Post #580605 by woofmutt on Thu, Mar 17, 2011 12:49 AM

"What is the first thing that comes to mind ethnicity-wise, when someone talks about the Taliban?
Now, as that first image popped in your mind, you do understand that there are/were white people from the U.S.A. involved and practicing with the Taliban, but yet 99% of population will still tie Terrorist groups like Taliban with being from the Middle East? This is really no different as when we speak on topic, we generally refer to the majority, and not the minority."

Most people told of a successful Tokyo businessman would probably assume the businessman was Japanese even though there are most likely successful businessmen from all over the world in Tokyo. Such an assumption is entirely different than saying all successful Tokyo businessmen are short, misogynistic, and have a foot fetish.

One can hang an argument or outrage against an action (in this case the destruction of American culture and landmarks) on an aspect of the people committing the action (such as their race or religious beliefs) but many people will just dismiss such an argument as one based on nothing more than prejudice. The point of the argument might be sound (developers usually have no sense of history) but once people have a reason to dismiss an argument they usually won't sift through the bias to see if there's any truth to be found.

The problem with basing an argument on sweeping generalities (such as "It's people with names like (Nazarian) for example, and first generations...Only worry about money, not history or context.") is that if one example can be cited that is an exception to the generality then the argument can essentially be regarded as false.