Read in the news today:
I would like to stress that public transport and school bus operators are not affected by the fuel hike because they are entitled to diesel at RM1.43 per litre and they are given fleet cards. There is no reason why they should increase their fares as announced by the bus operators association today,” he told reporters Friday after attending Umno retreat at a hotel here.
Entrepreneur Development Minister Datuk Noh Omar
I wish to think this was a misquote on the reporters part or a mistake made by that minister which hopefully would be corrected sometime in the near future.why?cos err...i'm convinced at the moment that a mas minister would know better than to think that public transport fares wont go up just because they give the same subsidies as before to public transport. They think too much on the busses,trains,wtv that they forgot the drivers,the ticket sellers and anyone who has anything to do with public transport.Those ppl are also hit by the increase in fuel prices,i know a bus driver and he has his own car,i doubt the guy get the same subsidies for his own car. food prices are going up and will continue to go up(i think) as fuel prices go up. so these ppl will have to increase their spending,whether they have the extra money or not,they'll probably ask for higher wages so that feeds into the rising cost of public transport.If that minister truly believes what he said well...i rather not say it..haha
Showing posts with label Slightly mature stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Slightly mature stuff. Show all posts
Friday, 6 June 2008
Monday, 26 May 2008
Lie
I've finally found time to update my blog. Not gonna be long though cos i'm heading off to the library after this,i am in need of work and thats the only place i can think of which gives me the right atmosphere to work in.
Anyway,lie. About a week ago i got into a discussion with a group of very sophisticated ppl(i'm not part of the group,i was there by chance) and they were talking bout whether lying is just simply wrong.to start of,the scene given was u know your friends gf(using the idea that the friend is a guy seeing that i'm kinda lazy to type both) is cheating on ur friend,so what do you do?i thought the question wasnt really structurd right for the topic,if ur friend doesnt ask u,then ure not telling him anything so its not lying and if ure the one telling that friend of yours that his couple is cheating,it aint lying either.nvrthe less,it was a spontaneous question and i did understood what the guy was trying to say,what would i do if my friend came to me to asking whether i know his couple was cheating.i said early on that if my friend askd and i knew,i'd say it as it is witout holding back cos the act of him asking gives me the hint that he's suspicious of his gf (duhhhh) or even he couldve known it.i didnt agree that lying would be a better option cos even if it does give him a bit of happiness(up to the point that he finds out) that happiness is based on a lie(i didnt say that,someone else did). that got me thinking on a bigger scale,what if those conspiracy theories are true and we're actually living a lie which we see as true. see it this way,theres so many religions out there in the world,how do we know which one is right or wrong.they all could be right up to a point but which one would be right all the way till the end( not gonna talk much about it cos my knowledge is limited on that kinda stuff).
we were then given another situation.what if we know our friend is cheating on his gf and his gf came and ask us about it?its a good question cos its a proof of how u treat ppl differently. if my friend was the one beeinf cheated at and i knew,i'd tell him straight to his face a.s.a.p but when my friend does the cheating,i have doubts i'll ever tell his gf about it. at that moment,i can only figure 3 things to do.
be truthful,
tell her knowing that ure doing the 'right' thing but lose a friend and possible secrets in the future that other ppl might tell me but couldnt do so cos i dont lie.
tell a lie,
feel a bit guilty but it'll pass seeing that i have stml(short term memory loss) and everyones happy(until she find out by herself of course)
not say anything
might give a hint of yes but she keeps on thinking witout knowing for sure.everyones happy
my choice was obvious,i'd lie.it was either that or say i didnt know or keep silent which is almost like a yes.think of it this way,if ure friend didnt cheat,u'd say no in a heartbeat but if he did,u said u didnt know. see the difference?so i'd just lie.i can live wit the guilt but it does seems un 'fair' that u'd allow someone else to live a lie but not ur friend.as a person dubbed with having a heart of stone,i didnt care that much.
