Don't condemn people in AA
-
Nah...Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:How? It was so obvious that it was a typo... the reason I even brought it up was as I explained above.
Did you also think that I was serious when I asked:
"Is there hope for humanity? Are we all doomed? Is the end of the world at hand?
Just because he made a typo?
Answer the qns truthfully andrew...
Did I say: I am the best in logics, there is no one that can be on par with me.
I dare say I did not.
What u claim to be and how u distort my true message is...
Me: REALLY SORRY. If u wanna talk logics with me u dont stand a chance.
Ur argument is
Premises:REALLY SORRY. If u wanna talk logics with me u dont stand a chance.
Morbid4ever says she is much better than pkyap in logics.
Conclusion by pkyap: Morbid4ever claimed that she is the best and most perfect logician ever.
Mistakes: The conclusion do not follow neccessarily from the premises. I.e do not fall into the 9 basics forms of valid argument.
Rather,PK yap make additonal assumptions to make this invalid conclusion.
When I say I am better than u in logics I did not claim to be the best.
It seems that u dont even understand basic connectives such as "for all" and "there exist" in logics.
Yes, u are right to say logic is only a tool. It is a tool use to aid understanding, not for u to misuse it nor misguide ppl with. The worse thing is u dont even have a basic grasp in logics and u make groundless accusation. -
This, precisely my dear friend is what I did not want to get into with you.
You spend time analysing the "logical" errors for what? Were the logical errors committed in this case, whether on purpose or otherwise, relevant and central to the issue/topic at hand?
Apply some wisdom when you apply your rules of logic, please.
Take yourself out of the "argument and debate" for a second and reflect whether you/I should take the time and trouble to "clarify" "analyze" "apply the rules of logic" to each and every post that people make, or we should simply say: "OK you win!"
Why only rules of logic? Why not "rules of linguistics" and "rules of effective writing" for two...
So you stick to the "main issue/s" at hand and when people come and jer siow (disturb) ... let them win lor...
And so once again,
morbid4ever FTW!
-
binarynwitz FTW!
-
Why are u being so defensive when what Xiaozzhen said has got nothing to do with you ??Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Ya right, we have to console him... *pat pat* ...
for someone that comes screaming: "REALLY SORRY. If u wanna talk logics with me u dont stand a chance."
it must have been really devastating for him to discover that "horrors" he made a mistake!!!!! hmmm wonder if he can sleep tonight.
Really strange... in a thread that ask people not to behave like they are GODS; one comes along and insists that people must be in full compliance with what makes a good argument and another comes along and insists that people be in full compliance with the rules of logic... and make a fool of themselves.
Pride really comes before a fall...
The only one that is making a fool out of themselves is you and you alone. Call yourself an old man and behaves like a child. -
MiX Metal... FTW!!!!!Originally posted by MiX Metal:Why are u being so defensive when what Xiaozzhen said has got nothing to do with you ??
The only one that is making a fool out of themselves is you and you alone. Call yourself an old man and behaves like a child. -
Couldn't agree more, my boy, couldn't agree more.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Pride really comes before a fall...
Just like you saw fit to dictate how people should find out what "good" arguments are, only to have it proven that people like morbid already know them better than you do, and that you, in fact, know precious little.
Yes, m'lad, pride does come before a fall, and how gloriously you have fallen. -
oh man
i miss out on so much 100th, 150th, 200th post
AndrewPKYap, having fun with your debate again? -
All I can say is... I pwned you! hahaha just joking... how are you?Originally posted by allentyb:oh man
i miss out on so much 100th, 150th, 200th post
AndrewPKYap, having fun with your debate again?
-
Hmm, that's funny. My first post in this thread addressed two problems with your first thread, namely the issues about labelling people as religious fanatics and as thiking of themselves as Gods. These were never satisfactorily resolved as you have still not justified your labels.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:This, precisely my dear friend is what I did not want to get into with you.
You spend time analysing the "logical" errors for what? Were the logical errors committed in this case, whether on purpose or otherwise, relevant and central to the issue/topic at hand?
Apply some wisdom when you apply your rules of logic, please.
Take yourself out of the "argument and debate" for a second and reflect whether you/I should take the time and trouble to "clarify" "analyze" "apply the rules of logic" to each and every post that people make, or we should simply say: "OK you win!"
