3000 Words to Pwn You

froivinber, author of the Vincenton Post, posted a “friendly” letter last February addressed to “All Pro-RH Bill Freaks”. Given such a charming headline, I couldn’t resist reading said letter. He opens on a very friendly note indeed, congratulating “pro-RH crackheads” on giving out free condoms around the time of Valentine’s Day. He speaks for secular anti-RH Bill people in supporting this “altruistic- or charitable- move” (“altruistic or charitable move”, for the grammar sticklers out there). He then proceeds to offer suggestions on how to better their altruistic efforts without using the power of the state to steal from others to help the poor and the weak.

It is here, however, where I must interject my own opinions. I believe, with all due respect to froivinber, that his suggestions are lacking in foresight, laden with prejudice, and irresponsible in nature. They contradict the very spirit of living in an organized society, as well as his own thoughts at times. What follows from here is an examination and critique of his recommendations, each prefaced with actual text from his blog (in blue italics):

Have the courage to undergo mass ligation (for RH bill women supporters) and mass vasectomy (for men). We, anti-RH bill people, will shoulder your medical expenses.

It appears froivinber sees these surgical procedures as the next logical step to population control, and in a way, he’s right: nothing like making a few snips to permanently prevent unwanted pregnancies. The problem here, of course, is the permanence itself. Education on reproductive health – and as a result, contraceptives – doesn’t close the door on pregnancies; only those individuals feel they are ill-equipped to manage. A good number of Pro-RH Bill people want to have children and bring about the benefits of a flourishing population just as much as many anti-RH Bill people. They simply want the births well-spaced out, with parents willing and able to responsibly raise a child.

He also fails to realize the economic strain mass surgical procedures would put on the country, as well as on medical staff and facilities. According to Pulse Asia, 69% of Filipinos surveyed prior to December 2010 considered themselves pro-RH Bill. Give or take a few percentage points for errors in generalization, it’s still possible that over half of the population will be for the bill. That’s a fairly large pool to weed the courageous from, and even with majority shying away from the challenge, the number of ligation and vasectomy volunteers could number in the thousands; perhaps even more.

froivinber, I’m afraid there just aren’t that many available medical facilities to accommodate that request. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of pieces of equipment being sterilized, a surgical crew attending to each procedure, and thousands of recovery rooms being reserved for pro-RH Bill individuals. The costs would be as astronomic as the suggestion is impractical.

If you’re so worried about overpopulation, go KILL yourself first or offer your lives to the poor and the weak until the day you die. That is, commit MASS SUICIDE as some anti-population freaks did in other countries.

Again, this is an impractical request. Take note, froivinber, that mass suicides among the RH Bill supporters would economically cripple the country. A 2008 SWS survey found that 77% of individuals belonging to socioeconomic classes A, B and C were in favor of the RH Bill. Granted, the results today may vary from a survey taken nearly three years ago, but if we were to follow the trend reported by the Pulse Asia report I referred to earlier (in which support increased by 6% from the previous year), odds are the SWS figure has increased as well.

We’re talking about 77% of our country’s main money-making force committing suicide. Even if only 20% of those individuals ended up offing themselves, that’s a significant chunk of our national economy going to the grave. This act could possibly doom the Philippines’ fiscal future for decades. That’s not even mentioning the land loss and possible pollution created from burying and cremating the thousands of dead.

I must editorialize for a moment – and I hope you’ll forgive me for this – but how can an individual who claims to be enlightened enough to know the proper way to run this nation even suggest such an atrocity? Even if we take away all sentimentality from the equation, a mass suicide of this magnitude could conceivably ruin the country.

If selfless service for the the welfare of the poor is your fundamental goal in life, form an organization of pro-RH bill advocates or concerned citizens with the altruistic vision to provide for the poor people’s RH care needs. We don’t want to take part in your self-sacrificing agenda. However, we guarantee you that charitable private corporations and organizations will support your altruistic goals.

[Editor’s note: “the the welfare” in the first sentence is likely a typographical error on the author’s part.]

They exist. Perhaps this suggestion would not have been made if the author were better informed, or cared to be so.

Call on all leftists/Marxists/sociologists/neo-Liberals/statists in the country, particularly the Marxists in Congress, to pool their money for the benefit of the poor and less privileged women.

This is also being done; thus the outrage you undoubtedly hear from so many voices and directions. I’d like to add that this message is also being shared with the groups you didn’t identify.

Mass migrate to North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela where the government provides for the needs (e.g. education, health care, abortion, transport, etc.) of their people from womb to tomb. We, anti-RH bill people, guarantee to shoulder your mass transport expenses.

Assuming that the anti-RH Bill people willing to spend on such a grand exodus can actually afford it, and assuming that it can legally be done without any diplomatic issue, why limit the pro-RH Bill folks’ choices to these troubled nations? Pro-RH Bill people should also have the choice to migrate to countries like Finland, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and New Zealand, which number among the many countries that provide public health care. Unless, of course, froivinber meant to imply public health care causes economies to collapse; a debatable assertion, based on evidence.

If you want a welfare-statist government that would provide everything you need, we suggest that you form a new political party, say, Pro-RH Bill Party or Welfare Statists Party, and join the political process in 2016. You have all the right to influence the government just as the Catholic priests also have the right to influence our statist politicians. Here, you would have the freedom and the right to vote for a pro-RH bill or pro-welfare presidentiable (e.g. Rep. Edcel Lagman or Rep. Risa Hontiveros) who would guarantee to provide you everything you need from womb to tomb.

Again, it’s been done. It’ll continue being done. Of course, the candidates wouldn’t think so narrowly to identify themselves solely as the “Pro-RH Bill Party”, as there are many more matters to attend to in this country. They’ll likely have umbrella concerns and name themselves as something more general, like the Anad party-list and the Labor Party (Partido ng Manggagawa), both of whom vocally supported the RH Bill in interviews. There is also no denying that Noynoy Aquino likely bagged a few votes during the presidential elections on the speculation that he’d have the bill passed during his term.

The Philippines is a democracy, and officials are often elected based on their perceived ability to provide for the voters’ needs. Citizens already exercise their right to vote accordingly.

If you want to spread sex education and other RH bill information, please have the initiative to spread them privately and at your own expense. There are parents who don’t want their kids undergo this kind of leftist/Marxist indoctrination fully supported by sociology professors (who are all Marxists) and anti-population intellectuals like Winnie Monsod. Have Winnie Monsod lead your new political party or altruist organization. You may also provide free family planning counseling to poor people who’d like to avail of your free services.

There are multiple issues with this suggestion. First off, the bill seeks to address the fact that not all parents will take the initiative to privately provide sex education to their children. I, for one, never got “The Talk” from my parents. What more from a large portion of Filipinos who treat sex as a taboo subject? Offering sex education classes in public schools helps ensure that Filipino citizens learn to be responsible about sex and its risks.

Second, just as there are parents who don’t want this sort of education reaching their kids, there are those who do. If we refer once again to the SWS surveys, we’ll see that 70% of individuals surveyed belonging to socioeconomic classes D and E – the classes most likely to benefit from public education – are in favor of the RH Bill. Coupled with the figures in the other socioeconomic classes, majority wins if the bill is passed.

Third, insinuating that all sociology professors are Marxists is a logical fallacy and unbecoming of an individual who deems himself an intellectual. It detracts from the cogency of the argument.

Fourth, free family planning counseling is covered by the consolidated RH Bill, as stated in Section 7. Note that the impact on taxpayers will not be as heavy as some anticipate; the bill, as written, provides free counseling for poor patients. This will likely be a much smaller amount than required for mass ligations, vasectomies, and migrations.

If you want all workers to have free RH care services, why not start your own business or form a corporation whose stockholders are all pro-RH care advocates? Is this not a good idea? If you believe that most Filipinos support your idea, we also believe that many would be very much willing to selflessly invest in your RH care Corporation without any guarantee of possible return on investment. You might want to manufacture condoms, pregnancy test and contraceptive products, etc. But take note that your new Corporation is created to serve the poor people’s common good or greater good, thus its primary corporate goal is to provide the RH care and perhaps education and transport needs of its workers.

The idea of creating a business for pure charity is oxymoronic; for a business to survive, it must create income. Charity, on the other hand, seeks to provide for those without means. Manufacturing contraceptives and pregnancy tests costs money, and if the business’ goal is to provide free products for the poor, it would quickly crumble.

Pro-RH Bill advocates already have avenues through which they can contribute their support: non-government organizations like Likhaan, WomansHealth Philippines, and the members of the Philippine NGO Council on Population, Health, and Welfare. Unfortunately, these organizations cannot accomplish such a large-scale task as effectively as a government-backed initiative.

Since your RH bill seeks to coerce all doctors to abide by its unconstitutional provisions, why not call on all pro-RH bill doctors and health care providers to take part in your new organization? We believe there are doctors who do not support the RH bill. You might not want to violate their rights to ‘freedom of choice.’

According to Section 28 of the consolidated bill, the three acts health care providers are prohibited from doing are 1) Knowingly withholding reproductive health information to concerned individuals; 2) Refusing to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on the basis of a lack of third-party consent; and 3) Refusing to provide health care and information to individuals on the basis of marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age , religion, nature of work, or personal circumstances. In short, doctors are prohibited from denying citizens their legal rights.

Perhaps “freedom of choice” is applicable in other professions, but doctors take certain oaths upon entering the field on ethical grounds. These bind them to several responsibilities, including preventing disease whenever possible. They acknowledge the fact that they hold special obligations to uplift the quality of life for their patients, through information or action. As such, in choosing to become doctors, they knowingly waive certain freedoms for the interests of the patients. There is no violation.

If you’re so disgusted with the Catholic priests for trying to influence the government, why not create a new religion that would preach anti-population and statist gospels? You might want to join the statist group of the Filipino Freethinkers who are using science and reason and freedom to advance their own pro-big government, pro-fascism, pro-government control agenda.

