Indonesia Raya & Sekularisme

"Sekuler" itu kata kotor di Indonesia. Tidak ada politikus yang berani menyatakan dirinya sekuler. Saya  pernah menulis betapa ngawurnya hal ini dalam sebuah artikel di majalah Bhinneka hal 7 sampai dengan 9. Setiap negara itu WAJIB menjadi negara sekuler, sebab "tidak sekuler" berarti menggunakan agama dalam konstitusi dan hukumnya, pertanyaannyakan AGAMA MANA? Denominasi mana? Selain itu kita semua tahu, semua politikus itu busuk. Mencampur adukkan agama dengan politik berarti membusukkan agama. Bukannya kesucian agama itu mahapenting?

Setelah itu saya juga sudah pernah menulis, sila pertama Pancasila itu sebetulnya bersifat sekuler. Intinya, "Ketuhanan" tidak sama dengan "Tuhan" dan "Esa" itu bukan "Eka" atau "tunggal" atau "satu."

Namun, "sekuler" itu tetap kata tabu. Banyak orang masih ngotot "sekuler itu berarti anti Tuhan!"

News flash: TUHAN ITU TIDAK DISEBUT DALAM LAGU INDONESIA RAYA! Ini penting sebab kontras dengan 2 negara sekuler: Amerika Serikat dan Rusia. Mari mulai dengan Amerika Serikat.

Asal tahu saja, Amandemen pertama konstitusi Amerika Serikat dengan jelas menyatakan Kongres tidak berhak membuat peraturan mengatur agama atau menghalangi kebebasan beragama. Kalau itu bukan contoh sekularisme, artinya kata sekularisme itu gak ada artinya. Namun ... lagu kebangsaan mereka "The Star Spangled Banner" itu ternyata memiliki baris yang berkata: 

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Sama juga dengan Rusia. Mirip dengan Perancis, Vladimir Putin juga melarang jilbab di sekolah, dan menggunakan "sekularisme" sbg dasar hukumnya. Namun, lagu kebangsaan mereka memiliki 2 baris yang berbunyi:

Kau unik, satu²nya di dunia -
Tanah air ini dilindungi Tuhan!

Artinya ... sekularisme itu membenci Tuhan ke tulang sumsum, sampai² di lagu kebangsaan saja nama Tuhan disebut? Yeah ... kelihatannya begitulah kenyataannya. 

Masih menolak sekularisme? Kalau begitu biar saya tebak ... anda masih menonton film menggunakan Betamax, bukannya DVDkan? Soalmya anda ini type orang yang ngotot gak jelas, menolak fakta :)

Kesalahan "Teori Evolusi"

Malang betul nasib ilmu hayati.

Salah 1 ilmuwan terhebat sepanjang masa:
Charles Darwin

Tidak seperti matematika, fisika, dan ilmu² alam lainnya, fondasi terdasar ilmu ini terus menerus ditentang, dimaki, dan dihina-dinakan oleh begitu banyak orang. Tentu saja saya sedang bicara tentang teori evolusi yang sampai saat ini dianggap "sesat" oleh ahli² agama. Saking gigihnya mereka menentang teori evolusi, mereka terus menerus mengulang beberapa kesalahan ini:

Kalau manusia berasal dari kera, kenapa kera masih ada?

Ini adalah bukti para penentang teori evolusi itu begitu terobsesinya menjatuhkan teori evolusi sampai² TIDAK MENGGUNAKAN LOGIKA ketika berargumen. Saya baru saja membaca posting di facebook yang kurang lebih bilang:

Kalau manusia berasal dari debu dan tanah, kenapa debu dan tanah masih ada?

Kalau orang Amerika berasal dari Eropa, kenapa orang Eropa masih ada?

Terbuktikan betapa ngawurnya logika ini? Oh iya, ngomong² soal "evolusi menyatakan manusia berasal dari kera" ...

Manusia itu TIDAK berasal dari kera!

