A and B have undoubtedly made positive influences on me. But in the spirit of negativity that seems to pervade every area of my life right now, I shall say something negative about them. I hope you guys re not angry. But I think you would be. Plus some bitching about me. Sigh. Sorry.
One thing about them (just like me) is that they do not fancy verbal arguments, in the sense that they just have an aversion to debate. Or at least that’s what I interpret it as. I do too, for the reason that without an arbitrator there is no point in debating, since it would end up invariably as a stalemate (unless one knows when to concede, which is a rarity in my experience). That is all fine. The next thing is, when a point of debate presents itself, one would first state her case, then I will state mine. But we both don’t like to debate. So you know what one (not me) would conclude?
“you always think you are right. Always have a propensity to argue”
a logical fallacy in its quintessential from. If anyone doesn’t know the technical usage of a logical fallacy just see the entry I made about it.
An example (and the rest of the post would draw from this example alone)
Yan “yet another platitudinal comment”
A “no its platitudinous. It must be platitudinous something and something platitudinal”
So essentially what A is trying to say is that the conjugation of an adjective used is completely determined by its position in relation to the noun, or to put it another way, the inflection of an adjective is subsumed within its position in the sentence.
This is obviously wrong. ( I don’t know of anyone who would support their position in a technical sense, please feel free to inform me if you do)
In fact I have 2 theories why they think this way
Either – “it sounds right”
Or
“my teacher taught me”
But A and B (who was told about the argument) both agreed they were right. And I was insistent.
Tada.
Conclusion:
“you always think you are right. Always have a propensity to argue. Whatever makes you happy yan”
ah can anyone smell it? Logical fallacy number 2: one incident in which I think im right (leaving aside the fact that I am) doesn’t equate to “always”. Whilst I MIGHT think im always right, that cannot be derived from the first part of the argument.
Firstly I do not think im always right – I make a point to concede my argument when its obviously flawed. Ask any of the lawyers.
And thinking im always right is not the same as defending a position in an objective sense. It that were the case, they might as well chastise every single academic in the world, since all of them have written books defending their argument in light of criticism by others. See the ongoing debate about the horizontality of the HRA between Wade and Buxton LJ for instance. Or the debate about the elasticity of the rule of law between Jowell and Craig and Raz. Or about the binding effect of the courts to interpret the common law in light of the Convention between Hunt and Phillipson and so on and so on.
Sorry A and B. I do miss you guys. I don’t know why but this thingy was bothering all night (yes jiejie I couldn’t sleep after talking to you sigh) so I had to let it out. I wanted to email both of you before I posted it but I was too lazy. Believe me, I wouldn’t have posted it if it weren’t bothering me so much.
One thing about them (just like me) is that they do not fancy verbal arguments, in the sense that they just have an aversion to debate. Or at least that’s what I interpret it as. I do too, for the reason that without an arbitrator there is no point in debating, since it would end up invariably as a stalemate (unless one knows when to concede, which is a rarity in my experience). That is all fine. The next thing is, when a point of debate presents itself, one would first state her case, then I will state mine. But we both don’t like to debate. So you know what one (not me) would conclude?
“you always think you are right. Always have a propensity to argue”
a logical fallacy in its quintessential from. If anyone doesn’t know the technical usage of a logical fallacy just see the entry I made about it.
An example (and the rest of the post would draw from this example alone)
Yan “yet another platitudinal comment”
A “no its platitudinous. It must be platitudinous something and something platitudinal”
So essentially what A is trying to say is that the conjugation of an adjective used is completely determined by its position in relation to the noun, or to put it another way, the inflection of an adjective is subsumed within its position in the sentence.
This is obviously wrong. ( I don’t know of anyone who would support their position in a technical sense, please feel free to inform me if you do)
In fact I have 2 theories why they think this way
Either – “it sounds right”
Or
“my teacher taught me”
But A and B (who was told about the argument) both agreed they were right. And I was insistent.
Tada.
