tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post8324934120496801565..comments2024-03-19T18:44:15.041+08:00Comments on Little Stories: Just A Little CartoonGilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-17772678019578791012007-03-31T08:47:00.000+08:002007-03-31T08:47:00.000+08:00Why are they different?Are they really different?T...Why are they different?<BR/><BR/><I>Are</I> they really different?<BR/><BR/>The cartoon has a point which you have perhaps missed. Left-handers were once perceived to be as unnatural, immoral & evil as homosexuals.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the real problem is with the <I>perception</I>, rather than left-handedness or homosexuality per se.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-1856900266375173982007-03-30T22:55:00.000+08:002007-03-30T22:55:00.000+08:00This cartoon although is good but it fails to esta...This cartoon although is good but it fails to establish the synonimity between being left-handed and being gay/lesbian. <BR/><BR/>They are totally different. <BR/><BR/>Most of your blogs make sense but not this one, regrettably.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-64094617750120464302007-03-27T16:42:00.000+08:002007-03-27T16:42:00.000+08:00There is something slightly inaccurate in your lin...There is something slightly inaccurate in your link. "Left is evil" is not native to Roman tradition.<BR/><BR/>Etymonline:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>1411, "prompted by malice or ill-will," from O.Fr. sinistre "contrary, unfavorable, to the left," from L. sinister "left, on the left side" (opposite of dexter), perhaps from base *sen- and meaning prop. "the slower or weaker hand" [Tucker], but Buck suggests it's a euphemism (see left), connected with the root of Skt. saniyan "more useful, more advantageous." <BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/>This was from Gk. influence, reflecting the early Gk. practice of facing north when observing omens; in <B>genuine Roman auspices, the left was favorable. </B></I>le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-68761571514993053302007-03-27T00:19:00.000+08:002007-03-27T00:19:00.000+08:00Hi Mr Wang,You've probably done quite a few interv...Hi Mr Wang,<BR/>You've probably done quite a few interviews with students about politics and blogging, but can I convince you to do one more for a 4th yr student? Questions won't take too much of your time, and your opinion would add great weight to my argument. Is there a way to get in touch with you? Alternatively, my email add is: agentmonday@gmail.com<BR/><BR/>Hope to hear from you soon.<BR/>Cheers<BR/>m.kAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-17101891773687380282007-03-26T17:50:00.000+08:002007-03-26T17:50:00.000+08:00This is sinister ......http://www.dpjs.co.uk/moon....This is sinister ......<BR/><BR/>http://www.dpjs.co.uk/moon.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-333410396924285372007-03-26T14:55:00.000+08:002007-03-26T14:55:00.000+08:00Oh yes, the classic ignorant chest-beating, Beijin...Oh yes, the classic ignorant chest-beating, Beijing-worshipping Chinese Singaporean frog-in-the-well who sees colour, race, and nationality in everything and imposes his cultural hegemony on the rest of the country. The Chinese Singaporean is also afraid to let Malays become fighter pilots because of his superficial conception of what nationality entails. <BR/><BR/>The Chinese Singaporean is also pursuing his own cultural self-destruction, wishing to destroy every single pocket of diversity in Singapore, eliminate his own dialects under the ostensible aim of "unity", while making xenophobic comments against other immigrants.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-45731105580186405622007-03-26T14:44:00.000+08:002007-03-26T14:44:00.000+08:00"Shame on le radical galoisien and akikonomu on wa..."Shame on le radical galoisien and akikonomu on wasting our time on a topic irrelevant to the NCCS statement."<BR/><BR/>I was only being technical, offering a side note. It was not my intention to derail the discussion.<BR/><BR/>It was akikonomu who jumped on me, and I had to defend my original point.<BR/><BR/>"Anyone claiming that churches have no right to interfere in the law"<BR/><BR/>It depends on what the hell you mean by "interfere". Stop intentionally being obscure by choosing imprecise terms, please.<BR/><BR/>Do you mean, bribing the government? Buying out votes? Secret liaisons with officials? <BR/><BR/>Or do you mean things like making a press statement?<BR/><BR/>"I didn't know Singapore got such law."<BR/><BR/>What the fuck, I never said anything like that. Please stop twisting my statements. It's actually because Singapore doesn't safeguard its civil liberties very well.<BR/><BR/>That the universal right exists and whether the government is willing to comply with it are two different things.<BR/><BR/>"You know I really want to see le radical galoisien slam the French for destroying the right to legislation."