Monday, November 24, 2008

omg whatever lah. dont shit me, yourself, and everybody can. nobody believes or actually thinks that youre actually drunk. or do you actually believe youre drunk/high? dont rubbish can. it doesnt help when you say that oh, im so drunk every single time you go drinking. puh-lease. *roll eyes* we all know that your limit is way higher. surely you know that too. its just.. damn pathetic can. do you want attention that badly? or do you really, as you say, believe that it somehow excuses indecency under the idea that you arent in full control of your senses? i mean. seriously. three cans. youve got to be joking. im not condoning too-forward behaviour, but coming from somebody who says "i wanna go clubbing so that i can grind a girl" and yet has never done so before.. the whole idea is just laughable can.

anyways. i have acquired a super appreciation for philo people and theatre practitioners, especially actors and directors can. you know how theres this perception that philosophers are like not in touch with reality, a lot of hot air about nothing very practical? well at least sometimes i do.. but shucks man. i get where youre coming from now. yeah after that mcq thingo. it is not vague, not mo hu at all. logic logic. impeccable logic. shit i can appreciate what theyre doing now, even if i dont necessarily understand what theyre saying. this rocks my socks. and actors, especially theatre actors, not screen actors, really. peifu. you dont know how emotionally demanding it is to perform the same play for however long its run it is. i mean, seriously. even for one run, i couldnt get the full emotions there. i was getting there in the mornign of our assessment, but then after we all got so caught up in the last minute preparations the whole emotional buildup was lost. for me at least. last week it was like such a frowny week, cos tieng-bin, hes so caught between his three wives, as well as his desire to be modern, etc. i mean, it was kinda awww, the ts practical component was finally ended. but in a way it was also like phew. i mean, you can finally let go of the emotional tension your body was to learn how to create when running those lines. the dinner scene caught-betweenness of the dinner scene, the tenderness and love of the bedroom scene, the loss/grief/pain/confusion of the confrontation scene. really. hats off to theatre actors. to store up the whole range of emotions in a whole play. to be psychologicaly rooted to your character (within realism). bretchian theatre would be even harder to achieve man. shucks. watching plays will never be the same again. and not to mention directors. i guess you could say that ive been underestimating their role all along. i mean yeah well i knew they were important, somehow. but you know, not quite as important as i now think they are.

OH YES. and i can finally understand how come richard dawkins and the like come across as such angry people, and so.. doubtful about the intellect of those who hold the oppposing view. like, seriously. yesterday somehow we ended up talking about god. again. i cant imagine how this topic keeps creeping up in conversations. (oh. had dinner at the grandparents yesterday as well. didnt pray while they did. they didnt bat an eyelid. not visibly at least. maybe theyre finally getting used to things) anyways. yeah. so he was saying something like. the whole reason why we even have an idea, a concept that there can actually be a god in the first place is because there is a god. forgive me. i am still completely lost on this point. id really love to believe in something bigger than me? even if its just for the reason that it would make life a lot easier. the whole giving it all to god thingo.

anyways. no offense but i really dont get what is so hard to get about what i was trying to say. like no matter how many times, and in different ways i was trying to counter argue that. my point was: why must you make things more difficult when you can explain them easily? ocaam's razor. really. imagine. assuming i dont know the inner workings of lightning and as yet am unable to figure out exactly how it comes about, 1) i see the lightning 2) i dont know/understand how there can be such a thing 3) i assume that something bigger and greater than me must be causing it ie. god. so the point of this illustration is to say that.. the idea of a god stems from the very fact that it is something that we dont understand some phenomenon (mirables and godly stuff included). so we invent something (god) to explain it until we can understand it scientifically.

but you? you just step around my argument and reiterate your own while failing to address what i say at all. you say. 1) i see the lightning 2) i dont know/understand how there can be such a thing 3) i assume that something bigger and greater than me must be causing it ie. god. 4) since the idea a god popped into my head in the first place, this must be reason enough to believe that it was that very god who put the idea into my head. you dont tear apart my argument. you dont disprove me. you state the existance of your god as if it were an end-all to everything. excuse me. yes i know. we are not talking about whether there is a god in the first place. we are talking about where we get the idea of a god from. but since you bring into the debate something that is not concrete to validate your argument, you must first validate your that something ie. that there is a god in the first place.

i am not saying that there is no god. just.. disprove me, you know. im an agnostic, not an atheist. rather different. i acknowledge that i dont know. i just dont acknowledge that you know for sure either. these ideas/arguments probably arent even my own in the first place. probably picked up from reading somewhere or other. for goodness sake dont step around what i say. break my argument down. prove me wrong. at least then we can have a fair debate. find a loophole. then at least i can alter my argument to make it better. or come up with a better one to counter whatever you say. just dont.. bandy your god around as if it were an explanation. it isnt. it only is when youre talking to your fellow believers, to whom i dont belong. if you use your god as a reason, the onus is on you to then prove your god so that you can use it in this argument.

Bonjour. Si vous voulons me chercher, vous êtes venu au faux endroit.

Monday, November 24, 2008

12:30 am

Links

Credits