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Can you cite a single comment, either from a dumb-arse shock-jock or a newspaper or a TV program [wow, that shows how out-of-date I am, I didn't even think of social media], where peaceful, law-biding Muslims are condemned as you say ?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