...Continued

Could you please state what you think my premise was? Could you also link me to the information you found discrediting what I said?

I'm willing to bet you don't get even get the premise right.

<<I presumed that we are just talking together, here but you keep talking like you have an audience.>>

Now that's transference if I ever saw it:

"I will let our audience judge the merits of your extraordinary statistics." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274742)

"Any impartial observer can see that I have no problem with replying at length to you." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275322)

"Any impartial observer would know that you are heckling and not debating." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275538)

<<There I was ... being my usual racist and obnoxious self, and suddenly, some character called "AJ Phillips", who I have never heard of before...>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11725#200730

<<But this "AJ Phillips" has access to things I said years ago...>>

As do we all (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp). Complete with a good memory and Google skills.

<<...and he knows the site so well he even knows little tricks about how to use a combination of keys as a rudimentary quote function.>>

CRTL+F is a standardised computer function. That's right; most of your audience would know that they can simply CRTL+F keywords to verify your claims.

<<This site has only allowed 2 posts per topic in 24 hours, but this does not apply to him.>>

That rule changed about six years ago.

<<Here's what I think AJ, you got a friend upstairs.>>

Surprised your bullying and intimidation hasn’t worked yet, eh?

<<You knew a tactic which you thought you would try out on me and it worked for a while...>>

Examples and quotes of this cheating please.

<<You would attack my racist position that all races were not equal, [while] never acknowledging the [opposite] logical conclusion that they therefore must be equal.>>

The only logical conclusion? Apparently you still can't distinguish between the belief that all "races" are virtually identical and belief that they should be respected and treated as equals.

<<I call it the "always imply, but when challenged deny" school of debate cheating.>>

And still no examples...

Hi AJ.

I thought that my last post to you would have you ruefully admitting that LEGO saw through your subterfuge. Nope, you actually have the gall to come back and claim that what you did was fair. Full marks for audacity, 0 for integrity.

Your laughable explanation for your behaviour, is that it is my belief that races are different, so you have a right to oppose that belief in fair debate. There are a couple of things wrong with that, and you knew that already.

The first is, that if one side submits the motion that all races are different, then by logical extension, the opposing side must believe that all races are equal.

The second is, that this is the normal position of opposing sides in race debates because everybody, including yourself, knows that races are either equal or they are not.

Now, if you want to debate the idea that all races are different without acknowledging its logical opposite, the onus was upon you to let me know on your first post. That you did not, clearly identifies you as a duplicitous person who knew right from the start that his opponent would naturally assume the normal positions in both sides of a race debate, and confusion would result.

Furthermore, when I made reasonable assumptions pertaining to the normal positions of a person advocating racial equality, you knew that I was making fair assumptions based on that fact. But you did not correct me by revealing your novel and extraordinary position, even when I asked you politely to clarify it. Instead you deliberately sowed more confusion by angrily claiming that I was misrepresenting your position, even accusing me of lying, when you knew right from the start that confusion and confounding was your intent.

In other words, AJ, like every other wild eyed ideologue from the start of human history, you were more concerned with suppressing the truth than examining it, because you did not want the fundamental principle of your world saving ideology to be found wanting.

That's not the behaviour of a budding scientist.

On the contrary, LEGO, it is only you who is engaging in subterfuge, and your last post is yet another example of this.

<<Your laughable explanation for your behaviour, is that it is my belief that races are different, so you have a right to oppose that belief in fair debate.>>

Just "different"? You’ve left this broad purposefully. Otherwise, close enough, though that wasn’t my behaviour.

<<There are a couple of things wrong with that...>>

People can view others as equals in different ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_equality). Your argument here relies on conflating these to create a false dichotomy. I just finished explaining this in my last post.

Full marks for audacity; 0 for integrity.

<<Now, if you want to debate the idea that all races are different without acknowledging its logical opposite the onus was upon you to let me know on your first post.>>

I liked this slip. You accuse me of calculating behaviour and yet you effectively admit here that you need to calculate your plan of attack. Aren’t your arguments good enough?

<<That you did not, clearly identifies you as a duplicitous person who knew right from the start that his opponent would naturally assume the normal positions in both sides of a race debate, and confusion would result.>>

Pot. Silverware. Black.

You still haven’t explained what difference it makes to your arguments other than a need to make the debate about your opponent.

<<But you did not correct me by revealing your novel and extraordinary position, even when I asked you politely to clarify it.>>

I corrected you every time. You’re delusional.

<<…like every other wild eyed ideologue from the start of human history, you were more concerned with suppressing the truth than examining it...>>

On the contrary, questioning beliefs is the first step to ascertaining their truth value. Thus, even if your dichotomy were not false, it still wouldn't be necessary to hold the opposing view. If that were the case, then no-one could ever examine the strength or truth of their beliefs objectively. You’re effectively claiming that it’s impossible to question one’s own beliefs.