<BR/><BR/>You bloody fucker, you think I nationalist izzit? Please stop fucking slandering me and insulting me hor, by presuming what my persuasions are, or that I will be sympathetic to the law just because it was French. <BR/><BR/>There are some French laws I have the urge to strike down right now. My alias is only in French because 1) I am francophone 2) Galois was French 3) the name is a pun [something only math people might get] 4) Galois was my childhood hero, a republicanist and a mathematical prodigy who died at the age of 20 in a shootout. I am not some blind xenophile, as you would have of me.<BR/><BR/>Naturally, the church should not have the power to amend law, and thus would not have the power of prescription or proscription. But if you say, no right to lobby? That's a different concept.<BR/><BR/>"the law we must follow is from the US! Which has THE LAW that we must all follow!"<BR/><BR/>Chee bai fucker again ah? You think I'm US hegemonist izzit? Please you all, stop fucking misinterpreting my attitudes, OR PRESUMING WHAT MY POLITICAL PERSUASIONS ARE.<BR/><BR/>Please note the following things:<BR/><BR/>1. I am Singaporean.<BR/>2. I am not an emigrant.<BR/>3. I am well fucking aware of the fucking restrictions on civil rights that the fucking PAP places on the country.<BR/>4. I am not normally a vulgar person, but you take me to the limit, because I do not know how else to express my exasperation. <BR/>5. I cited the First Amendment only because I thought it a good example of a document that expressed an idea about a universal right. <BR/>6. It follows that it's not the fucking "US LAW THAT WE ALL MUST FOLLOW", contrary to your fucking misperception of what my views are, but I espouse the ideas of absolute and universal rights. These are laws which should be followed. Try the UN Declaration of Human Rights, for instance.<BR/>7. Sometimes, I am anti-American. Sometimes, I use American examples in my arguments. Maybe you should fucking realise that I fucking cite things on their own fucking merit, not because it's fucking American or anything like that, hor.<BR/>8. I am an antinationalist. Political borders mean very little to me. Culture is everything.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-89359934436277025422007-03-26T11:45:00.000+08:002007-03-26T11:45:00.000+08:00Wow. So le radical galoisien is the constitutional...Wow. So le radical galoisien is the constitutional expert on free speech and church-state separation? Anyone claiming that <B>churches have no right to interfere in the law</B> will be slammed as an ignorant, democracy-hating Singaporean who "don’t really understand the true meaning of having a right to legislation"?<BR/><BR/>Whoa. I didn't know Singapore got such law. But le radical galoisien is so smart, the law we must follow is from the US! Which has THE LAW that we must all follow!<BR/><BR/>"No church should prescribe, proscribe, or amend civil or common law" - 1905 law of France. You know I really want to see le radical galoisien slam the French for destroying the right to legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-76228772210515960712007-03-26T08:28:00.000+08:002007-03-26T08:28:00.000+08:00The entire discussion on free speech proves that t...The entire discussion on free speech proves that the internet is for threadjacking, not porn. Shame on le radical galoisien and akikonomu on wasting our time on a topic irrelevant to the NCCS statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-73398035590871769822007-03-26T08:26:00.000+08:002007-03-26T08:26:00.000+08:00Well, maybe he's just a Comrade**.**hint hintWell, maybe he's just a Comrade**.<BR/><BR/>**hint hintle radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-77405905915692827022007-03-26T02:07:00.000+08:002007-03-26T02:07:00.000+08:00Anonymous 10:21 PM : That's bisexual, you dumbass....Anonymous 10:21 PM : That's bisexual, you dumbass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-80194927944195091932007-03-25T22:21:00.000+08:002007-03-25T22:21:00.000+08:00Mr Wang is a gay! well, maybe he likes men and wom...Mr Wang is a gay! well, maybe he likes men and women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-9399967908595291772007-03-25T00:15:00.000+08:002007-03-25T00:15:00.000+08:00I agree with anonymous at March 24, 2007 3:02 PM:"...I agree with anonymous at March 24, 2007 3:02 PM:<BR/><BR/><I>"Xtians constitute a small minority, yet they feel they should decide how non-xtians should live. Govt seemingly very obliging in giving them opportunity to voice out."</I><BR/><BR/>Tyranny, hypocracy and double-standards are part of human nature, and thus found in people of any religon. This issue is that govt is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be favouring xtians in their legislation. Why not call for a referrendum if in doubt?<BR/><BR/>The root issue goes back to the uniquely Singaporean democracy where <I><B>freedom of speech is only a shadow (remember ISA)</B></I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-58061893754365393172007-03-24T17:18:00.000+08:002007-03-24T17:18:00.000+08:00The Christian-Muslim ratio in Singapore is about 1...The Christian-Muslim ratio in Singapore is about 1:1, by the way.