i received a very large injection of funds last night.

i am a very happy man

fucked up day,holding a fucked up knife, we're all fucked up in this fucked up life

I was thinking about a conversation I had with angela awhile back

She told me smoking was against God’s will.

I was rather fascinated about this proposition, so I asked why.

“because God gave dominion to Man over all things that moveth on the Earth. But when you are addicted to smoking, you are operating against God’s will, since your life is controlled by a plant”

it seems to be an example of very cogent deductive reasoning.

But what if the addiction is question is not to a taboo substance, but, say, to food? We all need to eat, doesn’t that mean our lives are controlled by animals or plants (especially in the case of vegans and the like)

Perhaps an easy answer to raise is pure necessity. Everyone needs to eat to live.

Plus it is not an addiction in the strict sense, it is simply a need.

a few points

1.some smokers may need to smoke to live, indeed there are some who have very severe withdrawal symptoms. But they won’t die from not smoking. Herein lies a possible answer

2.smoking is picked up voluntarily. Eating is something we all biologically need to do from the moment we are born. Even if someone forces you to smoke, you can quit, whereas you can’t simply obviate the need to eat.

But all in all God seems to have created a paradox – we have dominion over everything here. but we depend on them for survival

We appropriate animals and suchlike to feed ourselves. So in a sense, they have dominion over us. If there were no animals nor plants, I doubt we could survive. I wouldn’t want to even if science allowed it

So, a priori, shouldn’t we be able to appropriate tobacco and nicotine and stuff so that we can derive pleasure from smoking it?

Herein lies the third possible answer
3. eating is a necessity, smoking is a pleasure.

but God seems to have forebade certain pleasures, yet allowed others. for example, sex is allowed if you are married. other pleasures include gastronomical cuisine, splendid palaces and so on and so forth.

nothing in the bible explicitly prohibits smoking, so why is it that this pleasure is disallowed?

it harms others? this cannot be correct. if i was a hermit and smoking my life away, im sure God would still grief for me.

it boils down to the fact that in another sense, plants and the suchlike have dominion over us.

I completely agree with angela that smoking is probably going against His Will. My question is why. The 3 possible answers I have provided seem inadequate to me. Indeed, I think the line between smoking, eating and other pleasures is fine indeed.

One of the defining characteristics of contemporary society is the inability to differentiate our needs from our wants.

i would like to develop this argument further, in an attempt to find an answer for myself, but promissory estoppel is calling out to me.

Ta.

---------------------------------------------

p.s. cardinal ratzinger, now more commonly known as pope Benedict the sixteenth, looks abit macabre, no? but its ok. he opposes homosexuality with a passion. hoorah!

It suddenly occurred to me that if I was a scholar (God forbid) people who come across my blog and see the title and my posts would probably conclude that I am addicted to violence and sex and complain to my scholarship board.

To this I reply:

I AM.

So sue me.

angela - thanks for the inspiration =)

This is to janet and juliet or whatever.

Get a life.

Ok. He made racist comments. I hate racists too. Seriously. I would hit him if I saw him just on principle.

But you all have no damn life to crack his password and compile his posts and shit. And then send them to PSC. Maliciously.

Again, get a life.

Perhaps what you need is sex. Rather than jerking yourself off at home with a jug of peanut butter and wrapping yourself with used bandages you stole from the local hospital and thinking how good it feels.

And when the novelty wears off YOU HACK INTO SOMEONE’S PRIVATE BLOG AND REPORT HIM.

Tool.

How would you like it if someone broke into your house and exposed to the world your peanut butter and bandage fantasies.

Fuck off. Tards.

Im sorry readers I have to continue.

If you have kids, you re probably doing this cuz your kids were born as retarded as you.

Struggled to pass math? Failed physics? Couldn’t read a piece of demanding literature if his life depended on it? Sex depraved just like you? Oh. Maybe he/she is 18 but still doesn’t know what sex is.

“mummy! I cant understand why does 1+1=2.”

“its ok daughter. We’d have fun with the peanut butter. Look which flavour I picked up today”

fuck off. And it doesn’t matter whether you do have kids. Take this statement as normative.

I wonder. Do fucked up people know they are fucked up?

when people like janet or juliet play around with peanut butter or maliciously report others do they think to themselves
"oh gee. this is pretty weird. normal people wouldnt do this. i must be really fucked up"

I feel insecure just writing this post. This intrusion of privacy has been completely uncalled for and the reaction to it grossly disproportionate. Singapore should incorporate the ECHR.

and no, i am not a scholar. and if you want to sue me in libel, fuck off.

