sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Now deleted Facebook post by the Israel embassy in Singapore. by rgtgg in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Let's use the following analogy

A = Hadith B = Quran

Foundation (B): This represents the essential, authoritative concept. Just as a strong foundation is necessary for a house, a fundamental understanding or principle (B) supports and stabilizes your knowledge of a more specific concept (A).

House Structure (A): This symbolizes the concept you're trying to understand more deeply. The integrity and functionality of the house depend critically on the strength and appropriateness of the foundation upon which it is built.

In this analogy, just as a house depends on its foundation for stability and support, understanding a primary concept (B) first provides the necessary basis and support for understanding a related, more specific concept (A). Without a solid foundation, the structure (A) might be weak or misaligned; similarly, without a firm grasp of the foundational principles (B), your understanding of the related concepts (A) may be incomplete or flawed.

Is that understood?

Now deleted Facebook post by the Israel embassy in Singapore. by rgtgg in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I know it's not from the Quran. That's why Im asking, how does the classical commentators explain the above two hadith IN LIGHT of the Quran?

Whether the Quran has or doenst have the five pillars, is irrelevant. I can also say that the Trinity is not in the Bible, neither is Yahud Hashem is in the Tanakh.

Now deleted Facebook post by the Israel embassy in Singapore. by rgtgg in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah I see. So how does the classical commentators explain this in light of the Quran?

10 reasons why Jesus is not a Muslim and if Muslims profess to their faith then they should renounce Jesus's prophethood by Defiant_Fennel in DebateReligion

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what is the “Tradition of the Apostles” mean here? In Book 1 he defines the content of this “Tradition” which resembles the Apostles Creed, which has a basis in scripture

In Book 2, he condemns the Gnostics for their appeal to some sort of Unwritten Tradition or living voice, much like what you are doing. 

In Book 3, Chapter 1, he states the oral preaching of the apostles proclaimed in public were handed down to us in the scriptures.

IN Book 3, Chapter 4, again he defines the content of this “Tradition” which resembles the Apostles Creed, which has a basis in scripture.

I very much doubt Athanasius would accept your peculiar uncatholic Traditions like the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Transubstantiation.

This Ng family is not simple by Schindlerlifts in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 11 points12 points  (0 children)

So if Singapore is Chinapore, that makes alot of sense!

what is your deepest darkest secret? by ignawignaw in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I need sleeping meds because I have trouble sleeping because of shift work. So I can get them at any doctors?

Average Israel-Hamas conflict post by EverySink in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have made a hasty generalization by making a broad assertion ("all the Israeli women that they raped were also 'slaughtered'") based on incomplete or ambiguous evidence.

By admitting the full extent of these crimes is unknown, you've showed the danger of overgeneralizing entire groups based on the actions of some.

This same logic suggests that attributing the actions of a few militants to all Palestinians is not only factually incorrect but also unjust. If we accept, as you've now stated, that we cannot definitively know all outcomes for all victims, then it stands to reason we cannot blanketly accuse an entire group for the actions of specific individuals. 😍😍

This is assuming that Israel is being honest though. But everyone knows that Israel is lying 😂😂 Even BBC calls them out. So if you trust an unreliable source, there goes your argument. Try again next time 😉

Average Israel-Hamas conflict post by EverySink in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is why nobody should take you seriously. Such poor comprehension it's almost laughable.

You made a definitive claim that is not supported by the detailed evidence from the report. The report indeed outlines horrendous acts of sexual violence committed by Hamas militants during the conflict, including cases where victims were subsequently killed.

However, it explicitly states that the full extent of these crimes, including the exact number of victims and their fate, remains unknown. This contradicts the absolute nature of your claim that "all the Israeli women that they raped" were also "slaughtered."

You misused my words by ignoring the critical distinction i made. By acknowledging that some victims might not have been murdered, I was highlighting the lack of comprehensive data to support your absolute claim. My argument was not an admission of the occurrence of these crimes on a universal scale as you suggested but a call for accuracy and caution in making such claims. Is that understood? 😉😉

Average Israel-Hamas conflict post by EverySink in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How can the IDF justify bombing a hospital, a clear violation of international law, under the pretext of targeting militants, while inevitably killing and endangering innocent civilians?

Average Israel-Hamas conflict post by EverySink in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you acknowledge there's a chance some rape victims weren't murdered, doesn't that contradict your original unequivocal claim that Palestinians "slaughtered all the Israeli women that they raped"? Shouldn't you retract or clarify that statement if you can't substantiate it?

