Reason Reigns

Exposing the Conceptual, Contextual Ignorance of the Pro-RH Bill Atheists

A pro-RH bill group is obviously trying to confuse anti-RH bill secular arguments with Catholic Church’s religious arguments.

Stop the pro-RH bill ignorance!

Stop the pro-RH bill ignorance!

Perhaps this is not intentional. Perhaps this is just a product of their ignorance of basic concepts and of the proper use of definition.

A pro-RH bill atheist wrote: “”One of the secular arguments against the RH Bill is that it is unconstitutional based on the premise that certain oral contraceptives pills (OCPs), which the bill seeks to fund and distribute, have an abortifacient effect since they prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the unlikely event of breakthrough ovulation and fertilization.”

But first, let’s define our terms.

Secular means “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.”

Based on the definition above, secularism thus means any view, social or political, that does not have any religious or spiritual basis.

Now as to the statement above, the question is: Is that statement part of the secular arguments against the bill? The answer is NO. Read more of this post

RH Bill Versus Economic Freedom

I was engaged in a debate on a Facebook group called AP Crowd. The issue was the controversial RH bill. A member named Rannel Mina made the following comment:

I do not understand how the provision treats private health care providers as indirect government employees. we have a slew of regulations that regulate service providers not only in the health sector,so how does this become a contention, that is, seemingly subjecting such providers as government employees?

However, I do believe that the clause that says they can immediately refuse and refer to another service provider is not there without a reason. The author considers and respects the religious beliefs of such service providers but would never sacrifice the rights of an individual to health care. all they have to do is say they do not provide those services maybe this hospital or this doctor can assist the patient with it.

Here’s my reply:

OK. Let me address the following points you made.

You said: “reply: (2) I do not understand how the provision treats private health care providers as indirect government employees. we have a slew of regulations that regulate service providers not only in the health sector,so how does this become a contention, that is, seemingly subjecting such providers as government employees?” Read more of this post

Lecturing a Pro-RH Bill Moron on the Proper Concept of Regulation

Here’s my reply to a pro-RH bill moron named Marco who ignorantly argued

The morons who support regulations don't know what they're talking about...

The morons who support regulations don't know what they're talking about...

that “[t]he law, in its very essence, regulates freedom to protect greater freedom.”

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

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

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

Lecturing a Pro-RH Bill MORON

I never thought I’d give a free online lecture to a moronic Reproductive Health bill supporter. But I just did and lost at least two hours of my life.

My only consolation is that I proved my initial hypothesis that these pro-RH bill morons know nothing about politics and economics. They simply know how to spout pro-welfare political platitudes and undigested slogans and socialist political rhetoric without exerting some mental effort.

In my previous post, I came to the defense of The Vincenton Post. I wrote a blog post entitled A Pro-RH Bill’s Epic Fail Blog in response to a moronic socialist (this term is actually a redundancy) blogger named Marco. Marco the moronic blogger wanted to “pawn” Vincenton Post- in his dreams- with his sophomoric, poorly argued blog article entitled 3000 Words to Pwn You. Now this is a case of committing a blog suicide online, as he instead pawned himself with his hilarious line of reasoning.

Here’s my one-on-one online debate with this schooled pro-RH bill moron.

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

A Pro-RH Bill’s Epic FAIL Blog

Someone, a pro-RH bill moron, has successfully pawned himself on a blog post. This socialist moron, who supports leftist

The Vincenton Post is NOT for the Weak and MORONS!

The Vincenton Post is NOT for the Weak and MORONS!

organizations and advocacy, tried to take on The Vincenton Post yet he so failed miserably.

The Vincenton Post, a blog owned by Vincent, offered some advice to pro-RH bill freaks in his blog post entitled A Friendly Letter to RH bill Freaks. The opening statement of Vincent’s blog states: “We, secular anti-RH bill people, fully support your altruistic- or charitable- move. In fact, what you did is very much commendable. However, we do not support your call to make the government the provider of people’s RH care needs- or to call on the government to violate the employers’ rights by forcing them to provide the RH care needs of their workers against their will, for this is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.”

