Calzaer

Because it's necessary for survival, maybe? Would you have dinner with a member of Eric Rudolph's church? Would you really NOT judge a KKK member before getting to know him? How about Amway salespeople? Do you really listen to every single sales pitch because you don't believe in using past experience to come to present-conclusions? You must not be a very busy person.

HelenM

Since when did your prejudging all Catholic priests and lawyers have anything to do with your survival?

I probably wouldn't especially want to get to know him but, guess why? Because of his individual beliefs, which I find distasteful. In that situation his allegiance to the group tells me things about him as an individual. In the case of Catholic priests and lawyers you were simply inferring that because your experiences with some of them are bad, you can expect all experiences with any of them to be bad. Yet you gave no reason why being in those professions per se tells us something about each individual in them that gives you reason to expect the worst of them. That's the difference between your prejudging Catholic priests and lawyers and my prejudging any KKK member.

That's silly. I don't listen to sales pitches unless I want to buy the product. I am product-focused when I buy things, not salesperson-focused.

Was that supposed to be a rational, logical defense of your viewpoint?

Helen

Calzaer

But you don't know anything about him! Just what GROUP he belongs to!

Or are you saying that some things CAN be deduced about an individual based on the group he belongs to?

sweep

we make assumptions based on physical appearance. We infer, due to the given symbolism of any individual, that certain behaviours will follow, as a rule of those symbols.

you're right that our experiences of people are rule governed, and that most of them will behave in a stereotypical fashion; archetypal of any given symbolism.

Sadly, we have strayed from the initial example, whereby symbolism had little or no relation to the behaviour in question. We do not, as a rule, carry out our professional roles in all circumstances. Only when someone behaves out of character in a given role, with appropriate symbols, can we find exceptions.

But, when we draw loose correlations between a persons official occupational status, and behaviours outside of that status, then we are bound to err.

If we are to avoid confusion, might I suggest we separate the value of judging 'in-character, and those judgements made 'out-of character'?

HelenM

Ah but that's the opposite of what you did. You inferred some things about a group because of some individuals in it.

Helen

Calzaer

Isn't that what you're doing with the KKK? They don't ALL firebomb churches, after all. Judge the individual!

Nowhere357

One clue to the individual's character is the groups he decides to join. Right?

Calzaer

You mean like Catholic Priesthood?

Nowhere357

The KKK is a better example, but yes.

Calzaer

Yes, the KKK is a better example, but it's a litmus test. If Helen seriously honestly truely believes that you can't judge someone based on the group they belong to, then she has to apply that to a KKK member she's never met before.

If she CAN judge the KKK member she's never met before based only on knowing his group affiliation, she should stop bitching at me for doing the same thing.