refuses to plainly tell his opponent what his position is, or routinely dodges any polite queries which might clarify any misunderstandings of his position, clearly has something to hide.

What he is trying to hide, is that he knows his own position is wrong.

What I require from you is a statement telling me what your position is. Do you think that judging people by their group associations is wrong? This "debate" goes nowhere until you answer the damned question.

Keep squirming, AJ.

Yes, LEGO. The only one here who has not yet committed a fallacy or had to ask his opponent to word his arguments a particular way is “squirming”.

<<On the subject of me "misquoting " you … I asked you a simple, direct question about what your position is, even presenting it to you so that you could give a simple "yes" or "no" answer>>

No, you didn’t. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318644)

<<My last post was directly concerned with you answering that one, simple question about where you stand, and unsurprisingly, you still have not answered it.>>

Erm… yes I did. Once more for the slow…

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<Your claim that I had misquoted you was just a red herring to throw the wolf off the trail of what you are too scared to answer.>>

No, I actually demonstrated it with a trail of the conversation.

<<You are determined to never answer any plain, simple question that will tell me where you stand, because you are terrified that I will pin you down and catch you in your own contradictions.>>

And again…

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<…everybody stereotypes to think about everything, everybody generalises about everything, everybody prejudges and labels, and everybody judges individuals by their group associations.>>

“Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Your tactic is to simply criticise everything I say, only imply your position, and keep your opponent guessing about what it is.>>

Try pointing to one example of this. You won’t, because you can’t.

AJ "Yes, LEGO. The only one here who has not yet committed a fallacy or had to ask his opponent to word his arguments a particular way is “squirming”."

LEGO. If you refuse to answer a plain, simple question on where you stand on an issue crucial to this debate, AJ, then you have blown it.

Checkmate.

Well, that took me 37 posts to get you to the point where you were too frightened to answer a crucial question. You knew that no matter which way you answered it, you were a dead duck. My mistake was to once again give you the benefit of the doubt about your commitment to an honest debate. I should have remembered your behaviour in our previous debate about racism, where you refused to answer a simple question about where you stood on the central issue.

If you are stupid enough to call me out again, my response shall be to demand that you state what your position is in full, before we start squaring off. That will definitely crimp your style.

I think what really constitutes an ideologue AJ, is somebody like yourself, who knows that their position is wrong, but who have such a commitment to believing that their twisted worldview can Save The World, that they will do anything to stifle it's examination or debate. I'll bet you even agree with Section C of the Racial Discrimination Act? If you can't beat them through reasoned debate, at least you can shut them up.

If you wish this debate to continue AJ, then answer the question, or crawl away with your tail between your legs.

Do you think that judging people by their group associations is wrong?

I am not moving from this spot until you either answer the question, or concede.

I answered your question twice in my last post, LEGO. What’s wrong with you?

<<If you refuse to answer a plain, simple question on where you stand on an issue crucial to this debate, AJ, then you have blown it.>>

Here it is again…

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<Well, that took me 37 posts to get you to the point where you were too frightened to answer a crucial question.>>

See above. You’re delusional. How about you explain to me how my response does not answer your question instead of pretending I didn’t say it? Fat chance, eh?

<<You knew that no matter which way you answered it, you were a dead duck.>>

How so?

<<I should have remembered your behaviour in our previous debate about racism, where you refused to answer a simple question about where you stood on the central issue.>>

Nope, answered your question many times then too, even though it wasn’t necessary. Eventually, you ran out of ways to deny this and, consequently, went scurrying off. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284793)

<<If you wish this debate to continue AJ, then answer the question, or crawl away with your tail between your legs.>>

Sure…

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<Do you think that judging people by their group associations is wrong?>>

Yes, see above.

<<I am not moving from this spot until you either answer the question, or concede.>>

Either you have something seriously wrong with you, or you’re just in a state of panic now because your entire reasoning has come crashing down.

LEGO,

You've been switching between 'group membership' and 'group association'. No, I don't think it's always wrong to judge someone based on their group association, because sometimes who people choose to associate with tells you enough about them to know whether or not you want to associate with them yourself without it being an oversimplification (e.g. a KKK member).