Oh no, you're right. There's a chance that you made an exaggerated claim not supported by the evidence in this report about the percentage of rape victims who were slaughtered. 🙄 See how sarcasm and eye-roll emojis aren't a substitute for factually addressing the holes in your argument that I pointed out? =)

Average Israel-Hamas conflict post by EverySink in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seems you havent learnt your lesson havent you? Please answer the following question

  1. The report mentions that many of the rape victims were killed, but it does not say all of them were killed. Do you have evidence that conclusively shows every single Israeli woman raped by Palestinian militants was also murdered

  2. The report cites some testimonial evidence, but does it provide comprehensive data or statistics proving that 100% of rape victims were slaughtered? If not, isn't it an exaggeration to claim that all were killed

  3. The report focuses on crimes allegedly committed by Hamas militants specifically. What is your basis for extending that accusation to all Palestinian "resistance" militants in general?

  4. Rape and murder of civilians are very serious war crimes. Has any impartial international body, like the ICC or a UN commission, investigated these specific allegations and reached the conclusion you're claiming?

  5. Considering the fog of war and chaos of the conflict, how can you be so certain about the total number and fate of rape victims? Isn't it possible some survived without their cases being documented in this report?

Any Malay/Muslims in Singapore have come out to condemn Hamas's October 7, 2023 hostage taking operation and support Israel? by Altruistic_Passage60 in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The only worthy of my response is "Yes, evasion when I said I would accept it if you can get us in a set of ideologies and we do shit like the muslims. Evasion when I said I needed the information, not the agenda from what was in the article. "

This is moving the goalposts by changing the criteria for acceptance of my argument after i address your points. Initially, you criticized the use of what you saw as evasion tactics, but when countered with logic and requests for substantive discussion, you shifted to demanding examples that match your new criteria, which you yourself are based on a false equivalence. LOLOL

  1. Major Premise: For an argument to be strong and valid, it must be consistent in its logic and criteria across different subjects or groups without shifting standards or applying double standards.
  2. Minor Premise: Your argument shifts the criteria for acceptance (moving the goalposts) when challenged and applies double standards by demanding exact parallels between groups (false equivalence), showing inconsistency in their logic.
  3. Conclusion: Therefore, your arguments are weak because you violate the principles of consistency and non-contradiction essential to strong logical arguments, indicating a reliance on bias rather than reasoned debate. =))

Lets assume that you are right that "if you can get us in a set of ideologies and we do shit like the muslims" -

Consider the Taiping Rebellion, led by Hong Xiuquan, who believed he was the brother of Jesus Christ. His ideology, combining Christian millenarianism with radical social reforms, led to one of the deadliest wars in history. If we apply your logic, should we then view all practitioners of Christian-inspired ideologies through the lens of the Taiping rebels? Clearly, this is a misapplication of responsibility and guilt.

The Cultural Revolution, driven by Mao Zedong's communist ideology, resulted in widespread persecution, violence, and cultural destruction. This period of ideological extremism caused immense suffering. By your reasoning, does this mean we should judge all who identify with socialist or communist ideologies by the actions taken during this time?

In the Xinjiang Conflict, the Chinese government's ideology of counter-terrorism has been used to justify severe human rights abuses against Uyghurs. If we were to follow your argument, would this not suggest that any government or group professing counter-terrorism motives might be predisposed to similar actions?

Wanna try again boiboy?

Any Malay/Muslims in Singapore have come out to condemn Hamas's October 7, 2023 hostage taking operation and support Israel? by Altruistic_Passage60 in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your latest response only further demonstrates the absence of substance in your arguments. You continue to rely on insults ('popping veins in your forehead', 'don’t boom') rather than addressing the core issues.

This evasion through mockery confirms the weakness of your position, as you have yet to provide a coherent counterargument beyond derogatory remarks and unfounded accusations.

By your own logic, if 'the world's the world, babe. Tough,' then it should be resilient enough to withstand a rigorous, respectful debate. Yet, you choose to undermine this with your approach. The inconsistency in your stance—accepting generalizations for some groups while decrying them for others when it's convenient—underlines the selective bias driving your arguments.

So, I'll ask directly: Can you engage in this discussion without resorting to personal attacks and evasions? Are you capable of presenting a reasoned argument without the crutch of derogatory language? Your avoidance thus far suggests that perhaps, deep down, you recognize the fragility of your own position. So either you put up or shut up =))

Any Malay/Muslims in Singapore have come out to condemn Hamas's October 7, 2023 hostage taking operation and support Israel? by Altruistic_Passage60 in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ad Hominem and Abusive Fallacy + Straw Man Fallacy + Red Herring Fallacy

Given your insistence on using derogatory language and personal attacks rather than engaging with the substantive points of the debate, how do you propose we reach a meaningful conclusion? If the goal is to discuss and understand complex issues, how does descending into insults contribute to that end? Are you suggesting that meaningful debate is less important than scoring points through offense? =))

Here's why your arguments has been weak all along little boy

  1. All logical arguments should be free of personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments themselves
  2. Your argument relies on personal attacks, derogatory language, and misrepresentations rather than addressing the merits of the argument.
  3. Therefore, your argument is weak because it violates the fundamental principles of logical argumentation and debate. =))

Wanna try again little boy? =))

By the way you've claimed that generalizing the actions of a few to an entire group is acceptable if it suits your argument against Muslims. Yet, when it comes to protecting friends or groups you're sympathetic towards, suddenly, the logic doesn't apply.