Now this pro-RH bill blogger named Marco wrote a blog response entitled 3000 Words to Pwn You. The title speaks for itself. The blogger’s intent in posting his so pathetic and moronic post is to pawn Vincent. However, it’s the other way around, as it appears that Marco the leftist blogger successfully pawned himself with his blog filled with context-dropping, misrepresentations and illogical assumptions.

Here’s the climax of Marco the leftist blogger’s post: Read more of this post

Aristotle’s Politics (Book Two)

Part I

Our urpose is to consider what form of political community is best of all for those who are most able to realize their ideal of life. We must therefore examine not only this but other constitutions, both such as actually exist in well-governed states, and any theoretical forms which are held in esteem; that what is good and useful may be brought to light. And let no one suppose that in seeking for something beyond them we are anxious to make a sophistical display at any cost; we only undertake this inquiry because all the constitutions with which we are acquainted are faulty. 

We will begin with the natural beginning of the subject. Three alternatives are conceivable: The members of a state must either have (1) all things or (2) nothing in common, or (3) some things in common and some not. That they should have nothing in common is clearly impossible, for the constitution is a community, and must at any rate have a common place- one city will be in one place, and the citizens are those who share in that one city. But should a well ordered state have all things, as far as may be, in common, or some only and not others? For the citizens might conceivably have wives and children and property in common, as Socrates proposes in the Republic of Plato. Which is better, our present condition, or the proposed new order of society.  Read more of this post

A Commenter’s Take on the UP Morons

Free education for small dicks? LOL!

Free education for small dicks? LOL!

Here’s a very interesting and enlightening reply from a commenter named Misesian who eloquently reacted to the stupidity of some of my UP moron commenters. Misesian commented on a UP moron named Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza and his trolls, sockpuppets and mindless supporters and schoolmates. However, the comment was particularly addressed to a UP moronic troll who wrote the following:

dude. may point din si zosimus. dictatorship = rule by one. communism = rule by many at ideally communism = rule by the proletariat which is the highest form of democracy sabi ni marx. saka lang naging masama ang tingin sa communism noong panahon ng USSR dahil naging rule of the party yung concept nila ng socialism/communism. hindi ako communist at wag mo ng itanong political inclination ko. pag nanghula ka tapos mali ka matatawa lang ako e. there is a political theory of righteous dictatorship (yung theory ni plato sa philosopher king) saka dictatorship before the creation of a true republic (theory ni machiavelli). or baka naiisip mo na ang dictatorship laging negative? depende din kasi yun sa culture saka sa political thinking ng mga tao, depende din sa outcome at intention ng ruler or baka hindi mo lang talaga mapaghiwalay ang dictatorship saka tyranny? peace :D

Here’s what Misesian said: Read more of this post

Another Argument With a UP Moron

Statism is their culture... and they fuckin' think their damn good! Give me a break!

Statism is their culture... and they fuckin' think their damn good! Give me a break!

Someone tried to add me on Facebook. Here’s what I told this guy who feels he’s good just because he passed the UPCAT: “i

This UP moron thinks there's no TF consultation in private universities. He should have made a little research before posting stupid rants on FB!

This UP moron thinks there's no TF consultation in private universities. He should have made a little research before posting stupid rants on FB!


don’t wanna add stupid people. they’re disgusting…”

This guy named Nikholai Swarobski, a BA Journalism student at UP-Diliman, replied: “oh, so you’re the superior intellect now. go on, humor me. :D”

I said: “there’s no doubt about that. study first, kid.”

Nikholai Swarobski replied: “haha oh yes. but i do study, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out education is a right. lolz article 14 sec. 1 of the Philippine Constitution. go figure. contest me if you will OH INTELLECTUAL MASTER.”