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-29812878580617467732007-03-24T15:02:00.000+08:002007-03-24T15:02:00.000+08:00Xtians constitute a small minority, yet they feel ...Xtians constitute a small minority, yet they feel they should decide how non-xtians should live. Govt seemingly very obliging in giving them opportunity to voice out.<BR/><BR/>Tang Liang Hong merely suggested they have too much influence... we know what happened to him<BR/><BR/>LKY had to publicly intervene on behalf of a candidate during an election onver the "temple issues", candidate later became law minister right?<BR/><BR/>Man who complained to a church about members who constantly illegal park blocking his gate got hauled up by police.<BR/><BR/>That is just a glimse of the state of affairs, thats what the issue is about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-12789117935678301512007-03-23T17:09:00.000+08:002007-03-23T17:09:00.000+08:00Gentlemen. Please.to south paw of comment no. 2: y...Gentlemen. Please.<BR/><BR/>to south paw of comment no. 2: yes it was published in the ST on 14 May 2006 (a Sunday, so technically it was the Sunday Times). I remember it well.cognitivedissonancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07846004465914087481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-50619829031859079802007-03-23T15:32:00.000+08:002007-03-23T15:32:00.000+08:00HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!ooooh what a serious ...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!<BR/><BR/>ooooh what a serious discussion!<BR/>what great impact it has on society!<BR/><BR/>hahahaha!!!!<BR/><BR/>random voyeurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-48798375283215911512007-03-23T11:32:00.000+08:002007-03-23T11:32:00.000+08:00"Defending the use of ad hominem arguments because..."Defending the use of ad hominem arguments because they're just "supplementary arguments". "<BR/><BR/>Ad hominems are not fallacious if I do not rely on them to prove my point. I did not say, "akikonomu is such and such a person. Therefore, his points are invalid." That would have indeed been a fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are asking for the right to a civil discussion, which then has nothing to do with honesty or fallacy or whatever. It was you who breached civility first through your gross misrepresentation of my views, from which I took offence.<BR/><BR/>But, civility is not a required part of logic, nor rhetoric, nor honesty.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-36070092074018110012007-03-23T11:24:00.000+08:002007-03-23T11:24:00.000+08:00Almost as honest as Federalist Society members say...<I>Almost as honest as Federalist Society members saying that the interpretations of the constitutional law by liberals are bad citations. Bravo!</I><BR/><BR/>Bad citations because I did not contest the lack of an Establishment clause, or anything like that.<BR/><BR/>Besides a poor quote (as in, there are better quotes to choose from Jefferson) that starts with "I contemplate" makes me think you went fishing.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>"Defending the use of non sequiturs because it's "just an issue of semantics"</I><BR/><BR/>It was YawningBread who said that, not me. <BR/><BR/>My primary argument was that religious groups have the right to lobby. It has not deviated. Dishonest? Please, you're the one using non-sequitirs.<BR/><BR/><I>Using a red herring in "Do you not think it is justified to verbally attack the Singaporeans who still keep the PAP in power?" - an issue which has nothing to do with religion, the state, or even lobbying...</I><BR/><BR/>Why are you attacking the side notes? <BR/><BR/>You accused me of "castigating Singaporeans". I defended my criticisms. <BR/><BR/>You're the one that brought this point up. I am only responding to yours.<BR/><BR/>You are fishing for possible cracks while your fallacies irk me so much I can still recall them off the tp of my head.<BR/><BR/>It is an issue YOU RAISED. An argument naturally leads to side points. I responded to them: inevitably, it wasn't about lobbying, naturally, because it was you who made the comment criticising me for lambasting fellow Singaporeans in the first place!<BR/><BR/><I>That you justify your previous actions by something that happened way after your actions... is highly creative. I'm sure there's a formal name for that brand of dishonesty...<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Another fallacy of yours, because okay, there was one "post-action" idea on there, that of you calling me an emigrant, only because that was fresh on my mind and associated with the other things that inspired my anger.<BR/><BR/>That is not dishonesty, I was still angry at you for it, and I still attacked you. And it was the only fucking thing on the list. Please stop trivialising over points like this. This especially proves you are fishing.<BR/><BR/><I>"Pure obfuscation. We call someone a migrant worker - regardless of whether they are planning to stay for keeps, or seek citizenship of the country. Whether you're planning to be temporarily here; whether you're a US or Singapore citizen, is irrelevant to the fact that you are an emigrant."<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Quoi? Emigrants are permanent immigrants. My migration is definitely not permanent. I am not fleeing Singapore. I am not quitting.