---------------------------------------------

since ma darling jiajia loves posting lyrics, i thought i might jump on the bandwagon.

rather quixotic song to me, but it teaches you to look at the other side of the coin. i kinda like it

BOY NAMED SUE – Johnny Cash

My daddy left home when I was three,
And he didn't leave much to Ma and me...
Just this old guitar and an empty bottle of booze.
Now, I don't blame him cause he run and hid,
But the meanest thing that he ever did
Was before he left, he went and named me 'Sue'.

Well, he must o' thought that is was quite a joke,
And it got a lot of laughs from a' lots of folk.
It seems I had to fight my whole life through.
Some gal would giggle and I'd get red,
And some guy'd laugh and I'd bust his head.
I tell ya, life ain't easy for a boy named 'Sue'.

Well, I grew up quick and I grew up mean,
My fist got hard and my wits got keen.
I'd roam from town to town to hide my shame.
But I made me a vow to the moon and stars
That I'd search the honky-tonks and bars,
And kill that man that give me that awful name.

Well, it was Gatlinburg in mid-July
And I just hit town, and my throat was dry.
I thought I'd stop and have myself a brew.
At an old saloon on a street of mud,
There at a table, dealing stud,
Sat the dirty, mangy dog that named me 'Sue'.

Well, I knew that snake was my own sweet dad
From a worn-out picture that my mother'd had,
And I knew that scar on his cheek and his evil eye.
He was big and bent and gray and old,
And I looked at him and my blood ran cold,
And I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do! Now you gonna die!"

Well, I hit him hard right between the eyes,
And he went down, but, to my surprise,
He come up with a knife and cut off a piece of my ear.
But I busted a chair right across his teeth
And we crashed through the wall and into the street
Kicking and a' gouging in the mud and the blood and the beer.

I tell ya, I've fought tougher men,
But I really can't remember when,
He kicked like a mule and he bit like a crocodile.
I heard him laugh and then I heard him cuss,
He went for his gun and I pulled mine first,
He stood there lookin' at me and I saw him smile.

And he said: "Son, this world is rough,
And if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough,
And I know I wouldn't be there to help ya along.
So I give ya that name and I said good-bye.
I knew you'd have to get tough or die,
And it's that name that helped to make you strong."

He said: "Now you just fought one hell of a fight,
And I know you hate me, and you got the right
To kill me now, and I wouldn't blame you if you do.
But ya ought to thank me, before I die,
For the gravel in ya guts and the spit in ya eye
Cause I'm the son-of-a-bitch that named you 'Sue'."

I got all choked up and I threw down my gun
And I called him my pa, and he called me his son,
And I come away with a different point of view.
And I think about him, now and then,
Every time I try and every time I win,
And if I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him
Bill or George! Anything but sue! I still hate that name!

interesting, if irreverant

got this in an email.

i must say, im rather offended about the attack on the Office of the Pope, but on objective critique, it is interesting nonetheless. a well written piece. oozing creativity

---------------------------------------------------

Late Night Lit Crit and Stoned Close Reading Nonsense with your host Disembodied Announcer
[black screen, lights come up on black tiled stage with black curtains. at the center of the stage are a Bishop's Hat, a rubber chicken, and a German translation of Jacques Derrida's "De la Grammatologie"

Disembodied Announcer: Welcome to the 21st century ladies and gentleman, with the selection of our new Papa Pomo Pope Benedict 16![lukewarm applause]Disembodied Announcer: That's right folks, it's a new century now as The Holy Mother Church of Rome moves into her THIRD MILLENIUM! And doesn't she look great folks, let's give her a big hand

[mild applause, someone shouts "show us your tits"]

Disembodied Announcer: Now I know a lot of you are thinking, what the hell is going on? The Catholic Church is now being run by an ex-Hitlerjugend who used to blow up Allied airplanes for fun. This is not cool man! Fuck this guy.I would like to point out, however, that there is some sign of hope. The new pope, in the grand tradition of all popes and certain egomaniacal rockstars, has taken a new Nom du Papa for himself that I think sheds light on what promises to be a glorious and liberal reign.

[sounds of chairs squeaking, people filing out the back.]

Disembodied Announcer: This is, of course, Pope Benedict Sixteen we're talking about, and I think the clue to his reign as Holy Father is contained in that name. Of course, in Latin, Benedict just means "Good Word," which is a little arrogant considering that Christian theology holds that Jesus Christ was "the word made flesh" so it's a little bit like naming yourself after God.

[Assorted boos. There is a sneeze. a different someone yells "show us your tits.]

