No, that wouldn’t be the Equivocation fallacy, LEGO.

<<Or claim that racism was wrong, but will not debate from a position that all races are equal.>>

You, on the other hand, refused to clarify what you meant my “equal” in order leave the Equivocation fallacy open to yourself as a debating tactic. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#284116)

That’s another lie.

<<Or claims that aboriginal dysfunction is all the white man's fault, because it is all caused by white dispossession and discrimination.>>

Nope. Never said that.

Another lie.

<<Claims he himself is against racism, but will not acknowledge his racism towards the white race.>

Nope. Never refused to acknowledge racism against whites. It's becoming horrendous in South Africa from what I hear.

Yet another lie.

<<Ignores the harm which multiculturalism does to his own culture, and pretends that very disproportionate rates of serious ethnic criminal behaviour (which includes terrorism) is all a media beat up and a figment of the public's imagination.>>

Never said anything like that either. You’re doing well on the lie count here, aren’t you?

Is it any wonder you cannot provide me with any quotes?

<<Of course you must pretend it is a lie. If you acknowledge the truth, then your entire position crashes in a heap.>>

No, once again, I actually demonstrated that your claims were lies. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#320004)

<<Better to keep claiming that black is somehow white, to keep up appearances and stay in the game.>>

Do you have an example or am I going to add this to the tally too. I think I’ll give the tally a break for the moment.

Thanks for all the quotes from the psychology textbook explaining what I have already acknowledge yonks ago when I said: “…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#317623)

A comment you still haven’t negated.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Saying that "Creationists have 19th century views" is a stereotype which you have used to make a prejudgement.>>

No, because the creationists’ views on evolution (to which I was alluding at the time) was not an oversimplification of their views, nor was is based on inadequate information.

So that’s another lie. Sheesh.

<<Tell a socialist humanitarian like AJ that his 19th century views, that people are all equal is nonsense, and he does not want to know.>>

Again, what do you mean by “equal”? You won't clarify that will you? It would prevent you from committing the Equivocation fallacy by switching back and forth between two notions of equality.

<<Show AJ excerpts from scientific psychology books that prove that human beings stereotype to think, and he will come up with stupid explanations.>>

Such as?

Lies: 20
Fallacies: 3

AJ wrote "You, on the other hand, refused to clarify what you meant my “equal” in order leave the Equivocation fallacy open to yourself as a debating tactic."

I am a racist, and I say that the different human races have different physical and mental attributes, and different personalities. I am prepared to debate that anytime. Now, what is your position? Don't just get cute and say "I oppose your position". Because that means by default that you are claiming that all human races are equal in every way. State exactly what your position is, or I will know right away that you know I am right, but you will never admit it. You are prepared to "debate" a position which you yourself know is wrong.

AJ wrote "Is it any wonder you cannot provide me with any quotes?"

I was not aware until recently that you had me targeted. But don't worry AJ, I am keeping a "clangers" file on you now. I have been down this path before with people who say one thing, then claim they did not say it when I back them into a corner.

AJ wrote "Thanks for all the quotes from the psychology textbook explaining what I have already acknowledge yonks ago when I said: “…there is ‘thinking in stereotypes’ and then there’s the inability to move past them when attempting to reason in complex situations."

Gee, that's funny. Nowhere in my psychology books did the authors claim that "intelligent" people did not think in stereotypes, just like everybody else.

Nobody can make any criticism of any group of people unless he has a stereotype of what that group of people is, and what characterises them as a group. Everybody criticises groups of people that they do not like. If you claim otherwise, then you are backing yourself into a corner. You can never criticise any group of people, or even make generalities about their values, attitudes or behaviours, without stereotyping and prejudging them. It is the way everybody thinks, and if you say different, then lotsa luck trying to avoid it.

I know, LEGO.

<<I am a racist, and I say that the different human races have different physical and mental attributes…>>>

I agree when it comes to physical attributes. Race is, after all, a difference between groups of people that are simply defined by UV exposure and latitude.