Ini biasanya serangan pertama orang² penentang evolusi. Ini adalah strawman fallacy, teori evolusi TIDAK pernah mengatakan manusia berasal dari kera! Menurut teori evolusi, manusia dan kera modern memiliki nenek moyang yg sama, jadi JANGAN gunakan serangan ngawur ini kalau mau menentang evolusi.

Evolusi ini cuma teori!

Serangan ini tambah "meyakinkan" berkat popularitas iklan odol 10 tahun yang lalu "AH TEORI!!" 

Begini yah ... evolusi memang "cuma teori" persis seperti teori heliosentris/matahari sebagai pusat tata surya. Betulan. TEORI di kontext ini adalah penjelasan ilmiah sebuah fenomena, bukannya "omong kosong tanpa bukti." Sebaliknya, sebuah teori yang diterima justru harus memiliki bukti² yang kuat. Namun harus diingat, bukti tsb tidak melulu cuma bukti langsung.

Balik lagi ke teori heliosentris. Tidak ada rekaman kamera yang menunjukkan bumi berevolusi mengelilingi matahari, semua "bukti" teori heliosentris itu adalah hasil perhitungan dan pengamatan tidak langsung. Sama seperti tidak ada rekaman yg menunjukkan evolusi manusia dari makhluk bersel tunggal. Yang kita miliki adalah be-ribu² bukti tak langsung, misalnya existensi bakteri pemakan nilon, persamaan genetik antar spesies, fosil², dll.

Evolusi juga berdasarkan iman!

(Menghela napas.) Charles Darwin sebelum menulis teori evolusinya adalah seorang Kristen. Dia INGIN SEKALI membuktikan kebenaran teori kreasi. Untungnya, akal sehatnya menang. Semua hasil penelitian dia dan sejawatnya TIDAK membuktikan teori kreasi. Teori evolusi adalah salah 1 kemenangan akal sehat, jiwa ilmiah, dan pikiran kritis atas iman dan mentalitas ABS.

Teori Kreasi juga ilmiah!

Ngawur total. Begini deh, saya mau tanya, bagaimana caranya membuktikan ketidak sahihan teori kreasi? Hmm? Mungkin tidak? Bukti macam apa yang bisa meyakinkan anda bahwa teori kreasi itu ngawur? Ada tidak?

Kenapa hal ini penting? Sebab teori yang "tidak bisa dibuktikan salah" itu lebih ngawur daripada teori yang salah. Misal nih, saya mau menebak nomor lotere antara 0 - 9999. Kalau kita meminta bantuan "peramal" dan dia memberikan sebuah nomor, kita bisa MEMASANG nomor itu. Sekarang bayangkan si peramal itu bilang "Nomor lotere itu adalah nomor antara 0 - 9999." Ini adalah sebuah tebakan yang TIDAK MUNGKIN SALAH. Ini juga sebuah tebakan yang TIDAK BERGUNA! Ini sebabnya Karl Popper mendefinisikan keilmiahan sbg "falsiafibility" atau "kalau tak bisa dibuktikan salah artinya SUDAH PASTI TIDAK ILMIAH!!"

Ini sebabnya teori kreasi itu bahkan tidak bisa disandingkan dengan teori bumi itu datar. Hei, kita bisa membuktikan kesalahan bumi itu datar gitu! Kirim saja satelit ke ruang angkasa untuk memotret bumi untuk bukti langsungnya! Sebelum adanya satelit, berlayar saja ke 1 arah terus menerus, kalau ternyata kita kembali ke titik awal, artinya bumi itu bulat bukannya rata! Teori "bumi itu datar" sudah terbukti salah. Teori kreasi itu begitu ngawurnya sampai² bahkan tidak bisa disebut salah.

Sebaliknya, teori evolusi bisa dengan mudah dibuktikan salah. Tunjukkan saja sebuah fosil kelinci dari era pre-cambrian. Tunjukkan "irreducible complexity." Masih banyak cara lainnya, tapi sampai sekarang bukti² ini tak bisa ditemukan. Karena itulah teori evolusi masih dianggap sbg fondasi ilmu hayati modern.

