Don't condemn people in AA
-
Up to a point when you realize that people do not wish to understand / cannot understand what you are trying to say... simple things like read and comprehend and back up what you say with facts, they CMI... let them win lor...Originally posted by Xiaozzhen:I believe this is not about winning and losing.
Let's be constructive about this topic. I prefer you when you are arguing.
it is like arguing with a pre-puberty child about sex... they cannot know what is horny (turned on) or orgasm, you think it is a waste of time to argue with them about sex or not?
Simple things like, the difference between having "strong opinions" and "condemning" people... they have no idea what the differences are.
Simple things like "one's man's morality is another's man stupidity" and "one man's religious beliefs is another's man delusion" apparently is too difficult for some people to understand.
Imagine that you are andrewpkyap and I am arguing against you, how will I do it?
I will say,
1. sometimes you do not need to know everything and know every detail to condemn people... you need only to know enough. Therefore it is not true that in order to condemn people, you need to be god.
2. while my religion based morality might not be a good basis to condemn people, there are things like conscience and cultural values that we can use to condemn people.
something like that. at least there is something to argue about.... but you are not andrewpkyap and I can't be arguing with myself can I?
After 5 pages and I never get any real response to argue...
so it is... OK you win... -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Yah rite, "pointing out" indeed.
hahahaha... I only point out PAP failings (not condemn) because I can't stand the mass media always portray them as saints and god-like... and they always put themselves in good light.
So it is my job to point out the other perspectives and I don't condemn PAP one... please point out where I condemn PAP and was not pointing out their failings? All out to defame people that criticise PAP issit?
You telling me PAP is god-like and no failings?
You don't buy my book is your loss...
Condemning and pointing out is just a matter of interpretation.
U like to put words into ppl's mouth?
I din say PAP are god like. So dun presume too much.
By buying ur book will be a double loss to me. Spend money and waste time. -
This is a never ending debate. almost everyone (including myself) has a strong opinion against your view .........
yes you've presented to us (or me) with examples but fail to convience anyone because of your insults
Say things like "Let you win ok? Happy? " or "Let you win you still not happy?" when someone has already pointed out that its not about winning.
Getting into an argument is not always a bad thing. (for me) At least I get to see other (or your) people's POV and maybe learn something. But even if I do not agree or if I feel that they are not getting my point, I'll try to reply them as politely as possible unless they are asking for it.
Do not to others what you do not want other to do to you. -
"matter of interpretation"? obviously you don't know the differenceOriginally posted by morbid4ever:Yah rite, "pointing out" indeed.
Condemning and pointing out is just a matter of interpretation.
U like to put words into ppl's mouth?
I din say PAP are god like. So dun presume too much.
By buying ur book will be a double loss to me. Spend money and waste time.
It is implied... if you do not think that PAP is perfect and god like then why should you be so worked up about people criticizing them?
Keep PAP on their toes a bit.
If I condemn PAP I will say... these people must be replaced at all costs.. and when did I ever say that?
-
again... baseless statements... apparently you have no idea what making baseless statements means and what logical fallacies are... so you win!Originally posted by MiX Metal:This is a never ending debate. almost everyone (including myself) has a strong opinion against your view .........
yes you've presented to us (or me) with examples but fail to convience anyone because of your insults
Getting into an argument is not always a bad thing. (for me) At least I get to see other (or your) people's POV and maybe learn something. But even if I do not agree or if I feel that they are not getting my point, I'll try to reply them as politely as possible unless they are asking for it.
Do not to others what you do not want other to do to you. -
its ok, you can keep the win, I'm not here to win anythingOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:again... baseless statements... apparently you have no idea what making baseless statements means and what logical fallacies are... so you win! -
OK I winOriginally posted by MiX Metal:its ok, you can keep the win, I'm not here to win anything -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
U really have no understanding in simple logics.
"matter of interpretation"? obviously you don't know the difference
It is implied... if you do not think that PAP is perfect and god like then why should you be so worked up about people criticizing them?
Keep PAP on their toes a bit.
If I condemn PAP I will say... these people must be replaced at all costs.. and when did I ever say that?
To make an implication, one have to list all the premises before one make an implication.
By saying that u are not fair to the PAP with the tone u are using doesn't make me an ardent supporter of PAP.
