Don't condemn people in AA

last SG · 2007-06-22T16:26:18+00:00

Well, you're the one who claims to be an old man, so "kid" is relative. Better yet, you're an old man who still has to worry about his boss looking over his...

AndrewPKYap SG

hahaha logic is a tool... that you sometimes use to disparage others and if you cannot see that, too bad lor... you win lor... Laughing

My standard is not acceptable to you? hahahaha What do you want me to say? OK You win! Gedanken FTW!

If you had started your first post by saying... "I disagree with you... people should be allowed to condemn others because... people are like GODS and people are omniscient and people have every right to set the standards like they are GODS... and the reasons are as follows... 1. you have made a logical error here that nullify your conclusions..."

Instead you choose to nick-pick on dubious matters of importance like, "you have used the label in error."

hahahaha you are so desperate to win that you must nick-pick instead of concentrating on the main issue at hand? (non sequitur - just a guess)

You are not desperate to win but is simply anal retentive? (non sequitur - just a guess)

That is how you want people to write?

Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

Very funny! I meant, what happened, why do you need to look for a job? You lost your old job issit?

Not what happened, why was your internet down! Laughing

That is funny... how to handle cyber bullies? hahahaha just don't pay your internet bills... Laughing

morbid4ever SG

Spending time to check on logic ensure our argument is valid. Rules of logics have to be used with rules of linguistics to make ur argument sound.

U have not address the problem I have quoted and dun try to deny the facts that u have no basic knowledge in logic.

Just answer this, do u understand the 9 basic form of valid argument?
U are just evading my qns. Laughing

allentyb SG

actually, AndrewPKYap, nobody should condemn one and another, it is not a matter of allow or disallow,

like i always said before, even i curse or swear or condemn or name calling, i do as i will, i don't need another person approval to condemn a person, i have to understand the consequences of saying those words, and that would be, a flame war

i don't understand why a simple thread like this, would end upto 10 pages long, maybe it is your nature, of debating with someone, and hoping painlessly, that someone would actually agree with your theory, though there are some of your post, i don't agree with, and i don't wish to point it out, because i am in no mood to debate at all

each individual is entitle to their own perception of the world, nobody can said that, NO~! you are wrong, you shouldn't live like this, or your perception is wrong.

i don't give a rat ASS to whoever say this - you should not say something like that, it is so mean~~~ ( this is just an example)

then i would reply to that whoever, i can't take back my words, like it or not, i already said it, and if you feel hurt by it, LIVE WITH IT!

Gedanken SG

So lemme get this straight.

I said that just because people think they know everything, that does not mean that they think they are gods. How did that turn into "people have the right to act like they are gods"? Point out the post where I said that.

Even more simply, whenever have I even hinted that I think people should be allowed to condemn others? Point out the post where I said that.

Where are you getting all of this rubbish from?

Do you really think that, showing how you've come up with such bizarre proposals, you've actually got any business opining what is acceptable?

Forget anal-retentive - even the anal-expulsive would be able to see how you're not making any sense.

AndrewPKYap SG

let's see "dun try to deny the facts that u have no basic knowledge in logic"

Making a wild guess and presenting that as truth? hmmm let's see, what fallacy is that?

Lose the argument and attack the person? hmmmmm let's see, now, what fallacy is that?

let's see "U have not address the problem " hmmmm let's see, now what problem is he talking about?

let's see "U are just evading my qns. " hmmmm let's see, now what qns is he talking about?

let's see "ur" hmmm... lets see, why is he talking about an ancient city in southern Mesopotamia...?

What inconsistency!... asking people to uphold the highest standards in logic but
1.cannot even spell out the whole word...
2.making wild guesses himself....
3.committing numerous fallacies...

But you win lor... no problem one... Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

or you can let them win... but let them win they still keep coming back leh... how? Laughing

give them fireworks also no use...

AndrewPKYap SG

Did I say you said it? Shocked

Did I say you said "people have the right to act like they are gods"?

Did I say you said "people should be allowed to condemn others"?

Where are you getting all of this rubbish from?

Do you really think that, showing how you've come up with such bizarre proposals, you've actually got any business opining what is acceptable?

