Has the RSS lost to Modi's ambition?

[janon]

LOL...... and Are you such a hypocrite that you are not aware what a leading question is ?

here ... let me give you a hint,

Leading Question : A query that suggests to the witness how it is to be answered or puts words into the mouth of the witness to be merely repeated in his or her response.


It is pretty obvious you were asserting aspersions on 'modi's action' by use of a leading question.

Socratic questioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a difference between asking a leading question, and adopting the socratic questioning method (who's efficacy has been established in logic since millennia). I don't expect you to be aware of it, so google the term and find out. It will do you some good.

Also check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Socratic_irony

Both those are somewhat related to socratic questioning, and I was adopting all three in the dialogue with another fellow.

Socratic questioning (or Socratic maieutics)[1] is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought, or to control the discussion.

The Socratic method (also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate), named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

The reddened point was the most important objective in this case, the others being secondary.

You might want to stop giving hints and lectures to people far more sophisticated than you.

 

[sankranti]

Socratic questioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a difference between asking a leading question, and adopting the socratic questioning method (who's efficacy has been established in logic since millennia). I don't expect you to be aware of it, so google the term and find out. It will do you some good.

Also check out:
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both those are somewhat related to socratic questioning, and I was adopting all three in the dialogue with another fellow.

The reddened point was the most important objective in this case, the others being secondary.

You might want to stop giving hints and lectures to people far more sophisticated than you.

So now it is established that you are indeed a hypocrite.

Looks like you have adopted a strawman defense to obfuscate the fact that you played to the secular gallary. Let me REPOST your question. "Or could it be because of Modi's actions ?"

This is NOT socratic questioning but a Leading Question. In fact it is the opposite of Socratic questioning because you have made a assumption in the first place by pointing to "Modi's action".

Too bad your hypocrisy will still be exposed in-spite of your conceited, pompous and presumptuous claims.

 

[janon]

So now it is established that you are indeed a hypocrite.

Looks like you have adopted a strawman defense to obfuscate the fact that you played to the secular gallary. Let me REPOST your question. "Or could it be because of Modi's actions ?"

This is NOT socratic questioning but a Leading Question. In fact it is the opposite of Socratic questioning because you have made a assumption in the first place by pointing to "Modi's action".

Too bad your hypocrisy will still be exposed in-spite of your conceited, pompous and presumptuous claims.

Read the sentences before the question, and you might understand the difference. I was following his own train of thought, and asking him to follow it to the logical conclusion. In order to demonstrate that his premises will lead to a conclusion he doesn't like, and therefore to cause him to question his premises.

"Strawman defence"? Please don't use terms you don't know. Anyway I am not going to keep defending myself here, and I don't need to. You can call me a hypocrite or whatever you want. I'm more interested in the topic under discussion than name calling.

I'll repeat one thing though - try to understand the socratic method, it is a great tool to arrive at the truth, and to follow certain thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Adieu.

 

[sankranti]

Read the sentences before the question, and you might understand the difference. I was following his own train of thought, and asking him to follow it to the logical conclusion. In order to demonstrate that his premises will lead to a conclusion he doesn't like, and therefore to cause him to question his premises.

"Strawman defence"? Please don't use terms you don't know. Anyway I am not going to keep defending myself here, and I don't need to. You can call me a hypocrite or whatever you want. I'm more interested in the topic under discussion than name calling.

I'll repeat one thing though - try to understand the socratic method, it is a great tool to arrive at the truth, and to follow certain thoughts to their logical conclusion.

Adieu.

I am glad you have decided not to obfuscate the real issue and make this about you. I have no problem with you challanging the debaters premises; only with you casting knowing or unknowing, aspirations on Modi's action.

Rather than exercise narcissism and pretend to teach me a rather simplistic socratic method, I suggest you learn the nuances of Indian Logic called Tarka Sastra or Nyaya Sastra.

 

[janon]

I am glad you have decided not to obfuscate the real issue and make this about you. I have no problem with you challanging the debaters premises; only with you casting knowing or unknowing, aspirations on Modi's action.

Rather than exercise narcissism and pretend to teach me a rather simplistic socratic method, I suggest you learn the nuances of Indian Logic called Tarka Sastra or Nyaya Sastra.

Logic is logic, there is no distinctions like "Indian logic" and "Ugandan logic", except in the minds of narrow minded and tribalistic people. 'Udaracharitaanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam'.

Anyway, I will apply whatever form of logic is fit for the particular circumstance. If you want to demonstrate something using tharka shastra, do so, instead of simply naming it. You may recollect that I exercised the socratic method intitially, and only when accused of leading questions did I start naming and explaining the method I was employing.

You on the other hand are resorting to terms like 'tharka shastra' without actually employing it in the discussion. Namesdropping. Trying to appear sophisticated by naming things, instead of using them. There is a difference between knowing the name of the thing, and knowing the thing.

Unless you actually employed the methods of tharka shastra or nyaya shastra, I don't see why you should name those. Oh of course, to appear erudite. Pathetic.

 

[sankranti]

Logic is logic, there is no distinctions like "Indian logic" and "Ugandan logic", except in the minds of narrow minded and tribalistic people. 'Udaracharitaanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam'.

Anyway, I will apply whatever form of logic is fit for the particular circumstance. If you want to demonstrate something using tharka shastra, do so, instead of simply naming it. You may recollect that I exercised the socratic method intitially, and only when accused of leading questions did I start naming and explaining the method I was employing.

You on the other hand are resorting to terms like 'tharka shastra' without actually employing it in the discussion. Namesdropping. Trying to appear sophisticated by naming things, instead of using them. There is a difference between knowing the name of the thing, and knowing the thing.

Unless you actually employed the methods of tharka shastra or nyaya shastra, I don't see why you should name those. Oh of course, to appear erudite. Pathetic.

LOL…logic is not logic, There are all kinds of logic, one we are discussing is one pertaining to debate.

You first attempt to play to the gallery, something known as 'Argumentum ad populum' and then followed it up by strawman deflection. Now a new red herring by quoting Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which has no relevance here.

Mine was an advice to all MacCullay’s children to start learning Tarka Shastra and quoting it rather than Aristotelian logic which you quoted earlier. There is nothing “sophisticated” about Tarka Shastra, only your ignorance makes it appear so. We all use principles of Nyaya Shastra in debate so I have used it as well, only my naming it rings no bell to you. I could give you a lecture on Anviksiki (which is the Indian science of debate) but it would be wasted on you.

I care a rats @ss to what people think, so what is actually pathetic is to assume I would want to appear erudite to anyone here. But your conceited attempts at appearing pompous does suggest that you are projecting your desire as a defense mechanism. Feel free to look up Psychological projection.