Voting, Vaginas and Vehicles: How toning down people’s rights can bring order to the Philippines

There has been much to discuss recently on the topic of “right to life” – whether having a beating heart is a basic right or a privilege. Now let’s dive into other so-called “rights” that Filipinos value. First off, let’s qualify the terms used in this article:

  • Right / basic right – a fundamental moral or legal entitlement that is given to all, no questions asked
  • Privilege – a special entitlement that is earned or conditional, limited to those who meet certain criteria

The Philippine Constitution and its Bill of Rights pander to what the itching ears of the masses want to hear: rights, rights and more rights. But the answer really to the dysfunction in Philippine society is conditions, conditions and more conditions. In many cases, a certain “right” is not right for you… right?

Why is the Philippines so chaotic, dysfunctional and disorderly? It’s simply due to unbridled rights. Too much of anything good (ice cream) will be bad for you (obesity). Let’s look at 3 V’s below so you won’t need to go on a rally in protest against this article, but realize it all makes sense.

1. Voting rights

The right of suffrage should be granted on the condition that you are wise enough to make good choices. A high school diploma should be the minimum educational attainment to serve as proof you are not lacking in gray matter. Passing enough multiple choice exams can hone your selection skills enough to pick the right leaders for the country. Politicians won’t have to bribe the poor folks in the slums (who are likely not even elementary school graduates) to buy votes. Campaigns during elections won’t become that expensive. The culture of bribery begins to end.

2. Vaginal output (number of children / family size)

“Go forth and multiply”, the first command, was given to the first couple by the Author of DNA Code. But in this day and age of 7.6B people grappling over limited resources, allowing the wrong type of people to “multiply like rabbits” should be seriously toned down. The right to have more than 1 child should be given only to those who have the income to support the children. Proof of income can best be demonstrated by a statement of assets and liabilities, income statement, or business earnings. Overly productive vaginas should come from the middle and upper classes instead of from slums and squatters if we want to get the poverty level down from 20% for the next generation.

3. Vehicle ownership

Travel woes, slow-moving Lamborghinis, and traffic gridlocks and congestion: There are just too many cars, PUJs, buses and trucks on the road. The road looks like one gigantic parking lot. Singapore adopted the “street-smart” policy of requiring a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) for vehicle registration to control the volume of cars on their limited footprint. For urban centers like Metro Manila, vehicle purchase/ownership should be limited to those who can prove they have parking space. Ordinances such as “No parking on roads and sidewalks” will free up space for smooth and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement.

In other words, the 3 V’s should be viewed as privileges, not basic rights. You cannot demand them if you do not qualify. This change in mindset is the first step to freedom from the fetters that hold back the country from achieving genuine socioeconomic progress.

All it really takes is just basic Zaxxun-class common sense to solve the problems of the Philippines. The question is: do our senators and congressmen/women have the foresight and concern to incorporate these rules/policies into the Philippine system? Or will they keep giving into what the rights-hungry hoi polloi want just to perpetuate themselves in seats of power?

Raising a society up should be a logic-based science, not a circus. Freedom is not all there is, folks; there’s also quality of life (living standards) which we need to balance it with. What’s the use of freedom to own a car if you can’t get from point A to B without freedom from traffic jams?

The more we clamor for “Freedom FOR/TO…”, the less likely we can achieve “Freedom FROM…”

We are not removing your rights, we are just toning them down to the point that order, rather than chaos, is achieved. The Philippines can become the next Singapore – it’s just a question of shaving off some skin on our perceived “basic rights” in favor of gaining wonderful perks and benefits such as a powerful passport.

  • Singapore (with death penalty): passport ranking #2 (visa-free for 188 destinations)
  • Philippines (no death penalty): passport ranking #70 (visa-free for 66 destinations)

Note: Other sources rank Singapore #1

Don’t let the likes of liberal Western Callamard fool you. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, for us Asians, cutting down on our freedoms can actually give us more freedom. Empirical evidence in “Disneyland with the Death Penalty” (as William Gibson labeled Singapore) shows it works…

Iron-handed leadership: the secret to social order in Singapore

Footnote: “Vagina” in the title was just click bait. If you fell for it, you are probably green minded.

print

62 Comments on “Voting, Vaginas and Vehicles: How toning down people’s rights can bring order to the Philippines”

  1. This is an example of what happens when you simply assume things first before bothering to educate yourself with the relevant knowledge.

    Right / basic right – a fundamental moral or legal entitlement that is given to all, no questions asked
    Privilege – a special entitlement that is earned or conditional, limited to those who meet certain criteria

    The above incorrectly defines Right and simplified it to something that is “given”.

    In other words, the 3 V’s should be viewed as privileges, not basic rights. You cannot demand them if you do not qualify. This change in mindset is the first step to freedom from the fetters that hold back the country from achieving genuine socioeconomic progress

    First, the author MUST FIRST distinguish between BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS to CITIZEN RIGHTS (this is a privilege).

    Voting is a citizen right, therefore is categorized as a special privilege. It is not a basic human right. Proof? Even a Filipino at the age of 21 is not allowed to vote if he/she is not registered to vote. A basic human right does not need that requirement. You just simply need to be human.

    Driving a vehicle with an engine is obviously a privilege. And that is proven by the requirement of getting a drivers license.