Charles Darwin sebelum mati bertobat menjadi Kristen!

Irelevan. Charles Darwin bukan dewa, bukan Tuhan. Dia mau menjadi Kristen kek, dia mau menjadi Buddhis kek, gak ada urusannya dengan kesahihan teori evolusi YANG terus berkembang setelah kematiannya. Ingat, Darwin TIDAK PERNAH menjelaskan mekanisme evolusi. Cuma setelah Darwin meninggal orang² membaca tulisan Gregor Mendel tentang genetika dan PRESTO, ternyata cocok!

Oh iya, biarpun irelevan, tuduhan itu ngawur yah. Darwin tidak pernah "bertobat". Sampai mati dia meyakini kebenaran teori evolusinya. Anak² Darwin, yang menemani Darwin di saat² terakhirnya, semuanya membantah cerita konyol ini.

Teori Evolusi membuat semua orang menjadi ateis!

Ngawur lagi. Kepala tim pemetaan DNA manusia, Francis Collins adalah seorang biolog Kristen. Dia pernah bilang "semua kerjaan saya ini nonsense kalau evolusi itu salah." Sekali lagi, dia itu seorang Kristen. Dia percaya "evolusi adalah cara Tuhan memberikan upgrade." Ketika dia berdiskusi/berdebat dengan biolog yang ateis, Richard Dawkins, mereka berdua sepakat dulu soal kesahihan teori evolusi.

Gak usah minder, iman anda tidak akan terhapuskan cuma dengan mengamini teori evolusi. Kecuali kalau iman anda memang kerdil dan sempit yah. Kecuali kalau agama anda cuma sebatas "Tuhan menciptakan manusia dari debu dan tanah" yah. Kalau ternyata seperti itu sih ... iman anda memang gak layak dipertahankan. Tuhan dan agama anda seharusnya jauh lebih luas dari itu deh.

Rasanya masih banyak argumen ngawur yang terus menerus digunakan untuk menjatuhkan evolusi deh, tapi itu saja yang terlintas di pikiran saya saat ini. Saya tidak percaya kesalah-kaprahan ini bisa terhapuskan. Banyak penentang teori evolusi tidak tertarik melakukan debat ilmiah dengan pikiran terbuka. Mereka cuma tertarik menjatuhkan teori evolusi itu sendiri, persetan dengan metodenya, persetan dengan fakta! Gak heran kesalah-kaprahan seperti yang di atas bukannya dikoreksi, malah terus-menerus diulang. Gak heran mereka ngotot menyandingkan teori kreasi dengan teori evolusi.

Battleships in the Pacific War

There is no God.

Because if there is one, I wouldn't be born in the 20th century and live most of my life in the 21st century. I would be born either at 4 April 1884 in Nagaoka, Niigata, or 11 May 1888 in Natlee, Kentucky, and spend the best day of my life FIGHTIN in the Pacific War during the twilight days of battleships. I could rectify the mistakes made by 2 admirals, and gives a deserving end for the battleships era. How could an omni-benevolent being torment and torture me by denying me that opportunity?`Hence: there is no God.

First case: Solomon Campaign

The 1st date is the date and place of birth of admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the Imperial Japanese combined fleet commander during the Pacific war. He was instrumental in shaping the Pacific war, but here I just want to focus on his role in the Solomon campaign.

As I already said before, world war 2 is the twilight days of the battleships. Shortly before it, they were the most important thing in your navy. Heck, they were the equivalent of today's nuclear warhead! The rise of airpower, jet propulsion, and many other technologies end that status. But in this war, battleships were still important. They were used to provide flak curtain to protect carriers. for example. Other than that, they bombarded enemies' shore installation to smithereens. 

