The Logic of Killing: God vs Thanos vs Duterte

Is killing per se evil? As people of a predominantly Catholic country, Filipinos would instinctively answer this question based on the Old Testament’s checklist item No. 6 “Thou shalt not kill” – one of the very few verses they can actually quote accurately from their scripture yet be totally oblivious of its real intended essence/meaning.

In apparent contradiction to the hallowed command, God commanded King Saul of Israel to annihilate an entire nation (the Amalekites) – executing everything that breathes (yes, including women and children); so what it comes to really boil down to is “the logic of killing”- the motive and purpose rather than the act. When someone is killed, the more important question really is not about the act itself or the how but the why.

Killing vs murder

Killing can be an act of mercy. Take the case of a severely injured fellow soldier under hot pursuit by incoming ruthless enemies. His comrades would give him a sudden death-blow rather than have him suffer the ordeal of being caught alive and tortured.

Meanwhile, murder is planned killing for a selfish motive, personal gain at the expense of another person’s life. Homicide/manslaughter covers unintended killing – so the weight of punishment can be much lighter than for one who premeditated the act.

God logic

If you believe a Supreme Being coded your DNA, then that being has every right to delete you from physical existence if he so wishes, the same way any author has the right to press the backspace button. From biblical history, you will notice that this good Grand Omnipotent/Omniscient Designer (GOD) would at times have to kill his creatures if they became wicked beyond repair, to prevent widespread contamination, or for punitive/disciplinary purposes on even large-scale proportions – the deluge in Noah’s time being his RESET button.

Thanos logic

Marvel’s super-villain Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War may have good reasons for culling half of a planet’s inhabitants at random – to preserve the health and sustainability of the planet. But then, people will cry out against any systemic population-control program as stepping on their rights. It reeks of “Illuminati”, but much more noble than Hitler’s “blue-eyed blond-hair supreme race” agenda.

Duterte logic

Duterte’s recent SONA statement hit a lot of bleeding-hearts’ nerves:

Your concern is human rights; mine is human lives.

Leni immediately snapped back the following day with front-page-grabbing counter-pronouncement: that there is no difference between human rights and human lives.

Duterte would rather sacrifice 1 bad egg to save 99 good ones from contamination. It’s a matter of weighing which has greater value: the criminal’s life or the quality of life of the rest of the people. His logic is based on a military mindset: sacrificing a few soldiers to save an entire country from invasion. Noynoy tried that same logic by sacrificing 44 SAF officers to preserve his shot at the Nobel peace prize; but it looks like Duterte, having just signed the Bangsamoro Organic Law, will be the one to cash in on it.

Is life a right?

Life is not really a right but a privilege granted to those who are responsible enough to keep order in society. It is bestowed upon those who can contribute to the advancement and development of their species/civilization and environment.

Take the analogy of animal rights. Why are dogs and cats protected by rights, whereas rats and roaches can be indiscriminately killed, with not a single Rappler journalist jumping up and down in Bayan/Akbayan-activism-like agitation? That just reeks of classic LP double-standard hypocrisy. If life – any life – is so sacred, you should be a vegan Hindu! But nope, you all line up for KFC, McDo and Burger King. Then finally, how about plant life?

We all die

The cessation of a beating heart or breathing lungs is really no big deal. Other than the sun-earth system, perpetually operating machines don’t really exist, and it is but normal for even cars to not have their engines running without end.

One of the most painless ways to die is a bullet to your head while fast asleep. As gruesome as it looks, it is practically like dreaming to just wake up in a different world – the afterlife. Death is really just a transition of consciousness, pretty much like taking an elevator to have the doors open to a different floor/world. So what really is the big deal about death?

Over-sensationalizing death has become an unnecessary burden to society, often becoming just a tool for those with vested/sinister interests. Death is a normal part of life – as sure and as expected as TRAIN-1 VAT.

It’s time to jump off of the necro-political bandwagon. Ninoy got shot for his political ambitions – so what! Cory died too – so what! FPJ died depressed he lost the elections – so what!

Bacteria: necessary yet contained

We all need a healthy amount of bacteria to live. Without these microscopic vermin, our immune and auto-repair systems would weaken to the point of not being able to handle a real life-threatening situation. Take the example of OFWs who return to their thrid-world home province. Upon drinking the tap their low-tolerance digestive systems go haywire due to their being sheltered against “evil” pathogens for so long abroad.

In like manner, a society also needs a healthy amount of criminals and threats to peace and order – enough for justifying the need for men in uniform, enough for the cops to exercise their skills in criminal investigation, and enough for security guards to get to have a job that pays for Junior’s allowance in school.

Without criminals and bad elements, where would we get themes for our movies that we love to watch over popcorn? But if those criminals exceed a certain threshold, they need to be reduced. Keeping criminal elements within a few percent of the population should be a state policy, for a country to progress unfettered. If a country gets overrun by zombies, drastic/radical measures need to be put in place – and that includes pushing the big red “death” button.

The Bible (His Story) itself is written with and drenched in blood. Without capital punishment and ruthless regimes, how can there be a Savior Christ on a cross? There is no story/drama without the shedding of blood. And without blood, killing and death, this world will be a less interesting/dramatic/exciting place to live and grow in. Sometimes, we need these threats to bring out the best in us – and at some point, life and death situations bring men/women to make decisions that serve as their defining moment.

For the man who got killed saving a lady from a knife-wielding rapist, those fleeting few seconds are what makes stories that are worth telling and repeating for even generations to come.

Killing a beloved brother

Things are not always as they seem; the first appearance deceives many. (Phaedrus)

Killing itself is not evil – it’s our motive that determines if it is really good or bad. There was an old Japanese short story about a man who got incarcerated for killing his only brother. Now before swiftly condemning the guy in your thoughts – consider the situation: according to his account, he was caught by a visiting old lady in the gruesome act of pulling a dagger out of his brother’s throat. He loved his brother, but on that fateful day he arrived home finding his brother in pain bleeding with a poorly executed suicide. His brother pleaded to finish him off fast to relieve the pain; and so in mercy he did as his brother wished.

Technically he is guilty of killing his brother with the final death-blow. In the eyes of society – he is a convict, worthy of banishment from society. But in his heart he knows that he did what he had to do out of love.

Is life sacred? 

Today’s “Stop the killings” is a call to preserve the sanctity of life. But is life really sacred? How precious is a life? Does it depend on whose life? Who has the authority to take life? Suicide is frowned upon. But in advanced societies, a government that executes its citizens for heinous crimes gets the general majority’s thumbs up – like how Japan just recently executed 13 Aum Cult members for the subway sarin gas terror attack that gripped the nation back in the 90’s.

Life is only precious to people who know its value enough to take care of it. A drug addict does not value his life. A reckless ASG kidnapping bandit or murderous thief does not value his life or those of others. Why allow one bad egg to spoil the entire batch of leche flan? For these people, life is not sacred. So why should you fight to keep these assholes (who don’t even give a damn about themselves/society) alive? Why have unwanted pests consume the earth’s limited precious resources?

Do you like weed? Then maybe you are one

In basic horticulture, what’s the definition of a weed? Did you know that even a tomato plant producing loads of fruit can be considered a weed? If the plant is not in the right place and considered unwanted, it is a weed – it uses up water and nutrients intended for the main crop. For that reason, there is nothing wrong with uprooting it and throwing it where it belongs – the dung heap.

Anything that’s misplaced should rightfully be struck down. So who has qualms about Duterte’s Drug War taking its toll on a few thousand for the greater good of our 106M strong population? He ensured in his recent SONA that the illegal-drugs war (hyphenation intended) will continue to be a relentless and chilling one.

