Don't condemn people in AA
-
375 -
Good/Valid... are interchangeable when having a discussion in sgforums... unless you also want people to define "is"?Originally posted by Gedanken:So is your emphasis now on good arguments? Previously, you were talking about valid arguments instead, so what's it going to be? -
there you go again, making assumptions, and become the man you've asked us not to be.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:sure you can don't give reasons but that would mean that you are making statements without any reasons... you see, good thinking includes clarity of thought and clarity of what the bases are...
don't give reasons does not mean that the reasons do not exist. I have asked you questions in another forum and you did not answer, does that mean that you don't have the answers? It merely means that you have chosen NOT to give them.
you've made assumption on me about what you see, isn't that presumptious too? didn't you choose to condemn me too? -
.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You did a count and you refuse to tell us the number... too embarrassing to do that issit? For someone who is a mod of a religious forum, be more honest bah...
I hold on to it because I based it on sound premises which nobody (Gedanken tried, lost and resorted to name calling) could refute but you base it on "the number of folks that disagree" which means you yourself probably have no idea why you disagree... just like your beliefs right? Many people accept and so you follow but you yourself probably have no idea why.
this is never going to end is it ?? As far as calling names ..... you did that as well...... so you may think that you're better that anyone of us here, fact is you're no different, you just refused to believe it.
Benefit is in the debate only if people are able to understand what the debate is about. Honestly speaking ...... the more you try to explain things the more confussing it gets. So do us a favour, stop trying. -
Indeed? You're in bad need of some education, so I'm going to do you a favour here.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Good/Valid... are interchangeable when having a discussion in sgforums...
A GOOD argument is one that is valid and based on sound premises. A valid argument is one that is simply structured in a logical form.
An example of a valid argument:
Condition 1: If pigs can fly, pigs can drive
Condition 2: If pigs can drive, AndrewPKYap can write books
Conclusion: Pigs can fly, therefore AndrewPKYap can write books
The argument is perfectly valid - it conforms to the structure of a deductive argument. However, the premises are not sound - it is not a given thing that pigs can fly or drive, and we know sure as hell that you can't blooming write your way out of a paper bag, so the conclusion is not one that can be counted upon. In the same way, your rubbish about people having to be gods to judge is, well, just rubbish.
So you on and take this lassiez faire approach and use your being on a forum as an excuse. If you want to look stupid by claiming that valid and good are interchangeable, go right ahead and I won't have any compunction about pointing out your stupidity. -
Originally posted by Gedanken:Just because you didn't address doesn't mean it wasn't refuted, sport.
So, does your slipping in the "if' and "otherwise" without acknowledging your original erroneous categorical statement make it all better? Your refusal to acknowledge that post-hoc patch job just shows your dishonesty and cowardice.
[quote]Originally posted by Gedanken 02 July 2007 · 10:34 PM:Originally posted by Gedanken 02 July 2007 · 07:40 PM:Oh, this is just too damned funny.
Now you say:
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
([b]if you are not a judge (I was addressing sgforumners, not judges)... you need to be GODS in order to judge)
when you started out saying
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
(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")
Looks like you're the one who doesn't know the meaning of the word "if" - may I suggest you consult a dictionary? [/b][/quote]Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Funny meh?
Why must I explain every little thing to you like you are a little kid? *yawnz*
[b]if you are not a judge... with the proper jurisdiction to judge... in a court of law... you do not need to be GOD to judge...
otherwise, you have to be GOD with "the authority to set the standards" and be able to judge what GOOD and BAD is... looking at the past and future leading to / consequent of any action... *yawnz*[/b]
Oh, NOW you add the "otherwise" and try to pretend that it was there all the time? Your tricks are getting cheaper all the time.