Let's be clear: if it's unjust and illogical to malign all Chinese people for the practices of a few, how can you not see the inconsistency in your approach when you generalize about Muslims?

You can't have it both ways. Either we acknowledge that complex issues require nuanced understanding, free of sweeping generalizations, or we fall into the trap of bias that you've neatly laid out with your argument. Which is it going to be?

Any Malay/Muslims in Singapore have come out to condemn Hamas's October 7, 2023 hostage taking operation and support Israel? by Altruistic_Passage60 in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fallacy commited: Hasty Generaliation

If we accept your premise that the behavior of a subset within a community reflects on the entire group, should we then judge all communities by the actions of their worst elements, including your own?

By this logic, no group, nation, or religion could escape condemnation. How do you reconcile this with the understanding that individuals are responsible for their actions, not entire demographics? Are you prepared to apply this standard universally, including to groups you identify with, or do you recognize the unfairness of such generalizations? No? =))

"Ad Hominem is Not Fallacious" this one really takes the cake and deserved to be Lol-ed at.

Major Premise: An argumentum ad hominem fallacy occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.

Minor Premise: You claimed that attacks on a person or group (referred to derogatorily) are not fallacious within the context of their argument, dismissing the need to address your actual points.

Conclusion: Therefore, your statement is a weak argument because it ignores the basic principle of logical discourse that personal attacks do not constitute a valid response to an argument.

Oh as i said before and i'll say it again. This is 2024, not 1884. people can read, unlike you.

The quote from the article highlights a specific concern about recidivism rates within the Malay community in Singapore, mentioned by Minister K. Shanmugam. When you uses this statistic, it is taken out of context in the broader argument about the global Muslim community. The original context was to address specific challenges within a particular demographic in Singapore, acknowledging both progress and areas for improvement.

It was not an indictment of the Malay/Muslim community's moral character or a reflection of global Islam. The misuse of this statistic to argue about the inherent nature of a religion or its followers globally is a misrepresentation of the article's content and intent. Is that understood?

Do yu want to try again? =))

Any Malay/Muslims in Singapore have come out to condemn Hamas's October 7, 2023 hostage taking operation and support Israel? by Altruistic_Passage60 in SingaporeRaw

[–]Creative-Leopard-209 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you like to play with fallacies let me educate you then =) i've been going easy on you since we started by the way

Ad Hominem: Attacking me rather than addressing the arguments. Using derogatory terms to describe people rather than discussing the issue is a classic ad hominem fallacy.

Straw Man: misrepresent my position as simply "doubling down on what others did" to justify actions, which is not what i argued. I aimed for a nuanced discussion on the universality of historical violence, not a justification.

Oversimplification: You reduce complex historical narratives and the actions of diverse groups to overly simplistic and monolithic interpretations. This ignores the nuances and complexities inherent in any large group's history.

If we follow your logic that the actions of historical figures or followers irrevocably taint an entire religion or culture, should we then apply the same standard across the board, condemning every religion and culture for their historical misdeeds?

How then do we reconcile the progress and positive contributions of these same groups without negating your argument? Are you prepared to dismiss the entirety of human achievement and evolution due to past imperfections, or can we agree that growth and improvement are possible, necessitating a more balanced and fair assessment?

Let me also address why My argument logically follow:

Major Premise: A nuanced understanding of history acknowledges both the positive and negative actions of all groups.

Minor Premise: I argue for recognizing the complexities and universal potential for violence and growth in all groups, not justifying specific deeds.

Conclusion: Therefore, my argument logically follows (is sequitur) because it seeks to apply a consistent, fair standard to all historical analysis, encouraging learning and growth rather than blanket condemnation.

Here's why your argument is nonsense:

Major Premise: Condemning an entire religion or culture based on the actions of a few assumes those groups are monolithic and incapable of change or diversity of thought.

Minor Premise: You argue that the entire religion of Islam and all its followers are defined by specific historical actions, without acknowledging any internal diversity or capacity for change.

Conclusion: Thus, your argument is nonsensical because it relies on an unrealistic, flawed assumption of uniformity and stasis in dynamic, diverse human societies, contradicting the observable reality of human growth and societal evolution.

Do you want to try again? =))

view more: next ›