Disembodied Announcer: BUT! Take a closer look: "Benedict The Sixteenth" has a certain symmetry and consonance to it as an Utterance in English, so I think this may be a clue from the erstwhile Cardinal Ratzinger that we need to look closer. Look closer and what do we find? We find that Benedict can be deconstructed as Been a Dick in English, and I think that this may be an acknowledgement on the part of the Holy Father that he has in fact "been a dick" in the past, and that he will be leaving that dickdom in the past as he assumes his new mantle. So what do you think?

[the silence of an empty room][someone yells "show us your tits!"][fade to black]

i have this overwhelming urge to hit someone. or something

its eating me alive

eloquence and the law of the excluded middle

The law of the excluded middle started out as:

No 2 contrasting propositions can be true. One of them is false and there is no third or middle judgment

Hegel qualified this subsequently, stating that

No 2 contrasting propositions can be true if one of them has sufficient ground (emphasis mine). One of them is false and there is no third or middle judgment.

I came to realise last night that his qualification was, in strict logic terms, superfluous. A proposition (in logic, as opposed to in layman English) must have sufficient ground. A proposition must be what lawyers might call “sufficient in itself” or “legally perfect”. But Hegel was dealing primarily with psychology in explaining philosophy, perhaps that is why he was motivated to add the qualification so as to bring it to the attention of the uninititated

Consider the following propositions (which I was discussing with shing last night):

A is more eloquent than B.
B is more eloquent than A.

Shing said, correctly, that on the face both of this are true. That is because “eloquence” has many connotations. For example, it could be said that Winston Churchill was an eloquent speaker. This is understood to have its meaning in the context of the language of the speaker (English). Similiarly, no one would dispute the notion that Jiang Jieshi was an eloquent Chinese speaker.

So if I say that Winston Churchill more eloquent than Jiang Jieshi, this is true regarding in English.
If she says Jiang is more eloquent than Churchill in Chinese, that is true regarding Chinese.

So shing said, the law would only hold if we qualify that statement. Which by implication means the law doesn’t hold if we don’t.

This is correct on the surface.

But it needn’t be. This is because the propositions themselves are not really propositions at all – they undoubtedly do not pass the Hegelian “sufficient grounds” test.

However, one can argue that the “sufficient grounds” test is passed by impliedly, or constructively. Generally people understand eloquence to be measured by the medium of conveyance of that eloquence i.e. the language spoken by the speaker.

Which means the above propositions aren’t really contrasting in that sense. They are simply propositions made in different contexts. Without providing that context i.e. qualifying the statement (explicitly or impliedly) they are not really propositions at all.

Tada! The law still holds. wicked

MY BLOG IS NOT SHOWING UP ON MY BLOODY COMPUTER

I was rudely awakened by my flatmate’s sister mary having to little patience to wait 5 seconds for her sister, who was walking behind her, to open the door. So she banged my door as if some psycho murderer was after her.

Some parts of this post MAY be a tad esoteric. Then again, maybe not. And it doesn’t NECESSARILY (but may) reflect some of my genuine attitudes toward certain aspects of life in general.

And in the period of “awakening”, I weaved a perfectly plausible and entirely awesome scenario.

I think Law Lords have interesting surnames.
Lord Denning
Lord Templeman
Lord Scarman
Lord Hoffman (all 3 perhaps trying to instill some manhood into their ailing testosterone)
Lord Scott (that’s a name and not a surname in my book =) )
Lord Rodger (same as above)
Lord Bingham

You get my drift. Or maybe you don’t. doesn’t matter.

And as angela said, they get a kick from being respectful to each other.

“my noble and learned friend suggests that…”
“I find myself entirely in agreement with the opinion of my noble and learned friend”

“I don’t care if my noble and learned friend has a man shuving it up his arse, he is still my noble and learned friend”

So, these people write judgments varying in length. The lead judgment in each case is usually at least 2 pages, and can run up to 300 at times. They elucidate the common law, so to speak.

So in my scenario, all these Law Lords were relegated to Little Lords. They are little playdough thingies running around a room. About 10cm in height. And then there is a solitary Law Lord – Lord Lang of Langton Close- the Recondite One himself.

Now these Little Lords know nothing about morality and life, and are entirely inconsiderate to students. So the Law Lord struggles with himself to teach them notions of consideration (pun intended) and public policy (another pun intended).

“Now my little ones, you shan’t write long-winded judgments now k? grow up and be good people. Do good to the student community and not pile upon them excesses of information ok? And picturesque phrases such as “commingle the scared with the profane” or “anathema to the rule of law” or “judges and their brushes have been painting the picture of the common law since time immemorial” have no place in a judgment.”

