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