Don't condemn people in AA
-
Did I say you said it?Originally posted by Gedanken:So lemme get this straight.
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.
Did I say you said "people have the right to act like they are gods"?
Did I say you said "people should be allowed to condemn others"?
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. -
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER... 250
-
Andrew, m'boy, you really do need to learn how to read. Since you display that deficiency, I'll do you a favour and highlight the question in question, which really is painfully obvious:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:let's see "U are just evading my qns. " hmmmm let's see, now what qns is he talking about?Originally posted by morbid4ever:
What question? THAT question. Now, you can go into issues about morbid's spelling - given your bleating about "issues of dubious importance" you've just made a hypocrite of yourself - or you can answer that simple question: wherever did morbid claim to be "the best in logics" (sic)?
Nah...
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.
If you aren't going to answer that question, well, then morbid's right and you are evading. -
1 thing I don't understand is why do you keep saying that people that condemn are like "GODS" ??Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: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..." -
[quote]Originally posted by Gedanken:
[b]
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.
Wassup Buddy? You argue with him until the cows come home also he wont let you win one lah
You would always be the goalkeeper and he the penalty kicker...by the way, I do sometimes wonder what that PK stands for 
-
You wrote to me:Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Did I say you said "people have the right to act like they are gods"?
Did I say you said "people should be allowed to condemn others"?
Why preface that with "if you had said" as if that was my point? Is this going to be another case of you claiming poor grammar and not understanding the meaning of what you have written yourself?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap: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..."
That being the case, I again bring into question what you mean by "acceptable", because it looks like what you mean is, "whatever goes, as long as it suits my convenience". -
All quotes (in bold) from WikipediaOriginally posted by MiX Metal:1 thing I don't understand is why do you keep saying that people that condemn are like "GODS" ??
1. In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Do you have the "jurisdiction" to condemn?
2. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. This concept is included in the Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem" on multiple occasions. This is the infinite form of the verb "alama" which means to learn.If you cannot know "everything" are you sure that your condemnation has taken "everything" into consideration?
3. Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.Are you so sure that the evidence that you use to condemn someone complies with the "Rules of evidence"? and whose "RULES"?
errr... I working today... boss looking at me liaoz... -
this thread has the potential of reaching page 20!
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Ah, there we go - you want to be absolute and precise about things now, of all times? When did any of those people who condemn ever claim to know "everything"? You've gone and accused them of doing something they've never done, and then you say that they think of themselves as gods. Now you pull all of this up, talking about jurisdiction and holding people accountable in absolute terms for "condemning", when over the past few days you've been arguing that this is an internet forum and such absolutes don't apply.
All quotes (in bold) from Wikipedia
[b]1. In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Do you have the "jurisdiction" to condemn?
2. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. This concept is included in the Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem" on multiple occasions. This is the infinite form of the verb "alama" which means to learn.If you cannot know "everything" are you sure that your condemnation has taken "everything" into consideration?
3. Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.Are you so sure that the evidence that you use to condemn someone complies with the "Rules of evidence"? and whose "RULES"?
[/b]
For all that you've said about not applying absolute standards on internet forums, you've just invalidated your initial argument. All of your pontifications are absolute rubbish because your initial premise was rubbish that you couldn't stick to over the course of this thread, instead flip-flopping between being abolute and being lassiez faire.
That's not philosophy, that's just common sense that you've failed to apply right from your first post in this thread. -
Ninja, what I find funny is that this guy accuses people of doing all of these things when he's doing the very same in this very thread. His hypocrisy is just hilarious.Originally posted by Short Ninja:[quote]Originally posted by Gedanken:
[b]Wassup Buddy? You argue with him until the cows come home also he wont let you win one lah You would always be the goalkeeper and he the penalty kicker...by the way, I do sometimes wonder what that PK stands for -
i think he is trying to copy me
-
In that case, no one here is qualify to set any standards or guidelines
-
wow! "if you had said" ... means you said it? and it is your point?Originally posted by Gedanken:Why preface that with "if you had said" as if that was my point? Is this going to be another case of you claiming poor grammar and not understanding the meaning of what you have written yourself?
That being the case, I again bring into question what you mean by "acceptable", because it looks like what you mean is, "whatever goes, as long as it suits my convenience".
"acceptable", my dear boy.... means acceptable... just like "if" means if...
pssst... you can find the meaning of words in the dictionary....
You cannot understand "if" how can you understand "acceptable"?
*haiz* you win! I lose...
Gedanken FTW! -
I agree, although if someone can propose a system that people can clearly understand and base their actions upon, that would be a good thing.Originally posted by MiX Metal:In that case, no one here is qualify to set any standards or guidelines -
Jason, my dear boy, has the jurisdiction as far as sgforums is concerned...Originally posted by MiX Metal:In that case, no one here is qualify to set any standards or guidelines
while people cannot set the standards on moral issues, they can still give their opinions and if their opinions are grounded in logic and valid arguments, people will want to accept their opinions...
Give your opinions, grounded in logic and make valid arguments...
Those two clowns are insisting that the logic and arguments must be perfectly valid while I am saying that as long as the reader understands much of what you are trying to say, that is good enough and acceptable....