    Now on pregnancy. Is there such a thing as a basic human right to reproduce? To answer that question we must first identify the obvious BIOLOGICAL INSTINCT to reproduce. As a baby is born, it instinctively do what it needs to survive. And the first thing the baby does is breathe.

    So let must this question: Is a biological instinct a biological right? Yes. Therefore a basic human right. And the choice to be pregnant is also there.

    On the problem of overpopulation, we usually argue in favor of limiting reproduction. Articles such as this even insinuates the necessity of place the decision making on reproduction on the hands of those “who know better”. So, in case of Japan, Belarus, Latvia, and Ukraine to name a few, this type of thinking justifies FORCE impregnation to prevent extinction of the populace.

    The Philippines can become the next Singapore – it’s just a question of shaving off some skin on our perceived “basic rights” in favor of gaining wonderful perks and benefits such as a powerful passport.

    Singapore (with death penalty): passport ranking #2 (visa-free for 188 destinations)
    Philippines (no death penalty): passport ranking #70 (visa-free for 66 destinations)

    That above is a non-sequitur. The article writer mentions our Bill of Rights, which allows the DEPRIVATION OF LIFE THROUGH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. I will not even duel on the passport thing since it is completely irrelevant.

    Just because our law-makers eventually decided to remove the death penalty DOES NOT negate the FACT that our constitution acknowledges that a person’s right to life can be taken through lawful means.

    We are not removing your rights, we are just toning them down to the point that order, rather than chaos, is achieved.

    Governments are established for such purpose already. And governments are also originally established to protect unalienable rights in the first place. Laws established are meant to prevent grave abuses to a person.

    What is rather amusing about the above claim on “toning down rights” is that the Philippine government IS ALREADY DOING THAT.

    You pay rent on your land (real estate tax).
    You want to build your house on your land, you need a building permit.
    Your house is completed, you need an occupancy permit first so that you can move into the house.
    The occupancy permit requires safety certificate first from the Fire Department.

    THAT IS JUST FOR YOUR OWN LAND AND YOUR OWN HOUSE!

    Why not just demand for a permit on just about anything then? That is supposedly going to make Philippines a progressive country. ~chuckle~

    1. @Tobias “The above incorrectly defines Right and simplified it to something that is “given”.”

      So what? Even if you use your “rights” as a human being but you didn’t use the main component of the human rights, and that is RESPONSIBILITY! Rights without responsibility on a human person will show his own true nature… the HUMAN NATURE. Man becoming an imperfect & immoral beast.

      Much like this psychological debate on Nature vs. Nurture, and you might compare it on which of their side that really connects to Human Rights & which one is connected to Human Privilege by watching this video: https://youtu.be/IPZsrLAkpKM

      1. mrericx,

        So what? Even if you use your “rights” as a human being but you didn’t use the main component of the human rights, and that is RESPONSIBILITY! Rights without responsibility on a human person will show his own true nature… the HUMAN NATURE. Man becoming an imperfect & immoral beast.

        That is a ridiculously stupid assumption to make. A man acknowledging basic human rights also acknowledges that another man has those same rights. The responsibility to uphold those rights immediately follows.

        What you and zaxx are espousing IS THE ONE that will lead to irresponsibility and corruption since you demand that a group of men be given the power to decide whether uphold or violate rights of a person on the sole basis of utility.

        1. @Tobias “That is a ridiculously stupid assumption to make. A man acknowledging basic human rights also acknowledges that another man has those same rights. The responsibility to uphold those rights immediately follows.”

          Oh really? And what if a Filipino citizen use his/her “human rights” for ignoring the laws that provide by our government and then tell to his/her Filipino people to follow his/her example in order to uphold their “rights” & its universal? This is what it had done to a former beauty queen/actress Maria Isabel Lopez when she’d violated the protocol on using the ASEAN Lane during the ASEAN Summit that was held here in Manila last November: https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2017/11/13/1758514/maria-isabel-lopez-asean-security-breach-i-became-second-class-citizen

          Jesus Christ!!! Now that Human Rights is becoming more dirty lately because there’s no discipline on human rights: https://www.fhm.com.ph/trending/news/why-do-filipinos-seem-to-lack-discipline-a1615-20171008-lfrm

        2. Oh really? And what if a Filipino citizen use his/her “human rights” for ignoring the laws that provide by our government and then tell to his/her Filipino people to follow his/her example in order to uphold their “rights” & its universal?

          Yes REALLY.

          You are just showcasing once again your inability to comprehend. What if? What part of the Bill of Rights is so difficult for you to understand?

    2. By your argument, even a “ basic human right” is a “privilege” (conditional) because it is given on the CONDITION that you are a Homo sapien and that you have a beating heart – making any discussion on differentating rights vs privileges meaningless.

      Advice: Try not to be too legalistic, and instead dwell on the ESSENCE of the article.

      “Toning down” rights actually adds more conditions to already existing basic ones (beating heart). Take for example voting rights which is given to all adults: in addition to age requirement, the article proposes to add a minimum educational requirement.

      You did notice there was a dash in the definition in the article “right / basic right”. The article encompasses all rights whether basic human, citizen, or whatever rights people think they have. Hope it’s clear.

      1. Kaya nga “HUMAN” Rights eh. Tangina this.

        making any discussion on differentating rights vs privileges meaningless.

        You are only saying that because you are conflating the 2. Conditional does not always mean the same as privilege. Etong mahirap sa di marunong gumamit ng dictionary eh.

        Words normally have several definitions. And you do not use all of them in a single usage.

