Your question stems from your misunderstanding of the point that I was making. Had you understood correctly you wouldn’t ask that question (because in that case you wouldn’t think that I was worried about whether the gathering is illegal or not).
In fact, I HAVE SAID MORE THAN ONCE THAT WHAT MATTERS IS NOT WHETHER THE GATHERING IS ILLEGAL. THE REAL ISSUE THAT MATTERS IS WHETHER IS IS MORALLY JUSTIFIED. HAD you read that posting and others you would not have thought that I was worried about the legality of the gathering.
YOURS is an excellent case in point of STUFFING WORDS INTO PEOPLE’s MOUTH when I have EXPLICITLY say that THE LEGALITY OF THE GATHERING IS NOT THE ISSUE.

Limkamput:
‘Hello, you also never read my posting. My question to you was: why are you worried whether the gathering is legal or illegal given the circumstances we are in.’

Why think that I didn’t read your posting? Because I didn’t respond to your question? Come on, the fact that I didn’t respond to this question was simple: THIS IS A QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED HAD YOU READ MY POSTING WHERE I SAID THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE GATHERING DID NOT MATTER. I DIDN’T RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION BECAUSE IT SHOULDN’T HAVE ARISEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, HAD YOU CONDUCTED THE DISCUSSION RESPONSIBLY – READ BEFORE RESPONDING.

Limkamput said:
‘Ok, I will make it very simple for you: I defiantly said that the gathering is NOT illegal, happy now?’

This shows that you’re not interested in a rational discussion over this issue. In a rational discussion, we won’t say things like ‘I defiantly insist on this, happy now?’ In a rational discussion, we say things like ‘I don’t agree with you. I still think that X is Y, because P, Q, R….You have raised, L, M, N, but I think these suggestions are problematic because of E, F, G…’

If you just want to win an argument. OK, you win every point. If you just want to insist on your view no matter what. OK, all your views are correct. HAPPY NOW?

When you don’t understand other’s argument or can’t engage rationally with it, just say that the other person is showcasing his ‘hollow sophistication’. What a cheap way to win an argument.

Hisham said: ‘Whatever you want to think and say about it, I will defiantly say that the kris ritual is right and will defiantly do it year after year until you get desensitised. Happy now?

This is a spirit of irrationality par excellent.

An undergraduate student studying mathematics in my university (University of Cambridge) is called ‘mathematician’. Those studying BA in philosophy are called ‘philosophers’. The term philosopher is not a self-imposed term. Given that I’m a PhD student in philosophy of science, my department, professors, and friends call me a philosopher, just like they call my friends who study mathematics a mathematician.
You just like to attack people without taking fact into consideration.

The act of calling oneself humble is itself not a humble act. Therefore, the act of stating that oneself is humble defeats that statement itself. Such statements are called ‘self-referentially incoherent statements’.
However, the act of calling oneself a philosopher (even if it is a self-glorifying term rather than a label for a professional status) does not involve any self-defeat. ‘Philosopher’ means ‘lover of wisdom’. One who says that she is a lover of wisdom does not mean that she is not a lover of wisdom.

So you’re comparing apples with oranges.

A few days ago Cambridge was ranked 2 in the world by THES. Past glory?

When you attack someone based on what you don’t know, can you defend yourself by saying ‘can you expect everyone to know …’?

No one expects you to know anything. It is actually quite simple. When you don’t know why someone calls himself X, don’t attack LAH! When you want to attack, make sure you get the fact right first.

OK, I give up. You’re not interested in rational discussion. I humbly bow out. You’ve won every point. Congratulations! You should be a Harvard professor. I hope I can do a post-doc research with you in a few months’ time.

What I can say, with my experience of teaching undergraduate students in Cambridge, is that if you argue this way in your paper, you’ll fail.