Chinese ATGM discussion

Viktor Jav said:

The evidence is on you to proof something, for my part the evidence that this ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod is clear in the video. And there is no other evidence that proves other wise, apart from your ramblings.

Other supporting evidence is
1) The targeting system is similar to that of the HJ-8L and the Kornet. The operator peers down into a scope with one hand on a joystick. This precludes a handheld function for this ATGM.

You on the other hand goes like this :" This ATGM can be shoulder fired, (sorry could), but I have no shred of evidence supporting this other then "well it might be in the future".

Click to expand...

Viktor Jav said:

Maybe take a bit of your own evidence and stop digging your own hole any deeper. Either show proof for a positive which is the standard reasoning or don't.

Click to expand...

How are you still fixated on this? I never once made an assertion that it can be shoulder-fired, so where are you getting this from? Could you point to the post where I made the alleged assertion? Or are you imagining things again? I'd appreciate it if you could stop misrepresenting my position.

You seem to have a real problem with basic reading comprehension.

by78 said:

How are you still fixated on this? I never once made an assertion that it can be shoulder-fired, so where are you getting this from? Could you point to the post where I made the alleged assertion? Or are you imagining things again? I'd appreciate it if you could stop misrepresenting my position.

Click to expand...

Lol says the guy who peddles in goal post shifting and arguments from fallacy.

Oh I am representing your position correctly, that you are a smug prick pretending to be a intellectual know it all but falling flat on his face.

For someone who is admonishing me of be fixated, maybe take your own medicine and stop fixating on trying to spin this around.

Viktor Jav said:

Lol says the guy who peddles in goal post shifting and arguments from fallacy.

Oh I am representing your position correctly, that you are a smug prick pretending to be a intellectual know it all but falling flat on his face.

For someone who is admonishing me of be fixated, maybe take your own medicine and stop fixating on trying to spin this around.

Click to expand...

So I take you've just realized you cannot locate my alleged assertion that this new ATGM can be shoulder-fired, so to compensate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, which are yet another logical fallacy you seem to be fond of.

So are you gonna again stay away from the forum for a few weeks, as you have previously done whenever someone publicly disagreed with you and debated you? I kid, I kid.

by78 said:

So I take you've just realized you cannot locate my alleged assertion that this new ATGM can be shoulder-fired, so to compensate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, which are yet another logical fallacy you seem to be fond of.

So are you gonna again stay away from the forum for a few weeks, as you have previously done whenever someone publicly disagreed with you and debated you? I kid, I kid.

Click to expand...

", but merely that the possibility of being shoulder-fired should not be dismissed based on the very limited imagery and footage."
Let's dissect it here, first you try to pass it the first post as a disingenuous post with pictures without connotations. But when I confronted you with the fact that the absence of a evidence cannot be taken as proof that it exist. Instead of coming clean and admitting what you say is merely a possibility, you double down on the fallacy and consistently demand proof from the other when it should be you who is responsible.

So are you going to fall back into the circular argument ala chicken egg who came first routine until the other side decides that you are not worth the trouble ? I kid I kid.

It's funny to see how you drop arguments that you can content and end up with what is little more than a "it's just a joke, why so serious?" platform in the end.

What I am attacking is your inane insistence that a possibility should be treated like empirical evidence like a photo. Not an allegation that the new ATGM can be shoulder-fired which you conjure up out of thin air in the middle of the argument.

Either 1) Admit that what you say is a possibility without empirical proof and that it cannot be held to the same standard or
2) Shut up.



Like how you did with the NLOS weight issue.

Viktor Jav said:

", but merely that the possibility of being shoulder-fired should not be dismissed based on the very limited imagery and footage."
Let's dissect it here, first you try to pass it the first post as a disingenuous post with pictures without connotations. But when I confronted you with the fact that the absence of a evidence cannot be taken as proof that it exist. Instead of coming clean and admitting what you say is merely a possibility, you double down on the fallacy and consistently demand proof from the other when it should be you who is responsible.

