Yes, LEGO, and I pointed out the dishonesty of that in my last post.

<<For 40 posts, I have used the words "associations", "memberships", and "classes" interchangeably to denote "a group of people", and you know it.>>

And I've differentiated between things people cannot control and things they are responsible for, the whole time...

"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." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318129)

At no point have I referred to 'associations'. So don't pretend that I'm somehow changing my story. Even if I were, there's nothing wrong with refining one's argument.

<<AJ quote "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.">>

Yes, and I have been using the term "class" for a while now for a reason.

Class:
a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/class)

<<Exactly how many people constitute "a large population?">>

Irrelevant.

<<You just created an "inaccurate" generalised concept of a "large population" of people.>>

No, I didn't.

Generalisation:
a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/generalization?q=generalisation)

<<This is a complete contradiction of your above statement that " Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations.">>

No, it's not. See above.

<<Either it is "always wrong" to generalise, stereotype, and prejudge any group of people based upon a stereotype, or it is not "always wrong." You can not have a bob each way.>>

Correct.

<<I wonder how you are going to stonewall and squirm in your next post?>>

"Yes, LEGO. The only one here who has not yet committed a fallacy or had to ask his opponent to word his arguments a particular way is “squirming” [and stonewalling]." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318676)

Oh, here we go again. You will never write out exactly what your position is in a simple sentence. So once again, I must try and figure it out.

Here is your latest implication.

AJ quote "And I've differentiated between things people cannot control and things they are responsible for, the whole time..."

What the hell does that mean? Are you trying to say that it is OK to stereotype rednecks, right wingers and Muslims because they can control who they are? But not OK to stereotype aborigines or negroes because they can not control who they are? When did that little PC proclamation defining what is PC right and PC wrong come into existence?

And if it is not what you meant, then spit out your position in a simple sentence.

I have an entire book on stereotyping ("Typecasting") written by a couple of liberals (Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen ) and they spent the whole damned book moaning about how wrong it was to stereotype ANY group of people. And I have another PC book called "Prejudice" (Cedric Culingford) which once again bemoans how prejudging ANY group of people is just awful. To say that one group can be stereotyped but another can not, is DISCRIMINATION. And DISCRIMINATION is another cardinal PC sin.

I know what you are trying to do, AJ. You are trying to rationalise some way so that you can stereotype and prejudge the groups that you do not like, while saying it is utterly wrong to stereotype and prejudge the groups of people that you wish to defend. That is complete hypocrisy. And you are doing a remarkably bad job of it anyway.

My advice to you AJ, is to keep talking in the vaguest terms, and keep implicating instead of simply stating what your position is. That way when I get you in a corner again, you can always say that I misunderstood you. Give yourself plenty of wriggle room so that you can keep squirming.

No, that’s not it at all, LEGO.

<<You will never write out exactly what your position is in a simple sentence. So once again, I must try and figure it out.>>

Your argument is dead in the water and so you need something from me to attack now so you can feel like I’m just as stupid as you, at least. If your position were sound, then the only position of mine that you need to know is that I don’t think that your position is sound.

That’s it.

But since I enjoy watching you try to catch me out on something, and because of how revealing it is to your “impartial observers” that your script requires that I hold the precise, simplistic position that you need, I try to give you more.

Since you’re incapable of understanding more sophisticated reasoning, I’ll try to spell it out for you:

When it comes to things that people cannot help (e.g. sex, age, heritage) generalising/stereotyping/prejudice will always be INCORRECT to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation/stereotype/prejudice. On a moral level, each generalisation/stereotype/instance-of-prejudice is WRONG to the extent that it may be harmful.

When it comes to choices that people make (e.g. group associations), it is not always wrong to judge an individual, depending on ‘what it is you’re judging them on’ and ‘for what purpose’. These two factors combined determine whether or not one's judgment is an oversimplification (i.e. a stereotype and, therefore, wrong). So, for example, if an individual was a KKK member, that would provide me with enough information, without being an oversimplification, if what I want to know is whether or not I would associate with them, but not if what I want to know is whether or not they’re good at re-paying debts. The latter is stereotyping, the former is not.

<<Are you trying to say that it is OK to stereotype rednecks, right wingers and Muslims because they can control who they are? But not OK to stereotype aborigines or negroes because they can not control who they are?>>

No. See above.

After re-reading my clarification for you, LEGO, I still don’t think you’re going understand what I’ve said. It’s still too sophisticated for you. How about I try to dumb it down a bit? It won’t be as descriptive as my last post, but at least you might be able to comprehend it…

Is it wrong to STEREOTYPE people based on what they CANNOT help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to PRE-JUDGE people based on what they CANNOT help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to JUDGE people based on what they CANNOT help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to STEREOTYPE people based on what they CAN help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to PRE-JUDGE people based on what they CAN help?
Yes.

