As an atheist I would like to see Islam (and every other religion) dissolve overnight, but as a pragmatist I know that's not going to happen. And the people who are suffering most from fundamentalist Muslims are Muslims themselves. They're also the ones who are spending the most money and making the most effort to control it. As the front line warriors in the battle against fundamentalism, they're entitled to decide what approach they think is effective. What someone in the West advises from the comfort of their armchair may not be what works in the slums of Karachi or the mountains of Afghanistan.

The overwhelming likelihood is that Islam will go the same way as Christianity in the west; as an increasing number of its followers become aware of its logical and social failings it will become a kind of hobby, a comforting personal belief which is generally recognised as too weak to support decisions about moral behaviour. But calls to demonise Islam in general are more likely to delay this change than to hasten it, particularly when they come from Westerners who have little or no understanding of the enormous diversity of Islamic sects and the wide variation in the things they believe.

One of the most heartening things I read recently was from an interview with the female head of a Muslim community group in Australia. "We don't listen to the imams," she said in effect. "They just don't get what we're trying to achieve." That may be poor theology, but it's a big step in the direction of social harmony.

A very good article that will have no effect on the useful idiots.

Muslims are forbidden to be friendly with non-Muslims. "Moderate" Muslims are told to lie in the name of Islam, so we have no idea whether or not there are any moderate Muslims.

If the useful idiots help, and actually encourage Muslims to gradually become a physical threat to Australia, who do the useful idiots think the 'moderates' will support?

Christianity is so weak that it is no deterrent to Islam, so it has no relevance whatsoever. 'No Muslims in the West' is the only guarantee of protection.

Well said Jon J.
Christianity can't handle it's own child sex abuse scandals, let alone try and battle any problems other religions may have.
We would be better off without organized religions at all.

Jon J says most of it for me and can add little.

Except to say the article was, well just a little too pedantic and one eyed for me.

In any event, take a couple of steps back through the centuries, and this critique could have been applied to unreformed christianity with warrior Popes at the head of butchering armies.

Somes wives and mothers have been successful in ushering in formerly unacceptable social reform and just by the judicious use of the gander paddock, but as a united we stand divided we fall group that will not concede ground!
Perhaps the female leaders inside the Muslim tent could emulate that example?

And indeed provide sanctuary where some elemental brute/knuckle dragging stone age nethenrendal tries to force his will with his fists or whatever?

Even so, perhaps we need to repatriate some of the members of the muslim community, particularly where no genuine social unification is possible?

Or failing that, create a purpose built ghetto, but in splendid unique isolation, where they will not have to be troubled by those pesky westerners or their ways.

The desert nomads in their midst, can perhaps show them how to survive in our arid outback? They won't have to worry too much about unwanted assimilation out there?
Rhrosty.

Suseonline, "We would be better off without organized religions at all"

On continuous loop with the over-used, logically flawed 'others are just as bad' nonsense.

Feminism/secularism is very limited to rationality due to their warped narrative. Chritophobes have never been able to face truth hence the condoning of rapist, terrorist and baby killing. Having totally misrepresented Chritianity, secularist know if they based belief on rational and truth that self examination exposes their thoroughly corrupt nature. They lie about Christianity, deny their own absurb logic, so what chance of looking honestly at Islam. Zero I suspect.

Suseonline, "We would be better off without organized religions at all".

And amongst the adherents of which religion, do you reckon, it is most organised, and most backward ? In 2016 ?

And most in need, as you rightly advocate, for abolition, or at least for strong and very sustained criticism, particularly in its vile attitudes to women ?

No fudging now, no going back to Deuteronomy :) We're in 2016. AD, not BC.

Joe

Yes Islam does seem to be an irredeemable toxic meme, but this toxicity does not have much to do with what Muhammad may or may not have done, nor does it have much to do with the obnoxious parts of the Koran.
The problem is much more primal than that. It has to do with the toxic brutalizing child-rearing practices that are the norm in many parts of the Muslim world. Such toxic child-rearing practices were once the norm all over the world, including the Christian West both Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Such toxic practices are still wide-spread in the Christian West. Including the USA via the various forms of resurgent back-to-the-past fundamentalisms that are now flexing their political muscles via the GOP.
Some essays, and a website which discuss this theme:
http://primal-page.com/terrorld.htm
http://primal-page.com/glazov.htm
http://primal-page.com/gibson.htm

Have we finally revealed Runner's true identity? Man that what bad, full of half truths and convenient omissions.

Look it's an easy answer Jon J touched on it, all religions are foolish, all have had the moments when they behaved like some elements of Islam is behaving now. If you think they haven't then you don't know your history very well.

Loudmouth the Christians are burning witches in Africa and other places when they can they bring out the old book.

Turnbull, smug with Muslim welcoming wets like pet Australian of the Year David Morrison, will certainly see more Far Right Independents in the Australian Senate after the April or September 2016 Election.

Turnbull may go the way of "Cologne Frau" Merkel http://canadafreepress.com/article/auf-wiedersehen-chancellor-merkel-the-sudden-decline-of-europes-iron-lady

Hi Cobber,

"Loudmouth the Christians are burning witches in Africa and other places when they can they bring out the old book."

And in Papua New Guinea, and in Pakistan, and perhaps still in Iran. probably in remote parts of China and Brazil, too. And certainly India.

So what's your point ? You could have mentioned beheadings, stonings, honor killings - do you have any comment on those, since they are at least as relevant ?

So are you suggesting that one evil sort of cancels out another ? Perhaps, on your logic, we shouldn't have opposed the Nazis, since look what the Assyrians did in the eighth century BC. Or Tamerlaine in the 14-15th century AD. Or what the Aztecs did to the Toltecs for hundreds of years.

It's 2016. What do we do about unspeakable evil today, now ?

Mind you, we can all channel our inner child and say "Well, you did to !" To which one could reply, "Yeah, well my daddy's a policeman and he'll put you in jail." To which another child could reply, "Well, so's mine and he can bash yours up." To which everybody could reply, with as much sense as your post, "Nyah ! Nyah !"

Call it like it is, Cobber; evil is evil, it should be condemned. Nope ? Too hard ?

Joe

We could do without one religion: islam, which is also a political organisation. Christianity and the other religions are harmless at worst and a good influence at best (even those denominations such as the Uniting Church which is crazy Left.) There is no good in Islam; there is only hate and violence.

I’m a Christian, and all too aware that my own scriptures can be selectively picked apart as easily as Richard has done with the Koran. Moses was a murderer. So was David. Abraham tried to kill his two sons and the slave woman he forced to bear one of them. Joshua committed genocide, on God’s instruction. The Bible has many commandments relating to anything from rape to disobedient children that today we find abhorrent.

Most modern Christians and Jews do not take these texts as normative, just as most Muslims don’t take the worst of the Koran as normative. A few fundamentalists do, and some Jewish and Christian fundamentalists are violent. But violent Islamic fundamentalism is a far more pressing issue for us at in our present time and culture, and even more so for people in predominantly Muslim countries.

This was not always so. Christian violence was much more common in the past – those calling for a Muslim “reformation” would do well to study the bloodbaths that accompanied and followed the European reformation, for example.

The challenge is for Islam to counter its violent fundamentalist minority in the way that other religions and cultures have mostly done. Demonising the whole religion and its adherents, as this article does, is not going to make that easier

Yeah right, ttbn.

<<Christianity and the other religions are harmless at worst...>>

Teaching children to reject science is not harmless.
Denying children life-saving medical treatments for religious purposes is not harmless.
Vilifying homosexuals is not harmless.
Ostracising family members because they no longer believe is not harmless.
Abstinence-only sex education is not harmless.
Denying women autonomy over their own bodies is not harmless.
Deny terminally ill people the right to die with dignity is not harmless.
Ignoring environmental issues in the belief that a dead person will return is not harmless.
The Catholic Church’s stance on birth control is not harmless.
Telling children that God loves them so much he has a special place for them to burn if they don’t love him back is not harmless.

Just because one major religion is more of an immediate threat than the others, that doesn’t make the others harmless.

AJ on his favourite hatreds

Teaching children to reject science is not harmless. - telling people they evolved from slime is not science AJ. In fact evolutionist crucify true science as you know.

Vilifying homosexuals is not harmless. - Promoting homosexuality is promoting suicide.


Ostracising family members because they no longer believe is not harmless. - Secular humanist are usally the greatest bigots.

Abstinence-only sex education is not harmless. - promoting porn and promiscurity is definetely harmful.

Denying women autonomy over their own bodies is not harmless. - killing the unborn is murder

Deny terminally ill people the right to die with dignity is not harmless. - Popping off the oldies for a quick inherintance ah AJ.

Ignoring environmental issues in the belief that a dead person will return is not harmless. - like the pathetically disproven gw religion. What a joke AJ.

Give it away AJ. Your education is taking away your ability to reason.

A returning dead person, or rather their eternal life force and basic personality, would inherit all that he'd created or reap what he'd sown! Nothing else guarantees that perfect justice, or absolutely explains most of the ills of our world!

