>>46
Okay guys, I'm actually going to walk this Russian through it.
You read the newspaper and see some Jewish guy arrested for doing something illegal. You see this a bunch of times.
You decide, based on the number of times you see it, that there is a clue as to why there are so many arrests. All the crimes are committed by these Jews, so maybe their "Jewishness" correlates with their illegal behavior. They must be committing crimes because they are Jews.
Moreover, if it is "Jewishness" which is causing these crimes (as established in previous paragraph), then it logically follows that ALL Jews must have the same penchant for illegal activity. Thus, all Jews (even those who have yet to actually do anything wrong) are evil, dastardly scumbags etc.
This is called a "correlation = causation" argument. You see a "correlation" (Jews and crime), and expect that to be sufficient proof to make a categorical judgement from the situation (It is their Jewishness which drives their crimes). So even if you never used those words yourself, you are, in fact, making such an argument.
The OP was parodying your thought process, by posing the exact same correlation = causation argument, but substituting "Jew" for "heterosexual".
He argues: It appears to be that most crimes are committed by >heterosexuals<. Thus, if most of the crimes are committed by these heterosexuals, their "heterosexuality" correlates with their illegal behavior. If so many heterosexuals are committing crimes, it must be BECAUSE they are heterosexuals. A correlation (heterosexuals and crime) can mean a causation (It is their heterosexuality which drives their crimes)
The OP knew his argument was absurd and ridiculous. But the reasoning for his argument, "since lots of them do it, it must be something about them" is actually the same as your own. That is what he was attempting to show you.