why care so much?

Labels: :D:D, voice

When I first realized that this word is a requirement (according to the masses) for forgiveness, I began to reflect on the importance and implications of the utterance of the word "sorry".

It's a word spoken out of humility and understanding, empathy towards someone else's feelings knowing that you have disappointed them. Whereby spoken, you willingly lower your pride, filled with regret hoping you could have done something to remedy the situation, hoping you could have done something to take back what you did. It's the reverser to your ignorance towards another's hopes, feelings, and the entire situation.

Like any other word which enquires about another's soul, like any other word which associates with faith, hope and love, this word, and all other words and phrases and clauses and sentences of this kind must be spoken with sincerity and truthfulness, unless you are armed with a motive to harm another person.

This word is another of the most cliched words ever used. The golden key for forgiveness, the push-button for an escape from punishment, with a dash of hypocrisy. An immediate effect to shut the other party up. During the course of army, we've all seen this word used many times. But the problem is, it seldom mean anything. Because first, the mistake is made again and again, so despite the unending number of "sorry"s, it doesn't convey real regret nor remorse in the offender's part. And second, it's spoken with more of cowardice than remorse.

For example, during a fall-in to check-clear our weapons, some of our platoonmates were late because they can't find bayonets, or because they sprained their ankle and stuff. So they were limping, or proceeding down the stairs. We were all pushing them shouting "platoon 3 hurry up!". Then this guy went to shout "you better hurry up or I will take my rifle and ......." (expletive). Not only he said that once, but he spoke in such threatening manner to them. I could stand it no longer, so I told him off, telling him "is this the way you talk to your platoonmates?". I bet everyone is feeling the same indignance towards his behavior, just that I happened to stand beside him, so it's most convenient to whack him. What happened next is behavior of utmost irresponsibility and cowardice. He lowered himself, with eyes spelling the human emotion of s.u.r.p.r.i.s.e, and a dash of fear in the face of cowardice, he said sorry to ME.

And also, other times when he was making lots of noise causing an irritation, and when he was reprimanded, he would say the same old sorry to the commander or the platoonmate, as he fails to realize who he really offended is the other platoonmates. Yes, lowering your head is one way to get around authorities. But do you see me lowering my eyes around commanders, giving that "sorry" when being told off, behaving in a totally different way around commanders, trying to earn their recognition by being very garang only in front of them? It takes a bit of effort in one's part to be honest with oneself and have integrity towards the people around him. An honest question deserves an honest answer. A directed interrogation requires a straight-up reply. Not the 'sorry', not the ticket to stop the interrogation.

This extremely abused word is directed almost always at the wrong person. In army especially, it's directed on the person who told you off, instead of the one who is offended, wrong, or hurt, harmed, made disadvantageous. If you lost your wallet, and your sergeant reprimands you for your carelessness, do you say sorry to HIM? You should be sorrry for yourself for losing your wallet! You should admit your carelessness to yourself and realize it's your mistake! All that sergeant is doing is to help you realize your mistake by reprimanding you. I believe it's the repsonsibility of oneself towards himself, all part of self-discipline.

I have no resentment with the use of this word. Because I known of cases of this word doing wonders. But in contradiction, this word when abused, do reveal the not-so-pretty characteristics of one. When questioned by a commander on why one committed an error, an expected word to fly out of the offender's lips is "sorry". No admittance for the reason of your neglect, an inadequate excuse, but the simple 5-letter-S-word. You should be sorry for yourself most the time for not taking care of your own stuff. Instead of living in the mercy, living in the shadows of a command, I believe one should take control of his own conscience.

And also, an unsaid rule, promises are meant to be kept, and words of such are meant to be acknowledged. What's the use of saying 1000 5-letter-S-words (SLSW) when not one truly mean anything? What's the use of mouthing the word again and again just to make the mistake one more time than the number of times you said it? Trust is to be earned (that's what we all know), but it's easier to lose it than earn a fraction of it back (that's what we assume we know). But if one really really means it, this cliched word is amongst the most powerful words ever.

Labels: national service, voice

Literature and language, something so beautiful, can be marred by the simple measure of mere score and marks. Marred by single-minded pursuit, that getting more is better, and for this cause, the beauty of the art of language is officially murdered.

