af1733 said:
af1733 said:
aarthrj3811 said:
Obviously I didn't make myself clear. Wikipedia isn't a member of this forum. You are. Can you think for yourself?
Oh no, wait. I get it now. Art doesn't understand the definition he quoted himself. Try this. Read the definition again, sound out the bigger words or ask someone for help, then get back with us.
Oh, fine. We don't have that much time anyway. I'll help you out this one last time.
"In its original usage, the word prejudice referred to a prejudgmental racial statement of ill doing, or a radical evaluation or decision made before the facts of a case could be properly determined and weighed."
Art, this part means that you pass judgement about someone or something, based on a preconceived notion, before you fully understand that person or thing.
This usage was subsequently broadened to include any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.
This one is more complex, so I'll simplify it for you:
"any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."
example:
If someone says ,"I thing that war is a good thing because it keeps the population low, and nobody can change my mind,"
this person "unreasonably believes" that death is good, and is "resistant" to change his mind, even though most "rational" people believe violent death is not a good thing.
Or......
Dowsers "unreasonably" believe that dowsing works, despite the fact that "rational" thinkers have long since dismissed it as a viable tool, and these dowsers are "resistant" to this "rational" thought.
So you see, even though I can only assume you posted a link to "misquote" in reference to me, you are incorrect in that you didn't even understand the definition of "prejudice."
Words are good, even those big ones, right Art?