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”."

LEGO. If you refuse to answer a plain, simple question on where you stand on an issue crucial to this debate, AJ, then you have blown it.

Checkmate.

Well, that took me 37 posts to get you to the point where you were too frightened to answer a crucial question. You knew that no matter which way you answered it, you were a dead duck. My mistake was to once again give you the benefit of the doubt about your commitment to an honest debate. I should have remembered your behaviour in our previous debate about racism, where you refused to answer a simple question about where you stood on the central issue.

If you are stupid enough to call me out again, my response shall be to demand that you state what your position is in full, before we start squaring off. That will definitely crimp your style.

I think what really constitutes an ideologue AJ, is somebody like yourself, who knows that their position is wrong, but who have such a commitment to believing that their twisted worldview can Save The World, that they will do anything to stifle it's examination or debate. I'll bet you even agree with Section C of the Racial Discrimination Act? If you can't beat them through reasoned debate, at least you can shut them up.

If you wish this debate to continue AJ, then answer the question, or crawl away with your tail between your legs.

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

I am not moving from this spot until you either answer the question, or concede.

I answered your question twice in my last post, LEGO. What’s wrong with you?

<<If you refuse to answer a plain, simple question on where you stand on an issue crucial to this debate, AJ, then you have blown it.>>

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)

<<Well, that took me 37 posts to get you to the point where you were too frightened to answer a crucial question.>>

See above. You’re delusional. How about you explain to me how my response does not answer your question instead of pretending I didn’t say it? Fat chance, eh?

<<You knew that no matter which way you answered it, you were a dead duck.>>

How so?

<<I should have remembered your behaviour in our previous debate about racism, where you refused to answer a simple question about where you stood on the central issue.>>

Nope, answered your question many times then too, even though it wasn’t necessary. Eventually, you ran out of ways to deny this and, consequently, went scurrying off. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284793)

<<If you wish this debate to continue AJ, then answer the question, or crawl away with your tail between your legs.>>

Sure…

"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)

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

Yes, see above.

<<I am not moving from this spot until you either answer the question, or concede.>>

Either you have something seriously wrong with you, or you’re just in a state of panic now because your entire reasoning has come crashing down.

LEGO,

You've been switching between 'group membership' and 'group association'. No, I don't think it's always wrong to judge someone based on their group association, because sometimes who people choose to associate with tells you enough about them to know whether or not you want to associate with them yourself without it being an oversimplification (e.g. a KKK member).

I like when you start demanding that I state a position I have made very clear throughout the course of the discussion, as if it had any relevance. You only ever do it when you’re cornered and desperate. The reason you didn't demand that I "state my position" from the word go was not because you had forgotten about an imagined "trick" that I supposedly pull, but because you thought you had this one in the bag just because no-one else has apparently had the patience to explain to you that you have no idea what a stereotype is, or because they grew tired of your aggressive and unpleasant method of communication (in which you treat discussion boards like battlefields) before they got around to explaining it to you.

There’s two reasons why you require that your opponents “state their position”. First, is because you need something from your opponent to attack when your own arguments fail, in order to distract from the fact. Second, is because you require foolishly certain, black and white opinions from your opponents in order for your rhetoric to work.

You’re not the master debater you claim to be. You have a rehearsed script that you follow, with a limited set of rhetorical tricks, and if someone pulls you from that script or doesn’t adhere to a caricature that your rhetorical tricks require your opponent to be, then you accuse them of not being upfront about their position because what they’re telling you isn’t what your script requires from them. And all the while ignoring the fact that their position has no relevance whatsoever to the correctness or not of yours.

You’re cornered, LEGO, and that’s the only reason you’ve come out swinging now.

Bye, bye.

Oh well done, AJ. It has only taken you about 40 posts to finally write a reasoned argument instead of just chopping up my posts and sneering at every sentence that I write. And I see that you have finally answered the question, although you are qualifying it.

No matter.

If you concede that it is not "always wrong" to judge people by their group associations, then you have just destroyed your original claim that stereotyping or generalising is "always wrong when you apply them to large populations" You must have a negative stereotype of a typical KKK member to prejudge them as someone who is a contemptuous person. "Prejudgement" means in PC newspeak, "judging people based on a stereotype."