I like when you start demanding that I state a position I have made very clear throughout the course of the discussion, as if it had any relevance. You only ever do it when you’re cornered and desperate. The reason you didn't demand that I "state my position" from the word go was not because you had forgotten about an imagined "trick" that I supposedly pull, but because you thought you had this one in the bag just because no-one else has apparently had the patience to explain to you that you have no idea what a stereotype is, or because they grew tired of your aggressive and unpleasant method of communication (in which you treat discussion boards like battlefields) before they got around to explaining it to you.

There’s two reasons why you require that your opponents “state their position”. First, is because you need something from your opponent to attack when your own arguments fail, in order to distract from the fact. Second, is because you require foolishly certain, black and white opinions from your opponents in order for your rhetoric to work.

You’re not the master debater you claim to be. You have a rehearsed script that you follow, with a limited set of rhetorical tricks, and if someone pulls you from that script or doesn’t adhere to a caricature that your rhetorical tricks require your opponent to be, then you accuse them of not being upfront about their position because what they’re telling you isn’t what your script requires from them. And all the while ignoring the fact that their position has no relevance whatsoever to the correctness or not of yours.

You’re cornered, LEGO, and that’s the only reason you’ve come out swinging now.

Bye, bye.

Oh well done, AJ. It has only taken you about 40 posts to finally write a reasoned argument instead of just chopping up my posts and sneering at every sentence that I write. And I see that you have finally answered the question, although you are qualifying it.

No matter.

If you concede that it is not "always wrong" to judge people by their group associations, then you have just destroyed your original claim that stereotyping or generalising is "always wrong when you apply them to large populations" You must have a negative stereotype of a typical KKK member to prejudge them as someone who is a contemptuous person. "Prejudgement" means in PC newspeak, "judging people based on a stereotype."

Everybody stereotypes people. You have no conception of what "a Greek"," a "KKK member" or "a Swede" even looks like unless you form some sort of stereotype of their appearance. When it comes to judging people collectively as people worthy of our friendship or contempt, the same normal thought processes apply. We all judge particular groups of people as being worthy or unworthy of our praise or our opprobrium by using our own personnel stereotypes of these groups.

You can complain about the accuracy of a stereotype, you can point out that collectively the Irish are not stupid, but you can not say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.

The stereotypical trendy lefty has convinced themselves that stereotyping and prejudging people is utterly wrong. That is their moral absolute. They therefore put themselves in the same absolutist class of thinking as anyone stupid enough to say that lying is always wrong, and telling the truth is always right.

Trendies want to stop human conflicts. That is a worthy and noble goal. But they have invented an ideology to attain that goal which is completely unrealistic. It basically means that no one should ever judge or criticise any other group of people because it might make that group angry and hostile. They are seriously pontificating to everybody, that even thinking about other groups of people is a thoughtcrime

You don’t understand what constitutes a reason argument, LEGO.

<<It has only taken you about 40 posts to finally write a reasoned argument instead of just chopping up my posts and sneering at every sentence that I write.>>

"...most of your arguments are wrong at such a basic and fundamental level that they only require one sentence to debunk." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318499)

"Your posts consisting of full paragraphs are not clever posts that are well-reasoned, but posts that respond to strawmen while giving the impression of a reasoned argument because they at least look like full responses." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318555)

You are the only one who has sneered so far. Remember?

“If you listen real hard, you can hear the cashed up professionals in Madison Avenue, Saatchi & Saatchi, and Mojo laughing their heads off at that one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

I respond to quotes to be thorough.

<<If you concede that it is not "always wrong" to judge people by their group associations, then you have just destroyed your original claim that stereotyping or generalising is "always wrong when you apply them to large populations".>>

No, because we’ve been talking about ‘classes’ of people (e.g. demographics). Not associations. Who people choose to associate with is something that you have only recently introduced with your irrelevant bikie/paedophile analogy. As with equality and stereotyping, your script requires that you conflate ideas.

Yet another fallacious instance of goalpost shifting. Well done.

<<You must have a negative stereotype of a typical KKK member…>>

No, because it’s not oversimplified. I already said that.

<<…to prejudge them as someone who is a contemptuous person.>>

No, they’ve provided all the information I need.

<<Everybody stereotypes people>>

“Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<We all judge particular groups of people as being worthy or unworthy of our praise...>>

And we can do this based on oversimplified stereotypes, or adequate information so as to not be an oversimplification.