I have even defended those PRCS who are victimised by the locals. Does that mean I have to look up those PRCS as god? See ur logic is flawed.
The world is very much a matter of interpretation, whether u like it or not. How much do u noe abt differences? Do I have to quote what u said abt ppl being stupid in voting 4 PAP? How clever are u then to make such comment? U are just going in circles, a technique often use by politicians to hide their ignorance and mistakes.
Did u not condemn PAP? Just start a forum with the title " IS PKYAP BIASED AGAINST PAP" and I am pretty sure u will the answer I am trying to convey.
Calling others kids and using analogy that u are like trying to explained sex to a bunch of kids shows ur narcissism.
The fault really lies in u. Take a close look at urself. I am pretty sure that u have been flamed pretty badly all the time by ppl.
Ur notorious reputation in Speaker corner is the best testimonial for u incompetency. Arguing without hardcore facts and labeling ppl as deluded are part and parcel of ur posts.
If u wish to argue more logically, at least, please read a book by Susanna S.Epp on logics. It may be a little mathematical but it is definitely a good book. -
YOU want to talk logic?Originally posted by morbid4ever:U really have no understanding in simple logics.
To make an implication, one have to list all the premises before one make an implication.
Did I say you are an ardent supporter of the PAP?Originally posted by morbid4ever:By saying that u are not fair to the PAP with the tone u are using doesn't make me an ardent supporter of PAP. What kind of logic is that? May I ask?
So the people in Speakers are victimizing PAP and that is why you brought up this example?Originally posted by morbid4ever:I have even defended those PRCS who are victimised by the locals. Does that mean I have to look up those PRCS as god? See ur logic is flawed.
I said I criticized the PAP for their faults... and what is wrong with that unless they are gods and perfect... why cannot people criticize their faults?
I might have said that but you have to look at it in context.. yes it would be good if you can extract the quote and give us the contextOriginally posted by morbid4ever:The world is very much a matter of interpretation, whether u like it or not. How much do u noe abt differences? Do I have to quote what u said abt ppl being stupid in voting 4 PAP? How clever are u then to make such comment? U are just going in circles, a technique often use by politicians to hide their ignorance and mistakes.
You do understand the difference between, condemn and criticizing? Apparently not... why don't you pu;; up the quote that says I condemn the PAP and they must be replaced at all costs by all means? That is condemn. Did I? Where? So don't make wild accusations...Originally posted by morbid4ever:Did u not condemn PAP? Just start a forum with the title " IS PKYAP BIASED AGAINST PAP" and I am pretty sure u will the answer I am trying to convey.
Your opinion, I do not have to agree with it.Originally posted by morbid4ever:Calling others kids and using analogy that u are like trying to explained sex to a bunch of kids shows ur narcissism. Like I said many times in this thread... do not condemn does not mean have no opinions and mince your words... again, you cannot appreciate the difference
If people are behaving like children, then you should say so.
Bad logic... where? when? anyhow guess is good logic? Thanks, your can keep you logic for your own use.Originally posted by morbid4ever:The fault really lies in u. Take a close look at urself. I am pretty sure that u have been flamed pretty badly all the time by ppl.
I have a "notorious reputation in Speaker corner"? You mean among hard core PAP supporters that refuse to see any fault in their political masters issit?Originally posted by morbid4ever:Ur notorious reputation in Speaker corner is the best testimonial for u incompetency. Arguing without hardcore facts and labeling ppl as deluded are part and parcel of ur posts. "Without Facts"? Take your post I am replying to for example... what facts have you produced? None.
Thanks, I might check out Susanna's book but, as for your logic you can keep it for your own use...Originally posted by morbid4ever:If u wish to argue more logically, at least, please read a book by Susanna S.Epp on logics. It may be a little mathematical but it is definitely a good book. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Up to a point when you realize that people do not wish to understand / cannot understand what you are trying to say... simple things like read and comprehend and back up what you say with facts, they CMI... let them win lor...
Andrew, I am sorry to say that you also showed that you didn't understand what they are trying to say. Sigh!
it is like arguing with a pre-puberty child about sex... they cannot know what is horny (turned on) or orgasm, you think it is a waste of time to argue with them about sex or not?
