My child,
By the time you read this, I really hope you will have been old enough to have heard the words "fuck" and "shit" already uttered by your peers. If you haven't, I really owe you and mommy an apology- FYI mommy will explain what those words mean.
Anyway-
My child, you are about to be born into one of the oddest countries in the world. A nation where citizens pay for Chanel bags but are really ok with Giordano quality, a city-state where the people are as woefully ignorant of their own surroundings as they are of their political destiny.
You will have a tough battle ahead, but it's alright; because daddy will be helping you in this fight. Daddy will give you the most important gift you will ever receive (no, it's not a pony because we're not rich, in fact our public housing is pegged to private prices- but that's for another day)- critical thinking skills.
You see baby girl, critical thought is what separates us from mindless morons. It's going to be uphill because the Ministry of Education is dedicated to making sure you become a mindless moron (otherwise how else can we accept that it's ok to get Giordano quality but pay thousands for a Chanel bag like the pretty one mommy has?). There will be things to memorize, there's no running away from that BUT I want you to question everything and form your own well thought out opinions.
Newton was proven wrong only because Einstein dared to question. That was in 1930s. Today, in the year of our lord (anno domini) 2013, is no different.
Today's first lesson:
In my time, there was this website called theonlinecitizen.com, please don't confuse it with STOMP.
Only one of them has real citizen journalism, anyway- back in the day, there were 2 athletes. 1 was "recruited" from China, Feng Tianwei, she plays table tennis. The other was locally born, Laurentia Tan, she rides horses in a sport called "equestrian".
Setting the Context
On recruitment, Feng Tianwei received a monthly salary, accommodation and sports coaches. Laurentia on the other hand, had to leave Singapore on her own pocket, pay for her own coaches and train by herself, no salary.
This is called "setting up the context".
States Straits Times will probably be around by the time you get around to reading this, so I better explain "setting up the context".
You see baby girl, PAP and ST don't like setting up the context because it leaves too many open ends.
It is far easier to frame the question in a way to force the answer that you want. In court, it's called getting lawyered. In a social context, it's called "douchebaggery" (mommy will explain).
How Idiots "Frame" the Question
Context is important, because it lays the foundation for all the relevant facts for you to make a logical assessment. I will show you how a question gets "framed".
You see baby girl, Adrian Tan has framed the matter into "Olympian versus PARALYMPIAN"- by spelling alone, you will notice that the two words are different already and so therefore, when he makes the analogy, "next you will be saying that a dog is a cat. Different." - other idiots who don't see the broader
context will be forced to agree with him- because- hey look, spelling IS different. See, already one idiot agrees with him.
But daddy is nice because he wants you and other Singaporeans to learn. So he sets up the context for Mr. Tan. Paralympian is a short form way of saying "Olympian with disability"- this opens the discussion by defining what an Olympian and Paralympian is so that the debate is not merely about the spelling. By providing definition, we see that the similarity between the two are there. So daddy goes a step further to help clear the confusion.
Olympian = doggy. Paralympian = doggy with three legs. But both are still dogs, only that the three legged one is disabled. Do you see the difference baby girl?
Using Facts to Support Lame Arguments (without context)
Now look at this lady, she's a bit more intelligent (but not much)
Baby girl, if you end up like a name like Janise, I'm really REALLY sorry. Daddy will do everything to make sure you don't get some weird name like your classmate Beckham or Jackson but sometimes, when mommy wants certain things then daddy LL (i'll explain when you're older).
Anyway, Janise Tan reframes the argument into something more potent-
nonsequiter argument with facts and stats! You see, you cannot argue facts and stats- but when interpreted in the wrong context, facts and stats help you sell LIES.
She equates the olympics with that of private games like NBA basketball or EPL soccer. But the Olympics are an international event, the primary objective isn't really about making money (daddy is joking of course it is) but seriously, the real rational is about fostering the human spirit and unity- unite the world as one as we watch these humans push themselves to the limits of human capability.
But here's the thing- Olympics are funded by corporate sponsors. The athletes are sponsored by their home countries. When players play in the NBA, they are sponsored by teams who in turn are sponsored by corporations. The key difference is when Kobe Bryant plays for Team USA in the Olympics, he is wearing national colors. When he plays in the NBA, he's wearing his team uniform (yes) but with corporate logos.
One is service to country (which doesn't pay very well usually) and the other is professional athletics (which pays VERY well).
Now baby girl, you see the difference? One is playing for country (where you hope to earn national pride and glory), another is playing for salary (where you hope to earn a living wage). So daddy tries to explain to Janise (if mommy really wants to name you Janice, I'll make sure it's the proper spelling- deal?)
What has daddy done again? I have
set up the context in the form of a question. I've broken the issue up for the nice lady and provided a simple to understand analogy using her ROI (return on investment) logic.
First I remind her that Olympics is very different from professional sports. Furthermore, I establish that if both Feng Tianwei and Laurentia Tan are representing SINGAPORE the country and not their own professional teams. So in this case, as public servants to Singapore in sports.
Second, I draw the analogy, we agree they are sports public servants playing under Singapore colors. So I take the lady's ROI argument and point to another type of public servants- Firemen. You see baby girl, firemen don't fight fires everyday, they only have "work" to do when there is a fire or civil emergency. But firemen still need to eat because they have to be on standby for disasters- does that mean we don't pay them when there's no "work"?
Obviously not.
Does that mean we should pay firemen who do less "work" less? Obviously not.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?
Sorry baby, daddy normally doesn't get upset like that but I fear that with you growing up in this environment, you might start thinking like that lady Janise.
Is Janise a moron? Obviously yes. Please don't be like her.
Talk to you soon,
daddy.