Skip to content

Let the Whole Woodstock of Hippies Disagree With Me!

July 29, 2010

What I really love about Dixie Chicks is their courage and determination despite the fact that they were banned by pro-Bush

Let the whole woodstock of hippies disagree with me!

Let the whole woodstock of hippies disagree with me!

administration radio companies and businesses in the United States. To further air their outrage against the US government’s war on Iraq, they composed and recorded their Grammy Award-winning song Not Ready to Make Nice. Personally I don’t fully agree with Dixie Chick’s criticism of the infamous US-Iraq. I believe the US hit the wrong target, as it should have invaded Iran, which is the main sponsor of transnational terrorism. But this is another story, which I already did.

I really like this part of the song:

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

Oh, yes… I’m not ready to make nice. Sorry, but I will never say “sorry” to those who hate my blog entitled To all UP Students: Education is NOT a Right! I stand by what I said and I’m so proud of it!

I was so amused by what a certain UP commenter had to say: “In the first place, you started the whole bashing. There would be no outrage if you hadn’t posted this nonsense. Sometimes, it pays to shut up.”

No, UP commenter, it doesn’t pay to shut up when it is clearly proven through the comment section of my most controversial blog, that the ongoing radicalization at UP is becoming the biggest threat to this country and to our lives and limbs. Some bitter, pathetic critics claimed I wrote my controversial blog because I didn’t pass the UPCAT. For posting it they say I’m an “elitist,” anti-poor, anti-student, and even anti-establishment. But I say it is these advocates of this monstrosity- “right to education”- who are not only anti-poor, but anti-reason as well. And it is those who advocate for people’s “right to everything” (e.i. education, health care, transportation, basic needs and services, etc.) who are making this country more and more impoverished. The very means by which they try to help the poor and the needy is evil and immoral. Yet they have the guts and the gal to call me an “elitist” and “anti-poor.” According to them, so long as everybody is benefited, the government has the right to steal and extort more and more money from the taxpayers. They say, “everybody pays taxes.” Where do think this mentality would lead this country to? This is why I stated the following:

I believe in freedom in education, not in right to education. We all have the freedom to enroll ourselves in our university or college of choice. Nobody is depriving you if you’d like to drop out of UP. That would be a great decision considering our budget deficit. That is your right, meaning you have a right to choose or not to choose. That is a right of action. Your professors won’t tell you this. But if you ask the government to provide you a higher education subsidy, the question is: where will the government get the money? You might say, “We just want a fair share!” But did you ever forget that we currently experience high budget deficit? Technically, we are in state of fiscal crisis, and I’m still waiting for the official pronouncement of some UP economists.

Now you want more! How amazing! And you’re taking on me because I’m an advocate of subsidy cut? Who will pay for your higher education subsidy? There are only four sources of wealth in this case: 1) taxation, 2) more foreign borrowing, 3) printing of money out of thin air, 4) donation. Who will be sacrificed in the name of your “bright future?” The new administration said it will not impose new or higher taxes. But… will it borrow money from foreign sources. This is what your dear president Gloria Arroyo, an economist from UP, did. She borrowed too much money from foreign sources, and as a result, we now have over P4 trillion debt and a higher budget deficit.

If you want more, there’s only one proper remedy. Ask your leftist alumni and representatives in Congress, leftist politicians, and their sympathizers to donate a portion of their “loot”, er earnings, to UP. This is the only proper way! Capisce?!

Yes, it is these advocates of anti-rights who will bring this country to disaster and dictatorship. There’s no doubt about that.

So let the whole world disagree with me! Let the whole population of hippies, young leftists, and mini-liberals at UP and all state colleges and universities disagree with me and troll and bombard my blogsite with their idiotic, stupid rants and nonsensical diatribes. Let this be my reply to those who try to intimidate me with their zero-arguments and moronic rants:

I have to post this thing because it is TRUE! UP and other public schools must be privatized! That education is not a right! Why do you resent truth? I have no regret posting all these blogs! I don’t care about your nonsensical bashing and stupid rants. They have no value at all because they’re all WRONG! A wrong premise- a wrong argument- an invalid concept- an evil idea- is VALUELESS! In fact, most comments are so painfully hilarious…

A self-claimed capitalist who clearly doesn’t know how economics works also had this to say about my blog: “The thing is, in an economic perspective, a competitive market has a limit, and that is where the government comes in. If education, health, and other current government services be laissez-faire, then the government is just a nuisance. Technically, you only need to fund some institution to protect the rights you defined, like the police or the military.”