Using terms without even knowing them, the inability to appreciate the art of language, and even in the attempt to appreciate, one today marred the integrity of the artistic nature of the subject.

Literature should be respected as an entity, used in context, used with purpose, not just a raw passage used to cross-reference for the sake of mere marks. The wholeness of the text and the context and the author must always be respected.

What had literature became nowadays? Nothing but the memorizing of points. The more the better. Even the "value-added" part is nothing more than just a further flexing of memorizing power. It's so hypocritical if one claims himself to take up language arts, but doesn't appreciate the art of language.

Labels: lament, language, school, voice

I was conversing with a friend regarding my new status in Singapore as a result of my age maturity. We're exploring the topic, arguing a more befitting word, on issues like clubbing, alcohol, smoking etc. the stuff you are "legal" to do when you're 18.

Well what came as a shocker to me, is the direct manifestation of a real problem with our academic-obsessed cultured today. Parent paranoia, and more significantly and relevant, student paranoia. It's the state of being so obsessed with getting good results that they turn they aren't longer assiduous. They're workaholics, victims of the system they construct for themselves. So obsessed with getting an "A" they covet for it. I am not considering selfishness, what i refer to is on the more personal aspect. I do not criticize working hard, or mugging, or working very very hard. Yes I'm not a hard worker and I'm not the guy who grumbles over sour grapes, sarcastically calling people more hardworking than me "muggers"(in a negative tone).

The issue is that the lust of getting "A"s blends with the paradox of failing in the applications of it. The more we learn, the more we become ignorant. The more we covet, the more we lust, the more we don't know what we're doing.

The issue about the discussion earlier on the day is this: that I come to further realize how little some students actually take away from them after their schooling terms. We were talking about alcohol and the effect of defiling of the body. Her proposition is to not touch alcohol because it defiles the body. My argument is that the bible never said that touching alcohol is defiling the body, it's only getting drunk. She stubbornly stood by her stance, even if I tried to convince her that the bible is open to interpretation, and many of these "rules" have been changed by societal norms. Anyway, we moved on the clubbing. She asked me "would you go to a club?", and i replied a yes, she didn't really expect that. She told me that clubbing isn't good, and it's negative, it's bad. I rebutted and told her that it isn't necessarily bad, if one goes with good company, clubbing isn't bad. She stated "no sane good person will ever go clubbing". Well, I just stood there in a mix of a thousand thoughts. After all, bad is when one gets himself sinning. The only bad i find is that you may act as a stumbling block. After a while of useless convincing, we went back to the topic of alcohol. I continued to assert my point that drinking alcohol isn't a bad thing. But drunkenness is a sin. (see: Alcoholism and bible) She then said that one doesn't know when he gets drunk. I pointed out scientific evidence, and she told me to ignore it.

This reminds of of Siddharta calling others "child people". He know not who they are, know not what they go through, just possess the notion that these people are after useless goals.

This argument is a real eye opener. I am not a least bit convinced with her stance, but I've seen how people can spend so much effort studying, put so much emphasis on results and yet picked up nothing, worked for nothing, learnt nothing. They still exhibit the exact same traits of themselves as if they have not absorbed anything albeit their sincere efforts to try make it look like they did so. What I saw was hasty generalization, stubborn assertion, unevaluated thinking, and ignorance. It was as if the years of one's life is spent on studying and God (a good thing), but not using what they know although they profess to know (a bad thing), and ignorance towards the world, not giving a shit to know more about the world (a very bad thing). What makes it more surprising is this: she wasn't satisfied with the marks she got from Theory Of Knowledge presentation, she redid, and probably will get a good grade. What's the use of studying so hard, getting so worked up, getting so obsessed when you get not a freakin thing out of it? Ignorance seems to be a ubiquitous problem, and never had got better.

A teacher of mine said that marks do not fully dictate your intelligence and your proficiency and understanding 0f the subject. It is what one takes out of the class and applies it into his life which is important. In this academic-obsessed society, one who holds values over recognition is indeed a rara avis.

Labels: christian-bboy, voice

As much as you don't like to hear it, teachers face a hell lot of stress. And most, close to all teachers face stress more than we do. In primary school, I was disgusted with the students thinking that teachers have a time of their life. Although we don't express that belief aloud, we do it in the crulest, selfishest, but ironically, CORRECT way.

