Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (119249)	6/10/2005 11:38:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793864

In fact, if the reaction to the fur wearer is automatic and without any concern for the individual involved, it is indeed stereotyping (if they're wearing fur they are ignorant or unconcerned about ...) Not a fact. Not at all. The reaction is to an individual taking an action. The conclusion is directly related to the action. That has nothing to do with stereotyping. If a defendant is caught with a knife and blood spattered all over him standing over a body with a dozen holes in it, the conclusion that he is vicious is hardly stereotyping. You're claiming that ordinary induction and deduction from known facts are stereotyping just because the action taken by that individual is not unique and the disapproval is of the action would apply to anyone else taking that action. For it to be stereotyping, our fur wearer would have to be judged lazy, for example, on the basis that "everyone knows" that fur wearers are lazy and fur wearers would have to be an identity group. Judging this person heartless is directly related to his known action. Other like offenders and any characteristics that they might share are irrelevant.