Death penalty anyone?

Let’s grow up to be a society of men. Leave the cry babies with their shrieking rallies behind to rot in their soiled diapers calling out for mama. It’s time Filipinos grow up and get their act together. Singapore’s “third world to first” strongman was not shy about killing (executing) drug dealers. If we dream about becoming a country of Singapore’s stature, why should we?

William Gibson labeled Singapore as “Disneyland with the death penalty”. The same can be said of Japan. It seems the Asian countries that have embraced tough measures and are willing to sacrifice the most are the ones that are cleaner and more orderly and disciplined as a society.

Duterte rules with logic; Leni and the Yellow horde she represents wants EMO back with “kawawa naman ang mga puta”. Filipinos are at a crossroads debating on whom to follow and believe. As a young student was given a rhetorical wake-up call by his lolo on whether he should go ahead with his plan to run away (make tanan) with his girlfriend: “Kaya mo bang buhayin ang magiging pamilya mo na puhunan lamang ay tubig at pag-ibig? (Can you raise your future family on just water and love?)

Let’s start living more with our head than with our heart. Enough of noynoying around (lazily drifting about) guys. Then probably this country will start getting somewhere like, for a change, a real destination.

print

89 Comments on “The Logic of Killing: God vs Thanos vs Duterte”

  1. Interesting, this may complement what I wrote before about killing terrorists. I also reasoned there that while I believe should not have been necessary in life, other people try to kill for various reasons, such as in muggings and crimes of passion (and of course terrorism), so killing them is done as a step to take them out of the equation and make sure no more are killed. Good point that life is more a privilege than a right, even the evolution of “inspirational” ideas tend to go that direction. And about the Bible, it’s been pointed out that the right translation of that commandment is not “kill” but “murder,” and it is indeed possible to kill and not murder. Of course, there’ll be that discussion on misplaced sympathy, wherein one says, why did you kill the rapist, he has rights… then others say, but what about the girl he raped (and likely killed, there have been lots of that)?

    1. It if needs to be spelled out, then so be it.

      A woman killing her rapist in self-defense as he attempts to rape her is not the same as a police officer or a vigilante hunting a person who is a suspected rapist and kills the person.

      Even ancient justice systems require witnesses. And we are here now, modern people, devolved into relying on vigilante justice.

      1. I agree with you, valid points. On the suspected rapist, if witnesses do confirm him to be the culprit, then if death penalty is the punishment deemed, I wouldn’t complain these days. Hello, Leo Echegaray. Such punishment is based on the idea that one’s rights end where others’ rights are violated. As with the murderous robber or terrorist, the rapist could be considered as one who doesn’t value another’s life, so he doesn’t value his own either. I say that when one commits a crime, it’s basically a waiving of one’s own rights. So rights of criminals (and I distinguish that from rights of suspects) should be considered rubbish.

        I doubt you can call supporting Duterte supporting vigilante justice, since his connection to death squads has never been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It’s as good as an urban legend at this point. Although I’m not really a Duterte supporter.

        Hey, Zaxx, when it came to the saying not all killing is wrong, I just remembered the case of accidental death. You were carrying a knife, you slipped, the knife flew and found its way into another’s throat and did him in. Perhaps you’d be liable for some negligence, but not murder, as you never wanted to kill anyone. Oh, yes, I remember the girl who was made by a gun instructor to fire a submachine gun. She couldn’t handle the recoil and killed her instructor as a result. Can’t blame her for the dumb decision of the instructor.

        1. I forgot to mention this. I remember questions with the angle like “is freedom of speech absolute,” or “are rights absolute.” Perhaps someone has asked whether the right to life is absolute. I used to answer yes, but now, after all I’ve learned, I would answer no. Since we’re going to die anyway, our right to life isn’t absolute. I’d also recall the case of people who just die in the middle of nowhere, such as Christopher McCandless (who was made a hero for dying dumbly in the wilderness). No one could be held responsible for their death. They’re too far for anyone to save them. There are likely some people who call out, “someone must pay for those deaths!” But who can but the ones who died, since they caused themselves to die. No one else can be made responsible.

        2. True. That is why no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without without due process of law.

          Yes, a person who violates another person’s rights therefore waives his/her own right(s) as a consequence. Hence the basis for the justifiable infringement of rights.

          Criminals, by definition, ALREADY forfeited their rights to liberty( and sometimes, their rights to life). So appealing to human rights on their behalf is just downright retarded.

        3. ChinoF, those examples of accidental killings could have been avoided if people applied a little more foresight: what call the “what if” test. Rules on drunk driving are already well established; but that accident involving a child firing a submachine gun is really not an issue of not having enough guidelines – it’s simply “what the hell was that instructor thinking!” Well in that case, the poor guy probably deserved it. Accidents are a just reward for those who lack common sense (like our capsizing overloaded ferry boats). It’s just a natural law of life.

  2. We could probably say that disorder is the nature of death, and death is the ultimate solution to or result of disorder. That’s Death in multiple senses. So if we don’t want “the ultimate solution” applied to the whole, then we better get the house in order.

  3. In the Christian religious belief, Jesus Christ, was crucified, died for all of us “sinners”, so that we all have ” eternal life”. In the Muslim belief, a suicide bomber has to sacrifice his life to have 72 virgins in Paradise. The suicide bomber will become a martyr, and will have the strength of 30 men to have sex with the 72 virgins.

    I believe that human life is sacred. However, there are times when abortion is needed to enhance life. Sometimes, Euthanasia, is needed to help a person , transition from life to death.

    Human life is not a right, as that fake VP Leni Robredo, had stated. As she had no good concept in answering her Bar Exam questions, that she flunked three (3) times. She has no good concept to define human life. Human life is not a right. It is a privilege, and you have a responsibility to be “good” , to keep it.

    If you go, and cut you neighbor’s throat; or sell him Shabu, to hook him and profit from him. Do you have right to human life ?

    If you, like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, try to massacre millions of people who you believe have no right to exist.
    Do you have right to human life ?

    We humans, have the right to be here on Planet Earth. However, we have the Responsibility to keep us all in good standing/behaving with each other.

    I would request, my friend: Robert Haighton, who is an avowed Atheist , on his opinions/comments on human life…

    1. Why me, Hyden? I am not special in any way. But since you made the request, I will oblige.

      Why are we here? Well, because our parents decided to make us. Okay through modern technology we can also be here because of IVF. And probably in the future new technology will be invented to make that happen in other ways. And so far, all we need is a human female egg cell and a human male sperm cell. That is all I know. Simple, is it not?

      Is life sacred? No, it isnt. We – humans – are not that special. Yes, we are on top of the food chain but that does not make us – humans – (more) special.

      Because all of us do age (and eventually die) we have to make something out of our lives. So, we need to make money so that we can live comfortably.
      All I am wishing for is that we can have eternal life (literally) on planet earth as humans. And I am sure this will be possible somewhere in the near future. We just need to stop the ageing process. And with that the necessity to procreate is gone.

      Kill/murder
      Will it solve anything? No, it wont and therefore it’s useless. Its like cutting off your finger nails. They will grow back.

    2. I don’t believe that human lives are sacred, that’s because we’ve been stained by our own dirty nature since our birth — THE HUMAN NATURE. Humanity are not perfect, his/her life are imperfect & so many flaws.

      In order to control our own “bad” nature, we must DISCIPLINED ourselves but this one is not a walk in the park. But if you do a hard work on using discipline on your lives, then you’re a GOOD MORAL PERSON & a CIVILIZED PERSON, not a person who lives in a Pre-historic caves during the Ice Age & having an Ice Age mentality.