Throw a stone into a pond and it will always create ripples, that only ends where the water ends.

And therefore just complete nonsense to claim he would ignore cause and effect environmental issues, but maybe the hysteria of feral green groups and their fundamental assertions, invented in cloud cuckoo land.

If carbon alone is all that is guaranteeing the destruction of an iconic reef, surely what we require is practical ways of reducing that carbon production/output, even if that requires a few largely harmless holes in a reef?

Moreover, tree continue to store carbon whether vertical or horizontal, and young vigorous growth is better at absorbing more of it than old trees, the geriatrics of the forest!

He would also want to return to a virtual paradise and the social justice obligations, that makes more than just barely tolerable. And pray tell, how do you guarantee that minius healthy economic growth?

To suggest otherwise is to completely misrepresent the reincarnation beliefs of over 60 million people!

It must be such a comfort A.J. P., to know you're always right, even when you resort to unmistakable verbal!
Rhrosty.

runner,

If I can provoke such a long response as that from an inarticulate, semi-literate person like you, then I must be onto something.

<<…telling people they evolved from slime is not science AJ. In fact evolutionist crucify true science as you know.>>

There is nothing in evolution about evolving from slime. Not even in abiogenesis - which is what you actually meant. Learn what evolution is first, then you can discuss it.

<<Promoting homosexuality is promoting suicide.>>

The only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like you.
<<Secular humanist are usally the greatest bigots.>>

Some examples would be great.

<<promoting porn and promiscurity is definetely harmful.>>

Who said it wasn’t? And what does this have to do with the harm caused by abstinence-only sex education? Speaking of which…

<<killing the unborn is murder>>

No, it’s not. Murder is an unlawful killing.

<<Popping off the oldies for a quick inherintance ah AJ.>>

Slippery slope fallacy “ah runner”.

<<like the pathetically disproven gw religion.>>

You need to look up the definition of ‘religion’. ‘Disproven’ too, by the looks of it. Either way, AGW denial is only one example of what I was referring to.

<<Give it away AJ.>>

Give what away, and to whom?

<<Your education is taking away your ability to reason.>>

A bit rich coming from the only person on OLO who hasn’t yet presented a single reasoned argument or said anything that was in the slightest bit true, for that matter.

Rhrosty,

Not only did your post make no sense at all, but how I fit in at the end there one can only speculate.

<<It must be such a comfort A.J. P., to know you're always right, even when you resort to unmistakable verbal!>>

Jesus was the dead person I was referring to, if that’s what you’re trying to respond to. That being said, none of your incoherent rambling is evidence for re-incarnation, if that’s what it was supposed to be. There is no reliable evidence for re-incarnation.

' If I can provoke such a long response as that from an inarticulate, semi-literate person like you, then I must be onto something.'

and if your answers are the best a so called educated person can give I certainly must be one to something. I get more reasoned answers from my 3 year old grandson than your regurgitated dogma.

Loudmouth, I dislike Islam as a religion just as much as I dislike any religion.
If you can find anywhere at all that I have favored any people or religions over another, please point it out.

What I don't like is racism and bigotry.
I would have thought I have made that fairly clear?

Runner, AJP just ran rings around you, and you just can't see it......lol!

Your discernment has always been very poor Susie. You simply prove it again. Have you given up trying to excuse the rapist in Europe.

I quite take the point about Islam being a potential upsetting danger to the cultural framework we have in the west.

I think the discussion can be extended by reference to deeper variables there is an article on http://gaiaqi.net about Islam. It has a look in esoteric terms. There are no suggestions on how to resolve the Islamic issue ... It seems there is no solution accept integration and even that may have its problems.

Hi Suse,

You're as entitled as anybody else to express your opinions. I hope you always continue to do so.

"Loudmouth, I dislike Islam as a religion just as much as I dislike any religion. If you can find anywhere at all that I have favored any people or religions over another, please point it out.

"What I don't like is racism and bigotry. I would have thought I have made that fairly clear?"

Not really.

But if, say, a huge mob of Buddhist* men in Bangkok at that water festival thingy, were harassing hundreds of women, would it be possible to say so ? Would any criticism of their criminal behaviour be treated as 'tarring all Buddhists with the same brush', etc. ?

Or would you call it like it is ? Assault, criminal acts, and the abuse of the power of a mob against individuals ?

And would part of that description of what happened involve some reference to some Buddhist anti-women principle, (if there is one) ?

In other words, would it be legitimate in criticising their behaviour, to refer to a general attitude that Buddhist men may hypothetically have towards women, and for which they cite scripture ? Would it be legitimate to criticise those sections of their scriptures which denigrate women ?

Joe

* No intention to slur Buddhism should be inferred

Lough mouth you need to reread my post, Yes the current crop of religious nuts are bad and should be dealt with.

I talked about witches because there seems to be a bit or misplaced ideas by Christians their their religion is different from Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where ever Secularism doesn't rule religions go nuts.

So good of A.J Philips to once again offer himself up as an excellent example of a 'useful idiot'.

Loudmouth, please point out where I have ever said I was ok with the sexual assaults in Cologne, whoever perpetrated them?

I am just as upset with these rapists, regardless of their religion, as I am about the child sex abusers from other religious perpetrators. They all read their religious books, but not all of them assault, kill or vilify others because of them.

Mostly though, I just see them as criminals, despite their religions, because we can't paint everyone in any religious or racial group with the same brush...because that is wrong.

ttbn, good comeback....your mate Runner would be proud of you.

That’s right, Cobber. Secularism has dragged Christianity and Judaism kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages, whereas Islam hasn’t had that yet.

The claim that the arrival of the printing press allowed commoners to see that their religion was started by a man who was all about peace, love and mung beans is discredited by the fact that Judaism has a holy book as bad as the Quran and also lacks any Socialist characters (Socialism and Arabs are alright when they’re in the Bible) who, by the way, fully endorsed the Old Testament. I’ve explained numerous times now why, “But that’s the Old Testament”, isn’t a defence.

Slaveholders in America had access to Bibles and the literacy to read them, yet the words of Jesus obviously didn’t make much of a difference to their interpretation of the Bible’s clear endorsement of slavery.

ttbn,

Apparently you have no defence for your idiotic claim so instead you offer up a weak ad hominem. Nice work. Are you able to argue in anything other than fallacies?

It’s just brainless comment after brainless comment with you, isn’t it? That tends to be the way with our one-paragraph posters, I’ve noticed.

Hi Suse,

Sorry, perhaps I interpreted your comments wrongly, as implying that criticism of Muslim thugs was criticism of islam as a whole. I apologise.

Yes, you are right, criminals can be of any faith - or no faith, such as myself. I mean that I am of no faith, not that I am a criminal of no faith. I'm sure that there are atheist sexual abusers of children, like that slime McCoole here in Adelaide, I don't think he has cited his religiosity as some sort of excuse. So it's possible.

But no matter what their faith or lack of, criminals should be condemned for their offences. And when a very large group of men, of mostly one particular religious background, converge on and assault women, that may well be relevant - ALWAYS supposing that not everybody of that religion is somehow accused, no matter where they were that night. We should call it like it is, and no more. I'm sure that you would agree, Suse :)

Joe

AJ Philips,

Sadly, it's no fallacy that you are a useful idiot and extreme relativist. You are the male counterpart of that other arch know-all-no-nothing, Foxy. You spit the dummy every time your 'great wisdom' questioned. You set yourself up, sport; particularly on the matter of Christianity, about which you are totally ignorant.

By the way. A sentence is not a paragraph. The above is a paragraph.

More personal attacks, ttbn? Well, I MUST have been wrong all along then!

<<Sadly, it's no fallacy that you are a useful idiot and extreme relativist.>>

It appears that, to you, one must pretend the harm caused by the predominant religion in one’s culture does not exist, else they be deemed a "useful idiot". If that’s the case, then I would rather be a useful idiot than a useless fool who chooses to float through life with their head in the sand.

And an “extreme relativist”? What’s the difference between that and a ‘moderate relativist’? More importantly, on what occasion did I approach an issue from a relativist perspective when moral absolutism would have been more appropriate?

You don’t know, do you? It just sounded like a good insult at the time.

<<You are the male counterpart of that other arch know-all-no-nothing, Foxy.>>

More ad hominems from a vacuous individual with nothing to offer in defence of his asinine, baseless and fact-free opinions but personal attacks.

That aside, I'm flattered by the comparison.

<<You spit the dummy every time your 'great wisdom' questioned.>>

He claims, while ironically spitting the dummy himself after having had his ignorance held up to the light for everyone to see.

<<You set yourself up, sport; particularly on the matter of Christianity, about which you are totally ignorant.>>

As I’ve mentioned numerous times before, I was a Christian for half my life and studied the Bible for years. I know a damn sight more about Christianity than you do, and it shows. Only one of us here has had to resort to ad hominems.

