LEGO,

It all depends on if your claims are based on experience and reason.

<<How come when I prejudge, it is prejudice? But when you prejudge, it is not prejudice?>>

That’s not the case at all. Put simply, I haven’t prejudged anyone yet. Do I really need to provide you with the definition of prejudice again?

<<…you stated outright that these nine negative religious beliefs were harmful…>>

Correct, and only a complete idiot would disagree with me. Care to try explaining why they are not harmful?

<<…and only implied they were common to all.>>

I implied no such thing. I simply compiled a list of harms presented by non-Islamic religions. That I meant for them to apply to all non-Islamic religions is your own face-saving lie.

<<If you were not specific, you were generalising.>>

Wrong. I would have only been generalising if I were applying them to all non-Islamic religions. At no point did I do this.

<<Please state which religion all of these nine negative beliefs apply to?>>

Mostly Christianity. It’s what I specialise in, having been a Christian once before. Of course, that’s not to say that all Christians act or think like that, as I alluded to when I referred to them as, “a very diverse group of people.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319882)

<<Got you squirming, eh AJ?>>

No, you’re just lying again. There’s a difference. You’re a pathological liar and I love exposing that.

<<You plainly stated that the reason for the high suicide rate of homosexual people was because of the attitudes of people who think like ttbn.>>

No, I “plainly stated” to runner that "[t]he only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like [him]." However, I should have said, "The main reason..."

Would you like me to link you to the evidence for this? Of course not.

<<You stereotyped a group of people based upon a collective belief…>>

No, I pointed out that vilification is the reason for so many gay youth committing suicide. That’s not a stereotype or prejudice. It’s just a fact.

AJ wrote "It all depends on if your claims are based on experience and reason."

Then you and your PC friends had better change their objection to prejudging and stereotyping, and say that it is OK to do it if you use experience and reason.

AJ wrote "That’s not the case at all. Put simply, I haven’t prejudged anyone yet."

Trendy lefties claim it is wrong to stereotype entire groups of people and then use that stereotype to prejudge individual members. You just did that twice. You said that all religions are harmful, and then submitted a list of nine religious beliefs to make your point. You did not specify which religion these nine harmful beliefs applied to, so it had to be a generalisation. If all religions are harmful, then the beliefs of the individuals who comprise the membership of all religions is also harmful. You just stereotyped every individual religious person on planet Earth as having beliefs which are harmful. That is a generalised and oversimplified prejudgement of all religious people that implies they are all a harmful threat.

AJ wrote "Wrong. I would have only been generalising if I were applying them to all non-Islamic religions. At no point did I do this."

It does not matter if you stereotyped the beliefs any religion, or of all religions, or any group of people at all. If you claim that any group of people has collective negative attributes, you are stereotyping that group, especially if you use those negative attributes to judge individual members.

AJ wrote No, I “plainly stated” to runner that "[t]he only reason homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the vilification they receive from vile people like [him]." However, I should have said, "The main reason..."

OK, so "the main reason" that homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the attitudes of "vile" people like ttbn. Therefore, an entire group of people who think like ttbn are "vile." You just stereotyped an entire group of people as having the same attitudes as ttbn, and you then prejudged every individual one of them as "vile"

Err, no, LEGO.

<<Then you and your PC friends had better ... say that it is OK to do it if you use experience and reason.>>

Because it's not pre-judging when it's based on reason and/or experience. The 'pre' refers to before experience or without reason. You're not very good with definitions, are you?

<<Trendy lefties claim it is wrong to stereotype entire groups of people...>>

Yes, and they can demonstrate it too.

<<...and then use that stereotype to prejudge individual members.>>

"... [one] cannot, by definition, stereotype one person." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318400)

<<You just [stereotyped] twice.>>

No, I didn't. I've already shown that I didn't. Lying about it again isn't going to change that.

<<You said that all religions are harmful, and then submitted a list of nine religious beliefs to make your point.>>

No, I said that non-Islam religions are harmful too.

<<You did not specify which religion these nine harmful beliefs applied to...>>

Yes I did, in that the list was provided in response to the claim that non-Islamic religions are harmless.

<<If all religions are harmful, then the beliefs of the individuals who comprise the membership of all religions is also harmful.>>

Correct. I've already stated that.

<<You just stereotyped every individual religious person on planet Earth as having beliefs which are harmful.>>

No, because my elaboration was not an oversimplification.

<<If you claim that any group of people has collective negative attributes, you are stereotyping that group...>>

Not if one can demonstrate the claim's accuracy, which I've already done: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319943

<<OK, so "the main reason" that homosexual youth commit suicide is because of the attitudes of "vile" people like ttbn.>>

You accusing ttbn of vilification again? Tsk, tsk.

<<Therefore, an entire group of people who think like ttbn are "vile.">>

"...describing someone who vilifies others for traits they cannot help and that do not hurt others as "vile", is not an oversimplification." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995#319911)

You're a slow fellow, aren't you LEGO? It's just as well I'm a patient man.