Here’s my reply: “You don’t understand how economics works. The only limit of the market is individual rights and the right of the people to choose or not to choose. The government only comes in when there’s a violation of rights. Your very argument explains why we have too much market regulation and controls in this country, why businesses won’t grow, and why cronyism is rampant. If that’s the case- if education, health, and other current government services be laissez-faire- then the government is the most important entity in any society. There is only a need to take the government to its proper role, which is the protection of individual rights. All economic crises, poverty, and misery on earth were caused by governments. Now, the government is a BIG nuisance for being too intrusive. And this state intrusiveness is due to that kind of mentality you have.”

The same self-claimed capitalist commenter asserted that: “It’s as if you see a capitalist market to be perfect, but sadly its not. If it was perfect, then all the countries would be capitalists.”

Since I was so revolted by his crude way of thinking, I came up with the following reply:

Your epistemology and logic are so crude. The reason is because of the existence of evil ideas that poison people’s minds. It’s because the intellectuals are anti-capitalists and collectivists. It’s BECAUSE OF THE UNIVERSITIES THAT TEACH THE MORALITY OF SELF-SACRIFICE, ALTRUISM, AND COLLECTIVISM. That’s WHY I WROTE THIS BLOG! You clearly don’t know the role of ideas in shaping or misshaping a society. This debate IS A BATTLE OF IDEAS. What we’re talking about are IDEAS and CONCEPTS. And there’s one underlying element here: PHILOSOPHY! Nazi Germany was the by-product of the philosophy of a handful mystical thinkers like Hegel and Nietzsche. You should see the connection. Soviet Russia was the result of the idea or philosophy of Engels and Marx. The fight of free-market capitalism has just begun with its proponents, namely, Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, and others. This is a battle of ideas. We cannot change people’s mentality overnight. EDUCATION IS AT STAKE HERE!

There’s this commenter codenamed OHMYGULAYKA who posted the following rant: “Ilang beses ba na sasabihin sayo na RIGHT nga ang edukasyon. RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! Kung buhay lang ang Philippine Constitution bingi ka na sa kakasigaw niya sayo.”

But the problem is this commenter didn’t really read my blogs or refused to understand my arguments therein. I have extensively and clearly stated why I disagree with the 1987 Constitution’s concept of “right to education HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. In this blog entitled Dealing With Mediocrity, I stated the following statement to clarify why I disagree with the Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for that matter:

It’s a pity that too many of them point to the 1987 Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when I attacked the “right to education.” The people who drafted the Constitution are morally guilty for bringing us the kind of extreme disaster that we now about to face. Many societies have failed in the past due to the collective ignorance of their leaders. What they fail to realize is that this “right to education” monstrosity was perfectly practiced by Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin. The “right to education” is being perfectly applied in all slave pens on earth like North Korea, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc. Not only did the murderous dictators guarantee universal right to education, but universal right to health care, food rations, and other basic commodities as well. Yes, this monstrosity- “the right to education”- has no place in a free society! It’s freedom in education which we need and should demand, not right to education.

Also, in this blog entitled Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex is an Evil Concept I stated the following:

The right to education legalizes government theft and extortion, because in the first place, such a “right” is not really a right all. The right to education is a perversion of the concept of rights. The proper questions that my critics should deal with are:

  1. What is the proper concept of rights?
  2. Is there a right to something when it constitutes the violation of the rights of others, directly or indirectly?
  3. Is a right grounded in reality or just a floating abstraction- or a conceptual pretzel that can be bent, distorted, or misshape according to the will of its beneficiary?
  4. Is a right positive or negative?
  5. Does it mean a right of action or a right of compulsion or coercion?
  6. Is it anchored on man’s individual rights- his rights to his life, liberty, property, and his pursuit of happiness?

But it seems that my most passionate, irrational critics choose to maintain their ignorant, stupid position on the matter. They believe that rights include the right of force and compulsion. They believe that they have the right to a portion of the earnings of others. What a very pathetic, hopeless mentality!

There’s also this commenter named Leo Posadas, a Magna Cum Laude from UP, according to a friend, who successfully dropped the context of my arguments and came up with nothing but merely gibberish. Click this LINK to see how he poorly argued his case. Let me just reproduce my blog conversation with this Leo Posadas.

