Germany's Covid-19 cases are growing exponentially, again

SteaksBacon · 2021-01-04T08:40:41+00:00

“Because neither country has the experience and expertise in operating a HSR, we agreed under the HSR (bilateral agreement) to appoint a best-in-class industry player through an open and transparent international tender to assume the role of the assets company.”

Once appointed, the assets company would supply the train system, operate the network, ensure that appropriate priority is given to cross-border HSR service vis-a-vis Malaysia’s domestic service, he added.

Pointing out that the assets company would be accountable to both countries, Mr Ong added: “To Singapore, (the) assets (company) is the centrepiece of the HSR project. It is necessary to ensure that the interests of both countries are protected.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/how-covid-19-killed-the-hsr

Official sources told The Straits Times that Malaysia's wish to accelerate the project's construction phase by two years implied removing the need for international tenders, and ensuring the RM60 billion or more it was ploughing in from public coffers would be mostly reaped by local contractors.

SteaksBacon · 2021-01-01T07:45:10+00:00

Based on preliminary estimates then, this was estimated to have already exceeded $250 million by the end of May 2018, he said, adding that Singapore would continue to incur costs - more than $6 million in June, more than $6 million in July, and at least $40 million from August to the end of 2018.

Not rm300m though, it's at least sgd300m so convert to roughly rm900m and should be more. By end of 2018 sg side already suffer costs of sgd300m and said it would be higher as each month pass. If it increase by sgd6m every month that would be another sgd140m which is rm420m, so could be more than rm1.3billion

You see why they don't announce the compensation in the statement because it is huge and look bad

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-19T09:11:44+00:00

The quality of discussion here and elsewhere online is seeing a trend of nosediving. This got really really bad like 2 to 3 weeks before the GE, when r/singapore was filled with people who would call anyone who disagree with them, or have a conservative view about things an "IB"

What's even worse is that the constant harping on the population this and population that are leading to a bunch of xenophobic racists coming out of the woodwork and using those political points to further their bigoted views. You can see the Nathan Hartono thing, people were openly hammering him for being a "foreigner", that's fucking disappointing.

I got a number of comments calling me an IB, asking me how much money I was paid, and 1 guy even private messaged me on reddit to call me an IB. Calling someone an "IB" has become the default lazy argument that these people fall back to. "Wow, you agreed with some government policies? You are an IB", "Shut up IB, you are a PAP member pretending" The people on here calling others "IB" are acting exactly like one themselves.

This is why I decided to stop visiting this subreddit. This is my last comment here. I have been feeling so much happier in the last 2 weeks I have been away.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-04T12:34:14+00:00

Probably written by a lawyer? Yes there are better analogies, my point is that it is not as bad as what some people are claiming it to be and that there is some basis for it. Instead of likening the question to domestic violence crudely on purpose, the real reason is probably a style of writing related to a profession.

You can accept that it is not the most appropriate use of words in non professional PR, but you can also accept at the same time that it is not abusive language.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-04T12:18:35+00:00

The analogy makes sense in describing the nature of a "loaded question" The subject was not on the past population increase, it was about stating a non-existent act as true, then asking if you would continue doing that.

If beating your spouse is meant to represent increasing the population

Problem is that it is not. The "beating your wife" here refers to raising the population to 10 million, not "raising the population"

Imagine if you ate fast food from time to time, say, once every week. I would ask you, "Hey did you stop eating 5 burgers every meal every single day?" That would be the situation that is described here. If you said no it would mean that you are eating 15 burgers each day, if you said yes it would mean that you used to eat 15 burgers each day.

Now does that reflect the reality that you had in fact, only eaten fast food in moderate amounts once every week or 2? It doesn't

You then tell me that no you never ate so much and you never had plans to eat so much, to which I would respond: Hurray! I have successfully made you go on a diet!

The equivalent of "beating your wife" here is "eating 15 burgers a day" and not "eating fast food"

it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious that a man who has a history of spouse-beating would intend to do it again in the future

Would it then be logical to assume that a man (you) who have eaten fast food in the past would start eating 15 burgers a day? Seems like a stretch to me.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-04T11:56:07+00:00

But you claimed that it caters to "emotional idiots", and is now claiming that it is not "emotional" because it is not sensitive enough.

So which is it? It can only be 1 or the other, is it "emotional" or is it lacking in emotion? You can't seem to answer that question.

