(No, I will not call you 'Dr' because I don't think your integrity deserves such an accolade.)
On Monday May 18, you wrote in the ST Forum:
"On the day of the Aware EGM, the activist homosexual groups were out in full force, supporting the old guard. Many old guard supporters --- those in the meeting hall and volunteers outside --- were members of the activist homosexual group and spoke openly of their lifestyle. Many sexually challenged women were among the most vocal and vociferous supporters of the old guard...
It appears that homosexual activists seeking to impose their values by mainstreaming homosexuality have become a significant constituency of Aware. Anyone present at the EGM would have seen abundant evidence of this. Discerning Singaporeans can examine the evidence, in print and from online eyewitness accounts, to make up their own minds."-----------------
In Philosophy 101 we learn how to spot fallacious statements. These are failures in reasoning that render an argument invalid, i.e. unsound arguments. Let's break down your points.
Point 1: Majority of old guard supporters = homosexuals = Aware supports them
The fact that many homosexuals support Aware does not mean Aware has turned homosexual-inclined. If I were a homosexual, I would have supported the old guard just because the so-called new exco was persecuting me. Of course I will support the enemy of my enemy. Or rather, someone that my enemy is bullying. That's common sense.
Point 2: Many old guard supporters = homosexuals = Aware has been overtaken by them
One can sign up for Aware membership online, as long as you can pay the subscription fees. Aware old guards had no control over who signed up, especially at the crucial time when they were fighting the new exco. We don't even know if they had control over the web administration, or whether it was the new exco approving all these memberships. To know for certain if "
homosexual activists... have become a significant constituency of Aware", we have to wait and see what happens. It is up to Aware to moderate and balance their activities.
Your conclusion: Hence "
anyone present at the EGM/ discerning Singaporeans... would have seen abundant evidence of this"
Conclusion is flawed because argument is flawed. I think discerning Singaporeans can only see how blinded you are by your own moral beliefs.
I am personally not homosexual, though I have friends who are. I admit I am a bit homophobic, especially with regards to lesbians. But I do not persecute them and I believe they have the right to explore their own lifestyles, even if I do not agree with them on a moral stand. But I will always believe in the right to agree to disagree. Stick to your own views all you want, but do not self-righteously impose them on others.
Labels: Cynic In The House
>
