How to Spot a Pro-RH Bill Moron
Since political debate is somewhat inherently contentious and divisive, then, people should know what to expect whenever they discuss a controversial political issue. In the Philippines, there appears to be no more controversial than the RH bill issue, which virtually divided the nation and almost brought the government’s legislative machinery to a standstill.
Both warring camps (the anti-RH bill group versus those who favor the contentious measure) have been throwing a slew of personal (ad hominem) attacks, propaganda, lies and myths since the bill was introduced a few years ago. An anti-RH bill senator, who was recently accused of lifting words and statements from online sources, was called a lot of names (e.g., “evil”, “stupid”, “moron”, “idiot”, etc.) by passionate supporters of the measure.
I also called the pro-RH camp a number of names, like fascists, Hitlerian, Marxists, leftists, morons, statists, etc. However, I certainly believe that if you willingly or naively support a government measure or program that seeks to violate some people’s rights and to control certain industries or sectors, you’re either a ‘useful idiot’ or a fascist. A proposed political measure that seeks to combine government and a particular corporate industry, or to put that industry under state control, should be properly called a fascist or corporatist measure or policy.
The creepy guy who conceptualized Fascism, Benito Mussolini, once said that: “Fascism should rightly be calledCorporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.”
In fact, Italy’s Labor Charter of 1927 calls for government intervention to achieve the greater good. Article 9 of the Labor Charter states: “State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management.”
That sounds very much like our own Labor Code that justifies the enslavement of ‘employers’ to serve the interests of the country’s laborers. That’s why the RH bill includes a provision, which is authorized by the Labor Code, that mandates a set of “employer’s responsibilities”.
So, if you’re engaged in a political debate or discussion, be ready to judge and be judged. Any person’s views or opinions can be evaluated or judged, and you may apprise whether that person is for or against individual freedom. In a particular political discussion wherein rights and freedoms are at stake, sometimes we need to take the gloves off and call things – or persons- by their proper names.
And I very much agree with what this blogger said:
Ad hominems may not be the best weapon. They are best used sparingly, preferably but not always when “they started it.” The purpose in using them should be persuasion, not just to vent anger. But ultimately, all’s fair in politics, particularly when our opponents stand for war, repression, and economic enslavement. It is acceptable to kill in self-defense; why is it unacceptable to call somebody names in self-defense?
A pro-RH bill moron is a moron for not knowing the correct facts, for making utterly flawed arguments, and for making a fool of himself. A pro-RH bill moron can be dishonest as well. That is, it is possible that he knows his arguments to be utterly fallacious and non-factual, and that his intention is simply to ‘win’ an argument by fooling his opponent. But you cannot fool anyone by deliberately presenting fallacious arguments. The real victim here is none other than your ‘self’.
Consider the case of this hopeless pro-RH bill moron named Eusebio Seballos. This guy is evidently a troll created by a dishonest member of the Filipino Freefarters (freethinkers).
In this Facebook group I posted the following statement:
“These people [pro-RH freaks] talk about contraception use and helping the poor without realizing they can freely use contraceptives and help the poor without using other people’s money. Yet there’s no talk about sacrificing and penalizing doctors, limiting free speech, forcing employers to shell out additional expenses, putting the entire medical industry under state control, etc. There’s no talk about forcing doctors to render a 48-hour “pro bonor” service.”
Eusebio Seballos made the following response: “It’s not other people’s money. It’s government money. It’s the secular government’s money not the CBCP or the Pope’s money.”
Then I showed him this great YouTube clip:
Here’s the actual debate:
Eusebio Seballos: “The funding of the RH Bill is coming from government funds.”
Vincenton Post: “where do government funds come from?”
Eusebio Seballos: “From many sources.”
Vincenton Post: “What’s the main source?”
Eusebio Seballos: “In terms of amount? I do not know the main source. Definitely not from the CBCP nor the Pope.”
Vincenton Post: “You’re squirming like a squirrel again… You know the answer to the question, you just don’t like to say it.”
Eusebio Seballos: “Squirming? Not a tick. You tell us if you know otherwise stop this nonsense of where the money is coming from.”
Vincenton Post: “They come from taxpayers, idjit!”
Eusebio Seballos: “You mean the CBCP and the Pope are taxpayers?”
Vincenton Post: “Red herring, idiot. Almost everything comes from taxpayers. If not, from loans, which will be paid by taxpayers. Others come from foreign alms.”
Jay Baroña: “no, he means 90% of our citizenry (taxpayer) believes in some sort of deity, hence not a secular gov’t. we even swore our gov’t official with their hand in the Bible.”
Eusebio Seballos: “No, family planning cost are mainly coming from US AID and various US NGO. And even if government funds comes from taxpayers, most taxpayers approve of RH Bill, anyway.”
In another facebook discussion, this Eusebio Seballos said the preferable total fertility rate (TFR) for the Philippines is 1.0. I repeat: 1.0. How is he going to achieve that? Perhaps through drastic, aggressive population control measure just like China’s one-child policy.
Here’s what this Eusebio Seballos, a Filipino Freefarter troll, said:
“why TFR=1.0 is preferred at this time for the Philippines? Because we have very high TFR for a long long time. Perhaps longer than almost all countries in the world. As a result our age pyramid is flat at the bottom and narrowing towards the top. We should aim to narrow down the bottom of our age pyramid and make the middle part thick.”
What a hopeless nincompoop fascist!