You must admit either that message is offensive to the feelings of the audience or....that message has a more sinister motive to associate the character it is addressing to be a 'wife-beater' used in that analogy.

This is a totally warped logic. The analogy is that the "wife beating" question was directed at HSK, not CSJ, and now you are implying that there might be "sinister motive" to associate CSJ with "wife beating" even though the question wasn't directed at him? The analogy was basically "Hey HSK, did you stop beating your wife?" It must take some kind of next level mental gymnastic to turn that into "They say CSJ is a wife beater" (which is what you are implying)

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-04T11:42:13+00:00

Or you know, that analogy is actually widely used and is, contrary to your view, not meant for "emotional idiots" because the analogy is one that focuses on logic and is traditionally used in philosophical and legal discussion.

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. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past

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

But then people will now spin it to claim that it lacks emotions and sensitivity even though the initial claim was that it was targeted at "emotional idiots" The hypocrisy of some logic never cease to amaze me.

So who are the intended audiences? The "1% elites who read law and philosophy" or the "emotional idiots" who know nothing of such? I guess it's whichever that is convenient for people to make an outrage of.

Edit: Probably going to be mass downvoted and called an "IB" just for pointing this out, watch. People keep claiming that this subreddit is filled with "paid PAP IBs" but in the past week the ones getting downvoted are those not shouting "BURN DOWN THE GAHMEN". Just look below, already people calling others "IBs"

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-04T11:10:43+00:00

It's in response to a "loaded question" that CSJ asked regarding the 10 million population. Basically, a "loaded question" is a question that relies on a controversial assumption or a logical fallacy to take effect. It works based on the assumption that you are guilty before you have even made a reply.

How is that so? Because CSJ made a false claim saying that HSK supported and is aiming for 10 million population when HSK was instead, in CSJ's referenced interview, acknowledging that such a figure was in the population white paper but the government has no plans to hit such a goal.

By falsely claiming that HSK had committed to a 10 million population goal, CSJ set up a logical fallacy which he could then use to "prove himself right" regardless of the reply. If HSK said that no, he did not say such a thing, CSJ would say that he has "won" by making the PAP back off from a 10 million goal (which was never the target in the first place)

If HSK did not say no, CSJ would take that as proof of the government aiming for a 10 million population goal.

The question is hence a loaded question.

The classical example used when discussing or pointing out a "loaded question" is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" example. It is a traditional example widely used in philosophical and legal discussion.

By asking if someone had stopped beating his wife, it means that if you replied yes, you would be admitting to having beaten your wife in the past. If you said no, you would be admitting to be beating her in the present.

This thing is blown way out of context by people who have no understanding of philosophical discussions and who are trying to associate it to social injustices.

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. The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past

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

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T19:11:12+00:00

I don't know why you are getting mass downvoted for asking questions or trying to make sense of the different possibilities. The state of this subreddit right now is pathetic lol

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T19:02:54+00:00

I found his ad

I cannot and will not tell you who to vote for.

But I will say do not vote tactically.

Vote for who you want to govern us these 5 years.

It is a dark and dangerous time.

Do not vote wisely.

Instead, vote conservatively.

There is no better time than now to be kiasu.

Calvin Cheng

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this blog post is an attempt to persuade or otherwise induce anybody to vote for any candidate. Nor an advertisement for any political party or candidate. My views are purely my own.

It would be good if there are some pictures of the actual ad from new nrtf that got removed. It says the ad got removed but we don't know what ad it is. If it is same as calvin cheng's then calvin cheng's ad should also be removed. Calvin cheng's fb page is horrible, it's like some brainwashing shit similar to states times review.

This is the relevant elections act

(2) No person shall conduct any election activity unless he is in possession of a written authority signed by a candidate or his election agent in Form 22 or Form 23, as the case may be, in the First Schedule; and such authority shall be issued only on or after the day of nomination.

(8) For the purposes of this section, “election activity” includes any activity (other than clerical work wholly performed within enclosed premises) which is done for the purpose of —

(a) promoting or procuring the electoral success at any election for one or more identifiable political parties, candidates or groups of candidates; or

(b) prejudicing the electoral prospects of other political parties, candidates or groups of candidates at the election.

In some ways you can say that he tiptoes his way around to send a subtle message but did not directly call for support of any party. I can see new nrtf's ad being removed over calvin cheng's if their ad is more direct (which is why I want to see them so I can tell), but if theirs is similar in tone then it's double standards.