someone in the group said she thinks lying doesnt really angers a person,its the fact that u did something wrong.what she said to us was implying that lying to cover up sumthig u did wrong is not wrong..i think. her example was u cheat,u lied to ur gf and u were found out,she's angry cos u cheated not cos u lied.some of us gave replies along the line that in court,if u pleaded guilty,u'd get a lighter sentence than if u pleaded not guilty and was found guilty showing that lying is kinda wrong. i gave an example of a doctor that gives a patient 6 months to live when the patient is just fine. charles(who apparently joined the group this term,it shows,didnt say much during the discussion) thought i said that a doctor cant make mistakes,luckily enough someone put it into an easier form(hmm..i hate this guy,i'm gonna tell him he has 6 months to live).it does imply that lying is wrong.she argued however that lying is lying int he first case was more of covering sumthing up where as in my case its the main thing. the guy in front of us said sumthing bout the degree of lying.he said its alright to lie in some cases.his example was if u just found out ure friends mom was diagnosed with cancer and ure friend(who didnt knew) came to ask u if everythings alright just before his exams,u'd lie to him and say yeah and tell him after his exams.
during supper,charles asked me what i think about the lying.and i remembered and analogy that i once heard back in 02.consider a pen.u can poke someones eye with it or u can write sweet poetry with it.its not the pens fault that u poke someones eye with it.(TJ used to say this and somehow it sticks in my head now) and i told him thats what i think of a lie. its a 'thing' which right or wrong depends on how u use it.of course,theres always the religion issue.not gonna say much except that i think its the variation of interpretations.
a boring entry,i know,probably cos i;m getting boring.today was supposed to be the day i go out shopping but i might just have to move it to tomorrow seeing that i'm not in the mood.weekday shopping is kinda nice ,not that many ppl.no,i aint a shopaholic,i just errr..outgrow my clothes quickly..nothing wrong with being 19 and still growing.till i get the incentive to type again.ta
Anyway,lie. About a week ago i got into a discussion with a group of very sophisticated ppl(i'm not part of the group,i was there by chance) and they were talking bout whether lying is just simply wrong.to start of,the scene given was u know your friends gf(using the idea that the friend is a guy seeing that i'm kinda lazy to type both) is cheating on ur friend,so what do you do?i thought the question wasnt really structurd right for the topic,if ur friend doesnt ask u,then ure not telling him anything so its not lying and if ure the one telling that friend of yours that his couple is cheating,it aint lying either.nvrthe less,it was a spontaneous question and i did understood what the guy was trying to say,what would i do if my friend came to me to asking whether i know his couple was cheating.i said early on that if my friend askd and i knew,i'd say it as it is witout holding back cos the act of him asking gives me the hint that he's suspicious of his gf (duhhhh) or even he couldve known it.i didnt agree that lying would be a better option cos even if it does give him a bit of happiness(up to the point that he finds out) that happiness is based on a lie(i didnt say that,someone else did). that got me thinking on a bigger scale,what if those conspiracy theories are true and we're actually living a lie which we see as true. see it this way,theres so many religions out there in the world,how do we know which one is right or wrong.they all could be right up to a point but which one would be right all the way till the end( not gonna talk much about it cos my knowledge is limited on that kinda stuff).
we were then given another situation.what if we know our friend is cheating on his gf and his gf came and ask us about it?its a good question cos its a proof of how u treat ppl differently. if my friend was the one beeinf cheated at and i knew,i'd tell him straight to his face a.s.a.p but when my friend does the cheating,i have doubts i'll ever tell his gf about it. at that moment,i can only figure 3 things to do.
be truthful,
tell her knowing that ure doing the 'right' thing but lose a friend and possible secrets in the future that other ppl might tell me but couldnt do so cos i dont lie.
tell a lie,
feel a bit guilty but it'll pass seeing that i have stml(short term memory loss) and everyones happy(until she find out by herself of course)
not say anything
might give a hint of yes but she keeps on thinking witout knowing for sure.everyones happy
my choice was obvious,i'd lie.it was either that or say i didnt know or keep silent which is almost like a yes.think of it this way,if ure friend didnt cheat,u'd say no in a heartbeat but if he did,u said u didnt know. see the difference?so i'd just lie.i can live wit the guilt but it does seems un 'fair' that u'd allow someone else to live a lie but not ur friend.as a person dubbed with having a heart of stone,i didnt care that much.