Forget anal-retentive - even the anal-expulsive would be able to see how you're not making any sense.

AndrewPKYap SG

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER... 250 Embarassed

Gedanken SG

Andrew, m'boy, you really do need to learn how to read. Since you display that deficiency, I'll do you a favour and highlight the question in question, which really is painfully obvious:

Originally posted by morbid4ever:
Nah...
Answer the qns truthfully andrew...
Did I say: I am the best in logics, there is no one that can be on par with me.

What question? THAT question. Now, you can go into issues about morbid's spelling - given your bleating about "issues of dubious importance" you've just made a hypocrite of yourself - or you can answer that simple question: wherever did morbid claim to be "the best in logics" (sic)?

If you aren't going to answer that question, well, then morbid's right and you are evading.

MiX Metal SG

1 thing I don't understand is why do you keep saying that people that condemn are like "GODS" ??

Short Ninja SG

[quote]Originally posted by Gedanken:
[b]
And who decides what an acceptable level is? You? I think not, seeing as how you conveniently switch topics and shift goalposts whenever the occasion suits.

Wassup Buddy? You argue with him until the cows come home also he wont let you win one lah Mr. Green You would always be the goalkeeper and he the penalty kicker...by the way, I do sometimes wonder what that PK stands for Laughing

Gedanken SG

You wrote to me:

Why preface that with "if you had said" as if that was my point? Is this going to be another case of you claiming poor grammar and not understanding the meaning of what you have written yourself?

That being the case, I again bring into question what you mean by "acceptable", because it looks like what you mean is, "whatever goes, as long as it suits my convenience".

AndrewPKYap SG

All quotes (in bold) from Wikipedia

1. In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Do you have the "jurisdiction" to condemn?

2. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. This concept is included in the Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem" on multiple occasions. This is the infinite form of the verb "alama" which means to learn.If you cannot know "everything" are you sure that your condemnation has taken "everything" into consideration?

3. Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.Are you so sure that the evidence that you use to condemn someone complies with the "Rules of evidence"? and whose "RULES"?

errr... I working today... boss looking at me liaoz...

allentyb SG

this thread has the potential of reaching page 20!

Gedanken SG

Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:
All quotes (in bold) from Wikipedia

[b]1. In law, jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Do you have the "jurisdiction" to condemn?

2. Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God. This concept is included in the Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem" on multiple occasions. This is the infinite form of the verb "alama" which means to learn.If you cannot know "everything" are you sure that your condemnation has taken "everything" into consideration?

3. Rules of evidence govern whether, when, how, and for what purpose proof of a case may be placed before a trier of fact for consideration.Are you so sure that the evidence that you use to condemn someone complies with the "Rules of evidence"? and whose "RULES"?
[/b]

Ah, there we go - you want to be absolute and precise about things now, of all times? When did any of those people who condemn ever claim to know "everything"? You've gone and accused them of doing something they've never done, and then you say that they think of themselves as gods. Now you pull all of this up, talking about jurisdiction and holding people accountable in absolute terms for "condemning", when over the past few days you've been arguing that this is an internet forum and such absolutes don't apply.

For all that you've said about not applying absolute standards on internet forums, you've just invalidated your initial argument. All of your pontifications are absolute rubbish because your initial premise was rubbish that you couldn't stick to over the course of this thread, instead flip-flopping between being abolute and being lassiez faire.

That's not philosophy, that's just common sense that you've failed to apply right from your first post in this thread.

Gedanken SG

Ninja, what I find funny is that this guy accuses people of doing all of these things when he's doing the very same in this very thread. His hypocrisy is just hilarious.

Omniknight SG

i think he is trying to copy me

MiX Metal SG

In that case, no one here is qualify to set any standards or guidelines

AndrewPKYap SG

wow! "if you had said" ... means you said it? and it is your point? Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked

"acceptable", my dear boy.... means acceptable... just like "if" means if...

pssst... you can find the meaning of words in the dictionary....

You cannot understand "if" how can you understand "acceptable"?

*haiz* you win! I lose...

Gedanken FTW!

« Previous Page Next Page »