Don't condemn people in AA
-
150 -
No, I'm not citing you for a grammatical error. You used incorrect grammar to create an escape clause (i.e. you meant that "maybe" the described people were religious fanatics). I pointed out that grammatical error to show how your excuse does not apply, and therefore that your argument is still incorrect because it fails to address and logically exclude other possible reasons for people wanting to lead perfect, disciplined and careful lives. Even being generous and accepting poor grammar as an excuse, "maybe" is a guess, not a conclusion, and as such can justifiably be struck off and ignored as unadulterated speculation. Either way, you're not right.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:So you are citing me for a "grammatical " error?
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.
First you call for people here to find out what "good" arguments are and conform to such standards, but when hoisted on your own petard you suddenly revise your view to accommodate lower standards. I do wish you would make up your mind, because the choice is dichotomous - your arguments are either correct or incorrect and there's no grey area in between. If you acknowledge that standards of "good" arguments are an unrealistic goal and treat others' arguments accordingly, I'd be happy to accept that, but if not you open your writing to the scrutiny that any first-year undergraduate's work is fairly subjected to, by virtue of the standards that you have proposed yourself.
As for the omniscience angle, I'll agree with you but it's irrelevant because you've just painted yourself into a corner chasing red herrings. By your own standards, people who condemn on AA know everything, so they would claim to be capable of explaining the Theory of Relativity as well. Well and good, because we now come to the point where factual proof can be called for. Where, pray tell, has any of these people claimed to know how to explain the Theory of Relativity, much less everything else? If you cannot provide any examples, then your conclusion that these people think they are gods is simply fallacious on grounds of unsupported premises.
You've just put yourself into checkmate. -
You are missing the forest because you keep looking at the tree.Originally posted by Gedanken:No, I'm not citing you for a grammatical error. You used incorrect grammar to create an escape clause (i.e. you meant that "maybe" the described people were religious fanatics). I pointed out that grammatical error to show how your excuse does not apply, and therefore that your argument is still incorrect because it fails to address and logically exclude other possible reasons for people wanting to lead perfect, disciplined and careful lives. Even being generous and accepting poor grammar as an excuse, "maybe" is a guess, not a conclusion, and as such can justifiably be struck off and ignored as unadulterated speculation. Either way, you're not right.
The premise was...
People are not GODS.
The conclusions was...
only GODS (maybe judges) should condemn... the rest of us should only give our opinions (unless we have reviewed the evidence and are indeed competent to do that and establish what Moral or some other STANDARDS should be used).
But you have chosen to attack a minor point which is, why people might want to live UNHAPPY lives even if others tell them that the lifestyle is the "perfect", "disciplined" and "careful" way to live.
You want to win this minor point? OK you win.
You have made a fallacy by assuming that "standards" are or must be absolute.Originally posted by Gedanken:First you call for people here to find out what "good" arguments are and conform to such standards, but when hoisted on your own petard you suddenly revise your view to accommodate lower standards. I do wish you would make up your mind, because the choice is dichotomous - your arguments are either correct or incorrect and there's no grey area in between. If you acknowledge that standards of "good" arguments are an unrealistic goal and treat others' arguments accordingly, I'd be happy to accept that, but if not you open your writing to the scrutiny that any first-year undergraduate's work is fairly subjected to, by virtue of the standards that you have proposed yourself.
Either or and or else! Fallacy of the missing middle.
This is an internet forum... not a circle of philosophers...
People here like to say, meh? nia... hor... which to me is acceptable for language is for communication, not to pass an exam.
The standard that needs to be raised is for the improvement of the communication process...
How can the standards "for the improvement of the communication process..." be raised in an all comers internet forum?
Those that do not even know that there are "standards" and "best practices" for making a sound argument... please find out and try to raise your standards so that people understand what you are trying to say.
NOT please raise your standards to that of philosophers...
When I write my book, yes, I write, rewrite and rewrite and restructure and remove ambiguities and fallacies I might have made....
Do you have any idea how long that takes?
You want people to do that in an anonymous internet forum like this one?
Reality, man... you need a dose of REALITY. -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
Like you say, what I (or you) might "Belief" that a certain way is the correct way, does not mean it is the correct way for everyone else, so how do we actually know which is the so call "correct" way ?
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...