AJ wrote "Because it's not pre-judging when it's based on reason and/or experience. The 'pre' refers to before experience or without reason. You're not very good with definitions, are you?"

"Prejudging" means to judge before having sufficient evidence. In a legal situation, juries may only judge a defendant on the evidence presented to the court, not by any "evidence" presented in media accounts, or through hearsay. Outside of a courtroom, (where a judge rules on evidentiary relevance and inclusion) what constitutes "having sufficient evidence" is entirely subjective.

If you say that it is alright to prejudge people "if you use experience and reason", then everybody can claim that they can prejudge, using the same excuse. If you prejudge Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen as contemptuous people "using experience and reason", I can do exactly the same thing for any minority group I am leery of, saying I am using "reason and experience" as well. Then we can fight over whether or not each others evidence is "sufficient."

It was the Left who tried to define what "without sufficient evidence" was. Trendy lefties do not want individuals from minority groups that are notorious for their bad behaviour, judged by their group associations. So they have declared it is wrong to stereotype minority groups with negative attributes, and then apply those attributes to individual members of that minority group. They are declaring it is wrong prejudge individuals using a negative stereotype of their group membership.

There was just a couple of things wrong with that little declaration.. Everybody stereotypes to think, and everybody judges individual people by their group associations.

I warned you I would catch you doing it yourself, and it did not take me long to do it. I am going to keep on doing it until you admit that you are wrong. If I can make you understand that one aspect of your holy orthodoxy is utterly ridiculous, it might stimulate some neuronal activity within your atrophied brain. You might begin to question your holy writ and begin thinking straight

LEGO,

I was once chastised by three people at once on OLO for pointing out that what someone had said was a “flat out lie”. Apparently, to some on OLO, calling out a lie is abuse. I strongly disagree and, as I pointed out then, anyone who thinks that pointing out a lie is abuse has lead a very cushy life.

Nevertheless, since that day, I have done my best to be as polite as I possibly can in order to avoid such accusations and to be a better debater. But I’m now going to make an exception for you and would challenge anyone on OLO to accuse me of unnecessary and so-called “abuse”.

Why?

Because you’re a flat out frickin’ liar. That’s why. And I’m sick to death of beating around the bush about it. From this point forth I will highlight every one of your disgusting little lies because the truth matters more than my reputation.

<<"Prejudging" means to judge before having sufficient evidence.>>

Correct.

<<In a legal situation, juries may only judge a defendant on the evidence presented to the court, not by any "evidence" presented in media accounts, or through hearsay.>>

Well this isn’t a legal situation, but yes.

<<Outside of a courtroom, (where a judge rules on evidentiary relevance and inclusion) what constitutes "having sufficient evidence" is entirely subjective.>>

Somewhat, maybe.

<<If you say that it is alright to prejudge people "if you use experience and reason"…>>

I haven’t said that at all, you idiot. Pre-judging is never alright. Here’s the definition of prejudice for you for the seventeenth frickin’ time…

Prejudice:
Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prejudice)

<<It was the Left who tried to define what "without sufficient evidence" was.>>

Oh, was it? Please tell me when they did this.

<<Everybody stereotypes to think...>>

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

<<I warned you I would catch you [stereotyping] yourself…>>

And you’re still yet to spot a single instance of it. Sixty odd posts over two threads and still nothing.

You're Pathetic.

Well, it's taken me a while, but I've finally found the instances of bullying (or ganging up on) that I received after merely calling out a lie from someone who was overtly dishonest. Here they are...

Grim:
"I feel extremely confident suggesting that these forums attract far more readers than writers. I feel this is unfortunate, as I'm sure many of these readers could make interesting, if not valuable contributions.
I'm also quite confident in suggesting the reason many of these readers do not add their words to discussions, is because of rude or hostile comments.
Personally, I have always found Dan S.'s posts interesting, even though I usually don't share his views." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151439)

david f:
"I would add my voice to Grim's. [Because doing so is so-o-o-o-o-o necessary.] The comment was made referring to Dan S.:

[Just in case anyone missed it.]

"What you said was a flat-out lie, and a stupid one at that considering one need only scroll-up to see that it wasn’t even true."

I also agree with little of what Dan S. says. However, Dan S. is courteous [passive aggressiveness is not courtesy, but, whatever] and does not use abusive language like the above from what I have seen of his posts. He deserves the same courtesy in reply. I compliment Dan S. on the fact that he does not resort to such language in return. It would be good to have more people posting with various points of view, and I feel that personal attacks and abusive language might be deterring more people from contributing to the discussion."

Then there was Relda:
"Grim & david f,

I can only concur with your comments [As if two above instances of pontification above weren't enough.]. No matter how much any of us might disagree with Dan (or anyone else), an argument can never be settled through personal attack.

Perhaps our views may not change – but, at best, I'd prefer mine to be challenged and disagreed with by a demeanor that gives me pause to reflect, “My sight, perchance, is a little narrow." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292#151442)

OLO bullying.