I’ve gotta say, LEGO, your most recent attempt pin a double standard on me was the most disappointing and dishonest of the lot.

We have limited words to work with on OLO and being someone who is as thorough as I am, and does not want to leave a single point to go unaddressed (lest I appear to be deliberately evading that which is inconvenient), I have the additional disadvantage of quoting most of what you’ve said in my post.

(You, on the other hand, use the cloak that the total absence of quotes provides you with to misrepresent what your opponents say, conveniently overlook their arguments that you cannot twist to your advantage, and pretend that your stuff ups didn’t happen.)

That being said, I am not always going to be able to add every qualification that exists for everything I say (and yes, there’s usually a lot of them - as there would be for any intelligent, informed, and sophisticated position). Therefore, I rely - in fact, we all rely - on those with whom we communicate here to remember what we have said earlier, and make reasonable assumptions about what’s probably not being said as well.

Yet you take advantage of this by simplifying my position to portray me as someone who is so stupid that they would either include (in their condemnation) people who are only members of a group on paper but do not agree with any of the tenets, or not realise that such people may exist. This all goes back to your lack of question-asking for clarification from others. Who cares what other's ACTUALLY believe, eh?

Go ahead, LEGO. Brush off what I have just said by referring it as ‘standing on my dignity’. You’re damn right I’m standing on my dignity. As should anyone when they’re not being treated with respect. But as you re-read this post of mine to look for words that you can twist to your advantage (yes, you know you’re about to do it), ask yourself why it is that you need to do that.

Hi AJ. Finally got you writing paragraphs? That only took me about 400 posts.

I have got you right where I want you, and you know it. When it comes to judging individuals by their group associations, everybody does it. Everybody decides whether or not a particular group of people are allies, competitors, dangerous, harmless, trustworthy or untrustworthy. And they project that broad judgement onto the individuals who compose that group. Reasonable people will know that some individuals within these groups may not fit the stereotype, but whether that matters depends upon the level of threat the group poses. Everybody prejudges and everybody forms stereotypes of the typical member of every group. The main reason for that is, because human beings form stereotypes of everything just to think.

No matter how you cut the cake, Nazis, Muslims and Klansmen are all just groups of people united in an ideology. There is nothing that you can say about one group of people which can not apply to others. All three of them have dangerous ideologies with Islam's being the most dangerous. All three of them have groups of people within them who do not accept every tenet of dogma that the leadership expects a "good" member of the group should have. That is because leaders of unelected groups over time tend to become more extreme, while the membership of groups are composed of both extremists and moderates.

All of these facts are provable premises to anybody with average intelligence who has anything close to an open mind. But you can never prove anything to ideologues who really do believe that truth should be secondary to ideology, not the other way around. You can't prove Evolution to a Creationist, and you can't prove that everybody prejudges and stereotypes to a person like you who routinely does it himself and then denies doing it. With Creationists, and Ideologues like you, all you can hope for is a wide audience of nominally open minded people, keep submitting a logical chain of reasoned arguments, and then let your opponents make a fool of himself.

Oh, so is THAT why you were being dishonest, LEGO?

<<Finally got you writing paragraphs? That only took me about 400 posts.>>

I’ve already explained why your paragraphs are not a good thing. You have not posted 400 times here either. Or did you forget about all the times I wrote in paragraphs in previous discussions?

<<I have got you right where I want you, and you know it.>>

I do?

Let’s see if we can make it ‘thirteenth time lucky’ then, eh?

<<When it comes to judging individuals by their group associations, everybody does it.>>

Correct. Although some are of us are careful enough to avoid hasty and over-simplistic generalisations.

<<Everybody decides whether or not a particular group of people are allies, competitors, [etc.] …>>

Correct.

<<And they project that broad judgement onto the individuals who compose that group.>>

Depending on the group and what the judgment is, yes.

<<Reasonable people will know that some individuals within these groups may not fit the stereotype, …>>

More or less.

<<Everybody prejudges and everybody forms stereotypes ... The main reason for that is, because human beings form stereotypes of everything just to think.>>

Not everyone all of the time. We’ve already had this discussion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17995&page=0

<<All three of them have dangerous ideologies with Islam's being the most dangerous.

“Except, not all the members of [Islam] hold dangerous beliefs.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18849#336311)

<<All three of them have dangerous ideologies with Islam's being the most dangerous.>>

More or less, yes.

<<All three of them have groups of people within them who do not accept every tenet of dogma that the leadership expects ...>>

Correct.

So where was this double standard then?

<<… all you can hope for is a wide audience of nominally open minded people, keep submitting a logical chain of reasoned arguments, and then let your opponents make a fool of himself.>>

Okay, I’ll look forward to this “logical chain of reasoned arguments” then. Perhaps you can start them in your fourteenth attempt? C’mon, LEGO, show me how you’ve “got [me] right where you want [me]”, already. The suspense is killing me!

What was the topic?

Reverted to type again, eh AJ? I knew you couldn't last the distance.

And I see that now you are trying something new? Instead of just stonewalling and sneering at every single sentence I write, you are even agreeing with most of my post? I presume the reason for that is, my premises make so much sense to our readers that you would look like a complete fool to keep on denying them?

You have now been bludgeoned and hammered into the point where you agree that everybody judges individuals by their group associations. OK, the act of doing that creates a prejudgement of those individuals, and that prejudgement becomes part of the stereotype that every person has of the individuals within that group. So your first double standard is your insistence that when I prejudge and stereotype, I am utterly wrong, but when you do exactly the same thing, it is OK because your prejudgements and stereotypes are accurate. Good luck selling that one.

I think our audience would conclude that the reason why you keep denying it is because it has long been a saying among Trendy Lefty Humanitarians that prejudging and stereotyping is absolutely evil. And even though that is demonstrably idiotic, you don't want to be a heretic, do you? Especially since you and your friends routinely do it yourselves, so you need to come up with something, anything, to explain why you and your friends can do it, but your opponents may not.

I thank you for admitting at last that "more or less", of all three ideologies, Islam is worse than the Nazis or the Klan. That being so, I am amazed that you still persist with the double standard that it is alright to condemn individual Nazis and Klansmen by their group associations, but not Muslims. Your potty excuse is because the beliefs of Nazis and Klansmen are universally held by every individual Nazi and Klansmen, but Muslims do not have universal beliefs. Good luck selling that one too. Especially since you already agreed that no ideology is universally accepted by it's members

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Q&A in Australia,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQJy8GDqM0o