Is it wrong to JUDGE people based on what they CAN help?
Sometimes.

In other words…

1. Stereotyping is always wrong because it’s inevitably inaccurate and potentially harmful.
2. Pre-judgements (prejudice) are always wrong morally-speaking, and usually inaccurate, because of the hazards/potential-harm associated with forming judgments not based on reason or actual experience.
3. (i) Judgments based on what one CANNOT help are morally wrong because the individual cannot change it, and it’s probably not relevant anyway.
3. (ii) Judgments based on what one CAN help are not always wrong because they may or may not be based on adequate information.

On another note, compare these statements…

LEGO: "You have yet to write a complete paragraph with more than four sentences." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318476)

LEGO: "Your one sentence attack on police stereotyping procedures is an example." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

LEGO: "My stereotype of a "reasoned argument" is one which consists of much more than a single sentence..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

…to these statements…

LEGO: "You will never write out exactly what your position is in a simple sentence." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318735)

LEGO: "...spit out your position in a simple sentence." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318735)

So, basically, when I take down your arguments with one simple sentence, it’s not good enough; but when you want me to state my position for your script, you want a single sentence, which, according to your logic, cannot possibly be well-reasoned.

Funny that.

The jig is up, LEGO.

If there is one thing you can never accuse me of AJ, it is not stating my positions. My style of debate is to clearly submit my positions and provide detailed, reasoned arguments supporting them. I know this leads me wide open to attack from hecklers like yourself, but especially in front of an audience, it is the best and most effective way to debate.

AJ 1. Stereotyping is always wrong because it’s inevitably inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Stereotyping is not wrong because everybody generalises and stereotypes every time they form a simple sentence about objects or people. Generalisations do not need to be accurate because they are just that, generalisations. It is exactly like saying that you must never use generalised terms like "crowd", "queue" or "assembly" to denote a number of people, because these generalised terms do not give an exact number of people. You can not even conceptualise what an "Arab", a "Zulu" or a "Scandinavian" even looks like unless you have some sort of stereotype of their appearance. Saying that "stereotyping is wrong" is exactly like saying "thinking is wrong."

You can criticise the accuracy of a stereotype, but you can never say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.

AJ 2. Pre-judgements (prejudice) are always wrong morally-speaking, and usually inaccurate, because of the hazards/potential-harm associated with forming judgments not based on reason or actual experience.

Everybody on planet Earth needs to form judgements about people, situations, behaviour, values, attitudes, and even when to turn the wheel of our car so that we miss the curb. We often use our previous experiences in similar situations to judge what is best to do. We remember our previous life experiences with people and situations, and we judge them as successful or unsuccessful, so that we can judge whether we can use them again successfully. We prejudge. We use our memory to recall those experiences, and we can not do that unless our memory contains a library of stereotypical images of objects, situations, and people, that we can use to form our judgements.

Continued

Continued.

Therefore, prejudging as an act is not wrong because everybody prejudges as a normal thought process. You can criticise whether a judgement made previously is the correct one to use in a situation relevant to the present. But you can not say that the act of prejudging is wrong because everybody does it. The only exception is supposed to be in a court of law. Juries in criminal trials are forbidden by law to prejudge accused persons in order to supposedly ensure a fair trial.

AJ 3. (i) Judgments based on what one CANNOT help are morally wrong because the individual cannot change it, and it’s probably not relevant anyway.

As a criminologist, you must be aware that there are some people who are genetically predisposed to extreme violence. Courts usually judge them harshly, unless they appeal to the court that they have a medical problem which they can not control. In such cases, judges may be lenient and sentence the offender to a program of medical and psychiatric treatments.

Therefore saying that prejudging people "who can't help it" is wrong. You are not going to allow a violent or mentally unstable person to be a companion to your kids, regardless of whether they can "help it" or not. You would prefer to marry a beautiful woman than an ugly one.

3. (ii) Judgments based on what one CAN help are not always wrong because they may or may not be based on adequate information.

It does not matter if they "can help" it or not, individuals of every stripe are always going to be judged by their group associations, unless there is other evidence available to alter that view. And everybody uses stereotypes and prejudgements to do it. If your darling teenaged daughter came home with a bloke covered in tattoos, a Mohican haircut, and a bone through his nose, one presumes that all this crap about how wrong it is to prejudge and stereotype people would suddenly become moot