Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I don't believe what you believe. I think you have an overly general moral rule that you think is necessary for consistency, but it's not really, and it's just your personal belief. Your belief implies it is improper to use statistics to describe morally salient human behavior in any way, unless the conclusion is that there is no variation. I think that's silly and intellectually impoverishing. Groups have diff…
I personally dont require that consistency, I was merely asking WHY there is a difference in treatment of the same method (making generalized statements about group behaviour) when applied to different qualifiers. And yes, just as you've said, maintaining that consistency does imply that you suddenly can't use any statistics at all. Point taken on "prosecutor attitude", sorry about that. riding "moral high horse" got…
For me, it's not an easy topic but I would say when negative generalizations escalate to exclusion and dehumanization, that's probably where to draw the line.
I know some people with Audis and I don't think worse of them or anything like that. It's just a funny thing that's hard to ignore after a while on the road.