[b]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.[/b]
Yes I can go online, read up books, but you've also constantly reminded me that our brains are the most unreliable thing, so how can u be so sure that your so call "good thinking skills" actually is good ?
And what is making a "good argument" and a "stupid argument" ? My so call good arguement might be seen as a stupid argument to someone else and so can your "good arguement" be someone's studpid arguement. If they have a strong believe in their own views and refused to accept the fact that sometimes they may be actually wrong ?
There will always be miss-interpretation, difference in opinions and views. In the forum world, we do not know each other personally most of the time some chances of miss-interpretation is very high. thus the arguements and debates begin.
Nothing personal, just need to figure out the above mention, maybe you can help me ??
-
You seriously want some help to clarify your own thinking process or you just want to win?Originally posted by MiX Metal:Like you say, what I (or you) might "Belief" that a certain way is the correct way, does not mean it is the correct way for everyone else, so how do we actually know which is the so call "correct" way ?
Yes I can go online, read up books, but you've also constantly reminded me that our brains are the most unreliable thing, so how can u be so sure that your so call "good thinking skills" actually is good ?
And what is making a "good argument" and a "stupid argument" ? My so call good arguement might be seen as a stupid argument to someone else and so can your "good arguement" be someone's studpid arguement. If they have a strong believe in their own views and refused to accept the fact that sometimes they may be actually wrong ?
There will always be miss-interpretation, difference in opinions and views. In the forum world, we do not know each other personally most of the time some chances of miss-interpretation is very high. It does not mean that if your older makes your wiser.
Nothing personal, just need to figure out the above mention, maybe you can help me ??
If you only want to win... OK You win lor...
But if you are serious about wanting to know where you have erred in your thinking....
buy my book Just a joke
OK ... you are right when you ask... how?
My Brain unreliable!
My beliefs unreliable!
Your brain unreliable!
Your beliefs unreliable!
Standards unreliable!
Language unreliable...
so forget it.... I will simply type
jksdbfiusbd;sb s;odiubcosiuhvbs 'livhosihvoishv soiudvchsoivhsoiv sodvhso[dvho'sad sdvfoishvosahd asdviohsdo'vihsdv'
of course not... you find out what is good sentence structure, what is good spelling... what is making a good argument and try to conform to these standards... even if they are not perfect.
But at no point do you go into a delusion that your standards are perfect and your thoughts are perfect and other people understand you perfectly....
so how? nobody perfect then how? Cling on to religious beliefs that insists you must have the faith that what they preach is perfect and infallible and applicable to all situations in life?
Actually that is one way and if a person is so far gone and in need of "salvation" that might be very good. For example, if you are a drug addict and your life is in ruins... who cares if religion is the opium of the masses, if religion can get him out of the addiction?
Religion and the founder of the religion is truly his Lord and Savior if it could get him out of the drug addiction.
There are other ways... and in my opinion better ways to live life that will ensure a higher chance of success than religious beliefs, or social conventions... and so on and so forth...
OK back to your post..
sure... "My so call good arguement might be seen as a stupid argument to someone else and so can your "good arguement" be someone's studpid arguement."
so what?
Can you say: "My so call correct spelling might be seen as a incorrect spelling to someone else and so can your "correct spelling" be someone's incorrect spelling."
Of course not. Why not? ahhhh work your brain cells to come up with the reasons why your sentence does not work for my "spelling" example and you would have found out the correct answer for yourself....
-
nah ..... not looking to win, just need to clarify.
This has become a very interesting debate. -
Dear boy, the entire argument above is in itself fallacious.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:You have made a fallacy by assuming that "standards" are or must be absolute.
Either or and or else! Fallacy of the missing middle.
This is an internet forum... not a circle of philosophers...
People here like to say, meh? nia... hor... which to me is acceptable for language is for communication, not to pass an exam.
The standard that needs to be raised is for the improvement of the communication process...
How can the standards "for the improvement of the communication process..." be raised in an all comers internet forum?
Those that do not even know that there are "standards" and "best practices" for making a sound argument... please find out and try to raise your standards so that people understand what you are trying to say.
The Oxford dictionary defines standards as:
1 a level of quality or attainment.
2 a required or agreed level of quality or attainment.
3 something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations
Levels, measures and norms are by definition absolute. You are either above or below the level. You either match the norms, or you don't. Measures, by their very nature, must be absolute, or there would be no point trying to measure anything.