someone in the group said she thinks lying doesnt really angers a person,its the fact that u did something wrong.what she said to us was implying that lying to cover up sumthig u did wrong is not wrong..i think. her example was u cheat,u lied to ur gf and u were found out,she's angry cos u cheated not cos u lied.some of us gave replies along the line that in court,if u pleaded guilty,u'd get a lighter sentence than if u pleaded not guilty and was found guilty showing that lying is kinda wrong. i gave an example of a doctor that gives a patient 6 months to live when the patient is just fine. charles(who apparently joined the group this term,it shows,didnt say much during the discussion) thought i said that a doctor cant make mistakes,luckily enough someone put it into an easier form(hmm..i hate this guy,i'm gonna tell him he has 6 months to live).it does imply that lying is wrong.she argued however that lying is lying int he first case was more of covering sumthing up where as in my case its the main thing. the guy in front of us said sumthing bout the degree of lying.he said its alright to lie in some cases.his example was if u just found out ure friends mom was diagnosed with cancer and ure friend(who didnt knew) came to ask u if everythings alright just before his exams,u'd lie to him and say yeah and tell him after his exams.
during supper,charles asked me what i think about the lying.and i remembered and analogy that i once heard back in 02.consider a pen.u can poke someones eye with it or u can write sweet poetry with it.its not the pens fault that u poke someones eye with it.(TJ used to say this and somehow it sticks in my head now) and i told him thats what i think of a lie. its a 'thing' which right or wrong depends on how u use it.of course,theres always the religion issue.not gonna say much except that i think its the variation of interpretations.
a boring entry,i know,probably cos i;m getting boring.today was supposed to be the day i go out shopping but i might just have to move it to tomorrow seeing that i'm not in the mood.weekday shopping is kinda nice ,not that many ppl.no,i aint a shopaholic,i just errr..outgrow my clothes quickly..nothing wrong with being 19 and still growing.till i get the incentive to type again.ta
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
Reply: kyd and pau, and sumthing else
i had a feeling(just a feeling) that when i wrote that entry a few days ago, there will always be people who have other views,ideas etc about it. some one even went as far(or near,depending on how u look at it) as to give a long comment which made the entry longer than it actually is. regardless,if ure reading this, i really appreciate ur thoughts and views on the matter. i really didnt want to do this reply in the first place but after thinking it through,i might as well just do it for a reason i dare not tell(i know what ure thinking,its ego,pride bla3,well think wtv u like, i'll just accept the fact that some ppl are so negatively minded..look whos talking).
this is gonna look unbalance seeing that i am the one holding the pen(the author of the blog laa) but there are truth in my words if not all of em are true(please do correct me if i'm wrong). Dr. Frank M. Sacks of Harvard Medical School's Channing Laboratory in his experiment which can be found in Aug. 7 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven,i repeat PROVEN that eating meat can cause negative health effects which in other words is BAD. however, just because it is bad,does not mean that its no good. Meat and oxygen are just examples of how good things can be bad if u look at another angle.if one argues that cigs are always bad for you then how bout soft drinks or red meat?vehicles running on fuel if u think bout it,they have exhaust fumes that are dangerous to ppl and environment,if i used the same argument u used for second hand smokes, cars running on petrol and airplanes could actually be haram.
Almost if not everything in this world as we know it has its pros and cons. in the book the logic of life written by Tim Harford, he agrees with Von Neumann and Chris Ferguson among others that people act rationally when they do sumthing(i really enjoyed reading it,have ago if u have the time).based on this understanding, if people smoke then those ppl must have calculated(either conscious or unconsciously) that the pros out weigh the cons. i quote
danial syafiq said...
spot on fiqss. wanted to comment exactly the same thing. i mean wtf? whats the good point of smoking? come on, ill belanja the person who can at least come out with 3 plus sides of smoking. =/
21 April 2008 05:32
i am gonna give u ur 3 reasons(although there are more,i just wanna keep this brief) so u can belanje me when i get back unless of course its wrong.
1)Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk
Evan L. Thacker from Harvard School of Public Health and colleague reported in the March 6th issue of Neurology, compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have "normal" Parkinson's disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk.
2)Reduces the risk of Breast Cancer
Jean-Sebastien Brunet, lead author of a study being published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, that the incidence of breast cancer was 54 percent lower among heavy smokers than among nonsmokers.
