“Lawyer semua penipu.”
“Budak MSU semua bodoh.”
“Janda semua kaki goda.”
“Perempuan selalu nak betul.”
“Anak nombor dua asyik rebel.”
Each time when I come across a data-oriented claim, I really have this urge to ask the type of statistical analysis employed in their ‘research’ for clarity. These data-oriented claims famously have been used on the social media for they know what are the true reasons which I refuse to assume.
One sure thing however, when they fail to provide the authenticity of their remarks, they will usually later make an ugly gloss about it and start to make the statements philosophical. This mode of reasoning discloses the typical prejudice by which these fraudulent of all times can be recognized through this mode of valuation at the back of all their logical procedure;
A. I believe my belief. Even if it’s not true, I don’t care.
B. This is almost true. Look at my explanation. Even if you don’t agree, I don’t care.
C. I solemnly christen that this is the truth but you don’t have to rely hundred percent on my explanation. Just THINK ABOUT IT.
The fundamental belief of these people is confusing and weird; where it sometimes occurred to the wariest of them to not doubt on the very threshold of their statement. Sometimes they doubt, so the escape is to use PERHAPS. Well, ‘perhaps’ is dangerous but at the same time it sells because it appears to the readers that there are other tastes and inclinations; the reverse of those hitherto prevalent. And to speak in all seriousness, I see such a Minister alter ego.
Such failure for authenticity provision is thus called falseness. But falseness of an opinion is not for me to have any objection through a prolong debate on Twitter, merely because a fraud speaks new language sounds most strangely ever than mine – that I refuse to make myself sound defensive when clearly the falseness provider will not even consider a single word from my context.
One thing I don’t understand is how can a lot of people be inclined to believe these half-distrustfully and half-mockingly ‘philosophers’ when clearly that there is not enough honest dealing with them especially in concluding their personal experience in virtuous outcry through a biased claim; but made it sound so innocent. They all pose as though their real opinions have been discovered and attained through the self-evolving method; whereas in fact, it is a prejudiced proposition. Why?