As long as you are not too illogical and your arguments completely invalid... that is acceptable... for discussions in sgforums.... -
Tut tut tut. You're focussing on the word "if" - is your intellect that limited that you can't handle more than a single word?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:wow! "if you had said" ... means you said it? and it is your point?
"acceptable", my dear boy.... means acceptable... just like "if" means if...
pssst... you can find the meaning of words in the dictionary....
You cannot understand "if" how can you understand "acceptable"?
*haiz* you win! I lose...
Gedanken FTW!
Why did you choose to write: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..."
when I never said that people should be condemned, nor did I say that people are like gods? Is that what you were thinking I said, or did you pull that out of thin air? Is that what you mean by "acceptable"? -
So when you pull statements out of thin air that's grounded?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Jason, my dear boy, has the jurisdiction as far as sgforums is concerned...
while people cannot set the standards on moral issues, they can still give their opinions and if their opinions are grounded in logic and valid arguments, people will want to accept their opinions...
Give your opinions, grounded in logic and make valid arguments...
Those two clowns are insisting that the logic and arguments must be perfectly valid while I am saying that as long as the reader understands much of what you are trying to say, that is good enough and acceptable....
As long as you are not too illogical and your arguments completely invalid... that is acceptable... for discussions in sgforums....
So if people choose to condemn someone and they have a reason to do so, what's your problem? After all, it fits your fast-and-loose measure of acceptable. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:Why preface that with "if you had said" as if that was my point? Is this going to be another case of you claiming poor grammar and not understanding the meaning of what you have written yourself?
That being the case, I again bring into question what you mean by "acceptable", because it looks like what you mean is, "whatever goes, as long as it suits my convenience".
I think the same answer suffice...Originally posted by Gedanken:Tut tut tut. You're focussing on the word "if" - is your intellect that limited that you can't handle more than a single word?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:wow! "if you had said" ... means "you said it"? and "it is your point"?
*haiz* you win! I lose...
Gedanken FTW! -
BTW... when did I say that "acceptable" means acceptable to me? That I am the standard or I set the standard?
Gross stupidity of the "if you eat it" means "you ate it" variety... -
You may think it will suffice, but of course it's become clear how slipshod your standards, so your definition of what will suffice of course means nothing.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I think the same answer suffice...
You still haven't addressed why you chose to specifically suggest that I would say that people should be condemned or they should consider themselves as gods. You've done that with without any reason, grounds or basis, and for all of your pontification about things being grounded and logical, you just spew nonsense that you pull out of thin air. -
To AndrewPKYapOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:Jason, my dear boy, has the jurisdiction as far as sgforums is concerned...
while people cannot set the standards on moral issues, they can still give their opinions and if their opinions are grounded in logic and valid arguments, people will want to accept their opinions...
Give your opinions, grounded in logic and make valid arguments...
Those two clowns are insisting that the logic and arguments must be perfectly valid while I am saying that as long as the reader understands much of what you are trying to say, that is good enough and acceptable....
As long as you are not too illogical and your arguments completely invalid... that is acceptable... for discussions in sgforums....
What is good advice? -
Well, if you're saying that something is acceptable, the understanding is that it would be acceptable to you.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:BTW... when did I say that "acceptable" means acceptable to me?
But let's just ignore this obvious point for a minute. The alternative is that you would be endorsing something as being acceptable, even if it's not acceptable to you. That makes you an even bigger idiot than I took you for - an impressive feat indeed.
As it stands, what is acceptable to you is already beneath what other members will accept, so if it's not acceptable to you, you're severely deluded to believe that it would be acceptable to other people.
Are you saying that you are not setting the standard? Well and good, because with the nonsense that you come up with, you really shouldn't be undertaking such risky activities.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:That I am the standard or I set the standard?
So if you don't set the standard, you've got absolutely no business writing things like:
After all, if you're not claiming to set the standard, who are you to dictate the condiditons upon which things are deemed acceptable?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:As long as you are not too illogical and your arguments completely invalid... that is acceptable... for discussions in sgforums....
Given how little you understand of "good" argument, despite all of your overblown claims, it's a really bad joke if you expect people to take you seriously.
If you've written your so-called book the way you've written in this forum, don't quit your day job, buddy boy. -
Who did that in the first place?
-
By his reckoning, any given thing so long as it suits his convenience - he doesn't require any proof of logic or soundness, just so long as it sounds good to him and it doesn't clash with his agenda.Originally posted by zeny:To AndrewPKYap
What is good advice? -
You are of course simply trying to focus the attention to "why" I brought it up... so that it diverts attention to your lack of understanding of the word "if"; that when someone say: "If you have eaten the poison" it does not mean that you have eaten the poison...Originally posted by Gedanken:You may think it will suffice, but of course it's become clear how slipshod your standards, so your definition of what will suffice of course means nothing.
You still haven't addressed why you chose to specifically suggest that I would say that people should be condemned or they should consider themselves as gods. You've done that with without any reason, grounds or basis, and for all of your pontification about things being grounded and logical, you just spew nonsense that you pull out of thin air.
A simple thing like that and you keep trying to wiggle your way out...
Is it any wonder when I ignore your posts and tell you you can win if you want to