The formation of a new religion would likely be ridiculed by the community at large; partially because numerous proponents of the RH Bill have no issue with the Catholic faith. Many still consider themselves Catholics despite having views opposite the clergy’s. Rather, it is the manner in which the local Catholic priests tend to restrict their followers’ access to certain rights that is the issue. I mentioned earlier that a good number of pro-RH Bill people aren’t anti-population; they’re pro-responsible population growth. There are many reasons for wanting this – dwindling resources unable to support a rapidly-growing population for one thing – but there is no anti-life sentiment.

As for the Filipino Freethinkers, I leave their reaction to these assertions of pro-fascism agendas to them.

Since some of us, anti-RH bill secularists, support abortion, we encourage your women to seek abortion especially now that the Congress is due to start a debate on the beginning of life.

What would mass abortions contribute to the matter at hand, other than creating mountains of medical waste and serious health risks in women? What would the timing revolving around Congress accomplish? Symbolism at the cost of death? This is ludicrous and grossly unintelligent. There are safer, more logical ways to get the message across.

Besides, froivinber should know that the law – that which he seeks to defend by calling the RH Bill “unconstitutional” – identifies abortion as an illegal act. The bill recognizes that fact, and states as such in Section 3. It also recognizes that women should not be denied medical help regardless of the reason for the need; post-abortion care is provided for in the interests of medical duty, as sworn by health care professionals. froivinber’s suggestion, ironically, is unconstitutional.

You might also want to entertain and provide life-encouraging services to the poor and women. Why not call on dramatist Carlos Celdran and all actors and actresses who manifested their RH bill support to achieve this goal?

If these individuals have already voiced their support for the bill on the public forum, why would there be a need to call on them? How would entertainment solve the issues surrounding the suffocating population density in the metropolis, and the succeeding poverty? This suggestion makes no sense.

froivinber ends his friendly letter by stating that secular RH Bill opponents disagree with the “idiotic evaluation” RH Bill advocates have that “freedom of choice” requires government intervention. He goes on to say that the bill violates the very notion of freedom, since freedom is a natural facet of humanity not to be affected by law, government edict, or political decree. He (or “they”) believes that a free society is one that is informed, but said information is not to be disseminated by the state. He closes by recommending that pro-RH Bill freaks find pseudo-intellectual guidance through prayer or by joining the Freethinkers.

Forgive the language that follows, but it is in froivinber’s nature to make ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with him and disguise them as logic. I myself am guilty of character-directed remarks, but I make it clear (as in my post on Noynoy Aquino’s withdrawal of support for the bill) that I am writing an ad hominem piece. This, despite the counterarguments bound in logic, is another such post. If you are uncomfortable with this, please read no further.

froivinber is a special kind of moron, one that has convinced himself of his own intelligence that he fails to see the idiocy that spews from his gullet. He masks his arguments with heavy terms (he brings up the word “statist” eight times in his arguments, and roughly 10 more times in the comments, give or take the instances from other people), but then points to his own posts as references. This is akin to the childish argument of “I’m right because I said so.” He tries to appear well-read, but his sources can be questionable at times; helium.com, for example, is a site where anyone can publish whatever sort of bullshit he feels like writing that day. He is quick to dismiss his critics as “IDIOTS” (yes, in all caps) and calls them “STUPID” and “IGNORANT” as he hides behind his keyboard, oblivious to his own ignorance. He makes no apologies when called out for this uncomely behavior, often arguing that he is not at fault for calling these people for what they really are. Never mind that insulting one’s opponent is the number one no-no in the intellectual pursuit of debating. This whole “letter” of his was less a convincing, coherent argument, and more a thumb-sucking rant hiding underneath a thin veil of false intelligence. The anger directed at pro-RH Bill individuals and the violent recommendations make that all too clear.

The true idiot, dear froivinber, is the fool who shuts his ears to the rest of the world, dismissing information that goes against the grain of his limited mind. He believes in his mind and heart that he has found the answer to all of life’s ills and raves like a lunatic at the people who think otherwise. The true idiot is deaf to two-sided reason, and blind to the truth. He is arrogant and callous and obnoxious with his half-hearted knowledge, never criticizing himself for fear of realizing his own stupidity. He will never realize the value in seeing from both sides. He will never recognize in himself the pseudo-intelligence he attributes to others. He will never, ever learn. He refuses to.

As a result, his words, loud as they may be, will never have substance.

You, froivinber, are noise.

This entry was posted in FURIOUS Indignation!, Marco Knows Nothing About Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to 3000 Words to Pwn You

  1. Bim says:

    He could’ve just been a very masterful troll. That said, this is a very good read. Will RT the crackhead out of this.

  2. Helga says:

    Oh. It’s that guy again.

  3. aristogeek says:

    Congratulations! You have successfully pawned yourself. This is at best moronic! This explains the level of ignorance and idiocy of the leftists and statists who support the RH bill. Your so hilarious reply is simply a series of misrepresentation, context-dropping and illogical assumptions, which, in general, sums up your lack of critical thinking skills and idiocy.

    This one takes the cake: “The idea of creating a business for pure charity is oxymoronic; for a business to survive, it must create income. Charity, on the other hand, seeks to provide for those without means. Manufacturing contraceptives and pregnancy tests costs money, and if the business’ goal is to provide free products for the poor, it would quickly crumble.”

    The good thing about this moronic statement from Marco the stupid author of this blog, is that it admits that “creating a business for pure charity is oxymoronic.” This explains what’s wrong with the blogger’s brain. He certainly lacks the needed brain cells to think properly and rationally.

    To Marco the blogger, Vincent is trying to tell you that the RH bill is all about forcing businessmen or employers to be “charitable” or to provide RH care services to their employees even if it’s against their will or even if they can’t afford it. DID YOU READ THE BILL, moron?

    Here’s what anti-RH bill employers state in a petition: “AS EMPLOYERS, we do not want to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply. (Section 17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties).” SOURCE: http://www.petitiononline.com/xxhb5043/petition.html

    So you understand that business requires profits to survive yet you don’t grasp the fact that any intrusive, rights-violating legislation like the RH bill could have a tremendous negative impact on every business in the country, particularly small business as Vincent state here http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/how-the-rh-bill-is-going-to-kill-the-industry-primarily-small-business/

    In this blog post, Vincent states the following: “Those who ignorantly, naively take the consolidated bill at its face value will certainly accept the contradictory slogans, undigested political platitudes and unrealistic public programs of Lagman and company. There are two sides of the consolidated bill: the fantasy side and the reality side. The measure’s fantasy side can be readily gleaned from its highly ignorant explanatory note, which is filled with supportive statistics and some tragic information about the plight of the poor and women. The fantastic solution is to help the “principal beneficiaries” (e.g., the poorest of the poor and the marginalized) by means of __________. They did not state how except the fact that they enumerated the bill’s nice-to-hear intents and provisions from Section 1 to 17. The proponents guarantee universal access to family planning under Section 7 by providing that “[a]ll accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on optional basis.” However, the reality side of the measure is that all those promised, stated RH services would be covered or delivered by sacrificing, enslaving employers and health care providers.”

    Don’t you have enough brain cells to think properly and logically?

    You said in reply to Vincent’s statement: “It appears froivinber sees these surgical procedures as the next logical step to population control, and in a way, he’s right: nothing like making a few snips to permanently prevent unwanted pregnancies. The problem here, of course, is the permanence itself. Education on reproductive health – and as a result, contraceptives – doesn’t close the door on pregnancies; only those individuals feel they are ill-equipped to manage. A good number of Pro-RH Bill people want to have children and bring about the benefits of a flourishing population just as much as many anti-RH Bill people. They simply want the births well-spaced out, with parents willing and able to responsibly raise a child.”

    It appears that he’s simply responding to you anti-population idiocy. In the first place if you want to educate the masses, why not follow Vincent’s advice? Like he said, “please have the initiative to spread them privately and at your own expense.”

    In your so moronic reply, you simply resorted to context-dropping. You did not properly address the context of Vincent’s statement. Here’s your so pathetic, moronic reply: “There are multiple issues with this suggestion. First off, the bill seeks to address the fact that not all parents will take the initiative to privately provide sex education to their children. I, for one, never got “The Talk” from my parents. What more from a large portion of Filipinos who treat sex as a taboo subject? Offering sex education classes in public schools helps ensure that Filipino citizens learn to be responsible about sex and its risks.”

    What Vincent is saying is: Have the initiative to spread those information via private efforts. Start an organization and DO NOT SIMPLY DEPEND ON THE STATE and on the efforts of others who produce like businessmen and doctors, IDIOT!

    In regard to Vincent’s mass suicide statement, it appears that you failed to distinguish between sarcasm and request. Here you replied: “Again, this is an impractical request. Take note, froivinber, that mass suicides among the RH Bill supporters would economically cripple the country. A 2008 SWS survey found that 77% of individuals belonging to socioeconomic classes A, B and C were in favor of the RH Bill. Granted, the results today may vary from a survey taken nearly three years ago, but if we were to follow the trend reported by the Pulse Asia report I referred to earlier (in which support increased by 6% from the previous year), odds are the SWS figure has increased as well.”

    I disagree. A mass suicide by pro-RH bill people will simply get rid this country of PARASITES, MOOCHERS and potential TYRANTS like you. Your baloney statics does not support anything. It does not respond Vincent’s sarcastic remarks, which means your response is nothing but a FAILURE!

    In regard to Vincent’s statement about “coercion of doctors”, you again made a moronic reply, which shows you know nothing about the bill. You said: “According to Section 28 of the consolidated bill, the three acts health care providers are prohibited from doing are 1) Knowingly withholding reproductive health information to concerned individuals; 2) Refusing to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on the basis of a lack of third-party consent; and 3) Refusing to provide health care and information to individuals on the basis of marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age , religion, nature of work, or personal circumstances. In short, doctors are prohibited from denying citizens their legal rights.”