<<A sentence is not a paragraph.>>

No kidding. I wasn’t talking about that last post specifically, but your usual contributions to discussions. That should have been fairly obvious given the sentence that immediately preceded the comment of mine that you're referring to.

However, I clicked randomly though your comments list and unfortunately it appears that I was giving you too much credit. You do indeed appear to seldom provide a comment that consists of any more than a single sentence.

AJ.

Let's start with I "..seldom provide a comment that consists of any more than a single sentence". Well, I have always believed that people who use more words than necessary have little to say. You clearly haven't heard of KISS. I said what I wanted to say - that you have identified yourself as a 'useful idiot'. Unlike you, I don't sermonise and kid myself that what I do say is anything but my opinion.

As for your being personally attacked, I can only say that a public forum is not for you, particularly if you make stupid comments, especially yours, which your regard as unassailably correct because you say so.

Your constant bagging of your own culture every time the evils of Islam are discussed is disgraceful, and doesn't excuse Islam at all.

I have had another look at your ridiculous slanders against Christianity - and ridiculous they are! Your rubbish claims refer to weirdo sects and perhaps 'happy clappers'. Your first 2 lies do not pertain to mainstream Christianity. No 3. Homosexuals are not 'vilified' (there are homosexuals in the clergy, and none are tossed off high buildings as with your Muslims friends. No4 must be about the freaks. Number 5 is pathetically naïve. Number 6 is absurd (there are women priests; women do have autonomy over their own bodies, they are not sexually mutilated as the women of your Muslim mates are). Number 7: I and many other Christians support euthanasia. No 8 - I've never heard of such rubbish. No 9 is also absurd and naïve. You haven't got past the Middle Ages in your religious 'studies'; and you clearly no nothing about Nonconformist denominations. 10: you seem to have confused God with Father Christmas. People like you are ignorant idiots, and of no use to us.

AJ,

PS: In case you are confused by the last sentence, I mean you are a useful idiot for the enemies of the West, but useless to us. On second thoughts, harmful and treacherous is more accurate.

Of course I’ve heard of the KISS rule, ttbn. But there’s a difference between keeping it simple by choice and having little to contribute through lack of insightfulness.

<<I said what I wanted to say - that you have identified yourself as a 'useful idiot'.>>

Yes, keep it so simple that you fail to support your claims with any reasoning or evidence. Convenient that.

<<As for your being personally attacked, I can only say that a public forum is not for you…>>

So you’re saying that it’s alright to launch personal attacks if the forum is not just for the one individual? That’s some pretty stupid reasoning there.

The point I’ve been making with regards to your ad hominems (as if you didn’t already know), is that you use them in lieu of any sound reasoning or factual basis for the rubbish opinions that you express.

<<…particularly if you make stupid comments, especially yours, which your regard as unassailably correct because you say so.>>

No, I justify my claims precisely because what I say is not “unassailably correct because [I] say so”. Note the lack of red herrings and ad hominems coming from this direction.

<<Your constant bagging of your own culture every time the evils of Islam are discussed is disgraceful, and doesn't excuse Islam at all.>>

I’m proud of the culture I live in. But that doesn’t mean I stick my head in the sand with regards to the harm caused by the predominant religion in it, or exaggerate its contribution to it.

<<Your rubbish claims refer to weirdo sects and perhaps 'happy clappers'.>>

Somewhat, yes. One of the most popular and fastest growing category of Christian churches too, I’ll note.

<<Your first 2 lies do not pertain to mainstream Christianity.>>

So *mainstream* Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy) never teach their children to reject evolution, never refuse life-saving treatment in favour of faith healing (http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death), and JWs never refuse blood transfusions?

Pull the other one.

<<Homosexuals are not 'vilified'>>

Yes, they are. They’re told that something they have no control over is a sin and an abomination. That's vilification.

Continued…

…Continued

<<No4 must be about the freaks.>>

It happens all the time in the US.

<<Number 5 is pathetically naïve.>>

How?

<<Number 6 is absurd>>

How?

Female priests in no way contradict the fact that anti-abortionists would not grant women full autonomy over their own bodies, nor does the fact that Christian women do not have their genitals mutilated. I guess they should just shut up and be grateful that they don’t, eh?

<<Number 7: I and many other Christians support euthanasia.>>

But many still don’t, and that’s harmful.

<<No 8 - I've never heard of such rubbish.>>

Do you walk around with your eyes closed or something?

"Many Christian fundamentalists feel that concern for the future of our planet is irrelevant, because it has no future. They believe we are living in the End Time ... They may also believe, along with millions of other Christian fundamentalists, that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed — even hastened — as a sign of the coming Apocalypse." (http://grist.org/article/scherer-christian)

"Pastor Mark Driscoll: Christians Don’t Need to Care About the Environment because Jesus is Coming Back for Us" (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/05/04/pastor-mark-driscoll-christians-dont-need-to-care-about-the-environment-because-jesus-is-coming-back-for-us)

We have one of these Christians in this very discussion, and here you are foolishly suggesting that they don’t exist.

<<No 9 is also absurd and naïve.>>

The harm created by the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control is immense in Africa. What I said has nothing to do with the Middle Ages.

<<10: you seem to have confused God with Father Christmas.>>

Santa doesn’t threaten children with Hell. Many Christians do.

Sorry, but my points still stand.

All you have done is demonstrated a grandiose level of hypocrisy when you call me ignorant and naïve. You have a very narrow understanding of Christianity and apparently a very limited sample of Christians by which to base your understanding of this very diverse group of people.

Either that or you’re just dishonest. I mean, who out there doesn’t know about creationism or the link between AGW denial and religiosity?

//But no matter what their faith or lack of, criminals should be condemned for their offences.//

Obviously.

I'm pretty sure that we can all get round together around a nice campfire and sing 'Kumbayah' when it comes to condemning criminals for their offences. Especially if that offence is rape.

Where some of us - not necessarily yourself, Joe - part ways is when it comes to condemning peaceful, law-abiding Muslims in Australia for crimes committed by Muslim criminals in other countries. I don't see the logic in that.

AJ wrote

"Just because one major religion is more of an immediate threat than the others, that doesn’t make the others harmless."

You just stereotyped and prejudged all religions as "immediate threats".

AJ wrote

"The only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like you."

You just stereotyped and prejudged those people who oppose homosexual equality as "vile people."

AJ,

"<<Homosexuals are not 'vilified'>>

"Yes, they are. They’re told that something they have no control over is a sin and an abomination. That's vilification."

But I guess it beats getting chucked off a high roof.

Don't equate opinion, even of the most backward Christian fundamentalist, with incitement to action - or action itself.

Hi Toni,

So who is " .... condemning peaceful, law-abiding Muslims in Australia for crimes committed by Muslim criminals in other countries." ?

Can you cite a single comment, either from a dumb-arse shock-jock or a newspaper or a TV program [wow, that shows how out-of-date I am, I didn't even think of social media], where peaceful, law-biding Muslims are condemned as you say ?

Straw man, Toni.

Cheers,

Joe

LEGO,

You’re a slow learner.

<<You just stereotyped and prejudged all religions as "immediate threats".>>

No, I didn't. I spoke of the immediacy of the threat level of religions as varying, meaning that some religions may not be an immediate threat at all.

<<You just stereotyped and prejudged those people who oppose homosexual equality as "vile people.">>

Not at all.

Firstly, I said nothing about those who oppose equality for gay people. Secondly, describing someone who vilifies others for traits they cannot help and that do not hurt others as "vile", is not an oversimplification. They may have positive qualities in other areas, but their vilification of others still makes them a vile person. Finally, my comment was not prejudiced as such vilification provides me with adequate information to make an informed decision on whether or not they are a vile person.

Please feel free to justify why a person who vilifies others is not an extremely unpleasant person, though, won’t you.

I figured you must have been bluffing when you last threatened to attempt to spot me stereotyping, given the drubbing you received in that thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318864). But it appears I overestimated you. You really are silly enough to provide me with free opportunities to further embarrass you.

Please keep it up. This is going to be fun.

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)

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

Joe,

Yes, it certainly does.

<<…I guess [vilification] beats getting chucked off a high roof.>>

But so what?

<<Don't equate opinion, even of the most backward Christian fundamentalist, with incitement to action - or action itself.>>

I didn’t. I was talking about actions, not opinions (Note the word “told”). Nor was I attempting to equate such actions with those of fundamentalist Muslims. ttbn claimed that non-Islamic religions were harmless. I explained to him how they’re not.

If you can't keep up with my discussion with ttbn, then please save yourself the embarrassment of commenting.

Oh no AJ, I was definitely not bluffing when I told you I was going to come after you, every time you stereotyped and prejudged yourself.

AJ "No, I didn't. I spoke of the immediacy of the threat level of religions as varying, meaning that some religions may not be an immediate threat at all."

Regardless of whether any religion is an immediate threat, or a latent threat, you are prejudging all religions as a threat. By prejudging them as "a threat", you are prejudging the beliefs of all religious people who comprise all religions as "a threat." This is a oversimplified image, or idea, of a whole class of people. It is a stereotype which you used to prejudge all religions and the beliefs of the people who comprise all religions.