        Next, synonyms. If “inalienable” is absolutely synonymous to “absolute”, care to explain why the same Google Dictionary does not include “inalienable” as synonym of “absolute”?

        ab·so·lute
        ˈabsəˌlo͞ot,ˌabsəˈlo͞ot/Submit
        adjective
        1.
        not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
        “absolute secrecy”
        synonyms: complete, total, utter, out-and-out, outright, entire, perfect, pure, decided; thorough, thoroughgoing, undivided, unqualified, unadulterated, unalloyed, unmodified, unreserved, downright, undiluted, consummate, unmitigated, sheer, arrant, rank, dyed-in-the-wool
        “absolute silence”

        1. Before I give you my answer to that question, you need to pass the “definitions” test first.

          From the top of your head, without referring to Google/wiki/anything or asking anyone, define “physics”, “vector” and “field” (such as gravitational field).

        2. >>> Kaya nga “HUMAN” Rights eh. Tangina this.

          Think again pal. Bakit pag “animal rights” ang usapan, you don’t include “ants” and “worms”, which are technically animals?

          All these rights essentially have conditions tied to them (if you want to be legalistic for legalism’s sake). But this article is not about legalism. It’s about providing practical solutions to our stubborn socioeconomic problems.

          All you’ve been doing is avoiding the essense of the proposals at hand. Do you agree to having more restrictions to who are qualified to vote? Why/why not?

          So what if a poor uneducated fellow loses his right to vote? I’ll even borrow PNoy’s words during the Yolanda days: “Eh buhay pa naman kayo a”.

          OFWs don’t have the right to vote in their host countries, but they don’t mind as long as goods and services are not dysfunctional.

        3. From the top of your head, without referring to Google/wiki/anything or asking anyone, define “physics”, “vector” and “field” (such as gravitational field).

          Physician! Apply your prescription to yourself.

          Think again pal. Bakit pag “animal rights” ang usapan, you don’t include “ants” and “worms”, which are technically animals?

          This is another statement that showcases your stupidity. What do you mean “ME”? Who told you I subscribe to “animal rights”?

          All you’ve been doing is avoiding the essense of the proposals at hand.

          Bzzz! Sablay na naman. All you’ve been doing is neglect the underlying philosophy needed to merit the privilege of discussing human rights.

          Do you agree to having more restrictions to who are qualified to vote? Why/why not?

          Yes. I even have better restrictions that what you and your kind are proposing: Voting must be limited to those who atleast pay income tax. Then the weight of an individual’s vote goes up when he/she owns a property since he/she is now paying real estate tax.

          OFWs don’t have the right to vote in their host countries, but they don’t mind as long as goods and services are not dysfunctional.

          Again, VOTING IS A CITIZEN RIGHT. OFWs are not citizens of their host country.

          Now, from the top of my head:

          Physics: science that deals with matter(everything about it, including movement/motion), time and space

          Vector(Euclidean vector): a thing/object that has both direction and length.

          Field: a material quantity with a value in each point in time and space

        4. The definitions test is canceled because there’s no way we can verify you didn’t have an iPad on top of your head while giving the answers.

          Anyway I’ll be kind enough to answer your question on the synonym of absolute.

          Don’t use google dict. Instead use a thesaurus which is more comprehensive.

          http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/absolute

          Go to item 5 and you’ll find how absolutely wrong you are. Inalienable is listed as a synonym of absolute. You failed because you didn’t look hard enough.

          Anyway be of good cheer. Failure is the stepping stone to success.

        5. The definitions test is canceled because there’s no way we can verify you didn’t have an iPad on top of your head while giving the answers.

          Very good! That is the first intelligent thing you did here so far. =)

          Unfortunately, you just have to ruin it here.

          Don’t use google dict. Instead use a thesaurus which is more comprehensive.

          http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/absolute

          Go to item 5 and you’ll find how absolutely wrong you are. Inalienable is listed as a synonym of absolute. You failed because you didn’t look hard enough.

          So you went on to find another source to substantiate your position. Nice try. You are still wrong.

          Synonym(definition)

          a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.

          examples:

          ‘‘the East’ was a synonym for the Soviet empire’
          ‘‘shut’ is a synonym of ‘close’’

          I told you before, YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO USE A DICTIONARY. You did not listen. And now you are, as expected, misusing the term “synonym”.

          Notice the part that states “that means exactly or nearly the same”

          In logic, OR denotes it has to fit one of several conditions. NOT BOTH.

          There is a reason, why even in your new source (http://www.synonym.com/), absolute #5 does not have the EXACT definition of inalienable #2.

          “incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” is OBVIOUSLY not EXACTLY THE SAME as “not capable of being violated or infringed”.

          This is supposed to be simple if you are just intellectually honest. But you cannot afford that either since it will be bad for your position.

          As I have stated earlier:

          INALIENABILITY means that it cannot be transferred from one entity to another, even through purchase or from own will of the entity.

          The philosophical underpinnings of that definition had been established long ago. The conditions for the basic rights to be deprived(or infringed) is any violation of another person’s basic rights. That is why when you commit murder(violation of another person’s right to life) you are then deprived of your right to liberty and/or life.

      2. Of course I know synonyms have differences in nuances, etc. etc. My only point was to demolish your false statement that “inalienable is NOT listed as a synonym of absolute” – even giving empirical evidence. You just have to take it back if all you want is to save face. Really- there’s no shame in admitting a mistake.