3)Less risk of Alzheimer
In an article in The Times of London (9/7/93), Dr. James Le Fanu provided an examination of the research on smoking and its apparent protective effect for certain diseases. Dr. Le Fanu stated unequivocally: "Smokers have a 50 per cent reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's--and the more smoked the greater the protection."
I have to point out that all these arent the opinion a 19 year old but opinions of established medical researchers in their own fields.
moving on to the point of whether it is makruh or haram. i have to say i just dont know.it could halal for all i know . its one of those things that u were told ever since u were young and u still believe to this day. i'm at the stage of my life where i like to question when it is in doubt .i'm still confuse though which is the right way to go, ok until its proven not ok,or not ok until proven ok..in this matter i would assume most ppl to say not ok until proven ok but in diff circumstances(eg court cases) if u think of it as innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent,i'll prob get a diff answer.
i really appreciate ur thoughts and views and i quote u kyd,who quoted the quran
Firman Allah s.w.t.: Allah menghalalkan bagi mereka segala yang baik dan mengharamkan bagi mereka yang buruk-buruk.
(Al-A'raf : 157)
i am not an Islamic scholar but i think it is safe for me to assume that most of us if not me alone, dont know to what extent is baik and buruk2,i have nvr heard that its been specified in the quran(do tell if it is).eg, most would say the act of killing is wrong but when its extended to killing as a result of defending ones life is it different?lets say he can defend himself witout killing the other person but still kills the other person?..what bout if he is able to defend himself witout killing the person but chooses to kill the person so that he wont be killd if ever he is caught of guard? theres so many different ways to look at sumthing so deciding whether its good or bad depends on how u look at it.
i have to stress now that if anyones a non smoker and reads this and wants to start smoking(dont think that'll ever happen,but just in case)please dont.i didnt write this to encourage ppl to smoke, just wntd to point out that there could be other views on it. however both me and the ppl i quote can be wrong,Einstein once said " If the facts dont fit the theory,change the facts". and please bear in mind,although i am giving proof of smokes can be good,it does have negative effects. but most ppl probably know what they are so no need to say a word. i'll try not to do another reply on this particular topic even if sumone writes(types) a 400 word essay comment underneath cos this is one of those things that can be dragd on and i prefer to do simple entries like my life and what i do. apologies to both kyd and pau for referring to their comments witout their consent. on that note,till i find something better and simpler to blog about,later
this is gonna look unbalance seeing that i am the one holding the pen(the author of the blog laa) but there are truth in my words if not all of em are true(please do correct me if i'm wrong). Dr. Frank M. Sacks of Harvard Medical School's Channing Laboratory in his experiment which can be found in Aug. 7 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association, has proven,i repeat PROVEN that eating meat can cause negative health effects which in other words is BAD. however, just because it is bad,does not mean that its no good. Meat and oxygen are just examples of how good things can be bad if u look at another angle.if one argues that cigs are always bad for you then how bout soft drinks or red meat?vehicles running on fuel if u think bout it,they have exhaust fumes that are dangerous to ppl and environment,if i used the same argument u used for second hand smokes, cars running on petrol and airplanes could actually be haram.
Almost if not everything in this world as we know it has its pros and cons. in the book the logic of life written by Tim Harford, he agrees with Von Neumann and Chris Ferguson among others that people act rationally when they do sumthing(i really enjoyed reading it,have ago if u have the time).based on this understanding, if people smoke then those ppl must have calculated(either conscious or unconsciously) that the pros out weigh the cons. i quote
danial syafiq said...
spot on fiqss. wanted to comment exactly the same thing. i mean wtf? whats the good point of smoking? come on, ill belanja the person who can at least come out with 3 plus sides of smoking. =/
21 April 2008 05:32
i am gonna give u ur 3 reasons(although there are more,i just wanna keep this brief) so u can belanje me when i get back unless of course its wrong.
1)Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk
Evan L. Thacker from Harvard School of Public Health and colleague reported in the March 6th issue of Neurology, compared to people who had never smoked and were considered to have "normal" Parkinson's disease risk, former smokers had a 22-percent lower risk of Parkinson's disease and current smokers had a 73-percent lower risk.
2)Reduces the risk of Breast Cancer
Jean-Sebastien Brunet, lead author of a study being published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, that the incidence of breast cancer was 54 percent lower among heavy smokers than among nonsmokers.