    In their petition, anti-RH bill doctors state: “AS HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties).”

    Did you read Section 22 on Implementing Mechanism? It takes someone who understand legal provisions to know the real intents of a legal measure. That provision indirectly, implicitly detailed how the bill is going to control the entire medical industry. Well, you certainly know nothing about this because you’re just a moronic leftist.

    Next time, know how to properly respond to sarcasm. Have the logic and correct reasoning before posting a failed blog response.

    This statement shows your utter hypocrisy: “Again, it’s been done. It’ll continue being done. Of course, the candidates wouldn’t think so narrowly to identify themselves solely as the “Pro-RH Bill Party”, as there are many more matters to attend to in this country. They’ll likely have umbrella concerns and name themselves as something more general, like the Anad party-list and the Labor Party (Partido ng Manggagawa), both of whom vocally supported the RH Bill in interviews. There is also no denying that Noynoy Aquino likely bagged a few votes during the presidential elections on the speculation that he’d have the bill passed during his term. The Philippines is a democracy, and officials are often elected based on their perceived ability to provide for the voters’ needs. Citizens already exercise their right to vote accordingly.”

    So you have all the right to influence the government, make and spread horrible political snippets, and try to spread anti-freedom information yet you’re against Catholic priests’ right to free speech? What a bunch of hypocrites!

    Try to read some of Vincent anti-RH bill blogs to educate yourself.

    Here’s his another sarcastic message to moronic pro-RH bill folks like you: “Now here’s my note to some RH bill supporters who’d like to challenge this blog article: Please drop the illusion that you’re a social hero or some sort of pro-poor and pro-women by simply supporting the bill. I have addressed that fantasy above and in my previous blogs. You can help the poor without enslaving and treating businessmen, doctors and some other people as potential criminals or enemies of social progress. Think like a human being, not like a parasite! You don’t help the poor and the marginalized by supporting the RH bill; it’s both the big and small businesses that can truly help them!”

    • Marco says:

      Thank you for writing a small chapter from your book on how I’m a moron in my comments. Clearly you have no sense of irony in the fact that I took each of the author’s ridiculous suggestions seriously; any dolt with half a brain would’ve seen that I was simply having my fun with it. I’m sure somewhere in your erudite statements, such as “The good thing about this moronic statement from Marco the stupid author of this blog, is that it admits that “creating a business for pure charity is oxymoronic.” This explains what’s wrong with the blogger’s brain. He certainly lacks the needed brain cells to think properly and rationally,” the actual reason in hidden within the insults. I’ve hired Mystery Inc. to decipher the clues, and they assure me of results after I supply them with Scooby Snacks.

      Of course, there’d be more to this response if you were able to avoid dropping the context, as you accuse me of doing. For instance, you call me an idiot because I presumably didn’t get Vincent’s point that private organizations are better off providing reproductive health care without need for government assistance, gleefully glossing over the fact that I mentioned these organizations do exist but cannot do enough without government support.

      I also have to admit that I don’t think that the consolidated RH Bill I read is the same one as you know, since Section 22 in the version I linked to is titled Pro-Bono Services for Indigent Women. It’s a good thing that I provided the link in my own post, thus creating the context for my arguments. Perhaps you should read more, yourself, eh?

      Implementing Mechanisms, as detailed in Section 25 (that’s 3 sections farther from 22), clearly states that the Population Committee will “Integrate on a continuing basis the interrelated reproductive health and population development agenda consistent with the herein declared national policy, taking into account regional and local concerns”; which, in layman’s terms, simply says the POPCOM will make sure the provisions of the bill (i.e. “herein declared national policy”) are adhered to, and that this reproductive health movement will be promoted. I don’t see how that controls the entire medical industry, unless brain surgery is part of reproductive health.

      I will not stand for being called a hypocrite, especially since I made no remarks about stifling the clergy’s right to free speech. Their arguments anger me at times, I’ll admit, but where in my text did you read that I didn’t want them to speak out? I’ve frequently asked about the Church’s side on the matter and have been trying to reconcile both principles into a compromise. That’s how people learn and evolve, junior; through adaptation.

      And no, I will not educate myself with his posts. I already think he’s an idiot. From the way things are going, I may be forming a similar opinion about you.

      Before I forget: PWND.

      • aristogeek says:

        Moron, don’t forget to deal with the issues/questions I provided below.

        Let me deal with the bill’s implementing mechanisms.

        You said: “Implementing Mechanisms, as detailed in Section 25 (that’s 3 sections farther from 22), clearly states that the Population Committee will “Integrate on a continuing basis the interrelated reproductive health and population development agenda consistent with the herein declared national policy, taking into account regional and local concerns”; which, in layman’s terms, simply says the POPCOM will make sure the provisions of the bill (i.e. “herein declared national policy”) are adhered to, and that this reproductive health movement will be promoted. I don’t see how that controls the entire medical industry, unless brain surgery is part of reproductive health.”

        Let me try to educate you on this matter, MORON. The PopCom is just a government entity with specific functions. And for your own information, the PopCom is just an attached agency of the DOH. It is the DOH and the “local health units” attached to it which is given the power to implement the intents of the bill.

        Let me complete the provision on Implementing Mechanisms to further educate you.

        Here’s the consolidated bill’s SEC. 25. Implementing Mechanisms:

        Pursuant to the herein declared policy, the DOH and the Local Health Units in cities and municipalities shall serve as the lead agencies for the implementation of this Act and shall integrate in their regular operations the following functions:
        “(a) Ensure full and efficient implementation of the Reproductive Health Care Program; “(b) Ensure people’s access to medically safe, legal, effective, quality and affordable reproductive health supplies and services; “(c) Ensure that reproductive health services are delivered with a full range of supplies, facilities and equipment and that service providers are adequately trained for such reproductive health care delivery; “(d) Take active steps to expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP), especially among poor and marginalized women, to include the full range of reproductive health services and supplies as health insurance benefits; “(e) Strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies to ensure safe, legal, effective, quality, accessible and affordable reproductive health services and commodities with the concurrent strengthening and enforcement of regulatory mandates and mechanisms; “(f) Promulgate a set of minimum reproductive health standards for public health facilities, which shall be included in the criteria for accreditation. These minimum reproductive health standards shall provide for the monitoring of pregnant mothers, and a minimum package of reproductive health programs that shall be available and affordable at all levels of the public health system except in specialty hospitals where such services are provided on optional basis; “(g) Facilitate the involvement and participation of non-government organizations and the private sector in reproductive health care service delivery and in the production, distribution and delivery of quality reproductive health and family planning supplies and commodities to make them accessible and affordable to ordinary citizens; “(h) Furnish local government units with appropriate information and resources to keep them updated on current studies and researches relating to family planning, responsible parenthood, breastfeeding and infant nutrition; and “(i) Perform such other functions necessary to attain the purposes of this Act.”

        In this case, the process of integration is very much important. Since the doctors or health care providers from both public and private sectors are being directly mandated by the bill to deliver poor people’s and women’s RH care needs, it is very much clear that this provision talks about HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS because the DOH has no capacity to provide everything the poor need.

        Consider this provision: “Strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies to ensure safe, legal, effective, quality, accessible and affordable reproductive health services and commodities with the concurrent strengthening and enforcement of regulatory mandates and mechanisms.”

        It means that the government thru the DOH may enforce regulatory policies and rules on both private and public health facilities and healthcare providers. This empowers the DOH to issue or promulgate or create or make more regulatory policies and rules that would direct or control the private medical sector. Since you’re a moron, I doubt if you understand the fact that the bill’s provisions are VERY GENERAL, VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS!

        Consider this provision: “Take active steps to expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP), especially among poor and marginalized women, to include the full range of reproductive health services and supplies as health insurance benefits.”

        Where will the government get the money to finance the expansion of the coverage of the NHIP? From the taxpayers of course. Or by levying more taxes that would cover companies and businessmen.

        Letters a, b and c of the same Section beg the same question: WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?

        The very general provision- “Perform such other functions necessary to attain the purposes of this Act”- means that the DOH may implement any mechanism or policy under its power to ensure the delivery of the bill’s intents. This definitely DELEGATES POLICE POWER to the DOH to control the entire medical industry!

        DO YOU NOW GET IT, MORON?

        By the way, I am aware that there are a number of RH bills passed in congress. In fact, they even adopted a new name under the consolidated bill so to fool MORONIC PEOPLE like you. All those bills speak the same thing, MORON!

      • Marco says:

        I note the usage of name-calling to open your comments. I believe I should reciprocate. I hereby name you “Cuddlepiez”.

        Cuddlepiez, I am fully aware of the contents of the bill. Remember, I linked the copy in my post. No need to post so much text from it. In the same regard, I am fully aware that the POPCOM is a DOH committee, but I felt there was no need to point that out in my response because the only individuals who need everything spoon-fed are lacking in mental capacities.

        Again, Cuddlepiez, there is nothing wrong with the government mandating public hospitals to adhere to the provisions of the bill. They are, after all, their bosses. As for private hospitals, I stand by my opinion that doctors, private or public, should be upheld to the vows they take upon entering the provision. It is the government’s duty, in the interests of its people’s safety, to monitor these activities. That’s why we have laws against malpractice.

        Also, the NHIP already gets its funds from the taxpayers’ money. That’s how it works. Heaven forbid that the administration asks corporations to fork over their taxes! The rich, after all, are superior to lesser folk and are above such things.

        I’m beginning to sense an overwhelming distrust of the government coming from your end. If that’s the case, you’d do best to leave the country; you’re only going to get more and more frustrated with the way governments work. Perhaps you can buy a private island and declare it an independent state.