        I’ll even lead by example here. I made a mistake of typing “dash” instead of “slash” in one of comments here. So this is the errata note for that one.

  2. “And even for my sick bed, and even you are going to lower me to the grave and I feel something that is going wrong, I’ll get up.”

    – Lee Kuan Yew

    I feel a goosebumps there when he said on the last part of that video, and that was 3 decades before he died. And now Singapore is really a FINE CITY that he could finally give him a rest, and he really made a hard work to rise his city to become a better place for his own people & to everyone in spite of many criticism & obstacles that he’d face him as the first & longest ruling prime minister of Singapore.

    And speaking of “Fine City”: https://ispyprettyplaces.com/singapore-a-fine-city/

    And I wonder how will President Duterte gonna fix our country before his term will end if he’ll gonna apply his LKY-esque leadership and Philippines will soon to become the next “Disneyland with the Death Penalty” or will it be the opposite? But if something’s goes wrong, then do what LKY had said on his quote above, he’ll gonna rise up from the grave. ????

  3. Since it is already obvious that you guys keep on attacking a strawman despite it being spelled out for you:

    Bill of Rights

    Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

    As it should be obvious, human rights are NOT ABSOLUTE. They are INALIENABLE.

    INALIENABILITY means that it cannot be transferred from one entity to another, even through purchase or from own will of the entity.

    So I recommend you stop pretending that us who are for human rights think that these rights are absolute to save both of us the time.

    1. Google Dictionary’s synonym is wrong then…

      inalienable
      ɪnˈeɪlɪənəb(ə)l/Submit
      adjective
      not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
      “the shareholders have the inalienable right to dismiss directors”
      synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, unassailable

      Pwede pa explain ulit kuya- litong lito na po kasi kami eh. Related ba ito sa movie na “alien vs predator”?

      1. Di ka kasi marunong gumamit ng dictionary, bata.

        Di mali ang Google Dictionary synonym. Ang mali ang paggamit mo noong salita.

        Aralx2 din kasi bago dada.

        1. Which reminds me of a comic strip I once stumbled upon when I was a kid.

          Alex: Hey Bob, have you found the meaning of “xenophobia” yet? What’s taking so long?!

          Bob flipping through the pages of a big Webster’s Dictionary: Don’t worry boss, just a couple hours more I guess. I’m already at letter ‘M’!

        2. Here is a better comic strip:

          Zaxx: Absolute is synonym of pure. So if a person is pure, that person is also absolute.

          Zaxx: hmmm, “you complete me”. so parehas lang ng “you absolute me”

          xD

  4. until now am so puzzled by the phrase ‘pilipinos are worth dying for’? is that means somebody should die for the pilipinos? or is it pilipinos must die?

  5. Re: the V
    Every time when I am in a conversation with a pinay and we are talking about kids, I always get either one of the following questions:
    – do you hate kids?
    – who will take care of you when you are old?

    So, I conclude from this, that many or most (or maybe even all) pinays/pinoys procreate to have someone who will take care of them/her/him when she/he is old.

    I always have problems translating the word “care’; however there are people who can take care of themselves, even when they are old. So, why cant Filipinos do the same?
    Okay, when I have a broken leg, I really need care provided by an hospital. They will perform surgery on the broken leg. But when I am 70 years old, I can still manage to make my own breakfast, lunch and dinner. I will still do my own shoppings and drive a car. And in case, I really get senile, I will be admitted in/to a mental hospital (I might become a hazard not only for myself but also for others).

    1. I am instilling the mindset on my kids that not one of them need not support me when I grow old and gray. It is what my father taught me, and it is what i am doing, even if it pains me, because it was a promise that he asked of me. I have been trained to hold my own, and would rather be dead than a burden. Of course my wife thinks otherwise, with the occasional “who will take care of us when me and your dad grow old” statement, but I quickly counter with “I will”, and I assure the children that it is for the best.

      1. T,
        Why is it that your partner thinks that way? And what will happen if you die sooner/earlier than your partner? (because you countered with “I will”). And why does she needs to be taken care of by you? (cant she take care of herself or is does she still need to be spoon fed when she is old?).

        My questions do look to be (very) personal but in fact they are asked in a general way.

        Furthermore, it seems that only a few Filipinos are ‘entitled’ to get a pension/retirement money when they do retire (at the age of – what – 65? Only those working for as PH government agency?).
        What I also understand is that not everybody has health insurance.
        Both are really needed to get a population that is independent from others. And with that – most likely – the population can decrease (especially under the poor people).

        1. Dear Bob,
          Well, its more of upbringing. I guess my father was taught that way because he grew up during ww2 (at an area where fighting was heavy and the american presence was dominant), and this probably resulted him having a greater western mindset instilled in him than filipino (his older brother, my uncle, was US Army, and he was too young to fight back then). My wife’s parents, on the other hand, where born post-war, and into those tightknit (and kind of xenophobic) family communities you see across the country. This dependency on others is ingrained into my partner’s psyche, as I have realized that she always needs someone to stand by her in order to accomplish anything major. Awareness of sustainability and foresight are things that she usually neglects, but I do not blame that on her – instead of complaining and blaming, I compensate, because that is how I have been taught to react. You can imagine how our conflicts play out.
          As for the keeping myself alive, I do make sure I am not abusing myself and make sure that I do not bring myself in harms way. In the case that I do die earlier i do hope that by then the kids would listen to me and eventually pass it on to the next generation.
          Martyrdom is grossly overrated in philippine culture, and instead of the words “I would die for my family”, this way of thinking must be replaced with “I will live for my family”.

