Everyone has the right to express ideas and opinions on one's own web site.

However, there are some Vietnamese guys   who do not make for their own, but attempt to attack the others with their false ideas, initiate the matter, and end their stupid works with uneducated, dirty, and cruel email. 

Such guys probably cannot make themselves respectable to the others, especially foreigners as they always dream about.  And as they are scornful and considered no class by foreigners, they said that other Vietnamese being treated in the same way.

Such narrow minded persons do not have positive thoughts. 

They are Vietnamese; yet, they believe foreigners understand Vietnam better than Vietnamese historians do.

They do not know or they forget what  fallacies are in an argument. They usually quote some passages fallaciously because they cannot have their own thinking.  And as their fallacious argument is defeated, they use dirty words to insult the others.

In Vietnam under Communist regime, there is no law to protect  every person's self-esteem; and no one can possess guns.  There is no right to express one's own ideas.   So, people who are unreasonably insulted, suppressed, and abused by  paranoid guys and officers cannot do any thing. 

However, it is different in the USA.  As no perfect law can take care of each citizen for every matter, in every moment, and at everywhere,  people have the right to bear arms to protect their self-esteem by themselves in some special cases. 

We can predict such irritating guys will get shot or trouble the same way as Tran Truong for insulting the others. 

If they are used by VC as tools, someday Vietnamese Communists will kill them to keep their secret. 

If they are VC, this is a test and a good exercise to see  the level of Vietnamese Communists' ignorance and how they teach their slaves.

By reviewing some elementary parts in logic,
this page is constructed to help and  remember such stupid guys. 

tmp@lich-mc.com
07/17/99  

*********************

FALLACIES IN GENERAL

A fallacy is a certain kind of defect in an argument.  One way that an argument can be defective is by having one or more false premises.  Another way is by containing a fallacy.  Both deductive and inductive arguments may be affected by fallacies.  If either kind contains a fallacy, it is either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument.

1.  APPEAL TO AUTHORITY (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

An argument from authority is an inductive argument in which an arguer cites the authority or testimony of another person in support of some conclusion.  The appeal to authority fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited authority or witness is not qualified or there is reason to believe that the person is mistaken, biased, or lying.

In deciding whether someone is a qualified authority, there are three important points to keep in mind.

First, someone might be an authority in more than one field, and second, someone who is authority in relation to one group of people might not be so in relation to another group.   For example, a woman might be an authority in both chemistry and medicine, but this same woman, while she might be an authority in relation to any number of nonphysicians, might not be an authority in relation to her colleagues within the medical profession.

The fallacy of appeals to authority can also involve witnesses.

Here are two examples:

Mob leader Gino Gambino has testified under oath that he clearly saw his rival Franco Frattinao murder the victim in cold blood with a sawed-off shotgun. Therefore, members of the jury, your only alternative is to find Frattinao guilty of murder.

Paula Robertson, who has an excellent reputation for telling the truth, has testified under oath that she saw Micky ("Quick Fingers") Hogan pick Tom Ryan's pocket while she observed them from a distance of 100 yards.  Therefore, even though Robertson is blind in one eye and has cataracts in the other, we must conclude that Micky is guilty as charged.

The credibility of a witness depends on various factors, including whether the witness has the capacity to perceive, remember, and communicate what he or she claims to have seen or heard, and whether the witness has some motive to lie.  In the first argument, the witness, who probably lacks a reputation for truthfulness, testified that he saw his rival murder someone.  Since the witness would probably be interested in sending such a rival to jail, the testimony is virtually worthless, and the argument is therefore fallacious.

Now let us suppose someone attempts to discredit an argument involving an appeal to authority by discrediting the authority or witness appealed to.  Does such an argument commit an argument against the person fallacy? The answer is no, because the argument against the person always involves an attack on arguments.    For example, suppose that Frattiano's attorney were to respond to the argument above with the following argument:

Members of the jury, Gino Gambino is a notorious liar, and he has every reason to want the defendant, Franco Frattiano, sent to prison for the rest of his life.  Therefore, his testimony is worthless, and you must find the defendant not guilty.

This argument commits no fallacy because the person attacked (Gambino) is not an arguer.  Gambino's testimony does not consist of arguments but rather statements about what he claims to have seen and heard.   For an ad hominem to be committed, the person attacked must be an arguer.

(LOGIC by Hurley 3rd edition)

For other examples please read Nguyen Ngoc Thuan's  arguments:

Irving M. Copi:  Appeal to Authority

In attempting to make up one's mind on a difficult and complicated question, one may seek to be guided by the judgment of an acknowledged expert who has studied the matter thoroughly.  One may argue that such and such a conclusion is correct because it is the best judgment of such an expert authority. 

This method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate.  For most of us the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence.