In primary school, we talk about teachers taking teaching as an easy job, and we, students are so bloody stressed. Have we debunked that thought? Not entirely.

We hand up first drafts, second drafts, n number of drafts which extend to the infinite, with each only so little different from the previous. Teachers see our efforts by the number of drafts we hand in, not the quality we put in the drafts. We expect teachers to mark our script tirelessly, unfailingly. What hypocrisy when teachers try holding back work to give you and when they finally give us we complain that they are unreasonable. There definitely ARE unreasonable amounts of work, and many a time i witness them. But let's bear a thought for those who are going to MARK them.

Hand in a clean, polished draft and do your best, for I have slowly learnt how not to torture my mentors. It doesn't take much effort to. It's a win-win situation, for one gains more when he tries his best, and the less stress enchances one's life and performance and everything!

Labels: voice

There are so many definitions to this: but is there a best definition? Many of which I'm listing are results of my futile rationalizing.

Is maturity attained when a person acquires the ability to discern? When a person recognizes the fine line between what's appropriate for the matter at hand and carries out the right action? A person of this sort is the common "grown up", and the most common definition to maturity. However, this way to define maturity is lacking in one sense: that a person never touches himself, never realizes himself, playing by societal rules, a conformist.

Is maturity attained when one recognizes that ways of the world, but does not blindly conform, instead, lives a mind of his own? Is maturity attained when one begins to have his own opinions of the world and act them out? This is the experienced person, the person who had gone through the shits of the world, who recognizes the atrocities of societies because he had been in the world and grew to understand it. An experienced skeptic, or believer, either way, a starkly immense contrast with an innocent one. But the concept of independence has a problem: no man is an island and our every conception and perception is shaped by authority and premises, our senses nonperfect, our theories shortcoming.

Is maturity the coming of age of a person, when a person finally understands the ways of the world because he had been through, ergo formulate conclusions based on reliable self-experience? The coming of age is when a person finally knows himself fully? This is one point I firmly believe in: that knowledge of oneself is the sine qua non of maturity. One must know his flaws, his strengths, his limits to find his place in the world, to understand his lack of understanding, to understand man better. However, the coming of age and self-realization and understanding, as reliable as it sounds, is shaky and somewhat unreliable. Giving the changing tendencies of the person himself and more, the world, one cannot find his rightful place just by self-knowledge. It's not that it's not a good measure, but an inadequate one. To me, there is more to life than this world also, even I deem this as something extremely essential in the lines of maturity.

Is maturity the end of ignorance? Does the light of maturity break when the blanket of willful ignorance diminish? Does a person become more mature when he open his eyes and take action on the world around him? Does he become more mature when he looks at others' problems instead of himself? It is true, because he starts to realize the simple truth that the world doesn't consist of him, a release from innocence. Maturity starts with the end of willful ignorance to the world. But is egoism a sign of immaturity? It is, to an extent, but only in the premises of innocence, when one doesn't know, or doesn't care to know about the outside world. An example here: a competitive businessman isn't immature because he is egoistic for his gain of something. However, a lover who makes life difficult for his other because "he likes it that way" is immature because he is willfully ignorant about his partner's opinions but only pays attention to his own bubble for the way he likes it to be. But this theory has a problem: it only takes to account willful ignorance. What about innocence? What about pure innocence? What about narrow-mindedness? Are they not signs of immaturity? Compare ignorance, innocent ignorance with a baby. Is he not immature?

Is maturity the ability to conduct oneself in a favorable, acceptable way? Is maturity all about being poised? Does a measure of a person's maturity come from his outward appearance and his actions? It is true in the argument that good behavior is a sign of a person's knowledge of the rules and standards of society, and he is, therefore, mature. Looking form another angle, in chinese, maturity is 成熟. "成" carries the definition of accomplishment, achievement, or transforming to, turning to. The definition of "熟" is to be riped, processed, skilled, experienced, practised, deeply. Do you realize that only one of this definitions has directly to do with outward appearance? Is a person mature because he brings himself across well? Or is it the inner changes in him which made him realize that? There is a MAJOR misconception correlating maturity with appearance, and it's apparent everywhere. There is a way I behave in school which brings me across as an immature person. I know that, and sometimes I did that on purpose. One of my friends actually checked my blog and told me the next day that he didn't expect that of me. "i didn't know you're someone who... thinks." Well I expect all those comments, that I'm like this, I'm like that. But don't you think it's a good way to carry on with this maturity gauge experiment? If you don't get me, nevermind. haha.