        I will agree that the bill could delegate police power to the DOH over the medical industry, but when we read all the words in a sentence like we’re supposed to, this power (if ever it will be exercised) is confined to the provisions contained within the bill. Even then, we as a democracy have the power to act against any abuse of power this may entail. Your brain surgery won’t be covered by the public, and doctors won’t be forced by law to help you, so there’s no need to worry.

        By the way, in Section 28 of the bill, coercion of the use of reproductive health care services by public officials is a prohibited act, just as much as the denial of said services. I believe what the bill seeks to protect is choice. Funny how a little more reading can resolve an issue.

        You’re too panicky, Cuddlepiez. Chill.

      • aristogeek says:

        This reply proves you have an irreparable brain damage. Well, it’s very much clear that you want fascism or socialism to be the destiny of this country. I don’t. It’s you who should leave. Why not migrate to socialist slave pens to borrow Vincent’s statement?

        Since you love paying your taxes (perhaps!) to benefit the poor, let me inform you that that would have been “somehow” justified had we adopted FLAT income tax, not PROGRESSIVE income tax, which is unfair to big-earners. Now there’s a plan to raise the taxable base of the country’s big earners and corporations to benefit the poor. My extensive study of economics proves that that socialist/statist scheme did work in the past and will never work. I now live in California, a democrat-infested state. It is sad to witness that fact that many businesses left California last year. This year more than 100 companies plan to pack up and invest in freer states. Why is this the case? It’s because California is the model nanny state in the US today. It levies high income and corporate taxes and imposes too many economic regulations in order to support its free education, free health care and too many welfare programs. IN THE NAME OF THE POOR. This is now California’s political slogan.

        Perhaps California will be the next Detroit. more than 50 years ago, Detroit was the most populous state due to its successful auto industry. See? People migrate and live in an economic setting that offers jobs and opportunities. However, Detroit fell to its knees after the auto companies closed their business due to the state’s UNION THUGS and too much state regulations. Why is it that Detroit’s people left despite the state’s determination to offer free education, free health care, etc.? SIMPLE. It’s because business opportunities and economic prosperity is NOT possible in a society that sacrifices the competent, the productive, the able for the sake of the poor, the lazy, the moochers.

        If it happened in Detroit and if it’s now happening in California. It will definitely happen in RP.

      • Marco says:

        Sigh. Cuddlepiez, you don’t seem to understand the notion of “balance”. You’re so quick to assume that I am for everything that you’re against that you bury me in all this talk of over-regulation. It doesn’t take too many IQ points to understand that over-regulation is bad. The trick is in selecting which regulations – the ones that benefit society as a whole, in both the short and long term – to keep.

        Is it unfair to ask more from those who can afford it? Is it fair to raise a flat income tax level just so the government can make ends meet, subsequently penalizing those who simply can’t afford the amount? Is it also fair to keep the flat income tax level low to make sure most people can pay, resulting in the government coming up short on funds?

        You talk about being hard on the poor so they can raise themselves up. Although the logic is sound, you obviously have no idea what it’s like to be poor, to assemble a thousand plastic clothespins a day to make a measly 35 pesos, simply because there’s nothing better for you out there. You have no idea how improving one’s financial situation is impossible without some strains being alleviated by a third party. You have no idea how those uneducated on reproductive health can be so reckless with it, burying themselves in deeper financial burdens through sickness or children they weren’t prepared to raise. When a large percentage of the population lives like that, the ability of the country to uplift itself is dragged down.

        I think it’s safe to assume you’re fine with them dying. The spirit of the law isn’t. The government exists to protect its people, from foreign or local threat, self-created dilemma or otherwise. At the same time, the government does not exist to coddle the needs of every citizen. That is impractical. What it can and should do, though, is guarantee the minimum for its citizenry’s survival and promote avenues through which they can improve their status. The RH Bill provides for both these responsibilities.

        You have this eagerness to brand people, don’t you? Apparently, I’m a fascist, socialist, self-contradicting moron blogger. Good job. Very convincing. Very indicative of my personal beliefs. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I feel strongly about just this one matter? That I am against over-regulation that inhibits smaller businesses from growing faster? That I am disgusted by taxes that aren’t necessary? Did it ever occur to you that I am wise enough to realize that things are never black and white, and that the best we can hope for is an even shade of gray? That I attempt to reconcile two sides of an argument in an effort to find this workable common ground? I suppose not; those who aren’t worthy of respect are those who do not give it.

        Also, Cuddlepiez, you live in California, but you hate it. So leave. It’s the same thing you’d do if you were in a company you hated, right? Resign. Move somewhere you feel all is right in the world.

        On a side note, do you realize how hard it is to take you, Mr. I’m an MA Economics Student with a Love for Aristotle, seriously when your profile picture is Naruto? Every time I see it I imagine you splitting into clones of a blond, spikey-haired moron. I really, really tried to take you seriously at first, but I kept wanting to create crossover fan fiction where you and Son Goku debate Randian principles using the power of the Dragon Balls as a metaphor.

        You’re taking this too seriously, Cuddlepiez. You don’t have to defend your boyfriend at every turn.

      • aristogeek says:

        lol! That’s all I can say. Your concept of “balance”? You think the government can ever come up with a balanced political decision when it’s very much clear that the Philippine politics is full of compromisers. Since when did the government come up with balanced political and economic decisions.

        Your highly idiotic rants and platitudes reveal your sheer lack of critical thinking skills. You don’t seem to understand that progressive income tax is inherently unfair because it punishes the high income earners simply because they’re good. It’s not their fault to be very good at what they do.

        Indeed, your illogical, irrational reasoning simply shows the failure of the country’s education system. You have to work on that.

        Here’s you moronic statement: “You talk about being hard on the poor so they can raise themselves up. Although the logic is sound, you obviously have no idea what it’s like to be poor, to assemble a thousand plastic clothespins a day to make a measly 35 pesos, simply because there’s nothing better for you out there. You have no idea how improving one’s financial situation is impossible without some strains being alleviated by a third party. You have no idea how those uneducated on reproductive health can be so reckless with it, burying themselves in deeper financial burdens through sickness or children they weren’t prepared to raise. When a large percentage of the population lives like that, the ability of the country to uplift itself is dragged down.”

        Again, you can’t help the poor by using government powers to deliver public welfare. Since the government is not a productive agency, it only relies on the taxpayers and the producers of wealth. Empirical studies prove that businesses and companies close down or leave owing to excessive government regulations. You don’t seem to understand that the RH bill contains a lot of regulations. Of course you don’t since you simply narrowed down your focus on the alleged plight of the poor, poverty, overpopulation, etc.

        You moron said: “Did it ever occur to you that I am wise enough to realize that things are never black and white, and that the best we can hope for is an even shade of gray? That I attempt to reconcile two sides of an argument in an effort to find this workable common ground? I suppose not; those who aren’t worthy of respect are those who do not give it.”

        Well I hope so. You have to work hard on that first.

        You moron said: “Also, Cuddlepiez, you live in California, but you hate it. So leave. It’s the same thing you’d do if you were in a company you hated, right? Resign. Move somewhere you feel all is right in the world.”

        First, I’m studying in California. Second, I don’t intend to live here. I admire America for its founding principles. Originally California became economically successful because of its free market past. In the past, businesses grew in California because of few government regulations. Things became worse when the Democrats took over. They introduced a lot of legislation and intrusive policies that have been driving businesses away.

        This one takes the cake: “On a side note, do you realize how hard it is to take you, Mr. I’m an MA Economics Student with a Love for Aristotle, seriously when your profile picture is Naruto? Every time I see it I imagine you splitting into clones of a blond, spikey-haired moron. I really, really tried to take you seriously at first, but I kept wanting to create crossover fan fiction where you and Son Goku debate Randian principles using the power of the Dragon Balls as a metaphor.”

        Lol! Again, that’s my freedom of choice. Naruto represents capitalism to me. It represents free market. See the shallowness of your reasoning? Take the case of Vincent, he loves X-Men so much because he considers it a Romantic (I’m referring to Romanticism in literature) movie.

        Just be cool and stop being a moron…

      • Marco says:

        Awesome, you’re too dense to recognize a joke when it’s laid out for you. I mean, I already spoon-fed it by starting with “On a side note…” I have oodles more respect for your intelligence now.

        Don’t equate “critical thinking” with “distrust of the government”. Also, don’t confuse logic with incessant displays of a superiority complex. You jump to conclusions far too often in your remarks, and throw logic out the window. Your defense against some of my points is “herp derp you’re a moron derp”. I see no logic there. Balance is indeed possible in government; it depends on the individuals in power. The citizenry should make better choices on who gets to wield that power.

        You lack the capacity to understand some of my principles, so I’ll spell it out for you in caveman-speak: Too many regulation bad. Some regulation good. Good regulation is good for people. Keep good regulation. Not-needed regulation is bad. Don’t have bad regulation. That way, not too much regulation.

        Apologies for assuming you lived in California on a permanent basis. In my defense, all you said on the matter was “I live in California”. I’m sure they’ll be glad to be rid of you when you’re done with your studies, them being those blasted democrats and all.

        Do you realize you take yourself waaaaay too seriously, Cuddlepiez?

  4. aristogeek says:

    You moron said: “For instance, you call me an idiot because I presumably didn’t get Vincent’s point that private organizations are better off providing reproductive health care without need for government assistance, gleefully glossing over the fact that I mentioned these organizations do exist but cannot do enough without government support.”