<<You can complain about the accuracy of a stereotype, … but you can not say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.>>

Yes, I can. It’s the inaccuracy that makes it wrong.

AJ quote "No, because we’ve been talking about ‘classes’ of people (e.g. demographics). Not associations. Who people choose to associate with is something that you have only recently introduced with your irrelevant bikie/paedophile analogy. As with equality and stereotyping, your script requires that you conflate ideas."

For 40 posts, I have used the words "associations", "memberships", and "classes" interchangeably to denote "a group of people", and you know it. Is this your desperate new tactic? Seize on one word I said, pretend it has a different meaning to the way I just used it, and then use this wrong meaning to explain how my whole argument is incorrect. When it comes to stonewalling, AJ, you are a master.

Here are two of your posts which you now have a real problem with.

AJ quote "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations."

Exactly how many people constitute "a large population?"

If you can not give me the exact number of people who make up this "large population", then a "large population" is an "inaccurate" generalised number of people. You just created an "inaccurate" generalised concept of a "large population" of people.. Another word for making "inaccurate" generalisations about people is "stereotyping." You just created an "inaccurate" stereotype of what constitutes a "large population" of people. Either stereotyping people is wrong, or it is not wrong.

Next.

AJ quote ."No, I don't think it's always wrong to judge someone based on their group association, because sometimes who people choose to associate with tells you enough about them to know whether or not you want to associate with them yourself without it being an oversimplification (e.g. a KKK member)."

This is a complete contradiction of your above statement that " Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations." Either it is "always wrong" to generalise, stereotype, and prejudge any group of people based upon a stereotype, or it is not "always wrong." You can not have a bob each way.

I wonder how you are going to stonewall and squirm in your next post?

Yes, LEGO, and I pointed out the dishonesty of that in my last post.

<<For 40 posts, I have used the words "associations", "memberships", and "classes" interchangeably to denote "a group of people", and you know it.>>

And I've differentiated between things people cannot control and things they are responsible for, the whole time...

"You’re making the same error in reasoning that you used to make with your old nom de plume (redneck) (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6232&show=history) when you thought you’d caught people contradicting themselves when they said that you really were a redneck. You failed to see that rednecks have choices about who they are, while a person of a particular heritage cannot help their heritage, so the two forms of slurs cannot be equated." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318129)

At no point have I referred to 'associations'. So don't pretend that I'm somehow changing my story. Even if I were, there's nothing wrong with refining one's argument.

<<AJ quote "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.">>

Yes, and I have been using the term "class" for a while now for a reason.

Class:
a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/class)

<<Exactly how many people constitute "a large population?">>

Irrelevant.

<<You just created an "inaccurate" generalised concept of a "large population" of people.>>

No, I didn't.

Generalisation:
a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization?q=generalisation)

<<This is a complete contradiction of your above statement that " Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.">>

No, it's not. See above.

<<Either it is "always wrong" to generalise, stereotype, and prejudge any group of people based upon a stereotype, or it is not "always wrong." You can not have a bob each way.>>

Correct.

<<I wonder how you are going to stonewall and squirm in your next post?>>

"Yes, LEGO. The only one here who has not yet committed a fallacy or had to ask his opponent to word his arguments a particular way is “squirming” [and stonewalling]." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318676)

Oh, here we go again. You will never write out exactly what your position is in a simple sentence. So once again, I must try and figure it out.

Here is your latest implication.

AJ quote "And I've differentiated between things people cannot control and things they are responsible for, the whole time..."

What the hell does that mean? Are you trying to say that it is OK to stereotype rednecks, right wingers and Muslims because they can control who they are? But not OK to stereotype aborigines or negroes because they can not control who they are? When did that little PC proclamation defining what is PC right and PC wrong come into existence?

And if it is not what you meant, then spit out your position in a simple sentence.

I have an entire book on stereotyping ("Typecasting") written by a couple of liberals (Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen ) and they spent the whole damned book moaning about how wrong it was to stereotype ANY group of people. And I have another PC book called "Prejudice" (Cedric Culingford) which once again bemoans how prejudging ANY group of people is just awful. To say that one group can be stereotyped but another can not, is DISCRIMINATION. And DISCRIMINATION is another cardinal PC sin.

