Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Like and dislike

I think I wrote something about this a long time ago. By some accident I came to revisit this subject again today and felt like writing about it again.

People sometimes ask, why don't you like this person?

and sometimes the most honest answer people whom the question was being directed to can come up with is just because. Which is to say for no particular reason at all.

That would sound like some petty irrational stereotyping but if you think about it, it also isn't entirely without its own merit. Suppose I ask you why don't you like this person and you then reply because he talks too much, I can ask you again do you have friends you're fond of who talks too much too? Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. I'd say the odds are that you do (after all talking too much isn't some malicious trait you would condemn for all eternity like say having a murderous intent or fondness for stealing).

And when you do, why is it that you can like your friend but not this person even though both of them have the unfortunate habit of talking too much? Is it because that habit isn't the only reason you don't like him? I mean after all the same things said by a different person can have a different effect on you, right? That there is something else other than the things said that is bothering you.

And if him talking too much isn't the only reason you don't like him, it follows that there must be other reasons why you don't like him. In other words, you don't like him for a combination of factors and that this particular combination which is present in the person you dislike is absent in your friend who talks too much. And this is what allows you to distinguish your position (liking your friend and disliking this person although both talk too much).

You might argue that disliking someone for a combination of factors means there is STILL a reason why you dislike that someone. That THIS PARTICULAR COMBINATION IS THE REASON FOR YOUR DISLIKE.

But if this particular combination is WHAT CONSTITUTES THIS PERSON, disliking this particular combination would be equal to disliking this person. Which is to say you are disliking this person for no particular reason at all.

To make matters simple I'll give an illustration. Let's say that I like cotton candy because it's smooth and fluffy and sweet and it melts in my tongue and because it's pink and cute-looking and because I like looking at how people make it ( i.e. a combination of factors that make me like cotton candy that isn't present in other food stuff: I mean what other substance is pink and fluffy and cute looking and edible?). Just because I like cotton candy doesn't necessarily mean that I'll like ice cream even though ice cream is sweet like cotton candy. It also doesn't mean I'll like butter even though it melts in my mouth or stuffed toy even though it's pink and cute looking. I like cotton candy because it possesses all those qualities other stuff don't possess, all those qualities that make cotton candies what they are. And if ALL those attributes are object specific and you like this object because of ALL OF ITS UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES, you are actually liking this object for BEING THIS OBJECT which is to say you are liking the object for no particular reason at all.

If I say that I like cotton candy because it is a cotton candy; that wouldn't really explain why I like it, would it? Just like how saying someone is tall because he is tall is going to drive someone insane because the argument loops back on itself. The answer cannot be the same as the question because if it does, the answer turns into a gibberish. It isn't an explanation!

Similarly, if you dislike somebody because he is that somebody, you are disliking him for no particular reason!

If I were to argue my way out of this by logic, I would need to carefully define this 'reason' that I mention so often. Logic dictates that this 'reason' that induces someone to dislike another must be something ethically unacceptable or morally substandard. For example, if I say that I dislike this person because he is dishonest, most people -I believe- would accept that as my 'reason' for disliking him. Most people would find this a 'valid reason' and that they wouldn't say that I dislike him for no particular reason. Wouldn't that be right? (So as to avoid confusion I will from now on designate this reason as 'the valid reason').

If I were to say that I dislike this person because he talks too much (which is a considerably much more trivial reason than the 'valid reason') you would find as I have argued in earlier paragraph that such trivial reason is unlikely to be the sole reason for your dislike towards this person and that you are most probably disliking this person because of a combination of other attributes that he possesses.

And if you dislike somebody because of his unique combination of attributes, how does this reason constitute a 'valid reason'? As we have agreed on, a 'valid reason' for disliking someone must involve something that is ethically unacceptable or morally substandard. How can you be ethically unacceptable for having a unique attributes noone else has? In other words: how can you be ethically unacceptable for being you?

I have more to say on the matter but it's 2 am now and I only have 4 more hours before I have to be up and about again so I'll leave it for later. Anyway this is long enough, the rest can wait.

Grinning Goat at 4/29/2009 11:26:00 PM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

HA

Smelly mofo: I need you to help me throughout
M: Can't you do it yourself? Ross can do it alone
Smelly mofo: I don't want to die the rat

HA

I don't want to DIE THE RATS TOO. Poor babies suffering under her incompetent hand. And all that smell too.

Oh and as background knowledge: I'm a NEWBIE. So if I can do it alone there's no reason at all why she can't. The woman is lazy as a cow. And besides as somebody correctly points out, "I'm only helpful to people who are helpful to me".

Grinning Goat at 4/29/2009 12:41:00 AM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Reason enough

smelly incompetent

lazy

DISHONEST

In ascending order of severity warranting termination of employment.