Now, we come to Guadalcanal, Southern Solomon. The Americans in 1942 managed to conquer the island and built a small aerodrome, Henderson Field. The Japanese were determined to take it back. Unfortunately, the Japanese Navy and Japanese Army quarrels like the Roses. The Americans managed to stand repeated Japanese naval, land, and aerial assaults.

Fed up with this stalemate, admiral Yamamoto send 2 fast battleships Haruna and Kongo to bombard Henderson Field with their 356 mm cannons. The Americans couldn't contest this bombardment since they had no comparable ships at that time. So, the mighty battlewagons rained hell over Guadalcanal. After the bombardment, the Americans were dazed, confused, and most importantly ... scared shitless. So, they repeat this follow-up this bombardment with land assault? Nope. They missed their chance, the Americans managed to recover from the bombardment, and reinforced their position. When the Japanese finally "get it," they send fast battleships Hiei and Kirishima to repeat the bombardment. But this time the Americans ships interdicted them in the "Naval battles of Guadalcanal." At the first night, the US under Rear Admiral Callaghan, challenged the Japanese using cruisers only. Despite his clumsiness, he surprised the Japanese fleet. He managed to cripple Hiei, but all the cruisers were wiped out, and he also lost his life. At  the second night, the US got battleships Washington and South Dakota to protect Guadalcanal under the command of admiral Willis "Ching" Lee. This time, they managed to sunk Kirishima without losing ships bigger than destroyers. In the end, the Japanese forces evacuated from Guadalcanal, marking the whole campaign as the "turning point of the Pacific war."

What I would have done: Operation 彼らkareraのno母hahaのno膣chitsuにni戻ってmodotteヤンキースyankiisuをwoスイープsuiipu異常ijixyouにni混乱konranしshiたta状況jixyoukixyou (Shitstorm that sweeps the Yankees back to their mother's vagina)

Note: The Japanese usually named their military operation with ridiculous name like "ichigo" (strawberry) or "Z", not this time!  

Let me ask you, what is the most famous battleship of all time? Big chance the answer is "Yamato," small wonder, it is the biggest battleship of all time, with the largest cannons, thickest armor, etc.

Check again the name of the fast battleships send by the Japanese. None of them named "Yamato" or her sister ship "Musashi". You see ... the Japanese super-battleships at that time was parked at Truk lagoon, around 1200 miles North of Guadalcanal, acting as Yamamoto's flagship. Japanese sailors DETESTED this treatment, "Why we have to die at the frontline while that big Yamato stand like a hotel in safe water?" Amen.

Yamamoto and other Japanese big shots didn't send Yamato and Musashi because they were worried that narrow seas like the one around Guadalcanal make them vulnerable to torpedo attacks. What? Seriously? 

If I was born as Yamamoto at that time I would say "Okay, just sweep those yankees using our battleships. Send Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna, Kongo, Yamato, and Musashi at the same time. I'll lead in Musashi. Kongo and all 3 sisters of hers should come first and inspect the perimeter, attack any US ships that were stupid enough to stay. If the coast is clear, Yamato and Musashi will start the hellfire with their 460 mm cannons. Once the bombardment is over, Yamato and Musashi could retreat, while Haruna - Kongo repeated their past experience, for good measures, let Hiei - Kirishima stand on guard. If Haruna and Kongo alone managed to scare them shitless, let's see how they can handle six of us now! If Haruna and Kongo alone destroyed them THAT BAD, let's see how they manage Yamato and Musashi too!"

Let's imagine what would happen if Callaghan met Yamamoto's battle fleet. Most likely he would refuse to give battle and retreat. But just consider, even in BEST CASE SCENARIO where he managed to cripple Hiei just like in reality, Yamamoto can just shrug it, sunk all US ships, then finally bombarded the Henderson Field.

That, ladies and gentleman, was HOW YOU USE YOUR BATTLESHIPS! Every military historian agree, the bombardment was the HIGH-POINT for battleship in the Pacific War. The parking of the superbattleships in Truk Lagoon was not even the low-point. Heck, they didn't even exist in the same sentence! What's the point of having such expensive ships if you only park them on safe harbor? What a waste ...

