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."