    NOPE! I called you an idiot or a moron because you don’t have enough brain cells to understand what the bill is all about. You can help the poor and the marginalized all you want without trying to penalize some people in the name of public welfare or social good. By what right do the bill’s proponent compel/force some people (employers and doctors) to provide free RH care services to workers and poor people against their will? This is what the bill is all about. You can parrot Lagman’s and his ilk’s great-sounding political platitudes in defense of the bill all you want, but the fact remains that some group of people would be sacrificed by the bill’s most punitive, unconstitutional provisions. You can always evade this FACT, yet you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality, and reality has it that the bill seeks to force employers to “respect” their workers’ right to RH care services. If the workers have a right to these goddamn services, what about the right of employers to their own business choice and judgment. There are a number of companies and corporations that provide free health care to their employees. These companies aren’t forced by the state. They were rather forced by competition and motivated by the fact that employee satisfaction and loyalty is a good investment.

    So you’re now saying that private efforts is not enough so it’s just OK to use the power of the state to sacrifice employers and doctors?

    Perhaps it’s high time that you face reality by dealing with these questions:

    1. Is the government a productive agency? Does it have a definite, lawful, moral source of income? Or does it generate wealth without the use of force or without extorting money from those who produce wealth?
    2. If you really read and understood the bill, who will be victimized by the state/government to make the RH bill DREAM or FANTASY possible? I will help you answer this by providing you Vincent’s link http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/the-most-needed-victims-of-the-rh-bill-businessmen-and-doctors/
    3. Why do you think it’s moral or OK to force employers – to the extent of penalizing them in case they fail or refuse to comply- to deliver the bill’s intents and provisions in support of the poor and the marginalized?
    4. Don’t parents and women have the freedom of choice? Don’t they have the right to make decisions? Why is there a need for state intervention? Is it because some people in the government know better?
    5. Have you ever managed a business? Do you own one? What will happen if you’re being forced at the point of GUN to provide the RH care needs of your workers even if that’d negatively affect business survival or continuity?
    6. Do you believe that we can go on with the illusions mentioned in the RH bills without facing the consequences of paying too much taxes?
    7. What do you know about the country’s current economic setup? Do you know the reasons why foreign and even domestic investors and businessmen do not want to invest in RP?
    8. Are you INSANE or SANE?

    • Marco says:

      Reality, dear sir, would have it that doctors have an obligation to provide these services as part of their vocation. Yes, medicine is a vocation, not a business; its purpose is to save and improve the quality of peoples’ lives, not to make money off of this service. There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding doctors to their vow. Would you, for instance, condone the actions of a doctor who denied you information and services based on your gender? Odds are you wouldn’t.

      I do submit to the fact that employers, in the purest sense, have no responsibility for the health of their workers. I simply refuse to live in a world where my boss wouldn’t give a shit about whether or not his workforce dies. Apply this principle to your future enterprise and see if you can muster a well-motivated, loyal group of employees. You, by your statements, appear to put far too much value on employers, and too little on the folk who do the actual work (or on the people who purchase the business’ products, for that matter).

      I don’t just “now” say that NGOs and other organizations are not enough. I said that in my post. It only takes a little looking down from the Ivory Tower to see this is a reality.

      In answer to your questions:

      1. It’s called taxation, and it’s perfectly legal. If you don’t like this newfangled concept, or refuse to be held responsible for its payment, please, found your own government. I would like to see its success 20 years from now. As long as you count yourself as a citizen of the Philippines, however, understand that you are under social contract to follow accordingly.

      What gets done with tax funds depends largely on the individuals in power, who are elected into position by the people. The government is productive on some accounts, and we continuously challenge and demand it to be so in every aspect. In this regard, we also stand vigilant against any corruption that may circumvent the flow of funds to their proper allocations.

      2. Rhetorical questions would be smarter if they didn’t point to pseudo-intellectual, egomania-induced paranoia. I revoke your answer, and replace it with “42″. Yes, I am still making fun of you. You make it very easy.

      3. Simply put, they wouldn’t survive without the poor. Who buys their products? Who makes them? It is in the best interests of the employers that the population survives. If this entails forking over some cash to ensure that a population growth slows down enough to avoid this country from consuming itself, so be it. With or without morals, this is reality.

      4. Yes, parents have freedom of choice. In fact, I agree with some Catholic proponents that parents should have the option to withhold their children from sex education classes. It’s not my ideal, but it’s a workable compromise. At least everyone has a choice in the matter. Note: I learned from people I disagree with to actually have a solution to the issue at hand. Amazing, isn’t it?

      As for the freedom of choice for women, this state-mandated program serves only to give them more choices about their reproductive health. They will have the option to seek medical care after a botched (and illegal) abortion. They’ll be more informed about their reproductive systems and the risks to it, allowing them to make more intelligent choices about their sexual activity. The government is providing access to information and services, not making the decisions for them. I thought that was obvious, but maybe you just don’t understand how women work.

      5. No, I’ve never managed a business. My girlfriend does, though. Based on her experiences, and my own as an employee of different companies, I can say that workers are far more motivated to produce when they feel their employer values their well-being. Content, motivated, and living employees can only positively affect business survivability and profitably, negating your assertion.

      6. There is no way we can determine the taxation needed for this project. I haven’t seen any figures prior to its implementation; have you? If so, kindly show me a concrete study with actual numbers, and I will ponder my answer.

      7. Well, for one thing, it’s the disgusting political climate our nation suffers, thanks to heavy corruption in office. There’s also the constant threat of insurgency and attacks on foreign visitors. We don’t exactly have a great track record with international debt, either. What does this have to do with the RH Bill again?

      8. I was expecting something like this. Ad hominem remarks, though thinly veiled, are all you really can resort to. I suppose I should answer, regardless. I am sane enough to see no need for writing the word in all caps. That should suffice.

      In the interests of fairness, I would like to ask a few questions of you:

      1. Are you able to defend a point of view without using derogatory remarks?

      2. What sort of things do you read about concerning this issue, aside from the amateurishly-named Vincenton Post? Are you able to let go of prejudices when reading material you don’t agree with? Do you have the intellectual capacity to learn from multiple, sometimes contradictory, sources?

      3. How is it you know how many brain cells I have? Do you possess x-ray and microscopic vision? If so, are you offering your extraordinary services for hire?

      4. Do you know where I can buy some Scooby Snacks? I really, really need to make sense of something you wrote earlier.

      5. Are you aware that I’m just going to keep making fun of you, while expertly knocking down your arguments with the grace and power of a cerebral Muhammad Ali? If not, please, do keep trying to convince me of your views.

      6. Have you ever gotten laid?

  5. aristogeek says:

    I suggest that you read my previous post http://worddoodling.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/3000-words-to-pwn-you/#comment-87 .

    You moron said: “Reality, dear sir, would have it that doctors have an obligation to provide these services as part of their vocation.”

    They don’t have any obligation at all to the public unless they have voluntarily undertaken to engage in medical profession and to provide medical services for a fee (or free of charge in case of some altruistic doctors who don’t wish to gain profit).

    You moron said: “Yes, medicine is a vocation, not a business; its purpose is to save and improve the quality of peoples’ lives, not to make money off of this service. There is absolutely nothing wrong with holding doctors to their vow. Would you, for instance, condone the actions of a doctor who denied you information and services based on your gender? Odds are you wouldn’t.”

    That’s pure hogwash. Medicine is both a vocation and a business. The purpose of healthcare providers is to trade their services to the public. We have medical innovation simply because of the concept of profit, that is, it’s because of the fact that doctors believe that it is moral to gain profit from providing services to people who need medical treatment or healthcare services. Look at reality, moron. The best hospitals in the country exist because of the fact that they engage in business. They offer high-end, life-saving medical facilities and equipment to attract more clients. Do you know medical technology companies in the United States and other first world countries continue to invent and innovate? It’s because of profit. The medical profession exists simply because of the concept of profit. It’s simply because it is moral for them to gain and keep the profits that they earn from trading their services.

    The medical profession, for your information, is one of the most important trade or business in the world. They trade their services for value. On the other hand, the people have the right to choose among the many hospitals in the country and to retain the services of the able, competent doctors. Both parties TRADE VALUE FOR VALUE. It’s a win-win situation, not a win-loss situation.

    You moron asked: “Would you, for instance, condone the actions of a doctor who denied you information and services based on your gender? Odds are you wouldn’t.”

    Anybody has the right to discriminate. It is true that that kind of doctor is morally reprehensible! It must be condemned. However, a doctor- like any other professional- has the right to discriminate. Discrimination is what we do everyday in our lives. We discriminate when we choose friend, when we choose the best school for us, when we choose the company to work for, when we despise other people. An engineer discriminates when he turns down a job offer. A school or university discriminates when it determines who may enroll or not. A church may discriminate by issuing excommunication decrees. The government discriminates by choosing to sacrifice employers for the sake of serving the poor.

    Like I said, medicine is both a profession and a business. A doctor has the right not to treat a patient just as a patient has the right to choose who may treat him. Is that reprehensible. IT IS. But there should be no law to penalize this discriminating doctor on the basis of race, beliefs, gender, etc. In a free society – or in at least a rational society, that kind of doctor will DEFINITELY LOSS CLIENTS.

    You moron said: “I do submit to the fact that employers, in the purest sense, have no responsibility for the health of their workers.”

    It’s good that you’re aware of that. However…

    You said: “I simply refuse to live in a world where my boss wouldn’t give a shit about whether or not his workforce dies. Apply this principle to your future enterprise and see if you can muster a well-motivated, loyal group of employees. You, by your statements, appear to put far too much value on employers, and too little on the folk who do the actual work (or on the people who purchase the business’ products, for that matter).”

    I see a glaring contradiction if not STUPIDITY in that statement. Let me digest that statement first. First, I’m going to address the concept of employee motivation; second, I’m going to relate with this “motivation” and the RH bill.

    If you refuse to live in a world where your boss “wouldn’t give a shit about whether or not his workforce dies”, then the best thing you can do is what? RESIGN! This is a very complicated issue, as it involves the concept of economics, and I doubt if you have enough brain cells to relate what you just stated to economics. Don’t you know why there are only a few companies and corporations willing to invest in the Philippines? Don’t you know why Intel and other global companies left the country in just a couple of years? I’m a MA Economics students so I know what I’m talking about. The answer to those questions is– It’s because of the economic regulations that people like you supported or support.

