Massive Cock Quotations.
There are times when you feel that Multiple Choice Questions are giving you options to de-stress. This is one instance of such helpful examiners/question-setters:
It tickled me slightly and I was made to feel better about myself amidst the jubilant cheers of other people having completed their Physics MCQ (bitches). Little do they know about one universal fact:
The longer you hold your orgasm in, the more explosive your ropes would shoot and the more orgasmic the orgasm would be.
Watch out, A levels. I will cream in my pants at the end of you.
Creaming in my pants reminds me of what just happened. I can still remember her shy, but strong, voice asking me something very personal. No, it's not someone that I actually know. I don't know her, and I don't know her name nor would I ever get to, but there she was, sitting at my usual spot in my mountainous retreat, reading a book and eating Subway (presumably). She was there earlier with a friend, but left, and then came back to sit at my usual spot.
She's a rather beautiful and shapely girl. Coupled with her legs, she warrants at least an 8/10. But alas, when she popped that question, I was hard put to find a more gracious/manly way to express myself and my need to get into her pants.
So I simply made myself content with a stoic demeanor, and replied likewise: 5.25PM.
Yes, she asked me for the time. FOR MY TIME.
I felt myself blush.
-- 11/30/2010 11:20:00 PM
Yep, I'm a bigot.
Some of my closer friends have wondered why I don't bother publicizing my blog. I wondered to myself too. Why don't I bother making it known to the world that I actually have a blog?Yea, sure, I've linked and been linked to my friends' blogs, but when all is said and done, no one really refers to the links of someone's blog unless that person is damn bored. If I'm reading Fi's blog, why would I stalk the people he has linked to, when I don't even know them myself? I have better things to do, and more porn to watch, than to be engaged in reading blogs of people I don't know at all.
I think linking is an indication of solidarity. It's like if I know you have a blog, and I'm quite a good friend of yours, I'd expect myself to be linked. Linking is an indication of knowing that someone, and this behaviour of linking can also be seen as a "reading list"--meaning if you're on the list of links, the owner of the blog with that list of links is more likely to read your blog.
So anyway, besides that, I don't think I've publicized my blog much. It has never made it to my MSN, and it has never made it to Facebook, or any other social networking sites I use.
But why?
Because I'm excessively vulgar at times, and I don't want my cousins to read it. If I ever make a status update blaring at my friends to read my blog, my cousins would pick on it too. It's already proven with my latest status update:
My cousin immediately commented. I don't want him to see me for the vulgar person that I am, I don't want him to pick up my bad habits, and I don't want them to know that I'm actually very much of a bigot.
Another thing is, if I publicize my blog, I'd be making this blog more...publicized. More friends would read it, and I know they'd continue reading thanks to my humour and wit, but ultimately....why would I want them to read in the first place?
As can be seen in the blog post titled "Women are begging to be fucked" (yes, the post immediately before this one, dumbass), there's this sentiment mildly resembling "Anger". OK, I'm pretty sure that resemblance isn't mild, but the point is, I'd never put up a link to make this more accessible to the average friend. People read this of their own accord, and they aren't forced to read this or be referred to this. When I relate stories on MSN or in real life, I'd much rather narrate an entire story again rather than simply throwing my blog URL. I'd rather keep my conversations personal, and blog posts impersonal.
So why am I not getting that many viewers despite my obvious intelligence and humour? Simply because I don't really want that much attention. I'd carry on writing even if I don't get any readers, so why does it matter if I have readers in the first place or not? This is otherwise known as catharsis, and it takes place regardless of the presence/absence of readers.
Of course, getting more readers would mean that whatever I say will be mulled on by my readers, and that I'd suddenly have a bigger virtual penis, but when all is said and done, I don't plan on using my blog to earn money, and enviable though the prospect of writing bullshit and getting money for it is, it's just not my thing and it'd probably soil my writing integrity by coming up with views that are more...relevant to the average viewers and just to avoid incurring public anger. Right now, I'm not writing to fill people in about my life. It's interesting, I know, seeing as it's my life, but I'm just...not narcissistic enough to do so. I'd rather use this as some sort of venting ground to let my mind take its highly-frequent dumps.
Before you tag in anger, or send me hatemail (I've never received hate mail before, someone break my virginity in this area please), I need you to remember this: My opinions are always right. Not agreeing to my opinions makes you wrong. Arguing with me would only be foolish, since I'm never wrong. But you have a right to your opinion, just as I have a right to mine. The door swings both ways.
My practice in Bigotry will bring about much ire from readers if they get to read it. I don't want my blog to become a site that brings about disapproval from friends (thus me being averse to the idea of spreading my URL). I won't shut up about my views though, and I know people would try to shut me up. So I'd rather not fight at all, and just keep such friends out of the loop. The fact remains that one can simply Google my email address and find this blog, but then again not many people bother to stalk their friends. Once again, I'd reiterate that I am always right, and that what I speak is always the truth, but if you can't accept the truth, don't read. Seriously. Not many people can accept the truth in my words, and not reading would be better for both your blood pressure and mine.
Of course, I'd accept alternative viewpoints, discourse and other arguments over semantics, but the fact that I'm a bigot remains, and I'd never be able to truly assimilate whatever you're going to throw at me, unless I believe that I am wrong (which is never).
Always remember that I've never thrown my URL at you. It's never an in-your-face thing. You're not obliged, or made to feel obliged, to read my blog.
-- 11/30/2010 12:45:00 AM
Women are begging to be fucked.