Your context-dropping is simply hilarious yet you came up with nothing but pure gibberish.

LP: “Your definition of ‘right’ undermines the very foundation of how the human civilization was built.”

– Kindly expound on this statement, please?

LP: “Man’s right to ‘pursuit of happiness’ cannot be separated from another man’s ‘right to life’.”

– Who said so? I said the right to life is the basis, foundation of all other rights. I repeat: “The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.”

LP: “[t]he right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

– Do not drop the context of what I wrote. Read the entire blog again and its appurtenances.

LP: “Taking the argument further, you should not question a mother’s abandonment of her baby because it is her own pursuit of happiness but then how about the baby’s right to life?”

– How is this statement related to my arguments against “the right to education.” A mother who abandoned her child must be held liable to the government whose role is to protect individual rights. A child has no ability to survive on its own. Your understanding of “the pursuit to happiness” is very sloppy, outlandish and painfully funny. The “pursuit to happiness” does not mean you have to disregard the rights of others. That is not the proper way how to live on earth.

LP: “Destruction of collectivity means destruction of families because family, in its most basic definition, is a collective of individuals.”

– This is simply a good example of a sentence that doesn’t make any sense at all. It is bereft of reason and of sound argument. Know the proper meaning of collectivism and individualism. Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. It regards man as an end in himself and not the means to the ends of others. Collectivism means the opposite. Collectivism regards man as the means to the ends of others. In this debate, collectivism regards the taxpayers as the means to helping those who can’t send their children to school. In collectivism, there are sacrifices. In individualism, there are only mutual consent and agreements between and among parties. Further, a family is a collection of individuals related to each other by blood or even affinity. A family has no rights because it is not a human being. A society has no rights because it is not a living being. Only a living human has rights, and that is the right to life, liberty, property, and his pursuit of happiness.

LP: “But this argument is being extremist and unrealistic.”

– Whose argument? Yours, definitely!

LP: “On being realistic. If for example, I produce soap, I am a CEO of a soap manufacturing company. I need people to buy my soap so I contract advertising agencies, I have my Marketing Department, I produce TV, radio, print ads. I create a need that is addressed to the general population – which will become my buyers. Ultimately, I care for what those people think. I care for their behavior because their behavior will dictate my pursuit of happiness. That means, I can’t exist as an individual. I need people to fund me my wealth, my gain.”

– This is very crude and funny! What do you mean you can’t exist as an individual. Do you mean to say your existence depends upon the approval, happiness, or agreement of others? That is Kantian at best. Perhaps you believe in the existence of a noumenal and phenomenal world. If that’s the mentality of a business person then he will surely not exist in the market. A businessman’s goal is to make profit. Business is about profit. Read Atlas Shrugged.

LP: “I produce soap. I need energy. I can generate my own (diesel) or use the existing circuit (coal). In a way, I take part in the reason for burning organics to produce energy.”

– How is this related to my argument? Individualism doesn’t mean man is an island. Individualism means other people must leave him alone and stop imposing responsibility on him. It means a trader relationship. A business person gives something for value for if he turns his business into a charity, then he wouldn’t last long. A business person has to hire the most competent and most efficient people he could find and pay them their appropriate salary. He doesn’t hire people base on their needs. He hires people according to their competence and ability.

LP: “I take part in producing more and more carbon dioxide and then in a way, I contribute to global warming.”

– Global warning is the most outrageous myth ever invented in history. This explains it. Your epistemology and metaphysics are purely crude and worrisome.

LP: “I need my company to grow (my pursuit of happiness) and so I produce and sell more soap and so I need more energy and so I need more coal burned. I am but a single soap manufacturer. There’s leather, clothes, electronics, cars, gadgets, entertainment, lots of industries who rely on consumerism for growth. Global warming cause the oceans to rise and the people of Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean to lose their home. And so, indirectly, I take part in the cause of having the people of Kiribati lose their right of life. My pursuit of happiness to their right of life.”

– Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about. A business person’s pursuit of happiness is not what you’re talking about. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

LP: “That was a funny argument.”

– Which one? Yours definitely because it appears you made your reply without reading the whole blog, which is a sign of dishonesty. If you read the whole blog and its appurtenances, you wouldn’t appear very crude, ignorant and funny.