Gone back to cutting up my posts and replying with sneery one liners instead of reasoned arguments AJ? Desperation setting in?

I don't have to engage in "calculating behaviour" like you did AJ, or "plan my attack." I have done this so many times before that it is routine. My only mistake, was to initially regard you as a basically honest person who really did believe in the idea that all races were intellectually equal, and that genetic differences pertaining to inherited behaviour was also equal.

But you already knew that I was right. The key to what you really believed was revealed in the way you kept bringing up the question "what good does it do...?" This is the essential question to you, not whether races are equal or unequal. You are an idealist, who like so many before you have asked the question. "Why, if human beings are intelligent, is there war and poverty? Surely we can find a system of economics and government where everybody on Earth gets fair shake?"

Egalitarian idealists have concluded that solving these problems can only be achieved by insisting that all people must be considered equal, and treated equally, regardless of whether they are equal or not. Now solving human hostility and poverty are noble considerations. But you are not doing your cause any good if you have to resort to denying self evident reality to support your ideological solution to creating world peace and ending poverty. If you have to do this, you are tipping at windmills and dreaming the impossible dream. Especially, when you yourself know that you are propagating an increasingly obvious lie to support your noble position.

This "debate" was a charade. My position was the position of science. "Let the truth be told, though the heavens may fall." Your position, (odd for a nimrod scientist) was "I know you are right, but the truth must be concealed, because only ideological commitment to egalitarian principles can save the world."

More ad hominems. Boring.

<<Gone back to cutting up my posts and replying with sneery one liners instead of reasoned arguments AJ?>>

Still not providing quotes and evidence for your accusations, LEGO?

Try pointing to any response, in any of my posts, that didn’t address what was responding to. Or how about you try “cutting up” my posts and see how well you do responding? You can’t because every one of your responses relies on me (and your audience) forgetting what I had said. It’s how you stay in denial.

<<I don't have to engage in "calculating behaviour" … or "plan my attack.">>

Oh, come now. You’ve effectively admitted it:

“…make certain that an egalitarian opponent unequivocally states his position prior to engaging in debate, so that he is forced to defend his premises.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275704)

and now…

“…if you want to debate the idea that all races are different without acknowledging its logical opposite the onus was upon you to let me know on your first post.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#275878)

What would this achieve otherwise?

You still won’t address this because the answer reveals your tired old tactic:

1. State the same old discredited nonsense (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11725#200730);
2. Devote half your energies to making your opponent the central issue;
3. Bully them out of the debate (i.e. until they do the mature thing and leave);
4. Run around declaring victory (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=148#17718).

It didn’t work this time, so you then label the entire debate a “charade”.

<<My only mistake, was to initially regard you as a basically honest person who really did believe in the idea that all races were intellectually equal, and that genetic differences pertaining to inherited behaviour was also equal.>>

So your arguments would have been different otherwise?

This still doesn’t get you out of your false dichotomy either. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_equality)

<<The key to what you really believed was revealed in the way you kept bringing up the question "what good does it do...?">>

That was a valid question, so by what evidence do you base this claim of yours?

Your posts are still very lean on the evidence front.

Drop the feigned outrage and injured innocence pose, AJ. I know what you did, and you know what you did.

What intrigues me is why? Why would a young man who is studying a science degree want to engage in a race debate where he deliberately concealed from his opponent, that he had no opinion on racial equality? You knew before you even started what you were going to do. And you knew that I would naturally presume that your position was the opposite of mine. You knew that I became confused about your position, which was your intent, and that I asked you to politely to clarify it. But you deliberately did not, other than make some vague references to you having "already stated your position."

A simple statement from you as to what your real position was, would have been easy to do. But you preferred to keep playing games. You pretended that you were stating your position, because you wanted to keep the subterfuge up as long as possible. The reason was, because your intent was not to engage in debate, it was to stifle debate.

Are you naturally dishonest? Or is there a deeper reason why you did it? A reason where you justified your own dishonesty to yourself? Did you consider that being dishonest, evasive and obstructive was OK, because you had a higher ideal to protect?

Did you ever hear of the story about Galileo and the young priest? After it got out that Galileo had discovered and proved that the earth was not the centre of the universe, a young priest visited Galileo and asked him to renounce his own scientific research, for he sake of the Church's reputation. Galileo invited the young priest to look through his telescope to see for himself what was true. But like you, the young priest refused to stoop to observe the truth that he feared to see.

Unless you start thinking straight, I would advise you to drop your science course and become a priest. It might improve your sense of integrity also.