I am closer in age to you, but I don't feel the same as you. I would instead explain the birds and the bees in the most gentle manner at their level to make them understand what I think they should at their age
Imagine that you are andrewpkyap and I am arguing against you, how will I do it?
Because I am Xiaozhen and argue with you in my manner which is not offensive to you, you are also not offensive to me, Andrewpkyap.
But notice that I say "not offensive to you", may be offensive to another. One man's meat is another's poison.
so it is... OK you win...
Let's not be childish to the younger... ok? No need to win or lose. Just make your point.
Xiaozhen
-
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Up to a point when you realize that people do not wish to understand / cannot understand what you are trying to say... simple things like read and comprehend and back up what you say with facts, they CMI... let them win lor...
Andrew, I am sorry to say that you also showed that you didn't understand what they are trying to say. Sigh!
Really? Which part? Any examples to show that I misunderstood someone or some posts?
it is like arguing with a pre-puberty child about sex... they cannot know what is horny (turned on) or orgasm, you think it is a waste of time to argue with them about sex or not?
I am closer in age to you, but I don't feel the same as you. I would instead explain the birds and the bees in the most gentle manner at their level to make them understand what I think they should at their age
But surely not argue with them and if they continue to argue, you will let them win?
Imagine that you are andrewpkyap and I am arguing against you, how will I do it?
Because I am Xiaozhen and argue with you in my manner which is not offensive to you, you are also not offensive to me, Andrewpkyap.
But notice that I say "not offensive to you", may be offensive to another. One man's meat is another's poison.
offensive ? I do not think it is a matter of being offensive or not. Like I said a few times already... you might need to give your honest opinion and that might be offensive to the reader. The point (thread title) is "Don't condemn" and "Don't be offensive" is not the point
so it is... OK you win...
Let's not be childish to the younger... ok? No need to win or lose. Just make your point.
Xiaozhen
But surely not argue with them if they continue to argue senselessly without realizing it, you too will let them win?
There is a correct, rational way to argue, in case you do not know.
Just because people think that they are making sense does not mean that they are making sense.
It can get too tedious trying to explain to people why they are not making sense when they have no idea when they making a strong or weak or senseless argument. -
To all those reading and not posting in this thread...
Let an old man give you some advice hor... please make the effort to at least google and learn what is "making a good argument" and what is "making a stupid" argument.
It has a lot to do with having good thinking skills. Unless know how to think clearly and you can think clearly, you cannot make a good argument. Please don't think that just because you can make proper sentences, you can argue properly and can think clearly hor...
It is like, you might "belief" that a certain way of doing things is correct and just because you believe it, does not mean that it is the correct way. There are proper procedures one hor... if you only care to find out.
To be able to think clearly is important if you want to be successful in life. -
quotes:
Xiaozhen
Because I am Xiaozhen and argue with you in my manner which is not offensive to you, you are also not offensive to me, Andrewpkyap.
But notice that I say "not offensive to you", may be offensive to another. One man's meat is another's poison.
Andrew
offensive ? I do not think it is a matter of being offensive or not. Like I said a few times already... you might need to give your honest opinion and that might be offensive to the reader. The point (thread title) is "Don't condemn" and "Don't be offensive" is not the point
I was not clear here, I mean the offensive manner as in the subsequent posts, not your original topic.
I feel the manner which the posts were posted, either by others or you , can be offensive to some. And of course, the reaction is to be offensive.
So I am pointing out that my manner is not offensive to you, therefore you are not offensive to me. But others may think I am offensive to you or vice versa.
Anyone, blur??? -
When it starts to get a tad too offensive... I let them win lor... see the point?
-
The problem is the topic. It is open for rebuttals.
Conversely, the joy is the topic. So much to rebuttal.
That's why this thread is 6 pages long.
-
Not anyhow, anyhow rebut hor....Originally posted by Xiaozzhen:The problem is the topic. It is open for rebuttals.
Conversely, the joy is the topic. So much to rebuttal.
That's why this thread is 6 pages long. Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:To all those reading and not posting in this thread...
Let an old man give you some advice hor... please make the effort to at least google and learn what is "making a good argument" and what is "making a stupid" argument.
It has a lot to do with having good thinking skills. Unless know how to think clearly and you can think clearly, you cannot make a good argument. Please don't think that just because you can make proper sentences, you can argue properly and can think clearly hor...