    There is a little- VERY LITTLE- competition among companies and corporations in RP for competent workforce because of intrusive, anti-business government regulations. What are these regulations and intrusive economic policies? They are high taxes (corporations pay 45 % in taxes after profit- check the data of doingbusiness.org), sanitary and environmental regulations, city or municipality regulations, it takes more than 50 days to start business, among many others. Look at the most regulated industries and businesses in the country. Why are there only a few players in these regulated industries like telecom, mining, real estate, education, etc? It’s because of regulations! The little competition in these regulated industries led to high prices of products, low employee wages and benefits, lack of pro-employee programs, etc.

    Meanwhile, look at the least regulated industries like BPO or contact center industry. Most contact centers in RP offer good compensation package, free health care benefits, good working condition, etc. Why? Because they COMPETE for the most competent workforce! I know this because most of my college friends are now big-earners in the BPO industry. They gave up their former jobs or changed careers. So long as you think you’re competent and able, you won’t die a vagrant or a pauper. If you’re so concerned with the plight of the poor and the unemployed, the only solution is ECONOMIC FREEDOM and FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. Of course, you know nothing about this aspect because of your moronic leftism. All you know is the plight of the poor you so love to defend and help with your support to intrusive government programs like the RH bill.

    Now consider the potential effects of the RH bill on the country’s industry. Read this blog link to educate yourself http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/how-the-rh-bill-is-going-to-kill-the-industry-primarily-small-business/ .

    On the second point, you said: “Apply this principle to your future enterprise and see if you can muster a well-motivated, loyal group of employees.” This is NOT the goal of the RH bill. It does not make employers responsible at all. Motivation on the part of employers should be voluntary and natural. It should be BUSINESS-DRIVEN, not coerced by law, MORON! I stated the reason above. Free market competition will definitely kill the business of the uncaring employer. Don’t you understand that the bill has the potential to kill business, particularly small business?!

    You moron said: “1. It’s called taxation, and it’s perfectly legal. If you don’t like this newfangled concept, or refuse to be held responsible for its payment, please, found your own government. I would like to see its success 20 years from now. As long as you count yourself as a citizen of the Philippines, however, understand that you are under social contract to follow accordingly.”

    I hope most RH bill morons would have the hypocrisy to admit they’re OK with more taxes. The reason why I asked that question is to know whether you know the bill’s real intents. FYI, the bill won’t merely lead to more and higher taxes. It talks about forcing employers to deliver RH services. The government has no money, so the best impliedly states that it’s OK to use LEGAL FORCE on employers. That’s pure evil, moron.

    You tried to evade my question number 2 simply because you’re a moron. Instead you moron said: “Rhetorical questions would be smarter if they didn’t point to pseudo-intellectual, egomania-induced paranoia. I revoke your answer, and replace it with “42″. Yes, I am still making fun of you. You make it very easy.”

    Better read the bill’s provision on “employer responsibility”, MORON.

    You moron said: “Simply put, they wouldn’t survive without the poor. Who buys their products? Who makes them? It is in the best interests of the employers that the population survives. If this entails forking over some cash to ensure that a population growth slows down enough to avoid this country from consuming itself, so be it. With or without morals, this is reality.”

    HAHAHA! That’s very hilarious and idiotic. Do you know what you’re talking about? First, it’s the poor who don’t survive without businessmen (traders) who invent things, innovate, manufacture products and offer services to the public. Look at what’s happening in Africa, MORON. This is what you don’t get. These businessmen don’t use force or coercion against the public. They simply use persuasion and the concept of quality products to make consumers patronize their products and services. In the second place, we’re not talking about who won’t survive without whom. It’s definitely the poor that won’t survive. That’s reality.

    You moron said: “As for the freedom of choice for women, this state-mandated program serves only to give them more choices about their reproductive health. They will have the option to seek medical care after a botched (and illegal) abortion. They’ll be more informed about their reproductive systems and the risks to it, allowing them to make more intelligent choices about their sexual activity. The government is providing access to information and services, not making the decisions for them. I thought that was obvious, but maybe you just don’t understand how women work.”

    That’s NOT freedom of choice. Freedom is inherent in our humanity. It’s part of our nature as human beings. To say that freedom of choice must be legislated or guaranteed by law is oxymoronic. It implies that we don’t have the freedom to choose in this country. Women can have the freedom to choose whenever they want to. Here’s something you missed (in fact it’s all of you RH bill morons missed). The freedom of choice you’re talking about is to be guarantee by law, because the government in turn will force or coerce some group of people (e.g., employers and doctors) to guarantee this freedom of choice. What about the freedom of choice of the latter, MORON?

    In regard to abortion, I’m in favor of abortion. I don’t believe that life begins at conception. However, I don’t believe that abortion must be guaranteed by the state. I believe in private abortion, that is, any private individual (women) should have the right to seek abortion for various reasons. To tell you frankly, this issue WAS my first disagreement with Vincenton Post (Vincent). At first I was against abortion. However, he managed to change my position after explaining that our anti-abortion laws are against women’s individual rights.

    YOU SAID: “No, I’ve never managed a business. My girlfriend does, though. Based on her experiences, and my own as an employee of different companies, I can say that workers are far more motivated to produce when they feel their employer values their well-being. Content, motivated, and living employees can only positively affect business survivability and profitably, negating your assertion.”

    Of course! Being an MA Economics student, I fully understand that! However, the government has no right at all to tell employers how to manage their business! Do you understand that? It’s called business judgment or business strategy, in some cases. Look at the most successful corporations in the country today. They are the most successful because of their business philosophy and pro-employee and pro-consumers business strategy. Those that don’t care for their workers barely succeed. There are, of course, some that are successful in the market today, however, they’re successful because of lack of competition from direct company competitors owing to too much government regulations.

    As to taxation, Vincent discussed this here http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/are-you-ready-for-higher-more-taxes/ . A private think tank perhaps funded by pro-tax United Nations recommends tax-financing to solve the government’s Millennium Development Goals gaps.

    You said: “Well, for one thing, it’s the disgusting political climate our nation suffers, thanks to heavy corruption in office. There’s also the constant threat of insurgency and attacks on foreign visitors. We don’t exactly have a great track record with international debt, either. What does this have to do with the RH Bill again?”

    You’re a man of too many contradictions. You simply don’t understand what you’re talking about. Corruption is rampant in RP because of too much political power due to statist or pro-welfare government programs. Regulations make corruption happen. Look at the government agencies that issue and implement too many regulations, intrusive policies, and conduct many interventionist political functions. I can give you some. These are the BIR, Bureau of Customs, SEC, etc. These agencies directly deal with businesses and money money and they have tremendous regulatory power under their disposal.

    Look at the provisions of the RH bill. The bill seeks to give too much regulatory power to DOLE and DOH. This will give DOLE and DOLE regulators and bureaucrats to make money and to further their career through corrupt practices. I can give you some example.

    1. The RH bill will force employers to resort to bribery in order to be exempt or to avoid spending too much for RH services, which is one way to save their business.
    2. Since private hospitals will be under the DIRECT CONTROL of the DOH, some hospitals may choose to go around the regulatory processes in order to avoid delays in their operations and programs.

    Am I able to defend a point of view without using derogatory remarks? To call someone who supports a fascist bill- a bill that seeks to reduce the country into a stinking hell hole- MORON is warranted. Most people in the past supported these kinds of political schemes. They fell to dictatorship. They were more than morons. They were evil.

    Your questions 2 to 5 have been properly addressed by this reply-post, MORON.

    • Marco says:

      Too long, didn’t read. Honestly, it’s 3a.m., Cuddlepiez. I’m too tired for your soapboxing.

      I did, however, take a gander at some of the points. Rage all you want for me skipping through majority, but do you honestly think I respect you enough to read through the entire soliloquy? Too much use of the word “moron” and whatnot reduces your credibility. I see you try to pad that by mentioning twice that you’re an MA Economics student. La-dee-dah, doesn’t make you smart. It just makes you know things. Mull that over before considering what I just said to be nonsense.

      Few points that I noticed:

      1. “However, I don’t believe that abortion must be guaranteed by the state. ”
      Er, the bill doesn’t guarantee abortion. What it guarantees is post-abortion care, and that’s an entirely different matter.

      2. “Medicine is both a vocation and a business.”
      True, I mis-worded my comment. I meant to say that the nature of medicine is a vocation, not a business; i.e. those who enter the medical field are driven by improving quality of life, not money-making. The fees paid to doctors on the business end of medicine are, in essence, a necessary expense to guarantee continued service. Hospitals must make money to survive and to maintain their staff, but not to generate maximum profit. The salaries doctors take home are to ensure their own survival and ability to perform effectively when called upon their duty. If the nature of the medical field was money-making, we’d have doctors scrimping on the quality of care.

      3. “It’s because of the economic regulations that people like you supported or support.”
      Oh Cuddlepiez, you and your propensity for sweeping generalizations make me giggle. I don’t support all these economic regulations. I agree it makes business harder. I am, however, for this regulation as it directly benefits the workforce, and the businesses in effect. Don’t bring things we didn’t discuss in here.

      4. “To say that freedom of choice must be legislated or guaranteed by law is oxymoronic.”
      You are aware that the very reason you live today is because the law regulates freedom, yes? I mean, I’m sure the only reason someone hasn’t stabbed you to death by now is because it’s illegal. A government exists to direct freedom towards the survival of its citizens; without such regulations, we fall into anarchy, chaos, and ruin.

      5. “Since private hospitals will be under the DIRECT CONTROL of the DOH”
      No. Private hospitals will be run by their respective boards. The DOH simply regulates the provisions for the RH Bill, as they do – surprise suprise! – majority of all other medical services. They uphold the standards of medicine that, if left unregulated, will deteriorate, resulting in the collapse of the population’s health.