<BR/><BR/>I am a cross-immigrant perhaps. The Latin root would be inter- (between), not the near opposite ex- (out), as you imply with "emmigrant".<BR/><BR/>Why am I debating this? I consider my identity important and I do not appreciate you calling me an immigrant when I am not one.<BR/><BR/> <I><BR/>Shifting the goalpost.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not. You're the one who fucking has. My point, time and time again (along with admitting several caveats about the Singapore situation), has always been about lobbying rights. Throughout my comments - check them all if you will, they have always been arguing that the lobbyists have the right to lobby.<BR/><BR/>The very fact that you can assume that I am shifting the goalpost, that you can stuff words into my mouth, and think I am arguing something else other than <B> WHAT I HAVE BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG - THAT THERE EXISTS A RIGHT TO LOBBY BY ANY GROUP </B>, only shows your arrogance.<BR/><BR/>This is fucking ridiculous. Please stop slandering me by misconstruing my posts. (I won't sue you for it as much as be very upset.)<BR/><BR/><I>Poisoning the well of discourse, using a strawman argument.<BR/><BR/>The list goes on and on, galoisien. I believe this is not the first time you've been called out on your dishonest arguments before.</I><BR/><BR/>I believe this is not the first time I have dealt with your accusations, refuted them, while you refuse to acknowledge your gross errors in citing case law.<BR/><BR/>Say that part about the Supreme Court banning the Ten Commandments from public property again? What was the result? Let's hear you repeat it.<BR/><BR/>That was not a strawman, nor "poisoning the well of discourse". It was only an example, because you said that the groups who lobbied to criminalise lesbianism didn't have such a right to lobby.<BR/><BR/>It logically follows that if they don't have such a right to do so, legal action should be taken against them (if they don't have the right).<BR/><BR/>Now, the only potential problem I can see is that I gave broad examples of possible legal action, but that was not misleading vividness: it was to strike home the point that if you say that they have no rights to commit their actions, that legal action can be taken against them for their lobbying. I gave some examples of legal action.<BR/><BR/>Please tell me how that was a fallacy or a "straw man".<BR/><BR/>I was only trying to sound out your opinion. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I was aware that was what you weren't advocating. But it was a rhetorical measure I had to take in order to make sure you paid attention to the proper point - their rights, not their success (or lack thereof, again) at lobbying or whatever like you kept bringing up as irrelevant points.<BR/><BR/>These are minor fallacies that I made at worst, and acceptable forms of rhetoric. It is not a fallacy to try to sound out your opponent to try to get him to elaborate what he means by "they don't have the right". <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you have constantly avoided my primary point and constantly misrepresented my views, which are gross fallacies.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-76538089439265038312007-03-23T10:56:00.000+08:002007-03-23T10:56:00.000+08:00Furthermore i do not think the legislation gives t...<I>Furthermore i do not think the legislation gives two hoots about what NCCS thinks. Remember the casino issue? At the end of the day the government will make a decision based on their own criteria.</I><BR/><BR/>I remember the HOTA issue, where the long-dormant NCCS made its reappearance in public eye. The govt canvassed for "feedback" by religious groups - in reality, seeking their backing in a mutually legitimising exercise.<BR/><BR/>There's also the cloning and bioethics issue, again, NCCS and religious groups invited by the gvt to give these policies the moral backing the gvt needed. In return, of course, the religious groups get a state-sanctioned boost to their legitimacy.<BR/><BR/>The law on religious harmony? Again, religious groups invited by the gvt for feedback. A quid pro quo arrangement in disguise, really: gvt sanctions the primacy of relions, legally enacts protections for religious groups from public criticism, while these groups give their backing to even more cuts on free speech.<BR/><BR/>Each time a religious group-only panel has been convened to an official feedback session on some new law, <I>things happen</I>.<BR/><BR/>The only reason why things never happened on the Casino issue or the Da Vinci Code issue was because the religious groups were never invited to give their feedback.akikonomuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05750460516384317828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-92029996265452514292007-03-23T10:39:00.000+08:002007-03-23T10:39:00.000+08:00I can name some of your many fallacies, including ...<I>I can name some of your many fallacies, including red herrings, for one, as well as bad citations of case law</I><BR/><BR/>Almost as honest as Federalist Society members saying that the interpretations of the constitutional law by liberals are bad citations. Bravo!