Hi Lexi.

Prejudging people is an everyday occurrence. I am certain that the next time you throw a party, you are not going to invite the Hells Angels? You are prejudiced against the Hells Angels because you are aware of their criminal activities and you judge them collectively according to their group reputation.

Stereotyping is an unavoidable feature of thinking, Lexi. Your own premise, which claims that "some people think in general categories", is a stereotype of a general category which you call "some people". Your implication is, that you think that what "some people" do is wrong. You have just prejudged "some people" with a negative generalisation.

Bingo.

A stereotype does not need to be completely accurate, only accurate enough to form a concept. You could say that "some people" could not be a real concept because it specify how many people, or what kinds of people, make up your concept of "some people." But it does not have to. Like any stereotype, it only has to form a generalised concept in a person's mind of "a group of people who think in generalities."

Now, if you think that prejudice is wrong, what do you think of Nazis and Ku Klux Klan members?

You have claimed that most Muslims are not fundamentalists. You have just made a prejudgement. Your prejudgement is a positive one, but it is still a prejudgement. The only time that people like you scream about prejudging, is when somebody like me makes a negative generalisation about a group of people that you want to defend. If I said that Italians have a flair for design, you would not scream that I was prejudging them. But if I said that Italians have a weakness for corruption, you would stand on your dignity and say I was prejudging.

So, your position really comes down to, you can say nice things about entire groups of people, but you can't say bad things about entire groups of people. Unless, of course, they are Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, or Hells Angels.

Lexi, such a position is intellectually insupportable.

Lego

You just made my day! I live/work on a very remote mine site and your last post will make me laugh for the whole night! I love people like Lexi though; they are like those big springy toy things of the 1980s, they don't really have any purpose in life - but gosh they are fun to push down a flight of stairs.

:-)

Come on fellers, you're being a bit rough on Lexi.

She is a lady who just wants to see the best in people, all people. Well all people but liberal party people. It would be a great world if every one was as kind.

Yes our Lexi is very kind, but she & others like her can be dangerous. Their desire to see only the good in people can & does blind them to the danger some groups are to our society, & the well being of future generations.

We are going to need some pretty hard headed people to take the necessary action to prevent us becoming a future Lebanon, or Syria, with so many already, who will not accept our way of life. Lexi & others like her are going to resist this action, until the situation becomes bad enough for them to believe the truth.

It may be too late already. Perhaps we are going to have to hope Oz grown Muslim girls are going to demand the same lives of the majority, although that could be a cause of even more friction.

Dear LEGO,

You state that I would not invite the "Hell's Angels,"
to a dinner party and that makes me "prejudiced," is
a cracker.

It's obvious that we don't mix in the same
social groups.

I don't know any "Hell's angels," to be
able to invite them. But then,
I can't invite George Clooney
either, or Brad Pitt and Angelina. That
does not mean that I am somehow prejudiced
against them.
You're really talking nonsense here. Hollow arguments.
Proving my point of general categories to enable you
to make sense of the situation by trying to simplify
its complexity.

And, your reference to "some" is equally lame.
Because the reference itself indicates "individuality"
as opposed to an "entire" category of people. I am only referring
to "some," people afterall. Not to "all" people. Therein lies
the difference.

I'm not the one with the
inflexible attitude towards an ENTIRE group of people.
I am not the one whose arguments are rooted
in generalisations thereby ignoring the differences
among individuals. I don't believe that all asylum seekers
share the same traits.

Your summations are too vague and sweeping in their scope.
And you simply prove the point that I am making - that
"some" people are psychologically more prone to prejudiced
thinking than others.

The art of reasoned, intelligent argument is a skill not
easily acquired. You appear to be arguing on an emotional
level - not a mature intelligent one. A more effective
approach would be for you to actually use the word "some,"
in regards to asylum seekers. It would have more chance
of winning you points.
No one likes or supports a dogmatic, illogical or weak debater.
Argue to win.

Good luck.

Dear Hasbeen,

What a honey of a man you are,
always ready to barrack for me.
Thank You.
BTW: I'm not anti-Liberal. I just
don't want Mr Abbott as a PM.
Now Malcolm Turnbull - that's a
different story. ;-);-);-);-)

Sociopaths argue to win, not logical, mature and intelligent people, and sociopaths argue to the point of logical absurdity, Lexi, which is exactly and precisely what you are doing. Logical, mature and intelligent people engage in debate to seek a closer truth, not hide behind jargon when it suits them, and then scoring points with polysyllabic flatulence.