Go Back   AFA Forums > Secularism and Social Issues > Politics

Politics Political issues which help or hinder our society

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #261  
Old 10th February 2017, 02:26 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
The question is a legitimate question and you haven't answered it, let alone picking it apart into pieces.

It's a loaded question and I am not remotely obliged to answer it even if you hadn't spent the last 260 posts outright ignoring every single point made which contradicts your polemic.

As well we know because it's written in this thread:

1) I don't believe your claims that she said anything like you've claimed she said in Singapore - I've explained my position on this, and you've just stonewalled what I wrote.

2) I don't believe your ridiculous contrivances about her nefarious motivations for not using the word Rohingya - I've cited what she said is the reason and it seems vastly more logical and compelling than the absurd contrivance you've manufactured and demanded to be taken as fact. I've explained this, you've stonewalled it.

3) Given that she has expressly called for the punishment of perpetrators of crimes, I do not think your overly simplistic statement regarding her supposed dismissal of these events is worthy of so much as a ha'penny wank. I've explained this, you've stonewalled it.

Given that it's a written record that I've contested your assertions in this regard, and given that it's a written record that you've stonewalled my points, I think it eminently laughable that you think you can pose a question to me that requires me to lend credence to them. The only adequate response is to say 'fuck off'.

As such, not only is your question a very clear example of a loaded question, it also reiterates what I've been saying throughout: that your position is founded on your absurd demands to have bizarre claims taken as fact in the absence of evidence, that you repeatedly ignore inconvenient facts to maintain your position, that you cherrypick what you find useful for your position, that you stonewall anyone who doesn't genuflect to your crackpot assertions about hidden nefarious intent, and that you are perfectly well aware that you are doing this.

As such, you can stop pulling my plonker because I am assuredly under no obligation to lend your contrived bullshit any credence whatsoever.

Can I make this any plainer for you?

/cue stonewalling

Last edited by Spearthrower; 10th February 2017 at 02:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 10th February 2017, 02:33 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Quote:
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]
Given that I've rejected all the component pieces of this question eloquently, asking me to lend them credence for the purposes of the question is not acceptable.


It's also manifestly clear and compelling with respect to the definition above that you also want to use that question to establish a presumption of guilt for the things you claim she did but can't actually show by direct evidence that she did. Built in, of course, is that I join in the asserted guilt by refusing to condemn such barbarous acts when the truth is that I am refusing to condemn your assertions regarding her alleged behaviors or non-behaviors.



Quote:
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Clearly, you are attempting to limit my replies but both require inherently agreeing with the wild assumptions and delusional interpretations you have made. I don't. My replies in accordance with your loaded question then are limited to a) to condemn her even though I don't agree with the bizarre and convoluted reasoning you have provided for accepting these claims or b) to refuse to condemn what you have labeled as atrocities.

That you are using this as a manipulative rhetorical tactic is highlighted by your further response where you repeat the same unevidenced insinuations now as supposedly fact (even though they are not) and then say WOW like it's something surprising or unbelievable when I've just spent the last 50 or so replies spelling out clearly that I don't believe your claims.

Really Wadaye, even if your argumentation before this had been stellar, honest, and reasonable - this alone would put you firmly in the specious manipulative bullshit camp.

Last edited by Spearthrower; 10th February 2017 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 10th February 2017, 02:48 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,549
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Quote:
wadaye said View Post
The question is a legitimate question and you haven't answered it, let alone picking it apart into pieces.

It's a loaded question and I am not remotely obliged to answer it even if you hadn't spent the last 260 posts outright ignoring every single point made which contradicts your polemic.

As well we know because it's written in this thread:

1) I don't believe your claims that she said anything like you've claimed she said in Singapore - I've explained my position on this, and you've just stonewalled what I wrote.

2) I don't believe your ridiculous contrivances about her nefarious motivations for not using the word Rohingya - I've cited what she said is the reason and it seems vastly more logical and compelling than the absurd contrivance you've manufactured and demanded to be taken as fact. I've explained this, you've stonewalled it.

3) Given that she has expressly called for the punishment of perpetrators of crimes, I do not think your overly simplistic statement regarding her supposed dismissal of these events is worthy of so much as a ha'penny wank. I've explained this, you've stonewalled it.

Given that it's a written record that I've contested your assertions in this regard, and given that it's a written record that you've stonewalled my points, I think it eminently laughable that you think you can pose a question to me that requires me to lend credence to them. The only adequate response is to say 'fuck off'.

As such, not only is your question a very clear example of a loaded question, it also reiterates what I've been saying throughout: that your position is founded on your absurd demands to have bizarre claims taken as fact in the absence of evidence, that you repeatedly ignore inconvenient facts to maintain your position, that you cherrypick what you find useful for your position, that you stonewall anyone who doesn't genuflect to your crackpot assertions about hidden nefarious intent, and that you are perfectly well aware that you are doing this.

As such, you can stop pulling my plonker because I am assuredly under no obligation to lend your contrived bullshit any credence whatsoever.

Can I make this any plainer for you?

/cue stonewalling
You trolled me and said i made up an imaginary friend. I pointed out that you were wring. You insisted. I pointed out you were delusional. You again insisted. I decided its better not to feed your trolling.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

Last edited by wadaye; 10th February 2017 at 03:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 10th February 2017, 03:09 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,549
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

By the way in relation to the Singapore speech it is clear that a large number of natural born Burmese speakers consider that the interpretation given by Maung Zarni at the London protest is correct.
Given that neither you or i are Burmese speakers, in the absence of an accredited translation/interpretation, that is all we have to go with.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 10th February 2017, 03:32 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
You trolled me and said i made up an imaginary friend. I pointed out that you were wring. You insisted. I pointed out you were delusional. You again insisted. I decided its better not to feed your trolling.