Stereotype definition one. Hilgard's Psychology page 289

"A stereotype is a set of inferences about the personality traits of a whole class of people."

Stereotype definition 2.

"A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

In addition, your list of nine negative beliefs that you implied was "harmful", and common to all religions, is a generalisation. A stereotype. It is a fixed oversimplification of all religious beliefs, unless all religions and all their congregations advocate all of these nine points. You are therefore in contempt of your own claim that.....

(AJ wrote) "Generalisations about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation."

AJ "Firstly, I said nothing about those who oppose equality for gay people."

Yes you did. You called the sort of people who hold ttbn's attitudes to gay people "vile", and blamed this classification of "vile" people for the high suicide rate of homosexual people. You stereotyped and prejudged an entire class of individuals with two oversimplified negative stereotypes. That of being collectively "vile", and also being collectively responsible for the high rate of homosexual suicide. By doing so, your negative stereotype "hurt" ttbn, and also the classification of people who think like ttbn.

No, I’m not, LEGO.

<<Regardless of whether any religion is an immediate threat, or a latent threat, you are prejudging all religions as a threat.>>

And I just gave you the definition of prejudice too. Deary me!

All religions require faith, which is a suspension of reason. Thus all religions are a threat to one degree or another, even if that threat is only a threat to reason.

<<By prejudging them as "a threat", you are prejudging the beliefs of all religious people who comprise all religions as "a threat.">>

But again, that is an observation based on reason and experience, therefore, it is not prejudice.

Even those whose religious beliefs present a seemingly non-existent threat are still an indirect threat to reason in that they act as enablers for those who hold the wackier beliefs and rely on the billions of their fellow travellers for the legitimacy of those beliefs.

Religion allows people in the millions to believe what only a crazy person could believe alone.

<<In addition, your list of nine negative beliefs that you implied was "harmful”, and common to all religions, is a generalisation.>>

Firstly, I didn’t imply that they were harmful, I stated it outright. Secondly, at no point did I say that every one of them was common to all religions.

No generalisations were made.

<<(AJ wrote) "Generalisations about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation.">>

Correct, and at no point have I generalised.

<<Yes you did [refer to people who oppose equality for gay people]. You called the sort of people who hold ttbn's attitudes to gay people "vile", and blamed this classification of "vile" people for the high suicide rate of homosexual people.>>

At no point have I said anything about ttbn’s attitudes towards gay people. I merely referred to those who vilify gay people. Are you accusing ttbn of vilification? Tsk, tsk.

Try again, LEGO. But I’ll warn you now, this is only going end as badly for you as it did last time (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318864).

How can one be assured that a Muslim s telling one the truth?

Easy, convert to Islam.

AJ wrote "No, I’m not, LEGO."

I could say that black Africans in western countries are a crime and welfare problem, seem to want to just ferk and fight, the males routinely desert their wives and kids, the males are disproportionately violent towards females compared to other races, they habitually form violent gangs, that blacks disproportionately abuse drugs, do poorly in education, are more likely to abuse positions of trust, and generally as a group, are a pain in the ass. And then say that is not prejudice, it is based upon reason and experience.

I could say that Muslims in western countries were a terrorism problem, a crime and welfare problem, drive cars like morons, and say that this is not prejudice, it is based upon reason and experience. Then say that aborigines were a crime and welfare problem, were noted for their extreme violence towards aboriginal women, were generally a pain in the ass, and that this was not prejudice, it was based upon reason and experience.

How come when I prejudge, it is prejudice? But when you prejudge, it is not prejudice?

AJ wrote "Firstly, I didn’t imply that they were harmful, I stated it outright. Secondly, at no point did I say that every one of them was common to all religions."

AJ wrote "No generalisations were made."

AJ wrote "Correct, and at no point have I generalised."

OK, you stated outright that these nine negative religious beliefs were harmful, and only implied they were common to all. If you were not specific, you were generalising. Please state which religion all of these nine negative beliefs apply to? Got you squirming, eh AJ?

AJ wrote "At no point have I said anything about ttbn’s attitudes towards gay people. I merely referred to those who vilify gay people."

You plainly stated that the reason for the high suicide rate of homosexual people was because of the attitudes of people who think like ttbn. You stereotyped a group of people based upon a collective belief, and then vilified them collectively as "vile". You stereotyped and prejudged.

LEGO,

It all depends on if your claims are based on experience and reason.

<<How come when I prejudge, it is prejudice? But when you prejudge, it is not prejudice?>>

That’s not the case at all. Put simply, I haven’t prejudged anyone yet. Do I really need to provide you with the definition of prejudice again?

<<…you stated outright that these nine negative religious beliefs were harmful…>>

Correct, and only a complete idiot would disagree with me. Care to try explaining why they are not harmful?

<<…and only implied they were common to all.>>

I implied no such thing. I simply compiled a list of harms presented by non-Islamic religions. That I meant for them to apply to all non-Islamic religions is your own face-saving lie.

<<If you were not specific, you were generalising.>>

Wrong. I would have only been generalising if I were applying them to all non-Islamic religions. At no point did I do this.

<<Please state which religion all of these nine negative beliefs apply to?>>

Mostly Christianity. It’s what I specialise in, having been a Christian once before. Of course, that’s not to say that all Christians act or think like that, as I alluded to when I referred to them as, “a very diverse group of people.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319882)

<<Got you squirming, eh AJ?>>

No, you’re just lying again. There’s a difference. You’re a pathological liar and I love exposing that.

<<You plainly stated that the reason for the high suicide rate of homosexual people was because of the attitudes of people who think like ttbn.>>

No, I “plainly stated” to runner that "[t]he only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like [him]." However, I should have said, "The main reason..."

Would you like me to link you to the evidence for this? Of course not.

<<You stereotyped a group of people based upon a collective belief…>>

No, I pointed out that vilification is the reason for so many gay youth committing suicide. That’s not a stereotype or prejudice. It’s just a fact.

AJ wrote "It all depends on if your claims are based on experience and reason."

Then you and your PC friends had better change their objection to prejudging and stereotyping, and say that it is OK to do it if you use experience and reason.

AJ wrote "That’s not the case at all. Put simply, I haven’t prejudged anyone yet."

Trendy lefties claim it is wrong to stereotype entire groups of people and then use that stereotype to prejudge individual members. You just did that twice. You said that all religions are harmful, and then submitted a list of nine religious beliefs to make your point. You did not specify which religion these nine harmful beliefs applied to, so it had to be a generalisation. If all religions are harmful, then the beliefs of the individuals who comprise the membership of all religions is also harmful. You just stereotyped every individual religious person on planet Earth as having beliefs which are harmful. That is a generalised and oversimplified prejudgement of all religious people that implies they are all a harmful threat.

AJ wrote "Wrong. I would have only been generalising if I were applying them to all non-Islamic religions. At no point did I do this."

It does not matter if you stereotyped the beliefs any religion, or of all religions, or any group of people at all. If you claim that any group of people has collective negative attributes, you are stereotyping that group, especially if you use those negative attributes to judge individual members.

AJ wrote No, I “plainly stated” to runner that "[t]he only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like [him]." However, I should have said, "The main reason..."

OK, so "the main reason" that homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the attitudes of "vile" people like ttbn. Therefore, an entire group of people who think like ttbn are "vile." You just stereotyped an entire group of people as having the same attitudes as ttbn, and you then prejudged every individual one of them as "vile"

Err, no, LEGO.

<<Then you and your PC friends had better ... say that it is OK to do it if you use experience and reason.>>

Because it's not pre-judging when it's based on reason and/or experience. The 'pre' refers to before experience or without reason. You're not very good with definitions, are you?

<<Trendy lefties claim it is wrong to stereotype entire groups of people...>>

Yes, and they can demonstrate it too.

<<...and then use that stereotype to prejudge individual members.>>

"... [one] cannot, by definition, stereotype one person." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318400)

<<You just [stereotyped] twice.>>

No, I didn't. I've already shown that I didn't. Lying about it again isn't going to change that.

<<You said that all religions are harmful, and then submitted a list of nine religious beliefs to make your point.>>

No, I said that non-Islam religions are harmful too.

<<You did not specify which religion these nine harmful beliefs applied to...>>

Yes I did, in that the list was provided in response to the claim that non-Islamic religions are harmless.

<<If all religions are harmful, then the beliefs of the individuals who comprise the membership of all religions is also harmful.>>

Correct. I've already stated that.

<<You just stereotyped every individual religious person on planet Earth as having beliefs which are harmful.>>

No, because my elaboration was not an oversimplification.

<<If you claim that any group of people has collective negative attributes, you are stereotyping that group...>>

Not if one can demonstrate the claim's accuracy, which I've already done: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319943

<<OK, so "the main reason" that homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the attitudes of "vile" people like ttbn.>>

You accusing ttbn of vilification again? Tsk, tsk.

