Is it time to revive mandatory ROTC?

[UltraVires]

correlation does not imply causation. dili rotc ang solution sa pagka walay batasan sa mga tao karon.

cant you see the correlation? the indirect effect? youve got to be kidding, right?

[carmicael]

cant you see the correlation? the indirect effect? youve got to be kidding, right?

again, "correlation does not imply causation". based on that statement alone, anyone can conclude that i have "seen" the correlation. to put it in terms you might understand better: the correlation between two variables (in this case events), does not necessarily imply that one is caused by the other. it is also an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. you come to the conclusion that "removing rotc" caused the apparent "degradation of morals" of society. you fail to take into account other factors that might rule out the connection. case in point : the dumbing down of tv shows or the so-called "wowowee" mentality. don't you think this is one of the reasons why people are becoming lazy and are just waiting for "balato"?

also, how sure are we that filipino culture or values are not rotten as it is, with or without rotc? take a look at the people we have put into office, the values we have instilled in our children, and the trends we have started. the events in these past few years are not a direct result of what the "new generation" has done. this was because of the previous generation. but i would not go so far as to tag rotc as the cause of the devaluation of morals, simply because the events are related due to chronological order only. comprehensive study needs to be done in order to fully understand and make definite conclusions about the causality.

"you've got to be kidding, right?" does not answer the main point.

[naturalborn_loser]

naka-abot pako ROTC pag 98-99. lingaw to. sige pangayo amot nya init kaayo.

[UltraVires]

Are you lecturing me about legal techniques? Cant you understand indirect effect?

Come to my firm. And ill teach you legalities.

[iron_cross]

naka-abot pako ROTC pag 98-99. lingaw to. sige pangayo amot nya init kaayo.

maka-relate ko ani...inig snacks, bugnaw ang siopao unya init ang sopdrinks!

[crisxahia]

check the poll results..

[carmicael]

Are you lecturing me about legal techniques? Cant you understand indirect effect?

Come to my firm. And ill teach you legalities.

working in a law firm (or even owning one) does not make your point that much better. is this what they teach you in law school? when you cannot refute the main point, let them know that you are proficient in law techniques? so... how exactly does that help your argument? but, i digress.

again, you did not answer the main point. i do not see how legalities and/or techniques relating to them have come into the scene. please do not change the topic and stick to the main point you have so naively rebutted to: "correlation does not imply causation".

- - - Updated - - -

check the poll results..

and... they do not represent the current demographic in any way.

[amingb]

Nindot kaau me ug mga Tupi ato sa una kay paksit jud .... na master jud namo ang pag dismantle ug mantle kanang armalite in just 1 minute .,....

[UltraVires]

working in a law firm (or even owning one) does not make your point that much better. is this what they teach you in law school? when you cannot refute the main point, let them know that you are proficient in law techniques? so... how exactly does that help your argument? but, i digress.

again, you did not answer the main point. i do not see how legalities and/or techniques relating to them have come into the scene. please do not change the topic and stick to the main point you have so naively rebutted to: "correlation does not imply causation".

- - - Updated - - -


and... they do not represent the current demographic in any way.

I am talking to you about the subject where fallacies are discussed.
Haha
Goes back to you.
Cant you digest the same question being asked? And you digress?

[carmicael]

I am talking to you about the subject where fallacies are discussed.
Haha
Goes back to you.
Cant you digest the same question being asked? And you digress?

ah, yes, the classic "haha". the only thing funny here is the absence of coherent answers from you.

the main point is not about how fallacies are discussed. a fallacy was pointed out because you, sir, just used one for your argument. you assumed that "correlation implies causation". you then asked me if i wanted a lecture on "legal techniques". plainly non sequitur. that was why i wondered how you went full retard and slapped your attorney badge. do you even know what digress means?

how did you refute the said point? you refuted by posting a question "cant[sic] you see the correlation?". which is really confusing, because from my first statement, it was painfully obvious that a correlation was established. what was missing was the certainty of causation. so, tell me, attorney, how does your question refute the point "correlation does not imply causation"?