-blank look-

aw shit. This is gonna take a long time.

“oh Recondite One. Please enlighten us”

“ok…let’s start with something simple. You noble and learned people are neither noble nor learned, so dispose with that phrase”

the next thing I knew, the Little Lords were engaged in some mass masturbational orgy using the “noble and learned friend” thingy as some kinda sick turn-on sex phrase.

A few advantages of having Yours Truly as the One and Only Law Lord

I will have no noble and learned friends.

I wouldn’t write judgments exceeding a page in length simply because I don’t know enough about the law.

I would decide everything in fairness. For example, if some guy’s wife fucked some other guy, I would deny her any form of alimony just on principle. And I would throw the other guy in jail and probably get some niggas to bust his ass with a blowtorch.

I would place all gays in some weird foster home establishment so they can be together, in an extremely closely BOUND community, outside of the public view.

If someone dug a pit and filled it with spikes and nasty things, and you fell into it, I would punish him for trespass to the person, as opposed to bloody negligence. I couldn’t care less about his intent as to whether he was trying to trap an animal or something else. He is probably a liar anyway.

I would make alcohol allowed to any person of any age. Same goes for porn and cigarettes and drugs and everything else fun.

I will build a PlayBoy Mansion right in the heart of London (Lewis you hear me?)

I will publicly shame girls who are mean to guys who pass them a bouquet of roses in front of everyone in the lecturer theatre, especially if she threw the flowers in the bin once she walked out of class.

And so on and so forth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

jiejie's moments (its just so her)

Shiying: “my friend’s boyfriend is damn weird”

Me “why whats wrong with him”

Shiying: “she says he has skeletons in his cupboard. I was like OHMAGAWD. Really ?!?!”

Haha. she thought he had a literal skeleton is his cupboard. Laugh it off people. I was pretty amused.

//////////////////////////////

Shiying "is maggies surname Foo?"

yan "as long as ive known her surname's been quek, i dont know her surname before she got married tho"

Shiying "oh. cuz in her her friendster she put maggiefoo. foo as in F-U-L-L"

.................................................

jie really ure such a lovable fool =)

A and B have undoubtedly made positive influences on me. But in the spirit of negativity that seems to pervade every area of my life right now, I shall say something negative about them. I hope you guys re not angry. But I think you would be. Plus some bitching about me. Sigh. Sorry.

One thing about them (just like me) is that they do not fancy verbal arguments, in the sense that they just have an aversion to debate. Or at least that’s what I interpret it as. I do too, for the reason that without an arbitrator there is no point in debating, since it would end up invariably as a stalemate (unless one knows when to concede, which is a rarity in my experience). That is all fine. The next thing is, when a point of debate presents itself, one would first state her case, then I will state mine. But we both don’t like to debate. So you know what one (not me) would conclude?

“you always think you are right. Always have a propensity to argue”

a logical fallacy in its quintessential from. If anyone doesn’t know the technical usage of a logical fallacy just see the entry I made about it.

An example (and the rest of the post would draw from this example alone)

Yan “yet another platitudinal comment”

A “no its platitudinous. It must be platitudinous something and something platitudinal”

So essentially what A is trying to say is that the conjugation of an adjective used is completely determined by its position in relation to the noun, or to put it another way, the inflection of an adjective is subsumed within its position in the sentence.

This is obviously wrong. ( I don’t know of anyone who would support their position in a technical sense, please feel free to inform me if you do)

In fact I have 2 theories why they think this way
Either – “it sounds right”
Or
“my teacher taught me”

But A and B (who was told about the argument) both agreed they were right. And I was insistent.

Tada.

Conclusion:
“you always think you are right. Always have a propensity to argue. Whatever makes you happy yan”

ah can anyone smell it? Logical fallacy number 2: one incident in which I think im right (leaving aside the fact that I am) doesn’t equate to “always”. Whilst I MIGHT think im always right, that cannot be derived from the first part of the argument.

Firstly I do not think im always right – I make a point to concede my argument when its obviously flawed. Ask any of the lawyers.

And thinking im always right is not the same as defending a position in an objective sense. It that were the case, they might as well chastise every single academic in the world, since all of them have written books defending their argument in light of criticism by others. See the ongoing debate about the horizontality of the HRA between Wade and Buxton LJ for instance. Or the debate about the elasticity of the rule of law between Jowell and Craig and Raz. Or about the binding effect of the courts to interpret the common law in light of the Convention between Hunt and Phillipson and so on and so on.