<<Therefore, an entire group of people who think like ttbn are "vile.">>

"...describing someone who vilifies others for traits they cannot help and that do not hurt others as "vile", is not an oversimplification." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319911)

You're a slow fellow, aren't you LEGO? It's just as well I'm a patient man.

AJ wrote "Because it's not pre-judging when it's based on reason and/or experience. The 'pre' refers to before experience or without reason. You're not very good with definitions, are you?"

"Prejudging" means to judge before having sufficient evidence. In a legal situation, juries may only judge a defendant on the evidence presented to the court, not by any "evidence" presented in media accounts, or through hearsay. Outside of a courtroom, (where a judge rules on evidentiary relevance and inclusion) what constitutes "having sufficient evidence" is entirely subjective.

If you say that it is alright to prejudge people "if you use experience and reason", then everybody can claim that they can prejudge, using the same excuse. If you prejudge Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen as contemptuous people "using experience and reason", I can do exactly the same thing for any minority group I am leery of, saying I am using "reason and experience" as well. Then we can fight over whether or not each others evidence is "sufficient."

It was the Left who tried to define what "without sufficient evidence" was. Trendy lefties do not want individuals from minority groups that are notorious for their bad behaviour, judged by their group associations. So they have declared it is wrong to stereotype minority groups with negative attributes, and then apply those attributes to individual members of that minority group. They are declaring it is wrong prejudge individuals using a negative stereotype of their group membership.

There was just a couple of things wrong with that little declaration.. Everybody stereotypes to think, and everybody judges individual people by their group associations.

I warned you I would catch you doing it yourself, and it did not take me long to do it. I am going to keep on doing it until you admit that you are wrong. If I can make you understand that one aspect of your holy orthodoxy is utterly ridiculous, it might stimulate some neuronal activity within your atrophied brain. You might begin to question your holy writ and begin thinking straight

LEGO,

I was once chastised by three people at once on OLO for pointing out that what someone had said was a “flat out lie”. Apparently, to some on OLO, calling out a lie is abuse. I strongly disagree and, as I pointed out then, anyone who thinks that pointing out a lie is abuse has lead a very cushy life.

Nevertheless, since that day, I have done my best to be as polite as I possibly can in order to avoid such accusations and to be a better debater. But I’m now going to make an exception for you and would challenge anyone on OLO to accuse me of unnecessary and so-called “abuse”.

Why?

Because you’re a flat out frickin’ liar. That’s why. And I’m sick to death of beating around the bush about it. From this point forth I will highlight every one of your disgusting little lies because the truth matters more than my reputation.

<<"Prejudging" means to judge before having sufficient evidence.>>

Correct.

<<In a legal situation, juries may only judge a defendant on the evidence presented to the court, not by any "evidence" presented in media accounts, or through hearsay.>>

Well this isn’t a legal situation, but yes.

<<Outside of a courtroom, (where a judge rules on evidentiary relevance and inclusion) what constitutes "having sufficient evidence" is entirely subjective.>>

Somewhat, maybe.

<<If you say that it is alright to prejudge people "if you use experience and reason"…>>

I haven’t said that at all, you idiot. Pre-judging is never alright. Here’s the definition of prejudice for you for the seventeenth frickin’ time…

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

<<It was the Left who tried to define what "without sufficient evidence" was.>>

Oh, was it? Please tell me when they did this.

<<Everybody stereotypes to think...>>

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

<<I warned you I would catch you [stereotyping] yourself…>>

And you’re still yet to spot a single instance of it. Sixty odd posts over two threads and still nothing.

You're Pathetic.

Well, it's taken me a while, but I've finally found the instances of bullying (or ganging up on) that I received after merely calling out a lie from someone who was overtly dishonest. Here they are...

Grim:
"I feel extremely confident suggesting that these forums attract far more readers than writers. I feel this is unfortunate, as I'm sure many of these readers could make interesting, if not valuable contributions.
I'm also quite confident in suggesting the reason many of these readers do not add their words to discussions, is because of rude or hostile comments.
Personally, I have always found Dan S.'s posts interesting, even though I usually don't share his views." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151439)

david f:
"I would add my voice to Grim's. [Because doing so is so-o-o-o-o-o necessary.] The comment was made referring to Dan S.:

[Just in case anyone missed it.]

"What you said was a flat-out lie, and a stupid one at that considering one need only scroll-up to see that it wasn’t even true."

I also agree with little of what Dan S. says. However, Dan S. is courteous [passive aggressiveness is not courtesy, but, whatever] and does not use abusive language like the above from what I have seen of his posts. He deserves the same courtesy in reply. I compliment Dan S. on the fact that he does not resort to such language in return. It would be good to have more people posting with various points of view, and I feel that personal attacks and abusive language might be deterring more people from contributing to the discussion."

Then there was Relda:
"Grim & david f,

I can only concur with your comments [As if two above instances of pontification above weren't enough.]. No matter how much any of us might disagree with Dan (or anyone else), an argument can never be settled through personal attack.

Perhaps our views may not change – but, at best, I'd prefer mine to be challenged and disagreed with by a demeanor that gives me pause to reflect, “My sight, perchance, is a little narrow." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151442)

OLO bullying.

Hi AJ. I think it is just wonderful that you have spat the dummy out, and that you are reacting angrily to my posts. You are even resorting to straight out abuse, and that from a person who has preached to ttbn and others about how unacceptable it is to make personal attacks, or to bully. Double standards and hypocrisy obviously don't worry you. You must be feeling the pressure. I don't need to be angry or abuse you, AJ, because I am calm and in control. And I just don't have the word space to waste abusing you. I need all of my 350 word posts to counter your ridiculous assertions, and to reply with a reasoned argument.

AJ wrote "I haven’t said that at all, you idiot. Pre-judging is never alright. Here’s the definition of prejudice for you for the seventeenth frickin’ time…"

For the seventeenth frickin' time, AJ, you can't stereotype groups of people that you don't like and prejudge them, and then say that you are not stereotyping and prejudging them, because "intelligent" people "understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so." Or say that your prejudgments are not prejudgments, because your negative opinions about entire groups of people are simply "judgements" that are "are based upon reason and experience."

If you attack me for stereotyping and prejudging, all I have to do is come out with the same silly excuses that you have come out with. I can say I am intelligent, and I know when it is appropriate to do it. Or I can say that my prejudgements are not prejudgements, they are just judgements.

The problem with making moral principles that you insist everybody must abide by, AJ, is that you are supposed to live up to them yourself. Not "rationalise" why you may transgress, and then scream that that your opponents are all idiots, and that they may not.

You have now stereotyped and prejudged Christian fundamentalists, Creationists, criminal profilers, every religion and religious person in the world, and "vile people who think like ttbn." I wonder who is next?

It’s easy for you to say, LEGO.

<<I think it is just wonderful that you have spat the dummy out, and that you are reacting angrily to my posts.>>

You’re not the one dealing with continuous lies and slander.

<<You are even resorting to straight out abuse…>>

How do you figure that I need to “resort” to anything given that not one of your arguments has held?

<<…and that from a person who has preached to ttbn and others about how unacceptable it is to make personal attacks, or to bully.>>

The solution is simple. Don’t lie then.

<<AJ, you can't stereotype groups of people that you don't like and prejudge them, and then say that you are not stereotyping and prejudging them, because "intelligent" people "understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so.">>

I couldn’t agree more. It is never appropriate to do so. And suggesting that I have ever said that is alright in some circumstances is a lie.

<<Or say that your prejudgments are not prejudgments, because your negative opinions about entire groups of people are simply "judgements" that are "are based upon reason and experience.">>

If a judgment is based on reason or experience the it is, by definition, not prejudice.

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

<<If you attack me for stereotyping and prejudging, all I have to do is come out with the same silly excuses that you have come out with. I can say I am intelligent, and I know when it is appropriate to do it.>>

No, because it’s never alright, no matter how intelligent one is.

Is that a second lie, or does it still count as the first one?

<<Or I can say that my prejudgements are not prejudgements, they are just judgements.>>

If they are based on experience and/or reason, then it wouldn’t be prejudice in the first place.

<<The problem with making moral principles that you insist everybody must abide by, AJ, is that you are supposed to live up to them yourself.>>

Correct.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Not "rationalise" why you may transgress, and then scream that that your opponents are all idiots, and that they may not.>>

Absolutely. It's good to see that we agree on some things.

Now this is where you post get’s juicy…

<<You have now stereotyped and prejudged Christian fundamentalists…>>

It should come as no surprise that you cannot point to where I have done this.

<<…Creationists…>

Nor this.

<<…criminal profilers…>>

"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." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318288)

<<…every religion and religious person in the world…>>

“Even those whose religious beliefs present a seemingly non-existent threat are still an indirect threat to reason in that they act as enablers for those who hold the wackier beliefs and rely on the billions of their fellow travellers for the legitimacy of those beliefs.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319943)

That’s not an oversimplification.

<<…and "vile people who think like ttbn."…>>

It was actually runner I was talking about. And yes, people who vilify homosexuals in the way that runner does are vile people in the same way that he is for doing that. That’s not an oversimplification.