Conclusion:
“you always think you are right. Always have a propensity to argue. Whatever makes you happy yan”
ah can anyone smell it? Logical fallacy number 2: one incident in which I think im right (leaving aside the fact that I am) doesn’t equate to “always”. Whilst I MIGHT think im always right, that cannot be derived from the first part of the argument.
Firstly I do not think im always right – I make a point to concede my argument when its obviously flawed. Ask any of the lawyers.
And thinking im always right is not the same as defending a position in an objective sense. It that were the case, they might as well chastise every single academic in the world, since all of them have written books defending their argument in light of criticism by others. See the ongoing debate about the horizontality of the HRA between Wade and Buxton LJ for instance. Or the debate about the elasticity of the rule of law between Jowell and Craig and Raz. Or about the binding effect of the courts to interpret the common law in light of the Convention between Hunt and Phillipson and so on and so on.
Sorry A and B. I do miss you guys. I don’t know why but this thingy was bothering all night (yes jiejie I couldn’t sleep after talking to you sigh) so I had to let it out. I wanted to email both of you before I posted it but I was too lazy. Believe me, I wouldn’t have posted it if it weren’t bothering me so much.
6 Comments:
hi yan.. it's been a long time.. but still, hi. (:
think this post truly proves the "propensity to argue part"... haha. actually the comment itself is a personal attack, and goes against the spirit of objective debate.
but then again, maybe that spirit wasn't established in the first place. how many arguments do we hold in our life without resorting to personal attacks? it's probably the #1 thing we try to keep ourselves from doing in structured debates, anyway.
so there. guess you're on a different level. heh. most of us (esp girls) are people-centered.
i miss you and hope to see you real soon.
hey hongy.
thanks for not lashing out at me.i had thought you would.
there are 2 prongs in this argument
1. i might have a propensity to argue, but to derive that from our intercourse so far is too general and sweeping. this is a logical fallacy which is independent of the truth of its premises. (this is what i think you see as the "personal" argument) - it is a comment on my personality, which is subject to people's opinion and my own. then i "attack" back - which you view as a subjective personal attack. however, the notion about the logical fallacy has been committed, to my mind, is entirely objective. someone has either committed a fallacy, or he hasnt.
i didnt mean to attack you personally at all. im sorry if it came out that way.
2. the objective argument is the argument anterior to the supposed subjective argument - the one which established the fact that i loved to argue in your heads. an example is the supposed platitudinal/platitudious dichtomy. i defended my stance - that isnt (necessarily) the same as a desire to argue. i defended my stance objectively, like most academics do, but somehow you guys linked it with the subjective tendency to argue.
btw! i dreamt of you recently. was just telling shing i missed you cuz you ve been MIA for so long!! maybe its just cuz i dun have msn ya? missya missya! hope life's treating u better than its treating me.
aiyah.......
you two don't chim here chim there.
too early in the morning for structured debates
you YAN!. instead of posting up entries on your blog i'd rather you come back and tell me to my face cos i miss you :(
eh wait.. person A OR B is me right? or is it not?
hahaha exams coming faster study!!!
haha J OF COURSE ITS YOU LA. hee. u were e one trying to dichotomise 2 completely interchangable conjugations what. alamak.
and you were e one who got me so frustrated cuz you thought if i didnt accept your wrongful dichotomy and insisted that i was right = i love to argue. what was i meant to do? accept yo error with no technical definiton as gospel?
im dead la.i tink im getting far more irascible now cuz e fact that i aint studying is pissing me off. and when im pissed off i tend 2 piss other people off.
its a vicious cycle
i dunno.. i never chim here chim there... i only meant that as a passing jibe... hahaha... :/ anyway im so tired now i totally skipped over what u said yan. hoho
anw. when u coming back.
i must say, i tink cheem cheem stuff is necessary at times. most of the time it isnt la of coz, but still
im back on e 20th hongy. cant wait 2 c u! i miss u lei.zhen de.
Post a Comment
<< Home