long winded fool

A preconceived preference? Are there any other kinds of preferences? You are mixing prejudice and preference together into the same definition and then calling them different. Prejudice is an irrational preference. Yes, preferences can be rational and irrational. Preferences based on logical fallacies such as categorical errors are irrational. Preferences based solely on personal opinion are rational. "I like my green-eyed wife," is not prejudice. "Green-eyed women are superior to all other women," is. When arguing about a term, it is wise to use the definition and the context provided by the opponent. To do otherwise is to attack a strawman.

Dr Rick

Prejudices are preferences, but not all preferences are prejudices. If I've looked at various sports cars and analyzed thier strengths and weaknesses, and have decided I want a Lamborghini instead of a Ferrari based on the evidence, that 's a preference, not a prejudice.

long winded fool

Yet in the very same post you write and I quote:

Prejudice is a preconceived preference or idea;

Is this the definition you are using or are you conceding the one accepted by society?

Dr Rick

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

prejudice
SYLLABICATION: prej·u·dice
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: prj-ds KEY
NOUN: 1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
1b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

Once again, your idiosyncratic description: is nowhere to be found or supported in a standard reference.

As you attempt to understand logic, don't forget the basics; one needs to define one's terms, but the definitions and terms need to actually make some sense.

I've explained the definition I was employing ad nauseum while acknowledging others, and when a rational poster has suggested another definition, I've explicitly addressed and worked with it, too. Your last question is no more meaningful than asking, " Are you prepared to concede that a flounder is a fish?" If you want to use another definition, bring it on, but please make sure it's a definition other English-speaking people use, and try to make a coherent point with it, too.

This assertion: is truly dumbfounding; if we all followed that advice, then we'd all be arguing with eachother's different definitions much of the time, with me using my opponents definition and my opponent using mine. Definitions need to be spelled-out explicitly and agreed upon, something you have great trouble doing. You assert your definition and then fight any attempt to refine it or use another one, and call that "logic." It's not logic, it's just nonsense, and it's tedious and boring.

Your interpretations and assertions are at best confusing, and at worst incomprehensible. You post bizzare strawmen such as: followed by: and then this nonsense: Prejudices are a subset of personal opinions and you just got done telling us that prejudices are irrational.

You complained:

Quote:

You are mixing prejudice and preference together into the same definition and then calling them different.

and then proceeded to mix them together to in the same definition to differentiate them:

Really, lwf; your arguments are rather dull and uninteresting. You argue definitions as much as you argue concepts, and when you do the latter, your position is too often bizarre and irrational rather than inspired or informative. At the very least, you should stop throwing the word "logic" around in your posts, because doing so makes them unintentionally ironic.

tudal

Wait a minute. Dictionary.com defines "preconceive" as, "To form (an opinion, for example) before possessing full or adequate knowledge or experience." And using this definition and the one you provided for "prejudice", I create this definition:

Prejudice: A preference or idea formed before possessing full or adequate knowledge or experience.

From this, how could I ever say it's possible for a prejudice to be based on sufficient -- ie, not a lack of -- evidence?

Dr Rick

Working with the definition you created, is a preference or idea formed after possessing full or adequate knowledge or experience not prejudice?

Thanks for pointing-out a flaw in my previous wording, btw; I will correct it: "Prejudice is not necessarily formed because of (instead of from) logical fallacies or a lack of evidence."

long winded fool

Dr. Rick, your personal attacks are making it uncomfortable for me to discuss this topic with you. I understand that you have animosity towards me due to previous threads in which you think I made you look foolish, but I suggest you change your tone so that we can actually learn something here. I’d like to continue the discussion without resorting to childish name-calling if that is possible.

This is correct. A preference formed after possessing full or adequate knowledge is not prejudice.

Prejudice:
An Asian once stole from me
An Asian wants to be hired
I won't hire him because Asians are thieves

(This is ironically an argument with all true terms. Both premises and the conclusion are true. Notice that the conclusion is not a universal. Some Asians are thieves as are some humans of every race. It is invalid because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It is a fallacy of composition as I keep telling you. This is what makes it prejudice.)

Not prejudice:
An Asian once stole from me
This Asian wants to be hired
I won't hire him because he is a thief

This is personal preference. It is rational. Prejudice is not rational.

contracycle

Just to point out, I made no remarks about morality. I say yes its a bad thing becuase its inefficient and unreliable. I don;t concern myself with morality too much, seems to me like a rod we make for our own backs.

Dr Rick

A person can have every relevant fact and experience and still be prejudiced; possession of sufficient knowledge and facts does not always lead to unbiased conclusions; many human decisions made under such circumstances are prejudiced.

One can also make a decision without possessing sufficient facts that is not antipathetic, nor "that is opposite to logic and therefore wrong".

Decisions made in the absence of sufficient facts are not necessarily irrational; sometime sufficient facts simply aren't available, but that doesn't automatically make every decision under such circumstances irrational.

Repetition doesn't make one correct (it's another kind of fallacy, known as argumentum ad nauseum), just boring.

The fallacy of composition occurs when one attributes the characteristics of an individual component or part to the whole itself or to members of the collective. A generalization such as this can result in prejudiced beliefs, but not all prejudices are based on this fallacy. A person can hold a preconception without any facts or experience whatsoever, or with facts that aren't relevant to the individual, or with a false set of facts, and none of these are the fallacy of composition:

Asians have slanted eyes.
Slanted are a sign of evil.
Therefore, I won't hire Asians

...is not a fallacy of composition, but it's still an example of prejudice. Same with:

I hate Asians because it was Asians that started WWII

and just:

I hate all Asians

long winded fool

This is a logically unsound argument. There is a false premise that is assumed without sufficient knowledge that is based on the fallacy of composition. Not only that, it begs the question. Why are slanted eyes a sign of evil? Once you answer this, you have your fallacy. You are simply avoiding the argument that contains the fallacy. All prejudiced arguments are logical fallacies. Arguments with true premises are fallacies of composition. Arguments with false premises are also fundamentally based on categorical rejection (a fallacy which encompasses both composition and division,) even if it is not present in the actual syllogism. (As in the one above.) Manipulation of the syllogism with fallaciously arrived at premises won't make it any more logical. The prejudice is present in the premise "Slanted eyes are a sign of evil." This is an assumption that is based on the fallacy of categorical rejection. You can try to flip flop between division and composition, but as I stated in my very first post on this thread, categorical rejection is always illogical, therefore so is prejudice.

Biased opinion is not prejudice. :banghead: You again are trying to expand the definition so that it fits your argument. I remind you that it is logical to use your opponent's definition and not come up with your own, otherwise you are refuting a strawman. If we can't agree on the definition of prejudice, we cannot communicate rationally. The definition I use is the definition provided by Webster's Dictionary. If you'd like to define it yourself, then do so and I'll use that one. However, I will be arguing about an entirely different subject so my argument is likely to change. This is reflective of your stubbornness, not my failure to think critically. Prejudice by the definition and context provided in the op is always illogical. Now we can change the subject but call it the same term if that's what you want to do so that you can say that prejudice is not always illogical.