So there you have it. Five lies in one simple paragraph, coming to a grand total of seven (or eight) lies in one post.

And still not a stereotype to be found.

I've ploughed through the quagmire of assaults on the English language in this thread to set out the UK response to those who seek to use its hate speech legislation to muzzle challenges to appeasement:

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Under the Public Order Act of 1986, a person guilty of breaching the law against intimidatory hate speech is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

HOWEVER this Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

A worthwhile template to strip the muzzle from laws in Australia.

AJ wrote "If they are based on experience and/or reason, then it wouldn’t be prejudice in the first place."

If you form a judgement of a group people with "good reason" from a "previous experience", and you use that previously formed judgement again, then you are obviously using a prejudgement, aren't you? If you do not prejudge, then any "judgements" you make of any group of people can only be made from first hand experience in the present time.

In regards to "stereotyping", you have submitted one definition, that of.......

"A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."

I now have four definitions of "Stereotyping" of my own, and not one of judges the word exclusively as an "oversimplification." Who is right? How about we read the words of Walter Lippmann, the man who invented the word?

From the book "Typecasting" page 52.

Walter Lippmann quote

"We have to organise the world on a simpler model in order to manage it. To traverse the world, men must have maps."

"Typecasting" page 52.

"The word "stereotype" (in a psychological sense) was first coined by journalist Walter Lippmann. In the modern world, he argued, their utility was essential. The complexity of modern existence, and the global reach of contemporary society, made it impossible for any person to make sense of the world through firsthand knowledge."

Stereotypes can be simple, oversimplified, simplistic, totally correct, near correct, near wrong, or totally wrong. But everybody has to use them, because we need to use them to create simple concepts so that we can think. The science of Psychology agrees with that premise.

Stereotype definitions.

"Stereotype content refers to the attributes which characterise a group." WIKI

"Stereotypes are categories of objects or people." WIKI

"Stereotypes are mental concepts of the classification of people, events, objects, or situations."

"Stereotyping is defining people through simplistic categories."

"Stereotypes can help make sense of the world. They are a form of categorization that helps to simplify and systematize information. Thus, information is more easily identified, recalled, predicted, and reacted to."

No, LEGO.

<<If you form a judgement of a group people with "good reason" from a "previous experience", and you use that previously formed judgement again, then you are obviously using a prejudgement, aren't you?>>

Prejudge:
"Form a judgement on (an issue or person) prematurely and without having adequate information" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudge)

<<If you do not prejudge, then any "judgements" you make of any group of people can only be made from [first-hand] experience in the present time.>>

Or be based on “adequate information”. See above.

<<How about we read the words of Walter Lippmann, the man who invented the word?>>

There’s nothing wrong with Lippman’s definition (or the Wiki definitions, for that matter). It refers to mental shortcuts, which I had accepted the existence of long ago on this topic. Which is why I was continually repeating this comment of mine:

"You’ve also ignored my distinction between merely ‘thinking in stereotypes’, and moving past them in order to reason in more complex situations." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317651)

A comment you never addressed.

But I have been talking about stereotypes in the colloquial sense. The only sense that dictionaries appear to define. You have skirted around this fact by never acknowledging my distinction above, and in doing so, you’re committing the fallacy of Equivocation:

"...when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

Thus you make out as if saying, "The only aboriginal people who appear to me to have any brains, are those who have had a dose of white genes injected into their mothers wombs." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#43534), is just as acceptable as, say, a stereotypical image of a tree automatically springing to one’s mind when one thinks of what a typical tree looks like.

You conflate the formal psychological sense of the word with the informal colloquial sense to justify horrendous and unfair oversimplifications, and this is why equivocation is a fallacy.

Thanks Julian,

That really clarifies the dividing line between threats, incitement, vilification etc., and freedom of speech.

I have to say it makes what is at stake at the QUT much clearer. Thanks again.

Cheers,

Joe

Then everybody prejudges. Human beings judge without "adequate information" most of the time AJ. We have to make decisions about our personal safety, who we trust, who we trust with our kids, who we trust to represent us, who we trust to store or invest our money, who we should get into a car with, who we should hire, who we should allow to immigrate into our country, or who should be allowed to join our club.

We do not personally know everybody in the world, or have "adequate information" about everybody in the world, so we rely upon our knowledge of the classifications of people to form a judgment about the personal character of any unknown individual that we need to interact with. So we stereotype and prejudge them, as you have now done five times.

AJ wrote "You’ve also ignored my distinction between merely ‘thinking in stereotypes’, and moving past them in order to reason in more complex situations."

I ignored it because it is ridiculous. Everybody must simplify their concepts of people, objects, and situations in order to think about them. Everybody stereotypes to think. Everybody forms judgements about other groups of people, be they Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, Creationists, fundamentalist Christians, criminal profilers, religious people in general, or even "vile" people who think like ttbn.

"Moving past" stereotypes means that you must say that a group of endothermatic vertebrates characterised by a beak or bill with no teeth, the laying of hard shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a lightweight but strong skeleton, and typically, the ability to fly", is adopting the pose of having it's legs folded with it's hindquarters on a road vehicle, which typically has four wheels, and is able to carry only a small but undetermined number of people"........ Instead of saying "a flock of birds is sitting on a car."

Saying that stereotyping and prejudging is wrong, is exactly like saying that thinking is wrong. Or saying that sex is wrong. Sex is not wrong, because just like stereotyping, prejudging and thinking, everybody does it.

LEGO,

Your first two paragraphs were the equivocation fallacy again.

The problem with the Equivocation fallacy is that some idiot might come along and think that it is therefore alright to claim that all blacks are dumb (as if it were no different to unconsciously visualising what one considers to be a typical looking tree) bait the unsuspecting by proudly declaring a themselves a racist, and then - thinking that he's smart when he then points out that everybody prejudges and stereotypes - imply that his detractors are hypocrites.

<<So we stereotype and prejudge them, as you have now done five times.>>

There’s another lie and I already demonstrated that it was a lie in my last post.

<<I ignored it because it is ridiculous. Everybody must simplify their concepts of people, [etc.]…>>

What I said was not ridiculous at all. It was a valid distinction (ignored in your committing of the Equivocation fallacy) that I just gave an example of in my last post:

"...you make out as if saying, "The only aboriginal people who appear to me to have any brains, are those who have had a dose of white genes injected into their mothers wombs." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4490#43534), is just as acceptable as, say, a stereotypical image of a tree automatically springing to one’s mind when one thinks of what a typical tree looks like." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#320037)

Arguing that everybody must simplify their concepts of people, etc. doesn’t not invalidate what I said. My point still stands.

<<Everybody stereotypes to think.>>

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

<<Everybody forms judgements about other groups of people, be they Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, Creationists, fundamentalist Christians, criminal profilers, religious people in general, or even "vile" people who think like ttbn.>>

Now you’ve switched from prejudgements/prejudice to mere judgements - which are perfectly fine. Hang on, I just had a sense of déjà vu. Oh, that’s right…

“…you’re supposed to be responding to prejudice here, according to your quote of mine.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318783)

Continued...

Continued...

By the way, your insinuation there constitutes another five lies. No, no. Don’t worry, I’ll keep tally of them. We’re at fifteen now.

<<Moving past" stereotypes means that you must say that a group of endothermatic vertebrates characterised by … Instead of saying "a flock of birds is sitting on a car.>>

No, because saying “birds” isn’t an over simplification.

<<Saying that stereotyping and prejudging is wrong, is exactly like saying that 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)

<<Or saying that sex is wrong. Sex is not wrong, because just like stereotyping, prejudging and thinking, everybody does it.>>

"Another fallacious appeal to nature and common practice." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318784)

Total lies: 15
Total fallacies: 3

AJ wrote "The problem with the Equivocation fallacy is that some idiot might come along and think that it is therefore alright to claim that all blacks are dumb.........."

Or claim that racism was wrong, but will not debate from a position that all races are equal. Or claims that aboriginal dysfunction is all the white man's fault, because it is all caused by white dispossession and discrimination. Claims he himself is against racism, but will not acknowledge his racism towards the white race. Ignores the harm which multiculturalism does to his own culture, and pretends that very disproportionate rates of serious ethnic criminal behaviour (which includes terrorism) is all a media beat up and a figment of the public's imagination.

AJ wrote "There’s another lie and I already demonstrated that it was a lie in my last post."

Of course you must pretend it is a lie. If you acknowledge the truth, then your entire position crashes in a heap. Better to keep claiming that black is somehow white, to keep up appearances and stay in the game.

Introduction to Psychology. page 282.

"Another means by which we construct memories is through the use of social stereotypes. A stereotype is a set of inferences about the personality traits or physical attributes of a whole class of people. We may, for example, have a stereotype of a typical German (intelligent, meticulous, serious), or the typical Italian (artistic, carefree, fun loving). These stereotypes rarely apply to many in that class, and can be misleading for social interaction. But our concerns are not with the effects of stereotypes on social interaction, but their effects on memory."