<<…and I think you realised that.>>

As far as UV exposure and the latitude go? Absolutely. As for intelligence, you are yet to prove that whites and Asians are superior. How would latitude and UV exposure create an intellectually superior race? How do you even measure that intelligence? With a Western biased IQ test? And if so, how does one account for the cultural differences?

<<I am prepared to debate that anytime.>>

Then bring it on, bitch. You have challenged me multiple times before and failed on every occasion. What makes you think this time will be any different?

<<Now, what is your position?>>

On what?

Tell me and I’ll gladly inform you.

<<Don't just get cute and say "I oppose your position".>>

As if I’ve ever done that before.

<<Because that means by default that you are claiming that all human races are equal in every way.>>

I have never claimed that. See above.

<<State exactly what your position is, or I will know right away that you know I am right, but you will never admit it. You are prepared to "debate" a position which you yourself know is wrong. >>

Note to all: Remember how I mentioned that LEGO won’t explain what he means by “equal”? Well, he’s refusing to do it again. Take note of that.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I was not aware until recently that you had me targeted.>>

What difference should that make? Do your arguments suddenly become better when someone has targeted you? If so, then why? Wouldn’t you just put the most rational argument forth on your first attempt?

<<But don't worry AJ, I am keeping a "clangers" file on you now. I have been down this path before with people who say one thing, then claim they did not say it when I back them into a corner.>>

Yeah, still waiting for that alleged corner that I’m supposed to be eventually backed in to. Doesn’t look like it’ll ever happen though.

<<Gee, that's funny. Nowhere in my psychology books did the authors claim that "intelligent" people did not think in stereotypes, just like everybody else.>>

Gee, that’s funny. In nowhere did my response intend to claim or imply that “intelligent people” did not think in stereotypes.

You’re not a very bright fellow, are you LEGO? Either way, just be aware that, given you are the type who thinks that the one who has the last word is the winner of a debate, I am never going to let that happen. I already have one discussion up my sleeve as a demonstration of the sheer frickin’ stupidity of your entire racist worldview (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896&page=0). This will simply be yet another.

Bye bye, LEGO. I realise that some on OLO will consider my tone towards you as abuse, but they are obviously too stupid to realise just how gosh darned dangerous a fool like you is.

Lies: 20
Fallacies

I have had a change of heart, LEGO. I've decided to count your claim, that I said that intelligent people never stereotype, as a lie. So that actually brings the tally up to 21, sorry. Well, I'm not sorry that I've raised the count. I'm sorry that there has to be one in the first place. You see, your lies are such gosh darned offensive, and sometimes even slanderous, misrepresentations of what I think and say, that you shouldn't be allowed to simply move on and pretend you didn't say them when they’re shown to be false, only to do the same thing again later on.

I'm also going to change the 'Fallacies' count from 'types of fallacies' to 'use of fallacious arguments'. I mean, it would hardly be an accurate reflection of how fallacious your reasoning is if you commit, say, the Appeal to Nature fallacy on multiple occasions yet the tally were to remain at three. Perhaps I could keep track of both? What do you think?

The tally will also carry over to our discussions on other threads. Just as well I didn't start it in that last discussion of ours on stereotyping, eh? You'd have well and truly hit triple figures by now.

Of course, I'd be happy to do away with the tally altogether if you just promised to try not to lie. But, as even your insistence that your opponents state a position beyond the fact that they think you're wrong suggests, you need to attack what you think your opponents think to distract from the weaknesses in your own arguments, and you're hardly going to be able to do that without the odd lie here and there, are you.

By the way, don't think the fact that you have tried to drag the discussion to your favourite topic of race had escaped me. Given that you think it's your strong point, it's probably about as close as I'm going to get to a concession that you just aren't doing well on the topic of stereotyping and prejudice.

Lies: 21
Fallacies: 3