And speaking of waste ...

USS North Carolina

Battleship Nagato. From wikipedia

Second case: The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot

After the US re-conquered Solomon Islands, Papua, and Central Pacific in 1943 - early 1944, they moved to the inner defense of the Empire: the Marianas. Unlike during the Solomon campaign. This time the US already created the "Big Blue Fleet" or as I call it "the Fuck YEAH fleet!"

Why "Fuck Yeah"? How else you call it, I mean, this fleet could launch more than 1.000 aircrafts. Therefore, they DIDN'T CARE whether they fight Japanese carriers or airfields, they could overwhelm it in seconds. 

Battleship Yamato. From wikipedia.

South Dakota class

They packed punch not only because of the 1000+ aircrafts, but also because of the 7 modern battleships. At that time, they had USS Washington & North Carolina from North Carolina Class; USS Alabama, Indiana, and South Dakota from South Dakota class; and USS Iowa & New Jersey from Iowa class. These battleships were under  admiral Willis "Ching" Lee, the victor of the 2nd naval battle of Guadalcanal.

When the FY fleet moved to Mariana, it was lead by admiral Raymond Spruance, victor of battle of Midway. He checked his map, his schedule, and all intelligence data ... and he found one interesting point. His fleet could meet the Japanese fleet at night, and fight it out in a SURFACE battle instead of aerial one. He asked Lee whether that was desirable. Lee said he didn't want to fight against the Japanese in the night again. Spruance agreed with him and thus "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" was fight as an aerial battle.

What I would have done: Operation Iron Storm

If God exists, I should have been born as that Willis "Ching" Lee. I would said:

"HELL YEAH, I really want to fight them with my own battleships! Screw the fact that there is no need to endanger the crews and the mission! As far as I am concerned, this is the last chance to see World War 2 version of battle of Jutland. As a battleship admiral, IT IS A BLASPHEMY to avoid this fight. This is no longer about the war, the mission, or the crews, this is about higher power, about our DHARMA in this cruel world! This ... is about a fitting end for an epic that already lasted for centuries! This is the final showdown for battleships!"

Spruance was a battleship admiral. He would understand, and nodded in agreement.

Willis "Ching" Lee. The man
who screws my mind, years
after his death.

Then we could have the most spectacular surface battle EVER. The Japanese got Yamato, Musashi, Nagato, Haruna, and Kongo. Imagined the final fight between the Japanese battleships and the "Fuck YEAH Fleet". It would be GLORIOUS. It would be EPIC. The Japanese would launch their floatplanes, which would routinely drop spectacular flares above the US ships. The Imperial cruisers would lead its destroyers in torpedo attacks, tryin to hit US battleships. The US would use their superior radar to direct their shots. Shells would flyin around. 460, 406, and 356 mm shells above all, penetratin belt, and deck armors. It would be ... beyond the most vivid wet dream imagined! It would be MORE HARDCORE than the most hardcore gangbang video that involve lesbians! This is a fittin end for the battleship era. An epic epilogue of such spectacular class.

SNAP!!

Sadly, all of that is only a dream. Yes, only a dream, because LEE SHRUGGED IT OFF!! The fact is, the last battleship vs battleship battle is the battle of Surigao strait. In case you don't know, that battle was about 6 old US Battleships shootin 2 old Imperial battleships, Yamashiro & Fuso, like shootin a fish in a barrel ... with auto-shotguns! 

ARGH, HOW COULD HE? This is not fair, this is the last chance of battleship vs battleship battle, and LEE SHRUGGED IT OFF! Lee has gravely sinned against the naval God, HOW COULD HE?? He should be court-martialed, sacked, and ... and ... AAARGH!! TRAVESTY! BLASPHEMY! CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY! HOW COULD HE? HOW COOOUULLDD HEEE??

