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?