Don't condemn people in AA
-
300
-
Hmm, who's name calling?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
lose the argument and resort to name calling... You win lor!
You still haven't addressed the issues with your original post that I raised (refer to my post at 05:08 PM on 30 June 2007). As I predicted, you never addressed any of these issues. Instead of coming up with red herrings or lame excuses, why don't you address these issues about the key points of this thread? It's simply because you can't defend the indefensible, no matter how much of a smokescreen you try to throw to hide it. That's just fine, tiger - there's a few of us on this forum to keep you honest.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap (30 June 2007, 12:13 PM):Those two clowns are insisting that .... -
Yes, 300 posts, not about your decrees against people condemning people on AA, but instead about how what you post doesn't make any sense.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:300 -
1 great thing about this thread is the more you read on what Andrew has to say the more confused you'll become ....
-
There's no need to bring up any examples ..... just start from page 1 and everyone will get the point.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:So, it is too difficult to bring up examples of how I have been "condemning" people and simply make statements that nobody knows the basis (reasons why you say that) or without any basis (no reasons or invalid reasons)?
OK You win! -
Why even bother to let this page run up to 13 pages?
-
hahahaha, are you too sotong to understand what a fallacy is and know it when you are committing a fallacy?Originally posted by MiX Metal:There's no need to bring up any examples ..... just start from page 1 and everyone will get the point.
So what is wrong and so stupid about your statement?
(hint hint... giving you a taste of your own medicine) -
Because there are important issues to consider?Originally posted by Devil1976:Why even bother to let this page run up to 13 pages?
1. Why condemning people shows how stupid the one doing the condemnation is. (and what the h@ll is condemning people... are strong opinions "condemnations")
2. What are the rules of logic and what is making a valid argument... and when you are making a post, do you need to ensure (spend lots of time and effort) that it is perfectly logical and valid... or it is sufficient that people understand what you are trying to say...
3. Are posts either perfectly logical and the arguments perfectly valid or perfectly "wrong" and perfectly "useless" with no middle ground? -
As for your post 05:08 PM on 30 June 2007 Regarding judges:Originally posted by Gedanken:You still haven't addressed the issues with your original post that I raised (refer to my post at 05:08 PM on 30 June 2007). As I predicted, you never addressed any of these issues. Instead of coming up with red herrings or lame excuses, why don't you address these issues about the key points of this thread? It's simply because you can't defend the indefensible, no matter how much of a smokescreen you try to throw to hide it. That's just fine, tiger - there's a few of us on this forum to keep you honest.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
I think I had addressed your concerns in one way or another (like the quote above regarding judges and yet you claim I had not) but you either refuse to see them or is unable to see them or have missed reading them...
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]
or I think that you are "nit-picking" and are bringing up issues that are irrelevant, inconsequential and "out of topic".
If you agree that there is no need for high precision in a forum situation, then focus on the main issues and important points and seek clarification on these main issues and important points instead of taking issue with anything and everything under the sun. (Go buy Anything and Whatever... then)
Bll Clinton once said during the Monica Lewinsky saga "It depends on how you define "is""
Sure in a presidential impeachment trial it might be important how one defines "is" Even then, even though it was a US president impeachment proceeding, it was a big joke.
You, it seems to me are just "arguing" for the sake of "arguing" to show everyone how clever you are... asking people to define "is"
I on the other hand (of course I will say that, I know) is simply concerned about the fact that many in sgforums are given to condemning people with insufficient evidence, if not condemning people with no evidence...
and
Not knowing "at all" about the rules of making a valid argument and logic.
But that does not mean people should come along and insist on logical purity and that others make perfectly valid arguments...
that is:
Quote "When we reduce arguments to idiocies such as "it depends on how you define ‘is’" we are in deep trouble." -
When people make a joke (for example) and someone comes along and say: "You are being illogical" instead of having a good laugh... and insist that people follow the rules of logic (or valid arguments)... and then name call the joker as an illogical person... then
and "You win lor..."
Get a life.... -
reserved
-
repeat...
-
That's what you think.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:I think I had addressed your concerns in one way or another (like the quote above regarding judges and yet you claim I had not) but you either refuse to see them or is unable to see them or have missed reading them...
You wrote in the first post:If you condemn the person and classify him as "Evil" or "Bad" you are behaving like a "GOD". That is to say, you presume that you know everything and can weigh everything and are truly rational and and have perfect understanding.
That quote about judges does not address this claim because the two points are in conflict with each other. By your argument, judges have to be gods, or not only gods can condemn. Which is it going to be?
To be able to classify someone as "Good" or "Evil" you have to know everything about that person so that you can balance all his "Good" against all his "Bad".