I know what you are trying to do, AJ. You are trying to rationalise some way so that you can stereotype and prejudge the groups that you do not like, while saying it is utterly wrong to stereotype and prejudge the groups of people that you wish to defend. That is complete hypocrisy. And you are doing a remarkably bad job of it anyway.

My advice to you AJ, is to keep talking in the vaguest terms, and keep implicating instead of simply stating what your position is. That way when I get you in a corner again, you can always say that I misunderstood you. Give yourself plenty of wriggle room so that you can keep squirming.

No, that’s not it at all, LEGO.

<<You will never write out exactly what your position is in a simple sentence. So once again, I must try and figure it out.>>

Your argument is dead in the water and so you need something from me to attack now so you can feel like I’m just as stupid as you, at least. If your position were sound, then the only position of mine that you need to know is that I don’t think that your position is sound.

That’s it.

But since I enjoy watching you try to catch me out on something, and because of how revealing it is to your “impartial observers” that your script requires that I hold the precise, simplistic position that you need, I try to give you more.

Since you’re incapable of understanding more sophisticated reasoning, I’ll try to spell it out for you:

When it comes to things that people cannot help (e.g. sex, age, heritage) generalising/stereotyping/prejudice will always be INCORRECT to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation/stereotype/prejudice. On a moral level, each generalisation/stereotype/instance-of-prejudice is WRONG to the extent that it may be harmful.

When it comes to choices that people make (e.g. group associations), it is not always wrong to judge an individual, depending on ‘what it is you’re judging them on’ and ‘for what purpose’. These two factors combined determine whether or not one's judgment is an oversimplification (i.e. a stereotype and, therefore, wrong). So, for example, if an individual was a KKK member, that would provide me with enough information, without being an oversimplification, if what I want to know is whether or not I would associate with them, but not if what I want to know is whether or not they’re good at re-paying debts. The latter is stereotyping, the former is not.

<<Are you trying to say that it is OK to stereotype rednecks, right wingers and Muslims because they can control who they are? But not OK to stereotype aborigines or negroes because they can not control who they are?>>

No. See above.

After re-reading my clarification for you, LEGO, I still don’t think you’re going understand what I’ve said. It’s still too sophisticated for you. How about I try to dumb it down a bit? It won’t be as descriptive as my last post, but at least you might be able to comprehend it…

Is it wrong to STEREOTYPE people based on what they CANNOT help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to PRE-JUDGE people based on what they CANNOT help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to JUDGE people based on what they CANNOT help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to STEREOTYPE people based on what they CAN help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to PRE-JUDGE people based on what they CAN help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to JUDGE people based on what they CAN help?
Sometimes.

In other words…

1. Stereotyping is always wrong because it’s inevitably inaccurate and potentially harmful.
2. Pre-judgements (prejudice) are always wrong morally-speaking, and usually inaccurate, because of the hazards/potential-harm associated with forming judgments not based on reason or actual experience.
3. (i) Judgments based on what one CANNOT help are morally wrong because the individual cannot change it, and it’s probably not relevant anyway.
3. (ii) Judgments based on what one CAN help are not always wrong because they may or may not be based on adequate information.

On another note, compare these statements…

LEGO: "You have yet to write a complete paragraph with more than four sentences." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318476)

LEGO: "Your one sentence attack on police stereotyping procedures is an example." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

LEGO: "My stereotype of a "reasoned argument" is one which consists of much more than a single sentence..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

…to these statements…

LEGO: "You will never write out exactly what your position is in a simple sentence." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318735)

LEGO: "...spit out your position in a simple sentence." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318735)

So, basically, when I take down your arguments with one simple sentence, it’s not good enough; but when you want me to state my position for your script, you want a single sentence, which, according to your logic, cannot possibly be well-reasoned.

Funny that.

The jig is up, LEGO.

If there is one thing you can never accuse me of AJ, it is not stating my positions. My style of debate is to clearly submit my positions and provide detailed, reasoned arguments supporting them. I know this leads me wide open to attack from hecklers like yourself, but especially in front of an audience, it is the best and most effective way to debate.

