well i gave up on the binary shit

lol thanks for decoding though hahahahaaaaaa
epic time waster :D

anyways
results all in alr D:

haha i didn't get as high as expected for the subjects i thought i would like bio and english
but i didn't get as low as i expected for the subjects i thought i would like maths history physics and chem



gahhhh who cares >_<
trigo for sec4 is BLOODY SCREWED





yay.
100th post :D

with this inaugural post leading my blog to it's 100th post day,
let's celebrate with a unique post :D

decode using any binary decoders readily avaliable online XD

binary 8D.txt

ouch that's long >_>
oh wells i can't finish it by today get ready for second part tmr! do remind me cuz yall know i got short term memory -_____-





whee.
random post.

gah these few days was like so totally slack i got so seriously nothing to do i didn't even blog XD

haha anyways yesterday was super fun :D
B.E.A.T.S. prac turned into random fun day with yuxin daniel yishu dennis and yifan at yifan's house XD

cuz singing just doesn't work with veh few people and playing games sound SOOOOOOO much better we ended up swimming, playing bridge and playing monopoly.

LOL DANIEL YOU SUCK AT MONOPOLY YOU'RE THE FIRST GUY I KNOW WHO CAN LOSE 1000 IN THE FIRST ROUND AROUND THE BOARD XD



damn best.

haiya die.
tmr release results i'm so going to emo over my failing subjs which mayWILL fail:

in the order of lowest marks to highest failing:
1)Physics
2)Maths
3)Chem
4)History
6)Chinese
7)SS
8)Bio
9)English

see i definitely fail maths i have 8 subjects and i managed to count 9 T_T

wah shit D:



anyways today's choir was random fun.
being refree for PT is veh best :D
jorel's team like lost all 3 of the 3 matches of captians ball XD
epic pwn XD

die man
next year's maths topics is like super difficult D:
trigo is super screwed up lah wth.
self studying random difficult sec 4 topics is apparently not veh effective i needa work harder D:

randomrandomrandom super bored gah i shall go do chem now.





Project Elaborate Mummy Screwing has begun >:D

lets hope i have the energy to pull it through the super long stretch that it will last D:


i apologise for any unhappy events that happen during this period of time, but it shouldn't affect you guys that much :D

it's more of something between me and my mummy.

------------------------------

You:"what is 'Project Elaborate Mummy Screwing'?"
Me:"it's WAR"
You:"it's war?"
Me:"NO, THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA XD"



support me on my quest to attain a higher level to slay The Mummy and gain enormous exp and money :D





YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY EOYS ARE OVER AND IT'S TIME TO START WORRYING ABOUT MARKS :DDD

gah i can't believe it lah.
for the first time in my life i actually wondered what i'm supposed to do next.
like no more mugging and i have no more "next thing to do"


ohwells actually i have my blog because stupid blogger decided to delete my english blog and i typed my article reflections on my lappy which is like currently screwed to a really large extent and i can't access it so i have to retype the articles and hope blogger vommits out what it swallowed *gasps for air*

a quick overview of the sexams lol:

English- relatively fine :D but i seem to have broken the commentary word limit of between 350~400 words by um. 600-ish? wups.

SS- oh pooh i'll prolly get a decent score without mugging so i'm not really that worried 8D

HMT- stupid lah stupidstupid. i fugging forgot how to write 3 填写汉字s which like resulted in minus 6 marks and plus the other mistakes i made it's going to screwup my score D:

Chem- STUPID CHEM CAN WE PEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER THE FUGGING RATIO IS 1:2:2 OR 1:4:2

Maths- minus 30% of my marks alr >_< k moving on...

History- gah i got so bloody demoralised by maths that i prolly screwed this up too >_<

Physics- IT CAN JUST GO AND DIE GAHHHH

Bio- yay ended EOYs with a super super easy paper like i didn't study much still can pass one 8D




k that's that :D

oh yeh lol i managed to dig out the CDs of the videos and recordings of our Bratislava trip last year and oooo

I FUGGING WANNA DO POKPOK AGAIN LOL.


oh AND AND AND

SHAKUGAN NO SHANA SECOND IS OUT OMGOMGOMGOMG HYPERVENTILATES.


idk why i like shakugan so much.
maybe it's the residing anime devil in me.
or it's the short girl fetish which i don't even know i possess.
or maybe shakugan is a tool of God of which He conveys His messages to people like me so He has to make me watch it first. (oh i just broke my own no first letter caps rule haha XD)

or mebbe it's the ALIENS.
IT MUST BE TEH ALIENS LOL.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT FUGGING CREATED MUDKIP TOO HERE'S PROOF:

SEE OMG


gah random lah.
i'm seriously in no mood to be happiful jokiful now cuz i seriously am bored.















finefine i'll go finish my dinner.
and what next?





