Shake Up #2

Since I became a member of a Ateneo Literary Association (ALA) based in Ateneo de Naga University, I've been less Catholic and been more open to ideas, that is, which is a good thing (don't ask why). And since I became a second year, still taking up Accounting, I've known that I won't have the kind of attachment I had with my block mates anymore. They, my block mates, are actually inviting me to a pool party but, of course, I am very aware that no one would permit me to go. So I wasn't expecting for a Christmas party until someone in ALA created a reason for us to have one. So we had one yesterday. Like what I've said, ALA taught me how to be less Catholic so expect a less-Catholic party: no exchange gifts, no program (so there's no opening and closing prayer and opening and closing remarks) but there is food (which is necessary for a party to be called one), and a prayer before we eat and 3 games which took us forever to demonstrate, and a debate (you read it right!).

The event was held in our moderator's residence. Since it was too early to eat, we decided to play games to pass time. We can hardly decide what to play for "7Up" and "Concentration" weren't welcomed to some of the participant's system (what a fancy way to put it). We ended up playing "Spin-the-Bottle." By then, we're certain that anyone were pretty much informed on how to play it.

After dinner, we had a debate. The first debate that we had is regarding Sadism versus Masochism as a personality disorder, which didn't went well for we have limited information in our hands. It took us almost an hour to think of another topic until we've decided to have "killing criminals," inspired by Death Note's Light Yagami's justice system. Additional information's that the debate is detached from morality. I was in the government side. The debate went very steamy as some are excited to go home and some still wanting to defend their side.

Since I find the topic very interesting, allow me to present a summary of the debate. The government's greatest argument is that killing criminals would instill fear to anyone who'd actually choose to commit a crime which was contradicted by the opposition by stating that it is not necessary to kill a criminal to promote fear, you could just kill an innocent, label him or her as a criminal and voilà, scare people from doing criminal acts. That, the idea of killing innocents, scared me. But remember, the debate's not bounded by morality. The government continued by saying that it's somewhat "weird" to define innocence if there is no morality.

The debate ended there. No one won. We found ourselves immersed in an experience wherein we must console ourselves for one of our friends walked out from the room upon realizing that no one is willing to hear him out any longer. I was astounded. It was a first for me. I've walked out before a number of times never realizing how the people I've walked out from felt.

As you can see, someone chipped the cup (my mentor in photojournalism might beat me for stating the obvious)

Later that evening, another friend of mine understood the defense of the opposition and that is, innocence could be inferred from just the mere act of following a certain law, not by having morality. Just comment if you want to oppose or support that. I'm done with debates.

The party ended "with a BANG, not with a whimper." Even the idea that we had a debate during a Christmas party is questionable, rather debatable. But that made the day memorable. I've learned a few things about myself: (1) Call me over-acting, but when it comes to saying sorry I'd exhaust all options available; (2) I am too kind for my own good; and (3) I am now confused if I should alter my behavior or not. Also, I've learned a few random things: (1) Silence is a good option; (2) Saying sorry personally is better than any other means; and (3) You won't regret a thing if you did what you can, not your best. We have a whole month to finalize our resolutions. Ponder, don't just read books (note to self). Happy Holidays everyone.