Singapore Roars the wrong way

Today in our Com 242 class, we had a revision of the art of reasoning. Although most of us have done this before, it was good to have a refresher course for it. Mr Kevin Lim played a clip from Monty Python, and spoke about the "logical reason" involved in the witch burning scene. To be honest, the logic put forth by the characters, still exist very much in todays' society. I shall go into depth about that later on. First, i shall share the transcript of the reasoning part of the scene. Great thanks to Mr Lim for putting this up, makes explaination so much easier.

BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck.
[quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]

CROWD:
A witch! A witch! A witch!
WITCH:
It's a fair cop.
VILLAGER #3:
Burn her!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!...


As we just read, the villagers made a deductive argument by relating the witch to wood first. Their logic was that since a witch burns, she must hold every characteristic to that of a piece of wood.( I wondered if they realised that they too would burn if fire was set upon them, guess they really had heads made of wood). Moving down the line, they made a judgement based on what they considered to be logical. I mean honestly, how on earth did a human being end up being compared to a duck. Point to note, i feel sorry for the witch, the darn weighing scale must not have liked her because since her weight was proven to be same as a duck, it was concluded that she was a witch .

For your own entertainment, I came up with the most unreasonable argument i could think of. Reminder, this is purely fictional.

Judge: Where were you on the night of the murder?
Defendant: I was out drinking alone.
Judge:Alone? Do you not have friends?
Defendant: I was in a state of depression, therefore I was not interested in socializing.
Judge: I find the defendant guilty of the murder of _______ . He shall be sentenced to death by hanging on a date which would be announced in due cost.
Defendant: Your honour, please explain.
Judge: Since you were out drinking alone, you have no alibi, due to the fact that you were in a state of depression, your mind was completely capable of commiting such an act. Therefore, you are guilty.

Manz imagine if this was the case, alot of people would be dying. Anywae i guess i found another example of such illogical reasonings. Well since i wanted to voice my thoughts on something, i might as well use it to justify what was learnt in class.

Last night, I went for a soccer match at the National Stadium. Singapore vs Indonesia. Orite, please don't jump to conclusions. Yes i like playing soccer, Yes i like watching soccer, No i do not support the Lions(Singapore's National Team). So what was i doing there? Well i guess it was just a case of SPS (Sudden Patriotism Syndrome). The last time i actually had gone to the national stadium was years ago, when i probarbly first learnt how to kick a ball, when Fandi was still playin and Abbas Saad had not been jailed for corruption.(yes that is at least 13 years ago)

So yes i wanted the Lions to win, i could say i was a fan that night but still i had the mental capacity bright enough to differiate justifiable acts from that of "Kayu-ness".Okay, i shall not blabber so much.To cut it short. SINGAPOREANS FANS NEED TO USE THEIR BRAINS AND NOT THEIR EMOTIONS MORE!!!

I am not taking a swipe at Singaporean fans, but seriously there were times when i wished i could just bury my head in the concrete floors.Let me brief you guys on my experience. As some of you may know(and for those who don't, please learn so you won't embarrass yourselves), an offside is given when an attacker passes a ball to another attacker who is behind the defence line.(this is the easiest way to put it). In relation to the match, i agree that the referee did catch the Lions offside sometimes, but for at least a good 95 percent, they were.

So what so embarrassing about this? Well, I think the Lions were great, but i think the fans made themselves laughing stocks to our Indonesian counterparts. Everytime, a foul was given for offside, the only language avaliable was "Boo" and/or "Referee Kayu". This also always came with the longer forms, for example; "referee's brain and eyes on holiday".

Okay, so the fans were just caught up with emotions, but hey!! wake up the visiting side's fans are probably goin to go home thinking that we Singaporeans either have limited vocab or that soccer/football is just about kicking a ball into a net to us.So how do I end this entry? Simple, what better way then by using the illogical reasonings studied in class and incoporating it. Here it is ....



(major premise) All non-supporters are Kayu

(minor premise) The Referee is a non-supporter
therefore

(conclusion) The Referee is Kayu