Why only rules of logic? Why not "rules of linguistics" and "rules of effective writing" for two...
So you stick to the "main issue/s" at hand and when people come and jer siow (disturb) ... let them win lor...
And so once again,
morbid4ever FTW!
Are you sticking to the main issues? If you are, you're doing a terrible job of it. -
hahahaha you are incorrigible... none of your numerous posts and rebuttals even dare to address the issues...Originally posted by Gedanken:Couldn't agree more, my boy, couldn't agree more.
Just like you saw fit to dictate how people should find out what "good" arguments are, only to have it proven that people like morbid already know them better than you do, and that you, in fact, know precious little.
Yes, m'lad, pride does come before a fall, and how gloriously you have fallen.
"Does it make sense to require that people raise their level of formulating an argument to the level of perfection or simply to an acceptable level?"
"When someone insists that there is only "perfection" or "damnation" are they not committing the fallacy of the missing middle?"
I wonder if you, the "argument expert" and the other guy, the "logic expert" have ever heard of the phrase "idiot savant" -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
i just re activate my internet a while ago, erm, fine, good, looking for a job
All I can say is... I [b]pwned you! hahaha just joking... how are you? [/b] -
so i can see that you are having fun, debating, and flaming others again
ahhhh, i have missed out so much 'fun' -
You need a history lesson? Please see...Originally posted by Gedanken:Hmm, that's funny. My first post in this thread addressed two problems with your first thread, namely the issues about labelling people as religious fanatics and as thiking of themselves as Gods. These were never satisfactorily resolved as you have still not justified your labels.
Are you sticking to the main issues? If you are, you're doing a terrible job of it.
28 June 2007 · 12:06 AM
28 June 2007 · 12:55 AM
28 June 2007 · 10:38 AM
28 June 2007 · 11:32 AM
In my opinion, more than enough bandwidth was spent addressing your nick-picking concerns... which in my opinion happen to suggest that you are simply behaving like a peacock... while the main issue was whether people should condemn others or simply give their opinions...
continuation of the history lesson... we then went on to debate if it is wise to suggest that people be held to the highest standards of formulating an argument or simply as I suggested, to an acceptable level... given that we are in sgforums... -
looking for a job? what happened?Originally posted by allentyb:i just re activate my internet a while ago, erm, fine, good, looking for a job -
And who decides what an acceptable level is? You? I think not, seeing as how you conveniently switch topics and shift goalposts whenever the occasion suits.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:hahahaha you are incorrigible... none of your numerous posts and rebuttals even dare to address the issues...
"Does it make sense to require that people raise their level of formulating an argument to the level of perfection or simply to an acceptable level?"
"When someone insists that there is only "perfection" or "damnation" are they not committing the fallacy of the missing middle?"
I wonder if you, the "argument expert" and the other guy, the "logic expert" have ever heard of the phrase "idiot savant"
Morbid has already outlined a clear and exceedingly simple example of how your argument structure is flawed and the way in which you make huge leaps to conclusions that have no bearing on the premises.
If that's your standard of "acceptable", well, you may be slipshod enough to accept it, but others find it simply inconscionable.
Yes, I've heard of idiot savants, and come to think of it, you're half of one yourself. Guess which half. -
i forgotten to pay my bills, and then went for a couple of interviews, so i have to send more resume again, later on in the evening, oh wellOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:looking for a job? what happened?
i condemn people all the time, wah, at least i am being truthful about what i think or what i feel about the thread, and furthermore, i still feel that ignorant is not a bliss, so we have to 'educate' them to bring forth the truth, as to, awake their being, bring them forth towards the light, instead of being political correct in each and every post.
i applaud your bravery for creating such a thread
i think two days ago, i was watching one news broadcast in channel 5, one news actually caught my attentions, the news broadcaster was talking about cyberbully, and i was basically laughing my ass out, they actually, have to educate those poor moron at the secondary school, on how to tackle cyberbully, how about, next time, they actually, comes up with a course - dip in dealing with cyberbully,
i mean, seriously, if those dickhead, can't handle remark, they might as well, don't post in a forum, that silly little kid, was talking blah blah blah on the tv about bully, ha ha ha HA! -
I ask again, who decides what "acceptable" is? You?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You need a history lesson? Please see...
