TLDR: LEGO's wrong again.

I figured a more dumbed-down version would be easier for you to understand, LEGO. You still don’t understand the definition of ‘heckler’ though, I see.

<<I know this leads me wide open to attack from hecklers like yourself…>>

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

Again, you are the only one who has provided an unreasoned response.

<<Stereotyping is not wrong because everybody generalises and stereotypes every time they form a simple sentence about objects or people.>>

“Or they … use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Generalisations do not need to be accurate because they are just that, generalisations.>>

That’s a tautology.

<<It is exactly like saying that you must never use generalised terms like "crowd"..>>

No, because they’re collective nouns, not stereotypes.

<<You [cannot] even conceptualise what an "Arab", a "Zulu" or a "Scandinavian" even looks like unless you have some sort of stereotype of their appearance.>>

Yes, you can, by thinking of one you've seen before without assuming they all look like that.

<<Saying that "stereotyping is wrong" is exactly like saying "thinking is wrong.">>

"No, because not all thinking is done in stereotypes. Stereotypes are mental shortcuts that are not always taken." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318011)

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

"Yes, I can. It’s the inaccuracy that makes it wrong." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318711)

<<Everybody on planet Earth needs to form judgements about people…>>

I know. But you’re supposed to be responding to prejudice here, according to your quote of mine.

<<We prejudge. We use our memory to recall those experiences…>>

Then that’s not prejudging (prejudice)…

Prejudice:
a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudice)

<<…and we [cannot] do that unless our memory contains a library of stereotypical images of objects...>>

“Or … concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Therefore, prejudging as an act is not wrong because everybody prejudges as a normal thought process.>>

No, you’ve conflated judging and prejudging.

Continued…

…Continued

<You can criticise whether a judgement made previously is the correct one to use in a situation relevant to the present.>>

Now you’ve gone back to just plain old judging. You’re all over the place here.

<<But you [cannot] say that the act of prejudging is wrong because everybody does it.>>

Another fallacious appeal to nature and common practice.

<<As a criminologist, you must be aware that there are some people who are genetically predisposed to extreme violence.>>

Yes, but that’s never the entire cause. All behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between genetics and experience and situational factors.

<<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…>>

No, that’s wouldn’t be a prejudgement because I’d have sufficient information to make an informed decision about what is the most appropriate action to take.

You’re really struggling with this, aren’t you?

Analysing our last double posts, I would give myself 10/10, and you 3/10.

You wrote 668 words, I wrote 684.

You wasted 229 words abusing me, I wasted 65 words abusing you.

The purpose of both articles was to judge whether generalising, stereotyping, or prejudging was right or wrong behaviour.

Your explanations as to why these three concepts are wrong, were very disjointed and read more like moral declarations than explanations. The "reasoning" used to justify your position was very confusing to me, and I have studied this subject, and read entire books on stereotyping and prejudging. They would certainly confuse any audience member, who has only a very fuzzy concept of what these terms even mean.

I explained why these three concepts are not wrong. I used simple and detailed explanations which even a person who had only a fuzzy idea of what these terms meant, could understand. I used simple examples of why and how these three concepts are vital in the process that human beings call "thinking." And I did that in an informative way that lay people, who have never in their lives ever contemplated how they think, could understand and appreciate. My explanations as to why each of these concepts were vital to the processes we call "thinking", cross connected with each other and reinforced each other.

Analysing our writing styles, your style was very disjointed, hectoring, and angry, which would lead an audience member to assume that you did not really understand the subject you were discussing. My writing style was calm, instructive, reasonable, and most importantly, my arguments were made as a linear progression which the audience members could easily follow. That would convince an audience member to conclude that I knew what I was talking about.

What I can not understand, is how you can write two double posts in 24 hours and get away with it. While when I write only three, I still get the dreaded "you have exceeded your post limit" pop up. Do you have divine intervention from the editor

Nice move, LEGO. When you’ve lost an argument, emphasise style over substance.

<<Your explanations as to why these three concepts are wrong … read more like moral declarations than explanations.>>

No, I provided reasoning as well.

