teev,
> Let's see if I have understood the premises of your argument
> correctly:
even though you did not understood what the point was, let's say those
were my "premises", okay. and proceed forth.
> (1) The RPA system causes Hmong disunity (for example, Hmoob Dawb and
> Moob Lees)
there is a clear movement to promote that Mong is not Hmong. do you
deny this? have you not read the works of Dr PZT? Mong, is to refer to
those speaking the Mong Leng dialect, and Hmong is to refer to those
speaking the Hmong Der dialect. do you deny this?
is RPA the "cause" of Hmong disunity along dialect lines? i am sure,
as a man of science, you know that establishing a causal relationship
is non-trivial and requires randomized controlled experiments, no?
neither you nor i, can establish "cause" or "lack of cause" since
neither you nor i are implementing any RCE, no? or are you saying that
your premises and arguments warrant causal conclusions to the
exclusion of my premises and arguments? but, i am arguing, that there
is a strong association between use of RPA and continued
misunderstanding of differences between Hmong people. tell me, why do
they write HMong or MHmong or HMoob or MHoob etc.. etc.. ? what agenda
or issue are they trying to satisfy?
> (2) A non-RPA system would bring unity to Hmong
it's not the negation of RPA that would bring unity to Hmong along
dialect lines. abstractly, it's a system that is dialect agnostic.
> (3) Though, RPA is simpler, cause of disunity disqualifies RPA as a
> viable choice
i did not say RPA is "simpler". i said, many critics of other hmong
writing systems have argued that RPA is more simple. you have read my
words and txaj xab's analysis, i am sure, you know that RPA is a self-
limiting system of writing for the hmong language and dialects. would
you argue that RPA, in its simplicity, is the system of writing that
is accurate and complete for the hmong language and dialects?
again, you flirt with the word "cause". let me clarify, again, the use
of a latin-based writing system to represent the hmong language and
dialects is a contributing factor to the misunderstanding of the hmong
people, and hmong disunity along dialect lines is one of the
consequences of such misunderstanding. now, are you able to discern
between the terms "cause" and "contributing factor"?
> Logically, a rational answer would require proof of truth or falsehood
> for each premise. Therefore, one must ask the following questions:
logically what? is your argument based on "logic"? what did godel have
to say about "logic"?
> (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.
hmong disunity is too general of a term. there is hmong unity and
hmong disunity along different lines. there was a strong sense of
political unity (although not absolutely) when GVP was arrested
against the plight of our people being persecuted in laos. there is a
strong sense of cultural unity (arguably, absolutely) every new year
during our new year celebration. there is a strong sense of disunity
when it comes to academic curriculum and public use of the hmong
language and dialects.
tell me, do you deny that along dialect lines, there is NO disunity?
and what represents this disunity on paper more than RPA? what was
AB78 about in the end? what did it crystallize.
tell me, what was one method the "first" emperor of china try to
"unite" the people of the middle kingdom? did you really read what
txaj xab or i wrote at all? have you done any research? if this the
limit of a rational, then i am sure we would rather be "crazy". that
the first emperor of china accomplished unity of the middle kingdom,
that unity via assimilation and standardization of the written
language of the middle kingdom was one of his primary and foremost
approach, cannot be denied, not by any "logical" or "rational"
person.
> (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.
see, this is the weakest part of your argument thus far. have you
studied how standardization, not exclusive to a writing system, but
currency, metrics, telecommunications protocols, etc... have "united"
people? you see, it is not that RPA is divisive innately, but it lends
itself easily towards purposes of miscommunication and ultimately
division and bigotry.
> (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.
do some homework. please don't take this the wrong way. you need some
catching up to do within this thread and also to think about what has
happened to other people in the history of nation building, such as
the ethnic han, and history of science, such as telecommunications, to
understand the bigger picture.
> Since all 3 premises are false, the argument is therefore logically
> absurd.
see, you have set up a "straw man" argument, whether you admit it or
not. you have not "proven" anything, just "argued" your points. if
"logic" is what you really employed, i don't see any "logic" either.
where is your formality in your "logic"? i appreciate your response,
but it is shallow.