If you choose to ignore this one fundamental point, then Mix Metal is in fact correct in observing:And what is making a "good argument" and a "stupid argument" ? My so call good arguement might be seen as a stupid argument to someone else and so can your "good arguement" be someone's studpid arguement.
After all, if there is no commonly accepted set of standards that constitute "good" or "bad" arguments, it becomes entirely subjective and people can claim that arguments are "good" or "bad" according to whim.
If you want to see the forest for the trees, well and good - let's do that. Here you are, arguing for a code of behaviour, but when pressed you shift the goalposts according to whatever happens to be convenient at that particular minute, going as far as to argue for grey areas to be applied to standards which are absolute by nature. How, pray tell, do you expect people to accept what you propose when your own conduct lacks consistency to that extent? -
Take Buddhists precepts (or ten commandments) for example...Originally posted by Gedanken:After all, if there is no commonly accepted set of standards that constitute "good" or "bad" arguments, it becomes entirely subjective and people can claim that arguments are "good" or "bad" according to whim.
If you want to see the forest for the trees, well and good - let's do that. Here you are, arguing for a code of behaviour, but when pressed you shift the goalposts according to whatever happens to be convenient at that particular minute, going as far as to argue for grey areas to be applied to standards which are absolute by nature. How, pray tell, do you expect people to accept what you propose when your own conduct lacks consistency to that extent?
In Buddhism, you are considered of a higher order if you keep more vows.
Thus a layperson is expected to keep like 10 and a novice monk 256.
They are both "Buddhists"
Not, if you keep anything less than the 10,000 known precepts, you are an infidel....
Have you ever picked up a book on best practices? Take the IT security best practices for example...
Yes it is a BOOK, not a few pages.
So, if I ignore some of the best practices listed in that book in my home computer, does that condemn me as an IT security idiot?
Of course not unless I am an IT consultant to the Government.
Then, they might want to me to show them an audit that I am fully in compliant.
Get it? Reality check, man.... this is an internet forum and not a circle of philosophers...
We are making posts in an anonymous internet forum and not writing a philosophical thesis... -
Ah, OK.
So when you said: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.
you really didn't mean it, did you?
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...
After all, I took you at your word, and in fact I went a step further by specifically recommending Govier's work, which clearly explains what a "good" argument is.
Suddenly, that's all a bit too much for you, and you try to sidestep your own proposal by excluding the absolutes upon which objective assessment of arguments is based.
I'm finding it really hard to take you at your word, because the substance of what you're saying changes from one post to another. The question is, considering how your story has changed over the past few posts from the original quote I cited above, are you thinking clearly? Do we need to have a clear indicator of when you are speaking off the cuff and do not expect to be taken seriously? -
OK, say I now accept your so-called "reality check". Yes, this is an internet forum where no governing body or system exists to enforce standards. I have no trouble accepting that, your proposal vis-a-vis "good" and "bad" arguments notwithstanding.
That's fine too - anybody is then free to condemn whomever they want, and whether they think they're Gods or not is simply a matter of your opinion, which everybody is free to ignore.
Checkmate again, thanks to your inconsistency.
Pick a side, dear boy - either you make sure you know what you're doing and stick to it, or accept it as the free-for-all that others take it to be. -
false dilemma Sets unrealistic limits on possible options. "Elizabeth must be either at home or at work." [false dilemma]Originally posted by Gedanken:OK, say I now accept your so-called "reality check". Yes, this is an internet forum where no governing body or system exists to enforce standards. I have no trouble accepting that, your proposal vis-a-vis "good" and "bad" arguments notwithstanding.
That's fine too - anybody is then free to condemn whomever they want, and whether they think they're Gods or not is simply a matter of your opinion, which everybody is free to ignore.
Checkmate again, thanks to your inconsistency.
Pick a side, dear boy - either you make sure you know what you're doing and stick to it, or accept it as the free-for-all that others take it to be.
"Anyone who does not stand with us stands against us." [false dichotomy / missing middle]
The example ignores many possibilities for Elizabeth's whereabouts, such as at the shopping mall, at the theater, on vacation, visiting a friend, or in transit between locations.
