Once again, LEGO, please do try to keep up.

<<That is a generalisation about "intelligent people".>>

"Obviously, in that context, a person, dumb or smart, is what I’m classifying as “intelligent” if they’re able to look past their prejudices." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318011)

How about this instead…

Some people, whom I would look upon more favourable in this instance, are able to look past their stereotypes/prejudices.

Same thing.

<<Haha. Caught again.>>

HaHa. No, I wasn’t. I have demonstrated the accuracy of that statement over the course of this discussion.

<<You "foolishly" stereotyped "an entire class of people" when you stated that "intelligent people understand in what situations it is appropriate to" (stereotype.)>>

See above.

<<You stereotyped me by claiming my attitudes conformed to those of "Creationists".>>

"No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<You stereotyped "Creationists" as having "debunked" 19th century views.>>

No, I was referring to all the views I’ve seen you express.

<<You stereotyped "19th century views" as "debunked.">>

"At no point did I suggest that all 19th century ideas were debunked." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<Generalisations do not need to be completely accurate, only accurate enough to form a concept.>>

So you’ve given up on trying to claim that stereotypes are necessary to form concepts? Good. You’re slowly learning. Just remember, generalisations aren’t needed either. One can use the essential features of an entity or class of entity to form a concept too. And a more accurate one at that.

<<I put that one in as a trap for you.>>

Oh, well I’m sorry it didn’t work then.

<<The use of ethnic descriptors has been widely criticised by the PC brigade as "stereotyping.">>

No, they’re legitimately used all the time when given by witnesses. That’s not stereotyping.

<<I made a generalisation about "profilers">>

No, you exaggerated the usefulness of a technique that has proven to be fairly useless.

<<You just stereotyped "profilers" as being "rarely ever successful.">>

No, I didn’t, because what I said was not an oversimplification about their success rate.

AJ "Obviously, in that context, a person, dumb or smart, is what I’m classifying as “intelligent” if they’re able to look past their prejudices."

LEGO If you classify a group of people according to their attitudes (or anything else), especially if you give them a label, you are stereotyping them all into a labelled classification. That is stereotyping them.

AJ "How about this instead? Some people, whom I would look upon more favourable in this instance, are able to look past their stereotypes/prejudices."

LEGO You just stereotyped "some people". "Some people" are a classification of people who you say are "able to look past their stereotypes." You have labelled these people, "intelligent people." You are therefore also judging them all as "Intelligent" If you use that previous judgement in future to describe these people, you are using a prejudgement.

LEGO You stereotyped me by claiming my attitudes conformed to those of "Creationists".

AJ "No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationists."

LEGO "Stereotype" literally means "to make two of." If you liken somebody, or liken a group of people with another group of people, you are stereotyping them all together as having common and conforming views.

LEGO You stereotyped "Creationists" as having "debunked" 19th century views.

AJ "No, I was referring to all the views I’ve seen you express."

LEGO If you liken all the views that I express to Creationists views, you are stereotyping me as having Creationist like views. If you say that Creationists have "debunked 19th century views" you are stereotyping all Creationists as having "debunked 19th century views." And, your stereotype assumes that all 19th century views are "debunked." That is an "oversimplification."

LEGO You just stereotyped "profilers" as being "rarely ever successful."

AJ "No, I didn’t, because what I said was not an oversimplification about their success rate."

LEGO You said that profilers "are rarely ever successful" You are judging a named group of people as "rarely successful". That is a negative stereotype of an entire group of people

Keep obfuscating, LEGO. Perhaps you’ll confuse your audience and “impartial observers” enough to give you the benefit of the doubt?

<<If you classify a group of people according to their attitudes (or anything else), especially if you give them a label, you are stereotyping them all into a labelled classification. That is stereotyping them.>>

No, because, being contextual, my statement was not fixed.

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)

<<You just stereotyped "some people".>>

“Some people” is a non-descript term, not a class. If an individual doesn’t fit my description, then they are not part of that “some people”. No-one is unfairly included or described. Therefore, I did not stereotype.

<<"Stereotype" literally means "to make two of.">>

Now you've committed the Etymological fallacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy). That makes five fallacies now.

<<If you liken all the views that I express to Creationists views, you are stereotyping me as having Creationist like views.>>

Only the views I’ve seen you express. Still no sweeping statements to be found.

<<If you say that Creationists have "debunked 19th century views" you are stereotyping all Creationists as having "debunked 19th century views.">>

Sure, if that’s what one says.

"No, I was referring to all the views I’ve seen you express." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318273)

<<And, your stereotype assumes that all 19th century views are "debunked.">>

No, it only refers to debunked ones.

<<You said that profilers "are rarely ever successful">>

Correct.

<<You are judging a named group of people as "rarely successful".>>

No, I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use.

You’re getting more and more desperate to spot an instance of stereotyping. Even if you eventually succeed, it will mean very little given that I’ve pointed out that there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. It wouldn’t then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues is suddenly justified.

