GMS: My backside itchy again telling me to whack WP again

[3_M]

Naturally. If Tan Jee Say of Singaporeans First says that he's not interested in negotiating with the other oppo parties and want to go it alone, I'd say that's arrogant too. Otherwise it's a double standard.

Forget about all this argument on what should be construed as 'arrogance' . In the real world when you got nothing to contribute in a propose business partnership, don't expect to find any interested party to negotiate with you. What has this got to do with others for being arrogant just because they are not interested in your proposition and refuse to negotiate? Likewise tell us what did NSP, SFP or SDP offer to entice or even force WP to the negotiating able? A big ZERO.

It has nothing to do with arrogant but being practical. In fact if WP can compromise on their position so easily, what would voters think if WP represents national interests when they become the govt? Bear in mind middleground voters are watching. If WP thinks they are better off walking their own path, then so be it. If non-WP opposition wants unity there is nothing to stop them from forming their own grand coalition without WP. Just don't pin the blame on WP for their own failure to form one.

 

[tanwahp]

If I say that not negotiating with other oppo parties is arrogant, that's an opinion of an act. Likewise if you say that not negotiating with other oppo parties is pragmatic, that's your opinion of the same act. And you're entitled to it. So am I.

And opinions can be very subjective. Get it straight.

No, negotiating is an act or the act of not doing so is also an act. Otherwise, someone would argue that Chee rubbing his nephew's tummy is an act and me seeing it as a pedophillic act is an opinion. If you want to use the term "fallacious", start from there.

 

[steffychun]

Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
If you have a party which keeps saying it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party but at the same time, openly declare that it is not going to negotiate nor cooperate with other parties because it "chooses to walk its own path", what do you think it is?

Now worse, its supporters and members are openly saying that they do not wish to see other opposition parties to win any seats? What do you think it is?

Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
Who will believe the Devil to preach the Bible?

Who will believe someone who is talking against unity to preach unity?

GMS backside itchy...go rub against durian

 

[tanwahp]

Naturally. If Tan Jee Say of Singaporeans First says that he's not interested in negotiating with the other oppo parties and want to go it alone, I'd say that's arrogant too. Otherwise it's a double standard.

I guess like GMS you are into sweet words regardless of anything else as long as it doesn't sound arrogant. I give in that SFP's stand on working with fellow opposition parties is certainly less exclusive than WP's, less arrogant if you want to call that.

What is arrogant is when a group of people wants unity under its own terms and has already made their move and set the stage before negotiating. For example, to turn a divided camp of 7 parties into 8 parties before bringing them as one. Or to say that the terms of negotiation is a public forum where the party with least to lose proposes the most preposterous terms.

I am sure many observers are aware there are better ways of going about it and people who try not to show double standards should also help remind them.

 

[yellowarse]

No, negotiating is an act or the act of not doing so is also an act. Otherwise, someone would argue that Chee rubbing his nephew's tummy is an act and me seeing it as a pedophillic act is an opinion. If you want to use the term "fallacious", start from there.

My God, you're logically challenged. This is a classic strawman fallacy.

1. Not negotiating is an act. My opinion of that act is that it's arrogant. Your opinion of that act is that it's pragmatic. You have a right to your opinion, as I have to mine. Get it?

We're are already agreed on the act – WP's not negotiating. We only disagree on our opinions of the act - is the act arrogant, is it pragmatic?

2. 'Chee is a paedophile' is an allegation of an act, not an opinion. You are saying that Chee committed a paedophilic act, a serious allegation. You're not giving an opinion of the act - whether it's right, whether it's disgusting. You're saying he actually did something.

In the first example, we're discussing opinions. In the second example we're discussing whether an act has been committed. Substituting 'act' for 'opinion' is using 'act' as a strawman to argue fallaciously that if committing an act is an objective fact, opinions must also be objective.

In truth, committing or not committing an act is an objective fact, but your opinion of that act can be subjective. Don't confuse act with opinion.

Sheesh.

 

[yellowarse]

I guess like GMS you are into sweet words regardless of anything else as long as it doesn't sound arrogant. I give in that SFP's stand on working with fellow opposition parties is certainly less exclusive than WP's, less arrogant if you want to call that.