It is like, you might "belief" that a certain way of doing things is correct and just because you believe it, does not mean that it is the correct way. There are proper procedures one hor... if you only care to find out.
To be able to think clearly is important if you want to be successful in life. -
Life is not to be avoided but lived
TRY SMARTER... NOT TRY HARDER...
lived or try harder, once in this topic, you will be condemn by TS.
no point reply to this thread anymore, let it condemn itself
lets moved on to next topic -
OK You win lor...Originally posted by Quiet Guy:Life is not to be avoided but lived
TRY SMARTER... NOT TRY HARDER...
lived or try harder, once in this topic, you will be condemn by TS.
no point reply to this thread anymore, let it condemn itself
lets moved on to next topic -
Andrew, if you're going to presume to ask people to "learn what is making a good argument", I'd suggest that you read Trudy Govier's "A Practical Study of Argument". I recommend it to all of my students (most of whom are writing their Honours theses), and it explains in very straightforward terms the elements that constitute cogent and sound (in your terms, "good" ) arguments.
By the time you're past the first two chapters of Govier, you'll find that you haven't been constructing reasonable arguments yourself. In your first post, you equate living perefct, disciplined and careful lives with religious fanaticism, and also condemnation with one's self image as God. Neither conclusion is supported by any logical path between the premise and the conclusion, and because of this simply become labels that you arbitrarily choose to assign to people. The same goes for labelling people as "pitiful and sad" - you have not provided any basis upon which you explain how one might reasonably describe people as such. None of the above demonstrate either soundness or cogency, both conditions are technically required for a "good" argument.
If you're going to hold everybody up to standards of "good" argument, speaking from the perspective of someone who teaches people to construct arguments that stand up to the tightest scrutiny, you've got a fair bit to learn yourself. -
hehehe... *ouch*Originally posted by Gedanken:Andrew, if you're going to presume to ask people to "learn what is making a good argument", I'd suggest that you read Trudy Govier's "A Practical Study of Argument". I recommend it to all of my students (most of whom are writing their Honours theses), and it explains in very straightforward terms the elements that constitute cogent and sound (in your terms, "good") arguments.
By the time you're past the first two chapters of Govier, you'll find that you haven't been constructing reasonable arguments yourself. In your first post, you equate living perefct, disciplined and careful lives with religious fanaticism, and also condemnation with one's self image as God. Neither conclusion is supported by any logical path between the premise and the conclusion, and because of this simply become labels that you arbitrarily choose to assign to people. The same goes for labelling people as "pitiful and sad" - you have not provided any basis upon which you explain how one might reasonably describe people as such. None of the above demonstrate either soundness or cogency, both conditions are technically required for a "good" argument.
If you're going to hold everybody up to standards of "good" argument, speaking from the perspective of someone who teaches people to construct arguments that stand up to academic scrutiny, you've got a fair bit to learn yourself.
but but but...
Let's see what I said:
It was contingent on people that classify others as "Evil" or "Bad" and you presume that you know everything and can weigh everything and are truly rational and and have perfect understanding.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:"Some people prefer to live a happy life rather than a perfect life.
Some people prefer to live a happy life rather than a disciplined life.
Some people prefer to live a happy life rather than a careful life.
If living a perfect, disciplined and careful life makes you unhappy, do you think you would want to? Live a perfect, disciplined and careful life? Maybe, if you are a religious fanatic that hopes to get to heaven."[/quote]
ahhh... see? I qualified it with a big MAYBE...
meaning, maybe NOT!
The main point was... some people prefer to live a happy life rather than a "perfect"; "disciplined" and "careful" life that makes them unhappy... and "MAYBE" there is one category that might want to live an unhappy ""perfect"; "disciplined" and "careful" life" and that is those that are thinking of going to heaven. Fair, I think... in the realm of "possibilities " and "realities".
and the part also condemnation with one's self image as God.
I said:
[quote]Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:"If you are not happy with someone's behavior, you can condemn the person or you can condemn the action.
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.
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"
So for all those that think they are "GOD" Rolling Eyes"
Sounds like God or a god, doesn't it?
When I ask people to make good arguments, I meant that at the very least, they must have bases for their conclusions, whether their basis or premise is valid or not can be subjective and open for debate. If they have conclusions with no bases... "OK you win", is what I normally say because there is nothing to go on, nothing to debate.
