I wouldn't worry about this discussion "dropping off", LEGO. There are plenty of discussions on OLO that go past the one month mark. People here don't seem too fussed about having to alter the settings to view older discussions.

<<[Left-wingers] say that people must not make generalisations, stereotype, label or prejudge groups of people.>>

Well, one can also use concepts that are not oversimplified too. But, yeah.

<<Now, my problem is, I have not got all the quotes from you that I need saying exactly that.>>

Here it is...

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<Could you clarify that for me? You know, something like "stereotyping large groups of people is wrong", sorta thing.>>

O-o-o-oh. I know you're doing now! This goes back to what I've pointed out once before about you requiring your opponents to hold simplistic and caricature-like opinions in order to rebut them.

I've given you a statement that's better than the one you've requested (quoted above), because it not only says that stereotyping classes of people is wrong, but it also explains in what way it's wrong. Just as you once refused to explain what you meant by "equal" so that you could switch between and conflate ‘perfectly equal in every way’ to ‘deserve to be treated as equals’ when it pleased you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284116), you're now asking me to simplify my position to a more ambiguous and sweeping 'stereotyping is wrong' so that you can switch between and conflate different notions of 'wrong' (i.e. immoral and inaccurate) when it suits you. I realised this was the case when you kept oversimplfying my position, causing me to make clarifications such as the one above.

Continued...

...Continued

<<And I have another vague one on judging groups of people,>>

No, there was nothing vague about that. It only looks like it was vague because you've quoted me out of context. That being said, the double negative was appropriate in that instance. By "That's", I meant something that I had said that you'd misconstrued.

<<Could you write it out as a positive statement? Like, "People can be judged by their group membership".

No, because that's not what I was saying at all. Please don't take me for a fool.

<<Although, I would point out to you that this is a contradiction of your whole ideology, so you had better think hard about that one.>>

No, you just need to l look at what I was responding to. I had even quoted what it was that I was responding to.

<<Now, unfortunately, I have not been able to entice you into making any judgements about prejudging or labelling.>>

I've made a few statements with regards to prejudice. But I've broadened my above self-quote to be inclusive of this too.

AJ "I wouldn't worry about this discussion "dropping off", LEGO. There are plenty of discussions on OLO that go past the one month mark. People here don't seem too fussed about having to alter the settings to view older discussions."

LEGO. I am happy with the pasting I have given you already. "I rest my case, M'lud."

AJ "Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful."

LEGO Thank you so much. I have managed to put up about 30 posts on this topic dismissing your claim/implication that generalising, prejudging, and stereotyping is wrong. Your whole argument against amounts to these two sentences.

AJ "O-o-o-oh. I know you're doing now! This goes back to what I've pointed out once before about you requiring your opponents to hold simplistic and caricature-like opinions in order to rebut them."

LEGO Excuse me? All I have asked, is that you state where you stand. After you have done that, you can give a your paltry excuses for thinking that way.

AJ "No, there was nothing vague about that. It only looks like it was vague because you've quoted me out of context."

LEGO OK, I don't agree that I quoted you out of context. But I can be gracious and let you withdraw your statement. So, why then did you not give the "correct" version of what you meant about judging groups of people, when I brought it up? Is it the old problem that you hate stating your position, because you know you will have to stand by it later?

AJ "No, you just need to l look at what I was responding to. I had even quoted what it was that I was responding to."

LEGO Then clarify. State your position plainly and simply. Do you think judging people by their group associations is wrong?

I don't think you really mean that, LEGO. Not one of your arguments has stood even the weakest criticism.

<<I am happy with the pasting I have given you already.>>

Of course, if there's something that's slipped my mind, then please remind me and I'll humbly walk away declaring you the winner...

Didn't think so.

<<Thank you so much.>>

For what? Most of that statement was a copy and paste from an old post.

<<Your whole argument against amounts to these two sentences.>>

No, that's just the crux of it.

<<All I have asked, is that you state where you stand.>>

Then why wasn't it good enough the first ten times?

<<OK, I don't agree that I quoted you out of context.>>

LEGO: "You are saying that you can not judge individuals by their group membership." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318068)

AJ: "Where have I said that?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318070)

LEGO: "Right here. (AJ quote. "There's forming concepts and there's judging entire groups of individuals based on a stereotype") (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318101)

AJ: "That’s not saying that one cannot judge individuals by their group membership." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318107)

<<But I can be gracious and let you withdraw your statement.>>

I'm not withdrawing anything. You misquoted me. See above. At no point did I say that it was alright to judge individuals by their group membership.

<<Is it the old problem that you hate stating your position, because you know you will have to stand by it later?>>

Try giving one example of that.

<<State your position plainly and simply.>>

I already have, many times.

<<Do you think judging people by their group associations is wrong?>>

I already said it was in my last post. Here it is again...

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

On the subject of me "misquoting " you. Once again, I asked you a simple, direct question about what your position is, even presenting it to you so that you could give a simple "yes" or "no" answer But you used your customary muddying technique and beat around the bush. My last post was directly concerned with you answering that one, simple question about where you stand, and unsurprisingly, you still have not answered it. Your claim that I had misquoted you was just a red herring to throw the wolf off the trail of what you are too scared to answer. I can tell a lot more about my opponents from the questions that they consistently refuse to answer, than I can tell about what they actually say.

You are determined to never answer any plain, simple question that will tell me where you stand, because you are terrified that I will pin you down and catch you in your own contradictions. You know what I have been saying for 30 posts is correct, everybody stereotypes to think about everything, everybody generalises about everything, everybody prejudges and labels, and everybody judges individuals by their group associations.

Look dummy. This is the reason why am beating you. I have no trouble at all telling you exactly where I stand, and I have no trouble at all justifying my position with reasoned arguments. Your tactic is to simply criticise everything I say, only imply your position, and keep your opponent guessing about what it is.

Any member of an audience would immediately smell a rat. Anyone who refuses to plainly tell his opponent what his position is, or routinely dodges any polite queries which might clarify any misunderstandings of his position, clearly has something to hide.

What he is trying to hide, is that he knows his own position is wrong.

What I require from you is a statement telling me what your position is. Do you think that judging people by their group associations is wrong? This "debate" goes nowhere until you answer the damned question.

Keep squirming, AJ.

Yes, LEGO. The only one here who has not yet committed a fallacy or had to ask his opponent to word his arguments a particular way is “squirming”.

<<On the subject of me "misquoting " you … I asked you a simple, direct question about what your position is, even presenting it to you so that you could give a simple "yes" or "no" answer>>

No, you didn’t. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318644)

<<My last post was directly concerned with you answering that one, simple question about where you stand, and unsurprisingly, you still have not answered it.>>

Erm… yes I did. Once more for the slow…

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<Your claim that I had misquoted you was just a red herring to throw the wolf off the trail of what you are too scared to answer.>>

No, I actually demonstrated it with a trail of the conversation.

<<You are determined to never answer any plain, simple question that will tell me where you stand, because you are terrified that I will pin you down and catch you in your own contradictions.>>

And again…

"Generalisations [and stereotypes and prejudice] about a class of people will always be incorrect to the extent that someone is bound to not fit that generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice]. On a moral level, each generalisation [stereotype or instance of prejudice] is wrong to the extent that it may be harmful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317995)

<<…everybody stereotypes to think about everything, everybody generalises about everything, everybody prejudges and labels, and everybody judges individuals by their group associations.>>

“Or they can use concepts, which are not oversimplified.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318204)

<<Your tactic is to simply criticise everything I say, only imply your position, and keep your opponent guessing about what it is.>>

Try pointing to one example of this. You won’t, because you can’t.