I'm seriously losing faith in women and their intellect (or lack thereof). I'm no misogynist, but the level of Stupidity reflected by women these days are...really commendable, to say the least. Suffice it to say that I find other mundane, uninteresting stuff (such as pieces of rocks) more entertaining and sentient than women.The thing about women is that they follow the cues of men. Which is not that bad a thing, until we consider the repercussions: What we find attractive, they emulate. Men found fat women attractive last time, so women turned fat to appeal to men. Now we (supposedly) find slim women attractive, they emulate too.
This is otherwise known as being spineless, and letting others define for them what is attractive and what is disgusting tops the list of what is "Spineless".
Besides being spineless, women are known for being stupid. This is a lethal combination. When men want "slim" women, some women go out on a limb to appeal to this slim factor--they do all sorts of retarded things to make their bodies even more retarded.
That's another thing about women. They don't understand whatever language men throws at them. They believe in extremities: Either very fat, or very skinny. There is no such thing as intermediates in their lives. And as culture leans towards the skinnier side, they believe that if they are the skinniest, they are the most appealing, and they all end up dead or dying, and to be honest I don't find that much of a loss.
I've talked about anorexia nervosa before and I really can't be bothered to talk about it again, but the cases of "tween" anorexia appalls even me.
What the fuck? Seriously? What the fuck? Hello, parents, if your child is too skinny, FORCE FEED THEM. Turn off that computer, don't allow them to go online. I didn't have a virtual life until I was perfect, and I turned perfect when I was 14. Kids are the most impressionable idiots in any demography--they are just too stupid. They have no idea how to live their lives, they don't know how to think for themselves, and so it's up to you, the negligent parent, TO TURN OFF THE TELEVISION.
Pop culture is ruining all of us. And you are letting it ruin kids. Any parent who doesn't know that his child is anorexic and doesn't know how to deal with it (namely, force-feed, psychiatrist, hospital) out to be shot, or have their children forcibly taken from them because they don't know how to care for their kids.
Parents are usually 25 years older than their kids at least. This 25 years ought to be enough to teach them how to spot the lies of their much younger, less experienced children. If you, as a parent, are so easily deceived, it won't be long before your kids start hanging out with other gangsters, smoking, having a lot of unprotected sex, drugs, all under the pretext of "studying with friends" and other associated lies.
If you love your kids, go on, pamper them, let them die young. One of the minor side-effects of anorexia is an erratic heartbeat, and we all know how unimportant the heart is to us. Another minor side-effect is death, which isn't altogether lethal.
Can't be bothered to cane your children to switch off the computer/television to stop soaking in pop culture and the concept that "slim is beauty"? Can't bear to cane them or be harsh on them? Be harsh in another way then: Let them die young, before they turn into older idiots like you who cannot reign in their children.
Yes, sure, sure, I might be accumulating bad kharma with my critique on such negligent parents, my daughters (if any) might turn out anorexic too, but guess what? I will not, like other pacifistic parent, allow my daughter to climb over my head to shit on me. If I see something wrong, I will stamp it out (without the use of hypnotherapists).
It is cruel to be kind. Get over yourselves and start spanking their asses raw.
Another highly disturbing thing is the fact that a BOY, a young boy, also became anorexic. Wuttt? Someone castrate this boy please, he is not worthy of his dick. Since time immemorial, it's the man's job to get things done, to fight wars, to defend their women. I remember a show about Chinese wars, and how the soldiers, before taking down a city, would chant to themselves something like "Get their gold, grain, and women". I have serious doubts on how an anorexic male can fulfill this manly requirement.
Who dictated that men should be skinny anyway? All those girly-boys in idol dramas? Seriously, someone castrate all of them too, please. They don't deserve their balls. Please donate your gonads to Hitler, at least he had the ball to wage another war. At least he was decisive. At least he made Germany strong again. And if he were still alive, he is definitely more deserving of balls than these girly-boys from idol dramas.
Who knows? If Hitler had both balls intact at the start of WW2, perhaps Germany would've won and I'd be writing in German (if free speech is allowed).
All that power from a man with only one testicle.
-- 11/28/2010 12:49:00 PM
Nope, Starbucks isn't doing you a favour.
My posts seem to focus on the ongoings of Facebook pretty much lately, and the mass troves of people joining the event page of Starbucks regarding the free beverage (per person) on Christmas irked me somewhat.I never liked coffee. I could never see the point in that bitter beverage--no way am I paying sweet cash for bitterness in a cup. I can never understand coffee connoisseurs, I don't understand how they exist, and I don't find their existence exceptionally meaningful.
Whenever I hear someone discussing about coffee at great lengths, where to go for such a drink (drink, should be patented for ALCOHOL only, not some weird bitter shit), et cetera, I know that I can never have any form of meaningful relationship with that person that does not involve rape.
I guess this brings out why I dislike Starbucks, and any coffee-related products in general. I JUST DON'T LIKE THEM.
So here I am, trying to get Starbuck's shit ruined.
Starbucks is NOT DOING YOU A FAVOUR with that free beverage of your choice. This is explicitly written:
| More Info | enjoy your favourite Starbucks beverage* on us Yes, it's on the house! We are passionate about offering the highest quality coffee to our customers. We are also committed to contributing positively to the community. ========================= Make a donation of your choice and 100% of the proceeds will go to The Salvation army. Come and enjoy your favourite Starbucks beverage* and make a difference to our community. * One redemption per customer - Tall-sized beverage only - Bottled beverages not applicable - Event only in Singapore |
|---|
Yep, one redemption per customer only. One would think that Starbucks won't keep track on whether you, as a koupist, would koupe one beverage and proceed to another Starbucks outlet to get a second freebie. That is probably true--but only because Starbucks knows that their target audience, which is the average high-class-coffee-drinking idiot, would not want to associate himself with typical Singaporeans and the Singaporean koupist attitude.