<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know what the hell you find dishonest in my rhetoric. I am not using convoluted logic.</I><BR/><BR/>Let's see... dishonest = convoluted?<BR/><BR/>Rather, dishonest is:<BR/><BR/>Defending the use of non sequiturs because it's "just an issue of semantics"<BR/><BR/>Defending the use of ad hominem arguments because they're just "supplementary arguments".<BR/><BR/>Using a red herring in "Do you not think it is justified to verbally attack the Singaporeans who still keep the PAP in power?" - an issue which has nothing to do with religion, the state, or even lobbying...<BR/><BR/><I>My personal attacks were only a supplement and came from the outburst of anger that you could even have the arrogance to presume that I am an emigrant, or that I support the lobbying, or that I think there's "nothing wrong" with the NCCS' actions.</I><BR/><BR/>That you justify your previous actions by something that happened way after your actions... is highly creative. I'm sure there's a formal name for that brand of dishonesty...<BR/><BR/><I>I am not an emigrant. I am a migrant, yes, but I only plan to be temporarily here.</I><BR/><BR/>Pure obfuscation. We call someone a migrant worker - regardless of whether they are planning to stay for keeps, or seek citizenship of the country. Whether you're planning to be temporarily here; whether you're a US or Singapore citizen, is irrelevant to the fact that you are an emigrant.<BR/><BR/><I>I am only defending issue of "lobbying rights"</I><BR/><BR/>Shifting the goalpost.<BR/><BR/><I>Why not? Are you saying their views should be censored? Should we throw church leaders in jail every time they make a suggestion to lawmakers? Torture them, perhaps? Why shouldn't religious groups get freedom of speech just like we do?</I><BR/><BR/>Poisoning the well of discourse, using a strawman argument.<BR/><BR/>The list goes on and on, galoisien. I believe this is not the first time you've been called out on your dishonest arguments before.akikonomuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05750460516384317828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-34297717465760757312007-03-23T10:17:00.000+08:002007-03-23T10:17:00.000+08:00After looking at this debate, i believe that many ...After looking at this debate, i believe that many of us are actually mixing up two issues which need to be look as separately for simplicities purpose.<BR/><BR/>1) The issue of Rights<BR/><BR/>2) The situation in Singapore<BR/><BR/>Just because the situation in Singapore is funny does not detract from the principle of rights. Furthermore i do not think the legislation gives two hoots about what NCCS thinks. Remember the casino issue? At the end of the day the government will make a decision based on their own criteria.Ned Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10038802487028038401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-44992101721926816822007-03-23T10:11:00.000+08:002007-03-23T10:11:00.000+08:00"I don't see how difficult it is to understand the...<I>"I don't see how difficult it is to understand the obvious different and yet you are the living example that some people really don't get it."</I><BR/><BR/>No, it is a common fallacy to believe that there is an "obvious difference". I must resist the urge to say that you might be the classic Singaporean example who can conveniently chop off part of the right just because they disagree in some ways in which it is used.<BR/><BR/>Lobbying is simply a more aggressive form of speech, aimed at the government.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>"keep their racism belief to themselves"</I><BR/><BR/>You see? You believe there is some distinction in rights, just because one chooses to "keep their beliefs to themselves" rather than profess them in public.<BR/><BR/>The law generally should not discriminate between the two, unless you get into things like harassment, disturbing public peace, etc. <BR/><BR/><I><BR/>"then that is just plain wrong and absurd."</I><BR/><BR/>I am disturbed why you think so. Their legislation may be wrong and absurd, but their right to lobby for such legislation is?<BR/><BR/>You choose to clamp down on them simply because they are louder and have a better chance of getting an audience?<BR/><BR/>What if the racist bloggers, instead of blogging, had used a megaphone in Speakers' Corner instead? (Actually, you can't use a megaphone in Speakers' Corner without permit, and existing laws will arrests the speaker for racial harmony laws anyway, but ideally speaking?)<BR/><BR/>Would you disagree with the right? Just because it has a larger audience?<BR/><BR/><I>"Moreover we already know that Sinkapore is not really the perfect example of a democratic nation nor a liberal society. We called ourselves an ‘inclusive’ society but with some twist here and there."</I><BR/><BR/>Please do not insult me by preaching to the choir. I have raised this point myself in the comments section of another post. I am well aware of this fact. I have explicitly pointed out the deficiencies of Singapore democracy in my posts.