A special kind of false dilemma, in which there is a range of alternatives between two stated extremes, is called the "false dichotomy" or "missing middle" fallacy. -
So what is the middle you're proposing? How does it operate? Are you thinking clearly enough to communicate that to people in a way that courses of action may be guided by it? Mix Metal asked for an explanation, and instead of providing one, you sent on a tangent about religion.
You see fit to dictate what "good" and "bad" arguments are without any objective measures for making such a determination. The middle you're arguing for is nothing but a set of preferences that shift according to your mood and situation, and that, dear lad, makes you no better than those you choose to criticise. -
When I gave you the example of IT security best practices, did you not understand anything from the example?Originally posted by Gedanken:So what is the middle you're proposing? How does it operate? Are you thinking clearly enough to communicate that to people in a way that courses of action may be guided by it? Mix Metal asked for an explanation, and instead of providing one, you sent on a tangent about religion.
You see fit to dictate what "good" and "bad" arguments are without any objective measures for making such a determination. The middle you're arguing for is nothing but a set of preferences that shift according to your mood and situation, and that, dear lad, makes you no better than those you choose to criticise.
The list is exhaustive and I can keep referring to it to "remind" myself to be in compliant with the full list.
If I am the IT consultant to the government and implementing IT security for them, I better ensure that I am in full compliance and conduct audits regularly to be certain.
For my home computer? I think if I am in compliance with one of the best practices, I am good.
Similarly, in an internet forum like this, if people can implement one or a couple of the basic best practices of good arguments, that should suffice.
Not, get a degree in Good Arguments then post! I really don't see why you find that so difficult to understand.
For example, if people can offer premises for their conclusions... I am happy.
At the present, so many of them make baseless conclusions and all I can do is reply... OK You win!
I have no idea why the concluded as they did and yet in their minds, they are making sense! -
Just in case you still don't get it, let me give you another example...
Singing.
It seems as if you are suggesting that people should refrain from singing if they do not meet with Simon Cowell's approval.
Karaoka, my friend... not American idols
We can say to our friends, "Please sing songs you are familiar with instead of always choosing songs that you do not know very well... hello, there are people listening one you know? It is torture to listen to you one you know?"
But then you come along and say... "Make up your mind... either you allow them to torture people with their singing or you ask them to raise their standards to the level that Simon Cowell can approve of."
You have a Fallacy of the missing middle, get it? -
Well and good - now that you've written about IT compliance, you can demand that all AA posters are IT compliant.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:When I gave you the example of IT security best practices, did you not understand anything from the example?
The list is exhaustive and I can keep referring to it to "remind" myself to be in compliant with the full list.
If I am the IT consultant to the government and implementing IT security for them, I better ensure that I am in full compliance and conduct audits regularly to be certain.
For my home computer? I think if I am in compliance with one of the best practices, I am good.
Similarly, in an internet forum like this, if people can implement one or a couple of the basic best practices of good arguments, that should suffice.
Not, get a degree in Good Arguments then post! I really don't see why you find that so difficult to understand.
For example, if people can offer premises for their conclusions... I am happy.
At the present, so many of them make baseless conclusions and all I can do is reply... OK You win!
I have no idea why the concluded as they did and yet in their minds, they are making sense!
That says absolutely nothing about your middle ground when it comes to "good" and "bad" arguments. At best you've given some examples, but you have missed the key step of defining what you mean by a "good' argument. All you've done is present a series of irrelevant examples without explaining anything. You keep proposing these "best practices", but to put it simply, what are these best practices? It's a simple question that demands a simple answer. I'm not asking what they are like, I'm not asking for examples, I am asking what they are. If you can't answer that simple question, why be surprised when you fail to get your point across?
For somebody who claims to know about "good" arguments, it's disappointing that you have missed this very prosaic point.
You're still not thinking clearly, you're still not expressing yourself clearly, and you still haven't addressed the issue of what you you think makes a "good" and "bad" argument.
If I may make a suggestion, you seem to be going into a lot of irrelevant topics and examples, and that appears to be confusing you. Why not keep things simple and address topics directly? -
Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Just in case you still don't get it, let me give you another example...
Singing.
It seems as if you are suggesting that people should refrain from singing if they do not meet with Simon Cowell's approval.
Karaoka, my friend... not American idols
We can say to our friends, "Please sing songs you are familiar with instead of always choosing songs that you do not know very well... hello, there are people listening one you know? It is torture to listen to you one you know?"
