|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
| Re: thov kom nej pab kho kom tau tiag tiag |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: soc.culture.hmong · Group Profile
Author: teevlisteevlis Date: Sep 19, 2008 21:04
On Sep 16, 2:17В pm, zhen googlemail.com> wrote:
Zhen,
Let's see if I have understood the premises of your argument
correctly:
(1) The RPA system causes Hmong disunity (for example, Hmoob Dawb and
Moob Lees)
(2) A non-RPA system would bring unity to Hmong
(3) Though, RPA is simpler, cause of disunity disqualifies RPA as a
viable choice
Logically, a rational answer would require proof of truth or falsehood
for each premise. Therefore, one must ask the following questions:
(1) Does the RPA system cause Hmong disunity?
A simple answer would be: If RPA has not or does not exit at all,
does Hmong disunity still exist? If it does, then the premise is
false. No rational mind would argue that in the absence of RPA Hmong
disunity would not exist. In fact, any rational mind would argue that
Hmong disunity is totally independent of RPA. Thus, premise (1) is
false.
(2) Would a non-RPA system bring unity to Hmong?
Answer: As of today, even if Hmong around the world stop using the RPA
system and start using a non-RPA writing system, Hmong disunity still
remains same. For example, it is not any particular writing system
that divides Hmoob Dawb and Moob Lees, rather it is a matter of
dialect identity and existentialism. In other words, some people
believe in the principle of zero sum game that if Hmoob Dawb prevail,
then Moob Lees will become extinct. So long as the principle of zero
sum game remains the defining factor between the two groups, then
disunity among them will remain same. In short, there is no linkage
between a writing system and disunity among Hmoob Dawb and Moob Lees.
Thus, a non-RPA system will not bring unity. Premise (2) is false.
(3) Therefore, if premise (1) and premise (2) are false, then no
causality occurs and no unity would be realized regardless of any
system of writing, thus, premise (3) is false.
Since all 3 premises are false, the argument is therefore logically
absurd.
Teev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
