[Siwen], You Use Your Posts to Display Your Absurd Logic -- I Don't Object!

Posting on forums isn't without common ground. One such principle is that you can't use the logic of "I don't care how things actually are, I just believe the facts are this way." Of course, this kind of logic is a kind of logic -- everyone knows what kind of person loves to use it. Here, today we have another example.

[Siwen] today, in "The entire meaning of Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's post revolves around the verification of those underpants -- still talking about Gao Tianhu 'suspected of perjury' -- Reply to Tangfen," demonstrated a live-action version of this logic. See:

"Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán's post, of course, is saying Gao Tianhu 'is suspected of perjury.' No matter how Tangfen defends her, it's useless, because the original intention of that post is exactly this. Tangfen repeatedly quotes those few sentences from Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán, saying: 'You can clearly see that Miss Chan's "legal procedure" here refers to going through legal procedures to verify whether "the underpants bearing Gao Tianhu's own semen stain" conform.' This is saying Gao Tianhu 'is suspected of perjury.' Because we are discussing a criminal matter, the 'legal procedure' here refers to the procedure prescribed by the Criminal Law; the 'verification' here refers to the 'appraisal' required by the Criminal Law to examine criminal evidence; and the goal of determining whether 'the underpants with semen stain' 'conform' is to establish the evidence as required by Criminal Law."

In the above passage, [Siwen]'s bet-like string of emphatic "refers to" constructions reveal logic like this: because I [Siwen] believe Miss Chan believes Gao Tianhu "is suspected of perjury," therefore Miss Chan also believes Gao Tianhu "is suspected of perjury," and therefore when Miss Chan says verification should be done, it means verification according to criminal procedures. And because Miss Chan says those underpants should be verified, therefore Miss Chan is demanding criminal verification, therefore Miss Chan must believe Gao Tianhu "is suspected of perjury."

The confusion in the above logic should be clear to everyone. But the realistic logic is: whatever [Siwen] believes has nothing to do with Miss Chan. Whatever he says Miss Chan "refers to" is just what he himself thinks, and has nothing to do with Miss Chan. Verifying evidence through legal procedures is not exclusively for criminal cases -- this is the most basic common sense. Moreover, Miss Chan specifically emphasized in her post: "Therefore, finding an authoritative institution or even a non-governmental organization to confirm this fact is the best method of verification." Excuse me, does this sound like the attitude toward a criminal case?

This [Siwen], responding three days later to my post with such a logically confused answer -- what this shows, everyone can comment on. But under no circumstances can one use the absurd logic of "I don't care how things actually are, I just believe the facts are this way" to discuss issues -- unless certain people feel this is the way to demonstrate their own realistic logic!