      Those Human Rights Advocates like Amnesty International, Liberal Party, Gabriela, etc., etc. should go back to the Ice Age if they REALLY value the “human rights” & they don’t like to adopt the modern age of today in which are so many obstacles & hurdles but with many opportunities to get with, and with the best example is this video that I’d seen from Youtube on this CNBC reporter that he’d documented on how the Japanese workers works so hard on themselves in spite that it’ll cost their human lives: https://youtu.be/9Y-YJEtxHeo

      I’m so envious about those Japanese people, and they show a good example to the world. ????

      1. “But if you do a hard work on using discipline on your lives, then you’re a GOOD MORAL PERSON”

        What is working hard? Is that working 8 hrs and getting paid 8 hrs? Now what if I produce in 6 hrs what you produce in 8 hrs?
        And working has nothing to do with moral/morality. Morality is an overrated word in every sense.

        And Japan? A strange odd weird country.

        1. Mr. Robert, do you think that Japan is a odd weird country?

          If you think that their country is weird, then my country is weirder and I tell you why. I’ll give you a comparison & example between these two countries like both of them had struck in a natural disaster.

          1) In Japan when a great earthquake had struck in their country on March 11, 2011, many Japanese earthquake victims had shown their resiliency on how they’d cope up on the disaster like they’d waited the line for food & other relieve goods that they could received from their government and/or charity institutions without stealing anything on the supermarkets or stores: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/japan-victims-show-resilience-earthquake-tsunami-sign-sense/story?id=13135355

          2) In the Philippines, when Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) had struck in the city of Tacloban, Leyte on Nov. 8, 2013, many of the victims there had looted some of the stores & supermarkets on that city and caused many chaos & disorders on that city after the storm: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/regions/334750/looting-reported-in-tacloban-in-aftermath-of-yolanda/story/

          See what I mean? The Filipino cultures & behaviors are much worst & weirder than the Japanese. To top that off, imagine in an alternative World War II event, if my country, the Philippines joined the member of the Axis Powers instead of Japan during the war, it’ll be much weirder & bloodier as what I’d posted on my 2 replies on this blog: http://getrealphilippines.com/2018/07/mediocre-filipino-basketball-followed-by-shameful-filipino-style-brawl/

        2. @Robert Haighton

          And The Philippines having Proud Filipinos mightily signifying, with dignity and conviction, their even stranger, odder, weirder ‘Reverse Filipino Pride’!

          Nothing something like it anywhere in the entire world beats that!

  4. Perhaps seen in that light, the Duterte logic of killing can be greeted with a silent selfish approval by many as long as they can’t be directly affected by it. But the obvious selective policy of implementation is another matter for many to ponder.

    What is the logic behind a lopsided selective-killing of petty drug-users versus big-time drug-lords?

    What is the logic behind the selective-justice being favorable for the BoC officials and collaborators vs the informer/whistle-blower in the P6.4-B shabu smuggling case?

    The Senate investigation has just been a wasted opportunity!

    Duterte is a good enough President with some obvious inconsistencies that people are willing to ignore for the lack of someone better out there!

    1. Well the logic is in this nice little song (if you are able to decode Bisaya)…
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbBZDqsYIWA

      …likely a promising Visayan version of Maine Mendoza, complete with all the facial/nasal acrobatics.

      This would have been a great commercial break / special # midway through the OP, which (apologies to all) was a bit longer than usual.

    1. Sadly, every human rights have its OWN rights & not EQUALLY shared its rights. And this is the most misconception to all of human rights advocates out there like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Gabriella, Liberal Party, etc., etc. A human rights from hell where “human rights” is strained with HUMAN NATURE. Humanity lost his morality & discipline because of that. ????

  5. mrericx,
    (Pls, there is no need to address me by using “Mr.”)

    Everything has to do with knowledge. A human being can do without food for 3 weeks. So why will I steal food in moments of an earthquake? And why will i loot goods when nothing will work at moments of an earthquake? It also has to do with poverty. So do I condone it? Yes and no. But at least I understand why some poor people do (*stupid”) things.
    A human being can do without liquids/water for 3 days. So just sit out the shit storm and then go look for clean water.

    I always ask myself what I will do when I am in a plane that is crashing. Will I stay calm or will i shout and scream? The answer is: I dont know but I wish that I will stay calm.

    1. @Robert Haighton alright I won’t use Mr. on your name because you’re a Westerner unlike on the Japanese side in which they’re very strict on using honorifics to anyone whether a Japanese or a foreigner like the words [first name of the person] -san, or -sama, or -chan, etc., etc. So go ahead if you could say they’re weird but that’s the part of their culture & attitude of the Japanese people & they’d done that since before Jesus Christ was born, and that;s what I really like their culture so much that some non-Japanese people like Filipinos, Americans, Chinese and others are put to shame. Japanese culture are really a WORLD CLASS. ????

      And I’ll make a reply to your question on regarding this last paragraph:

      “I always ask myself what I will do when I am in a plane that is crashing. Will I stay calm or will i shout and scream? The answer is: I dont know but I wish that I will stay calm.”

      Well that depends, and it is based on the identity & character of the passenger. Now if he/she’s an American that doesn’t have a common sense, his/her mental & psychological status are not very stable & his/her attitude are quite rude & barbaric, then he/she will surely get on a panic mode. And even worse, he/she doesnt know on how to survive on his/her own after that incident and he/she might use violence if he/she is not on a stable mental & psychological state like he/she’ll kill every passengers on that plane by either punching them or get a fork or knife from the plane & make a murder spree to his/her passengers. But if yo’re a kind, gentle, smart & disciplined passenger & if your country have a good cultures on it like in Japan or Singapore, then surely you’ll be calm & you have a better chance to survive on your own.

      Now I don’t think that the reason why the Japanese people didnt looted the stores or created a riot after the 2011 earthquake because they’re rich & well educated unlike what happened to the Filipinos in Tacloban, Leyte after a powerful typhoon that struck into that city in 2013 & caused many panic, riots & looting there but on the event on last year’s Marawi Siege, we didn’t seen some of the Filipinos there that had caused many panic, riots & store looting in Marawi City during & after that event. We’ve never know but I guess the reason why in Tacloban City caused riots & looting after Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) had struck there unlike on the Marawi City side is due to our previous president, ABNOY Aquino are very incompetent & lack of political will to take action on that kind of disaster while President Duterte made an opposite effect from our previous president when the Maute/ISIS Terror group attacked Marawi City in Mindanao on May 2017 & he didn’t think it twice that he later declared a Martial Law in Mindanao in which it’ll expire at the end of this year & he send many soldiers & policemen there to provide combat operations against those terror group who’d stormed on that city, provide a security protocol to that city during the siege & even sending a swift humanitarian reliefs to the civilians who’d been affected by that incident. Now if any president like Mar Roxas, Grace Poe or Jejomar Binay would had encountered the Marawi Siege last year, would they even have a knowledge & political will that they could stop that siege & save our Filipino people in Marawi City who are the most casualties on that incident just like what Pres. Duterte did? I don’t think so. ????

      1. Mrericx,
        “But if you’re a kind, gentle, smart & disciplined passenger & if your country have a good cultures on it like in Japan or Singapore, then surely you’ll be calm & you have a better chance to survive on your own.”

        Will/Can you please reconsider this paragraph in case the plane crash is the MH17?

        Re: Horrorifics
        I really think it has to do with being brought up (raised) in a shame culture wjhere speaking the (harsh) truth is not accepted amongst other things. You can see that in your own country where younger people MUST do the Mano to older people every fucking day. And it is shown by names like “ate”, “dong” and “kuya” etc, used among siblings.