Warlito Nobleza Vicente, owner and webmaster of Antipinoy website, replied:
Singapore has TFR approaching one and is promoting family sizes of three or more…
Japan has TFR of 1.39 and is promoting conception
.. so you want to spend money to reduce population – then you will spend money again to increase the population????
Eusebio Seballos: “Warlito Nobleza Vicente statistical averages and statistical trends is what we are after. Japan has a long tradition of low TFR and that is why it is rich in terms of GDP per capita. Warlito, we do not necessarily reduce population by contraception. We are moderating population growth.”
Warlito Nobleza Vicente: “well your statistical averages and statistical trends show – TFR is decreasing – even without government spending… review of statistics show – family sizes reduce when economies transition from agrarian to industrial – because women have jobs and opt out of raising a family.”
Eusebio Seballos: “TFR is decreasing but it has not decreased enough to TFR=2.1 preferably, TFR=1.0.”
Warlito Nobleza Vicente: “first you want ideal TFR = 0. now you want TFR = 2.1 UK has TFR of 2.98 – and is richer than PHL - what’s your excuse? even if Japan has low TFR – it still has HIGHER POPULATION than PHL - so why – despite having HIGHER POPULATION – is Japan RICHER than PHL? so why – despite having LOWER POPULATION – is PHL POORER than Japan?”
This one takes the cake!
I preferred TFR=1.0 not TFR=0.
UK TFR=1.91 in 2011 not 2.98
Absolute popn number is not significant in determining high or low GDP per capita. It is the level and trend of TFR. If it is lower than 2.1, it is good. If it is declining it is good but it should reach 2.1 or lower to be significantly good.
Variations in TFR trend and TFR levels (not popn number) explains variations in GDP per capita.”
I repeat what the RH bill moron said: ” It is the level and trend of TFR. If it is lower than 2.1, it is good. If it is declining it is good but it should reach 2.1 or lower to be significantly good.”
What a clueless, pitiful creature!
Here’s my reply: “In UK, they don’t have aggressive population control program, MORON. Yet they have a natural birth control method: a more stable economy. The fact that you don’t know what the heck is wrong with your stupid argument shows you’re an incurable moron.”
I also said:
Let’s see if you understand what you’re talking about, creature.
The following are countries with lowest TFR:
- Singapore: 0.78
- Hong Kong: 1.09
- Taiwan: 1.10
- British Virgin Islands: 1.22
- Korea, South: 1.23These countries, Eusebio Seballos the “biggest moron, do not implement aggressive population control policies. In fact, Singapore, which reversed its pop management policy in 1987, encourages its people to procreate. South Korea plans to implement the same pro-natalist policy to increase its population. The reason why they have very low TFR? Economic growth!Meanwhile, Bosnia and Herzegovina, with TFR of 1.24, has a GDP growth rate of 1.70 compared to Philippines’ 3.70. Bosnia also has 43.30% unemployment rate compared to PH’s 7%. Did Bosnia’s very low population of 3.8 million boost its economy? NO, stupid.
Bosnia’s TFR is lower than UK’s 1.91.
Also, Greece, which is now an economic mess, has 1.39 TFR. Did that boost the Greek’s failing economy? NOPE, stupid.
If this failing country were populated with stupid, clueless people like Eusebio Seballos, I think we’re doomed!
UP economists and intellectuals who support the bill claim that progressive countries, which include the Asian tigers, have declining fertility rates and low population, hence, they advocate measures designed to curb the country’s population for us to also achieve economic growth. Such a myopic argument actually serves as a litmus test exposing the degree of intellectual bankruptcy in the Philippines. What these alleged intellectuals don’t understand is that those progressive countries did not achieve economic growth by adopting aggressive population control policies. Expect China that aggressively implemented its one-child policy, developed Asian economies like Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong do not have existing RH or population control policies. Singapore, which reversed its “Stop at Two” mandate in 1987, now encourages its people to procreate. Japan also adopted pro-natalist policies, while South Korea is worried of its fast declining fertility rates.
The reality is, demographic transition in the case of developed nations is the result of economic growth, not the other way around. The argument that lower fertility rate or government-backed demographic transition is the key to economic growth is actually belied by poor nations with TFR below the 2.1 replacement rate. The case of progressive nations shows that the best antidote to the dreaded population growth or overpopulation is economic growth, not government-imposed population control program.
As for the clueless people who’d like to help the poor by using other people’s money, here’s a timely advice from Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC):
“[L]et us speak of kindness and generosity. Nothing appeals more to the best in human nature than this, but it calls for the exercise of caution in many particulars; we must, in the first place, see to it that our act of kindness shall not prove an injury either to the object of our beneficence or to others; in the second place, that it shall not be beyond our means; and finally, that it shall be proportioned to the worthiness of the recipient; for this is the corner-stone of justice; and by the standard of justice all acts of kindness must be measured. For those who confer a harmful favour upon someone whom they seemingly wish to help are to be accounted not generous benefactors but dangerous sycophants; and likewise those who injure one man, in order to be generous to another, are guilty of the same injustice as if they diverted to their own accounts the property of their neighbours.”
I said a number of times before, you cannot serve justice by committing an injustice. That Machiavellian doctrine- the end justifies the means- is utterly against justice. That is, you cannot serve the interests and welfare of the poor and indigent women by violating the rights of other people- or by forcing them to perform certain acts that violate their freedom of conscience.