Checkmate

“Our life is like a chessboard game, some talented genius people proclaim to be the kings and queens. Some ordinary people are just pawns. But those who work hard and never give up and has a goal could be a knight…enough to defeat kings and queens in a single move.″

I received this message thru text and I condemn the person who wrote this quote.

First of all, the writer did not really associate life with a chessboard game. He just used a relative importance of the pieces to the pre-existing niche of the people that may be in the position of the chess officials.

Another, being talented or being a genius does not give you the right to be royalty, or be in position of rule, if that’s what the writer wants to express. If I were to relate intellectuals to chess pieces, I say a bishop or what is nearer to a political adviser or a vizier. And what is intelligence relative to the appropriate chess piece? In contrast, yes, an intellectual can be a king or queen in a field, but that does not highlight the comparison to a chess game, since a king is a weak piece, and a queen is a more versatile official. Therefore the degree of importance of the king and the queen varies. The loss of a king does not equate to losing a queen.

Ordinary people, as he say, are pawns. In this premise, he compares the capability of ordinary people to be in that of pawns. The given fact that the writer presented is that brighter individuals can be royalty, and ordinary ones are not. This leaves out the other chess pieces to rot in anonymity. This gives a black and white view of the society, that violates social concepts of diversity in human nature. But the writer adds an exception to his black and white view of humanity, a knight.

In his quote, the status of a knight is attainable thru hard work and determination which is true in pursuing knighthood. But still, that does not refer to a knight chess piece nor his predetermined characteristics such as moves, shape and capability. And as he stated there that knights can defeat the kings and queens in a single move. Idiocy! ALL CHESS PIECES CAN DEFEAT ANYTHING BY A SINGLE MOVE. You don’t defeat chess pieces by combined attack, double attack, back attack, sneak attack, triple-combo dynamite attack or such things that does not refer to a single move. If he refers that knights can “Jump” on pieces to reach the queen or king, that does not make his statement any more significant.

The person who wrote this quote did not saw it through. Maybe he just wrote it for nonsense reasons or maybe he was trying to impress a girl. If you read this, oh great writer, i challenge you to make a coherent one.

The Invention of the Fooon

The spork is a funny eating utensil and doesn’t serve as both spoon and fork with full functionality and emulation of an individual spoon or fork. Example, you can’t use a spork for soup. And you can’t pierce hard meat with a spork since the spiky fork-like projections are in limited reach and with rounded edge.

Imagine a mass production of Fooon: a full substitute to any existing eating utensil, and yes, even if the chopstick is as fascinating and simple. The Fooon is a hybrid of a spoon and fork with the great dissimilarity from a spork, varying in capability and universality. Unlike the spork, the Fooon looks like a spoon with protruding fork teeth, making the Fooon a better choice since it gives the service of fusing the spoon and fork for portability without taking away a good characteristic of either parent utensil.

Are you good at hiding your emotions?

What a stupid question. many people ignore the deeper argument in this type of interrogation, they treat it lightly and never attempt to put the question under scrutiny. The society is degrading.

The question can not be easily answered by yes or no.

First, if you are really good at hiding your emotions, no one would really notice you are hiding something. Therefore, one cannot assess the potency of your hiding process, since he/she is not knowledgeable of the premise that you are hiding your emotions. And if one learned about your endeavor, he/she can not determine what variable of emotion you are trying to hide, therefore he/she can not evaluate. In this premise, one can only know your external behavior or if you have presented the idea to audience that you are capable of hiding emotions, then the premise breaks. But in this proposition, exhibiting the fact of your ability to hide emotions is nevertheless unimportant, for doing so will only cause ignorance to the audience.

Next, if you are not good at hiding your emotions, one cannot assess that you have tried to hide something, since it is already out and if one would recognize it, he/she will just state the obvious. then if you have already presented all possible emotions, the fact that you are unable to hide them, the ability to hide the emotion must be present in the set but as follows, the trait does not exist in the set. Opposite to the previous idea, knowledge of the audience on your inability to hide emotions will only fortify the idea that you are really incapable of doing it, since the audience will just recognize it since all your characteristics are present. In this premise, one can also know your external behaviors, but most importantly, answering “no” to the question will not deliver any significant recognition or trivia to the audience. Another thing is, if you answered “no”, this will only generate a paradox that if you really are not good at hiding, maybe you are already exhibiting the trait that you are GOOD in hiding emotions, therefore one cannot again determine the relative truthfulness of your statement.

Next time, if you are asked “are you good at hiding your emotions?”, answer them nothing, since your answers won’t matter. The ability of hiding emotions is fictional. I prefer to call it as “proper arrangement of emotions”, since “arrangement” is different from hiding. Where arrangement is organization, and organization does not point to disappearance.