AJ 1. Stereotyping is always wrong because it’s inevitably inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Stereotyping is not wrong because everybody generalises and stereotypes every time they form a simple sentence about objects or people. Generalisations do not need to be accurate because they are just that, generalisations. It is exactly like saying that you must never use generalised terms like "crowd", "queue" or "assembly" to denote a number of people, because these generalised terms do not give an exact number of people. You can not even conceptualise what an "Arab", a "Zulu" or a "Scandinavian" even looks like unless you have some sort of stereotype of their appearance. Saying that "stereotyping is wrong" is exactly like saying "thinking is wrong."

You can criticise the accuracy of a stereotype, but you can never say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.

AJ 2. Pre-judgements (prejudice) are always wrong morally-speaking, and usually inaccurate, because of the hazards/potential-harm associated with forming judgments not based on reason or actual experience.

Everybody on planet Earth needs to form judgements about people, situations, behaviour, values, attitudes, and even when to turn the wheel of our car so that we miss the curb. We often use our previous experiences in similar situations to judge what is best to do. We remember our previous life experiences with people and situations, and we judge them as successful or unsuccessful, so that we can judge whether we can use them again successfully. We prejudge. We use our memory to recall those experiences, and we can not do that unless our memory contains a library of stereotypical images of objects, situations, and people, that we can use to form our judgements.

Continued

Continued.

Therefore, prejudging as an act is not wrong because everybody prejudges as a normal thought process. You can criticise whether a judgement made previously is the correct one to use in a situation relevant to the present. But you can not say that the act of prejudging is wrong because everybody does it. The only exception is supposed to be in a court of law. Juries in criminal trials are forbidden by law to prejudge accused persons in order to supposedly ensure a fair trial.

AJ 3. (i) Judgments based on what one CANNOT help are morally wrong because the individual cannot change it, and it’s probably not relevant anyway.

As a criminologist, you must be aware that there are some people who are genetically predisposed to extreme violence. Courts usually judge them harshly, unless they appeal to the court that they have a medical problem which they can not control. In such cases, judges may be lenient and sentence the offender to a program of medical and psychiatric treatments.

Therefore saying that prejudging people "who can't help it" is wrong. You are not going to allow a violent or mentally unstable person to be a companion to your kids, regardless of whether they can "help it" or not. You would prefer to marry a beautiful woman than an ugly one.

3. (ii) Judgments based on what one CAN help are not always wrong because they may or may not be based on adequate information.

It does not matter if they "can help" it or not, individuals of every stripe are always going to be judged by their group associations, unless there is other evidence available to alter that view. And everybody uses stereotypes and prejudgements to do it. If your darling teenaged daughter came home with a bloke covered in tattoos, a Mohican haircut, and a bone through his nose, one presumes that all this crap about how wrong it is to prejudge and stereotype people would suddenly become moot

TLDR: LEGO's wrong again.

I figured a more dumbed-down version would be easier for you to understand, LEGO. You still don’t understand the definition of ‘heckler’ though, I see.

<<I know this leads me wide open to attack from hecklers like yourself…>>

Heckle:
Interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/heckle)

Again, you are the only one who has provided an unreasoned response.

<<Stereotyping is not wrong because everybody generalises and stereotypes every time they form a simple sentence about objects or people.>>

“Or they … use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Generalisations do not need to be accurate because they are just that, generalisations.>>

That’s a tautology.

<<It is exactly like saying that you must never use generalised terms like "crowd"..>>

No, because they’re collective nouns, not stereotypes.

<<You [cannot] even conceptualise what an "Arab", a "Zulu" or a "Scandinavian" even looks like unless you have some sort of stereotype of their appearance.>>

Yes, you can, by thinking of one you've seen before without assuming they all look like that.

<<Saying that "stereotyping is wrong" is exactly like saying "thinking is wrong.">>

"No, because not all thinking is done in stereotypes. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts that are not always taken." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318011)

<<You can criticise the accuracy of a stereotype, but you can never say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.>>

"Yes, I can. It’s the inaccuracy that makes it wrong." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318711)

<<Everybody on planet Earth needs to form judgements about people…>>

I know. But you’re supposed to be responding to prejudice here, according to your quote of mine.

<<We prejudge. We use our memory to recall those experiences…>>

Then that’s not prejudging (prejudice)…

Prejudice:
a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudice)

<<…and we [cannot] do that unless our memory contains a library of stereotypical images of objects...>>

“Or … concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Therefore, prejudging as an act is not wrong because everybody prejudges as a normal thought process.>>

No, you’ve conflated judging and prejudging.