Sorry A and B. I do miss you guys. I don’t know why but this thingy was bothering all night (yes jiejie I couldn’t sleep after talking to you sigh) so I had to let it out. I wanted to email both of you before I posted it but I was too lazy. Believe me, I wouldn’t have posted it if it weren’t bothering me so much.

fuck la

i wanted to get a headstart by starting revision early

i put in a pathetic amount of work everyday

people put in what i do in 3days in a single day

im fucked

and im sick. fever. c'est la vie

its 5am in the morning and im not one bit sleepy. which is only natural since i slept the whole afternoon away. tomorrow i shall force myself up early and not nap at all. at the cost of a whole day's work, i shall correct my body clock

I had this really weird conversation with this really weird girl who msged me on friendster. Apparently I knew her way back in sec3, when I was still trying to be hardcore and screwing up my life. Incidentally, I vaguely recall knowing this girl. Vaguely. Apparently (again) a friend of hers whom I am currently in contact with, whose identity she refused to disclose, told her that I have matured and blahblahblah.

SO SHE WANTED TO RE-ESTABLISH CONTACT

Get a life.

Tool.

Being the tactful and gentlemanly guy I am, I simply told her I wasn’t gonna return to Singapore for sometime, so there wasn’t a point. She said she didn’t mind corresponding over email or msn, since she had also heard that I have become very charming (hello?! I was ALWAYS charming) and that I am DIFFERENT from the rest of the world – my values are generally incongruent with general society, sometimes even antithetical to it, but with justification, and she finds this “fascinating”.

So, with a click on my mouse, I removed her from my life. Forever. Not that she ever was a substantial part of it, but yea, u get my drift.

But I thought about what she said about distinguishing myself. I have always made an effort to.

And that thinking brought me back to the memories of the Joyce(s) getting all worked up about “our lives being nothing but a mimicry” blahblahblah. Supposedly Oscar Wilde wrote that. I am not aware that he did, and even if he did, he was just a dilettante in that field. I remember there was this guy who occupied a certain Chair at an Ivy League university (I think it was David Lewis, but don’t quote me on that) who once investigated the (im)possibility of one having thoughts which haven’t been thought about before, either in contemporaneous or historical times. Now this guy is the expert. Move aside Wilde. In any case, he predicated his investigation on an infinite mathematical possibilia and set theory, which I obviously don’t understand completely, but the fact is I agree. Yes I know im a dilettante too, but at least I don’t bloody write a poem which is made known to the world about it!

So does it mean anything to say that one is “different”? Difference is merely an act of distinguishment, it doesn’t mean that you are one-of-a-kind. I think a more snappy word is required for that. Incidentally, this is analogous with the need for a snappier name being needed for the “rule in Wilkinson v Downton”, or “the rule in Saundiers v Vautier”. Back to the point – “special” might also be complimentary, but it doesn’t connote the same thing, neither does “unique”.

My point is that, when I tell you that you are unique, different or whatever, that doesn’t mean you are one-of-a-kind.

ONLY I AM. Hee.

Nah, kidding.

Hmmm, I don’t know the point of this post. Ohwell. Hope it wasn’t too jarring for your eyes.

----------------------------------------------
Back to adverse possession. I actually find this topic quite interesting! Woot. Factual possession and animus possidendi and shit. Not bad, not bad.

----------------------------------------------
Ah! Which reminds me. Ok, i know this post has been too long.

Bugger off if you are lazy to continue.

Shing jiejie smsed me about an hour ago to say if she had the recurrence of the thought as to whether she made the right choice in choosing econs and a full scholarship as opposed to doing medicine in NUS, which had always been her ambition.

I have those recurrence thoughts and laments and regrets very frequently too.

But I think “regret” is a sterile disposition of the mind unlikely to do any good, and hence one should not bother to regret. But this is subject to one qualification – that before undertaking a decision, one must have properly and adequately considered it.

This is because if you had given due consideration to a decision, your decision seemed right to you AT THAT POINT IN TIME. So, if you subsequently realised that it was a wrong choice, that is completely fine. But there is no point hampering your mind and life with notions of “regret”, in the sense that you say “shit, shouldve done this, that or the other”.

As I always say “shouldve, could’ve, would’ve mate”

English sayings such as

“don’t cry over spilt milk”
and
“water under the bridge”

seem to give vent to my thoughts, but my point is not that since a decision has been undertaken, there is no point in reconsidering it since you have no recourse. My point is that regretting a decision only serves a negative (no positive) purpose- as a logical process it has no utility- this is independent of the cold, hard fact that you cannot rectify your mistake. hence, even if you could change the situation, dont regret it, just change it! after due consideration (again) of course.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, the King has left the building.