  6. Filipinos misunderstood our Rights; as the Right to do your things, even at the detriment of others.

    Squatters have the Right, on squatting on other people’s properties, and finally owning them, as specified by laws. The owners have no right to kick them out; unless they are paid some bribe money to eject themselves.

    Politicians have the Right to Steal from the : Pork Barrel, DAP, PDAF, Typhoon Yolanda Funds, etc…The people have no right, to have their money back, or to hang these thieves…

    Aquino appointed Justices, have the Right to “Selective Justice”, in favor of Aquino corrupt cases and his cahoots corrupt and criminal cases.
    The people are deprived of the right, for true justice and fairness.

    The Biased Mainstream Media has the Right, to twist or “cheery pick” news, to favor the agendas of politicians, who have paid them. The public has the right to be stupid, as to believe such Fake News.

    Rights of people, is confused with what is “Morally Right”. However, there are some “red lines”, that must not be crossed, along with these rights.

    If I think, I have the Right to cut my neighbor’s throat. Then, the law has the right also, to jail or hang me. We have an insane country, as a result of 30 years of Aquino insane governance era.

    1. Squatters have the Right, on squatting on other people’s properties, and finally owning them, as specified by laws. The owners have no right to kick them out; unless they are paid some bribe money to eject themselves.

      That is the classic example of the unintended consequences of “collective rights”. Read that again, SLOWLY, until you grok it.

      THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT. It is simply “tyranny of the mob”.

      1. Collective right = right of individual x number of individuals in the group

        NOW there’s such a thing as “collective right”!

        Therefore collective right outweighs the right of the individual, unless… (yep there’s always an exception to any rule)

        1. Collective right = right of individual x number of individuals in the group

          NOW there’s such a thing as “collective right”!

          Therefore collective right outweighs the right of the individual, unless… (yep there’s always an exception to any rule)

          See. You proven again that you lack the philosophical knowledge and wisdom to merit the privilege of discussing human rights.

          Even your proposed equation is downright laughable.

          Here is a simple question that dismantles your retarded conceptualization of collective rights:

          Zaxx owns a 500 sqm lot. Then Kadamay comes in and collectively demands your land. Sino ngayon ang mag-aadjust?

          xD

        2. Kadamay has no rights to my land because they don’t hold the title. Your logic is flawed again.

          And about the Lina squatters law – that’s absolute crap. Don’t even mention it.

  7. When a man has a gift in speaking the truth, brute aggression is no longer his security blanket for approval. He, on the contrary, spends most of his energy trying to tone it down because his very nature is already offensive enough.

    1. Like Mocha and Drew’s recent “pepe-dede-ralismo?”

      Why all the outrage though? Is the humble tunnel through which we all were ushered into the light of day really such a repugnant ignominy?

      1. Yes, but recognizing the ‘humble tunnel’ is another matter. For somebody representing the gov’t, one would think that she must have carefully worked out the possible repercussions before doing the stunt. If anything, it served more as a distraction, and “gave” the Senators “more reason” to reject charter change, and the public a bad impression on an agenda that’s supposed to decentralize power and allow autonomy for the people.

        1. Mocha’s role is to generate public awareness for Duterte’s key initiatives. For people in politics, it hardly matters if it’s good publicity or bad publicity – as long as they get to front page news.

          Plus, maybe Mocha is “antifragile” like Duterte. The more people attack her, the larger her fan base becomes.

          Who knows, that viral video may have been a strategic calculated move.

          Meanwhile the Yellow are scrambling on what’s their next move as 2019 elections are just around the corner. Shall we except a “TITI-rahin kita Duterte” viral video soon?

        2. There’s that possibility. But the timing is so off. There’s something wrong when her stunt with that guy takes the headlines over more important issues that also took place within the time frame. Also, if you take her “other” political alignments into context, it adds up to something else. Of course it’s just one speculation.

        3. Yeah, the timing though. But the fact that Mocha’s moves can eclipse issues/topics that are far more relevant to the nation simply shows how powerful she has become today.

  8. MORE Assinity from Zaxx, limiting the number of children a vagina may produce ? and you are going to enforce that how ? maybe enforcing simple traffic laws would be a better place to start ?

    While having to prove you have a parking space is a decent idea, the many ways around it and the problems created by enforcing it make it a doubtful prospect.

    How about term limits for the removal of Political Family Dynsaties? How about the Death Penalty for the theft of Public Funds over a certain amount? Like, say P50Million?

    Making Crimes Against the People serious and egregious crimes that earn lengthy prison terms with NO PAROLE ? How bout that ?and proving the crimals are IN JAIL, unlike those three jokers, Estrada and the other two that are in Macau laughing their asses off, just like Lacson did/was!

    and ENOUGH about canonizing Lee Kwan Quack, the Man was a Puppet..he did what he was told to do by the British Government, and Singaporeans can thank Great Britain for the success of the country THEY created.

    1. Well I guess stichin ‘em vaginas won’t really gunnah work will dey? C’mon man. I can’t possibly spoonfeed all the solutions.

      But your dysfunctional traffic issues are somehow connected to your producing too much of the wrong kind of people, I can at least tell you that.