"When confronted with an unknown person, we sometimes stereotype that person (e.g. "He is a typical Italian") and then combine that information in our stereotype. Our memory of the person is thus partly constructed from the stereotype."

"Psychologists use the term schema to refer to the mental representation of a class of people, objects, events, or situations. Schemas are a type of stereotype in that they represent classes of people (Germans, Italians, or women athletes.)"

Understanding Psychology. page 101.

"Stereotypes are convenient mental short cuts employed by our perceptual system. Stereotypes then, are organising strategies based upon habits, experience, and cultural folklore that enable an individual to asses some new experience in their environment. Stereotyping involves identifying some salient feature of the object or event and using this to organise and predict other aspects of the event."

"An effective stereotype evoked by a particular stimulus should contain an enormous amount of information in order too assist in the recognition processes. What should constantly happen is that the "scientist" within us should carry out checks on the accuracy of the assessment and modify the stereotype as necessary. Habits, laziness, or rigid personality can prevent us from examining our store of stereotypes, and we tend to filter only the "right" information."

Saying that "Creationists have 19th century views" is a stereotype which you have used to make a prejudgement. It is a prejudgement that is accurate.

Saying that socialist humanitarians have 19th century views, is also a stereotype, and it is also a prejudgement. It is also accurate.

Tell a Creationist that science shows us that his 19th century views, that the world was created in 6 days is wrong, and he does not want to know. Put a bunch of Creationists together in a town like Dayton, Tennessee, and they will persecute the local high school science teacher who says that their beliefs are nonsense. Show one of them a museum full of fossils that prove his religion wrong, and he makes up stupid explanations to explain away what he fears to see. Faith in his religion is everything.

Tell a socialist humanitarian like AJ that his 19th century views, that people are all equal is nonsense, and he does not want to know. Put a bunch of Socialists together in a university and they will persecute any professor who says their beliefs are nonsense. Show AJ excerpts from scientific psychology books that prove that human beings stereotype to think, and he will come up with stupid explanations. Faith in AJ's belief system is everything.

No, that wouldn’t be the Equivocation fallacy, LEGO.

<<Or claim that racism was wrong, but will not debate from a position that all races are equal.>>

You, on the other hand, refused to clarify what you meant my “equal” in order leave the Equivocation fallacy open to yourself as a debating tactic. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284116)

That’s another lie.

<<Or claims that aboriginal dysfunction is all the white man's fault, because it is all caused by white dispossession and discrimination.>>

Nope. Never said that.

Another lie.

<<Claims he himself is against racism, but will not acknowledge his racism towards the white race.>

Nope. Never refused to acknowledge racism against whites. It's becoming horrendous in South Africa from what I hear.

Yet another lie.

<<Ignores the harm which multiculturalism does to his own culture, and pretends that very disproportionate rates of serious ethnic criminal behaviour (which includes terrorism) is all a media beat up and a figment of the public's imagination.>>

Never said anything like that either. You’re doing well on the lie count here, aren’t you?

Is it any wonder you cannot provide me with any quotes?

<<Of course you must pretend it is a lie. If you acknowledge the truth, then your entire position crashes in a heap.>>

No, once again, I actually demonstrated that your claims were lies. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#320004)

<<Better to keep claiming that black is somehow white, to keep up appearances and stay in the game.>>

Do you have an example or am I going to add this to the tally too. I think I’ll give the tally a break for the moment.

Thanks for all the quotes from the psychology textbook explaining what I have already acknowledge yonks ago when I said: “…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

A comment you still haven’t negated.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Saying that "Creationists have 19th century views" is a stereotype which you have used to make a prejudgement.>>

No, because the creationists’ views on evolution (to which I was alluding at the time) was not an oversimplification of their views, nor was is based on inadequate information.

So that’s another lie. Sheesh.

<<Tell a socialist humanitarian like AJ that his 19th century views, that people are all equal is nonsense, and he does not want to know.>>

Again, what do you mean by “equal”? You won't clarify that will you? It would prevent you from committing the Equivocation fallacy by switching back and forth between two notions of equality.

<<Show AJ excerpts from scientific psychology books that prove that human beings stereotype to think, and he will come up with stupid explanations.>>

Such as?

Lies: 20
Fallacies: 3

AJ wrote "You, on the other hand, refused to clarify what you meant my “equal” in order leave the Equivocation fallacy open to yourself as a debating tactic."

I am a racist, and I say that the different human races have different physical and mental attributes, and different personalities. I am prepared to debate that anytime. Now, what is your position? Don't just get cute and say "I oppose your position". Because that means by default that you are claiming that all human races are equal in every way. State exactly what your position is, or I will know right away that you know I am right, but you will never admit it. You are prepared to "debate" a position which you yourself know is wrong.

AJ wrote "Is it any wonder you cannot provide me with any quotes?"

I was not aware until recently that you had me targeted. But don't worry AJ, I am keeping a "clangers" file on you now. I have been down this path before with people who say one thing, then claim they did not say it when I back them into a corner.

AJ wrote "Thanks for all the quotes from the psychology textbook explaining what I have already acknowledge yonks ago when I said: “…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations."

Gee, that's funny. Nowhere in my psychology books did the authors claim that "intelligent" people did not think in stereotypes, just like everybody else.

Nobody can make any criticism of any group of people unless he has a stereotype of what that group of people is, and what characterises them as a group. Everybody criticises groups of people that they do not like. If you claim otherwise, then you are backing yourself into a corner. You can never criticise any group of people, or even make generalities about their values, attitudes or behaviours, without stereotyping and prejudging them. It is the way everybody thinks, and if you say different, then lotsa luck trying to avoid it.

I know, LEGO.

<<I am a racist, and I say that the different human races have different physical and mental attributes…>>>

I agree when it comes to physical attributes. Race is, after all, a difference between groups of people that are simply defined by UV exposure and latitude.

<<…and I think you realised that.>>

As far as UV exposure and the latitude go? Absolutely. As for intelligence, you are yet to prove that whites and Asians are superior. How would latitude and UV exposure create an intellectually superior race? How do you even measure that intelligence? With a Western biased IQ test? And if so, how does one account for the cultural differences?

<<I am prepared to debate that anytime.>>

Then bring it on, bitch. You have challenged me multiple times before and failed on every occasion. What makes you think this time will be any different?

<<Now, what is your position?>>

On what?

Tell me and I’ll gladly inform you.

<<Don't just get cute and say "I oppose your position".>>

As if I’ve ever done that before.

<<Because that means by default that you are claiming that all human races are equal in every way.>>

I have never claimed that. See above.

<<State exactly what your position is, or I will know right away that you know I am right, but you will never admit it. You are prepared to "debate" a position which you yourself know is wrong. >>

Note to all: Remember how I mentioned that LEGO won’t explain what he means by “equal”? Well, he’s refusing to do it again. Take note of that.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I was not aware until recently that you had me targeted.>>

What difference should that make? Do your arguments suddenly become better when someone has targeted you? If so, then why? Wouldn’t you just put the most rational argument forth on your first attempt?

<<But don't worry AJ, I am keeping a "clangers" file on you now. I have been down this path before with people who say one thing, then claim they did not say it when I back them into a corner.>>

Yeah, still waiting for that alleged corner that I’m supposed to be eventually backed in to. Doesn’t look like it’ll ever happen though.

<<Gee, that's funny. Nowhere in my psychology books did the authors claim that "intelligent" people did not think in stereotypes, just like everybody else.>>

Gee, that’s funny. In nowhere did my response intend to claim or imply that “intelligent people” did not think in stereotypes.

You’re not a very bright fellow, are you LEGO? Either way, just be aware that, given you are the type who thinks that the one who has the last word is the winner of a debate, I am never going to let that happen. I already have one discussion up my sleeve as a demonstration of the sheer frickin’ stupidity of your entire racist worldview (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896&page=0). This will simply be yet another.

Bye bye, LEGO. I realise that some on OLO will consider my tone towards you as abuse, but they are obviously too stupid to realise just how gosh darned dangerous a fool like you is.

Lies: 20
Fallacies

I have had a change of heart, LEGO. I've decided to count your claim, that I said that intelligent people never stereotype, as a lie. So that actually brings the tally up to 21, sorry. Well, I'm not sorry that I've raised the count. I'm sorry that there has to be one in the first place. You see, your lies are such gosh darned offensive, and sometimes even slanderous, misrepresentations of what I think and say, that you shouldn't be allowed to simply move on and pretend you didn't say them when they’re shown to be false, only to do the same thing again later on.

I'm also going to change the 'Fallacies' count from 'types of fallacies' to 'use of fallacious arguments'. I mean, it would hardly be an accurate reflection of how fallacious your reasoning is if you commit, say, the Appeal to Nature fallacy on multiple occasions yet the tally were to remain at three. Perhaps I could keep track of both? What do you think?

The tally will also carry over to our discussions on other threads. Just as well I didn't start it in that last discussion of ours on stereotyping, eh? You'd have well and truly hit triple figures by now.