My reply: “Oh yes, that charter created by ignoramuses. That provision means the state is justified to take away the property/money of others in order to serve the interest/welfare of some group of people. But you won’t get this since you’re trained to think within the system. That’s how they try to idiotize you idiotic people. Perhaps you’re aware that we borrowed the bill of rights and some constitutional concepts from the US Constitution. Try to use google to find out for yourself whether the right to education, transportation, public housing is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Try to google the Consti of Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist countries to find out that all your wishes and desires in life are guaranteed by their socialist government. But still, since you’re so stupid, you don’t understand these things.”

Nikholai Swarobski: “oh yes but i do know that the bill of rights and shiz are copied from the US constitution, but by God if it should be for the people why not? and about the UP Chapter of 2008, it states that UP is a Public University and must be subsidized by the government. as a public university, who in the right mind would want to raise the tuition fee of the bracket a students to 100K pesos PER SEM? Given the circumstances that the budget cut would be implemented, President Roman of UP, the next UP President and Pres. Aquino would take it into effect. OO, tama basa mo, per sem.copied or not, my argument is valid because the constitution is in effect since 1987, <though not properly implemented>, and ipso facto all the provisions there must be implemented.” Read more of this post

Arguing with a UP Moron named Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza

Well, it’s proven that there are ‘somehow’ a few UP students who passed the UPCAT despite having no brain at all. Consider this

A UP moron named "Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza". Do morons deserve our taxes? NOPE!

A UP moron named "Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza". Do morons deserve our taxes? NOPE!

brainless prick whom I call “UP moron”. His name is Jullian Zosimus Bañares Carranza. Click here for his Facebook account.

This UP moron made a very idiotic comment on The Vincenton Post’s latest anti-public education polemic titled Cut the Education Budget on College Hippies.

First, he made a very condescending comment on the blogger’s post, saying the blogger has a lot of “fallacious arguments” without even presenting any evidence to his hilarious charge. Perhaps that’s what these guys learned from their professors at UP-Diliman.

So this pretentious braggart who doesn’t know what he’s talking about wrote:

Gee, a society where no one is necessarily above another person? What’s so evil about that? The means on how to achieve such a society? That’s up to the revolutionists. But if you were to ask me, the country isn’t ready for democracy, nor can it sustain communism or socialism. Rather, righteous dictatorship should be the system of the Philippine government for optimized development. Just because I think communism and socialism is not such a evil concept doesn’t make me a commie. Tandaan mo yan assuming boy.

It’s very clear this future dictator wants “righteous dictatorship” for this country. Does this moron even know what this “righteous dictatorship” is all about? Is he not some creepy bullshit? lol! Read more of this post

Applied Research Methods: An In-depth Analysis of the Consequences of Merger and Acquisition

  • A paper I submitted in my Management class yesterday. This is in preparation for my thesis work.

A well-thought-out research question is the key to a good research. However, for a research work to be considered as well written and comprehensive, it must have a strong foundation in the areas of literature review, methodology, as well as the methods of inquiry, and data collection analysis. The researcher must be able to address all the key issues, problems, scenarios and relevant factors surrounding the research question. This is now the focus of this essay— to generate and develop a rational and comprehensive outline based on the research question to be adopted. The task also includes a review of related literature and strategic management issues, which will be used in arriving at a carefully planned research question.

The supposed research focuses on the causes and consequences of merger and acquisition in the market economies. A research question to be shown below will be developed out of the result of the review of related academic literature and strategic management issues and relying on the research question, the next task is to propose the most suitable methodology, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques to be used in completing the supposed thesis or dissertation.

Literature Review

Merger and acquisition are just some of the indispensable activities in the corporate world. Under a free market system, corporate players need to compete with each other in order to survive in the fast evolving world of market economies (Gasman, 1994 p4). The survival of a certain business entity or corporation in a capitalist country is determined by its capability to cope with stiff competition and market trends, as well as its capacity to ensure innovation and creativity. In order to survive, a business entity must maintain an innovative phase and makes it a mandatory corporate policy (Baumol, 2002: p.2). To guarantee this inventive pace, the business entity must be able to formulate an effective corporate strategy that will be religiously implemented and adopted by its officers. Such a corporate strategy must have short term and long term goals and objectives (Karami, 2007: p.160). Read more of this post


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.