RYAN ELYAS LOO QI XUAN

TAN HAO QIN

KHOO JIE XIONG

MARK CHNG JIAN WEI

JOEL KOH

HO GUANG JING

yall better thank me for this luh EOYS in 2 days i ddin't mug and i stayed up for this okeh XD

a 2837 word debate script for BOTH oppo and propo XD


Prop 1st:

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

This house believes that it is better to let 10 guilty men escape than 1 innocent man suffer. Firstly, let me start of by introducing the members of this house. The first speaker, which is me am Hao Qin, the second speaker of the team will be Jie Xiong, followed by Ryan, and lastly Mark.

Let me start of first with reciting our interpretation of this statement. What this statement is trying to say is that it is better to forgo punishment for the guilty party/parties than to make an innocent person get punished for something he has not committed.

With that in mind, let me start of with defining the meanings of the main terms in the statement, namely “guilty” and “innocent”.
This house feels that the “guilty” or a “guilty” person refers to a person who has committed a certain crime.

Moving on to the definition of “innocent”, this house believes that the “innocent” refers to a person who has not committed the crime as mentioned above to be done by the “guilty”.

The relationship between the Guilty and Innocent parties is relatively simple, where there are only two choices: alleviate the suffering of the innocent and risk the guilty escaping, or attempting to capture the guilty and risk the innocent life or lives.

This leads me to our teams’ first point: Moral issues. First of all, punishing the innocent violates human rights to a large extent. The innocent have not done anything wrong to deserve this fate of being punished, and therefore similarly one would see that since these humans don’t violate human rights, why should their rights be violated by these guilty?

Looking past the previous rather obvious argument, there is also the issue of the sanctity of human life. Let’s consider the most extreme of cases where the punishment for the innocent for the guilty is that he be given the death penalty. Is it moral to send a man to pay for the crimes of others of a larger number and even more so, is it moral for the innocent to pay for the guilty? Sending the innocent to die is the most unjustifiable action one can do, and this is also a blatant violation of the sanctity of life.

Thank you.

Opp 1st:

Good afternoon honourable judge and audience.

This house believes that it is better to let the innocent remain innocent and the guilty be charged as they should. The house recognizes 3 members to cover the roles of 4 seeing that the class has 31 members. I am Guang Jing, your first and also your final speaker for today, he is Joel, who is the second speaker, and finally, Guan Wei who is the third speaker.

We strongly believe that we should punish the guilty than to subdue to their demands and what not. We are not saying that we should not take into account the life of the innocent, however, we feel that instead of condoning the guilty to escape with their demands we should put a stop to these guilty than wait for them to cause more harm in the future.

Let me move on to the definition of the terms in the statement that need defining, which co incidentally coincides with the proposition team, are “guilty” and “innocent”.

We agree with their definition of “guilty”--- that it refers to a party or parties that have committed a crime or an act that is not condoned by law. However, this house sees flaws in the propositions’ definition of “innocent”.

“innocent” in our eyes, instead of meaning (pretend to refer to a piece of paper with their definitions copied down) um, I quote “refers to a person who has not committed the crime as mentioned above to be done by the “guilty””, should instead refer to a party that has nothing to do with the crime, instead of not committing it, as there is a very thin line in not committing and not being involved in the crime, where not being involved in the crime means that they are a third party and is being used as “biological money” or a “shield”. Not in an absolute literary case of using the innocent to protect against gunfire or whatnot, however, “shield” means that the guilty are using the innocent to pay for their crimes and using the innocent to cover them from the claws of the law.

This house believes that the relationship is as the proposition has defined as well.
Acting as a rebuttal, as well as the first point of the group, let me talk about morals.

This house also believes that punishing innocent lives violates human rights. However looking at the long run, allowing the guilty to escape might end up hurting more innocent lives, and thus it would be an even larger violation and now of humans’ rights. This would then be a contradictory premise where saving one life from danger results in even more lives being put in danger. Picture a hostage case where the kidnappers are set free and they commit another crime, this time in a larger scale, and hold even more innocents as hostages. See what I mean?

