Don't condemn people in AA
-
Got the skills to pay the bills~Originally posted by Gedanken: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. -
You know what I'm talkin' 'bout, Badz!
-
Looks like we have a champion.
Let's put our hands together for Chris Benoit... oh sorry i mean Gedanken!
*Applause*
-
the triple dots or however many dots at the back of a sentence i always see them as a sign of insecurity
-
Why? I like to use triple dots...Originally posted by Omniknight:the triple dots or however many dots at the back of a sentence i always see them as a sign of insecurity
-
Issue: Whether raising standards and in this case raising standards of formulating a proper argument in sgforums, one should advocate that people raise it as high as possible or raise it as high as sufficient.
Example: In American Idols, the contestants should raise their standards that Simon Cowell approves of or is it enough to raise it to a level acceptable to Saturday night karaoke sessions with friends?
Example: In Saturday karaoke sessions night with friends, should we advocate that the singers raise their standards to what Simon Cowell would approve of or should we raise it to the level that our friends find acceptable.
Issue: When you make an argument, can one say that this is a better way to argue compared to another way, meaning, it can be poor, good, better and best (a whole range, a continuum of possibilities and possible ways to argue) or it must only be of the Right/Wrong; Yes/No; Good/Bad variety?
Issue: If people insists that it must be of the: "Right/Wrong; Yes/No; Good/Bad variety" and insists that everyone raise Saturday night karaoke sessions to a level Simon Cowell approves of, is that person delusional, illusionary, unrealistic, suffering from the fallacy of the missing middle or should we just let them win and congratulate them?
-
Well Andrew, that's a very good question you raised, and you do have a point.
Seeing as how you're the one who raised the dichotomy of "good" and "stupid" arguments in the first place, you must therefore be delusional, illusionary, unrealistic and suffering from the fallacy of the missing middle. That you're now shooting yourself in the foot adds "confused" to your litany of sins.
Quod erat demonstradum - emphasis on "dum".
I suppose now you're going to launch into yet another meandering list of irrelevant and meaningless examples to illustrate what you meant to say, without actually explaining what you meant. Just as well - it's just an illustration of poor argument skills, which I would suggest you claim to be deliberate for salvage purposes. -
for its.. it means i am pondering or giving u theOriginally posted by Omniknight:the triple dots or however many dots at the back of a sentence i always see them as a sign of insecurity
he he..
or just ...... giving u some a breather space to reply. -
Is it just me, or does it strike anybody else that when Andrew's put on the spot, he throws his toys out of the pram and throws a "ok lah, you win" tantrum instead of dealing with the issue at hand?
-
REALLY SORRY. If u wanna talk logics with me u dont stand a chance. Look at how u ans my post, u are not making any logical deduction at all. Let me teach u some logics instead.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Thanks, I might check out Susanna's book but, as for your logic you can keep it for your own use...
An argument form is called valid if and only if whenever statements are substituted that make all premises true, the conclusion is also true.
A summary of valid and logical argument.
Modes ponens ,modus tollens, generalization, specialization, conjunction, elimination, transistivity, contradiction rule, proof by division into cases.
Make sure u understand all these 9 forms of valid and logical argument form b4 u try to talk wif me abt logics.
Hello, I may be just a clerk, but I am A MATH MAJOR in NUS ok.
Ur stupidity irks me and ur lack of precision in ur use of language really tell other how inconsistent u are.
We know that u are always badly flamed and u urself are the cause for that.
If u still want to argue more about logics, maybe I can post my final year project on logics for u to see. ban men nong fu. -
Eh... still ongoing har?
-
Yes, thinking clearly is necessary to be successful in life. But from a no name author like u , trying to throw ur weight around, thinking all of us are idiots and childish, U better save ur own comments.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.
U really understand what is a good argument? If so do u understand the 9 forms of valid arguments? NO U DONT.
I doubt u really understand conditional statements in logics and the true meaning in the words "if and only if" "only if" "if A , then B" ,negation of conditional statement, contrapositive of conditional statement which is logically equivalent to its conditional statement.