        If/when I am your boss/manager, you can still address/call me by my first name (in my country). If/when I am your oldest brother, you can and you will still address/call me by my first name (in my country).

  6. This is just a mere strawman: ~ Is life a right?

    Life is not really a right but a privilege granted to those who are responsible enough to keep order in society. It is bestowed upon those who can contribute to the advancement and development of their species/civilization and environment.~

    No one, since the birth of philosophy, ever claimed that life is a right until this article was made. RIGHT TO LIFE is being assumed. Not life itself is a right.

    1. Did you know that many people die of assumptions? In the vernacular: maraming namamatay sa “Baka”.

      Don’t assume everything is a right. Even clean water if only a privilege – limited to those who don’t poison the well.

      1. Did you know that reading comprehension is a prerequisite to understanding? You are the one who made the assumption that life is claimed to be a right, proven by your own blogpost.

        And now you assume that there are people who think that clean water is a right.

        Here is my advice to you: Don’t be stupid.

        1. Try to Google “Is life, itself, a right or a privilege?”

          And you’ll wish your sorry ass there was a backspace button for you original comment.

          You should really take your own advice more seriously.

          Btw, what makes you think water/well was literal and not figurative? Try harder pal.

        2. I don’t have to . Unlike you, I know perfectly that life != right to life. Just like property != right to property.

          You can always use the “figurative” excuse all you like. It still not going to save you from the embarrassment of being so stupid.

          Hey look at that! “Love of money” can be figuratively be stated as “money”. Bwahahaha!!

          But hey, if your sorry ass is happy about being an idiot, you have all the right to be.

        3. Man you are so stricken with semantics overdose; you should try aiming at becoming a lawyer – blasting out “You’re an idiot” as your opening statement/argument. That way you appear to win every argument from the get go.

          I can prove to you that it’s perfectly fine to equate “Education is a basic human right” = “Access to education is a basic human right”. The only person who’ll get confused around here is you.

          Proof in this link:
          https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/23/education-is-a-basic-human-right-why-private-schools-must-be-resisted

          That “money” vs “love of money” thing’s a totally different case. Please take my advice: Avoid pitting strawman against ironman. The outcome is often very embarrassing.

        4. ~ I can prove to you that it’s perfectly fine to equate “Education is a basic human right” = “Access to education is a basic human right”. The only person who’ll get confused around here is you.

          Proof in this link:
          https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/apr/23/education-is-a-basic-human-right-why-private-schools-must-be-resisted ~

          Your proof is that!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          ~Avoid pitting strawman against ironman. The outcome is often very embarrassing.~

          Indeed it is! Thanks for the good laugh. Bwahahaha!!!

        5. atta boy… Did you know that “laughing at your own failures” can be therapeutic, a secret to averting insanity.

        6. Sure you do! You do not know what RIGHT is and you do not know what PROOF is. But that never stop from showing us all that.

          Good boy! ~pats Zaxx on the head~

  7. A refresher course on Rights is badly needed here.

    Here are the basics:

    Life. Therefore, right to life.
    Liberty. Therefore, right to liberty.
    Property. Therefore, right to property.

    Those 3 are the main categories of human rights. From those 3 we have the subcategories.

    Example:
    Right to life. Therefore right to self-defense for preservation of one’s life. Ergo, the Right to self-defense. Therefore, right to bear arms.

    1. LOL, and that’s a Human Rights 101 for you. There’s a flaw on the rules of it. And I don’t know if those Human Rights advocates have guns on their pockets or they could buy & use cocaine, LSD & shabu or having an adulterous affair with a child prostitute as part of their “Human Rights”? Well, duh! ????

      1. Of course you would think that way. Because you are simply stupid.

        I mean, just look at how you equate basic human rights to having an adulterous affair with a child and then you think you made a good counterpoint.

  8. @ ZAXX, WTF R U SMOKING ? I HAVE YET TO READ A BIGGER BATCH OF SHIT THAN THIS:

    “Life is not really a right but a privilege granted to those who are responsible enough to keep order in society. It is bestowed upon those who can contribute to the advancement and development of their species/civilization and environment.”, WHAT ?

    YOU ARE CLUELESS SONNY, TRULY CLUELESS….ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS….INCLUDING LIFE.

    1. The only truly CLUELESS SONNY I know is Trillianes (the fourth).

      And about WTF: Where does life begin? Yes from F. So making babies is not a right; it is a privilege of those who have at least a 4-digit monthly salary.

        1. Sorry that was “spoken in dollar”.

          1000USD x 53.3PHP/USD=
          Can you do the math? Or should Leni help you out?

          The answer to that is “the right to copulation”.

        2. Excuses. Your ineptitude just amazes me.

          The right to procreate predates the existence of currencies. But hey, if you are happy being stupid be my guess.

        3. lol rabbits arent human
          false analogy
          you are clearly losing the argument because your logic is flawed

        4. “lol rabbits arent human” – T

          hush, child! you’re simply too short for this ride. go play with the other shorties.

        5. I support human rights the same as I support animal rights. I strongly believe that every living creature must be treated humanely. However I also RESERVE MY RIGHT to exterminate all vermin in my house. To hell with their rights. Contradictory? Not exactly. I just hold my right to life higher than pests.

  9. Sure man. I guess I can be your “guess” – if you really find my ideas that mysterious.

    LOL. Do you really need a backspace key or an AI-enabled auto-spell check function that can decipher the context?

    Welcome to my world where order in society supersedes all your preconceived / widely accepted notions of rights.

    Puro koyo rights. Kaya puno ng squatter bansa mo.

    1. That’s cute. Shifting to “context” now. Excuses after excuses after excuses. Your “worldview” isn’t new nor innovative. But since it makes you happy, why not, right?

      It’s one thing to see someone attempt a wack at utilitarianism. But its really fun to see an idiot fail at it miserably. But, at least you tried, right? After all, what’s not to like in ones right to try something out?

      Let me pat you for trying ~chuckle~

      1. The admin might grant you the ‘”right to remain silenced” soon if you don’t stop dropping “idiot” and “stupid” in every post you make. Just a warning for overly inflated heads.

        But of course you have the right to get a new Username, if you don’t mind the trouble.

        The utilitarian paradise that is Singapore is really beyond reach of Filipinos – as long as we have minds imprisoned by “freedom is all that matters”.

        Toning down certain rights (even the right to chew gum in public) actually ushers in a vast array of perks. For example, look at Singapore ranking now on the list of “the world’s most powerful passports”. It’s really a such a shame Filipinos have traded their birthright for a bowl of soup.

        1. Whatever the admin would “grant” me here is irrelevant. I WILL CALL A SPADE A SPADE.

          Toning down CERTAIN rights does not entail toning down of basic rights to usher a “vast array of perks”.

          Turning “right to life” into a “privilege to life” for a powerful passport? That just shows a stupendous level of shortsightedness.

        2. Yep, as short as the level of shortsightedness as those Japanese and Singaporeans you look up to. FYI: they implement the death penalty, how ruthless of these “civilized” people.

          “More rights” pa more

        3. The utilitarian paradise that is Singapore is really beyond reach of Filipinos – as long as we have minds imprisoned by “freedom is all that matters”.

          @Tobias:

          Hate to burst your bubble, but it seems that freedom of expression is much more important to you than freedom from poverty.

        4. @Tobias:

          Hate to burst your bubble, but it seems….

