It has been an interesting skirmish with Proud2bmalaysian. (He has a blog by the same name). What started to be a very promising debate turned out to be a non stater. I must admit that I like his style of writing and civility. However the manner he argued was totally wrong and dishonest.
I guess its part of my fault. I had hoped it would be a dialectic discussion but it turned out that he is so densely partisan that he didn’t know what is right and what is wrong. I contemplated whether I should write a piece of him but as I’ve encountered him elsewhere, I think others must be aware of his manner. Also I want to articulate some grounds for having a proper discourse. Of course there are others unable to have dialectic discourse, for example those who name call me or accuse me without prove being a paid cyber trooper. For these type of people I reserve my right to reply in kind and not resort to a dialectic discourse. They can’t understand anyway. In the mains most Malaysians I’ve encountered fall in this category. However I have encountered a few who are sincere thought provoking and able to enlighten us with their knowledge and perspectives. To these people I reply with respect they accorded.
Now what did p2b did wrong or things which we shouldn’t do to have a proper discourse.
1) be consistent and don’t change goal posts. If you change admit it. That’s honesty in having intellectual discussion. P2b’s write on 98 issues jump from one end to the other end. He disagreed with what I said initially but at the end came to my earlier position. Yet he still failed to admit his various positions. When this was pointed out he feigned he didn’t know my position.
2) put a position of principles and apply to the facts. P2b agreed to my general principles and when put the facts he refused to apply it saying its not science. He quoted an article which also repeated my statement of fact. But he simply refused to apply the facts since he is partisan. But strange he can condemn others based on the same subject matter “which is not science”
3) don’t lie and spread falsehood. P2b has been caught with this. But there was no remorse and he tried to justify himself. This is a no no.
4) don’t ask others to prove but you yourself make unproven allegation.
5) don’t argue that you cannot rely on public information because you have personal and private information which negates public information. In a dialectic discourse you must base on public information. Then you argue the accuracy of it. If you don’t rely on public info how can we even argue on the same basis.
P2b initial attack on ETP is like that. He thumbs down public info. His argument on money supply was worse. When he couldn’t defend himself he argued its because there’s no public info available. But there’s plethora of public info on Malaysian money supplies by third parties. You know how they obtain this? Bnm publishes this info to the public at least annually. P2b must stop this manner of argument. We must rely on public info. If he has personal or private info he should use it to counter the public information.
6) in any event never argue a position as true based on private information which you cannot disclose. This is one of the most low down method of discussion. It’s worse when p2b has argued before that we cannot rely on public information because he has personal and private information to the contrary. And when asked to disclose he argued its private and confidential. This is the lowest form of argument in a dialectic debate. It’s dishonesty pure and simple. And worse he tried to turn the table to ask me to prove things which I don’t allege, to deviate.
I find p2b highly appalling. A dishonest guy willing to resort to lies to spread falsehood. Unless he learns his lesson to have integrity I will not engage him dialectically. I will treat him like most pro pr supporter who attack me without basis. That is with scorn.
And further he had refused to publish my commentary criticizing his write. Previously he condemns MSM for not publishing contrarian views but now he himself does what he condemns. I’m very sorry for my language, but Ill be blunt. I find p2b not only hypocritical but [utterly reprehensible]. He got his values and moralities inside out.