Very true, that. If I'm a coffee connoisseurs, or just someone who loves drinking coffee at such classy outlets, I'd want to distinguish myself from the average Singaporean who does Singaporean-stuff like kouping more whenever possible. Starbucks is banking on the fact that people would NOT koupe more than one drink, and going by the calculation, they would've made a huge profit. Another thing that adds to Starbucks profits is the need for face--coffee connoisseurs will definitely buy another beverage just to show that they are financially capable of celebrating the end product of a bean.
Huge profit? Why? There are around 2000 invited guests as of this writing. More would join randomly because it's a "free", and because it's an open event. There are 67 Starbucks outlets in Singapore. Let's say that Starbucks have 20K customers in total on an average day, and that every customer consumes around $10 of diarrhea. That'd mean Starbucks earn around 200K per day (without deducting rent, workers' pay, electricity bills, etc).
200K can't buy much air-time on television in Singapore. I tried looking up statistics on how much it is to air a commercial, but alas, my searching skills suck. But for arguments sake, let's say that airing a commercial for a total of an hour in prime hours would cost probably around....100K? I have no idea how advertisements work, I'm guessing it'd cost more than 100K, considering it's prime time, but for argument's sake let's just stick with 100K.
This event page has been around for quite some time, but I never got to know about it, probably because of A levels and because I don't really pay attention to the live feed, but the fact remains--it eventually caught my eye.
Now think about the number of friends an average user of Facebook has--around 300. As of this writing, around 30 of my friends have clicked to express interest in the event itself. This means 900 people probably have seen this event on his live feed. At any time one person selects to join this event, approximately 300 "friends" might be notified. That's a freaking lot of people if you ask me, and the more people join the event, the more frequent it appears on the live feed of others, and the advertisement for Starbucks grows--for free.
So although Starbucks would lose around 200K because they are giving out free drinks, they'd have earnt 100K worth of advertising--a long-term investment. You can treat the 10-dollar drink they're giving you as a form of payment for your advertising of the event, and thus, of Starbucks. Very clever business gimmick, Starbucks, totally original.
So, people who've been invited, or rather, who have invited themselves into this event, you've been had. You're the one who got used. How does that feel? You've unwittingly shoved a whole load of advertisements into the back of your friends' throats, forcibly, and definitely gang-bang style. Thanks for nothing, "friends".
Starbucks have no rights to get this kind of advertisement done for it so freely. Facebook should start charging such MNCs advertisements fee.
And this brings me to another point. Note how they subtly brought out the donation to the Salvation Army? Like "COME, come get a free drink, and DONATE. It's like you get $10 free, AND you get to accumulate good kharma by donating! A win-win situation!"
This is something very weird. If I want to donate to a charitable organization, I will knock on the organization itself to donate, and not to leave my money at the hands of a random fast-food restaurant. Normally, people throw change at such donation boxes. And why would there be change in the first place? Because a transaction had taken place. Why would a transaction take place then? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T JUST TAKE THE FREE BEVERAGE. So Starbucks effectively word-trapped you with that, and if you don't donate, you don't accumulate good kharma, people will stare.
And so you donate, but you, not being that much of a philanthropist, decides to only give loose change, but it'd look pathetic if you simply fished out a few coins from your wallet, so you decide to settle this affair of donation with change dropped callously from the cashier, with a swift "Help me donate zat~", as if to differentiate yourself from Loose Change like it's a dirty word or currency not fit for your skin.
And thus, Starbucks earns.
Here are ways for you to foil this sinister plot of theirs:
1) KOUPE. Run around, koupe as much as you can. It doesn't matter, because in the CBD alone there are around 12 outlets. You don't even have to run that much to keep all that coffee in. You can even bring a water bottle to secretly conserve whatever you couldn't finish in your freebie-taking spree, and spread it out for the next few days, rendering their ploy useless.
2) Don't join the event on Facebook. Enough said.
-- 11/28/2010 12:05:00 AM
I'm no Foucault, but this is just screwed up.
Some of you might have already been added, or received a friend request by a certain Loveisjustaword Wong on Facebook.Well, I did. When I get weird friend requests, I accept them and do what I do best--Stalk. This profile was exceptionally weird, in the sense that it went:
The fuck? I shit you not. I know I'm not that much of a gay rights activist, and I'm no Foucault, but this profile irked me. I thought the profile was meant to be a weird kind of joke, so I left it unquestioned, and I didn't bother much with this person until, upon receiving the notification that I accepted his friend request, he sent this straight into my inbox. It irked me, so I fired back at him a volley of questions and accusations that I think would be comprehensive enough to pass of as a blog post. Here's the entire conversation. I do not think that he'd reply me anymore:
If you don't find this to be a very demeaning joke, then I don't know what else to think about you as a person and human being.
Sure, he might truly be trying his luck at finding a partner on Facebook by adding guys, but seriously, if I were a homosexual, I won't be trying my luck on Facebook, I'd rather go to a forum for homosexuals, through which I can find other people who share the same interest as me.
Let's, for argument's sake, liken homosexuality to Chinese chess. If I were trying to find another Xiang Qi player, I'd rather go to clubxiangqi.com, instead of attempting to Google "Chess", because "Chess" is too generic and I'd end up getting variations that I do not want.
That's what this guy here is doing. He is going to get many varied responses to what he is propositioning, and by that count, incurring the wrath or irritation of the people who feel pestered by him. Others would take him to be representative of homosexuals, and would stereotype homosexuals to be intrusive.