3)Less risk of Alzheimer
In an article in The Times of London (9/7/93), Dr. James Le Fanu provided an examination of the research on smoking and its apparent protective effect for certain diseases. Dr. Le Fanu stated unequivocally: "Smokers have a 50 per cent reduced risk of developing Alzheimer's--and the more smoked the greater the protection."
I have to point out that all these arent the opinion a 19 year old but opinions of established medical researchers in their own fields.
moving on to the point of whether it is makruh or haram. i have to say i just dont know.it could halal for all i know . its one of those things that u were told ever since u were young and u still believe to this day. i'm at the stage of my life where i like to question when it is in doubt .i'm still confuse though which is the right way to go, ok until its proven not ok,or not ok until proven ok..in this matter i would assume most ppl to say not ok until proven ok but in diff circumstances(eg court cases) if u think of it as innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent,i'll prob get a diff answer.
i really appreciate ur thoughts and views and i quote u kyd,who quoted the quran
Firman Allah s.w.t.: Allah menghalalkan bagi mereka segala yang baik dan mengharamkan bagi mereka yang buruk-buruk.
(Al-A'raf : 157)
i am not an Islamic scholar but i think it is safe for me to assume that most of us if not me alone, dont know to what extent is baik and buruk2,i have nvr heard that its been specified in the quran(do tell if it is).eg, most would say the act of killing is wrong but when its extended to killing as a result of defending ones life is it different?lets say he can defend himself witout killing the other person but still kills the other person?..what bout if he is able to defend himself witout killing the person but chooses to kill the person so that he wont be killd if ever he is caught of guard? theres so many different ways to look at sumthing so deciding whether its good or bad depends on how u look at it.
i have to stress now that if anyones a non smoker and reads this and wants to start smoking(dont think that'll ever happen,but just in case)please dont.i didnt write this to encourage ppl to smoke, just wntd to point out that there could be other views on it. however both me and the ppl i quote can be wrong,Einstein once said " If the facts dont fit the theory,change the facts". and please bear in mind,although i am giving proof of smokes can be good,it does have negative effects. but most ppl probably know what they are so no need to say a word. i'll try not to do another reply on this particular topic even if sumone writes(types) a 400 word essay comment underneath cos this is one of those things that can be dragd on and i prefer to do simple entries like my life and what i do. apologies to both kyd and pau for referring to their comments witout their consent. on that note,till i find something better and simpler to blog about,later
Saturday, 19 April 2008
Smokes are Haram?
back in malaysia,i got a couple of friends who are some what anti-smokers(they dont say it out loud but we know they are) and are really confident that smoking is 'haram'(banned). just recently,i read a blog about someone who just read a 'fatwa' that states smoking is haram. a fatwa for those who didnt know is is a religious edict or a ruling on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar(yeah,i copied and paste) .
the argument given was the health issue(well one of the arguments). personally,i dont see how u can ban sumthing because it has health risk.just think bout it(if u have time to waste,that is),we could actually ban almost if not everything just on the basis that they're not good for ur health. too much oxygen aint good for ya.Pulmonary Oxygen Toxicity occurs when a person is exposed to high oxygen levels for over 16 hours in pressures of 0.5 bar or more. It occurs in progressive, overlapping phases. During the first phase, fluid floods into the tissues of the lung that are normally filled with air. Bleeding then occurs between the alveoli, destroying capillaries and epithelial cells. Tissues begin producing in an attempt to heal the area. This causes thickening and scarring of the lungs. (another copy and paste).i'll be doing alot of copy and paste for this one cos they're creditable data,and at the moment are facts.so since oxygen kills,why cant be ban it?owh yeah,i forgot,we need it to breath and if we dont,we die . even so,ppl could argue that its vital for our lives so it can be accepted.how bout eating meat? Meat causes the digestion to work hard and this is not efficient. To breakdown food in the body requires a process of burning oxygen which is called oxidation. Oxidation is a process in the body that results in the production of free radicals. Modern science, by the preponderance of the evidence, believes 80 per cent or more of the damage to the body is the result of free radicals. The more difficult digestion, as in the case of digesting meat, the more oxidation is required to breakdown foods. The more oxidation, the more free radicals are produced, which leads to free radical accumulation. Accumulation of free radicals is not considered healthy. so if eating meat is bad for you,why dont we ban it?we can live as vegetarians.
