Sunday, March 19, 2006

defending the indefensible

Someone once told me that I chose the wrong profession. I should have been a laywer, she said. Apparently, I have the uncanny ability of being able to defend the most guilty of criminals and the most shocking practises which most people frown upon.

The mantra is simple. It's not about agreeing with the action of the person or agreeing with the policy. The important thing is to understand the situation and to understand why people act as they do. And seriously folks, once you do that, you can even defend Hitler's actions.

So anyway, during a particularly slow day at the office just the other day, I sat down and started thinking of a bunch of indefensible stuffs and give a go at trying to be a lawyer defending those stuffs. Of course I do not actually agree with the following situation, but I managed to stupefy myself by successfully defending it.

Before I start with presenting you the situation and risk the chance of you getting all biased and not paying attention to any of my arguments, I am going to start by asking you a few questions which you will of course answer honestly. And then I'll drop the scenario on your toes and you will go, "Yo Vincent! WTF MAN?!?!"

Alritey then, what would you consider an acceptable level of public displays of affection?

Holding hands? Kissing? Gropping? I did a fair bit of research and asked a few people what they thought about it. As expected, the answers varied. Some people thought kissing was ok, but only limited to a peck on the cheek, while others thought the lips was alright. Personally, I think a hug would be ok but kissing should be left in the privacy of your house (or car!). And of course there are old-fashioned people like some of our parents who seem to think that anything more than a mere holding of hands is considered 'indecent'. Everybody I asked said that they think frenching and gropping in public is disgusting, but I have seen people do that so I think those guys are ok with it.

Ok, now that we have established that everybody has different levels of tolerance, the next question is.....what do we do when people breach our level of accceptable behaviour? TWO people said that they would mumble amongst themselves when their friends cross the line. Most people, and myself included, would not hessitate to shout out, "OI! GO GET A ROOM DAMMIT!" I think it is safe to say that 90% will do the same when our friends cross THAT line.

So, established FACTS:
1) All of us have different tolerence levels
2) Most of us would scream when people cross that line

Which brings me to my scenario.

You know the stories we hear about the JAIS guys and the security guards in shopping malls who go around scolding couples who kiss and hold hands in public?

Are their actions justified?

Of course NOT Vincent! WTF MAN!? How can you justify the actions of moral police?

But wait a minute. Didn't we already agree that everybody has different tolerance levels? And did we not agree that it was quite a normal thing to voice our displeasure when people act 'inappropriately'?

YES! But these idiots go around berating people for merely HOLDING HANDS!

So what? To them, holding hands is past their tolerance level. You and I say, "It's ONLY holding hands! It's not as if we are french kissing in public!" But then those people who DO french kiss in public will shout, "It's ONLY french kissing! It's not as if we are having sex in public!"

So are you saying it's even right to have sex in public?

No, you moron. Having sex in public is against the law. Besides, I never said any of this was right. It's a matter of perception and moral ethics. There are no rights and wrongs here. So as long as we scream at people to "GO GET A ROOM!", then we are no different from those JAIS folks.

Aah, yes Vincent. You are right...in a totally fucked up way....

Yes I know. Sometimes I scare myself with the power my logic. I should have been a lawyer. I think I am ready to defend Saddam.


Can't fault you on this one Vincent. Perfectly logical and reasonable.

Yeah you could defend Saddam if only he would admit to any wrongdoing and the the court's legitimacy.



But... but... we were only shagging! It's not like we were having a threesome in public!

You get Saddam off the hook and the mafia will definitely want you as their litigator.


Good one. But then right, it's the society who should set the line not some particular group like JAIS or blablabla.

I remember reading somewhere about a couple being asked not to cuddle in public by a guard (in Sunway Pyramid I think) and well, I guess they should've just ignored the guard and walk away because like you said, different people have different level of tolerance.

I think at the end of the day, it's boils down to exposure and acceptance. If you're exposed to ppl french kissing in public everyday. You'd prolly get so sick of it that eventually, you're gonna get immuned and hence not care anymore. And when you don't care, you kinda accept it indirectly (no matter how gross it is).


Yes vinc, you have a logical point there.

but going out of the topic.. don't you have any comment for the following news?



But Milosevic waited for a lawyer like you for far too long .

Try staying with boleh-land housemates who shag at a nearly daily basis, accompanied by girl's fake moans (which goes loud and soft according to the music playing on the pc, which they mistakenly assumed to be able to drown their noises).

I'm staying downstairs, and with my door AND their door closed, i can still hear them shagging upstairs (with the girl's moans).

Ready to defend them, vincent??


skay : actually it was that sunway pyramid thing that i read that got me defending these guys. you say society sets the line...but who? we already established that in society every have different levels of tolerance.

sugi : Nola..no mood to talk about people like that when I dont know how much of a nerd he was or likewise.

stoolx : I blame your landlord for not making the walls soundproof. And why don't you knock on their door one day and ask if you could join in?


:)...very funny post.
uh yeah, your arguments are simple and convincing, perhaps if engineering doesn't work out, you can consider law.
in these troubled times, it's always good to have some form of back up. :P


tsk tsk...

even the nur amalina u dunno wut, but u wrote so many post on her, i tot this guy wud be a threat to ur genius brain! hehehehehe


I guess the only way is to set a "rule" based on the majority. Let's say if the majority in the society are able to accept smooching in public then i guess those who cannot tahan should just accept and get use to it. Heh. Who knows, they might just end up doing what they didn't like in the first place =P

sugi : Different. In that 17A case, her interview pretty much established the fact that she did nothing but study all day long. Also, for a phd, a person specialises in ONE particular field and not 17.

Post a Comment

<< Home