"You can't" and "I can"

What are the differences between these two phrases: "You can't get good score" and "I can get good score"?

The former focus on "you" and what you "can't" achieve, while the latter focus on "I" and what I "can" achieve.

What is the reason to make the first type of statement? When it is more likely to focus on "you" then "I" and "can't" than "can". What kind of situations could that be? ...
When there isn't much to say about "I" and/or about "can".

When a person can achieve something, would he be interested in telling people that who are the people who can't achieve it? I don't think so. Thus, when someone is telling the world who can't achieve something, I bet the unmentioned fact is that this person also can't achieve it.

Thus, when we read news such as Abstinence [programmes] 'not effective', I bet the opponents also didn't achieve effectiveness, else shouldn't they mention it? Also, it should suggest that there are growing number of supportive people and beliefs that abstinence programmes work, which typically imply there are evidence that abstinence programmes work. Furthermore, by conducting studies targeting on some selected abstinence programmes, but none of other programmes, is quite a bias approach.

More importantly, the results only suggest that the situation is quite bad, and I don't think they are showing that the situation is getting worse. In addition, abstinence programmes are not controlled experiments where the subjects are not allowed to be influence by many other things that they are exposed to in their daily life. I would say that common sense should point towards the argument that when abstinence programmes are not effective yet, shouldn't we reinforce them, and tune down other counter influences, especially in media and adults' behaviors, that are undermining the effectiveness of such programmes.

E.g. "Have sex without love is wrong, or isn't ideal" should be a better and correct message than "Have sex before the age of 16 is not allowed" which is obviously a way for adults to hide from guilt.

Destiny and Lineage

It has been some time since I seriously wrote something here. The ranking of this blog has been dropping :( However, I doubt I have something serious to write about now. May be I can talk about the Mas Selemat escape, but that is not too relevant to this blog. Or may be I can talk about some drama that I have been watching, such as CSI, Lost, 24 hour, etc. Ah, thought of something to write :)

Do you feel proud to be selected/recruited/employed by your current company? Would you prefer to be proud? I think it is nice to feel being valued, and being expected to be able to create more value for the company. It is nice to have a company willing to commit the costs for hiring me.

Similarly, do you feel proud to be borned into your family? ... Would you prefer to be proud? However, which family one is being borned into is out of the person's choice, unlike the case of choosing which company to send resume to. Nevertheless, we want to be proud. If already being proud, we should want to be more proud. In another words, it is our destiny to create value for our family, and to our lineage.

In this perspective, I can better appreciate the Chinese saying, 不孝有三无后为大. On looking up this phrase, I just learned that the other two are also very relevant (my own translation):

阿意曲从，陷亲不义，一不孝也； (First unfilial [non-]action: Blind obedience, not correcting parents' mistakes, and thus allowing parents ending up in dishonorable state.)
家贫亲老，不为禄仕，二不孝也； (Second unfilial [non-]action: Being poor when parents are old, yet still not working so as to take good care of them.)
不娶无子，绝先祖祀，三不孝也。 (Third unfilial [non-]action: Being unmarried [or w/o a wife], and without child [or a son], and thus discontinuing the lineage passed down from ancestors.)
三者之中无后为大。 (Among the above three unfilial [non-]actions, without descendants is the worst.)

In a way, regardless we like these or not, or we are able to achieve these or not, these and many other roles and responsibilities are our destiny.

As if their tails (as if they have) is being stepped on

Would not showing homosexuality publicly hurt those who choose to be of this "minority¹" group? I don't know. Err, actually, I think it doesn't hurt them.

Would showing such hurt those who ...
- are naturally heterosexual? Yes, it does.
- have conservative, or I prefer long accepted moral standards? Yes, it does.
- have faiths, such as Islam, Unificationism, etc. that condemn such stuffs? Yes, it does.

I support and encourage the Singapore's Media Development Authority for being firm on such issues. There are always pros and cons. Here, the cons is some self-defined homosexual people would be offended, while many many others would applau us. Thus, the net results is we would be attracting more people to Singapore, as this is a unique and rare place that uphold such moral standards.

¹ Quoted not because of their numbers, but because of the difference from the use of the word in "minority races."

Be skeptical

Few days back I received an email claiming link between drinking cold drink after meal and cancer. Another friend did some research and responded with another email claiming the above is a myth.