1) Non-sequitur - none of this supposed reply actually addresses ANY of the content of the post you cited. This is exactly what I mean by stonewalling - you have done this repeatedly.

2) No, I didn't troll you. Declaring something so doesn't make it magically be correct.

3) Yes, I believe you made up your supposed friend because it was convenient for you. In reality, I saw your post before you edited and know what it said, and while I was replying you suddenly found someone who not only could corroborate what was said in Burmese, but also was wholly knowledgeable about Singaporean news (another claim that's unsupported is that this was all over the Singaporean news when in truth it's only in one online paper) and did all this in around 35 minutes. You can complain all you like, but I don't believe you. Am I obliged to believe you? Do you think I am obliged to believe you?
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 10th February 2017, 03:33 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,549
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

At about 2.40minutes

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tv...i/3352776.html

Quote:
[at about 2 minutes 30] I'm not saying there are no difficulties but it helps if people recognise the difficulties and are more focussed on resolving these difficulties rather than exagerating them so that everything seems worse than it really is.
...
[at about 6 minutes]
Do you think then that the military has been acting under the rule of law
They have been acting under the ... in Rakhine State the police and the military have been working together and of course the police come under the civil administration.
She asserts that there has been no compromise of her principles.

Edit; She does say that if there are any human rights abuses uncovered then action will be taken. But then again any politician would say that, wouldn't they..
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins

Last edited by wadaye; 10th February 2017 at 03:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 10th February 2017, 03:40 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
By the way in relation to the Singapore speech it is clear that a large number of natural born Burmese speakers consider that the interpretation given by Maung Zarni at the London protest is correct.
Given that neither you or i are Burmese speakers, in the absence of an accredited translation/interpretation, that is all we have to go with.


You are making a claim. If you can't support it, then there's no reason to accept it.

End of.

Where'd your Burmese friend authority disappear to? As you claimed that they translated it for you, why are you now saying that there's no accredited translation? If I had asked a friend to translate it, and they told me it was X, I wouldn't be saying it's possibly not X but let's just assume it's X based on a non-sequitur.

You dug this hole, Wadaye - you can stop digging any time you like.

Now, back to the rational approach. It's rather a gaping problem that there's no international report of this content. You'd think that newspapers would jump at the chance to show this given the emotive nature of it.

My take is that it's likely not the smoking gun you've convinced yourself it is. My take is that it's open to interpretation, and that the letter was ambiguous and could be read as meaning multiple things. My take is that an entire audience of people wouldn't burst out laughing if Aung San Suu Kyi had laughed as she denied the murders of people in her country. My guess is that the laughter was directed at the way the writer of the letter titled her, and that you've misinterpreted the behavior.

Given that we don't speak Burmese, I submit that my take is still logically superior to yours because it doesn't posit nefarious intentions that are not apparent in the format, the setting, and the tone of the event.

My take is that you are, once again, desperately looking for any form of support for your claims and that you will not, for one moment, consider a more reasonable explanation, maintaining absolute certainty in an interpretation that is likely to just be a mistake on your part.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 10th February 2017, 03:42 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
At about 2.40minutes

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tv...i/3352776.html



She asserts that there has been no compromise of her principles.

Edit; She does say that if there are any human rights abuses uncovered then action will be taken. But then again any politician would say that, wouldn't they..

See? Every time you write, you show that there is literally no way you would accept your proposition being false.

Even when she says the exact opposite of what you claim she says, you simply explain it away. You even source her saying things which contradict what you say she means, then still somehow use that as part of your polemic.

Any idea that is not open to being shown wrong is not an idea, it's a prejudice.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 10th February 2017, 04:26 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,549
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
http://www.maungzarni.net/2017/01/au...ud-at.html?m=1

I can't vouch for the english translation but i have no reason to doubt Maung Zarni who is a reliable and forthright blogger on human rights in Burma

Edit: i have checked with a Burmese speaker who said this was reported all over the news in Sibgapore

Edit 2: the translation indicates that ASSK is asking for people to combat the 'fabrications' of genocode
So, ST, did I say that I got a translation from my Burmese speaking friend?
I already mentioned I could not vouch for the English translation.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 10th February 2017, 04:31 PM
wadaye wadaye is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,549
Default Re: Does Aung San Suu Kyi condone genocide?

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Quote:
wadaye said View Post
At about 2.40minutes

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tv/tv...i/3352776.html



She asserts that there has been no compromise of her principles.

Edit; She does say that if there are any human rights abuses uncovered then action will be taken. But then again any politician would say that, wouldn't they..

See? Every time you write, you show that there is literally no way you would accept your proposition being false.

Even when she says the exact opposite of what you claim she says, you simply explain it away. You even source her saying things which contradict what you say she means, then still somehow use that as part of your polemic.

Any idea that is not open to being shown wrong is not an idea, it's a prejudice.
Just wave away her accusations that the reports of atrocities are exaggerated, ignore that those who tried to speak to the Kofi Annan commission were punished (as in the trophy video) and those who tried to speak to the international community have been killed
https://www.burmamuslims.org/content...speaking-press

Just wave away that the commission was conducted, inter-alia by members of the military
Just wave away that she says she is satisfied and that the army is conducting itself according to the rule of law
just wave away that she said the Rakhine are concerned about demographics when she full knows that the Burmese government is conducting demographic transfers of Burmese into Rakhine state, at the expense of Rohingya
Just wave it all away.
__________________
"I'm an ape, I'm an African ape and I'm proud of it, and you should be too". Richard Dawkins
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.