The weakness of this claims is obvious when we realize that, in this day of extreme specialization, to obtain thorough knowledge of one field requires such concentration as to restrict the possibility of achieving authoritative knowledge in others.   Advertising "testimonials" are frequent instances of this fallacy.   We are urged to wear garments of such and such a brand because a champion golfer or football star affirms their superiority.  And we are assured that such and such a cosmetic is better because it is preferred by this opera singer or that movie star.   Of course, such an advertisement may equally well be contrued as snob appeal and listed as an example of an argument ad populum.  But where a proposition is claimed to be literally true on the basis of its assertion by an "authority" whose competence lies in a different field, we have a fallcacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

Subject: Tet Offensive 1968. Who have killed those civilians?

X-Rcpt-To: <lich-mc@lich-mc.com>

Encarta Home | Home | Find | Help

RELATED TET OFFENSIVE ARTICLES

Vietnam War

American Marines in Khe Sanh

destruction in Hue

North Vietnamese forces

outcomes of the Tet offensive

Contents

Tet Offensive

Article

Tet Offensive, military campaign of the Vietnam War (1959-1975), in which almost every major city and province in South Vietnam was attacked by the Communist forces of the National Liberation Front (NLF), with support from the North Vietnamese Peoples' Army of Vietnam (PAVN). Although the Communist forces failed to hold the cities, the Tet Offensive helped undermine American public support for the U.S military involvement in Vietnam..............

...............majority of Johnson's advisers, both in his cabinet and outside it, agreed that the United States must begin to disengage. In a pointed rejection of Westmoreland's policies, Johnson replaced Westmoreland as commander with General Creighton Abrams in March 1968.

Contributed By: Paul Atwood, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.

History of Asia and Australasia: Vietnam

$ $ | Periodicals

Search for periodical articles about Tet Offensive in Encarta Online Library.

News Headlines

Search news sites for articles about Tet Offensive.

Internet Search

Search the Internet for Web sites about Tet Offensive.

Encarta (R)

Home - Schoolhouse - Celebrate the Century

Customer Support - Challenge Game - Encarta Online Library

Products - Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

© 1997-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Replied by tmp

You are a very uneducated person through your final dirty email.

Please study humanity, art, philosophy, world history, dadaism, culturism, futurism, expressionism, and Vietnamese language before talking about Vietnam History.

There is no point to talk with you.

Other examples of Thuan Nguyen's fallacies

It is not Paul Atwood's false.   It is the wrong application and misinterpretation of stupid persons. 

The uneducated people like this guy usually quote passages out of a context to support their political argument that the passage was not intended to support.

The argument is about human right violation in Vietnam in 1999, but  some guys quote some passages in the past such as the above and the "Verdict of the Tribunal" of American trouble in 1967 to support their argument (missing the point).

They believe that American 's wrong doing in Vietnam war in 1967 can give Vietnamese Communist regime the right to violate human rights in Vietnam in 1999? ("two wrongs make a right" fallacy, outdated data).

Based on their argument, a person was born in 1970 will be responsible for the histories in 1670, 1770, 1870, and 1970... They do not understand what human rights are.  That's why they try to destroy the third generation for the actions of the first generation.  It is Ho Chi Minh policy of clear 3 generations.

They ignore the fact that American citizens can change and control their government; whereas, Vietnamese citizens as slavers  cannot change the Vietnamese Communist Party.  It was American citizens who forced their government to withdraw from the Vietnam War.  It was not that the American Army and the United States government  did not possess the capacity to win. 

So, please do not challenge all of American citizen, do not challenge the other nations, do not think that Vietnamese Communist Army can invade and control the whole world as Hitler's , Japanese,  or Napoleon's troops.  The Vietnamese Communists will pay the price for their wrong teaching on their communist youngers.   They need to know what the Vietnamese ancestors did in the past after the war.

We will become very tired and waste our precious time for such stupid, uneducated, and fallacious arguments.  Such low level guys need a long education in order to obtain the modern thinking. 

The best way for us now is to keep silence.   Do not talk to such people, even if you want to help them.  It is better for them to self-discover the truth.

 ######################

Fallacy Lessons for Uneducated Persons

1. Appeal to Authority
2. Hasty Generalization
3. Begging the Question
4. Suppressed Evidence
5.  Appeal to Pity
6. Appeal to the People
7. Against the Person
8. Appeal to Force
9. Accident
10. Straw Man
11. Missing the Point
12. Red Herring
13. Appeal to Ignorance
14. False Cause
15. Slippery Slope
16. Weak Analogy
17. Complex Question
18. False Dichotomy
20. Equivocation
21. Amphiboly
22. Composition
23. Division
24. Irrelevant Conclusion
EXERCISES  &QUIZ