  9. Hi T,
    both my parents were born pre-WW2 and both my dad and I had/have a fascination with/for WW2. How does that come about with me? Watching WW2 movies and especially documentaries and reading about it a lot. You can imagine that they really came from a different generation compared to the time capsule in which I (and my 2 sisters) was raised in (the 60s and 70s). Although, I didnt experience the 60s consciously (too young still back then).
    So I missed the best of the 60s with casual sex, free sex, ‘flower power’ and the ‘hippies’ and all that. This was all made possible due to the upcoming invention and availability of the pill (birth control) which gave women control and power over their own womb.
    The way we all (the 3 of us) were raised was being and staying independent and being critical. Two variables that are lacking in the Philippine population even today.

    1. Hey Bob,
      To be fair to my wife, she does follow on my lead on how the kids are being raised. when the kids were younger, it was suggested by her parents to get househelp, which I was against. I also forced them to use english as their primary means of communication, because most of the worlds knowledge is written in english. I let them do their school work by themselves (teaching them if they dont understand, but i never do it for them), because independence training starts best at an early age. We also engage them in conversation, let them ask their questions and try to explain to the best of our knowledge – something that I do not see most filipino parents (even most my age) do (they just say “shut up, ang kulit mo”, then hand over a cellphone).

      1. Hi T,
        One of the reasons why I came here (GRP) was to hope to learn to understand the Filipino culture. Not only what they do but also why they do it (It can/may refer to everything). Especially – for instance – why poor people keep on procreating; why Filipinas keep on asking money from foreigners (strangers) and why they keep on believing in a god (and at the same keep on fucking before marriage) plus a whole series of other things that I still dont understand.

        Let me give you an example based on ‘real’ events:
        A pinay posts a meme on her facebook timeline which says: “Thank you god for waking me up and giving me an other day”.

        Now, even when I wake up BEFORE my alarm bell goes off, must I also say: thank you god for waking me up or are there other factors come in play?
        Reading such a meme (oh and btw: why doesnt she type that message by hand herself?) really makes her look very stupid. I wonder is there anybody who tells her that?

        1. I snicker every time i see posts like that. anything that says #feelingblessed is cancer.
          it is so hard to summarize the filipino psyche in one paragraph; i even fail to understand why fallacies work so well with us (yes, i do fall victim to false dichotomies, argumentum ad populum and even the goddamn strawman).
          I kind of think it all boils down to empathy, which most filipinos lack, and the abundance of emo mentality. a lot of people I know tend to put their best interests in front of others, so even if someone makes a fool of themselves, they just laugh it off, nothing learned. No one wants their feelings hurt, especially a filipino (kind of like muslims in europe, haha) The fool does not get to be corrected and has his/her way, while the witnesses get another story for gossip. It is very hard for a filipino (myself included) to take constructive criticism. But it is not impossible.

  10. I guess the problem is identifying what particular things are rights or privileges and what’re not. Let’s look first at a couple in the rural areas who beget loads of this expecting them to be their ATMs in old age. They are willing to risk kids dying of disease and other things. Is this a right? The father would whack his kids because they simply couldn’t buy cigarettes since the store doesn’t allow them to buy those. Is it a right to whack them? Then, a poor person demands that it is his right to receive hand-outs. Is it? I’d answer all the above are not rights. But some will disagree, and I guess that’s the (heated) discussion that likely happens.

    1. That’s the beauty of the right to freely express ones self, Chino. But there are some here who wants that to be toned down.

      Let’s look first at a couple in the rural areas who beget loads of this expecting them to be their ATMs in old age. They are willing to risk kids dying of disease and other things. Is this a right? The father would whack his kids because they simply couldn’t buy cigarettes since the store doesn’t allow them to buy those. Is it a right to whack them? Then, a poor person demands that it is his right to receive hand-outs.

      That is not a question of rights alone. It is a question on parental authority, of obligation and if those obligations are indeed justifiable or not.

      And as the saying goes, beggars can’t be choosers. So the poor obviously do not have the right to demand.

      Then again, we have fools that think healthcare, education, clean water and housing are basic human rights. So they ended up demanding those as if they do not have to pay for it.

      Healthcare, education, clean water and houses are GOODS(I really need to state this one despite it being obvious). And goods(like services) are purchased. You cannot have a right to healthcare because you will then have a right to the service of a doctor. This will lead you to (unconsciously) promote slavery since once you have the right to a service, you ARE THEN JUSTIFIED TO FORCE a person to provide such service on a whim.

      This is supposed to be elementary knowledge as people are expected to learn these things as they grow up.

      1. By your logic, an accused person’s right to a fair trial will require the SERVICES of the court – making the judge a slave for being “forced” to render such service!!! Therefore the Bill of Rights promotes slavery. LOL

        Ano ba talaga kuya?

        1. Ang bobo talaga ni Zaxx….

          By your logic, an accused person’s right to a fair trial will require the SERVICES of the court – making the judge a slave for being “forced” to render such service!!! Therefore the Bill of Rights promotes slavery. LOL

          Aral ka muna ng history kung kelan nagumpisa ang “Courts” at kung kelangan ba sila bayaran ng akusado para sa “fair trial”. xD

        2. Before you have a heart attack pal. Cool down. That was said in sarcasm. Of course I don’t believe the bill of rights promotes slavery.

          But also I was testing you. Unfortunately you failed to deliver (e.g. I never mentioned anything about WHO will pay the judge). Better luck next time.