7 Deadly Sins

"Seven Deadly Sins" is one of the most prominent things from Christianity, although it is never written in the Bible. It is an interpretation of the Bible, and I have to admit, it's a good one ... and confirm that the Bible is a horrible book in general. Why so? Just check those sins:

Lust

Mostly interpreted as: excessive libido. 

More concretely interpreted as: No pornography! No masturbation! Missionary is the only acceptable position! Heck, maybe the "no condom" rule also stem from this one!

For me it is: The church tries to control the sexual life of the people.

Yes, excessive libido is bad, yeah we get it. And? Suddenly they try to CONTROL our sex position? So the logic goes like:
1) Excessive libido is bad!
2) Therefore we can rule how you position yourselves during copulation!!

So ... let me guess, " "having fun" or "be creative" during sex" is equal to excessive libido?  I tell you, these guys are CONTROL FREAKS. And no, "these guys" are not limited to the Catholic church. I know TONS of Protestant church that has the same mentality. It is not about the danger of uncontrolled sex, it is about THE CHURCH CONTROLLING OUR SEX LIFE!! It is about the church forcing you not to enjoy one of the most basic activity in life!

Gluttony

Mostly interpreted as: excessive eating

More concretely interpreted as: Surprisingly, I can't figure it out ...

For me it is: Seriously, I don't know. Looks like they miss this one.

Seriously, after trying to control our sex life, looks like the church back down at this one. I don't know any bad rule based on this "sin." Maybe I were wrong and those clerics as not as bad as I thought? NAAAAH, wait till you see the next one.

Greed

Mostly interpreted as: excessive desire.

More concretely interpreted as: Be charitable! Donate 10% to your church! No, not other church, not other foundation, MY CHURCH FIRST!

For me it is: Ordering you to give money, while threatening you with eternal torture, FROM MORAL HIGH GROUND!!

YEAH BABY, I love how the church exploit this sin! Religion is the only way to looks righteous even after you scare other people shitless with your bullcrap, get tons of money from it, and even got people's thanks! Have I mentioned to you that the church look righteous even after doing this ass-pull? No wonder religion still alive today, there is always a weasel who see this and use it to get your money ... and political support!

Sloth

Mostly interpreted as: laziness.

More concretely interpreted as: You must praise the Lord all the times!

For me it is: SICK SICK SICK!!

How low can you go? For the church, "Demanding YOU to lick their imaginary friend's buttock 24/7" low. NAAAAH, they can go lower. Just check the next sins!

Wrath

Mostly interpreted as: Uncontrolled anger.

More concretely interpreted as: Thou shalt be full of forgiveness!

For me it is: Good ... but a double standard.

This rule is actually very good. Anger could be used to our advantage, but uncontrolled anger almost always lead to misery and regret. The problem is, the Bible itself REPEATEDLY wrote about "The wrath of God." So ... "follow what I say but not what I do"? So ... God asked us to follow a moral guidance that HE HIMSELF can't follow? Hypocrites.

Envy

Mostly interpreted as: excessive desire, 

More concretely interpreted as: the #10 commandment from the 10 Commandments

For me it is: YAY! More excessive rule from the same control freak! BOY, I REALLY ENJOY THIS!

The 10 Commandments are horrible laws. Individually, some of them are good. As a set, they are the product of a barbaric age. Seriously, which omni-benevolent & omni-potent ruler FORGET to say "thou shall not enslave" and "thou shall not genocide" but remember to put "thou shall remember that the 7th day is MY DAY!"?? 

After some thought, the #10 rule is the worse of them all. Hey, let me tell you something, NOBODY CAN FOLLOW THAT RULE!! Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY can be totally free from envy. Here is a fundamental rule of a good law: make a law that PEOPLE CAN OBEY!! Ratifying an impossible law only makes the writer looks stupid ... oh I forget, that is not the case. They already get away with asking people to lick "the writer"'s bottom 24/7, looking stupid is the least of their concern. Silly me. NEXT!! (More on this in the conclusion part.)