But to me the best measure of maturity is not from the outside. It's from the inside of a person, from knowing the ways of the world, it's from understanding that you don't understand, and making an attempt to have a mind of your own. It's also about being independent, not stubbornly independent, but taking to account interdependence. In the book: 7 habits of highly effective people, Steven Covey lists habit no. 7 under that of interdependence upon one another. Maturity, to me it's also about knowing your limitations, so you are wary of yourself, and in a larger context, the hoi polloi. I believe maturity, or, riping comes at a very different time for everyone. Some I know are mature at 15. Some, who THINK they are mature, aren't even there at 18. Of all, maturity is instigated by one's own mind, one's own attempt to understand the world and himself and the people around him. Because through these, a person will know how to survive in this world, know this world, and recognize a part of his place in this world, and also to help others in this world. Ultimately, it must be for progression.

To come to think of it, there are so many definitions. These are just some to make you think.

Labels: christian-bboy, voice

Is it ethical to accept, or reject people, based on their families' wealth, instead of merit?

don't look anywhere to find. Call it a "measure to see how much one is willing to contribute to the organization." A perfect excuse.

Is it appropriate for a school to place achievements before students' welfare?

Call it education excellence, all-roundedness and value-added.

Is it all that spiritual to thank God for all your titles, when your aims is not to glorify Him, but to raise your status?

Call yourself a reflector of God's grace.

Is it morally right to ignore the less profit-wielding faculties of a firm in contrast to the high profit-wielding ones? that includes, being extremely stingy with funding, half-heartedly considering proposals thereforth.


What if it's a school?

Labels: lament, voice

It has become an issue that me nowadays that people think to be a “good” person is to be a obedient person, making him a role model. It doesn’t sound like anything to argue about as you read the first line, but the problem that this issue brings about is blind following. We unquestionably follow our authorities, our institutions, without questioning why. I have seen friends who follow rules, memorize theories (for exams), without knowing why, because they want to be a “good” person, a “good” student. Often, a “good” person, a model citizen is one perceived to follow the system unquestioningly, totally obey the system, and never to challenge the authorities. This perception to me, is very flawed.

As it's my character to be honest, or brutally honest. Alright, in nice words, constructively helpful. So much that I must explicably state, albeit my dedication to Christ, that I feel that many "good" Christians seek to be very obedient, or at least, viewed as very obedient people. It sounds extremely stupid right now, but I will talk more about later. And not just Christians, but also many others.

Well, obedience to follow the commands and rules given and set by another party. Total obedience is to follow every command given by another party. A model is something set as an example for someone to follow, or to not follow. For example a bad model is the example being set for others to not follow, and a good model is an example being set for others to follow.

Is a model person a person who upholds laws and standards? We see what the "model student" is, someone who greets the teachers, wears socks to a good length, trims his/her hair neatly, and tidies himself on the desk and the clothes, helpful to teachers. But have we seen any model student who helps the student body BUT does not follow the school rules? Then is this student is considered the "good" student in the school? The problem is, are obedience, good and role model synonymous? Yes, you may say no. I rejected when I'm typing this and slowly come to realize that even I occasionally live by the standards of the YES reply. But mainly this essay should cater to you, the follower of a system. ALL of us are in a system, a system is an entity, a combination of things, values, beliefs which form a unitary whole.