28 June 2007 · 12:06 AM
28 June 2007 · 12:55 AM
28 June 2007 · 10:38 AM
28 June 2007 · 11:32 AM
In my opinion, more than enough bandwidth was spent addressing your nick-picking concerns... which in my opinion happen to suggest that you are simply behaving like a peacock... while the main issue was whether people should condemn others or simply give their opinions...
continuation of the history lesson... we then went on to debate if it is wise to suggest that people be held to the highest standards of formulating an argument or simply as I suggested, to an acceptable level... given that we are in sgforums...
So many posters here do not agree with what you have said and how you have reached your conclusions and recommendations (as if you had any place to make these in the first place). The very fact that there is so much disagreement with what you have posted and how you have made your point in itself tell you that your level of "acceptable" is way too low for others to accept. -
there is no way in hell, anyone of you will be able to come up with an utilitarianism
-
hahaha logic is a tool... that you sometimes use to disparage others and if you cannot see that, too bad lor... you win lor...Originally posted by Gedanken:And who decides what an acceptable level is? You? I think not, seeing as how you conveniently switch topics and shift goalposts whenever the occasion suits.
Morbid has already outlined a clear and exceedingly simple example of how your argument structure is flawed and the way in which you make huge leaps to conclusions that have no bearing on the premises.
If that's your standard of "acceptable", well, you may be slipshod enough to accept it, but others find it simply inconscionable.
Yes, I've heard of idiot savants, and come to think of it, you're half of one yourself. Guess which half.
My standard is not acceptable to you? hahahaha What do you want me to say? OK You win! Gedanken FTW!
If you had started your first post by saying... "I disagree with you... people should be allowed to condemn others because... people are like GODS and people are omniscient and people have every right to set the standards like they are GODS... and the reasons are as follows... 1. you have made a logical error here that nullify your conclusions..."
Instead you choose to nick-pick on dubious matters of importance like, "you have used the label in error."
hahahaha you are so desperate to win that you must nick-pick instead of concentrating on the main issue at hand? (non sequitur - just a guess)
You are not desperate to win but is simply anal retentive? (non sequitur - just a guess)
That is how you want people to write? -
Very funny! I meant, what happened, why do you need to look for a job? You lost your old job issit?Originally posted by allentyb:i forgotten to pay my bills, and then went for a couple of interviews, so i have to send more resume again, later on in the evening, oh well
Not what happened, why was your internet down!
That is funny... how to handle cyber bullies? hahahaha just don't pay your internet bills...Originally posted by allentyb:i condemn people all the time, wah, at least i am being truthful about what i think or what i feel about the thread, and furthermore, i still feel that ignorant is not a bliss, so we have to 'educate' them to bring forth the truth, as to, awake their being, bring them forth towards the light, instead of being political correct in each and every post.
i applaud your bravery for creating such a thread
i think two days ago, i was watching one news broadcast in channel 5, one news actually caught my attentions, the news broadcaster was talking about cyberbully, and i was basically laughing my ass out, they actually, have to educate those poor moron at the secondary school, on how to tackle cyberbully, how about, next time, they actually, comes up with a course - dip in dealing with cyberbully,
i mean, seriously, if those dickhead, can't handle remark, they might as well, don't post in a forum, that silly little kid, was talking blah blah blah on the tv about bully, ha ha ha HA! -
Spending time to check on logic ensure our argument is valid. Rules of logics have to be used with rules of linguistics to make ur argument sound.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:This, precisely my dear friend is what I did not want to get into with you.
You spend time analysing the "logical" errors for what? Were the logical errors committed in this case, whether on purpose or otherwise, relevant and central to the issue/topic at hand?
Apply some wisdom when you apply your rules of logic, please.
Take yourself out of the "argument and debate" for a second and reflect whether you/I should take the time and trouble to "clarify" "analyze" "apply the rules of logic" to each and every post that people make, or we should simply say: "OK you win!"
Why only rules of logic? Why not "rules of linguistics" and "rules of effective writing" for two...
So you stick to the "main issue/s" at hand and when people come and jer siow (disturb) ... let them win lor...
And so once again,
morbid4ever FTW!
U have not address the problem I have quoted and dun try to deny the facts that u have no basic knowledge in logic.
