Say january, why don't you actively involve yourself in some of
the discussions in here instead of constantly saying "well, people
will always find some way to support their own point of view.".
Because not only does such a statement say, or add nothing NOTHING
to plently of the issues in here, it is also getting
annoying.
For instance, you are attempting to make an objective statement
that Singapore has failed to develop the people's character as a
whole, and we can really keep saying "well that's your perspective,
you are just finding the parts that support your theory. And keep
on insisting that people with your opinion are simply finding ways
to find a fault with the way our nation raises our young
minds.
This is what C.S Lewis calls the fallacy of Bulverism:
Bulverism is a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis where
rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead
assumes it wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person
held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem
argument.
Lewis wrote about this in an essay of the same name (in 1941) which
is available to us in the book God in the Dock. He explains the
origin of this term as follows:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why
he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that
he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only
real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so
common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it
"Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its
imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at
the age of five when he heard his mother say to his fatherwho had
been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater
than a third"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that
moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening
mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of
argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be
at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still)
try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national
dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how
Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
So unless you attempt to seriously and specifically engage
people on many of the issues in here instead of to keep saying
vague things like people will always find ways to support their
opinion. (which actually applies to all men) without considering
much of the evidence that is thrown into the air for discussion in
here
nobody will take what you have to say seriously at all. It is
just a meaningless cycle of circular logic that really goes nowhere
with each post. At the end of the day one might as well say "you
have your point of view and we have ours" without making any
headway.
Not to mention they are pointing out a very valid point. As
Confucius and Sun Tzu has long pointed out: A nation which is ruled
by a system without morals will have that rot spread down to its
people. Dont expect Singaporeans to be raised up with lofty ideas
of intelligence, freedom and humanism when these have been
long said to be non bread and butter issues that should not be
the focus of the Singaporean life.
And guess who are the ones who said it?