You have to be able to not just say what "Good" is and what "Bad" is but be the authority to set the standards. You have to be "GOD"
It's not a case of nit-picking - you're trying to argue that apart unless certain conditions hold true, people don't have the right to condemn. You can't even make up your mind if you're talking about gods or judges, so you don't have a point to make here. -
I think it's more a case of the more you read on, the more you'll see how confused Andrew is.Originally posted by MiX Metal:1 great thing about this thread is the more you read on what Andrew has to say the more confused you'll become .... -
very confused, sometimes its like watching a one man theatre of angst and agonyOriginally posted by Gedanken:I think it's more a case of the more you read on, the more you'll see how confused Andrew is. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:I think it's more a case of the more you read on, the more you'll see how confused Andrew is.
I am glad I am not alone....Originally posted by Space1999:very confused, sometimes its like watching a one man theatre of angst and agony the strange thing is: he's suppose to be a writer. 
-
well, its like a bad movie,Originally posted by Chin Eng:I am glad I am not alone.... the strange thing is: he's suppose to be a writer.
,no structure , no reason , just doesnt make sense at all, thats what makes it difficult to argue with him because he dont really have a clear stand on the issue and most importantly you really dont know
what is he talking about,..its a bit disturbing..
i would define him like a bad art movie...after watching it , you felt like you wasted your time over nothing... -
Originally posted by Space1999:i would define him like a bad art movie...after watching it , you felt like you wasted your time over nothing... yup, I watched a couple of Wong Kar Wai before.....
-
wong kar wai is boring but at least you know what the story is about...this is like watching borat in russian languageOriginally posted by Chin Eng: yup, I watched a couple of Wong Kar Wai before..... -
Well, he claims to be a writer. For all his yammering about "good" arguments, this threads stands as testimony that he loves talking the talk, but he actually walks about as well as a Cambodian minefield dancer.Originally posted by Chin Eng:I am glad I am not alone.... the strange thing is: he's suppose to be a writer. -
Anyway, before we give Mr Hemingway any more excuses to worm his way out of addressing the issues as he claims to want to do, after all this time, he still hasn't addressed how he first said that only gods can condemn and then backpedalled and started talking about judges.
Well, what about it, Andrew? Were you wrong the first time or wrong the second time? -
I think it's more a case of the more you read on, the more you'll see how confused Gedanken is.Originally posted by Gedanken:I think it's more a case of the more you read on, the more you'll see how confused Andrew is.
Space1999 is very confused, sometimes its like watching a one man theatre of angst and agonyOriginally posted by Space1999:very confused, sometimes its like watching a one man theatre of angst and agony
Fallacy ad populum ...Originally posted by Chin Eng:I am glad I am not alone.... the strange thing is: he's suppose to be a writer.
as if you have the ability to understand Wong Kar Wai 's movies and understand issues like "condemnation", logic and valid arguments ... just stick to your beliefs bah...Originally posted by Space1999:well, its like a bad movie,
,no structure , no reason , just doesnt make sense at all, thats what makes it difficult to argue with him because he dont really have a clear stand on the issue and most importantly you really dont know
what is he talking about,..its a bit disturbing..
i would define him like a bad art movie...after watching it , you felt like you wasted your time over nothing...[/quote]well, just look at Space1999 posts its like a bad movie,
,no structure , no reason , just doesnt make sense at all, thats what makes it difficult to argue with him because he dont really have a clear stand on the issue and most importantly you really dont know
what is he talking about,..its a bit disturbing..
i would define him like a bad art movie...after watching it , you felt like you wasted your time over nothing...[quote]Originally posted by Chin Eng: yup, I watched a couple of Wong Kar Wai before.....
wong kar wai is boring but at least you know what the story is about... but reading Space1999 posts is like watching borat in russian languageOriginally posted by Space1999:wong kar wai is boring but at least you know what the story is about...this is like watching borat in russian language
=======================
***yawnz*** only idiots will consider opinions that are not backed up with facts and examples as "good"...
Tell that to someone that cares for your opinions.... -
This is funny now.
I was just thinking this morning, that we should find someone as unreasonable as Andrew.
Then I remembered Space1999.
Now he's really here!
*takes popcorn*
(yes yes, I know I won. That's why I'm just watching. ) -
I was right both times... if you are not a judge (I was addressing sgforumners, not judges)... you need to be GODS in order to judgeOriginally posted by Gedanken:Anyway, before we give Mr Hemingway any more excuses to worm his way out of addressing the issues as he claims to want to do, after all this time, he still hasn't addressed how he first said that only gods can condemn and then backpedalled and started talking about judges.
Well, what about it, Andrew? Were you wrong the first time or wrong the second time?
Judges need not be GODS to judge because they are paid to do that and "jurisdiction ":Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Having to explain every little thing to you makes me feel like I am talking to a kid.. *haiz*
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] -
sorry, hor, you did not win this time hor... this is one of your more reasonable posts... you need to be a lot more absurd than that to win...Originally posted by binarynwitz:This is funny now.
I was just thinking this morning, that we should find someone as unreasonable as Andrew.
Then I remembered Space1999.
Now he's really here!
*takes popcorn*
(yes yes, I know I won. That's why I'm just watching. )
But for labeling people as "unreasonable" when you are incapable of understanding difficult issues, that one you win!