Comment: What?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Thanks, but I know what it means. (see in situ)

What?

So you're saying if I go into a room where 7 out of 20 people are wearing red shirts, and I declair: "I think 7 out of these 20 people are wearing red shirts, boy I sure wish they were wearing green." that this is a "LOGICAL FALLACY by definition, as extrapolation of a group attribute to every individual is not provable.?"

I mean, I appreciate that you used some good words there, but... seriously? Of COURSE you can lump people into groups by common traits. Infact humans couldn't exist if we didn't have the capacity to catagorise our environments by commonalities. It doesn't mean we are always accurate about who belongs in said category, but to say its a logical falicy is simply incorrect.

But back to collectivism:

I have a stamp collection. Does that make me collectivist?

I aknowledge that many people have orange hair. Does that make me collectivist?

I believe that everyone who thinks that Obama deserves the nobel peace prize is mistaken about that. Does that make me a collectivist?

I believe that everyone who thinks its okay for a god to torture people who don't worship him are buying into an immoral and sadistic viewpoint. Does that make me collectivist?

If your answer to any of these is yes... you need a dictionary. Collectivism has exactly 0 to do with aknowelding that groups which contain simliar traits exist. It also has 0 to do with forming opinions based on opinions/ideas/objective realities which exist in said groups.

Ive already defined collectivism for you once, and its just not seeming to get through. How is it exactly you are not understanding the differance between recognising that groups with common traits exist, and a philosphy of social organization based on group rights and laws which are enforced via coersion? Im not trying to be rude or tricky, im just genuinly concerned that you aren't making this connection. How can we have any sort of debait when one party is unable to accept the definition of a word that plays a fundamental part in the discourse?