*yawnz* that proves "dishonesty and cowardice"? That is your honest opinion? OK You win!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap 02 July 2007 · 10:35 PM:Then what is a forum for if not to clarify each other's position? *yawnz* -
and that proves that people can condemn others in sgforums? errr so finally you win?Originally posted by Gedanken:So you on and take this lassiez faire approach and use your being on a forum as an excuse. If you want to look stupid by claiming that valid and good are interchangeable, go right ahead and I won't have any compunction about pointing out your stupidity. -
You are confused? Try harder...Originally posted by MiX Metal:.this is never going to end is it ?? As far as calling names ..... you did that as well...... so you may think that you're better that anyone of us here, fact is you're no different, you just refused to believe it.
Benefit is in the debate only if people are able to understand what the debate is about. Honestly speaking ...... the more you try to explain things the more confussing it gets. So do us a favour, stop trying. -
no.... even with the multiple replies of "you win".... which really is tenuous at best... because if "we" truly win, the loser "andy" should just fade away, yet he continues to argue.Originally posted by MiX Metal:.
this is never going to end is it ?? -
Again, another one of your half-finished jobs. Sure, you asked what a forum is for if not to clarify one's position, the facts bear that you asked that question.
What the facts do not bear out is you actually engaging in any of that clarification you alluded to. Yiou slipped the "if" in, then you slipped the "otherwise" in, and didn't say anything about why you did that. Were you hoping that people didn't notice that you'd sneaked those bits in? Well, as i said before, you're out of luck.
The fact is that you categorically stated: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"
and then moved on to saying much later that if you're not a judge, you must be a god, without explaining in any way, shape or form about why you're now singing a different tune or acknowledging that you categorical claim was in fact wrong - you're just brushing it under the carpet, which is simply dishonest and cowardly.
Now you're going to deny or ignore this blatantly obvious point, but that's fine. I don't think there's anybody around who expects any better of you. -
ahhh... now what did I say?...Originally posted by Chin Eng:there you go again, making assumptions, and become the man you've asked us not to be.
don't give reasons does not mean that the reasons do not exist. I have asked you questions in another forum and you did not answer, does that mean that you don't have the answers? It merely means that you have chosen NOT to give them.
you've made assumption on me about what you see, isn't that presumptious too? didn't you choose to condemn me too?
Notice that I said I am speculating why you refuse to give us the precise number? That is call jumping to conclusions/making an assumptions? Hello, I know, and I said I am speculating.... I did not try to hide the fact.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Sure you can choose and people can speculate, right?... I mean you claimed to have made a count and then refuse to tell us what it is... you see, good thinking includes precision...
sure you can don't give reasons but that would mean that you are making statements without any reasons... you see, good thinking includes clarity of thought and clarity of what the bases are...
and when you "you have chosen NOT to give them" we can all conclude that: "you are making statements without any reasons..." because indeed, you are as far as we can see from your posts, "you are making statements without any reasons..." -
sure or not? don't anyhow say hor.....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:errr so finally you win? -
so again, who's "we": you and your altered ego?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Notice that I said I am speculating why you refuse to give us the precise number? That is call jumping to conclusions/making an assumptions? Hello, I know, and I said I am speculating.... I did not try to hide the fact.
and when you "you have chosen NOT to give them" we can all conclude that: "you are making statements without any reasons..." because indeed, you are as far as we can see from your posts, "you are making statements without any reasons..." [/quote]
speculating and jumping to conclusion - what's the difference?
who's "we"? Please be precise - you know - the names.... didn't you say [quote]Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:good thinking includes precision...
.... and btw, I am logging off now.... too many meetings to go to in the afternoon. Need to make this point clear. -
In my quoteOriginally posted by Gedanken:Again, another one of your half-finished jobs. Sure, you asked what a forum is for if not to clarify one's position, the facts bear that you asked that question.
What the facts do not bear out is you actually engaging in any of that clarification you alluded to. Yiou slipped the "if" in, then you slipped the "otherwise" in, and didn't say anything about why you did that. Were you hoping that people didn't notice that you'd sneaked those bits in? Well, as i said before, you're out of luck.