And by doing so, he is getting responses to critique homosexuals. Imagine this, a straight man who is quite offended by this intrusion by a random dude would get pissed, and state something derogatory about homosexuals, and feel that all of them are similar--intrusive, and adopt a close-minded attitude against homosexuals even if they weren't hitting on the straight man himself.
I don't know what you would think of this, but I find this act very irksome. Let me reiterate: I am perfectly OK with homosexuals. You can see this by the level of respect I have for them--I have never used the word "Gay" in this post at all. "Gay" just sounds so..derogatory, even if it's not meant to sound that way, it does to me, so I'd rather not use that word.
I know I'm being logically inconsistent, seeing as I was quite anti-homosexuals a few years back, but I grew up and became more open-minded and have become a better individual definitely.
And I really don't get Facebook and The Straits Times and how they're kind of merging. I just saw this article being liked on Facebook by several friends of mine:
Uhh..what's there to like? The fact that 2 guys were having oral sex in a public toilet? You like this kind of thing? What's there to like? Seriously. Grow up. It's not even funny that 2 homosexuals were caught for such a "crime"? I mean..why not just leave them be? Whatever happened to the supposed privacy of the toilet cubicles? Why take a video? To post on Stomp! ? Fuck off, seriously, citizen journalism is making all of us feel like heroes. Trust me on this, I felt the call of power once, I heeded it, and I grew up and out of it.
Really. Just..ditch this bullshit. Some articles are not meant to be "liked" at all. It only proves how much of a shallow piece of shit you are, liking articles to make yourself seem well-read and as a show of solidarity towards others who read the newspapers online. Seriously, read the printed version. I'd rather read things offline than online. If you had a choice to read it in print, THEN READ IT IN PRINT. It's already printed, it's better for your eyes, so what are you waiting for? You don't have to make known that you know.
Seriously...kids these days.
-- 11/24/2010 08:03:00 PM
Hypnotherapy--modern equivalent of Inception.
Note: If at any point the language doesn't sound like me, don't worry, it's the alcohol talking.
I was reading the Home section of The Straits Times when I came across this article, conveniently made the front page. It was about hypnotherapy and how children and teenagers these days are climbing up the hierarchy to become a rather substantial clientele of hypnotherapist.
I don't get the point of hypnotherapy. It's supposed to work on your subconscious mind, and then get you to work on those ideas implanted when you were in a subconscious state when you're fully subconscious. Now that I've stated it out openly, it sounds kind of like Inception, right?
I don't particularly enjoy placing my life and whatever I might want to do in the future to the hands of any hypnotherapist. I don't really want to trust anyone other than myself, and to be honest, hypnotherapists can do any shit to you, Inception style. They can get you to do crimes and stuff, as according to the article.
I'd never send my children to such hypnotherapists. What if they end up getting my children to become unfilial? Nope, the possibilities are infinite and I don't want to allow them to have any kind of power over my kids, and by extension, over me. That'd suck--me, paying money for these hypnotherapists, and getting raped by these 'rapists' after they've gotten my money.
Why then do these hypnotherapists get such clients? Students definitely do not pop in voluntarily, seeking such treatment. It's always parents, these lazy-assed parents who do not want to put in too much personal effort but want to get their kids to do well in their CCAs and academics so that they can show off to their colleagues and friends and family that they are successful parents.
I don't get this trend at all. If you're really a successful parent, then shouldn't you be able to make your kid WORK? You, as a successful parent, would not have to resort to random hypnotherapists to define your child's life. You, as a successful parent, would not have to resort to Inception to get your children to listen to you. What kind of bullshit is happening to the world these days, seriously? If you're a parent and you have to resort to OTHER PEOPLE TO REIGN IN YOUR KIDS, YOU HAVE FAILED. Fuck you. Seriously, learn to lecture your child.
I know I'm not exactly a model student and model child, but I know when to be filial and when not to (which is never, because being filial never ends). I won't be paying a random person a huge sum of money (150-200 bucks per hour) just to do the job that I SHOULD BE DOING. If i need my child to do homework, I WILL GET HIM/HER TO. If i need my child to get off the computer, I will get him/her off.
I'd get him to be counselled by myself, my friends, and stuff like that. I won't resort to hypnotherapy. I don't want to leave that much of my child's fate to a random stranger's hand. I know that hypnotherapists have a code of conduct to adhere to, and that they have professional ethics to abide by, but the idea of having my child being controlled, in the absolute sense, by a person other than my spouse/me, is too disconcerting for me to accept.
If I were a respectable parent, I'd be able to:
1) Talk my child into shape
2) Beat my child into shape.
I won't have to spend so much money to get my child to abide by my rules, just so that I can fulfill my selfish intentions of being "The Best Dad In The World".
If I want my child to be the top of his level, I WILL DISCIPLINE HIM MYSELF. Why should I get a hypnotherapist to help me with parenting my child? I like to claim credit when it's due--how am I supposed to tell my relatives "No, it's not all thanks to me, I sent him to a hypnotherapist" ? I can't live with that. If I can't motivate my child, I don't expect, nor want, anyone else to do the parenting for me. It's my duty, and mine alone.
And probably the spouse, seeing as women should stay at home and be the mother. I want the upbringing of my child to remain a domestic affair. I'd beat my child up if I have to, I'd spend hours talking to him if I have to, but I'd never send him to a hypnotherapist. It's a sad state of affair of I'm able to pass upbringing of a child to a hypnotherapist. Money settles everything, why not I hire maids and nannies so that I'd never have to deal with my child personally?
Retards. Get your child in hand, get him to listen to you.
I know I don't listen to my parents. In fact, I play the computer all the time. To say that I've been granted permission by my parents would be inaccurate, because to be granted permission implies that I've asked for it once--I've never asked my parents for permission to use (play) the magic box (computer).