Dont try to show off something u do not know. Pathetic -
see ur own childishness??? It is so obvious to all viewers.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:OK You win lor... -
For someone who doesnt even have simple foundation in LOGICS, ask him to read susanna 1st. The level is lower.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 the tightest scrutiny, you've got a fair bit to learn yourself.
TS just wont admit his mistakes. -
U are the one that is living in a fantasy world. Obviously u are forcing ur way out thru brute force.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.
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.
chou nan ren
-
??? "irrelevant and meaningless examples "Originally posted by Gedanken:I suppose now you're going to launch into yet another meandering list of irrelevant and meaningless examples because you lack the ability to understand the examples, they are "irrelevant and meaningless examples "???
OK you win... !!!!! -
You think calling people "chou nan renOriginally posted by morbid4ever:U are the one that is living in a fantasy world. Obviously u are forcing ur way out thru brute force.
chou nan ren " you win already hor? You desperately want to win also? -
In logics, even if the premises is wrong, but if they follow the logical deduction from the premises, the conclusion will still be a sound(and logic) argument. That is how many govt manages to convince many ppl despite the flaw in their premises.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
28 June 2007 · 12:29 PM
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.
A good premises is necessary to make a good( and logical ) argument. So are u like the govt that uses such tatics? Not really, because u dont even understand simple logics.
An example of a valid argument with a bad conclusion
If Michale Jackson is a rock star, then Michale Jackson had red hair.
Michale Jackson is a rock star.
Therefore, Michale Jackson has red hair.
This shows a completely logical argument but with false premises.
Are u one that argue using false premises that arises by just using ur own experiences?
I am very sure u do not have a clear grasp in logics, so stop talking like u are an expert. -
See another lousy premises trying to make an argument.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:??? "irrelevant and meaningless examples " because you lack the ability to understand the examples, they are "irrelevant and meaningless examples "???
OK you win... !!!!!
There is no such argument
Andrew is a chou nan ren
Therefore, I am desperate to win.
See the 9 forms of valid argument I have posted earlier. -
wow logic suxOriginally posted by morbid4ever:In logics, even if the premises is wrong, but if they follow the logical deduction from the premises, the conclusion will still be a sound(and logic) argument. That is how many govt manages to convince many ppl despite the flaw in their premises.
A good premises is necessary to make a good( and logical ) argument. So are u like the govt that uses such tatics? Not really, because u dont even understand simple logics.
An example of a valid argument with a bad conclusion
If Michale Jackson is a rock star, then Michale Jackson had red hair.
Michale Jackson is a rock star.
Therefore, Michale Jackson has red hair.
This shows a completely logical argument but with false premises.
Are u one that argue using false premises that arises by just using ur own experiences?
I am very sure u do not have a clear grasp in logics, so stop talking like u are an expert. -
Right in a way. Logics are use together with statistic by all politicians to delude the ppl.Originally posted by Omniknight:wow logic sux
In a sense, correct application of logics makes frustrating but valid argument.
Incorrect application of logics is much worse, more frustrating and undermining others intelligence. -
Oh you are not? You say "Andrew is a chou nan ren" not because you are desperate to win?Originally posted by morbid4ever:Andrew is a chou nan ren
Therefore, I am desperate to win.
If you say so lor... you win again lor... -
Me win?? forget it. For me to win a newbie in logic is nothing to be glamorous about.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:Oh you are not? You say "Andrew is a chou nan ren" not because you are desperate to win?
If you say so lor... you win again lor...
For someone who cant differentiate "disgust" and "trying to win" ,there must be holes in his brain.
tsk tsk -
huh? your conclusion is "someone who can differentiate "disgust" and "trying to win"Originally posted by morbid4ever:Me win?? forget it. For me to win a newbie in logic is nothing to be glamorous about.
For someone who can differentiate "disgust" and "trying to win" ,there must be holes in his brain.
tsk tsk
"there must be holes in his brain."?
You mean like some cheese that you see in the supermarket? Having holes in one's brain is suppose to be good? Your doctor told you that you have holes in your brain that is why you "can differentiate "disgust" and "trying to win" ???
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
This is getting more and more bizarre... -
oh you have edited your reply while I was typing the reply... *haiz* scared me for a while....