<<The "reasoning" used to justify your position was very confusing to me…>>

I know, and I’m sorry about that. I do try to dumb it down for you.

<<I explained why these three concepts are not wrong.>>

You gave it a good shot at least, yes.

<<I used simple and detailed explanations which even a person who had only a fuzzy idea of what these terms meant, could understand.>>

Yes, they were understandable, albeit incorrect. Which is why I’ve been posting so many dictionary definitions.

<<I used simple examples of why and how these three concepts are vital in the process that human beings call "thinking.">>

And I explained why they weren’t as vital as you claimed by mentioning the use of concepts that are not oversimplified. You’ve never addressed this.

<<Analysing our writing styles, your style was very disjointed, hectoring, and angry…>>

“My attempt to address every one of your uninformed claims may have given my post a chaotic look, but there was nothing “disjointed” about it.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310290)

[That’s from a different discussion. That’s how repetitious you are.]

I note the lack of examples too. You were switching back and forth between judging and prejudging. Now THAT is disjointed.

If you don’t want me to “hector”, then don’t do it yourself. You are an aggressive and bullying person when cornered, and even sometimes when you’re not.

<<…which would lead an audience member to assume that you did not really understand the subject you were discussing.>>

Your audience would understand that if I am able to copy and paste my answers so frequently, then you are probably just relying on repetition.

<<My writing style was calm…>>

Only it started off with a false accusation about heckling, which set the tone for my post. If you want a gentler tone from me, then cut the slanderous remarks. You get as good as you give.

Hi AJ

I rest my case, M'lud.

184 posts in, and you have reinforced my opinion that no amount of reasoned argument can ever shift an ideologue who made his mind up to never be convinced of whatever reality he wants to avoid.

It has been fun, and I enjoyed watching you squirm and contradict yourself. I especially laughed when I caught you three times stereotyping and prejudging yourself, just as I predicted I would. Please note that you are a marked man now. I will be watching you from now on, and every time you stereotype and prejudge I am going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

At least you did learn something, AJ. Don't cross swords with me unless you have done your homework. Although, if you had ever done your homework in the first place, you would not have turned out to be a stereotypical trendy lefty. Just for the record, you will be happy to know that you have just been done over by an electrician.

As a tradie, I just can't believe that you actually have a degree. I think that tradies are smart because we live in a world where problem solving is an everyday feature of our work. So we tend to think originally. I think that the reason why you academics are so dumb is because you have been taught what to think, not how to think.

Tata. See you on another topic.

Really, LEGO?

<<184 posts in, and you have reinforced my opinion that no amount of reasoned argument can ever shift an ideologue who made his mind up to never be convinced of whatever reality he wants to avoid.>>

All you had to do was disprove the existence of concepts that are not oversimplifications, and you would have made your point. Well, ‘all’ is probably not an appropriate word there given that that’s not at all possible. My point there really was the nail in the coffin for your whole case, dontcha think?.

<<It has been fun, and I enjoyed watching you squirm and contradict yourself.>>

Yes, the only one here who didn’t commit a fallacy, who didn’t have to ignore questions, who could consistently respond to line by line quotes, who could provide examples of their accusations, and who was clearly having a ball, was “squirming”. You attempted to identify some contradictions there, yes. But alas, none of them held and as with every post, you were forced to move on and pretend your claim was never made.

<<I especially laughed when I caught you three times stereotyping and prejudging yourself…>>

Haha. Yeah. And then I’d laugh when I pointed out that your accusations only demonstrated that you didn’t understand what prejudice and stereotyping were!

Ahhh… We’ve had some good times, haven’t we?

<<I will be watching you from now on, and every time you stereotype and prejudge I am going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.>>

Well, your bailing out now gives me confidence that you at least have a better understanding of what stereotypes and prejudice are. Time will tell, I guess.

<<Just for the record, you will be happy to know that you have just been done over by an electrician.>>

I already knew you were just an electrician. It showed too. Like the way you couldn’t understand the difference between a stereotype and a concept, and confused ‘judging’ and ‘prejudging’. Sorry, there’s only one person who’s been “done over” here.

But you’re free to live in your own little bubble of delusion.