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.