      6. “To call someone who supports a fascist bill- a bill that seeks to reduce the country into a stinking hell hole- MORON is warranted.”
      You sound exactly like Vincent here. It’s remarkable, actually, that two people can be so bullheaded and abrasive.

      I’m going to go off-tangent for a bit here, because this is something you need to read and take into heart:

      You will never be relevant. You, like Vincent, are noise, shrill and unyielding. You speak big words and argue points without ever considering that maybe, just maybe, the opposite views have a point as well. You will continue to write us “leftists” (although I shun the label) off as morons with little value, and continue to spout out whatever thoughts you’ve convinced yourself to be true.

      You will continue to bully those who seek clarification, and ostracize those who seek to clarify. You will render yourself unreachable, an egomaniac with no real substance or desire to gain it. You are an oaf content with its bloated self.

      You reach out to an invisible audience, hoping that somewhere out there, you will find friends who laugh at those who give you a false sense of superiority.

      You will go on to lose more and more of your assumed credibility, hiding behind a pseudonym to protect yourself from the perils of identification. You will lose the respect of the intellectuals whose favor you seek to gain by virtue of your loose tongue and lack of respect for discourse.

      You will continue to believe you are learned, but you will never be wise like the philosopher from whom you take your nickname. You will never be like Aristotle. You will analyze matters only from the standpoint that proves comfortable to you. You will blind yourself to the possibility of other knowledge. You will fail at relevance because of your hubris and your inability to understand people beyond the concept of objects.

      You will be laughed at and ridiculed by individuals of higher understanding, the fool who thinks himself their peer yet proves otherwise with all his bravado. The “Scrappy Doo of the Enlightened”, if you will, exuberant and courageous, yet ultimately impotent.

      You will be nothing in this field of discourse. A pest. A fly.

      You accuse me of committing “blog suicide”, but I ask you – what suicide is there to be when sharing one’s opinion in his personal space? My blog has no value but to be a place where I can gather my thoughts and recollect. There is no killing that which is only a reflection of life.

      On the flipside, what respect is there to be had for an individual who actively pursues his need to have the last say? One who tramples upon others using meaningless words such as “stupid”, “pathetic”, and “moron”? One who cannot defend himself without using these words to convince himself that he is right? The only suicide being committed here, Cuddlepiez, is by your self-conceived identity as an intellectual.

      On-topic: Am I a moron for disagreeing with you, simply because you have failed to provide a convincing argument? I do believe that I’ve made it clear that I’m open to a shift in my position – I’ve acknowledged your worthwhile points, at least – yet you cannot seem to sway me towards your “enlightenment”. It seems to me that the one with shortcomings is you, if your self-confidence bears something reflective of reality. If you really are so smart, then why can’t you convince a rather open-minded individual to see things your way?

      7. “This will give DOLE and DOLE regulators and bureaucrats to make money and to further their career through corrupt practices. ”
      There is no denying the fact that any practice – government-backed or otherwise – is open to corruption. Even the large-scale business you seem to idealize participate in unethical procedures. The government, however, as a unit under the will of the citizenry, has its agents selected – directly or indirectly – by the population. Any corrupt practices being committed began with the voters’ selection of public servants. This can be changed when voters learn to select the proper candidates. Can you say the same for privately-owned organizations?

      8. “You tried to evade my question number 2 simply because you’re a moron.”
      Outstanding use of logic – a virtuoso display of wit and rationality, even – but no. I didn’t answer your question because you provided an answer for it. One, I might add, which is not representative of my thoughts, and which I find reprehensible in nature. I do not see value in the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of one who is so close-minded. I am aware that this is uncharacteristic close-mindedness on my personal behalf, but would you really seriously consider trying to communicate with a brick wall? No. Therefore, the answer is and remains “42″.

      9. “First, it’s the poor who don’t survive without businessmen (traders) who invent things, innovate, manufacture products and offer services to the public.”
      What you say is true. Of course, what I said about businessmen being unable to survive without the have-nots, the patrons of their services and producers/purchasers of their products, is also true. My first-grade teacher taught me about this give-and-take. I thought this was a basic fact.

      You say you answered my questions. The fact that you referenced the Vincenton Post yet again reflects poorly on your answer for number 2. I read nothing about special vision powers or Scooby Snacks, so I’m afraid I’ll have to call you out on dodging questions 3 and 4. Regarding question 5, well… yes, you did answer it, with laughable predictability.

      You didn’t answer question 6, Cuddlepiez. You make it too easy.

  6. aristogeek says:

    This one takes the cake: “because the law regulates freedom…”

    What the fuck! Do you even understand what you’re talking about? Insane…

    • Marco says:

      I suppose I’ll have to spell this out for you, too. Sigh.

      The law, in its very essence, regulates freedom to protect greater freedoms. It exists to prevent harmful acts – murder, theft, etc. – that impinge on the quality of life of its citizens. If we were to live in a society in which freedom was not regulated in any form or measure, we would be free to kill each other, poison the water supply, and commit other acts of senseless depravity. By limiting the freedom to perform these acts, the law allows citizens to enjoy greater freedoms, such as the freedoms of speech and expression. We enjoy a right to life, to peace, and to security primarily because our freedom to deny these rights is prohibited by law. The liberties you enjoy today come at the cost of other harmful liberties. There is nothing insane about that, Cuddlepiez.

      Of course, this only applies within the confines of society. If you’d rather not deal with that, and choose to go streaking all you like with your uninhibited freedom, go relocate to a desert island. You’ll be happier alone. We’ll be happier, too.

    • aristogeek says:

      Your latest nonsensical snippet clearly shows you don’t know what you’re talking about. Congratulations again. You have just perverted, distorted the legal meaning of regulation. Regulation or legal regulation is primarily applied to economic setting. Thus, the regulation you’re talking about is not regulation per se but a state or government’s constituent function, that is, a government’s role to protect individual rights. It will take a few decades before you come to understand these concepts.

      Here’s your so hilarious reply: “The law, in its very essence, regulates freedom to protect greater freedoms. It exists to prevent harmful acts – murder, theft, etc. – that impinge on the quality of life of its citizens.”

      Again, you don’t regulate freedom. It is acts or omissions punishable by law that the state seeks to prosecute and punish. What you’re prattling about is NOT, in legal terms, a form of regulation, but a state’s constituent function. Thus, the state has the duty and responsibility to protect individual rights against criminals, gangs, invaders, etc. because of its constituent functions. The state is the protector- NOT the regulator- of the people and their freedom. The state has no right or duty at all to regulate individual rights or even freedom. It’s primary role is to protect them. That’s the essence of our Constitution, most provisions of which were taken from the American Constitution.

      That regulation you’re talking about is a form of preventive law. When you stated that the office or function of the law is to regulate freedom, then that implies the use of some preventive measure. You don’t know what’s exactly in the mind of your neighbor or enemy. You cannot regulate his freedom to act or to swing his machete or to draw his concealed gun. However, you are entitled by law and by moral right to self defense. The law won’t protect you from other people’s freedom to act. But then again, you are entitled to defend yourself and to sue your aggressor in a proper court of law. That’s reality!

      If that’s the case, if the function of the law is to regulate freedom, then you’re talking about the laws implemented in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Maoist China. In those countries preventive laws were rampant! Freedom should be protected, NOT regulated, MORON!

      Everybody is supposed to know what is right and wrong. You know that an act of murder or theft would bring you to jail. You cannot regulate the murderers’ and robbers’ freedom to think and to act, but the state has the power to protect life and property through its ‘formidable’ (I hope so) police force. It also has the power to prosecute these gangs in its name- that is, in the name of the State versus criminals- in a proper court proceeding.

      For your information, regulation commonly pertains to controls on wages, prices, labor practices, pollution effects, traffic conduct, employment, medical practices, teaching methods, among many, many others. Ever heard the term “DEREGULATION”? Why is there such thing as OIL DEREGULATION LAW when there is no such term as FREEDOM DEREGULATION LAW. The latter would be so hilarious and outrageous. Only people like you would think of such a term. Understand now?

      You went on with your stupidity. Here’s what you said: “If we were to live in a society in which freedom was not regulated in any form or measure, we would be free to kill each other, poison the water supply, and commit other acts of senseless depravity.”

      This is the reason why I was urging you to read Vincenton Post because Vincent extensively dealt with this topic. I didn’t because that’s not my forte. The only proper function of the government is to protect individual rights. I somehow remember my political science class, plus the fact that my dad is a lawyer. This rights-protection role of the state is embodied in: 1) the Constitution, 2) Revised Penal Code; 3) Special Penal Laws; 4) New Civil Code. If you’re familiar with the Constitution and the aforementioned statutes, you would understand that they don’t speak of regulation per se except for the constitutional provisions on economics, environment, labor and education, and the provisions on anti-competition, anti-monopoly, trust receipt transactions, unfair labor practices in the RPC and special penal laws.

      You said: “By limiting the freedom to perform these acts, the law allows citizens to enjoy greater freedoms, such as the freedoms of speech and expression. We enjoy a right to life, to peace, and to security primarily because our freedom to deny these rights is prohibited by law. The liberties you enjoy today come at the cost of other harmful liberties. There is nothing insane about that, Cuddlepiez.”

      There’s a big difference between protecting individual rights (man’s rights to Life, Liberty, Property and pursuit of Happiness) and regulation of industries, employers’ conducts and medical practices.

      Let’s relate this topic to the RH bill since you don’t have enough brain cells to digest concepts and principles. The regulation of industry or employers through the CBA does not protect the poor people’s rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. The regulation of employers is simply a form of extortion, as the bill seeks to force them to provide employees’ RH services even if it’s against their will. Logically, one needs to regulate an illegal, immoral, reprehensible act (to borrow your way of using the word). However, in the case of the RH bill, the employers who will be REGULATED by the bill, didn’t commit any illegal act. But they should be regulated anyways according to the logic of the pro-RH bill morons!