But then you come along and say... "Make up your mind... either you allow them to torture people with their singing or you ask them to raise their standards to the level that Simon Cowell can approve of."
You have a Fallacy of the missing middle, get it? -
Yet another example without any explanation of what your point actually is.
Now where is that definition of that middle-ground "good" argument? Do you know what you mean, or do you simply have some vague idea of what you're talking about? If you're thinking clearly as you advise others to do, why are you having so much trouble coming up with such a simple answer? -
28 June 2007 · 12:29 PMOriginally posted by Gedanken:Yet another example without any explanation of what your point actually is.
Now where is that definition of that middle-ground "good" argument? Do you know what you mean, or do you simply have some vague idea of what you're talking about? If you're thinking clearly as you advise others to do, why are you having so much trouble coming up with such a simple answer?
Similarly, in an internet forum like this, if people can implement one or a couple of the basic best practices of good arguments, that should suffice.
Not, get a degree in Good Arguments then post! I really don't see why you find that so difficult to understand.
For example, if people can offer premises for their conclusions... I am happy. -
Again with the examples. State clearly what you mean.
Anybody can provide premises with their arguments. these premises may be completely irrelevant and nonsensical, but by what you've written in your last post it fits your description of a "good" argument.
Again, please state clearly what you mean. As I've said before, if you think as clearly as you ask other people to do, you should have absolutely no trouble doing this at all, so I don't see why you're being so reticent and recalcitrant. -
I mean that there is a list to tell people if they are making a Good Argument.Originally posted by Gedanken:Again with the examples. State clearly what you mean.
Anybody can provide premises with their arguments. these premises may be completely irrelevant and nonsensical, but by what you've written in your last post it fits your description of a "good" argument.
Again, please state clearly what you mean. As I've said before, if you think as clearly as you ask other people to do, you should have absolutely no trouble doing this at all, so I don't see why you're being so reticent and recalcitrant.
say, the following two, for example...
1. Have premises for your conclusions
2. Beware of fallacies
1. Have premises for your conclusions
a. No premises? Most likely BAD!
b. Have premises? ahhh Better.
c. Have good premises? wow even better still...
d. Argue like a philosopher? BAD if nobody understands what you are talking about or finds it too tedious to follow your arguments...
2. Beware of fallacies
a. Make common and obvious fallacies? Most likely BAD!
and so on and so forth
You don't need Simon Cowell standards when you sing at a friendly karaoke.
You have a fallacy of the missing middle... get it, my friend?... -
Sorry GTG, if it means so much to you... I concede,
OK, You WIN! -
So, uhh, what dio you mean by a "good premise"? Please explain what this is meant to be.
The missing middle is entirely of your doing, my lad - up till this point, you've only begun to describe what it is, so there was nothing to get hitherto.
As for "arguing like a philosopher", if one does so, anybody, regardless of context or level of education, would be able to get it. This is simply because a properly-constructed argument is based on clear, self-evident facts and uses clear lines of logic to lead the reader from the premises to the conclusion. If anything, you've got the whole situation upside-down. -
I wasn't aware that a competition was ongoing. If that was the case, I would have declined because it would have been an embarrassingly easy victory.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Sorry GTG, if it means so much to you... I concede,
OK, You WIN!
My objective was simple. You asked for "good' arguments without explaining what they were, and I asked for clarification so that we could take steps towards presenting "good" arguments. However, when presented with a proper definition of a "good" argument, it's turned out that you simply couldn't walk the walk, even though you talked the talk so forcefully.
Given your demonstrated inability to match your words with your actions, and your continuous attempts to shift the focus away from the holes in your arguments, I can only conclude that you're not to be taken seriously despite all the bombast. -
Sure...
You absolutely need Simon Cowell standards when you sing at a friendly karaoke.
and sure...
You did not commit the fallacy of the missing middle...
So you win, congratulations.... -
It never was a matter of winning - if you thought that way, it's likely to have been the source of all your ills.
For all of the proper arguments and clear thinking skills that you espoused, the past day's discussion pretty much demionstrates that you're bunkum. Whether you lift your game or decide to flop about as you currently do is entirely up to you, but at this stage of the game the writing's on the wall, and the only person who's going to win or lose is you.