But if I were a parent, hypnotherapy would not be something I'd resort to. I know when I need to seek help, but working on my child in his subconscious state, while effective, remains unethical. I'd rather not tamper with his mind this way. I'd rather take up parenting myself. If I can't control my kids, it's my fault and I'd get external help. If I get external help, I'd give credit where it's due.
But hypnotherapy is seriously too convenient a way. And when something is too convenient, people turn to it. "Oh, I tried scolding my child once, it was too difficult and tiring, I'm getting a hypnotherapist." "Oh, I can't be bothered telling my child what he should do with his life because I have no goals myself, so I'd just take the easy way out and get someone else to help."
Pussies.
Don't pay others to be this much of a nanny for your kids. It doesn't work out this way.
-- 11/22/2010 07:42:00 PM
All meat.
I had an I-don't-wanna-do-a-thing moment roughly 20minutes ago as of this writing, and beckoned by my mum, I went into the room to watch TV. I left the room after 5 minutes.It was a Channel U show about dogs, and dog lovers. I cannot understand how anyone can have this much affection for any organism in the world. "Ooh, a dog, it's cute, let's bring him back." Very good job, girl, no one gives a shit, now call SPCA and have it culled.
Seriously, why give a shit to dogs? Dog meat should be on the breakfast, and lunch, and dinner menu. There's no difference between dogs and cats and cows and horses and chickens--they're all made of meat, and meat is good. Humans are meat too now that I think about it, and that's probably why I'm interested in eating babies (cooked in laksa...mmm laksa).
We always read about how much of a culinary haven Singapore is, due to it being a melting pot of cultures, and thus, foods. But I've never heard of places selling dog/cat meat, and for argument's sake let's attribute my ignorance to just that--my ignorance. But why aren't such meats widely publicized in Singapore?
Does it have something to do with, I don't know, MORALITY?
But why is it more morally sound to eat beef/chicken/pork, but not when we eat cats/dogs? Just because we see them everyday in our lives and in our neighbourhoods, does not make them less of a food, less of a meat. To deny that would be to deny the reason for their existence. People argue that "Just because you want to eat the burger doesn't mean you want to see the cow", which is probably true. People cannot see past the outside for the insides, and since we're already accustomed to seeing dogs and cats as domesticated pets and friendly neighbourhood animals, we can never look at them in a hungry way.
But not me. I want to find out what dog/cat meat tastes like. There are endangered animals that require protecting, so I'm not that interested in, say, Panda Meat, but dogs and cats are always around, they're everywhere, they probably make good stew. Mmm...
When I discuss my plans with people, they look at me in a disgusted way, thinking that I'm a freak, before taking another bite in their not-so-vegetarian burgers. Hypocrites. I like to think of myself as someone who views Life equally, and since I've eaten beef, I should show the same respect to dogs and cats in the Menu manner too.
The point here is, people always, ALWAYS, places values on lives. Don't bullshit me on this, we aren't born equal and we definitely aren't treated equally. Let me just put things into perspective for the average ignorant person, unaware that he has been discriminating against others on a subconscious manner and vehemently denying all the charges I'm bringing up, here's a clear example on how Humans place value on lives.
When Selina from SHE got burnt in an explosion while filming, it sparked public outrage over the lack of safety precautions in the filming set. There were fans who made so much noise and when they "looked into the matter", one of the causes for the accident was that no stunts man was used.
Excuse me while I shit in my pants. The citation that no stunts man was involved in this scene showed that stunts men, in short, were meat shields. "Oh, she got hurt because there were no stunts men, she shouldn't have had to film this dangerous scene", implying that it is OK for stunts men to get hurt while filming, but not OK for the average idol? Of course, stunts men "know what they are getting themselves into", but shouldn't the focus on this inquiry be on how the filming set should have minimized the probability of the accident occurring, AND NOT ON WHO SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN HURT?
Here are some facts that you people never knew, and could never bother yourselves with: In 2009, 450 Singapore citizens died in work-related accidents.
Oh, no, don't worry about the average Singaporean who might have lost his kin due to work-related accidents, they aren't contributing to Singapore's economy and more importantly, your life, and well to be honest, nothing is more important to you than your Idol from Overseas, she's the one who has a direct positive impact on your life with the cookie-cutter songs she sings with the other 2, while periodically wiping out whatever savings you've made off your parents and saved off recess with stupid money wasting concerts and senseless CDs.
It's OK to remain ignorant and masked of such vital details, what you don't know doesn't affect you, and stunts men getting hurt, injured, killed, doesn't affect you at all. Why let the matter of a few paltry insignificant lives get in your way of enjoying a movie?
It is shocking how people express moral outrage over this whole fiasco. It just shows how they value life differently. People have suffered more debilitating accidents, so what makes these idols so special?
You, you, and you. All of you who have placed the lives of idols on a pedestal have effectively made them special, made them feel self-important, made them detached from reality.
I'm really fine with the sympathy she's getting. I just have a beef with the suggestion that stunts men should have been involved instead. It's not like stunts men don't have families to feed, and I'm glad that Selina got hit instead of any random stunts man--at least she's getting the best medical treatment, a luxury not available to the average stunts man.
In short, she possibly saved a life, and accumulated good kharma. Be happy for her, idiots.
So...bottom-line is, we all value lives of others differently. Even on a daily basis, we're all prioritizing even our own friends. Let's not try to emulate all the selfless people, we can't.
And I still want to try all kinds of meat.
-- 11/21/2010 09:18:00 PM
I hope to delete this post.