<BR/><BR/><I>but in Sinkapore, are you actually naïve enough to believe we had the same level of confidence that our legislation would be undergoing such ideal and fair process and that views from everyone, and not just the powerful or influential minority, would be considered in the making of decision? I would had thought that the legislation of the casino and recent budget debate (Not to mention the change in law that increase the punishment to anyone who ‘assault’ an MP) would had given you a rough idea of what our ‘debate’ is like in our 1st world world class parliament.<BR/><BR/>If you don’t even get why people here think this issue is a problem, there is no point for you to continue to argue what freedom and rights really is. You can continue to come out with any out of this world example or theory to back your points but we would still not be convinced. Because we know that you just don’t get it.</I><BR/><BR/>You have apparently missed my caveat "but"s, "of course"s, and other side notes I made concerning Singapore's situation that makes it less ideal. <BR/><BR/>I was only arguing that the right exists. I was not ignorant of Singapore's predicament.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>That's why I EXPLICITLY POINTED IT OUT.</B><BR/><BR/>Please read where I explicitly commented that Singapore's system may not be fair because MPs can pass the legislation without any worry about voter backlash, etc. <BR/><BR/>Please read the part where I suspected one might be referring to how groups like the NCCS may wield an unfair influence as a lobbying group over the Parliament.<BR/><BR/>I don't know, maybe you should read?<BR/><BR/>Please people, stop stuffing words into my mouth. In no way did I express confidence in the Singapore legislature. I attacked them myself.<BR/><BR/>And also, please fucking stop telling me about the standard of debate in the Singapore Parliament because you are <B>fucking preaching to the choir</B> AND I RAISED THAT POINT MYSELF.<BR/><BR/>Someone else helpfully highlighted an excerpt from my posts:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>"The PAP has taken this away so there is no debate in lawmaking: we can complain to the taxi driver, but lobbying is not a characteristic of the Singapore Parliament."</I><BR/><BR/>I acknowledged this point myself. I wrote it. Please stop acting like I am a frog in the well unaware of these issues WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE POINT MYSELF.<BR/><BR/>I also find it interesting that you're willing to go all the way to make the double dots on the "i" of "naive" through some alt-combination or other but not follow through with grammar. But this is a side note.<BR/><BR/><I>.You had been talking about how this is allowed in the congress and constitution in the US etc etec etc</I><BR/><BR/>This is not my fault. My intention was to quote the US First Amendment as a model just one time.<BR/><BR/>It was fucking akikonomu who brought the case law out (not to mention very flawed citations of case law that did not really support his argument at all), and I had to refute his fallacious arguments.<BR/><BR/>It really wasn't my intention to debate US law or cite it so dominantly.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-43509829961885529062007-03-23T09:42:00.000+08:002007-03-23T09:42:00.000+08:00"As an emigrant living away from Singapore"I am no...<I>"As an emigrant living away from Singapore"</I><BR/><BR/>I am not an emigrant. I am a migrant, yes, but I only plan to be temporarily here.<BR/><I><BR/>"Wonder why the "liberals" in this discussion are unanimously slamming you"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, you're the only idenfitiable person (other than the anonymouses, who I wish would give themselves a number at least) who have, actually.<BR/><BR/><I>Not only that, but you've taken it on yourself to put one dishonest argument after another, one personal attack after another, one rant castigating Singaporeans after another...</I><BR/><BR/>Please name the "dishonest" techniques I have used. I can name some of your many fallacies, including red herrings, for one, as well as bad citations of case law. I see you haven't even addressed these faults.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, you fling the stones of "dishonest" argument. I don't know what the hell you find dishonest in my rhetoric. I am not using convoluted logic. I was saying that the groups indeed have the right to lobby. My posts are a counterpoint to the first few posts at the top of the page, which challanged that right.<BR/><BR/>Also, if you had that example in mind, mrwang's posts make no mention of that, and plus all these people were giving examples of other religious groups hypothetically pressing for legislation that I would have a problem with, or examples like legalising racism, or people pressing for a reduction in women's rights.<BR/><BR/>Apparently I am supposed to be immediately appalled that groups have a right to propose such legislation. I can be appalled at the legislation. I am not appalled at the right.