Chinese ATGM discussion

[Deleted member 13312]

I don't think you understand

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, much less applying it correctly. Just so we are on the same page here, what do you think my original argument is?

If the argument was that there is at least serious discussion or proof that it has discussion of it being shoulder fired in the future, I will concede. However the video shows just the parameters of the missile and the firing position, and yet the op contends that it can replace the HJ -12 without considering the advantages the HJ has unless I am missing something which then I am more than happy to be pointed to.

 

[The Observer]

I keep getting new post notifications from this thread and when I finally take a look, it's @by78 and @Viktor Jav having written jousting about the new ATGM for the last 4 pages...

"Sigh... Here we go again..."

 

[by78]

"I am not proving it or asserting it( that this atgn can be shoulder fired), but I am asserting that the possibility of it being shoulder fired should be valid argument to that atgm potentially rendering the HJ-12 obsolete.

That is what you are saying, I am saying that " possibility is not a valid argument because it assumes things that cannot be proven positively or satisfactory explained".

No, that is emphatically not what I said. That is what you think I said. Point to the post or posts where I made the assertion. I know you can't because you haven't been able to despite my repeated requests. At this point, I think it's safe to say that it's all in your paranoid head.

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat myself? Let me summarize what I said thus far, if only you had cared to read and comprehend:
1) You were hasty in concluding that the new ATGM is designed for tripod (i.e. fixed position) and cannot be shoulder-fired like the Javelin. I said that because the footage we have is very limited. I think the possibility of the missile being shoulder-fired cannot be dismissed at this point because it's too early to say. We should reserve judgement until more footage or evidence surfaces. In other words, I make no assertion on whether this new missile is shoulder-fired or not. I simply do not know, and I don't lean one way or the other.
2) Let me put this another way. The only assertion I made was that you were hasty in reaching your original conclusion. In other words, I find your rush to conclusion objectionable. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
3) Let me further simplify this: STOP rushing to definitive conclusions based on a few seconds of footage!

By the way, it's obvious that you don't understand what the word "argument" stands for in "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

". It has a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in logic and philosophy. Read up on it before you use that word again in the context of this conversation because you are making absolutely no sense.

However the video shows just the parameters of the missile and the firing position, and yet the op contends that I can replace the HJ -12 without considering the advantages the HJ has.

I NEVER said anything about HJ-12. What about it? I also never said you wet your bed or you have webbed toes. Seriously dude, what's going on in your head? Where did I say anything anywhere about the HJ-12 in our conversation, and how is it even relevant here?

Hello? I'm not Insignius. Haven't you noticed that?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

No, that is emphatically not what I said. That is what you think I said. Point to the post or posts where I made the assertion. I know you can't because you haven't been able to despite my repeated requests. At this point, I think it's safe to say that it's all in your paranoid head.

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat myself? Let me summarize what I said thus far, if only you had cared to read and comprehend:
1) You were hasty in concluding that the new ATGM is designed for tripod (i.e. fixed position) and cannot be shoulder-fired like the Javelin. I said that because the footage we have is very limited. I think the possibility of the missile being shoulder-fired cannot be dismissed at this point because it's too early to say. We should reserve judgement until more footage or evidence surfaces. In other words, I make no assertion on whether this new missile is shoulder-fired or not. I simply do not know, and I don't lean one way or the other.
2) Let me put this another way. The only assertion I made was that you were hasty in reaching your original conclusion. In other words, I find your rush to conclusion objectionable. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.
3) Let me further simplify this: STOP rushing to definitive conclusions based on a few seconds of footage!

By the way, it's obvious that you don't understand what the word "argument" stands for in "

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

". It has a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in logic and philosophy. Read up on it before you use that word again in the context of this conversation because you are making absolutely no sense.


I NEVER said anything about HJ-12. What about it? I also never said you wet your bed or you have webbed toes. What's going on in your head? Where did I say anything anywhere about the HJ-12 in our conversation, and how is it even relevant here?

It's not about what you say, but this whole discussion is linked to the OP contention in tend.

I do not find this assessment hasty as as far as Chinese ATGM goes, what is shown is generally what you get. Unless changed in which case is so dramatic that usually it can't be considered the same design.

You say you make no assertion, yet keep insisting that the possibility of it must be factored into my argument against the OP. Since you make no effort to distinguish it as a general assertion that "just a possibility" so it's the fault is on you.

You put forth a vague post with little to no connotation other than "Javelin can be fired from a tripod" in a video where an ATGM has no proof that it can be fired without one, and then expect others to draw the dots.

The simple words " We don't know if this new ATGM can be adapted as such but right now yes it is a tripod fired system but it does not validates Insignius contention" can save us so much grief instead of 2 pictures and vague implication of what a missile can and cannot do.

 

[by78]

Delete.