Wrong again. Trust me, your illogic is a liability to WP's cause here.

To me, willingness to negotiate = not arrogant. Not willing to negotiate = arrogant. I don't give a damn about whether sweet words are used. I'm judging based on the act of negotiation. TJS has made an approach to negotiate = not arrogant. WP does not want to negotiate = arrogant. Get it?

I am sure many observers are aware there are better ways of going about it and people who try not to show double standards should also help remind them.

If you have a better way of going about it [negotiating oppo unity], then tell us here. Also, let me remind you that better is subjective. I may think my way (sending a joint invitation to all parties to sit down and talk) is better; another may think that talking to the other parties on a one-to-one basis is better. To each his own.

 

[yellowarse]

If WP thinks they are better off walking their own path, then so be it. If non-WP opposition wants unity there is nothing to stop them from forming their own grand coalition without WP. Just don't pin the blame on WP for their own failure to form one.

Absolutely agree. That's what I've been saying to tanwahp. WP has every right to go their own way, work out their own strategy. But other oppo parties also have every right to deem such an act arrogant, and to continue to work for oppo unity in their own way.

Yes, the other parties cannot blame WP if they cannot work out an alliance of their own.

So be it.

 

[tanwahp]

2. 'Chee is a paedophile' is an allegation of an act, not an opinion. You are saying that Chee committed a paedophilic act, a serious allegation. You're not giving an opinion of the act - whether it's right, whether it's disgusting. You're saying he actually did something.

Yes, I am of the view that labelling WP as "arrogant" is an allegation in this case. "Arrogance" alone is not that serious or a wrongdoing, but in this case what was implied was the rejection of unity, as the only choice, and intention of not even exploring the idea was sinister on the part of WP. You got caught on because you responded positively to such an allegation.

Wrong again. Trust me, your illogic is a liability to WP's cause here.

You can try to present your case objectivity and neutrally, hence there is no need to link my views to WP. No party will even support, much less get involved in debate over semantics. Individual forummers are entitled to say anything they want. But unless you are a pro-opposition-but-anti-WP guy then no harm admitting it.

To me, willingness to negotiate = not arrogant. Not willing to negotiate = arrogant. I don't give a damn about whether sweet words are used. I'm judging based on the act of negotiation. TJS has made an approach to negotiate = not arrogant. WP does not want to negotiate = arrogant. Get it?

Since the word "subjective" keeps cropping up, then "arrogant" becomes subjective too, since 3M said it was "practical". If you say "practical but arrogant", then all practical actions are arrogant?

Yes, the other parties cannot blame WP if they cannot work out an alliance of their own.

Given the case, perhaps it is time to hear some views on why other opposition parties cannot work out an alliance of their own. We have heard a lot of unity calls for decades and I have drawn the disparity (between the calls and the end results) to the insincerity of these callers which is dishonest to their supporters, and have been met with silence.

 

[yellowarse]

Yes, I am of the view that labelling WP as "arrogant" is an allegation in this case. "Arrogance" alone is not that serious or a wrongdoing, but in this case what was implied was the rejection of unity, as the only choice, and intention of not even exploring the idea was sinister on the part of WP. You got caught on because you responded positively to such an allegation.

Hello, 'arrogant' is not an act. 'Arrogant' is an attitude as perceived by another person, i.e. another person's opinion or perception.

WP has openly declared that it won't negotiate with the other parties = ACT
I think that the act of 'not negotiating' is arrogant = OPINION/PERCEPTION

'Act' is objective = you either did it or you didn't
'Opinion/perception' is subjective = it can be varied and many depending on the person perceiving the act.

Gosh, do I have to teach you English?

No party will even support, much less get involved in debate over semantics.

I am talking about arguments based on false logic, not semantics (word play). Using fallacies to argue diminishes your credibility, and by extension to the party of which you're a member.

But unless you are a pro-opposition-but-anti-WP guy then no harm admitting it.

