Yes, LEGO. The only one here who hasn’t yet had to resort to fallacies is “squirming”.

You’re a riot!

<<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.">>

Correct.

<<OK, you have admitted that everybody stereotypes. But you said that it is wrong to stereotype people.>>

More so classes of people. And more that it is harmful to varying degrees and will always be incorrect to some extent due to the fact that it’s an oversimplification.

But, yes.

<<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.>>

No, more that they’re able to look past them when they catch themselves out doing it or see other people do it.

<<You know I am painting you into a corner and you are getting desperate.>>

Funny. It’s actually the other way around. I have shown no indication of getting desperate. You, on the other hand, are now resorting to more and more absurd allegations of stereotyping. Now, even a success rate for an activity is a stereotype. According to you.

<<So, I predict you will claim that this is not what you meant.>>

Well, that wasn’t a very good prediction now, was it?

<<But you might as well come clean now…>>

About what?

<<…because it is only a matter of time before I catch you again.>>

What? Stereotyping? You haven’t even caught me doing it once yet.

<<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.>>

Or you make use of concepts that don’t contain oversimplifications.

<<You are also playing "muddy the water" with your plain stereotype of "profilers".>>

Ignoring for a moment that it wasn’t a stereotype, how so?

<<I will make this a double post because I wish to make this point.>>

I can’t wait!

Here is one of your egalitarian contemporaries who's views on stereotyping (and everything else) are a stereotype of your own.

Brian Ross quotes

"I don't judge people on their membership of a group."

"Erik, you are a sporting shooter and displaying their typical hot headedness."

"You are a whinging Pom."

"I would suggest in fact that the reason why the American civil rights movement has seen their dreams vanish into degradation, is because of a concerted move by white society in the US as "uppity" and "troublesome" blacks."

"American capitalists are such rich little piggies, always wanting their cake and eat it too."

"The Quebequios are very insular and parochial, and ambivalent in their attitudes to Quebec."

"Many Americans have insufferable hubris and almost completely lack empathy for any other point of view but their own. Their ignorance of any other society is yet another annoying feature. Their belief in exceptionalism is another feature as well. Oh, and their propensity to elect fools to lead them, but perhaps that is a symptom of the previous points?"

"Every time I lift up a rock and find a lot of slaters underneath, who hate the light being shone on their activities, that is how I feel about the US government and it's activities."

"I don't detest Americans. In fact I quite like them. They provide me with hours of amusement and they do have considerable potential, once they shed their arrogance and become sensible people."

"Orthodox Judaism is even more backwards than fundamentalist Islam in many way."

"Ignorance is very attractive to conservatives as it allows them to maintain their control of the group."

"Enoch Powell is an interesting character, Mr. Edriess. Like Blainey, he was very much a product of his generation. His views were very much expressing the xenophobic fear of the time that many held then, and still do today."

There were no good Nazis.

Sorry, LEGO. I'm not sure what the point of that last post was. Nor do I know what it means for someone's "views on stereotyping (and everything else)" to be a "stereotype of [my] own."

Incidentally, calling someone a "whinging Pom" isn't stereotyping. Saying that all English people are whingers is, but you cannot, by definition, stereotype one person.

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)

“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)

Anyway, since you still seem to think that catching me stereotype will be such a golden moment for you, let me remind you of something I said earlier:

"Even if you eventually succeed [in spotting me stereotype], 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." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

You have broadened the definition of 'stereotype' so much as to be inclusive of damn near anything so that you can fallaciously appeal to nature and common practice to justify an ignorant worldview filled with oversimplifications.

Wow! It really doesn't sound good when you put it like that, does it?

The point of my last post, was to point out to you that you were not the only one preaching egalitarianism, who claimed that stereotyping is wrong, but who did it themselves. This is the contradiction of this philosophy. Brian was an extremely polished debater and he was infinitely better than you. He did not just sit back and heckle. He really believed in what he was saying, and he would write long and well reasoned arguments emphasising that it was utterly wrong to judge people by their group associations. He would solemnly declare, it was wrong to generalise about groups of people, stereotype them, label them, or prejudge them.

