• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Tan Chuan Jin separating from wife, can eat all the mangoes he want outside liao

He is believing there is only one hostile green-eye monster samster because every samster should be attracted and full of admiration knowing he is from ACS. When several usernames are actually hostile towards him, it can't be the truth and can't be that many. It must be the same green-eye monster using multiple profiles. One green-eye monster is the highest threshold his delusional ego can accept. Clone mystery solved and verified.
In fact, he is not entirely wrong. The logic is internally consistent: once you accept both the existence of a supposedly universal value system and his authority to define its contents, the rest of the argument falls into place. The values themselves are straightforward: first, that everyone aspires to move from an HDB flat to private property; and second, that everyone wants to own a car. If those premises are accepted, then his conclusions follow naturally.

Within such a framework, there are no exceptions. In other words, the universal value system presumes that all human beings share the same hierarchy of values, regardless of their faith or the depth of their religious commitments. The supposed universality of these aspirations leaves no room for alternative understandings of what gives life meaning and purpose, not even for those whose deepest commitments are shaped by the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, both of whom challenged the notion that material advancement constitutes the highest human aspiration.

The elegance of the system lies in its self-reinforcing character. Whenever it encounters an apparent exception, someone who genuinely does not share these aspirations, it can simply dismiss the dissenter as an instance of "sour grapes." In doing so, dissent is reinterpreted as rationalization, and any challenge to the underlying assumptions is short-circuited. The system thereby preserves, intact and unexamined, the appearance of universality. :geek:

@Nut 徒兒, 可以嗎? :biggrin::confused:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Nut
In fact, he is not entirely wrong. The logic is internally consistent: once you accept both the existence of a supposedly universal value system and his authority to define its contents, the rest of the argument falls into place. The values themselves are straightforward: first, that everyone aspires to move from an HDB flat to private property; and second, that everyone wants to own a car. If those premises are accepted, then his conclusions follow naturally.

Within such a framework, there are no exceptions. In other words, the universal value system presumes that all human beings share the same hierarchy of values, regardless of their faith or the depth of their religious commitments. The supposed universality of these aspirations leaves no room for alternative understandings of what gives life meaning and purpose, not even for those whose deepest commitments are shaped by the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, both of whom challenged the notion that material advancement constitutes the highest human aspiration.

The elegance of the system lies in its self-reinforcing character. Whenever it encounters an apparent exception, someone who genuinely does not share these aspirations, it can simply dismiss the dissenter as an instance of "sour grapes." In doing so, dissent is reinterpreted as rationalization, and any challenge to the underlying assumptions is short-circuited. The system thereby preserves, intact and unexamined, the appearance of universality. :geek:

@Nut 徒兒, 可以嗎? :biggrin::confused:
In short, he is an asshole. 可以 :laugh:
 
Back
Top