Context are needed

 

I rarely mess my mind with internet arguments since the percentage of emotion driven are quite high and only few argue for clarification and correction, not as attack on "Us vs them" stuff, just take an example most claim are backed by rhetoric, everyone impress of that "philosophical" washing however lack of evidence and empirical. Alright we need context;

Jabatan Agama berani tangkap orang tak puasa je, double standard, laki tak bayar nafkah diorang tutup mata..

Wow! That's profound, why I never think about this?! (said by random guy who didn't even check is it true or sembang kari ikan).

This kinda emotional repacked with "intelekjual" language where many people buy. Won't you getting impressed by philosophical-rhetoric quotes few famous person? Of course most human do!  However lack of evidence, and by this;

So my rhetoric question now, are they lying? Or another justification or "goreng"?

Okey another example, 

Tang duit zakat tak sebut pulak

Yeah, typical lost argument point, they've lost anything else but instead randomly pointing delusional accusation towards opponent. Bring fact and data. No filler no rhetoric, no nonsense.

"Intelekjual" is everywhere, talking about something without evidence but instead repacked with isme-isme. You know what's called? Manipulation. You believed is it true because it using persuasive languages, your perception are shaped by that kind of rhetoric without realizing you need to check whether is true or not but why you didn't check? Because you're consumed by this all nonsense, many people trained to hate something because of how message accept by them. 

However, if they're attacking you and started label you with isme-isme like me, at least your point are not thousands of borrowed interpretation, world of justification text instead real number, real data. That's where this nonsense stopped.