Today I received another email forwarded by a friend on some claims that some hawkers melt plastic such as drinking straws or plastic container into hot oil so as to have fried crispy snacks remain crispy for hours. I didn't manage to find strong arguments that this is untrue, but ... may be that's because it was just reported in a newspaper quite recently, near end of February. Or may be it is true, but I doubt so.

I don't mind reading such emails. False information is still a piece of information. However, I mostly don't forward them to others. Especially if the article encourage one to do so.

In this information explosion era, we have to be skeptical with all these information. Not only those myth-like information, but also those myth-buster type. Take for example, in the above first case, the argument against the link between cold drink and cancer is that there isn't scientific evidence. This only say that the first claim is not based on scientific evidence. It doesn't make the claim false. Note that there are many truths that have existed, and some are still existing before any scientific evidence is discovered to support them.

Out of the mainstream

Out of the mainstream doesn't necessary suggest wrongness. However, it also doesn't suggest not so.

More importantly, it suggests that the majority do not consider it normal, or correct. Thus, relatively speaking, it is not correct. So, using the phrase "out of the mainstream" may sounds not accusing, but it is ... , relatively speaking.

Absolutely speaking, wrongness or correctness of something is regardless of if it is out of the mainstream or not. E.g. the Sun was once thought to be revolving around the Earth.

Yet, statistically and evidently speaking, most out of the mainstream stuffs are wrong. This also implies that some of them are right.

Basically, being out of the mainstream, or not, doesn't imply wrongness nor correctness.

LGBT is out of the mainstream, and I say it is also wrong.

What is your generation?

In Taiwan, they used the decade to classify people into generations of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and so on. There are also the descriptive names such as hippies, gypsies, punkies quite some years back. Anyway, I like the name of this ministry, Generations of Virtue.

Check out Generations of Virtue's clearance page and you'll find handfuls of great books at low prices. Choose from titles such as Preparing Your Son for Every Man's Battle and "Setting a Paradigm for Purity".

Be truthful first

There have been much emphasis on speaking positive and encouraging words to children, or anybody, rather than negative ones. Our words are either blessing or curse. Yet, some may over do it by ignoring the need to be truthful, and just say positive words that paint a false picture. Especially when the facts are, sort of, "negative". For example, what should we say to a kid who had scored badly, say 10%, in a test? ... What would you say?

Should we tell him that he hadn't done badly, and should be thankful that he still managed to scored 10%? Is this better than telling him how stupid/lazy he is that he failed badly and scored only 10%? The former is "positive" but to say he hadn't done badly is falsehood. The latter is obviously negative, but rightly state that he failed badly.

In a post a few years back, I mentioned about an article I read that stresses on the importance of consistency in raising up children. Once we started speaking words that are not true, children will notice our inconsistence, and eventually treat our words as unimportant.

Another article I read more recently talks about when parents praise their kids, they need to do it in alignment with the facts. When parents over praise their kids, like the above "positive" statement, kids will be less willing to strive harder for better results.

I think the first pre-requisite in speaking is to be truthful. Then, we choose to speak it in a positive way. In the above example, we should let the child know he has failed badly in the test. Try to substantially work with him on how can we, together, make it better next time. When a plan has been worked out, we can positively emphasize that we appreciate his willingness to want to improve. Thus, there is no falsehood, there is encouragement, and there isn't condemnation.

This is not only about kids. In general, being truthful is so much more important than speaking positively.

Be yourself

In the Taiwan variety show 国光帮帮忙 I watched recently, they accounted a very casual and short encounter in a toilet. An advice by 孙鹏, who is a more senior artiste, to 林宥嘉, who was participating in 超级星光大道, a singing competition, is taken seriously by the latter. The advise is be yourself (做自己). 林宥嘉 eventually won the champion of the competition.

However, this phrase, when used unqualified, might encourage people to do all sort of funny things, immoral things, or evil things. This phrase should not be seen as an excuse for doing wrong things.

On one hand, we dislike people to tell us how we should live. On the other hand, we ourselves need to be very clear how we should live. "Be yourself" doesn't mean it is up to each person's choice with no regards to the society. As what is said below, the essence is if our life is honorable or not.

The late Mormon church president Hinckley said in an interview with The Associated Press in late 2005. "We're a little different. We don't smoke. We don't drink. We do things in a little different way. That's not dishonorable. I believe that's to our credit." Quoted from the news report of his death.

Be yourself means don't be overly dictated by what others tell you, but it doesn't mean there is no guideline. It means you have to make up your own guidelines consciously and in accordance to the societal norms.