This is just getting funny now. I don’t think you’re capable of following this discussion, sorry.

AJ Keep obfuscating, LEGO. Perhaps you’ll confuse your audience and “impartial observers” enough to give you the benefit of the doubt?

LEGO There is no one here but you and me, AJ.

AJ No, because, being contextual, my statement was not fixed.

LEGO You made a fixed classification of a group of people who you labelled as "intelligent", and you stereotyped them all, as understanding "in what situations it is inappropriate to stereotype." To oversimplify, "intelligent people" do not stereotype people. That is both a stereotype and a contradiction. No context there.

AJ “Some people” is a non-descript term, not a class.

LEGO "Class" is derived from "classification." If you classify "some people" for whatever reason, you put them in a class. And if you name an attribution typical of that class, you are stereotyping that class of people with that attribution.

AJ If an individual doesn’t fit my description, then they are not part of that “some people”. No-one is unfairly included or described. Therefore, I did not stereotype.

LEGO If "Intelligent people" do not stereotype people, then they conform to your stereotype of what "Intelligent" people are.

AJ Only the views I’ve seen you express. Still no sweeping statements to be found.

LEGO Your stereotype of my way of thinking conformed to your stereotype of the way "creationists" think. You stereotyped me, and you stereotyped Creationists.

AJ No, I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use.

LEGO If you think that profilers are "rarely successful", then being "rarely successful" is an attribute that you think is typical of all profilers. Your have a stereotype of all profilers being "rarely successful."

AJ You’re getting more and more desperate to spot an instance of stereotyping.

LEGO No, I am finding it easier and easier. Because you are discovering that it is impossible to judge groups of people without stereotyping them. And I do not care about whatever "harm" it does. All I am concerned about is displaying to you that everybody stereotypes people.

Oh, I don’t think so, LEGO.

<<There is no one here but you and me, AJ.>>

I had a debate that went for eight months and there were still many onlookers given how many piped up occasionally. But either way, that’s fine. Given that what we’re discussing goes to the heart of your dangerously ignorant and toxic views, I just want to have this thread to link back to when you use your naive ‘stereotypes’ as justification for them. So I’m not going anywhere, sorry.

<<You made a fixed classification of a group of people who you labelled as "intelligent"…>>

No, it was contextual.

"Some people, whom I would look upon more favourable in this instance, are able to look past their stereotypes/prejudices." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318273)

<<"Class" is derived from "classification.">>

Correct.

<<If you classify "some people" for whatever reason, you put them in a class.>>

Correct.

<<And if you name an attribution typical of that class, you are stereotyping that class of people with that attribution.>>

Not always.

"If an individual doesn’t fit my description, then they are not part of that “some people”. No-one is unfairly included or described. Therefore, I did not stereotype." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<If "Intelligent people" do not stereotype people, then they conform to your stereotype of what "Intelligent" people are.>>

I never said they didn’t stereotype.

"Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317946)

<<Your stereotype of my way of thinking conformed to your stereotype of the way "creationists" think.>>

“No, if you read further down, I was comparing something you did to that of creationists when they boast that Newton was a creationist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318183)

<<You stereotyped me, and you stereotyped Creationists.>>

How did I stereotype creationists?

<<If you think that profilers are "rarely successful", then being "rarely successful" is an attribute that you think is typical of all profilers.>>

No, it’s a critique of the method they use…

"...I stated a fact about the success rate of their professional activities. I said nothing about them personally, but the technique they’re required to use." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

Squirm away, AJ. Lets examine what you and I said again. I said, if "Intelligent people" do not stereotype people, then they conform to your stereotype of what "Intelligent" people are.

You said, "I never said they didn’t stereotype." Then you added, "Intelligent people are able to look past them and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so."

OK, you have admitted that everybody stereotypes. But you said that it is wrong to stereotype people. And you have submitted that "intelligent people" know when not to use them (stereotypes)." The clear implication is, that "intelligent people" do not stereotype people. Unfortunately, you did not say that directly. But you and I both know that is what you meant. You know I am painting you into a corner and you are getting desperate. So, I predict you will claim that this is not what you meant. But you won't say what you meant, because, backwards into the corner you go.

But you might as well come clean now, because it is only a matter of time before I catch you again. I have been down this path many, many times, and I always catch them out again. The reason is simple. In order to form judgements of groups of people, you need to say what the attributes are in their collective identity that makes them a group in the first place. So you stereotype them.

You are also playing "muddy the water" with your plain stereotype of "profilers". It is just too bad that there is a 350 word limit on what we write or I would dissect that as well. But my best bet is to simply wait until you stereotype people again, and watch you squirm around trying to dodge admitting what you are beginning to understand is true.

I will make this a double post because I wish to make this point. I had an opponent named "Brian Ross" who was very formidable. He never stopped saying how wrong it was to prejudge, stereotype, label, or make generalisations about people