Wow, it's been a looooong time since I actually wrote one whole blog against someone (I think once was on the people making fun of JK, and the other was on Mike. Yeah, that was really long ago >_>)
Who is it this time? *Antidrumroll* Juzzie. >_>
I've always had a small issue with the way he argues but not much of anything else. On GEPpers Creepers, he just came off as a really insensitive fella until he asked me why I was 'so against him' until I told him there were others 'against him' as well, and it was his fault to begin with. I thought that was fine and over with, he's just not so aware of the way he says things.
Some others have btw complained to me in regards to him; some saying that he's just damn -_- and some saying that he's overreligious and some saying he's a damn hypocrite. For the most of it I guess I could agree with them. >_>
Then there was the time where he was talking about his being against things like Pokemon and FF, because they were - well, I forgot the exact reason, but either it was satanic or non-christian like (Mind you they're different). So I said that "Well, at least things like Mario and Tetris can't possibly be satanic." he replied with "How'd you know".
I asked him then whether perfect Christianity can be achieved by the complete elimination of fantasy, and if I remember correctly he said something along the lines of "No, it need not". UHH. Someone please point out something less satanic/unchristianlike than Mario and Tetris apart from Pong. Seriously, I'm stumped here.
(I suppose someone could make a case of Narnia here, but then I'm referring to games here. Note: fantasy)
Then there came 2006. I get along with him perfectly fine. He occasionally shouts "Hey, watch your words" when Mong says something like "They don't give a shit" or "Bloody humjis" etc etc etc. Agreeable, Mong's saying it unnecessarily.
He scolds me once for playing around with teh dog in class (Ferdquek's one, not Kev's Doglefox) and tells me "If the leader is like this then how does he expect the others to listen?" o_O I don't recall asking them to stop playing around with teh dog, unless they were throwing it at the projector screen to get the string attached to the screen down (A number of fellas so love to swing it up till it coils around either the screen or the light above, and Samteo and Sengwei so love to throw the dog to try and get it down. Darrell too)
So yeah, he's scolding me for something I'm not against. o_O I could understand if he scolded me for letting this go on in class, but dude he has to pay attention before accusing o_O
Then came today. >_>
Mr. Moghan Das conducts his lesson as per normal during IHS Tutorial, and we start discussing on how the pros and cons of community living apply to Singapore. I can't remember why but I made a comment that Lee Kuan Yew is screwed up. Then Juzzie suddenly snapped back at me with "Don't use such language". I reply to him with "I will say what I want if I can justify my statement." he just gives me that look, and goes back to teh lesson. Me eesh teh pissedz0rz.
I have always been a very insensitive person in the sense that I only tend to say what I feel (and if anyone questions I make my case) disregarding the feelings of the receiving end. But in the end, I can always make a case for my statement (Whether the other person can make a better one is irrelevent, though I will say that IMO that's not too common with a few exceptions. Gid argues well except our arguments reduce to a I-rock-u-suck battle far too quickly for much appreciation. Uhh Mike argues well but he can't do it in real life sadly. HW and JK argue very uhh uniquely. Jarrel Seah argues well if he doesn't divert the topic. Not many others I argue with so commonly >_>)
Juzzie tells me not to use such language yet I can perfectly justify my stand that he is indeed somewhat screwed up. Hello, I am darn entitled to my opinion particularly if I can justify it with my reasons. Unlike Mr. Juzzie who dislikes arguing because "it doesn't progress anywhere" AU CONTRAIRE my friend; an argument goes nowhere if:
1. Neither arguer is smart enough to counterargue the other person's argument thus voiding it, instead spamming his own argument ad nauseum.
2. Either arguer uses teh "ZOMG SUM1 OF HAIYA PAWAA SED SO SO IM RITE UR WRONG LAWL" trend of argument or even worse, bringing legality, sedition, and religion into the argument (Only applies if any of the 3 is irrelevent to the argument)
3. Either arguer completely disregards the other person's argument with teh "UR ARGUMENT SUX UR EVIDENZ SUX U SUX LAWL I R0X" trend of argument.
4. Either arguer cannot justify his arguments yet continuously sticks to his point of view.
Maybe he thinks that inconclusive arguments (Which happen oh-so-often) don't progress. The sadness if that is true. Good inconclusive arguments are ever so enlightening, but that's digressing. The point is that Juzzie doesn't like arguing, but that's not our fault, it's his for being so darn incompetent at it. Knowing what you're arguing about can help, Juz =)
He denies me the word "screwed up" in my argument that LKY is screwed up, yet he can easily say that "Professional gamers are the only people I can think of who don't contribute to society" AND YOU WATCH SOCCER DAMNIT the utter hypocrisy. I prove him wrong (With ease too) and he says "Thanks but I'll stick with my opinion" No wonder arguments with him go nowhere. >_>
I'm sorry, I've done ranting about him for now; he's actually a darn normal fella outside of this very annoying problem of his. Well, can't say I'm better than him XD
No comments:
Post a Comment