Is being a model someone who upholds the law, the code, the right way? Yes it seems to be, and he is the “good” person. But there is a flaw: who dictates the "right" way? For example, there was a pastor I respect greatly who came to my church who criticized guys using earrings. Once the words touched my ears my mind screamed in retaliation. I personally don't use earrings, but, what is it about earrings that label them to be bad? Take the source of influence to be from gangsters (and by the way that’s already a very weak postulate). Just because a small minority of people, viewed to be outcasts, like punks, wear earrings, then we label them to be symbols of immorality, symbols of sin? Why are earrings reserved for girls? What if the standard of society is to say that guys were the ones who wear earrings, by “default”? Does the code for conduct of being a model Christian, a good Christian in God's eyes come from societal standards? In one hand we say we shouldn't love the world, and that we shouldn't care of how others look at us. But on the other hand we bother again on how society views us. How far should we go by societal standards? Yes, we should care to an extent on how others portray us (if we don't we look like complete idiots), but how far? Should we let societal standards alter our perception of goodness? Should, therefore, a man wearing earrings be judged to be unspiritual? What if the person commits himself to charitable work, evangelism, counselling, and helping everyone around him? Besides questioning on this small statement made by the pastor, what I want to ask is do us Christians then continue to judge others because of their looks, because someone out there told us that something is unspiritual, causing us to become superficial, judgemental, hypocritical people?

Thus, it leads to a point of judging. Like it or not, every one of us judge, don't we? There is not one who doesn't. While we set the standard for what's good, what's the perfect model, have we not failed in ostracizing? Taking the instance of the earrings again, if the pastor said that about guys wearing earrings, won't it instigate a judgemental view on believers upon outsiders? Does that accidentally, unintentionally bring about a biased views for people with earrings? Is the pastor therefore, infallible, although he is a great man of God? Do we live blindly by the standards our authorities set? Have we not considered the potential (not definite) hypocrisy of judging others while we preach "thou shalt not judge"? As we made the perfect role model and total obedience synonymous, we must be aware of this massive flaw in the human being- himself. We, members of system, if taking advice, statements from our authorities blindly, will blindly be discriminators of people which are considered to be “outcasts”.

The third problem associated with being a good person is being obedient. What is a good person? Is a good person perfectly obedient? For example, one day IF (i said IF because it’s very unlikely) your pastor tells you to take without consent from the other person (in case you didn't realize I've shaped my words in an nice way) 50$ from a person's wallet, citing many, many reasons for doing so, and finally ending with "cos' i got a vision from God". Would you go ahead? after all, 50$ isn't like you're taking his life. Are good people people who follow authorities, or rather, unquestionably follow? One of the things you would ponder is your stance as a “good” Christian and your command the commandment to not steal. Often, our authorities change the way we think, change the way we view the system, so much that the core can be manipulated by the authorities, giving this case, Christ being manipulated by rules, regulations, societal standards. Remember, that authorities carry the name of someone who is being “endorsed” by the system. They are generally good and reliable sources, but there they are fallible nonetheless.

Another great example comes from "good" Christians' perception of teenage dating. Just because your pastor, your mentor, your cell leader says "do not date now, you should not get a girlfriend", do you blindly take it in? Do you straightaway say "he's right"? When a person you like a lot, and vice versa asks you to get steady, will you object to it with the sole reason being the reasoning form your authorities without knowing WHY? What are your ways to know he is reliable? Have you ever thought of WHY they said that (i don't think, and i hope thay don't say that blindly cos someone ELSE told them that)? Have you ever thought why and when is a person "too young" to date? I don't think they said that for no reason or for the fun of it.

There's a girl in my class who said that one shouldn't date now. When my pal and I debated with her, i found that the reasoning was weak, and to say, naive. Yes, the most common reason: "at this age, you must concentrate on your studies". Go eat shit (that doesn’t mean that you shouldn't not concentrate on your studies, just that blind reasoning is no reasoning). So you will never get to date or court in your life, when life is busier, more hectic, and more dangerous when you graduate from education to your older years. Her explanation is that you cannot cope girlfriend and studies. Is work less important than studies, less hectic, less responsibilities? If it isn't, why are many adults telling us schooling teenagers to "enjoy life when it is free, till you work you will miss your school days." Then she stated another reason "the time now at your age you should spend time with God to shape your life". This is so weak too, although it's very true by the statement itself, but used in this arguement, it strongly implies that one doesn’t need God when he grows older? These are many what i called "passed down" reasons I've heard. Stuff like: the relationship will lead you astray (EVEN if the partner is a Christian, obedient people tend to believe that EVERY relationship leads you astray), you will get yourself in trouble. Have you ever thought WHY being a relationship will lead you astray? WHAT trouble will you be in? I've known of many friends who handle their relationship excellently, juggling good grades, their CCAs, their interests very well. What a "model" person needs to know is to not blindly accept the authorities’ rules and reasons, but to understand the reasoning behind the reasoning, and show understanding and respect to it.

