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

huh? What do you call this?

Misconceptions of Love

MooKu SG

You've already gone off topic there.

AndrewPKYap SG

huh? no need to explain how you arrive at your conclusion? *sigh* all the pages of "valid arguments" and "logical thinking" and still you make conclusions without saying how you came to the conclusion.... Rolling Eyes

Gedanken SG

Okay, so let's look at some of Andrew's errors here:

Where's your proof that living a perfect, disciplined and careful life makes you unhappy? You haven't mentioned anything before this statement that would imply that people living such lives were unhappy, nor have you explained why they would be. Why would you suggest this if there was nothing to support it?

Complete rubbish. Judges condemn people - are they gods and do they claim to know everything?

Utter bollocks. Do governments and lawmakers claim to be gods?

Okay, Andrew, I've pointed out your errors - your original argument in this thread holds no water because it's based on these errors.

Now, are you going to leave your argument as the rubbish it is, or are you going to address and correct your errors?

My money is on you coming up with irrelevant bilge like "okay, you win", fireworks, a whole lot of empty puffery and an exit with your tail hidden between your legs. Either that or you're just going to be too scared to respond.

Don't worry, I won't condemn you for that. I'll laugh at you, though. Mr. Green

Gedanken SG

Why don't you tell the whole story, Andrew? Could it be because you utterly fail on the other part?

Valid arguments are only half the story, the other half being soundness to make up cogent arguments. To make sure that what you're writing isn't BS, you need not only ensure that the argument is valid, but that the premises are true as well.

An entirely valid argument can be based upon untrue premises. You've given us plenty of examples of that, what with your nonsensical claims about people believing themselves to be gods and other such tripe.

To put it simply enough for you to understand, a valid argument is complete BS if the premises are not true.

By the way, that's a neat little trick there, starting with talking about "good" advice and changing midstream to valid arguments and *ahem* "formal language". What was the objective there? I'm guessing that if someone picked you up on the "no good advice" claim, you'd jump over to the "valid argument" part of that post, and vice versa. Nice little parlour game you got going there, talking a lot but saying nothing. You ought to be a politician. Laughing

It's sadly amusing how you try to make yourself sound educated with things like "formal language", when you only know half the story. What's next, are you going to claim to be a brain surgeon just because you can use a knife to cut potatoes in the kitchen?

Quiet Guy SG

should change the topic to

Please Condemn People in AA ..

thats what i see TS is doing Idea

AndrewPKYap SG

Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

Those that "demand' everyone must be in "full compliance" will also nit-pick every small infraction ignoring whether or not it was meant as a joke or whether or not the poster did it on purpose for some reason or other. I nit-picked on a couple of their own errors to show how ridiculous it is before I ignore them completely, example:

Pride comes before a fall.

Another example would be good. Seems like a couple of people want sgforumners to talk like this when they insists on logical purity and perfectly valid arguments:

"Very little has been written about the linguistic interaction processes that are supposed to take place between autopoietic systems. Unlike most texts on autopoiesis«3», I will lay emphasis in this chapter on the notions of language and consensuality in Maturanas theory of autopoietic systems, because these notions are quite useful as a conceptual platform from which to develop some thoughts of my own about processes that take place in psychotherapies, as well as the constraints put upon us in our attempts to know them." Rolling Eyes

Space1999 SG

andrew sounds like someone who cuts and paste words from a dictionary to construct his argument, at points he sounds illogical and incoherent, hence the confusion of what he is trying to present to everybody.

i suspect he dont even knows what he wants to say , his arguments constantly veering off and on...in short.. if he is a salesman you wouldnt know what he want to sell.

thats what happens when your product knowledge is not good, or you dont know what you are talking about..

he is asking ppl not to condemm whilst he is being judgmental himself and where you draw the line, if ppl are not allowed to express their viewpoint this forum will be a very boring and sterile place,

AndrewPKYap SG

So, it is too difficult to bring up examples of how I have been "condemning" people and simply make statements that nobody knows the basis (reasons why you say that) or without any basis (no reasons or invalid reasons)?

OK You win! Laughing

AndrewPKYap SG

hahaha your "prophecy" might very well come true....

Space1999 SG

whatever you are selling,,,
im not buying...

its just that simple..
you dont have to win or lose, thats childish

whatever points you are trying to present,
its just not convincing or comprehensible
you are just layering your arguments with more technical rubbish
talk in layman terms

dont talk like you are some omnipotent things when you are asking ppl to behave in a humanly way.

AndrewPKYap SG

1st it is, I "condemn" people and now it is, I am selling something? Rolling Eyes and ...

BadzMaro SG

Like i said... contradictionary points of view and contributionary negligence in condemnation of another . Rolling Eyes

AndrewPKYap SG

People cannot read minds one you know? You must tell people WHY you come to that conclusion... WHAT your reasons are... HOW the reasons can justify the conclusions... no need to make perfectly valid arguments but at least have some basics...

"contradictionary points of view" like here, here and here

"contributionary negligence in condemnation of another " like here here and here

*haiz* Rolling Eyes

Gedanken SG

Correct - chaotic, childish counterpoint circumnavigation cataclysmically counteracts coherence . Mr. Green

AndrewPKYap SG

Laughing lose the argument and resort to name calling... You win lor!

AndrewPKYap SG

300 Embarassed

Gedanken SG

Hmm, who's name calling?

You still haven't addressed the issues with your original post that I raised (refer to my post at 05:08 PM on 30 June 2007). As I predicted, you never addressed any of these issues. Instead of coming up with red herrings or lame excuses, why don't you address these issues about the key points of this thread? It's simply because you can't defend the indefensible, no matter how much of a smokescreen you try to throw to hide it. That's just fine, tiger - there's a few of us on this forum to keep you honest. Laughing

Gedanken SG

Yes, 300 posts, not about your decrees against people condemning people on AA, but instead about how what you post doesn't make any sense. Laughing

« Previous Page Next Page »