Sometimes, people get tired of clowns and clowning around, and they move on. But the clowns don't know what else to do besides clown around--it's their job, their duty, their livelihood, and there's no other way out for them.
It's kind of pathetic when you degenerate into clownship in someone's life, you get paid for your job, but remain inconsequential.
I'd like to be more obvious here, but I don't have the rights to and I find it stupid, really stupid, how I'm able to attract all the wrong attention to the wrong parts of me from the wrong people, but am unable to reignite the interest you used to have in me.
I don't think I changed, I don't think my entertainment value has dropped at all. Why aren't you paying anymore?
On a completely different note, this is why I find the world fucked up. It's a weird story that shows how anal people can get.
I have a teenage female friend heading off for a farm party (or so she terms). It's a party held by someone she knows, who owns a farm, and basically it's a 2 day (overnight) event with booze and approximately another 30 teenagers.
Let me teach all of you three laws that apply throughout the univers:
Human + Alcohol = Lowered inhibition
A lot of humans + Alcohol = Orgy
Alastair = Always Right.
Bet they don't teach this in law school, that's why she doesn't get it. Seems like anything that's not curricular, she don't and won't bother to try to understand.
When I told her the prospects of her going wild, or being forced to go wild in order to comply to social standards, or to see wild things occurring, are high, she simply waved it all away, chiding that I'm a 'dirty-minded freak'.
I don't know how to reply to this. It's a Law of the Universe which applies to every animate object, and the fact that she didn't want to take my word for it just struck me as the Stupid in her talking. Everyone has a Stupid in them, except that it becomes more conspicuous in certain subjects or area of concern according to each person. Of course, there are some who are Stupid all the time, but this area is one in which she is exceptionally Stupid in.
Right now, I'm going to be a psychic and tell you guys what I foresee: There won't be orgies happening, but a lot of making out and groping in plain sight, and many behind-the-scenes sex. She'd be approached by drunk guys who think that every girl is easy, and they'd probably grope her but she'd be too polite to make a response that's more than a slap. She'd not call the cops and be labelled a spoilsport, and she'd just live with the humiliation of a molested breast. She'd see many things she'd rather not know about her friends, and although she might not regret going for such an occasion, the fact remains that she'd be forever tainted by images she can, and might prefer to, live without.
I tried to tell her that I'm worried for her, because she's "pure and innocent" and all, but I know I'm just prepping her to remain chaste so that I can be the one to burglarize her.
I won't believe it if she tells me that nothing special or awkward happened in the farm stay. I have faith in the virility of young men, and the nymphomaniac tendencies of teenage girls.
I have faith in the Power of Alcohol.
The thing about me is that I hate to go around telling people "Told you so". I hate it when people do that to me, and I don't like to do unto others what I don't appreciate myself. I'd rather take some preventive measures. Instead of laughing at a rape victim with a condescending "Told you so", I'd rather leave the rape victim some pride, while preventing further rapes unto other women by -coughs- raping them myself -coughs-, I mean, by conducting self-defense courses.
I hope I'd have to take down this post.
-- 11/19/2010 09:29:00 PM
The Irony.
I am really affected, to the point of being disturbed, by what your recent revelation, but I'm not going to inquire because1) I have a weak heart and cannot take your reply, be it affirmative or not,
2) I'd rather just leave things as it is, let sleeping curs lie.
Doesn't mean I'm not concerned, it just means I'm too concerned to show.
On a separate note, I can see that my room is infested by silverfishes. If you have no idea what a silverfish is, you've probably not experienced too much of life and you've never been a messy person/someone cleans up after you, and I hope you choke.
Silverfishes are these abominable household pests:
and as you can see from their diet, they eat paper.
Why would my room be infested with silverfishes then? All the notes I've accumulated for the past 4 years must've been very tasty, and to be honest I can't find my biology notes for the application syllabus (ie screwed).
Since young we've read retarded comprehension passages telling us the importance of honesty, and that we should never try to scam the teacher into believing that our homework was eaten by our dogs, or any dogs for that matter. But it's true--silverfishes eat paper. I can only imagine how sweet paper, as polysaccharides, are to them.
I hope they choke.
My room is like some kind of construction site. There's dust everywhere (clear indication that I'm not very academically religious), and let's just stop at there.
Well, I plan to burn my notes, all of them, as charcoal in any random BBQ session that I might be invited to. I don't really give a shit about the environment and ash coating the food to be BBQ-ed (maybe this way I can get all the information I should have from the burnt notes), and I'm not arsed enough to find out if any AJC student (referring to the juniors, unless Detective Bullshit decides to visit my tagboard again to point out the logical lapses of my post without taking into consideration his own lack of a brain before hitting "ENTER") would really steal my notes. I'm just not bothered. I just want to burn all these shitty notes and be done with A levels.
But for now, I really need my notes. I need to find them, thus taking out precious study time. :c
If only we have wands and magic and can summon stuff:
"Accio NOTES"
-- 11/17/2010 02:22:00 PM
971.
What's life without a little bit of thrill and suspense and rule-bending every now and then? Boring.And because I don't want to lead a boring life, I haven't stopped doing random shit during A levels like stealing SEAB's papers (we're supposed to return them, when the pile of unused writing paper gets to me I koupe), and I haven't stopped bringing these into the examination hall:
The Chief Presiding Examiner, who is some young hot teacher, stalked to me about it before. Yep, stalked to me, because she came up to my table and took them away (thus stalk) and asked me to claim it from her after the Biology paper.
Turns out she was paranoid about Iron Man figurines because Iron Man = Anatomy of men = might-be-alleged-of-cheating. Quite a cute extension by my definition, but I waved that logic aside, when she explained to me, that:
But it's IRON MAN LEHH
She stoned for awhile, probably unsure of what to say in such socially awkward situations, and then scoffed at my retreating back with an 'Iron man'.