      The same evaluation applies to health care providers. Under the current legal setup, doctors may face malpractice or tort cases in case they committed botched surgery operation. But under the bill, the DOH would be empowered to regulate the entire medical profession for the sake of protecting the poor and women. What a ridiculous idea!

      The RH bill is a gigantic regulatory mechanism! It’s a fascist bill and only morons like you won’t get it!

      • Marco says:

        You’re still at this? It’s been a day. Move on, Cuddlepiez.

        Perhaps you thought I used your definition of regulation when discussing freedom. Perhaps I should have clarified that I meant regulation in the layman sense. Perhaps your head is too far up Vincent’s ass to see things that way.

        This is how I am certain that you are of an inferior intellectual capacity. I was able to see Vincent’s post as a snark against pro-RH Bill folk, and so I reacted in a satirical fashion. You saw fit to defend said post, not once realizing that it was never meant to be taken too seriously. The final ad hominem portion of the piece? A much-needed reality check. A reciprocation of the immature fashion in which Vincent – and you, apparently – handle these discussions.

        Still, out of respect, I decided to read the rest of your entries categorized under “Humor”, which you took upon yourself to place me under. Your inability to understand the Freethinkers’ request for specification in broad questions to better handle your concerns is laughable. This is why I resorted to brushing you off – you’re not very smart. You know facts, but you lack comprehension. I’m normally patient with people like you, but what manner of respect do I owe you for the childish way you carry discussions?

        This is why you’ll never be respected as an intellectual – you’re a child. You see things in one direction, failing to acknowledge the fact that reality exists in 360 degrees. Yes, A is A, liquid water is wet and all that, but applied to certain issues, these facts can be seen in multiple ways. It does not negate an object’s nature to be seen in different ways; rather, it is an affirmation of its complete reality. Social matters cannot and must never be approached with single-minded purpose, because reality would have it that a society is composed of multiple people. Even those who see it fit to shut themselves from society and create their own pocket communities must learn to understand that though they formed their own society with a single-minded purpose, the upkeep of that society hinges on multiple viewpoints; i.e. the personal goods of each individual. Living in a social environment demands that you think critically enough to accommodate the reality of the other, because whether you like it or not, your world would not exist if not for him.

        Let’s put it this way: If federal reports derived from the Freedom of Information Act are to be believed, Ayn Rand died on welfare. Even she realized the need for government support. Take that with a grain of salt, mind you, before launching into a diatribe I have no interest in reading.

        She also refused to believe the correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, continuing her habit at an alarming rate. She died of lung cancer. Ayn Rand died because she refused to believe the valid claims of other thinkers.

        Instead of incorporating external ideas into your viewpoint to gain a better understanding of reality, you shut them out and brand them as lies. Just as the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for his astronomical beliefs, you condemn individuals for understanding other facets of reality. You are stubborn, selfish, and immature. You are a spoiled little brat who cannot wait for his turn to play with the big boys.

        You need a reality check. There’s a fable about Socrates (who, by the way, was an intellectual who came long before Aristotle, your alleged “First Intellectual”) that had him answering a riddle in a fashion similar to this: “The wisest man is he who knows that he does not know.” Why is this true? Because you live in a world of many men, and with many men comes many different viewpoints, each bearing their own truths. The wise man understands that what he knows is only a part of the whole truth, and therefore seeks the knowledge of others to gain a better understanding of the world around him. You do none of this. You run, tail between your legs, to Vincent’s words, citing him heavily in your defenses without really absorbing what others have to say. You, like he, write off anything else that disagrees.

        You are a fool. You will never know true intelligence. Hide behind your masters’ degree, your father’s job, and whatever credentials you see fit to express; it will not matter. Unless you gain some actual intellectual maturity, you will never be as smart as you think you are.

        Why do I resort to these attacks on your character? Simple – you started it. I opened my comments section despite prejudice against followers of Vincent because I believed there was something to learn in the pursuit of discourse. There is no discourse happening. Instead, you call me “moron” and spew whatever “facts” (with questionable sources, at that) that you read on your precious Post. I had been nice for far too long, to the point where politeness simply doesn’t make sense anymore. My patience has not been rewarded, and so I reciprocate the level of hostility you express oh so eagerly.

        Get this through your thick skull – you are not smart. I gave you the opportunity to prove otherwise by offering a valid, alternative point of view on the matter. Like a fool, you discarded it rather than integrate it with your knowledge.

        You are, and will continue to be, noise.

        I trust that my hostility will be understood as having no more patience for your childish prattling. Either act your age, or consider yourself unwelcome.

      • aristogeek says:

        A desperate attempt to escape humiliation? Well… Why not read again your reply… http://worddoodling.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/3000-words-to-pwn-you/#comment-98

        Review it. Digest it. And then try to slap your right face. That might bring you back to reality. Regulation has a specific legal meaning. As you said: “The law, in its very essence, regulates freedom to protect greater freedoms.” Try to review that statement. It is very clear that you’re trying to defend regulation. You know very well that I’m against government regulation. And I defined it properly in my recent posts. There should be NO misunderstanding on your part as to how I used the term. Try to read my reply again…

        Don’t be so sloppy with your choice of words. Lawyers, economists, and real intellectuals carefully use and define the words and terms they use. Since we are talking about the RH bill and freedom, there’s no such layman’s term of “regulation.” I have never heard that in any forum or in my university. That’s another epic fail, Marco Moron… ;-)

      • Marco says:

        Regulations prohibit unsportsmanlike behavior in athletic competitions. Regulations from parents bar children from sneaking out at night. Regulations from certain employers disallow employees to work for competitors for a period of time after their resignation. “Regulation”, in how I used it, is a broad term. I am defending the regulation – the way it is used in this sense – of freedom as necessary for greater freedoms. I never intended to use your definition; if you misunderstood that, then I apologize. I admit I am at fault for not reading your definition of “regulation”, but I already told you I didn’t read your entire reply – the context of my response was made apparent to those capable of understanding. You have only yourself to blame; your lack of intellectual poise led to my disinterest.

        Escape humiliation? From what? There has been nothing you said that leads me to doubt my personal principles. In fact, you can count yourself responsible for strengthening them. I feel superior, thanks to you. If that makes me a moron, then perhaps you should consider criticizing yourself, the source of my so-called idiocy.

        Desperation? You misunderstand. You exhaust me. You’ve bored me. There is nothing to gain from further discussion with you, as there is no discourse occurring. There is no point. You are a waste of time.

        I told you to come back when you gain some maturity. Still you persist with the name-calling, like the fifth-grader bullying fourth-graders. Your lack of comprehension astounds me.

  7. aristogeek says:

    This one is an epic fail: “Regulations prohibit unsportsmanlike behavior in athletic competitions. Regulations from parents bar children from sneaking out at night. Regulations from certain employers disallow employees to work for competitors for a period of time after their resignation. “Regulation”, in how I used it, is a broad term. I am defending the regulation – the way it is used in this sense – of freedom as necessary for greater freedoms. I never intended to use your definition; if you misunderstood that, then I apologize. I admit I am at fault for not reading your definition of “regulation”, but I already told you I didn’t read your entire reply – the context of my response was made apparent to those capable of understanding. You have only yourself to blame; your lack of intellectual poise led to my disinterest.”

    WAHAHAHAHA! Now you’ve exploded. Try to reconcile that with what you said above (I mean your first rant in favor of regulation) and then relate whatever you grasp to my reply. My goodness! Are you using your mind? Lol!

    • Marco says:

      What’s wrong with clarifying I wasn’t using your definition, and then remaining consistent with my opinion? You appear to be grasping at straws.

      On an unrelated note, I congratulate you for not including the word “moron” in this reply. This response is still childish, though.

  8. stitch says:

    Hi Marco! Bravo! I’m using this entire conversation in my critical thinking class.

  9. lupe says:

    Jesus F. Christ!

    You survived that long in a discussion (I use the term loosely; speaking to a brick wall is more like it.) with an anarcho-capitalist? Mate, I need to shake your hand. While I didn’t necessarily agree with everything you said, you made a lot more sense than the other guy who grasped onto semantics and straw man rhetoric because his argument was a lot weaker than he’d like to admit.

    Is he also aware it was Raegan’s aggressive free market policies that completely eroded away the regulatory market protections in the New Deal, which eventually led to the most recent GFC? Funny thing is, Australia “fell” into all sorts of similar, evil “schemes” (whether in economics or medical service provision) and, erm, last I checked, not only did we weather the GFC better than most countries, we’re also not a dictatorship (and have a pretty good healthcare system to boot!).

    Also, fail spill in Aisle 2: “A doctor has the right to discriminate.” Lolling so hard. Hippocratic Oath be damned! The ridiculousness of that statement is just — wow! The mind boggles.

    P.S. Don’t mean to be stalking your blog — the RH Bill as an “issue” absolutely fascinates me and I have found your posts delightful to read. Maybe as an aside, something to think about, anyway: There’s ain’t anything wrong with being a leftist. Noam Chomsky’s a libertarian socialist, for example, and judging by your posts, I think you are one as well — a milder form of it, anyway.

    • Haha, I honestly can’t bring myself to read through that agonizing “debate” again. Regarding the leftist thing, I agree that there’s nothing wrong with being one. I just hate being reduced to labels. I feel they can oversimplify a person’s perspective of someone else is all. I’m just one of those guys who’s open to listening to everything, and trying to understand what’ll work best. It just so happens that the left seems to make the most sense to me right now. :P

  10. Mark A. says:

    Reading this blog and how the blogger responded to a commenter makes me think education is failing in these parts. All I can say is, you simply pawnd yourself and not anyone else. You need learn more about economics and real politics, kiddo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s