<BR/><BR/>"Imagine if the government didn't arrest racists!" <BR/><BR/>Well, I can imagine that actually. Are you saying that liberals should advocate the arrest of racists?<BR/><BR/>You are the one using a dishonest argument, because I was only continuing from the premises of the other posters:<BR/><BR/>"don't Christians and their groups also have the right to lobby and fight for their own viewpoints, beliefs, convictions, just as much as you and me and the lesbian/gay groups or the environmental activists or the etc etc"<BR/><BR/>The first posts were in response to this. They used several errors in the argument I was merely addressing. It was only a caveat. <BR/><BR/>1. Whether or not they have a right<BR/>2. Whether or not the legislation will pass<BR/>3. Whether or not I support such legislation<BR/><BR/>Are three different and distinct issues.<BR/><BR/>I say YOU used dishonest arguments by attempting to combine them together then use your filthy rhetoric to make it look like I supported the legislation and wanted them to pass. <BR/><BR/>Now mind you, all I wanted to say was, "uh uh uh! They do have a right to lobby!", make a pedantic correction (one must always be pedantic about such matters) and move on. But you had to come in and then dishonestly conflate the three different points of contention together to try to disprove my point.<BR/><BR/><I>You, however, are ignorant of all this. You may have fun observing all this unfold from a safe distance, pretending that it's an issue of free speech...</I><BR/><BR/>I did not say it was an issue of free speech. I was only saying that yes, there is the right to lobby.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Safe distance? Please, stop presuming my intentions as well as putting words into my mouth. Each presumption you made, especially concerning what my beliefs were, was like a kick in a stomach, and to mention sheer misrepresentation of my viewpoint. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you think "dishonest" argument because you think I am trying to make a point other than that what I am explicitly making. I am not.<BR/><BR/>My personal attacks were only a supplement and came from the outburst of anger that you could even have the arrogance to presume that I am an emigrant, or that I support the lobbying, or that I think there's "nothing wrong" with the NCCS' actions. These are gross misrepresentations on your part, and extremely hurtful, if not reflecting of the arrogance of your moral character. <BR/><BR/>Yes, I used ad hominems, but as supplementary elements, they are a small crime compared to the fallacies you used as the base of your argument.<BR/><BR/>I have not "castigated" Singaporeans more so than noted several faults that exist within the Singaporean psyche. Do you not think it is justified to verbally attack the Singaporeans who still keep the PAP in power?<BR/><BR/>I believe it will be easier to reform Singapore (though difficult in any case) than reform the US. I have refused US citizenship because I do not want to give up my Singaporean citizenship. (Note that people like you, akikonomu, are the type of people who would immediately presume from this statement that I am against dual citizenship.) <BR/><BR/>I am not a nationalist. Why do I attack my own nationality? Why should I refrain from noting our faults. I think that it is telling when Singaporeans would wish to disallow Muslims from lobbying against the consumption of pork.<BR/><BR/>Note that the anonymous rhetorical question in this case was: <BR/><BR/><BR/>"Would non-muslims be happy if a group of muslims petition the govt to ban the consumption of pork?"<BR/><BR/>There is no hint of "closed NCCS-PAP dialogue" here, all the more so with the word "petition". I am replying to people like this on the premises of the original argument.<BR/><BR/>(By the way I would just shake my head if such a thing happened, but I wouldn't advocate the government banning such lobbying.)<BR/><BR/>I also note that you have explicitly missed my caveats, which I offered as an option for perhaps what you are getting at.<BR/><BR/>The user "uniquely Singaporean democcracy" kindly extracted some excerpts for me. I made acknowledgemen that Singapore's case is not ideal because minority groups like the NCCS may hold unfair inside influence. I asked if this was true. I said that Singapore's case also had the problem of a government who could choose to listen to minority views without a referendum or fear of backlash from voters. This wouldn't affect the issue of "rights", since they are an ideal that should be fought for, no matter what the case, but I also didn't want to go too off-tangent on the issue.<BR/><BR/>I am only defending issue of "lobbying rights", raised by the first poster on this page. I defended them because I thought clarifying the semantics was important. It suspected it might not have had immediate links to the NCCS' case, hence I tried to tie it in with the current caveats.<BR/><BR/>In any case, you failed to reply to such observations, nor did you pick them up, or acknowledge that was your stance. <BR/><BR/>I suspect that you are simply an oppurtunist. <BR/><BR/>YawningBread has picked up the main point of my argument (although he wonders about its significance - it is true that it was more of clarifiying what a "right" entailed). Note that I do not contest his post.