So cuuuuuuuute <3
Now now now I shouldn't be propositioning her, does this constitute a sexual harassment suit? I'm of legal age =\
But no offence lah, she's just really cute and I think I'd ask her for her Facebook after Biology MCQ (;
Yep, a brief respite from the hectic schedule of A levels. OK, not that hectic from now onwards but still~
-- 11/14/2010 01:18:00 AM
Q: What's worse than being murdered? A: Being murdered by your middle school bully.
Well well well. That was utterly humiliating. I don't know if she's playing some sort of scandal game, but whatever it is, the stakes seems too high and it seems so vivid that I can't help but be jealous. No, don't get me wrong, I don't like this girl anymore, but the fact remains that she went ahead and got attached to someone who celebrates Deepavali.
Now that turned out slightly condescending, but believe me when I say that that's not part of my agenda. I'm not a racist, or at least I'm not that much of a racist. But when you place Race and Relationships side by side, you'd find that reactions can be quite polarized. I have F as my male sex partner, my boyfriend/girlfriend (depending on mood and hormonal changes), I have another F as a Travian buddy, and I'm very very comfortable with them in my life.
But I'd never marry someone of another race.
So seeing this happen on no less a public medium than Facebook makes me go WTF, simply because I'd rather perceive myself to have lost to a Chinese than...some other race. I think there's a slight tinge of race supremacy, but I'd rather think of myself as someone that's..racially tolerant/acceptable, except when it comes to relationships, especially when it comes to someone that I've hmmm admired for quite some time.
URGHHH. It's just frustrating. I'm just being brutally honest here, and not being racist. It doesn't really matter to me, I don't really mind who she dates, but the fact remains that there remains a slight shade of resentment over her choice of boyfriend, and over her overt sexual expressions.
There is the mafia in Italy.
There is the yakuza in Japan.
And there are gangs in Singapore.
Do you see the stark contrast? In Italy, the mafia is feared. In Japan, the police doesn't mess around with the yakuza. Both deal with vices--prostitution, trafficking of drugs, humans, arms, et cetera. Both rakes in millions and contributes to the economy.
What does Singaporean gangs do? Loiter around void decks, get involved in 'territorial fights', earn money through petty crime, and the like, none of which is as outstanding, as lawless, as what their counterparts do in other countries.
I don't really know why gangs exist, and I don't get how they exist because there is no point in their existence. Basically, they want to break the law by doing something illegal, but they don't dare to break too many laws at once because they don't have the balls to do so. I'm not exactly belittling our gangs, since they've become so intrinsic in our landscape, but I just feel that if they want to carry on with their existence in Singapore, they should do bigger things, more lawless, more ball-ful. They are not feared nor respected--just disgusting, the way they are now.
I quote The Straits Times: Youth gangs are probably a more recent phenomenn, and they mostly just want to fight... It's not widespread problem.
Another quote from the same: swift actions must be taken, lest they become like the organised gangs of the past, which dabbled in drugs and gambling and sought protection money.
Really, youth gangs? If you want to fight so much, join some sparring competition lah =.=
Which leads us to this comic:
There's this furore over the murder of Darren Ng Wei Jie, some 19 year old student. I don't really get this whole furore though. Yep, he got brutally murdered in public, by around 10 other people in the so-called 'gangs' of Singapore, because of a 'staring incident'.
NEWSFLASH: Being killed because of a 'staring incident' ranks up there with other epic reasons like 'choking on your own shit', and 'drowning in your own saliva'.
To die because of a staring incident is both epic, and retarded, and it's the only way to marry those 2 descriptions together.
Really commendable.
Reports say that he's from Republic Poly's water-polo team or something, and he was with 4 friends when the attack happened. I don't know what truly transpired, but it takes 2 hands to clap. There was a scuffle, there was a fight between thie Darren's friends and himself vs. the gang people, and I can imagine the whole event unfolding in front of my eyes. A random member of either group catches the eye of the opposing group and then a scuffle starts:
Gang members: Anzua? Kiampak ah? Kua simi?
Victims: -refuses to apologize-
According to eye-witnesses, Darren and his friends were winning the fight. Gang members are never going to live with losses. They have pride, and they'd defend their pride..
..by calling reinforcements, and the reinforcements came with parangs.
I don't really know who you'd judge as the one who started it all, but I'd just say this: It takes 2 hands to clap. If Darren had apologized, the gang members would not have hacked him. They'd probably slap his face, spit on him, suan his whole family, but they'd not resort to physical violence of such a magnitude.
It is as simple as that. They would not. They are only out to humiliate others, while defending their 'pride'. They will not hack people randomly.
Straits Times reported that Darren's sister said something to the nature of 'Darren always made us worry'. I don't know how you'd interpret that, but I didn't have a very good impression of this Darren after reading this comment of his sister.
I am not celebrating or mocking him in death. I am just saying that there are other ways to die that does not involve the loss of one's dignity. This is a very good way of going out with a bang, and I am sure his parents and himself regret it totally. Moral of the story? Don't go around staring at people (read: asking for trouble).
Got hacked because of a staring incident.
Also, I don't really understand the point about Facebook groups and pages on deaths, too. I cannot understand why people would go ahead to 'like' a death of someone they don't know. Even if I did know someone who passed away, I won't start a Facebook page on that person just because I can. Imagine this
Y likes these pages:
"Commemorating the life of X, who passed away on DATE', 'Here's a condom. I figured that since you're acting like a penis you might as well dress as one.', and 13089 other pages.
