Carmen, u once mentioned to me that a person with influence power have a heavy responsibility. yes i agree with that. So here is my issue of picking fights as in argumentative fights. I'll use myself as guinea pig here. I have a tendency to choose fights that i can win. Wait ! b4 u think of anything let me finish. There is a reason why i do that. See, if i choose fights that i can win, i know i will come up with good arguments/comments bcoz i know my stuff.
Meanwhile for a fight that i know i can't win, should i push myself into it? I say no. B4 any hasty judgements are made, hear me out first. No, i'm not being a coward backing out of unwinnable fights. No, i'm not a sour grape that cant take losses. The reason i think i shouldn't enter into the fight is because i want to be fair to the others. If i dont know my stuff, why should i even say anything. I'll just come up with half-baked arguments/comments. These half-baked comments might be accepted by some ppl because i wield the power of influence. Like what anthony and I used to mention in class, some ppl just take what the lecturer or opinion leadears say because most of the time the things they say are correct. But how would these ppl know when i come up with half-baked comments. They might just think, oh its because he/she said that then it is right. I give all of u an example: Say a prime minister who specializes in law. Should he make decisions regarding economics without consulting economic experts first?
So what now? Is picking correct fights good or what? I would love to hear comments from everyone and especially you Carmen..haha