Tuesday, May 02, 2006 :::
i'm not negative. i'm just critical.
i'm not pessimistic nor out to get others. i just think through things very carefully and say what it really means to me.
there are some thoughts that i've been having these few days as i read a few blogs.
people say he who accuses without leaving a name is a cowardly act. i beg to differ. i feel he who accuses without evidence is the coward. to me, you can say anything you want, send as much hate mail as you desire, without even the need to identify yourself, as long as the comments are backed by accurate and relevant facts. anything short qualifies itself to be disregarded without guilt. afterall, when you accuse, it's not about you but the facts, so you can keep your name to yourself.
people practise double-standardness all the time. when you judge others for their judgement of something, holier-than-thou has just committed the same sin as them. so he may not tolerate abnormality, and you don't tolerate him for feeling this way. that puts you in the same league of 'let-me-show-you-how-ignorant-you-really-are'. and me as well, as i write this, for not tolerating you for not tolerating him. hey i didnt say i'm objective, i'm just running thoughts through critically.
now, if i don't believe i'm at fault and you don't believe you are at fault, is it then his fault for first starting this judging thing? but it can't be, since his articulation of his feelings is backed by his actual feelings. i guess the way out of this circular trap is to just disregard comments that lead to nowhere. afterall, talking is easy, you just have to move your mouth a bit. that's why i never looked upon highly on people who just speak and speak. it makes their talk cheap.
there is no way the following claim can be true. 'Acknowledge and thank those people who dare to openly criticise you. These are your true friends in life.' by this account, bush and america must be 'best friends forever' with osama and the terrorists. whoever criticises you has more of his interests or his pleasure at heart than caring about you. if the criticism is sustainable, be the favoured prodigal son. if the critcism is groundless and a personal attack, don't kay xiao and act humble when you are bleeding inside. shoot that bastard back into his place. or, if you are strong enough, do as was suggested: disregard comments that lead to nowhere. talk is cheap.
i'm more than happy to recieve counter-arguments and hate mail. socrates once said the unexamined life is not worth having. i say, the unchallenged life is like a zeng-ed car. it looks pretty and can make turbo sounds, but hey, it is moving in the wrong direction all along.
|
::: posted by Richard Wan at 1:56 AM