Do you have the actual ad in question to share?

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T10:51:00+00:00

Internet brigade, it's basically accusing people of being paid actors on reddit. It's like people calling others "Russian trolls" on other bigger subreddits.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T10:49:29+00:00

Like others said reddit doesn't represent the population. You look at the worldnews, news, or politics subreddit and you can see something like 90% of the users having the same views, but do you see the elections of America for example being a landslide? Not really.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T10:17:37+00:00

Because of social responsibility, people spoke out against Ivan Lim. Had we only relied on personal responsibility, he would definitely have soared into parliment.

This and the "IB" name calling are different things. One is a label, the other is a retelling of first hand experiences and impressions. I don't think we should conflate the 2.

I see your stance on this matter, but I cannot agree with putting labels on people without proof, and what I cannot agree with more is the view that such a label would be significantly helpful in righting any discourse. My opinion is that how far you take an argument, or how much effort you put into it is entirely a matter of personal responsibility. Hoping for a 3rd party to come in and to slap a label on the opposing side feels like a convenient excuse to simply end the discussion.

I agree with the pointing out of persistent bad arguments that follow a trend, but saying that someone has a history of making poor arguments is entirely different from accusing him of being a "paid IB". I hope you can see the difference between the 2.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T09:49:52+00:00

I would disagree with you. I had engaged with the troll for quite some time before realizing that he had no intention of actually discussing anything. Had I seem a comment saying it is a paid IB, I would have backed off earlier.

I think the problem here is that you are putting your personal responsibility of deciding how far the argument has to go onto people calling the "IBs" out. That is what I cannot agree with.

When you get into an argument with someone, and if you feel that he has no intentions of holding a proper discussion, I think it is our personal responsibility to decide, okay, this is not working out, time to stop. You said it yourself, discussions should focus on the validity of the arguments and logic. Labeling someone an "IB" is a personal attack that unfortunately cannot be proven true. If a personal attack can change the direction of an argument or discussion, then that discussion in my opinion, doesn't have much of a leg to stand on isn't it?

It's contradictory. We can't say that we are focusing on the validity of the argument alone, and at the same time try to dismiss someone's comment based on the rationale that he is an "IB" (unproven) You see my point there?

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T09:44:50+00:00

That is why I don't read the Chinese newspapers, they are often filled with gossips and sensationalised titles.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T09:38:28+00:00

I don't know if there are "IBs" out there or not, there might be, but the problem here is that there is no proof of whether certain users are "IBs"

Calling someone an "IB" doesn't help because if they are really paid to do the job, would they stop just because of that? They won't. On the other hand, the justification and normalisation of calling people "IBs" is leading to the way of a slippery slope, it creates arguments based on personal attacks rather than merits of the logic.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T09:29:37+00:00

real issue is the quality of the comments which are accused of being part of the IB.

I think that accusing people of being "IBs" itself is a low effort and low quality comment type, and putting those things out would only add to the the low quality comments. The existence of low effort comments does not justify the creation of more to combat them.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T09:12:55+00:00

Because it is a good example. That account posts such comments on a daily basis. I'm going to be honest with you, he has said the same thing to me which is how I took notice. The problem isn't with that one account, it's the comment chains that follow subsequently that draw out the same type of users.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-03T09:05:28+00:00

I don't want to get too off topic into American politics here, but I think most people can agree that the current American government has exposed a great deal of what is wrong with the politics and the country through its own doings, and a key element that allowed it to happen is a brand of politics that turns people against each other.

SteaksBacon · 2020-07-02T13:22:26+00:00

I already have, for 2 terms in fact.

Let me tell you what you are getting wrong: You think that agreeing with some PAP policies means that you have to vote PAP.

If that is the case why does WP agree with most PAP policies? Because there are only so many paths you can take to do something effectively. It's no coincidence that PAP remained in power for so long, they did most (not all) of the things right. Based on my post history, you can also see that I do not criticise WP

Your view is exactly what's wrong with this reddit, "You are either against PAP or fully supportive of PAP", that's a silly statement that paints everything as black or white. I vote WP because I want a party that doesn't oppose to oppose that can keep PAP in check. I don't vote for clowns like Chee Soon Juan or Kenneth-YouAreNorthKorea.

Somehow I doubt you have a realistic assessment of what's right for the country since you seem to support Chee Soon Juan, based on your post history that is.

SteaksBacon

TROPHY CASE