          I hate to burst your bubble. But If you are not sure about what I am saying, it is ALWAYS best to ask for clarifications.

          it seems that freedom of expression is much more important to you than freedom from poverty.

          See? Just ask yourself this simple question: If you are not even allowed to express yourself freely, how the hell do you even think that you are allowed to do something more complex than that( like getting rich )?

          Do I really have to tell you about the fundamental right called Pursuit of Happiness(a better life) and how liberty is necessary for it?

      2. This is actually true at a deep biological level…

        Life is not really a right but a privilege granted to those who are responsible enough to keep order in society. It is bestowed upon those who can contribute to the advancement and development of their species/civilization and environment.

        The DNA of every life form was passed on by individual organisms fit enough to survive to reproductive age and, in the case of sexual creatures, exhibited enough fitness to attract (or seize) a mate.

        In that sense, those individuals that contributed to the propagation of the species earned their right to life in the sense of their code being passed on to serve as the blueprint upon which future generations of living forms could build upon.

        Amongst social primates, status was important because it ensured continued acceptance within a troupe or tribe. Individuals found to be not contributing to the coherence and strength of the tribe or troupe progressively lost status. A continued slide in status often ended in a full casting out. Usually, for an individual left without a tribe or troupe, that was a death sentence. At a primal level, individuals that became liabilities to their communities lost their right to life as far as the community was concerned.

        That code that drives social dynamics within primate communities continues to exist in the human genome. And that’s a fact about our nature as a species.

        1. In that sense, those individuals that contributed to the propagation of the species earned their right to life in the sense of their code being passed on to serve as the blueprint upon which future generations of living forms could build upon.

          And yet, the least intelligent are the ones who reproduce the most. And as the intelligence of a society goes up, the lesser it is likely to reproduce. Japan for one is already in a negative birth rate and several predominantly white European nations are heading in that direction.

          This is the human factor. Hence why mere comparison to animals somehow creates an enigma when intelligence becomes a detrimental trait, biologically speaking.

          Humans are the only animals to exhibit the ability to circumvent biological instincts when intelligence is high.

        2. Subarashii! Therein lies the genius of Whoever invented sexual reproduction as the mechanism for DNA code perpetuation to begin with. Why didn’t the Encoder just go for asexual reproduction for us humans? Kilig romance and orgasmic pleasures aside, deeply ingrained into this biological world’s natural selection mechanism by sexual reproduction is the ability of a species or social unit to auto-correct.

          Those who fail to contribute to the unit’s betterment slowly slide down to irrelevance and towards ultimately – annihilation. As for nature left to itself: the right to perpetuate ones genes (of greater value/potential than the individual’s life) is waived by all participants by default. Any apparent basic right is actually conditional. “Use it or lose it” is the overriding maxim.

          This blog community itself has the mechanisms for auto-correction. Those who can’t keep up with the level of debate/discussion or violate rules of conduct naturally boot out or the admin’s “disable user” option is simply meted out on them – akin to capital punishment. This is why I believe in the death penalty used by many progressive countries (US, Japan, Singapore, China) for keeping citizens in line, something lacking in this chaotic country.

          Interesting to see how much insight we can cultivate on a topic here – something I really find lacking in the substance/quality of exchange in many social media platforms these days. The noise, name calling, and clutter simply dominate the landscape – just like those irrelevant shrieking /eyesore rallies of activists causing traffic on the streets.

          Eventually those who contribute nothing of relevance and do nothing but bombard the rest of society with calls and demands for rights, rights and more rights are ultimately IGNORED – one of the harshest punishments for Pinoys to endure.

        3. And finally, let’s supplement that with an analogy in Physics through the concept of Path Integrals:

          Main point at 3.33…

        4. @Tobias, A capability for self-determination is a byproduct of humans’ advanced intelligence. As such, the ability to develop and use tools such as contraceptives, the knowledge to use them, and the will to use them are all byproducts of that intelligence and the societies it created. It is that byproduct behaviour that is, as you pointed out, resulting in the decline in population growth of affluent societies.

          However, the selection forces that shaped the brain that produced that behaviour were not driven by any notion of tool making nor the acquisition of such abstract forms of knowledge as birth control. Neither one was a factor over the period that much of advances brain evolution transpired in early hominid species. Intelligence evolved for other purposes that were relevant at the time.

      3. Yep, as short as the level of shortsightedness as those Japanese and Singaporeans you look up to. FYI: they implement the death penalty, how ruthless of these “civilized” people.

        ~chuckle~ I am also a Christian. Why not add God there as well?

        “More rights” pa more

        Haha! And here is proof that when statists and liberals open up their mouths, there is really no difference.

        1. However, the selection forces that shaped the brain that produced that behaviour were not driven by any notion of tool making nor the acquisition of such abstract forms of knowledge as birth control. Neither one was a factor over the period that much of advances brain evolution transpired in early hominid species. Intelligence evolved for other purposes that were relevant at the time.

          FYI, birth control tools and methods were available to humans since the time of Ancient Egypt.

          And the rule of averages affects usage of contraception. These means that frequent usage will lead to eventual failure of the contraceptive which CAN LEAD to pregnancy. Japan’s negative birth rate suggests an entirely different picture.

          The answer lies in the reproductive behavior of wealthy and highly intelligent or highly educated populace. This is why overpopulation is primarily a 3rd world problem.

        2. If we are to believe that most humans are destined to be in the underclass and deserve to be destroyed one way or another, then the “intelligent designer” wouldn’t be so intelligent in such case. We’re probably missing something and I don’t believe that those in the inner circles and powers have (or had) no projection of such future.

      1. thanks for reminding… oh the joys of dancing around with Planck’s constant in a previous life.

        6.62607004 × 10^-34 m^2 kg / s —> so small yet so relevant. What a wonderfully fine-tuned universe!

  10. Zaxx,
    “This is why I believe in the death penalty used by many progressive countries (US, Japan, Singapore, China) for keeping citizens in line, something lacking in this chaotic country.”

    You are entitled to believe in the death penalty. But in USA it doesnt work at all. And thank god, we in Europe dont have any of that shit (death penalty). In China they will send you to a death squad if only you fart and belch.

    1. The last I heard – USA is still a first world country. How well a state/nation wields a sword like the death penalty is a different matter though. Having such a powerful tool at your disposal yet being overly wimpy in its implementation negates the sting/fear factor it was primarily designed to effect on its populace.

      China is rising, as the US slides down – grappling to survive with Trump turning to protectionist lifelines. Thus the impending trade war.

      Meanwhile for you guys in Europe, Shariah Law is just around the corner. Better churn out more blue-eyed blondies Robert; just been to France lately and you guys are already drowning in Islamic/African immigrants. Remember the recent joke on Europe/France: “Africa won the World Cup!”

      The world as we know it will soon be a distant memory. It’s a rosier picture for PH though as we begin to follow China’s tough stance lead. Hopefully members of Congress will start to open their minds to articles such as this, snap out of their squatter-protectionism spell and come to their senses.

  11. Zaxx,

    You paint something rosy as if all is well by your kind of version pictured solutions in connection to the present admin’s propaganda.

    As if forgetting about the “due process of law” can be a nice agenda to reduce what ills this country. As if all the killed “addicts” really fought the police first and eventually meted their death because of that; if those all really happened, I would defend the police for the sake of self-defense or life-preservation of the policemen. But as you said, things are not always what they seem. Truth is, there were actually many side stories from those who knew by heart why the thing of killing happened that way. The most common story is that “evidence was planted”, “he did not do those things that’s why he was killed as argued by the police” These voices are being rejected most of the time. Many extra-judicial killings remain unsolved as of date involving innocent lives attested by those who knew the innocense of those killed persons.