        3. Been there done that. Naisip ko na rin yan. But I’m a realist now. Your proposal won’t ever see the light of day with the type of people we have in Congress. It will be shot down on sight.

          The “high school diploma” as requirement to vote has far better chances of getting passed by Congress. It will be easier to implement too if they include educational history in the national ID database.

          So much for standards then xD

          Before you have a heart attack pal. Cool down. That was said in sarcasm. Of course I don’t believe the bill of rights promotes slavery.

          You really are stupid xD.

          It was obvious to me that it was sarcastic. And it was also a lame attempt of attack on my logical position. xD

          But also I was testing you. Unfortunately you failed to deliver (e.g. I never mentioned anything about WHO will pay the judge).

          Bwahahaha! Hay naku. As if that is even relevant. Palusot pa more! xD

          But the funniest ever is this:

          Kadamay has no rights to my land because they don’t hold the title. Your logic is flawed again.

          Oh the irony of the believer of collective rights! xD

        4. No sometimes one can’t always assume people get sarcasm / figures of speech. That’s why I may have to spell it out at times for potential point missers and to newbies like you, who are unfamiliar with my style of writing.

          What’s more obvious around here is that you’ve clearly run out of anmo in your cache. You can’t even shoot straight with your rebuttals.

          Let me help you out. A valid example of collective vs individual rights clashing is on “right of way” issues. The government that’s trying to make a highway through private property usually wins outright because the convenience and rights of the riding public far outweigh a small guy’s right to his land title. All the small guy can do is make “palusots” in court that only serve to delay the inevitable.

          This power of the state, also called eminent domain, is a clear illustration of how one’s individual right can be bent and toned down in favor of the greater majority.

          It’s legal to tone down rights. The mechanisms are available. This article is simply pushing the envelope further for the common good.

  11. I really find this funny:

    Jesus Christ!!! Now that Human Rights is becoming more dirty lately because there’s no discipline on human rights: https://www.fhm.com.ph/trending/news/why-do-filipinos-seem-to-lack-discipline-a1615-20171008-lfrm

    This also highlights one of the core weakness of the Filipino personality: Lack of Assertiveness

    Westerners do not have this(generally speaking) because knowing their rights is at their very core. Filipinos, on the other hand, have this “baka anong masabi” mentality.

    That is why a viable solution to a problem can only be made when WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. And this is not a problem of having “too much” rights. Hence why the prescribed solution of “toning down” rights is the WRONG solution.

  12. Your friendly neighborhood communist representatives in Congress are such paranoid scumbag clowns – they are just so entertaining. Ano kayo sineswerte? You can’t have your cake and eat it too…

    “But for Rep. Sarah Elago of Kabataan party-list, the national ID system law should be condemned because it is aimed at suppressing dissent and reminiscent of the cedula system that the Spanish colonizers used to control the movement of people and suppress their democratic rights.

    “In the hands of [President Rodrigo] Duterte, the national ID system is bound to be a weapon of suppression, mass monitoring and surveillance to track everyone’s movement, if not bribery and arm-twisting on Duterte’s critics and dissenters. This is an attack on the civil and political rights of the Filipinos,” Elago said in a statement.

    “If the priority of government is to provide everyone with free public health, free education, free public housing, public transportation and so on, there is no need for a national ID system for the people to benefit from these,” Elago added.
    https://www.manilatimes.net/natl-id-system-to-cut-red-tape/427448/

    Btw, there’s a place where everything (food/clothing/shelter/water/oxygen) is free – PRISON.

  13. Hi T,
    let me be social for a second and being understanding at the same time.
    I do understabnd that it is hard to ‘escape’ the social control (peer pressure, parental pressure, church pressure) in the Philippines. After all, we are family-focused and family-oriented (right?). And one doesnt bite the hand that feeds you (right?). So yes, I do understand that its difficult to ask questions and to ask (constructive) critical questions. But without asking questions, we are getting nowhere. It is part of normal, daily communication. So there must be somebody, someday who is knocking his/her head against the wall for asking himself/herself a question that nobody seems to willing to answer. And that is strange (not getting an answer).
    And so we are back at square one. It is safer NOT to ask questions. And thus the hierarchy (everywhere) will stay intact and thus nothing will change.

    And this is my view/vision for the Philippines for the next few decades/centuries to come. No real change.

  14. @zaxx “Meanwhile the Yellow are scrambling on what’s their next move as 2019 elections are just around the corner. Shall we except a “TITI-rahin kita Duterte” viral video soon?”

    Or there’ll be a sequel to the viral video of “Pepedederalismo” soon, and the title of that video that will make for Mocha Uson & that gay guy by the name of Oliver (in which I forgot his surname) will be “DEDE-retcho na sa Federalismo.” 😎

    1. Hohoho I guess we’re up for an early merry Yuletide season then. When it comes to Pinoy creativity in this area, it’s a gift that just keeps on giving.

      Just look at what’s circulating in socmed lately (credit to original poster):

      “A plane was about to crash in Tacloban; there were 5 passengers on board, but only 4 parachutes. The first passenger said, “I am President Aquino, the chosen one. The Philippines needs me, I can’t afford to die.” So he took the first parachute and left the plane. The second passenger, Mar Roxas, said, “I am the next president of the Philippines, so Filipinos don’t want me to die.” He took the second parachute and jumped out of the plane. The third passenger, Dinky Soliman, said, “I’m the Secretary of DSWD, a lot of people depend on me.” So she grabbed the parachute next to her and jumped. The fourth passenger, Mayor Duterte, said to the fifth passenger, a 10-year-old Boy, “I have lived a full life, and served my country the best I could. I will sacrifice my life and let you have the last parachute.” The Boy said, “That’s okay, Mayor. There’s a parachute left for you. President Aquino grabbed my SCHOOL BAG.”