And I was so tempted to put smelly last too.

Grinning Goat at 4/29/2009 12:36:00 AM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Sunday, April 26, 2009

I need a spare lung

Sneezing is tiring. I could do with a spare lung. A spare nose and wind pipe would be nice too. And maybe throw in spare eyes (that are BIG) since heaven's probably feeling pretty charitable if that can happen.

Grinning Goat at 4/26/2009 12:04:00 AM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Kanashimi yo konnichiwa

Old


New


Old singer, new arrangements!


Old version in a remix


Obviously, the worst version is the one by the new singer.

It's got to be the original version by Yuki Saito. The new arrangement is nice I guess but I don't know. It doesn't get stuck in my head as much as the original one. The hell. I'm probably born 10 years late. But that's ok, I'll catch up.

Grinning Goat at 4/25/2009 11:31:00 PM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Bah

The worst smell there is, is the lingering kind.

Grinning Goat at 4/23/2009 07:54:00 PM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Monday, April 20, 2009

Only here

I'm only here until I win the lottery.

But seeing that I don't even buy lottery, I might be here forever.

Grinning Goat at 4/20/2009 10:09:00 AM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Thursday, April 16, 2009

SPARE ME THE STUPIDITY PLEASE

In very simple terms, this entry can be summed up like this:
There are happy people. And there are stupid people who make happy people unhappy people.

You'd think that there is a limit to stupidity wouldn't you? Well, apparently there isn't. There is just a limit to how much of it you can take. And sometimes it isn't the dose that bothers you, but the frequency.

Ok so the episode went like this.

I was told that I could enlist her help (because she's not doing anything most of the time anyway) so I DID enlist her help. But I made it such that it was on something so straightforward it's practically idiot-proof (or perhaps not as IDIOT-proof as I thought because SOME idiot clearly still failed).

The conversation went like this.

R: uhh you forgot to include one sample yesterday
Obtuse insufferable idiot: no no if it's not there that means you didn't give it to me

Which WOULD have been a pretty good argument. If it's true.

R: uh I still keep all the samples from yesterday. They're all here. That means I DID give you that sample
Obtuse insufferable idiot: you mean the reading isn't on the file ah?
R: Yes it wasn't (WHY ELSE WOULD I CONFRONT YOU OTHERWISE, YOU HOBO)
Obtuse insufferable idiot: But all the samples I've taken a reading on I put it in a separate box, I don't know how it can happen.

There it was. NO REMORSE WHATSOEVER. Just loud musings of wonderment as to how it could possibly happen. I'm not such an ass. If she were just to look the least bit sorry I wouldn't be here bitching about it.

But oh no, it was all I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAN HAPPEN. Really, because my KEEPING A SEPARATE BOX METHOD IS SO FULL PROOF.

Well, I guess there's no compensating for stupidity is there? even for someone who used such a FULL PROOF method of doing things?

So she DOESN'T KNOW how it could have happened. I have a pretty good idea. She was being BLIND as she always was. Doing things blindly (if she ever DOES anything at all). Following procedures blindly.

I mean for god's sake. I NUMBERED MY SAMPLES. I'm sure it doesn't even take half a brain of a normal person to figure out when a number is being skipped.

It was like 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10. Yeap it's all there. Ten of em.

Seriously.

Grinning Goat at 4/16/2009 08:25:00 PM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Ok so

Ok so. I'm biased. I first snickered at it, because like any 1986 release it was first of all OLD and then there's that thing about that period of time's artist' impression of people in an animation. Everybody IS ROUND, for some reason. Which is cute, sure but also disturbing. It's like watching atom boy where EVERYBODY is atom boy over and over and over again.

Ah but I guess no amount of bad drawing can upset a good storytelling.

Maison Ikkoku

Another one of Rumiko Takahashi's brilliant masterpiece. It's awesome. I'm hooked. EVEN WHEN EVERYBODY IS ROUND.

Actually having everybody being round isn't so bad after all. It can be a plus point. I mean, at least nobody is so beautifully perfect it's annoyingly unbelievable.

Oh there's also another thing. I guess the artist of that time (I mean whoever drew for the Maison Ikkoku production, not Rumiko Takahashi) was either lazy or having an incredible sense of humour for what constitutes a drama. There was this part when the male lead was walking in a crowded street and he was the only character having a proper colour! I mean, EVERYBODY ELSE in the street WAS GREEN. I couldn't stop laughing looking at it.

But it was still awesome. Like somebody correctly pointed out: it was like the predecessor of all anime love stories.

Nowadays, they don't make em round no more.

Grinning Goat at 4/14/2009 10:27:00 PM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}

Friday, April 03, 2009

What boredom does to you

Grinning Goat at 4/03/2009 04:17:00 PM pontificated

|

{buzzz out}