    This is what the vigilante mindset administration has in store for every Filipino; to secure justice, it must always be swift, reckless and bloody. This means, as a consequence, to never mind the feelings of those bereaved family who lost their innocent loved ones because of the ongoing “war on drugs,” which does not follow ideally and properly the due process of law and fair exercise of rights of person as preciously stated under the laws and the constitution. Just don’t mind the law, mind our own gut feeling that he is a lawbreaker and deserves the punishment of death right away. Yeah, right! Make sense in the name of “killing for a noble cause and for the good of all.” This can be witnessed during the stone age era and also today, as being propagated by this admin.

    1. And you love to accuse someone, just like the opposition’s (mostly the Yellows’) propaganda is doing.

      “Due process of law” is still there, but you have no idea that there are other forces that they can ‘manipulate’ the law for their own ends and the existence of narco-politcians. BTW, ‘extra-judicial killings’ is a term coined by none other than Laila de Lima, who is currently in jail.

      AFAIK, you just can’t solely blame the current administration for this. These so-called ‘extra-judicial killings’ exists before Duterte and people have no idea what these drug syndicates could do just to get away from the law. What’s worse is that these can also be used just for their own political agenda.

      Anyhow, at least we’re not like Colombia in the 80s. You exaggerate too much…

      1. That is true, Grease Blizzard. The so-called EJK predates Duterte’s ascension to presidency.

        So how do we deal with this hired-killers to make sure that it doesn’t become as rampant as what is happening in Mexico?

        The answer to that will greatly reduce incidents of EJK.

    2. The last section of the article was about capital punishment, which follows due process.

      It is only a small fraction (<5% in one source) of the drug raids/arrests that end in killing. Most drug pushers/users are just imprisoned/rehabilitated. I know a guy myself who is being rehabilitated. YouTube is replete with actual footages of nanlaban/fighting it off with police. I would take everything I hear these days with a grain of salt. Unless proven in court, you cannot rely on what the suspects or police claim. There has to be at least some video recording.

      If there are really dirty cops who plant evidence, then that’s a failure of due process to address this side of the issue. They are now adding body cameras for officers not to abuse. CCTV cameras are everywhere. So it is becoming a rosier picture.

      A few deaths for safer streets for 100M+ Pinoys is a small price to pay. Given the high birthrate, these deaths are negligible.

  12. A. Contreras has a timely article today on the topic:

    http://www.manilatimes.net/of-human-life-and-human-rights/425856/

    Conclusion:

    Much as we still possess elements of the non-Western worldview, as evidenced by our strong communitarian traditions, our social contract — that is, our Constitution — is crafted using a Western rubric. Hence, the Philippine state is expected to privilege individual rights, even of those who threaten not only its collective rights, but also the rights of majority of its citizens. This is the position of human rights advocates.

    The President, however, appears to challenge this Western view of states and rights, when he said that he values human life, and not human rights. He deployed an organic, autonomous right to life of the collective Filipino nation, which carries with it the right to protect itself. And this means privileging the right to life of those it has sworn to protect over the human rights of individuals whose actions tend to threaten the life of its citizens, and the life, or the very existence, of the political community and the Republic.

    In simple terms: When 2 rights clash, place the rights of the 2 entities on a balance; then favor that which outweighs the other. For the current admin, it’s the right to life of the Filipino people as a collective entity over and above that of criminals/drug pushers. It’s just basic common sense. I wonder why the Yellows can’t get it.

    1. Contreras is simply falling for the fallacy of “group rights”. Hence why he thinks Duterte has challenged the Western perspective on human rights. The same Duterte who claimed “kung di mo kayang pumatay ng tao, di ka pwedeng maging Presidente”.

      This is what pro-collective rights do not understand: A group’s right(s) is/are the individual rights of its members. When individuals create a group, they do not gain any new rights. Neither does the group’s existence supersedes the existence of any of its members.

      This very notion of collective rights or group rights gave rise to concept of “corporate personhood” where a corporation is given rights and responsibilities that is supposed to be just for natural persons. And this concept lead to a lot of abuses.

      The Western “concept” of human rights has remained superior due to the fact that it places the destiny of an individual PRIMARILY on the individual’s hands. And this creates a superior culture. A culture where an individual takes full responsibility of the consequences of his/her decisions, unlike the prevailing culture criticized by most of the writers here: playing the victim card.

      And those who do not understand these things will never understand the true value of the rights to life, liberty and property and will continue to question USA’s 2nd amendment. Instead of blaming the true reason for disorder in society, the culture, they will continue to blame unalienable rights instead and falsely claim that there are simply too many human rights.

      1. >>>When individuals create a group, they do not gain any new rights.

        Then why does a farmer cooperative gain the right to loan huge amounts from large international creditors, otherwise not available if each farmer were to act on his own? Why do corporations that hire many locals get better tax incentives?

        There’s enormous power in synergy…
        “The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts. First coined by the philosopher Aristotle, this phrase aptly defines the modern concept of synergy. For anyone who has played team sports, it echoes the T.E.A.M. acronym—together, everyone achieves more.” (T.E. Wealth)

        The individual’s rights end where the group’s rights begin. Thus, social beings are encouraged to band together instead of live as an island. Asians were mostly rice planters – a huge team effort was involved. Westerners are used to just grazing cattle/sheep all alone, or with just his dog to assist.

        Let’s not try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Look at China’s success – without being a copycat to Western models. Singapore’s model of toning down individual rights for the greater good of the many is what fits PH. Why dream the American dream when we can have the Asian dream – which is much better and family oriented.

        The state should always favor and prioritize the group’s rights over that of the individual. Rights are bound to clash, because there are so many of them and so many people. One person’s right to smoke will infringe a community’s right to clean/fresh air. A person’s right to sing karaoke till midnight or raise cockadoodledoos may trample on the rights of those who want to sleep soundly in silence at night.

        Which one will the state hear out? That of the majority. The rights of the offender of the many must give way.

        1. Then why does a farmer cooperative gain the right to loan huge amounts from large international creditors, otherwise not available if each farmer were to act on his own? Why do corporations that hire many locals get better tax incentives?

          Right to loan? Again, you do not know what RIGHT is. Incentives are not rights.

          There’s enormous power in synergy…

          Yes there is. But that is not the question. The question is HOW the synergy was achieved? Mao’s China also achieved synergy through his Great Leap Forward. We all know what happened then.

          To form a group, the individuals that made it AGREED to band together to form that group. THEY WERE NOT FORCED INTO ONE TO BEGIN WITH. Hence individuals can choose to leave that group, or, disband it when the group no longer benefits any of the members.

          The individual’s rights end where the group’s rights begin. The state should always favor and prioritize the group’s rights over that of the individual.

          And there lies the core problem of your thesis. And there also lies one of the main causes of the problems countries like Philippines face today.

          Most Filipinos think EXACTLY like you. Hence why Philippines have a bloated government riddled with corruption.

          But the biggest problem of your “collective rights” theory is that there is not such thing as one Filipino collective. There are farmers, there are fishermen, there are PUV drivers, there are informal settlers, there are indigenous people, the are Marxists/Communits, there are OFWs, there are Manggagawa and there are Moros.

          And only the Moros got what they are clamoring for: The Bangsamoro Legislation.

          I guess that is the only collective that mattered this year. ~chuckle~

          By giving the state power to bestow “special rights” to a collective, you also give it power TAKE AWAY such “special rights”. And this breeds corruption. A collective that becomes big enough can easily lobby for special privileges. And bribery is the easiest path to that. The smaller, less powerful ones can just hope in vain.