<BR/><BR/>Last week a former schoolmate died while serving in Iraq, and do you know who turned up at the funeral? A bunch of anti-gay activists, who go from military funeral to military funeral in the state to curse each soldier's death (or say it was deserved), saying it is the punishment for the military's tolerance of homosexuals. We students nearly felt like rioting into their bloody "protest". Please don't think I am alien from the matter.<BR/><BR/><I>You must also be blind or totally clueless to how it works here. This is not america. Speak against the fundies - hope you arent one -and you can likely end up in jail, thats the power they possess.</I><BR/><BR/>O RLY?<BR/><BR/>People like CSJ get arrested; mrbrown faced only a termination of his column. I am aware of the constraints on freedom of speech as you all are, for goodness sake. The main constraint is the control of the press, not fear of arrest (which exists in a minute degree) .<BR/><BR/>I am not totally clueless, and I have had a run-in with the Singaporan authorities over the issue of speech. <BR/><BR/>It's ironic, this prejudice issue. Just because I am overseas does not mean anything, it does not make me less Singaporean, and my experiences are quite recent. Akikonomu, it's amazing how you can go on about ignorance, considering all the gross mistakes you made interpreting and citing case law.le radical galoisienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14684821442296479803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4405345292513335071.post-11646157944117831392007-03-23T08:01:00.000+08:002007-03-23T08:01:00.000+08:00You are really confused with what is the right to ...You are really confused with what is the right to freedom and what is abusing your right to freedom to enforce your belief on others. I don't see how difficult it is to understand the obvious different and yet you are the living example that some people really don't get it.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you had missed my point and making assumption that I support the arrest of racist blogger or whatever just because I think lobby for racism for everyone is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Even though I don’t agree with racism, and find them to be one of the worst kind of human behavior in this civilized world, but if people choose to keep their racism belief to themselves or on their own blog, I might not agree with their belief but I also won’t ask for the law to go after them either. However if this group of people start to claim how it is their right to free speech and how it is their right to lobby for racism be applied to every Sinkaporeans through legalization, then that is just plain wrong and absurd.<BR/><BR/>Moreover we already know that Sinkapore is not really the perfect example of a democratic nation nor a liberal society. We called ourselves an ‘inclusive’ society but with some twist here and there. And I don’t think it is a secret that quite a number of the representative in the parliament, as well as influential elites in the society, are follower of a particular religion. There is no 100% guarantee that they won’t be influenced by their own faith when considering such nature of legislation.<BR/><BR/>Of cause, in an ideal world of justice and equality the people might had the confidence that whatever silly legislation that had been lobbied by any religion or activists group, it would had been thoroughly and thoughtfully debated and counteracted by the opinions from the public, activists from all camps and also their legislative body. There should be consultation and there should be transparency regarding any decision making in legislation.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, ideally we should had a more liberal media (though no necessary unbiased) to cover and present the views of both side. If we could achieve all these, then perhaps it would not be necessary for us to react overall negatively regarding such ‘right’ to petition by those religious body.<BR/><BR/>You had been talking about how this is allowed in the congress and constitution in the US etc etec etc, but in Sinkapore, are you actually naïve enough to believe we had the same level of confidence that our legislation would be undergoing such ideal and fair process and that views from everyone, and not just the powerful or influential minority, would be considered in the making of decision? I would had thought that the legislation of the casino and recent budget debate (Not to mention the change in law that increase the punishment to anyone who ‘assault’ an MP) would had given you a rough idea of what our ‘debate’ is like in our 1st world world class parliament.<BR/><BR/>If you don’t even get why people here think this issue is a problem, there is no point for you to continue to argue what freedom and rights really is. You can continue to come out with any out of this world example or theory to back your points but we would still not be convinced. Because we know that you just don’t get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com