 

[by78]

It's not about what you say, but this whole discussion is linked to the OP contention in tend.

What? So all of a sudden this isn't about what I said?

You say you make no assertion, yet keep insisting that the possibility of it must be factored into my argument against the OP. Since you make no effort to distinguish it as a general assertion that "just a possibility" so it's the fault is on you.

You put forth a vague post with little to no connotation other than "Javelin can be fired from a tripod" in a video where an ATGM has no proof that it can be fired without one, and then expect others to draw the dots.

The simple words " We don't know if this new ATGM can be adapted as such but right now yes it is a tripod fired system but it does not validates Insignius contention" can save us so much grief instead of 2 pictures and vague implication of what a missile can and cannot do.

I don't give a rat's arse about what disagreement you and Insignius had. That's between you and Insignius. My only objection was you rushing to dismiss the possibility that this new ATGM can be shoulder-fired based on a few seconds of footage.

Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this? Are you seriously this paranoid in real life? I mean this is bordering on delusions of persecution.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

What? I don't give a rat's arse about what disagreement you and Insignius have. My only objection was you rushing to dismiss the possibility that this new ATGM can be shoulder fired based on a few seconds of footage. Seriously, how many times do I have to repeat this? Are you seriously this paranoid in real life? I mean this is bordering delusions of persecution.

And so in your rush to attempt to correct others rightly or wrongly. You fail to clarify your position or realize that your position was already considered by the other side but not was not the point of contention at the time, and that your method of arriving to your contention is not correct.
I have seen similar people, always so keen to insert themselves into a discussion or argument without thought and then getting upset that their topic did not jar with his.
If you insert yourself into a discussion, you have to be clear that you are insisting on an independent point. That's how it works.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

What? So all of a sudden this isn't about what I said?

The flow goes like this
1) OP claims something which is not conclusively proven (HJ-12 rendered obsolete)
2) I refute by saying that this new ATGM have not proven itself to effectively replace what the HJ-12 is supposed to do.
3) You started by saying that this new ATGM might adapt itself to replace the HJ-12 in a similar circumstance (shoulder fired)
4) I counter that a possibility cannot be use to conclusively prove something
5) You started the argument in absence which is wrong as that you cannot use something that might happen to validate something that is already conclusively proven (HJ-12 can be shoulder fired, new ATGM had not been proven to be so).
6) Instead of clarifying your position that what you brought up was a mere possibility, you instead double down and ask me to produce proof. Despite the rule that he who asserts something in the positive must be the one who produce the evidence back in post no 333.
7) And now at the end of all this, you suddenly decide to clarify clearly that you are asserting an independent point all along. Despite numerous chances of you to do so earlier and numerous attempts of me stating that I am ready to accept a point so long as it is independent from the discussion at hand.

 

[by78]

And so in your rush to attempt to correct others rightly or wrongly. You fail to clarify your position or realize that your position was already considered by the other side but not was not the point of contention at the time, and that your method of arriving to your contention is not correct.
I have seen similar people, always so keen to insert themselves into a discussion or argument without thought and then getting upset that their topic did not jar with his.
If you insert yourself into a discussion, you have to be clear that you are insisting on an independent point. That's how it works.

If you didn't have that famous reading comprehension problem, you would have quickly found out what my 'independent point' was, which I had to repeat nine times (aided by screen captures, text highlights, use of examples and analogies) before you finally understood it. That's your fault, not mine.

Seriously, I don't mean this as a personal attack. I'm genuinely concerned. You need to get yourself checked out.

 

[by78]

The flow goes like this
1) OP claims something which is not conclusively proven (HJ-12 rendered obsolete)
2) I refute by saying that this new ATGM have not proven itself to effectively replace what the HJ-12 is supposed to do.
3) You started by saying that this new ATGM might adapt itself to replace the HJ-12 in a similar circumstance (shoulder fired)
4) I counter that a possibility cannot be use to conclusively prove something
5) You started the argument in absence which is wrong as that you cannot use something that might happen to validate something that is already conclusively proven (HJ-12 can be shoulder fired, new ATGM had not been proven to be so).
6) Instead of clarifying your position that what you brought up was a mere possibility, you instead double down and ask me to produce proof. Despite the rule that he who asserts something in the positive must be the one who produce the evidence back in post no 333.
7) And now at the end of all this, you suddenly decide to clarify clearly that you are asserting an independent point all along. Despite numerous chances of you to do so earlier and numerous attempts of me stating that I am ready to accept a point so long as it is independent from the discussion at hand.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I don't give a rat's arse about what Insignius said. It's completely irrelevant to our discussion. You may have been having an imaginary conversation with Insignius all along, but that's your problem, not mine.

If you have been mistaking me for Insignius all this time, then you definitely need an urgent evaluation. Seriously, again, not a personal attack, but you really need to get some help.