          So much for a government subjected to its people. You get, instead, a government subject to special interest groups.

          Why dream the American dream when we can have the Asian dream – which is much better and family oriented.

          Because the American dream is superior in every way. I know that is hard for you to swallow. Blogs like this will not exist in the Asian dream. The freedom of expression is intrinsically a Western concept since Western culture believes that ideas, especially the great ones, come from it.

        2. >>> Right to loan? Again, you do not know what RIGHT is.

          So you’ve never heard of bank/coop depositor’s rights?
          You should try becoming a member of a cooperative where you can avail of loans. I have the right to loan because I’m a member of a coop, which is otherwise NOT accessible to me if I were not. So the point is: people can GAIN SOMETHING by banding together.

          Your definitions & semantics overdose is blinding you from understanding the essence of the point being driven here.

        3. Your definitions & semantics overdose is blinding you from understanding the essence of the point being driven here.

          Bzzzzttt! The only have who has exhibited blindness here is you, proven by your ridiculous simplification of right to life being to something like applying for a loan, rendering ones life subject to an approver. And thanks to your “intellect”, you reduce them further to mere semantics.

          Until you are able to grok these things you will continue with your folly thinking that it is wisdom.

        4. >>> rendering ones life subject to an approver
          Finally you get the point! And I can cook up another article on this topic of rights to hammer it down all the more.

          BTW, Galileo Galilei was considered a fool (esp. in his days) for preaching heliocentrism, up until everyone realized he was right.

        5. BTW, Galileo Galilei was considered a fool (esp. in his days) for preaching heliocentrism, up until everyone realized he was right.

          Bwahahahaha! Heliocentrisim was from Copernicus. And no, Galileo was not considered a fool for preaching the Copernican model of the solar system you ridiculously maleducated fool. Reread Galileo’s life FFS!

        6. For the benefit of those who remain in the belief that Galileo was persecuted because he preached the Copernican model(Heliocentrism), google The Galileo Affair.

          Don’t be like zaxx.

        7. “Urban VIII became hostile to Galileo and he was again summoned to Rome. Galileo’s trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between “teaching” and “holding and defending as true”. For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was forced to recant Copernicanism and was put under house arrest for the last few years of his life.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

          Galileo was made a fool (“forced to recant”) and even more… persecuted (house arrest) by the Roman Catholic Church for supporting Copernican heliocentrism in his days. Nothing in my original statement was incorrect. Take your debate to Wikipedia editors if you still insist.

        8. ~chuckle~ Zaxx does not even know how to use Wikipedia.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

          There is some evidence that enemies of Galileo persuaded Urban that Simplicio was intended to be a caricature of him. Modern historians have dismissed this as most unlikely.[61]

          Dava Sobel argues that during this time, Urban had fallen under the influence of court intrigue and problems of state. His friendship with Galileo began to take second place to his feelings of persecution and fear for his own life. The problem of Galileo was presented to the pope by court insiders and enemies of Galileo, following claims by a Spanish cardinal that Urban was a poor defender of the church. This situation did not bode well for Galileo’s defense of his book.[62]

          Multiple authors have argued that the Catholic Church, rather than Galileo, was scientifically justified in the dispute over the placement and rotation of the Sun and Earth, given available knowledge at the time. Referring to Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini, physicist Pierre Duhem “suggests that in one respect, at least, Bellarmine had shown himself a better scientist than Galileo by disallowing the possibility of a ‘strict proof of the earth’s motion’, on the grounds that an astronomical theory merely ‘saves the appearances’ without necessarily revealing what ‘really happens’.”[63]

          In his 1998 book, Scientific Blunders, Robert Youngson indicates that Galileo struggled for two years against the ecclesiastical censor to publish a book promoting heliocentrism. He claims the book passed only as a result of possible idleness or carelessness on the part of the censor, who was eventually dismissed. On the other hand, Jerome K. Langford and Raymond J. Seeger contend that Pope Urban and the Inquisition gave formal permission to publish the book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Ptolemaic & Copernican. They claim Urban personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, to include Urban’s own arguments, and for Galileo not to advocate heliocentrism.

          If you think that the entire affair was simply because Galileo preached the Copernican model, then you have a lot(a hell damn lot) of reading to do.

          You’re welcome.

        9. >>> Galileo struggled for two years against the ecclesiastical censor to publish a book promoting heliocentrism.

          You’re just digging your own argument’s grave. Your Wiki evidence only supports my assertion – that Galileo suffered massive resistance from the RCC, only to be proven later on by the scientific community he was right. In the same way, you resist my views here, only to be proven wrong by empirical evidence:

          Singapore’s success is evidence their model is far more superior than the Philippine’s over indulgence in “rights”. If you don’t believe me, try going to Singapore yourself – you’ll be amazed that you won’t feel as if your rights are being suppressed there. And yet they execute and cane people to submission.

        10. You’re just digging your own argument’s grave. Your Wiki evidence only supports my assertion – that Galileo suffered massive resistance from the RCC, only to be proven later on by the scientific community he was right.

          You are really this dense? You simply highlighted the what. YOU NEVER BOTHERED WITH THE WHY. The fact the you are resisting the WHY proves that you really do not want your false claims to be corrected.

          You even neglected the HISTORICAL FACT that Galileo and Pope Urban VII were FRIENDS.

          Singapore’s success is evidence their model is far more superior than the Philippine’s over indulgence in “rights”. If you don’t believe me, try going to Singapore yourself – you’ll be amazed that you won’t feel as if your rights are being suppressed there. And yet they execute and cane people to submission.

          Claiming that Philippines has an over indulgence in “rights” is a blatant lie easily proven by laws its government has created. You really are way over your head in this discussion.

          I hope this will help you improve:

          “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” – Lee Kwan Yew

          Dear God in Heaven! The great Lee Kwan Yew himself observed that even Singaporeans, a multiracial collective KNOWN to be BETTER THAN FILIPINOS, were extremely stupid when it came to their usage of their right to vote.

        11. Finally you’re quoting Lee Kuan Yew – even calling him “the great”! You’ll be a convert to the “Singaporeanism” I’m preaching here sooner than expected.

          Thanks for bringing up the quote, but you forgot LKY’s last line… “So I found a formula that changes that…”

          What’s over my head is why it’s taking so long for Filipinos to realize the Singaporean model is the template this country just needs to copy. “Plagirize” their constitution and laws if you must, just rid the streets of bums and vagrants.

          You might want to Google “meritocracy” if you want to learn more about what makes Singapore tick.

      2. Wouldn’t a stable system consider both the individual and collective perspectives? The West, having “liberalized” too much, are on the path to disorder. While societies with very limited freedoms tend to regress.
        If we take a look at the present character of the whole (the average, if you will), is it a standard or a norm that would sustain itself in the long run? Are we about to accept that the natural tendency or trajectory of man is to self-destruct?

        1. Wouldn’t a stable system consider both the individual and collective perspectives? The West, having “liberalized” too much, are on the path to disorder. While societies with very limited freedoms tend to regress.
          If we take a look at the present character of the whole (the average, if you will), is it a standard or a norm that would sustain itself in the long run? Are we about to accept that the natural tendency or trajectory of man is to self-destruct?

          Those are very good questions, Klara. Let me address them.

          1) Wouldn’t a stable system consider both the individual and collective perspectives?

          First, the collective’s/group’s goal is based on the intersection or similarities of goals between the individuals who came together as one. This is how a nation is born. So a system is stable only if majority of the individuals adhere to the goals they have agreed on and prevent anything the is detrimental to their goals

          2)Are we about to accept that the natural tendency or trajectory of man is to self-destruct?