However, the question is how does one weigh the importance of a life or the lives of the innocents? More importantly which choice is better? The second speaker of this house will elaborate on this point.

Thank you.

Prop 2nd:

Let me start of by taking a look back at what guangguang just said, and according to my memory, he said “looking at the long run, allowing the guilty to escape might end up hurting more innocent lives”. THIS, ladies and gentlemen is the CORE of the loophole in his argument. From your point of view, you are neglecting the probability that these offenders might turn over a new leaf. There exists a never negligible chance where the guilty might end up turning over a new leaf and not cause more harm.

Moving on proper to my main point of the day, the role the system of justice holds in this statement.

It is a well known fact that most justice systems hold it as a principle that no innocent life should be abused by the justice system.

The law should and must protect the lives that they have sworn to protect, and it is then the responsibility of Law to uphold the sanctity of life and human rights. Putting an innocent life to death strongly contradicts these responsibilities of the Law.

Many great minds and philosophers such as Zhetha and Aristotle have agreed that there is nothing more unjustifiable than to punish one for a crime not committed by that person.

This house feels that although releasing the guilty is unjustifiable and contradictory to the Law, it is not nearly as unjustifiable and unlawful as punishing the innocent. Using the simple methods of elimination, if given a hard choice between the two, we have to forsake the lesser of the two evils, which would be allow the guilty to escape so as to protect the innocents from bring punished.
Law, we feel, is created to protect the sanctity of life, and uphold human rights. It should be obvious that the main priority would now be that the system is made to protect lives of the innocent and definitely not to destroy the lives of the so-called “guilty”. In fact it doesn’t matter whether the accused is guilty or not. To protect, one need not destroy.

This house believes that the Law does not act on an “eye for and eye” basis, and instead of focusing and spending much effort on imprisoning wrong-doers, they should protect the citizens from future threats and harms.

Thank you.

Opp 2nd:

This house would like to recognize the efforts of the proposition to attempt to answer the question we have posed to our own house.

However, putting the main points in my argument aside first, I would like to draw our attention back to the rebuttal the proposition has made on our point of “causing future harm”.

When you say that we neglected the point of the probability of the guilty turning over a new leaf, have you considered the chance of this happening? This house would like to state that NO, we have not neglected the fact. Yet, the chance of that happening is all but minimal. Take for example a case study. These are the FACTS people, and if you can’t trust statistics you can’t trust no one. A very nice example would be the 1972 Munich Olympics case. (pause and look for the piece of paper and pretend to show it to the class/edelweiss) The case study has shows that 8 Palestinians held a certain number of Israeli athletes hostage and demanded for the release of a WHOPPING 23 Palestinian and non-Arab prisoners and another 2 German terrorists. Lets say we act according to the terrorists’ demands. Can you picture these terrorists deciding 3 days after the release of the prisoners to return the prisoners and throw down their guns and be all friendly with Israel?(pause)

No of course not.

Now back to my main points. Remember the question we posted earlier? How do we weigh the importance of a life? Also, what is the right choice to make? This house believes it boils down to a simple thing called Priority.

Sure the government values every single life, and everyone should strive to protect the society as a whole. Here we see the loophole in propositions’ statements where the main priority of the judiciary system is to protect the lives of the innocent. Does that mean that the moment you commit a crime then you are no longer under the protection of the law? True you are subjected to the Law when you commit crimes, however does that undermine the life of the guilty? No not at all.

Priority means comparison to draw out the more powerful of the two, and in this case, we are comparing the lives. If you set the guilty free with the chance that they may turn over a new leaf or the chance where they don’t change and instead cause more damage and put more innocent lives in danger, won’t you be also playing with the lives of the masses on top of the morality of the guilty, whether the guilty would change for the better. Moreover releasing the guilty and if the guilty harm more innocent lives, you would be no justice to any suffering the innocent has gone through before the judiciary system stepped in to release the innocent from his suffering, is that not true?

Punishing the guilty would result in the protection of the masses in one way or another, and also it sends a warning to future offenders that this is what happens when you commit crimes, reducing the future crimes committed through the toying of the human emotion of fear. One way or another, it seems rather obvious that subjecting the guilty to the arms of the Law than to allow them to run free upholds the sanctity of life and human rights to a large extent.