I think that deaths are solemn affairs. By placing such pages on Facebook, creators of such pages are effectively making Facebook more morbid than before. Either that--or demeaning the passing of a life itself.
Also, there seems to be a strongly positive linear correlation between publicity of a death and the number of Facebook pages spawning from said deaths, and subsequently the number of people liking the page. Does this mean that publicized deaths are worth making pages of, while those that go unnoticed, unpublicized, are not?
And does this mean that people whose deaths are 'liked' on Facebook have led worthier lives than people whose deaths do not get on Facebook?
Millions of deaths go unnoticed every day. In Singapore, there is approximately one suicide a day. There are people who are pushed into the surgical room, never to wake up again to their loved ones waiting outside. There are parents who are denied the chance of watching their children grow up (and consequently, children who could never grow up with the company of either parent(s)). There are spouses who have to make the painful decision to unplug their brain-dead soulmates from life-support systems, and subsequently to donate the organs of said soulmates.
And there are parents who have to live in much regret over their kid who died because of a 'staring incident'. I really sympathize with his family. Really. One brash move, one moment of pride, and there goes a life.
Can you see the stark contrast behind the reasons for these deaths of people? I don't know man, there are 2 sides to this: Darren either wanted to live life fully, or waste it. Live life fully because fighting is exciting, and is a shade of life that he'd like to experience. Waste: because he did not know to back down, that pride is not as important as his life, and his loved ones. Especially pride when fighting a bunch of gangsters over a 'staring incident'.
Life isn't meant to be lived or died that way. He had a choice on how to live, he didn't consider the repercussions, and chose to fight.
Another interesting thing about such Facebook pages: They are never made by close friends or family members. Recall the student in university in England or something, from RJC got scholarship go there study medicine then a bus tio her and freaking dragged her corpse around 3km before her body dislodged itself from the bus.
That, is a wrongful death. Did Facebook pages sprout for her? Well, to be honest I've never checked. But I remembered reading on Straits Times something her father said "Leave us alone to mourn." Or something to that effect.
When Madam Kwa Geok Choo passed away, what did the Lees say? They requested that no obituaries for her be made. Why? Because it's a family thing. Grief is not something people would like to publicize.
Facebook pages for her still sprouted.
When the media tried to get some reports on the deceased Darren's wake, they were pushed away by his friends. As the adage goes, 'Birds of a feather flock together', and if his friends were so emotionally charged and ready to rage, I think that's quite a testament to the deceased's predisposition to rage too.
I'm not saying that his life isn't valuable. All lives are valuable, because everyone deserves a chance to live fully. I'm just saying that his life, or death, shouldn't be celebrated, or glorified, by Facebook--because death is definitely more solemn than Facebook and should be accorded the same due respect than being placed on a medium as flippant as Facebook.
You may accuse me of bigotry, but I am a bigot. I think that life is much more than gangs and being involved in gang fights, and finding trouble. I think that life has much more significance than that. I think that life should be treasured, cherished, and not spent pursuing such 'pride'.
I think the deceased could definitely have lived a much better life than he did. I believe that every life has the potential to be something more. He could not realize this potential, or perhaps had his life forcibly removed before he managed to realize this potential--but the bottom-line remains: he was killed because of a staring incident.
Not a vehicle crash, which cannot be controlled by Man. Not a physical defect/ailment, which is against one's wishes. I don't know what to say.
Basically, there are 2 points to my post:
1) Don't bother with Facebook pages--it's just disrespectful to the dead. If you really wish to commemorate the dead, there's the Qingming Festival, there's the actual process of going to the wake, there are so many more respectful ways to do so other than to 'like' a page on Facebook. It's so much easier to like a page, it removes the due respect in commemorating the passing of a life.
2) He didn't live a life worth commemorating, nor do I think he wishes to be commemorated. Given a choice, he'd prefer not to die (at least, not in this way). If one wishes to commemorate his life, what about the thousands of others dying everyday? Are their lives any less significant than one lost due to a staring incident?
I don't know a lot about the world yet, with my 18 years on Earth. I am in no position to state that I know depths that others can only imagine, because I don't know such depths.
But I just can't accord him the same respect as I would to any other deceased person, simply because of the reason behind his death.
I really feel for his family. I really feel for his friends. As in, I sympathize with them for their loss. I am sure that Darren did not want to be killed, but I think the circumstances of his death makes his way of life rather negative. He did not deserve to die, and the gang members were too over-zealous and parang-happy in this case, but I don't think that his death is honourable or glorified. I don't think that it was an 'unprovoked attack', because staring itself is a provocative act (at least to gangsters), and I know that Darren and his friends knew that, thus the engagement in said staring.
It'd have been much better, and much less wasted, if he had chose not to stare (back) at them, or simply apologize and be humiliated (to the point of near-emasculation), than:
which is quite possibly the worst humiliation possible.
UPDATE:
I've never liked STOMP!, nor do I particularly enjoy using it to substantiate my posts, but here's an article that would do so, and prove that the deceased..doesn't live a rosy life as painted by the media. Just because he's a victim of circumstances does not mean that he is not responsible for the circumstances itself. It's like if saying that if I chose to jump down the building (a situation I got myself into), I am pitiable because I am a victim of my circumstances (getting my brains, or lack thereof, sprayed all over the floor).
"The teenager was brutally attacked by a group of 10 youths armed with choppers at Downtown East, Pasir Ris on October 30 after getting into a heated argument, reportedly over a 'staring incident'."
"Heated argument."
And you don't need me to point out what the report (frivolous though the medium itself may be) stated about the deceased's friends.
-- 11/04/2010 08:05:00 PM