Beware of romance

The first definition from a Google search for define:romance is

love affair: a relationship between two lovers

Sound ok to me initially, but what exactly does the word "affair" imply?

These are found from a similar Google search for define:affair:

Definitions of affair on the Web:
matter: a vaguely specified concern; "several matters to attend to"; "it is none of your affair"; "things are going well"
a usually secretive or illicit sexual relationship
a vaguely specified social event; "the party was quite an affair"; "an occasion arranged to honor the president"; "a seemingly endless round of social functions" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
An affair is a form of nonmonogamy. The term may be used to describe infidelity in marriage. It may be used as a euphemism and in some cases to add glamour to an illicit liaison. Describing a relationship as an 'affair' may be inaccurate or intentionally damaging. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affair

Wow!!! So, beware!

Peace Messages

Lets make peace!

These are very important messages to make peace.

Please focus on the contents and the good intentions.

At the age of 87+, he needs no hidden agenda.

Did the shop boy cheated or earned the money?

Another of my answer chosen as the best by the asker:

Asked by ashishv_patel
Three friend deside to give a one presant to common friends so they had puchase one item by 75 $ by contribution of 25 $ but shopkipper deside to give a discount for 5$ so shop boy gone for to return 5$,in between shop boy had think to take 2 $ from 5$ at last he give only 3$ to that three friends & they had distribute 1$ each
now costing of presant is
3 friend * 24 $ = 72 $
shop boy had taken + 2 $
72 + 2 = 74
but actualy frist they had expence 75 $ - 74 $
so where is 1 $ ? ? ? ? ?????????????
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
A variant of another version where hotel room rate at $10.

Lets try the accounting method:
Balance sheet for the 3 friends:
Debit: $25 * 3 = $75 to buy the present
Credit: $3 from the shop boy
Balance: spent $72
Asset: the present that costs them $72

Balance sheet for the shop:
Credit: $75 revenue
Debit: $5 discount
Balance: $70
Asset: less a product that sold at $70

Balance sheet for the shop boy:
Credit: $5 from shopkeeper
Debit: $3 discount to that 3 friends
Balance: $2

Thus, cheated $2 from the shopkeeper and that 3 friends... errr, or did he earned it?

What does 800 births by teen single mom in a year imply?

800 is not a small number, but it doesn't seem to suggest a serious situation.
Lets see if...
For some of these moms, this birth was not their first pregnancy.
For majority of them, this pregnancy is not a first time "success".
For many other teens, they might just have avoidedbecoming a mom, i.e. "succeeded to abort".

Lets give just the above 3 considerations some numbers...
On the average, assume that
this birth was the 2nd pregnancy;
this pregnancy was the 6th "try";
these 800 moms were the "very unlucky" ones at the ratio of 1:10.
These numbers were rough guesses, and I don't think they are the extremes.

Thus, there are at least 800*2*6*10 = 96000 sexual acts by unmarried teenage girls, in just a year.
Individual "freedom" does not give them rights to create or risk creating lives in such irresponsible manners!!!!

Legal vs moral.

Is legal >, =, or < moral?

I don't think legal can be greater than moral. Moral is based on conscience, which exists from the very begining of life, or awareness. Legal is a man-made system, which supposingly should be based on conscience, but other immoral factors can also mis-guide the legal system.

I think it will be naive to say the two are equal. There are differences in many aspects. Already mentioned, moral is natural, while legal is a man-made system. We live according to moral standards, while legal exists to serve by allowing disputes among people be handled. Moral system surely exists although not well defined, whereas legal system is well defined but may not exist.

Thus, I think legal is less than or sub-level when compared to moral. Thus, legal cannot be used to define, describe or imply moral.

This, I think is the issue in the argument on should immoral sexual acts between consenting adults be illegal? I hope these can remain illegal, but it seems more and more unlikely. Thus, lets make it clear that legal < moral and such acts will always be immoral regardless of its legal status.

Suffering

The word 'suffering' was mentioned on Sunday. Am I suffering? By what standard do I measure or compare against? Comparing to those starving in Africa, how can I say that I am suffering? However if I ask is my conscience at ease? Am I able to answer ‘yes’ comfortably? Then, if my conscience is not at ease, how can I say that I am not suffering? In a way, if we are not able to live a life of the highest moral standard, our conscience will not be at ease. Thus, deep inside us, we are actually suffering.

Then, there are probably two main ways to reduce the suffering, by living a life of the highest moral standard, or by ignoring the voices from our conscience.