LogFAQs > #965775913

Mr Lasastryke posted...

this seems like a false equivalency to me because there's a difference between making a generalization about a group and making a specific claim about a specific person.

like, imagine if a conversation would go like this:

biscuit: "remember lasa, the guy who hates cheese, according to john? well, it turns out he's dutch. so, john was lying. lasa likes cheese."
me: "what? just because i'm dutch doesn't mean i necessarily like cheese. that's kind of stereotypical and dumb."
you: "stop taking things so literally! biscuit was just saying there's a HIGH CHANCE you like cheese!"

i think it would be pretty absurd to say i'm in the wrong in this scenario.

i really don't think this is a case of me "having bad reading comprehension" or "taking things too literally," i think biscuit just worded his point poorly. when you're discussing a trial, it's especially important to word things precisely and carefully. you, as a lawyer, should know this.

I appreciate your point. I feel like qualitatively there is a difference between stereotyping people for food preferences and stereotyping people as being unlikely to be bigoted against themselves. Like, if he argued that you are Dutch and therefore you aren't bigoted against Dutch people.... is that a problem? I mean you could be Dutch and also hate Dutch people, but the percentage of people who feel that way is really low, and I don't think any harm is really done to you by inferring that you probably aren't bigoted.