So are you going to fall back into the circular argument ala chicken egg who came first routine until the other side decides that you are not worth the trouble ? I kid I kid.

Click to expand...

So, instead of pointing out where I allegedly said that the new ATGM can be shoulder-fired, all you could do is to "dissect" what you think I said by jumping through hoops and contorting yourself in order to weave a narrative that had existed only in your head.

But thank you for proving my original point, which is encapsulated and explicitly stated in these words you have quoted above: "The possibility of being shoulder-fired should not be dismissed based on the very limited imagery and footage".

So what exactly is controversial or unclear about that? Do you seriously not understand that , especially when available information is so limited for a system so new?

by78 said:

So, instead of pointing out where I allegedly said that the new ATGM can be shoulder-fired, all you could do is to "dissect" what you think I said by jumping through hoops and contorting yourself in order to weave a narrative that had existed in your head all along.

But thank you for proving my original point, which is encapsulated and explicitly stated in these words you have quoted above: "The possibility of being shoulder-fired should not be dismissed based on the very limited imagery and footage".

So what exactly is not clear about that?

Click to expand...

Which I counter that a possibility is not proof of something and never will be by standard reasoning. Yet you run through the whole gauntlet of absence of evidence in which you try to grant your possibility the same standard of credibility as the latter instead of just saying "yes it's just a possibility".

The problem with your reasoning is that we will have to take every single possibility as legit without considering how unlikely it might be and without context to original evidence. If it can be shoulder fired why is not design that way from the start with how the targeting system is held ? For one ?

Which is the epitome to word twisting.

Viktor Jav said:

Which I counter that a possibility is not proof of something and never will be by standard reasoning. Yet you run through the whole gauntlet of absence of evidence in which you try to grant your possibility the same standard of credibility as the latter instead of just saying "yes it's just a possibility".

Which is the epitome to word twisting.

Click to expand...

Why would you take the my assertion that the possibility of the new ATGM being shoulder-fired cannot be dismissed as an explicit assertion that it is shoulder-fired?

Let me walk you through how ridiculous your reading comprehension problem is by condensing our interaction so far :

Viktor Jav, "Based on the video and images, this new ATGM is designed for tripod (i.e. fixed position) and cannot be shoulder-fired like the Javelin."
By78, "You're being hasty in drawing such a definitive conclusion because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when the body of evidence is so small. As an example, if I were to use only these two images of the Javelin (mounted on a tripod and on a Stryker vehicle) as evidence, I would reach the wrong conclusion that the Javelin cannot be shoulder-fired."
Viktor Jav, "Prove to me that this new Chinese ATGM is shoulder-fired."
By78, "I never said it's shoulder-fired or not shoulder fired. Point to me where I made an explicit assertion that it is shoulder-fired. I only said you were hasty in drawing your conclusion, and I think the prudent thing to do would be to reserve judgement until further evidence."
Vikor Jav, "I can't point to where you made the assertion that this new Chinese ATGM is shoulder-fired, but let me instead dissect what I think you said... You're a prick and intellectually dishonest... and circular reasoning something something."

by78 said:

Why would you take the my assertion that the possibility of the new ATGM being shoulder-fired cannot be dismissed based on very limited evidence as an explicit assertion that it is shoulder-fired?

Let me walk you through how ridiculous your reading comprehension problem is:

Viktor Jav, "Based on the video and images, this new ATGM is designed for tripod (i.e. fixed position) and cannot be shoulder-fired like the Javelin."
By78, "You're being hasty in drawing such a definitive conclusion because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when the body of evidence is so limited. As an example, if I were to use only these two images of the Javelin (mounted on a tripod and on a Stryker vehicle) as evidence, I would reach the wrong conclusion that the Javelin cannot be shoulder-fired when in fact it can be."
Viktor Jav, "Prove to me that this new Chinese ATGM is shoulder-fired."
By78, "I never said it's shoulder-fired or not shoulder fired. I only said you were hasty. Point to me where I made an explicit assertion that it can or cannot be shoulder-fired."
Vikor Jav, "I can't, but let me instead dissect what I think you said... You're a prick and intellectually dishonest... and circular reasoning something something."