"See, teens do yearn to know the line to walk. If they slip over it I bring them back gently. When you lay a ground rule you must explain it to them. They have to know why and understand the reasoning behind it. Just to make a rule with not explanation, other than, "cause I said so" only cause division and distrust."
Mark Doble, When should kids be allowed to date http://www.helium.com/items/468664-think-anything-teens-should (9 march 2008)

Just as it's the authorities' responsibilities to educate people, set the rules, it's also the followers' responsibilities to understand and think about the behind it. Many a time i see people blindly following the advice, the rules authorities set for them, and giving exactly the same reasons without understanding why. It's not the same using another's mouth as your own. In my personal stance against relationships in teenage years, is that it's totally alright to date in youth, but not very advisable, it is because many people aren't may not be mature enough to understand the responsibilities, to understand the trust, sacrifice, selflessness, the time to let go, to move on in a relationship. For example, there's this guy in my church, about 14 years old, goes about dating already, but changes girlfriends in matter of weeks. He demonstrates the lack of understanding of the element of commitment, understanding and responsibility, which, in my opinion, shouldn't date because of the emotional hurt he causes on the other person, intentionally or unintentionally. My stance is neutral and requires self-assessing. One needs to hold himself accountable. The question is not about age, but it's about maturity, independence, responsibility and honesty towards oneself and his partner and to ones around him. No man is an island.

My post today is quite controversial I must honestly admit, but it's from my honest view to show the ever increasing “blindness”. And now my entire post backfires: am I not a "good" Christian because I disagree the views of my Christian authorities? Am I therefore, from today onwards, judged as a untrustable Christian because I expressed my views which happen to oppose my pastors'? Am I, from today onwards, going to be shunned by people because I wrote a 2000 word post which questions the whole problem of associating goodness, obedience and being a role model altogether? Am I judged forever to be a rebellious Christian, one to be shunned from, because I challenged followers' grasp of their very own standards?

What i'm here to do is, to inform people that they must know what they choose, what they are doing, what they believe, to understand the fundamentals, the reasons, not just blindly follow authorities, not just blindly conform to the notion of associating goodness with obedience, or a role model with obedience. This writing is not meant to prove my authorities wrong, or to disagree with them, but the aim is to inform readers about the problem with blind obedience, the flaw with which societal, institutional standards set which we may follow blindly and unquestioningly, whether you intend to do it or not. To realize that the nexus of the role model and abidance isnt' very strong, it is up to oneself to be honest about himself, honest about his authorities, and mature enough to understand the problem of subjective reasoning, and the his own flaws.

Labels: christian-bboy, voice

“I definitely don’t think it’s something you should do; it’s better to wait,” Jamie Lynn Spears on her pregnancy.

Labels: voice

papaya
b^2 - 4ac
christianbboy

does cocaine, ice, CANNABIS
ballet
sexist
anti-heavy metal music
girl-player
extremely hot tempered
1.92m
hetrosexual
UNDEROATH!!!
anti-drug campaignist

bboy
21st dec 2006 :):):)
Kyensai SEKSAY`

5/5/90
wongyuanhao
tobiasisinchinesehigh@yahoo.co.uk
Christian :D

Bobbie

Calvin

Calvin Magnus

Cheryl Lau

Cielo

Chris Foo

Christina Chew

Chucky

Chun Wui

Cliffalogy

Edmund

FireAC

Fabriz

Geraldine

Glynis

Jeanette

Joel Tay

Jt

Kyensai SEKSAY`

Kenneth Lim

Nataniel Tan

Nicholas Seow (1)

Pei Wen (or princes pei)

Ryan Goh

Sharry

Victoria

WordPress.com

WordPress.org

www.wobblin.net

Shane

Xian Yu

March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
January 2011
April 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011








Create your own Friend Test here

designer: ambivalente
brushes: fm.net
lyrics: getty