He used to drive me nuts. Until one day, I worked out what was going on. You see, it is so common for egalitarians to defend their favoured minorities from criticism from the people who generalise, stereotype, label and prejudge them, and then do it themselves to the groups of people that they despise, that it took a long time for the penny to drop.

The people who claim it is utterly wrong to judge people by their group associations do it themselves. And my reading of psychology told me why. People stereotype every thing in order to form concepts and judgements about everything. People stereotype to think. Once I realised that, I only had to apply that essential truth to everything Brian said about the groups of people that he despised, and I had him licked. And since that happy day, I have enjoyed making life miserable to every other egalitarian who unfailingly gets caught in their own contradiction.

Along comes AJ, another one claiming (in effect) that judging people by their group associations is wrong, but who does it himself. He refuses to admit it, and no amount of reasoned argument will ever convince him that he is preaching the same contradiction. But he is in a very vulnerable position. Because he can never judge or criticise any group of people he does not like without making generalisations, stereotyping, labelling, or prejudging them.

LEGO,

The longer we’re here for, the more I get to copy and paste old comments of mine that you’re overlooking. This is great!

<<The point of my last post, was to point out to you that you were not the only one preaching egalitarianism, who claimed that stereotyping is wrong, but who did it themselves.>>

"...there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. [Just because everyone does it on occasion, that doesn't] then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues [(the worst kind)] is suddenly justified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<Brian was an extremely polished debater and he was infinitely better than you.>>

Wow! He must have had you for breakfast then.

<<He did not just sit back and heckle.>>

Ah, you’re pulling that one again. I was wondering how long it would take.

Heckle:
Interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/heckle)

You can’t stand the fact that I’m able to so concisely portray the absurdity of what you say with due mockery, while still addressing what you say adequately, so you write it off as heckling.

<<The people who claim it is utterly wrong to judge people by their group associations do it themselves.>>

Well, luckily I haven’t claimed that then.

<<People stereotype every thing in order to form concepts and judgements about everything.>>

"Or [they use] concepts that don’t contain oversimplifications." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318359)

<<People stereotype to think.>>

"Or [they use] concepts that don’t contain oversimplifications." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318359)

<<Along comes AJ, another one claiming (in effect) that judging people by their group associations is wrong, but who does it himself.>>

"...there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. [Just because everyone does it on occasion, that doesn't] then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues [(the worst kind)] is suddenly justified." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<He refuses to admit it…>>

"OK, you have admitted that everybody stereotypes." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318329)

Like I said earlier, LEGO, I don’t think you’re capable of following this discussion, sorry.

AJ "...there are varying degrees of harmfulness in stereotyping. [Just because everyone does it on occasion, that doesn't] then mean that your stereotyping of entire races or political ideologues [(the worst kind)] is suddenly justified."

There are varying degrees in harmfulness in telling the truth. But "may the truth be told, though the heavens may fall."

AJ You can’t stand the fact that I’m able to so concisely portray the absurdity of what you say with due mockery, while still addressing what you say adequately, so you write it off as heckling.

You have yet to write a complete paragraph with more than four sentences. You claim that stereotyping people is wrong, yet all you can say is that it is "harmful" to do so. Some argument. Criminal profilers stereotype criminals all the time. Would you like to submit 100-150 words explaining how wrong it is for profilers to stereotype career criminals, rapists, child molesters, and serial killers in order to catch them?

Another group that stereotypes people "wrongfully" are advertising executives. In the 1950's, advertising was simply the advertisement of wares containing claims of the products being the best available. But a revolution in advertising began when the services of psychologists were employed to figure out the basic needs, drives, instincts and thought processes of the different demographic groups in society. Try telling advertisers that stereotyping "entire populations of people" is wrong and they will laugh in your face.

Insurance companies too adjust their premiums according to their knowledge of the different levels of responsibility within the different demographic groups in society. People from the dependent and criminal class are very seriously over represented in irresponsible driving and serious car accidents, and people from those areas pay a higher premium. People from upper class areas are known for their responsible behaviour, and pay lower premiums. Premiums are also adjusted for age.

Stereotyping a normal and intelligent way to think. Only ideologues who are more concerned with egalitarian ideology than self evident reality think otherwise