[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any reason why you can't talk about a group in one context and talk about individuals within a group in another.

(for the example) You can correctly say that the KKK acted in a certain way even if 100% of the people affiliated with the KKK weren't involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Arguments are easy if you just assume your conclusion. I've yet to hear of a good reason why we should be judging the organization based on a figure of speech.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about luckyme's homophobic boy scouts example? If the organisation has a whole bunch of homophobic rules, yet all it's members are not homophobic - if somebody felt aggrieved at being excluded who should they blame? This seems to me a good reason to blame the organisation as it stops people doing bad things by hiding in a group.

Another reason would be that we allow organisations to own assets and to enter into legally binding contracts (which are not binding on their individual members). If we are not going to grant them the ability to act, how do they buy the assets? Or how do they reach agreements with other entities?