Pride

Mostly interpreted as: Egoism, Arrogance, Self-Centered-ness.

More concretely interpreted as: Don't be arrogant! Remember about others!

For me it is: The sign of ultimate arrogance from the church.

This sin is considered as the highest one, the source of all sin. Same like many previous sins, excessive pride is really dangerous. But the church actually try more than curtail excessive pride. They remind you that YOU, individuals, are beneath God, beneath the church! YOU have to remember to give your 10%. You have to remember to praise Him all the time. You have to shut your mouth whenever your mind speak against the representation of God in this world, the church. 

To me, this is the sign of the ultimate arrogance. The people who say that they represent God in this world say that Pride is bad? The people who claim to KNOW WHAT GOD HATE claim that pride is a sin? The people who repeatedly equate their position with GOD and those against them "against God" want to lecture me about how bad "pride" is? Appalling!

You see the trend? The church picks a normal, very human feeling, exaggerated how bad it is, and label it as a "SIN" without putting the word "excessive" in front of them. Why they do that? Simple, the same reason they put the #10 commandment:

THEY WANT TO MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTY!!

Yes, since those are very humane emotions, it is a no-brainer. EVERYONE has done it at least once in their lifetime. Like I said before, ordinary impossible law only makes the writer looks stupid, but this is not ordinary law, this is God's laws! So instead of making the writer looks stupid, it will make everyone feels guilty. This is one of the oldest trick in mind-control: make your target feels guilty. "Guilt" will make people more vulnerable to b.s. like religions, religious laws, and religious clerics.

To Love or To Be Loved?

My friends asked me an interesting question:

"If you could only have one of them, which one would you prefer, to love or to be loved?"

I thought for a split second and think that both thinks can't be separated. Then I think a little bit further. Finally, I decided:

"Neither. If I have to choose one unanswerable feeling, I choose to hate."

I am sure many people will be surprised by that answer, just like my friends. Many will be appalled too. This happens because the opinion that "Love is good" and "Hate is bad" is so deeply ingrained in our mind. News flash for all of you:

"LOVE IS OVERRATED!!"

and

"HATE IS UNDERRATED!!"

How do we call a man who so in love with a girl that he give no shit about her opinion and keep sending her e-mails, love letters, etc.? STALKER!! No need to give examples, you know what a stalker is. Imagine what happens if any of those creepy stalker hate a little bit more. They won't be stalkers.

How do we call a man who hate an unjust system so much that he fight against it? FREEDOM FIGHTER! Or in other cases: RIGHT ACTIVIST! Example: Abraham Lincoln HATE slavery so much that he pushed an amendment of US constitution to prohibit it. Imagine what happen if Abraham Lincoln loved those slaveholders and their rights to own slave! Forget it, it is too TERRIBLE to be imagined!

Now, let's return to my friend's question. The 1st proposition, to love without any reciprocation, is tragic. No need for me to explain why, so many poets already do that. No freakin way I want to put myself in that kind of position VOLUNTARILY or CONSCIOUSLY! 

The 2nd proposition, to be loved without answering back, is annoying at best ... or can be EXTREMELY TRAGIC at worst. Just imagine what you think if you received endless love letters from someone you don't like. Annoyin. Just imagine if suddenly that creepy stalker kill her/himself because you don't love them back. Or even worse, tryin to kill a public figure to draw your attention! Holy shit! NO FREAKIN WAY I want to put myself in that kind position voluntarily or consciously! 

My proposition turns up just fine. Hey, I already hate abstract things like genocide, slavery, injustice, etc., and concrete people who do those despicable things and beyond help: Osama bin Laden, Habieb Rizieq Shihab, current regime of North Korea, Solano Lopez, etc. That means, I already do that voluntarily, consciously everyday, and tell you what, it's not that bad!

In essence: love and hate is not automatically good or bad. Life is too complicated for such simplistic view.