Click to expand...

Word twisting, what I am putting forth here is that the possibility of this new ATGM can without a tripod is a valid argument that makes the HJ-12 obsolete.

Let me walk you through your word twisting here :

Viktor Jav, "Based on the video and images, this new ATGM is designed for tripod (i.e. fixed position) and cannot be shoulder-fired like the Javelin."
By78, "You're being hasty in drawing such a definitive conclusion because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ( argument from ignorance is not evidence, you can keep repeating it again and again and it will still make no difference), especially when the body of evidence is so limited. As an example, if I were to use only these two images of the Javelin (mounted on a tripod and on a Stryker vehicle) as evidence, I would reach the wrong conclusion that the Javelin cannot be shoulder-fired when in fact it can be." (Except we have contradicting pictures of Javelin being shoulder fired and none for the ATGM, future development might prove me wrong I admit but until then the possibility of it cannot be accepted as a valid argument, it's that simple)
Viktor Jav, "Prove to me that this new Chinese ATGM is shoulder-fired." An argument from ignorance, in this case a possibility cannot be treated as the same standard as empirical evidence stating otherwise (ie : The system is clearly designed for tripod and there is no evidence proving that it is otherwise in the future). It can be entertain as an possible view but never an alternative.
By78, "I never said it's shoulder-fired or not shoulder fired. I only said you were hasty. Point to me where I made an explicit assertion that it can or cannot be shoulder-fired." (I fallen into the fallacy of argument trap, but instead of coming clean saying that yes it is a possibility that unless future evidence prove otherwise must be considered below empirical evidence that proves the positive of something, I will just double down and enter a circular argument of insisting that a possibility must be just a valid)
Vikor Jav, "I can't, but let me instead dissect what I think you said... You're a prick and intellectually dishonest... and circular reasoning something something." Getting more exasperated by the minute.

Viktor Jav said:

Word twisting, what I am putting forth here is that the possibility of this new ATGM can without a tripod is a valid argument that makes the HJ-12 obsolete.

Let me walk you through your word twisting here :

Viktor Jav, "Based on the video and images, this new ATGM is designed for tripod (i.e. fixed position) and cannot be shoulder-fired like the Javelin."
By78, "You're being hasty in drawing such a definitive conclusion because an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ( argument from ignorance is not evidence, you can keep repeating it again and again and it will still make no difference), especially when the body of evidence is so limited. As an example, if I were to use only these two images of the Javelin (mounted on a tripod and on a Stryker vehicle) as evidence, I would reach the wrong conclusion that the Javelin cannot be shoulder-fired when in fact it can be." (Except we have contradicting pictures of Javelin being shoulder fired and none for the ATGM, future development might prove me wrong I admit but until then the possibility of it cannot be accepted as a valid argument, it's that simple)
Viktor Jav, "Prove to me that this new Chinese ATGM is shoulder-fired." An argument from ignorance, in this case a possibility cannot be treated as the same standard as empirical evidence stating otherwise (ie : The system is clearly designed for tripod and there is no evidence proving that it is otherwise in the future). It can be entertain as an possible view but never an alternative.
By78, "I never said it's shoulder-fired or not shoulder fired. I only said you were hasty. Point to me where I made an explicit assertion that it can or cannot be shoulder-fired." (I fallen into the fallacy of argument trap, but instead of coming clean saying that yes it is a possibility that unless future evidence prove otherwise must be considered below empirical evidence that proves the positive of something, I will just double down and enter a circular argument of insisting that a possibility must be just a valid)
Vikor Jav, "I can't, but let me instead dissect what I think you said... You're a prick and intellectually dishonest... and circular reasoning something something." Getting more exasperated by the minute.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand , much less applying it correctly. Just so we are on the same page here, what do you think my original argument is?

by78 said:

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?

Click to expand...

"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".

If the argument was that there is at least serious discussion or proof that it has discussion of it being shoulder fired, I will concede. 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.