Continued…

…Continued

<You can criticise whether a judgement made previously is the correct one to use in a situation relevant to the present.>>

Now you’ve gone back to just plain old judging. You’re all over the place here.

<<But you [cannot] say that the act of prejudging is wrong because everybody does it.>>

Another fallacious appeal to nature and common practice.

<<As a criminologist, you must be aware that there are some people who are genetically predisposed to extreme violence.>>

Yes, but that’s never the entire cause. All behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between genetics and experience and situational factors.

<<Therefore saying that prejudging people "who can't help it" is wrong. You are not going to allow a violent or mentally unstable person to be a companion to your kids…>>

No, that’s wouldn’t be a prejudgement because I’d have sufficient information to make an informed decision about what is the most appropriate action to take.

You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?

Analysing our last double posts, I would give myself 10/10, and you 3/10.

You wrote 668 words, I wrote 684.

You wasted 229 words abusing me, I wasted 65 words abusing you.

The purpose of both articles was to judge whether generalising, stereotyping, or prejudging was right or wrong behaviour.

Your explanations as to why these three concepts are wrong, were very disjointed and read more like moral declarations than explanations. The "reasoning" used to justify your position was very confusing to me, and I have studied this subject, and read entire books on stereotyping and prejudging. They would certainly confuse any audience member, who has only a very fuzzy concept of what these terms even mean.

I explained why these three concepts are not wrong. I used simple and detailed explanations which even a person who had only a fuzzy idea of what these terms meant, could understand. I used simple examples of why and how these three concepts are vital in the process that human beings call "thinking." And I did that in an informative way that lay people, who have never in their lives ever contemplated how they think, could understand and appreciate. My explanations as to why each of these concepts were vital to the processes we call "thinking", cross connected with each other and reinforced each other.

Analysing our writing styles, your style was very disjointed, hectoring, and angry, which would lead an audience member to assume that you did not really understand the subject you were discussing. My writing style was calm, instructive, reasonable, and most importantly, my arguments were made as a linear progression which the audience members could easily follow. That would convince an audience member to conclude that I knew what I was talking about.

What I can not understand, is how you can write two double posts in 24 hours and get away with it. While when I write only three, I still get the dreaded "you have exceeded your post limit" pop up. Do you have divine intervention from the editor

Nice move, LEGO. When you’ve lost an argument, emphasise style over substance.

<<Your explanations as to why these three concepts are wrong … read more like moral declarations than explanations.>>

No, I provided reasoning as well.

<<The "reasoning" used to justify your position was very confusing to me…>>

I know, and I’m sorry about that. I do try to dumb it down for you.

<<I explained why these three concepts are not wrong.>>

You gave it a good shot at least, yes.

<<I used simple and detailed explanations which even a person who had only a fuzzy idea of what these terms meant, could understand.>>

Yes, they were understandable, albeit incorrect. Which is why I’ve been posting so many dictionary definitions.

<<I used simple examples of why and how these three concepts are vital in the process that human beings call "thinking.">>

And I explained why they weren’t as vital as you claimed by mentioning the use of concepts that are not oversimplified. You’ve never addressed this.

<<Analysing our writing styles, your style was very disjointed, hectoring, and angry…>>

“My attempt to address every one of your uninformed claims may have given my post a chaotic look, but there was nothing “disjointed” about it.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310290)

[That’s from a different discussion. That’s how repetitious you are.]

I note the lack of examples too. You were switching back and forth between judging and prejudging. Now THAT is disjointed.

If you don’t want me to “hector”, then don’t do it yourself. You are an aggressive and bullying person when cornered, and even sometimes when you’re not.

<<…which would lead an audience member to assume that you did not really understand the subject you were discussing.>>

Your audience would understand that if I am able to copy and paste my answers so frequently, then you are probably just relying on repetition.

<<My writing style was calm…>>

Only it started off with a false accusation about heckling, which set the tone for my post. If you want a gentler tone from me, then cut the slanderous remarks. You get as good as you give.

Hi AJ

I rest my case, M'lud.

184 posts in, and you have reinforced my opinion that no amount of reasoned argument can ever shift an ideologue who made his mind up to never be convinced of whatever reality he wants to avoid.