If I was, I'd admit it. But I'm not. I'm merely calling it as I see it: if an oppo party refuses to negotiate with the other parties, I think it's arrogant, given that the opposition as a whole is weakly represented in parliament compared to more mature democracies. But it's WP's prerogative to chart its own path. I'm just voicing my opinion.

Given the case, perhaps it is time to hear some views on why other opposition parties cannot work out an alliance of their own.

This will be for another thread. Mainly, clash of egos, different party agendas, and lack of give and take. That said, just because something has failed in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive for it in the next election.

 

[tanwahp]

Hello, 'arrogant' is not an act. 'Arrogant' is an attitude as perceived by another person, i.e. another person's opinion or perception.

There is no need to enter this area of debate. Arrogance is an attitude and act of arrogance is an act. I don't think we were in disagreement here. By the way, I don't think this is a forum where poor English is prohibited, as you can see.

I am talking about arguments based on false logic, not semantics (word play). Using fallacies to argue diminishes your credibility, and by extension to the party of which you're a member.

A false logic is when something a person says represents an organization's stand when he is not one of the organization's leaders even if he is a member. A fallacy is the abovesaid when the person is not a member.

If I was, I'd admit it. But I'm not. I'm merely calling it as I see it: if an oppo party refuses to negotiate with the other parties, I think it's arrogant, given that the opposition as a whole is weakly represented in parliament compared to more mature democracies. But it's WP's prerogative to chart its own path. I'm just voicing my opinion.

Point taken. I believe you also agree that not negotiating may also not be arrogant based on the term you earlier used - "subjective" - and is "arrogant" only upon a number of people's opinion including your own.

This will be for another thread. Mainly, clash of egos, different party agendas, and lack of give and take. That said, just because something has failed in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to strive for it in the next election.

We very well hope to see it. Thank you.

 

[yellowarse]

There is no need to enter this area of debate. Arrogance is an attitude and act of arrogance is an act. I don't think we were in disagreement here.

We agreed about the fact of the act - WP's declaring to go it alone.

The perception of the attitude behind the act - arrogance - is subjective. I perceive it as arrogance; you perceive it as pragmatism.

A false logic is when something a person says represents an organization's stand when he is not one of the organization's leaders even if he is a member. A fallacy is the abovesaid when the person is not a member.

I'll clarify. You do not represent WP's stand here, whether you're a member or not.

I simply said it's a liability because people here tend to make positive or negative assumptions about a political party based on the arguments and behaviour of its supporters in this forum. This is fallacious thinking, but you can't stop people from having perceptions, even if these are not justified.

So, hypothetically, if WP supporters go round using obscenities on those criticizing WP or zapping them, forummers might get the impression that WP supporters are intolerant of dissent, and by extension assume that the WP leadership are similarly intolerant and oppressive. This assumption may be unjustified, groundless, but the perception may still adversely affect netizens' opinion of WP and have an impact at the ballot box.

I believe you also agree that not negotiating may also not be arrogant based on the term you earlier used - "subjective" - and is "arrogant" only upon a number of people's opinion including your own.

This is the first statement you've made today that I absolutely agree with. The term 'arrogant' is a perception of an attitude and is therefore subjective. Hence, some people like myself may find the act 'arrogant', while others may find it 'frank', yet others like 3_M may see it as merely 'pragmatic'.

 

[tanwahp]

I simply said it's a liability because people here tend to make positive or negative assumptions about a political party based on the arguments and behaviour of its supporters in this forum. This is fallacious thinking, but you can't stop people from having perceptions, even if these are not justified.

So, hypothetically, if WP supporters go round using obscenities on those criticizing WP or zapping them, forummers might get the impression that WP supporters are intolerant of dissent, and by extension assume that the WP leadership are similarly intolerant and oppressive. This assumption may be unjustified, groundless, but the perception may still adversely affect netizens' opinion of WP and have an impact at the ballot box.

Can't disagree with you here. Even if some pretend to be WP supporters, no one would know if they are or are not.

Similarly, those who claim PAP rebooted WP and claim to speak from a pro-SDP angle, no one would know if they are SDP supporters or PAP supporters borrowing SDP's name.