Of course, I'd be happy to do away with the tally altogether if you just promised to try not to lie. But, as even your insistence that your opponents state a position beyond the fact that they think you're wrong suggests, you need to attack what you think your opponents think to distract from the weaknesses in your own arguments, and you're hardly going to be able to do that without the odd lie here and there, are you.

By the way, don't think the fact that you have tried to drag the discussion to your favourite topic of race had escaped me. Given that you think it's your strong point, it's probably about as close as I'm going to get to a concession that you just aren't doing well on the topic of stereotyping and prejudice.

Lies: 21
Fallacies: 3

AJ wrote

"I agree when it comes to physical attributes."

Which IMPLIES that you do not agree when it comes to intelligence and personality. The reason why you will not state that plainly, is because you have no argument to support that position. But, you know that I have valid arguments which support my position. So, the trick is, to attack my arguments, while saying nothing yourself that you will have to justify.

This proves that my position is based upon reason, yours is based upon belief.

AJ wrote "Then bring it on, bitch."

State your position, bitch. I trusted you to engage in serious debate before, but I now know that you will stoop to any subterfuge to prevaricate, or even avoid submitting a position that you are prepared to defend.

AJ wrote "What difference should that make? Do your arguments suddenly become better when someone has targeted you? If so, then why?"

I had you pegged as just another naive but honest trendy lefty who was easy meat. I did not realise that you were an obsessed individual who would stop at nothing to try and ream me out. That included refusing to state your position prior to debate, in order to avoid justifying your own position, or saying one thing and then denying later that you had said it.

AJ wrote "Yeah, still waiting for that alleged corner that I’m supposed to be eventually backed in to. Doesn’t look like it’ll ever happen though."

Every time you stereotype and prejudge, I am going to ream you out. All you can do to defend yourself, is to claim that black is white.

AJ wrote "I already have one discussion up my sleeve as a demonstration of the sheer frickin’ stupidity of your entire racist worldview."

My racist attitudes are ones I am prepared to state and defend. Your anti racist attitudes are so poorly held by yourself, that you are too frightened to even state plainly what they are, because you have no argument to defend them

AJ wrote "Gee, that’s funny. In nowhere did my response intend to claim or imply that “intelligent people” did not think in stereotypes."

I have your quote saying otherwise. But you are backing yourself into a corner again. Are you now saying that intelligent people do stereotype? Oh, goody. Please state that in a sentence so that I can put it in your "clangers" file. Failure to do so, means that you have realised that you are submitting a position that you will not be able to change when it is convenient.

AJ wrote "I have had a change of heart, LEGO. I've decided to count your claim, that I said that intelligent people never stereotype, as a lie."

Here you are.

AJ quote "Intelligent people are able to look past (stereotyping) and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so."

Not only did your statement clearly imply that "intelligent people" do not stereotype, it is in fact a stereotype of "intelligent people" itself. It attributes a common characteristic to all "intelligent people". Please explain how any "intelligent" person can "look past" stereotyping what a Zulu or a Swede is from their memory, when making any opinion about these groups of people?

AJ wrote. "Of course, I'd be happy to do away with the tally altogether if you just promised to try not to lie. But, as even your insistence that your opponents state a position beyond the fact that they think you're wrong suggests, you need to attack what you think your opponents think to distract from the weaknesses in your own arguments, and you're hardly going to be able to do that without the odd lie here and there, are you."

I love the way you grandstand for the audience, AJ. But you and I both know that the reason you never did what I did, and plainly stated your position on the race issue, is that you have no argument to support your presumed position that all races are equal in intelligence and personality.

Not quite, LEGO.

<<Which IMPLIES that you do not agree when it comes to intelligence and personality.>>

But I’ll refrain from adding this to the lie tally because I’m a fair person and this could have been a genuine misinterpretation.

I think intelligence and personality are also different from race to race.

But before you wet yourself with excitement, understand that the science states that such differences are due to sociological and cultural differences.

<<The reason why you will not state that plainly, is because you have no argument to support that position.>>

Really? I’ve unnecessarily stated my position on this matter so many times now that this will have to go down as yet another lie.

That makes 22.

<<But, you know that I have valid arguments which support my position.>>

Such as? Oh please, Present them to me now. I’ve been dying to read them!

<<So, the trick is, to attack my arguments, while saying nothing yourself that you will have to justify.>>

In other words, you need your opposition to state an opinion that you can attack in order to distract from the weaknesses in your arguments.

Why o’ why do you keep providing me with opportunities to point this out? Are you really that frickin’ stupid?

Looks like you really are.

<<State your position, bitch. I trusted you to engage in serious debate before, but I now know that you will stoop to any subterfuge to prevaricate, or even avoid submitting a position that you are prepared to defend.>>

Subterfuge? Oh dear, that’s going to have to go down to another lie given that I’ve been as open and honest as I possibly can be. Sorry, that makes 23 lies now.

<<I had you pegged as just another naive but honest trendy lefty who was easy meat. I did not realise that you were an obsessed individual who would stop at nothing to try and ream me out.>>

In other words, you did not realise that I was actually educated on this stuff, unlike yourself.

Continued…

…Continued

<<That included refusing to state your position prior to debate, in order to avoid justifying your own position, or saying one thing and then denying later that you had said it.>>

Nope, never once refused to state my position. There is however a difference between stating one’s position and needlessly stating more than one needs to because the idiot with whom the poor individual is debating requires as many words as possible to use as a red herring.

<<Every time you stereotype and prejudge, I am going to ream you out. All you can do to defend yourself, is to claim that black is white.>>

Then I look forward to the first time you manage to spot me prejudging or stereotyping. It should be a hoot. So far, you have not done that. That’s gotta be embarrassing. Either way, I could stereotype as much as I liked on the General section of the forums as you are too technological illiterate to even realise that that section of the forums even exists.

<<My racist attitudes are ones I am prepared to state and defend.>>

And not one of them has withstood any of my criticisms. Imagine that, just li’l ol’ me. Yet throughout the naughties, you somehow managed to get away with all your racist claims without anyone holding you to account. The naughties OLO readership was obviously not very bright, and it’s given you a false sense of confidence now.

<<Your {anti-racist} attitudes are so poorly held by yourself, that you are too frightened to even state plainly what they are, because you have no argument to defend them>>

Really? What is it that I’m too afraid to state, do you think? You don’t even know, do you?

That’s going to have to go down as another lie.

Lies: 24
Fallacies: 3

AJ wrote "I think intelligence and personality are also different from race to race. But before you wet yourself with excitement, understand that the science states that such differences are due to sociological and cultural differences."

Thank you, thank you, AJ Phillips. It only took about 12 months to drag that out of you. Did it take that long for you to think up a position you think you can defend?

AJ wrote "Such as? Oh please, Present them to me now. I’ve been dying to read them!"

You already have. But I think that we are digressing too much from the topic under discussion. I prefer to stay on topic with stereotyping and prejudging. Especially since I am wiping the floor with you.

AJ wrote "In other words, you did not realise that I was actually educated on this stuff, unlike yourself."

Indoctrinated, more like it. That is why you are so easy to counter. You have accepted the left wing ideology without question, and you just parrot the slogans. I accepted it as a young man too, then I realised that it was contradictory with glaring double standards, and that started me thinking rationally and logically.

AJ wrote "Nope, never once refused to state my position."

Oh look, Your nose just grew another inch. Sometimes, my opponents say something that is so ridiculous, it just takes my breath away. You have to ask yourself, "Is he dumb, or is he devious?" With you, I think it is both. I asked you over, and over, and over again, to post your position on racism. Every time you refused.


AJ wrote "And not one of them has withstood any of my criticisms."

I can not say that about your own position on racism. Other than the fact that you simply opposed everything I said, I never knew what it was.

AJ wrote "Then I look forward to the first time you manage to spot me prejudging or stereotyping. It should be a hoot. So far, you have not done that."

I have you down as doing it five times so far, but I forgot that you attributed a common characteristic to "intelligent people", in that they "are able to look past (stereotyping) and understand in what situations it is appropriate to do so." That makes six.

I can't stop you from saying that you are not stereotyping and prejudging, when you plainly are. But if anybody is reading this thread, they must be shaking their heads with pitying wonder at your stupidity. That is good. If they are left wingers, and they think that lefties are smart, then your position must be making them uncomfortable. I have displayed to lefties their own prejudging and stereotyping many times previously. In every case, it has really rocked them. You are the only one who stereotypes and prejudges, and then claims with a straight face that he is not doing it.

AJ wrote "Either way, I could stereotype as much as I liked on the General section of the forums as you are too technological illiterate to even realise that that section of the forums even exists."

I am certain I could catch you stereotyping hundreds of times, if I bothered to read back over your previous posts on OLO. But I don't need to do that. I can just sit here and catch you doing it on your future posts. It effectively means that you can never criticise any group of people again, or even attribute to them common characteristics. How the hell you are going to do that, I don't know. But that is your problem.