It has been fun, and I enjoyed watching you squirm and contradict yourself. I especially laughed when I caught you three times stereotyping and prejudging yourself, just as I predicted I would. Please note that you are a marked man now. I will be watching you from now on, and every time you stereotype and prejudge I am going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

At least you did learn something, AJ. Don't cross swords with me unless you have done your homework. Although, if you had ever done your homework in the first place, you would not have turned out to be a stereotypical trendy lefty. Just for the record, you will be happy to know that you have just been done over by an electrician.

As a tradie, I just can't believe that you actually have a degree. I think that tradies are smart because we live in a world where problem solving is an everyday feature of our work. So we tend to think originally. I think that the reason why you academics are so dumb is because you have been taught what to think, not how to think.

Tata. See you on another topic.

Really, LEGO?

<<184 posts in, and you have reinforced my opinion that no amount of reasoned argument can ever shift an ideologue who made his mind up to never be convinced of whatever reality he wants to avoid.>>

All you had to do was disprove the existence of concepts that are not oversimplifications, and you would have made your point. Well, ‘all’ is probably not an appropriate word there given that that’s not at all possible. My point there really was the nail in the coffin for your whole case, dontcha think?.

<<It has been fun, and I enjoyed watching you squirm and contradict yourself.>>

Yes, the only one here who didn’t commit a fallacy, who didn’t have to ignore questions, who could consistently respond to line by line quotes, who could provide examples of their accusations, and who was clearly having a ball, was “squirming”. You attempted to identify some contradictions there, yes. But alas, none of them held and as with every post, you were forced to move on and pretend your claim was never made.

<<I especially laughed when I caught you three times stereotyping and prejudging yourself…>>

Haha. Yeah. And then I’d laugh when I pointed out that your accusations only demonstrated that you didn’t understand what prejudice and stereotyping were!

Ahhh… We’ve had some good times, haven’t we?

<<I will be watching you from now on, and every time you stereotype and prejudge I am going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.>>

Well, your bailing out now gives me confidence that you at least have a better understanding of what stereotypes and prejudice are. Time will tell, I guess.

<<Just for the record, you will be happy to know that you have just been done over by an electrician.>>

I already knew you were just an electrician. It showed too. Like the way you couldn’t understand the difference between a stereotype and a concept, and confused ‘judging’ and ‘prejudging’. Sorry, there’s only one person who’s been “done over” here.

But you’re free to live in your own little bubble of delusion.

//I rest my case, M'lud.//

$50 says you don't.

Just to drive the point home, LEGO, here’s the main point of mine that brought your entire argument down...

LEGO: "…firstly because human beings stereotype to think." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318201)

AJ: "Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

--

LEGO: "How do you create a concept without a stereotype of what it is you are trying to conceptualise?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318217)

AJ: "By drawing on the features of an entity or a class of entity that make it distinct or are essential to it." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318228)

--

LEGO: "…everybody stereotypes to think about everything, everybody generalises about everything, everybody prejudges and labels, and everybody judges individuals by their group associations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318661)

AJ: “Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318676)

--

LEGO: "Everybody stereotypes people." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318703)

AJ: "Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318711)

--

LEGO: "Stereotyping is not wrong because everybody generalises and stereotypes every time they form a simple sentence about objects or people." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318783)

AJ: "Or they … use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318783)

--

LEGO: "…and we [cannot] do that unless our memory contains a library of stereotypical images of objects..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318783)

AJ: "Or … concepts, which are not oversimplified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318783)

--

LEGO: "I used simple examples of why and how these three concepts are vital in the process that human beings call "thinking."" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318787)

AJ: "And I explained why they weren’t as vital as you claimed by mentioning the use of concepts that are not oversimplified. You’ve never addressed this." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318791)

--

LEGO: "184 posts in, and you have reinforced my opinion that no amount of reasoned argument can ever shift an ideologue who made his mind up to never be convinced of whatever reality he wants to avoid" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318817)

AJ: "All you had to do was disprove the existence of concepts that are not oversimplifications, and you would have made your point." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318819)

I rest my case.

“Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon: no matter how good you are, the bird is going to crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.” (http://thememesfactory.com/arguing-with-idiots-is-like-playing-chess-with-a-pigeon/#!prettyPhoto-13513/0)