          The West is currently “infested” by ideologies detrimental to traditional Western culture. And when the West gave these “parasites” an inch, they took advantage of it and started asking for a mile. The process took around 60 years and the effects finally became visible to just about every Westerner who still believes fervently on traditional Western culture. So now we witness the “push back”. Western political analysts and philosophers call this the “swinging back of the pendulum”. It would not have been that way if the tradition that made the West so attractive among Easterners is kept intact.

          But no. The tradition was bastardize and labeled as “old”, “obsolete”, a “relic of a bygone era”. For sake of progress, the tradition was set aside and these people called it an “evolution” of the culture. It is just the same thing that happened to Rome before it fell apart. History just repeated itself. But a lot of people saw “progress” instead.

        2. Klara,
          “The West, having “liberalized” too much, are on the path to disorder.”
          please enlighten me what is too much and please elaborate on the ‘disorder’? Thanks in advance.

        3. @Robert
          Something without a frame of reference, source or sense of direction.
          And of course, there are other definitions and descriptions of it. I’m quite sure you’re able to find something.

      3. Zaxx is a classic example of a midwit who made the mistake of parroting events without reading the history that lead to that event. In this discussion, the event is the famously labeled the Galileo Affair.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Dialogue

        In 1623, Pope Gregory XV, died, and was succeeded by Pope Urban VIII, WHO SHOWED GREATER FAVOR to Galileo, particularly after Galileo traveled to Rome to congratulate the new Pontiff.[47]

        Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which was published in 1632 to great popularity,[48] was an account of conversations between a Copernican scientist, Salviati, an impartial and witty scholar named Sagredo, and a ponderous Aristotelian named Simplicio, who employed stock arguments in support of geocentricity, and was depicted in the book as being an intellectually inept fool. Simplicio’s arguments are systematically refuted and ridiculed by the other two characters with what Youngson calls “unassailable proof” for the Copernican theory (at least versus the theory of Ptolemy—as Finocchiaro points out, “the Copernican and Tychonic systems were observationally equivalent and the available evidence could be explained equally well by either”[49]), which reduces Simplicio to baffled rage, and makes the author’s position unambiguous.[47] Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name “Simplicio” in Italian also had the connotation of “simpleton.”[50] Although authors Langford and Stillman Drake assert that Simplicio was modeled on philosophers Lodovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, Pope Urban’s demand for his own arguments to be included in the book resulted in Galileo putting them in the mouth of Simplicio.

        I added an emphasis on this line:

        In 1623, Pope Gregory XV, died, and was succeeded by Pope Urban VIII, who showed greater favor to Galileo, particularly after Galileo traveled to Rome to congratulate the new Pontiff.

        Pope Urban VIII and Galileo were that close. Then Pope Urban VIII persecuted Galileo.

        A lot of the keyboard atheists refer to this event as evidence of the RCC being anti-science. And, like Zaxx, forgot that the Copernican model was already a well established scientific theory among mathematicians and astronomers for 90 years before Galileo’s Trial.

        Unfortunately for Zaxx, this also HIGHLIGHTS his ineptitude in writing his 2 articles in the first place, proven by his showcase of Singapore. Somehow, he thinks this is a very radical position held only by few enlightened Filipinos. This is far from the truth. Majority of all educated Filipinos(those who finished college and enjoy a decent job here and abroad) shares Zaxx’s views.

        Zaxx also failed to notice the eerie similarity between his view of rights and the Filipino culture’s view of rights . Zaxx wants the “rights” of certain groups of people be toned down, much like how squatters wants the “rights” of certain groups of people be toned down.

      4. Ah, Zaxx! The gift that keeps on giving. ~chuckle~

        Indulge us please as to what “formula” Lee Kwan Yew created to “change this”. Let us see if you have what it takes to articulate Lee’s formula.

  13. When we as a collective whole agreed to join, recognize, follow and be subjected under universally accepted laws, why do some individuals, who supposedly are among the intelligent, loosely choose to either go left of center or go right of center with wild abandon and still profoundly insist on making themselves appear to be, either way, always just as correct.

    Some bloggers of GRP aren’t really serious or even truthful about what they actually stand for. When confronted with real questions, the response one gets is either to give unreal answer(s), to ignore the issue or to apply selective reasoning that will suit a subjectively regarded defined thought.

    The intention is not even one of intellectual objective persuasion that naturally convinces and open minds but rather to antagonize, only to impress upon others of their self-deemed, but dubious, intelligence.

    Indeed, selective logic also rules amongst GRP bloggers!

    But be that as it may, here’s an interesting take from a certain netizen Anthony Ibbott on the question-

    Is the right to live a privilege or a right?

    “The right to live, to exist, to take the actions your survival requires free from interference, is the most basic right you have.

    “A privelage, on the other hand, is permission to act given by someone in a position of authority, such as a property owner. If you lived only by permission of your owner, that would make you a slave. Slavery, next to murder, is one of the most detestable violations of rights.”

    1. Yep, some GRP bloggers can be assholes – I can attest to that! LOL

      What I find lacking in your comment are concrete examples. Well for one, we didn’t really come together expecting everyone will agree – we come here to test our ideas. Iron sharpens iron. Can my logic withstand public / peer scrutiny?

      The more noble goal is to win people to your worldview or idea. But if your a solid Yellow, or even slightly Yellow leaning towards pro-squatter rights activism, you’ll probably have a hard time surviving in the GRP blog ecosystem. I’ll give you an example: “higher acidity kills off the weaker boy sperm, allowing girl sperm to reach the egg,” (pinkstork)

      I like that input on right vs privilege.

      Let’s ask Google (dict): privilege -a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
      “education is a right, not a privilege”
      synonyms: advantage, right, benefit, prerogative, entitlement, birthright, due; concession, freedom, liberty
      “he sought to reduce the legal privileges of the unions”

      That’s right, a privilege is also a right – just that it’s special. I just find it awkward to phrase a question as “Is the right to live a right?” That’s like asking “Is the ability to dance an ability?” You’ll be better off asking “Is the right to live a special right (aka privilege; limited offer) or a basic right (granted to all – no questions asked)?”

      Now about slavery: OFWs in Kuwait have just recently been granted the privilege of one day off a week! And Filipinos are already celebrating in triumph. Yes, it’s a privilege because they had to get consent from their masters. Can you imagine that? They would prefer to toil as slaves under inhumane conditions rather than be FREE to be stuck in Manila’s daily gridlock!
      That’s how repulsive PH has become. Puro kasi kayo rights rights, puno tuloy kayo ng squatter!

      That’s why we write here – we want that to change. Words are alive (Zaxxun Creed). Even tiny droplets can send concentric circular waves far out across a still pond. So despite the harsh environment here, keep on writing – who knows, what you dropped could inspire the future Bill Gates or Steve Jobs of the country. You can never tell.

      1. Is the right to live a privilege or a right?

        “The right to live, to exist, to take the actions your survival requires free from interference, is the most basic right you have.

        “A privelage, on the other hand, is permission to act given by someone in a position of authority, such as a property owner. If you lived only by permission of your owner, that would make you a slave. Slavery, next to murder, is one of the most detestable violations of rights.”

        Very good.

        Privilege has several definitions. The one that is used as synonym to RIGHT is a legal definition. The difference is that privileges do not need due process of law to deprive a person or a group of it.

        Rights, on the other hand, almost always requires due process of law for one to be deprive of it. Because it is only in the concept of rights the concept of justice is tied to. Justice is not necessary for privileges.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.