Thank you.

Prop 3rd:

According to Joel, we do not risk the community but instead the individual to contain the problem. However, has one thought that if the community sees the innocent get subjected to suffering in order to capture the guilty, won’t this result in the same effect of “toying with the emotions of fear” and sending a certain message to the public that the Law places the capture of the guilty to be more important than protecting the lives of the innocent, and that in the future they might themselves be in the place as a bait for the guilty for the Law to capture the guilty.

Moving on to our team’s next point, we shall now discuss practicality. The act of punishing the innocent is irreversible. Considering the most extreme example, once again, let’s assume an innocent is killed in exchange for the Law capturing the guilty. Nothing anyone can do can bring this dead innocent back to life, and thus if we sacrifice this life, we do no good to the community in anyway. However, if we release the guilty, we can in fact capture the guilty back again, albeit with a certain waste in manpower, yet it assures a win-win situation for the Law and the community since no lives might be lost, and the act of releasing the guilty is a reversible act.

Relating to the economy of today, man is power, especially in Singapore, where the men are her only resources. Throwing away the innocent life and capturing the guilty and imprisoning the guilty is in fact cutting at the resources of the country in a sense.

Assuming the guilty is imprisoned and turns over a new leaf halfway through his jail term of let’s say 12 years, wouldn’t it be wasting the time and, I hate to think in such crude manners, however, it would also be wasting the money this “guilty” might be making and contributing to our society.

Let’s now look at the consequence of actions. Although the consequence of releasing the guilty to escape is undeniably great, the act of subjecting an innocent to suffering is equally as great, or maybe even greater in extreme cases. The opposition seems to take the ratio of 10 is to 1 rather seriously; however this ratio is merely a representation of the importance of punishing the lives of the innocent. If you compare the number of guilty to the number of innocents, the innocent guilty ratio would definitely never fall into a 1 is to 10 category, and if it did this means there is a serious issue with the morality of humans. Anyway, if you look at the ratio this way, your willingness to sacrifice innocents in exchange for the guilty means you are actually willing to put the world’s innocent population on the plate in exchange for the much smaller population of guilty.

Thank you.

Opp 3rd:

In a rebuttal to Ryan’s point of our house willing to play Russian roulette with the majoritilary innocent populace of the world, I would first like to clarify the doubts the proposition might bear about our argument. Firstly, we do not want to willingly sacrifice innocent lives. What we are trying to do here is do save as many lives from getting injured as possible, innocent and guilty alike. The guilty can be subjected to the Law, while the innocent can be saved. Secondly, we are not playing with the innocent population of the world; we are trying to do what people call “containment”.

In fact, you have an amazingly large flaw in your rebuttal. You say that the innocent populace of the world is in fact much larger than the guilty population, and that the entire populace of the world would never ever fall into the ratio category of 10 guilty is to 1 innocent. Herein lies your amazingly large hole. Doesn’t it make perfect sense that if the innocent heavily outnumber the guilty, the chances of the innocent subduing the guilty is at an amazingly high percent too? I give you the formula, you do the math.

You took a shot at our Homeland. So shall I then. (pick up case study paper). The Singapore flight 117 case, ended with the Singapore SAF Commando Formation stormed the plane and subdued the supposed 4 kidnappers from the PPP with a plane full of hostages not injured at all. This is an excellent example of why playing with the chances of capturing the guilty, is extremely high.

We have seen what the guilty are capable of doing. Allowing them to escape is
nothing less than a giant mistake. Giving in to their demands, which usually involves releasing of their fellow comrades and our fellow enemy would result in more danger to the populace of innocents, as this lulls them into a sense of security, and then planning another even more large scale capture of hostages in exchange for whatever they want. This would comprise many MANY more innocent lives, over putting the lesser at risk.

Thus it is much more important and practical to implement the system of Justice. The chances of the guilty running amok and causing more harm would be decreased to minimal with them imprisoned. This is like going for surgery and removing a tumor. You put yourself with a low chance of dying and a high chance of not getting cancer in the future. The public will feel protected, they will feel safe, the populace will be rid of one less terrorist, one less offender. With our lives in protection, this means that we will not be deprived of a right to live, a right that we humans own, and to be able to sleep sound in our beds at night.

Thank you.









>:D mehhhh
oh and if you were wondering, Zhetha doesn't really exist at all XD