if ure sayin its not as bad as smoking,well the fact remains it still is bad and who dictates the degrees of bad(ness) at which one can issue a fatwa to ban it. and the fact remains that it is deemd haram by a fatwa,not the Quran or a Sunnah.a few things bout fatwa that most didnt know:
There is a binding rule that saves the fatwa pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwa is only binding on its author.
individuals are free to accept them, but Islam recognizes that extenuating circumstances may prevent it.
i got a couple more but this is getting long so i'm trying to cut it short.some of the things i copy and paste could be wrong(correct me if it is and please do explain how they are wrong) but based on the first one,it implies to the guy who issued the fatwa not every muslim in the world and to be fair to him,he probably knows more than i do(he did argue using the Quran,but then again the interpretation of the Quran differ to some scholars) but i refuse to believe smokes are haram.
act i could type more bout it but i dont want to cos i'm somewhat in the middle in this issue. i know my arguments states that smokings arent haram but i'm not sayin its not bad either.i believe that we are givin a choice in the matter and neither are wrong or right.as with everything,they r good points on smoking but theyre also bad ones,so i'm gonna settle on personal choice rather than anything else. just cos a few ppl think dont like it doesnt mean everyone else has to.
but then again,i'm only 19,wtf do i know bout anything
the argument given was the health issue(well one of the arguments). personally,i dont see how u can ban sumthing because it has health risk.just think bout it(if u have time to waste,that is),we could actually ban almost if not everything just on the basis that they're not good for ur health. too much oxygen aint good for ya.Pulmonary Oxygen Toxicity occurs when a person is exposed to high oxygen levels for over 16 hours in pressures of 0.5 bar or more. It occurs in progressive, overlapping phases. During the first phase, fluid floods into the tissues of the lung that are normally filled with air. Bleeding then occurs between the alveoli, destroying capillaries and epithelial cells. Tissues begin producing in an attempt to heal the area. This causes thickening and scarring of the lungs. (another copy and paste).i'll be doing alot of copy and paste for this one cos they're creditable data,and at the moment are facts.so since oxygen kills,why cant be ban it?owh yeah,i forgot,we need it to breath and if we dont,we die . even so,ppl could argue that its vital for our lives so it can be accepted.how bout eating meat? Meat causes the digestion to work hard and this is not efficient. To breakdown food in the body requires a process of burning oxygen which is called oxidation. Oxidation is a process in the body that results in the production of free radicals. Modern science, by the preponderance of the evidence, believes 80 per cent or more of the damage to the body is the result of free radicals. The more difficult digestion, as in the case of digesting meat, the more oxidation is required to breakdown foods. The more oxidation, the more free radicals are produced, which leads to free radical accumulation. Accumulation of free radicals is not considered healthy. so if eating meat is bad for you,why dont we ban it?we can live as vegetarians.
if ure sayin its not as bad as smoking,well the fact remains it still is bad and who dictates the degrees of bad(ness) at which one can issue a fatwa to ban it. and the fact remains that it is deemd haram by a fatwa,not the Quran or a Sunnah.a few things bout fatwa that most didnt know:
There is a binding rule that saves the fatwa pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwa is only binding on its author.
individuals are free to accept them, but Islam recognizes that extenuating circumstances may prevent it.
i got a couple more but this is getting long so i'm trying to cut it short.some of the things i copy and paste could be wrong(correct me if it is and please do explain how they are wrong) but based on the first one,it implies to the guy who issued the fatwa not every muslim in the world and to be fair to him,he probably knows more than i do(he did argue using the Quran,but then again the interpretation of the Quran differ to some scholars) but i refuse to believe smokes are haram.
act i could type more bout it but i dont want to cos i'm somewhat in the middle in this issue. i know my arguments states that smokings arent haram but i'm not sayin its not bad either.i believe that we are givin a choice in the matter and neither are wrong or right.as with everything,they r good points on smoking but theyre also bad ones,so i'm gonna settle on personal choice rather than anything else. just cos a few ppl think dont like it doesnt mean everyone else has to.
but then again,i'm only 19,wtf do i know bout anything
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