Just answer this, do u understand the 9 basic form of valid argument?
U are just evading my qns. -
actually, AndrewPKYap, nobody should condemn one and another, it is not a matter of allow or disallow,
like i always said before, even i curse or swear or condemn or name calling, i do as i will, i don't need another person approval to condemn a person, i have to understand the consequences of saying those words, and that would be, a flame war
i don't understand why a simple thread like this, would end upto 10 pages long, maybe it is your nature, of debating with someone, and hoping painlessly, that someone would actually agree with your theory, though there are some of your post, i don't agree with, and i don't wish to point it out, because i am in no mood to debate at all
each individual is entitle to their own perception of the world, nobody can said that, NO~! you are wrong, you shouldn't live like this, or your perception is wrong.
i don't give a rat ASS to whoever say this - you should not say something like that, it is so mean~~~ ( this is just an example)
then i would reply to that whoever, i can't take back my words, like it or not, i already said it, and if you feel hurt by it, LIVE WITH IT! -
So lemme get this straight.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:hahaha logic is a tool... that you sometimes use to disparage others and if you cannot see that, too bad lor... you win lor...
My standard is not acceptable to you? hahahaha What do you want me to say? OK You win! Gedanken FTW!
If you had started your first post by saying... "I disagree with you... people should be allowed to condemn others because... people are like GODS and people are omniscient and people have every right to set the standards like they are GODS... and the reasons are as follows... 1. you have made a logical error here that nullify your conclusions..."
Instead you choose to nick-pick on dubious matters of importance like, "you have used the label in error."
hahahaha you are so desperate to win that you must nick-pick instead of concentrating on the main issue at hand? (non sequitur - just a guess)
You are not desperate to win but is simply anal retentive? (non sequitur - just a guess)
That is how you want people to write?
I said that just because people think they know everything, that does not mean that they think they are gods. How did that turn into "people have the right to act like they are gods"? Point out the post where I said that.
Even more simply, whenever have I even hinted that I think people should be allowed to condemn others? Point out the post where I said that.
Where are you getting all of this rubbish from?
Do you really think that, showing how you've come up with such bizarre proposals, you've actually got any business opining what is acceptable?
Forget anal-retentive - even the anal-expulsive would be able to see how you're not making any sense. -
let's see "dun try to deny the facts that u have no basic knowledge in logic"Originally posted by morbid4ever:Spending time to check on logic ensure our argument is valid. Rules of logics have to be used with rules of linguistics to make ur argument sound.
U have not address the problem I have quoted and dun try to deny the facts that u have no basic knowledge in logic.
Just answer this, do u understand the 9 basic form of valid argument?
U are just evading my qns.
Making a wild guess and presenting that as truth? hmmm let's see, what fallacy is that?
Lose the argument and attack the person? hmmmmm let's see, now, what fallacy is that?
let's see "U have not address the problem " hmmmm let's see, now what problem is he talking about?
let's see "U are just evading my qns. " hmmmm let's see, now what qns is he talking about?
let's see "ur" hmmm... lets see, why is he talking about an ancient city in southern Mesopotamia...?
What inconsistency!... asking people to uphold the highest standards in logic but
1.cannot even spell out the whole word...
2.making wild guesses himself....
3.committing numerous fallacies...
But you win lor... no problem one... -
or you can let them win... but let them win they still keep coming back leh... how?Originally posted by allentyb:actually, AndrewPKYap, nobody should condemn one and another, it is not a matter of allow or disallow,
like i always said before, even i curse or swear or condemn or name calling, i do as i will, i don't need another person approval to condemn a person, i have to understand the consequences of saying those words, and that would be, a flame war
i don't understand why a simple thread like this, would end upto 10 pages long, maybe it is your nature, of debating with someone, and hoping painlessly, that someone would actually agree with your theory, though there are some of your post, i don't agree with, and i don't wish to point it out, because i am in no mood to debate at all
each individual is entitle to their own perception of the world, nobody can said that, NO~! you are wrong, you shouldn't live like this, or your perception is wrong.
i don't give a rat ASS to whoever say this - you should not say something like that, it is so mean~~~ ( this is just an example)
then i would reply to that whoever, i can't take back my words, like it or not, i already said it, and if you feel hurt by it, LIVE WITH IT!
give them fireworks also no use...