If you think that my premises were weak... that is your opinion...
My argument had a "conclusion" with a "premise"... an argument with a sound structure, what I meant when I said "make good arguments". -
repeat post...
-
*Sneak in*
Just a reminder to keep this constructive and non-flammable.
*throw smoke bomb and vanished into a pall of smoke*
Cheers -
Wrong and wrong, Andrew.
You've attempted to sidestep the first issue by introducing a grammatical error, primarily in the placement of the comma. "Maybe, if you are a religious fanatic that hopes to get to heaven" in a proper grammatical sense, tranlates to, "Maybe you want to live a perfect, disciplined and careful life if you are a religious fanatic". This leaves no space for any other possibilities for reasons to want to live such a life. Had you meant to use maybe in the manner you described, the correct phrasing would be "If you want to live a perfect, disciplined and careful life, you may be a religious fanatic". You have made either a grammatical error or presented a flawed argument.
In the second instance, knwing and understanding everything is omniscience, which is one commonly accepted characteristic of gods, but certainly nowhere near an exhaustive list of other qualities associated with gods such as onmipotence. Making the leap from omniscience to godhood is illogical, since mind-readers, fortune tellers and others of the ilk make claims to such powers as well. Again, on the grounds that you have not considered other possibilities, your argument is neither sound nor cogent and your conclusion cannot be accepted.
It is not simply a matter of opinion that your premises are weak. By failing to exclude other possibilities that fit the bases of your arguments, your arguments fail accepted standards of argument. You profess compliance to proper standards of argument, and I am simply holding you to them. Sadly, "at the very least" doesn't cut it. Your argument is either sound and cogent, or it is not. -
Yun, I have absolutely no intention of flaming. Andrew has proposed raising the standard of debate here, and I happen to agree that this should be done. It's now just a question of whether he will be true to his word.Originally posted by Yunhaier:*Sneak in*
Just a reminder to keep this constructive and non-flammable.
*throw smoke bomb and vanished into a pall of smoke*
Cheers -
So you are citing me for a "grammatical " error?Originally posted by Gedanken:Wrong and wrong, Andrew.
You've attempted to sidestep the first issue by introducing a grammatical error, primarily in the placement of the comma. "Maybe, if you are a religious fanatic that hopes to get to heaven" in a proper grammatical sense, tranlates to, "Maybe you want to live a perfect, disciplined and careful life if you are a religious fanatic". This leaves no space for any other possibilities for reasons to want to live such a life. Had you meant to use maybe in the manner you described, the correct phrasing would be "If you want to live a perfect, disciplined and careful life, you may be a religious fanatic". You have made either a grammatical error or presented a flawed argument.
In the second instance, knwing and understanding everything is omniscience, which is one commonly accepted characteristic of gods, but certainly nowhere near an exhaustive list of other qualities associated with gods such as onmipotence. Making the leap from omniscience to godhood is illogical, since mind-readers, fortune tellers and others of the ilk make claims to such powers as well. Again, on the grounds that you have not considered other possibilities, your argument is neither sound nor cogent and your conclusion cannot be accepted.
It is not simply a matter of opinion that your premises are weak. By failing to exclude other possibilities that fit the bases of your arguments, your arguments fail accepted standards of argument. You profess compliance to proper standards of argument, and I am simply holding you to them. Sadly, "at the very least" doesn't cut it. Your argument is either sound and cogent, or it is not.
This is an internet forum... standards are naturally low but I am suggesting that it should not be low to the extend where conclusions are made without bases... otherwise there is nothing to go on.... nobody can clarify what they meant.
Like if you have simply said, "You make poor arguments" without any bases, there is nothing else to say between us and nobody knows what is in your head.
So let me tell you then, let me clarify, that it was as you suggested, a grammatically error. Does not invalidate the conclusions.
I dispute your assertion that "mind-readers, fortune tellers and others of the ilk make claims to" omniscience, nullifying your complaint against me regarding god-hood.
No human that does not claim to be god, as far as I know claims omniscience.
"mind-readers, fortune tellers and others of the ilk make claims to" seeing the future and the like but not to "omniscience". They will not tell you that they can explain the Theory of Relativity, for example.