Everybody stereotypes people. You have no conception of what "a Greek"," a "KKK member" or "a Swede" even looks like unless you form some sort of stereotype of their appearance. When it comes to judging people collectively as people worthy of our friendship or contempt, the same normal thought processes apply. We all judge particular groups of people as being worthy or unworthy of our praise or our opprobrium by using our own personnel stereotypes of these groups.

You can complain about the accuracy of a stereotype, you can point out that collectively the Irish are not stupid, but you can not say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.

The stereotypical trendy lefty has convinced themselves that stereotyping and prejudging people is utterly wrong. That is their moral absolute. They therefore put themselves in the same absolutist class of thinking as anyone stupid enough to say that lying is always wrong, and telling the truth is always right.

Trendies want to stop human conflicts. That is a worthy and noble goal. But they have invented an ideology to attain that goal which is completely unrealistic. It basically means that no one should ever judge or criticise any other group of people because it might make that group angry and hostile. They are seriously pontificating to everybody, that even thinking about other groups of people is a thoughtcrime

You don’t understand what constitutes a reason argument, LEGO.

<<It has only taken you about 40 posts to finally write a reasoned argument instead of just chopping up my posts and sneering at every sentence that I write.>>

"...most of your arguments are wrong at such a basic and fundamental level that they only require one sentence to debunk." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318499)

"Your posts consisting of full paragraphs are not clever posts that are well-reasoned, but posts that respond to strawmen while giving the impression of a reasoned argument because they at least look like full responses." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318555)

You are the only one who has sneered so far. Remember?

“If you listen real hard, you can hear the cashed up professionals in Madison Avenue, Saatchi & Saatchi, and Mojo laughing their heads off at that one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

I respond to quotes to be thorough.

<<If you concede that it is not "always wrong" to judge people by their group associations, then you have just destroyed your original claim that stereotyping or generalising is "always wrong when you apply them to large populations".>>

No, because we’ve been talking about ‘classes’ of people (e.g. demographics). Not associations. Who people choose to associate with is something that you have only recently introduced with your irrelevant bikie/paedophile analogy. As with equality and stereotyping, your script requires that you conflate ideas.

Yet another fallacious instance of goalpost shifting. Well done.

<<You must have a negative stereotype of a typical KKK member…>>

No, because it’s not oversimplified. I already said that.

<<…to prejudge them as someone who is a contemptuous person.>>

No, they’ve provided all the information I need.

<<Everybody stereotypes people>>

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

<<We all judge particular groups of people as being worthy or unworthy of our praise...>>

And we can do this based on oversimplified stereotypes, or adequate information so as to not be an oversimplification.

<<You can complain about the accuracy of a stereotype, … but you can not say that the act of stereotyping is wrong.>>

Yes, I can. It’s the inaccuracy that makes it wrong.

AJ quote "No, because we’ve been talking about ‘classes’ of people (e.g. demographics). Not associations. Who people choose to associate with is something that you have only recently introduced with your irrelevant bikie/paedophile analogy. As with equality and stereotyping, your script requires that you conflate ideas."

For 40 posts, I have used the words "associations", "memberships", and "classes" interchangeably to denote "a group of people", and you know it. Is this your desperate new tactic? Seize on one word I said, pretend it has a different meaning to the way I just used it, and then use this wrong meaning to explain how my whole argument is incorrect. When it comes to stonewalling, AJ, you are a master.

Here are two of your posts which you now have a real problem with.

AJ quote "Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations."

Exactly how many people constitute "a large population?"

If you can not give me the exact number of people who make up this "large population", then a "large population" is an "inaccurate" generalised number of people. You just created an "inaccurate" generalised concept of a "large population" of people.. Another word for making "inaccurate" generalisations about people is "stereotyping." You just created an "inaccurate" stereotype of what constitutes a "large population" of people. Either stereotyping people is wrong, or it is not wrong.

Next.

AJ quote ."No, I don't think it's always wrong to judge someone based on their group association, because sometimes who people choose to associate with tells you enough about them to know whether or not you want to associate with them yourself without it being an oversimplification (e.g. a KKK member)."

This is a complete contradiction of your above statement that " Generalisations will always be wrong when you apply them to large populations." Either it is "always wrong" to generalise, stereotype, and prejudge any group of people based upon a stereotype, or it is not "always wrong." You can not have a bob each way.

I wonder how you are going to stonewall and squirm in your next post?