"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...ed72116dcbb99a

More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used. There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

[...]
If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...6c40345ef84ce4

"You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?"

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true. And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

Pete