The fact is that you categorically stated: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"
and then moved on to saying much later that if you're not a judge, you must be a god, without explaining in any way, shape or form about why you're now singing a different tune or acknowledging that you categorical claim was in fact wrong - you're just brushing it under the carpet, which is simply dishonest and cowardly.
Now you're going to deny or ignore this blatantly obvious point, but that's fine. I don't think there's anybody around who expects any better of you.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"
The YOU is referring to whom? You want me to include judges when I say YOU in sgforums?
Which is why I said in earlier posts that you are delusional and not in touch with reality.
Everyone else would read it as... "He is referring to me" and not "He is referring to me and judges as well and while it applies to me it does not apply to judges"
So when you bring out the case of judges (for reasons you yourself know best) I made the necessary clarifications.
You did not say that the clarifications I made are invalid but you say that I am "dishonest and a coward"
*yawnz* -
The difference is not in "speculating and jumping to conclusion", the difference is that I was honest in declaring that I was simply "speculating and jumping to conclusion"... unlike many dishonest people... that claims to "have their reasons but CHOSE not to say what the reasons are, nia"Originally posted by Chin Eng:speculating and jumping to conclusion - what's the difference? -
Did you just try to make a joke ??Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You are confused? Try harder... -
When you said that you were confused... you were lying?Originally posted by MiX Metal:Did you just try to make a joke ?? -
Why are you asking me who the "you" is? You're the one who wrote that statement, so you're the one who needs to work out who the "you" is. If you can't even understand that, then you're the one who's well out of touch with reality.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:The YOU is referring to whom? You want me to include judges when I say YOU in sgforums? -
If you cannot even understand a "rhetorical" question, is it any wonder that you are constantly confused?Originally posted by Gedanken:Why are you asking me who the "you" is? You're the one who wrote that statement, so you're the one who needs to work out who the "you" is. If you can't even understand that, then you're the one who's well out of touch with reality. -
You think that rhetorical questions are your escape clause for worming out of answering the question?
I'll say it again, not because I hope that you'll finally understand it but to highlight what you're trying to worm your way out of. Your first stand was categorically that you had to be a god to set the standards and be the authority. Without explanation, you switched your tune to add the "If you're not a judge" bit. That's not a clarification - that's just trying to sweep your mistake under the carpet. -
Lose the argument and then resort to name calling and wild accusations... like: "you're trying to worm your way out of"Originally posted by Gedanken:You think that rhetorical questions are your escape clause for worming out of answering the question?
I'll say it again, not because I hope that you'll finally understand it but to highlight what you're trying to worm your way out of. Your first stand was categorically that you had to be a god to set the standards and be the authority. Without explanation, you switched your tune to add the "If you're not a judge" bit. That's not a clarification - that's just trying to sweep your mistake under the carpet.
You are the one that brought up the issue of the judges, remember? What (you switched your tune to add the "If you're not a judge" )
I know that it is probably a very difficult thing for you to do but please try to be honest, at least with yourself. -
Honestly ..... no .....Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When you said that you were confused... you were lying? -
Then try harder to clear your confusion...Originally posted by MiX Metal:Honestly ..... no ..... -
I switched my tune? All this time I'd disagreed with your proposition that one had to be a god to judge, so how can my mention of judges be a switch of tune?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Lose the argument and then resort to name calling and wild accusations... like: "you're trying to worm your way out of"
You are the one that brought up the issue of the judges, remember? What (you switched your tune to add the "If you're not a judge" )
I know that it is probably a very difficult thing for you to do but please try to be honest, at least with yourself.
You are the one who started off with "you have to be a god" and then switched tunes and added "if you're not a judge". Then again, the way you keep tripping over yourself, I don't expect you to see that you're the one who's switched tunes, much less admit that you're trying to pass off your mistake as mine. -
399