  15. >>>Yes. I even have better restrictions that what you and your kind are proposing: Voting must be limited to those who atleast pay income tax. Then the weight of an individual’s vote goes up when he/she owns a property since he/she is now paying real estate tax.

    Been there done that. Naisip ko na rin yan. But I’m a realist now. Your proposal won’t ever see the light of day with the type of people we have in Congress. It will be shot down on sight.

    The “high school diploma” as requirement to vote has far better chances of getting passed by Congress. It will be easier to implement too if they include educational history in the national ID database.

    It even has the spin-off effect of giving people incentive to complete their studies.

  16. Ok folks, looks like Mr/Ms Tobias just can’t solve his “absolute vs inalienable” riddle of his own making; so let me try to help him out.

    Google Dict:
    inalienable
    ɪnˈeɪlɪənəb(ə)l/Submit
    adjective
    not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
    “the shareholders have the inalienable right to dismiss directors”
    synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, unchallengeable, unassailable;
    ——-

    The secret to the definition is the word NOT. In Boolean algebra (Fundamentals of logic) there is what we call De Morgan’s theorem that states: NOT(A OR B) = (NOT A) AND (NOT B)

    It’s pretty handy for circuit designers when they want to convert an OR gate to an AND gate, by simply playing around with NOT operators.

    For example when the teacher says “You canNOT “eat or drink” in the classroom”, it’s not a choice the student can make. It means BOTH “you canNOT eat in the classroom” AND “you canNOT drink in the classroom”.

    Tobias and other misguided rights advocates simply confuse people with all their clumsy grasp or even sinister misuse of definitions/terms.

    If “right to life or liberty” is not actually inalienable (because it can be taken away from you by the state), why even use the word in the first place?

    They keep calling it “inalienable” right, when they actually just mean a watered down “nontransferrable” right (just the B part of the definition but not the A).

    Conclusion: Inalienable is a synonym of absolute in virtually every sense of the word.

    PS: when I said “Google Dict synonym is wrong then”, I was being sarcastic just to fish out an explanation from Mr/Ms “know it all” here. There’s danger in using sarcasm esp. when people think you are serious (like getting labeled “stupid”), but that’s a risk we can take all for the sake of entertainment.

    1. This is why Zaxx is simply not privileged to talk about RIGHTS at all. The philosophical knowledge and wisdom are completely missing.

      If “right to life or liberty” is not actually inalienable (because it can be taken away from you by the state), why even use the word in the first place?

      They keep calling it “inalienable” right, when they actually just mean a watered down “nontransferrable” right (just the B part of the definition but not the A).

      Zaxx again displays that he is really incapable of using the dictionary.

      He even thinks that the secret to the definition is the word NOT then starts out blabbering about things that are way over his head.

      This is proven by this statement of his:

      For example when the teacher says “You canNOT “eat or drink” in the classroom”, it’s not a choice the student can make. It means BOTH “you canNOT eat in the classroom” AND “you canNOT drink in the classroom”.

      Here it is obvious that Zaxx thinks CAN is the same as ALLOWED. Hence why his logic fails miserably.

      A simple example of what one CANNOT do is hold your breath indefinitely or sneeze with your eyes open. CANNOT denotes impossibility.

      If this really needs to be spelled out to a person, how “smart” do you think he is? (Zaxx gonna rattle on again about semantics, his favorite excuse ~chuckle~).

      This is further proof as to why Zaxx should not even be blabbering about rights AT ALL.

      He does not even know how to use CAN and CANNOT. So how can anyone logically expect Zaxx to know how to use INALIENABLE and ABSOLUTE? Heck, Zaxx does not even know the usage of the word SYNONYM.

      But, alas, all I did here is cast pearls before the swine. So I’m dusting off the dust from my sandals and let the fool remain in his folly.

    2. I love your fighting spirit pal. But it’s so obvious you got owned. You’re just delaying the inevitable.

      CAN = allowed
      CAN = possible
      CAN = …

      That’s beside the point. De Morgan’s Theorem simply applies whenever there’s a NOT.

      Let’s try this one last time:

      inalienable = NOT subject to (being taken away from OR given away by) the possessor.

      Applying the De Morgan’s Theorem:
      NOT (A OR B) = (NOT A) AND (NOT B)
      we get….

      inalienable = (NOT subject to being taken away from the possessor) AND (NOT subject to being given away by the possessor).

      BOTH sides A and B of the statement hold true. So your use of only the B side of the definition while ignoring the A side is simply a pathetic effort on being blind on purpose.

      The better route you should take is to DISPROVE this De Morgan’s theorem. Because if you do succeed, I’ll have to congratulate you for dismantling the laws of logic.

      And BTW, the admin of the site has the INALIENABLE right to disable/deactivate your username/account for violating GRP rules of conduct with a direct assault in calling people and esp. an author here “stupid”,

      I would hate to see GRP devolve into a site filled with unhealthy exchanges of invectives.

      May you have a good day sir/madam.

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.