I’ve been thinking about this for quite a while. How do you reason with people who only believe in dichotomy? See, for example, there only two kinds of people, the ones who believe in dichotomy and the ones who don’t and of course this is an endless argument because the latter kind wouldn’t agree there are only two ways to go about it and also if you see where am heading with this you’d also agree with me there is only a certain extent to which we can question the things that are the actual question, i.e., a scope to philosophize and just when I think this is all mad, Mr. Context comes grappling at me saying, wtf man, where’s your head at, when I’m there. I’m always there. Always stick to me. Stick to a context, if not many and bear the logic.
I was, I am and I always will be adrug addict. A person who gets involved in drugs has to fight it every day.
(on American politics…)
“I think Bush is a murderer. I’m going to head the march against him stepping foot on Argentine soil.”
“My legitimate kids are Dalma and Giannina. The rest are a product of my money and mistakes.”
(recently on his rival to the ‘world’s best ever player’ award, Pele…)
“Pele should go back to the museum.”
(recently on the entire nation of France and its greatest football star…)
“We all know what the French are like and Platini as a Frenchman thinks he knows it all.”
(and last but not the least (my fav) on proving the doubters wrong…)
“To those who did not believe: now suck my d**k – I’m sorry ladies for my words – and keep on sucking it. I am either white or black. I will never be grey in my life. You treated me as you did. Now keep on sucking d**ks. I am grateful to my players and to the Argentinian people. I thank no one but them. The rest, keep on sucking d**ks.”