LP: “A more direct example, consider me as a budding coal-fired power plant owner. I have this property near a residential area. When I burn coal, the residents get lung diseases. It is my property, it is my right what I want to do with my property. But my right to pursuit my happiness kills others’ right to life.”

– It is very clear that you have a very problematic, chronic understanding of rights. This is a good example of context dropping, which means you omit the important elements of what I said and then highlight what you think could suit your funny, outlandish argument. A person’s “pursuit of happiness” is not to kill others. THAT IS SELF-DESTRUCTION AT BEST.
I have explained very clearly and extensively the relation of the role of government to man’s rights. The role of the government is TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, and man has the RIGHT TO HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, AND HIS PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. If, based on your very funny example, your “coal-fired power plant” led to the destruction of lives, the government, being the protector of individual rights, must step in and make the owner of that plant pay for damages and/or be incarcerated. That is why every society’s court system must be strongly impartial! We must have objective, impartial courts!

– Upon seeing that you have a very problematic understanding of rights, I told my self this is not worth answering. But for the benefit of everybody, especially those who are willing to think, I had to answer it.

Here’s the most popular argument adduced by my UP supremacist commenters and trolls like OHMYGULAYKA, memew ako, proudtobeUP, pula, smile:), Miguel Garcia (perhaps a non-UP), and many others. “Hindi ka pumasa sa UPCAT!” Really?

I simply ignored this claim knowing that it offers no argument at all, as it is a good example of argument from intimidation. In reply to a commenter named Miguel Garcia who asked- “Just one question Froi, Im just curious so please answer with all honesty. Did you took the ACET or the UPCAT? Did you pass?”- I was forced to stoop down to the level of my UP supremacist commenters. And here’s what I said: “[T]he answer is NO, I never took the ACET or the UPCAT because, I repeat, “enrolling at UP (and Ateneo for that matter) never ever crossed my mind in the first place. ”

And this:

Before you speak of some nonsensical, highly outrageous claim, which is clearly a by-product of your mediocrity, please know that I consider “school” very insignificant. Like most of my American friends who believe that Harvard U is the greatest threat to America, I believe that most of our elite educational institutions are doing our country a great disservice. In fact, such an invalid point- that I wrote this piece because I failed to pass the UPCAT- is a clear manifestation of empty arrogance, of academic bigotry. Yes, it’s a sign of academic insecurity and mediocrity. So your guilty charge is that I wrote this piece because I didn’t pass the UPCAT or that I failed to enter UP for the matter? This is what I have to say: I am very much glad I’m not from UP and never had any plan to study there. It’s an advantage on my part.

Thankfully, there are a few people who defended me, most of whom understand how free-market capitalism works. Let me reproduce what a lone commenter named zerojuan had to say about the behavior of some of his fellow UP commenters:

I guess what the other commenters failed to articulate is this: the unique economic, cultural, and political situation in the Philippines doesn’t fit any of the education models you described.

As a UP grad myself, I feel ashamed (and partly amused) at the way people from my school argue. Parang mga comments lang sa youtube.

With or without any pro-capitalist defender, nobody can ever stop me from writing what I think is right.

Perhaps, a commenter who posted the following below is darn right!

Okay, let’s wrap it up. Based on what I read on this comment section, IT IS PROVEN THAT:

1. Most UP commenters are STUPID/IDIOT or both!

2. Most UP commenters are Lefttists/Socialists.

3. Most UP commenters don’t ever know what they’re talking about.

4. Most UP commenters are MAYAYABANG, as they adduced such invalid arguments as “hindi nakapasa sa UPCAT,” “hindi ka kasi taga-UP”, etc.

4. Most UP commenters know nothing about politics and economics.

5. Most UP commenters are DANGEROUS TO OUR LIVES AND LIMBS!

6. Most UP commenters are BOBO!

7. Most UP commenters are BASTOS!

8. Most UP commenters are TROLLS!

9. Most UP commenters are a threat to this country and to our freedom.

10. Most UP commenters are INSANE!

Therefore, it is for the benefit of this nation and of everybody to PRIVATIZE UP and other public universities!

Advertisements
99 Comments leave one →
  1. July 29, 2010 3:38

    Would you be interested in exchanging blogrolls links with my site? Please email me if you are interested

  2. insult boy's reply permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    honestly, this is pathetic, we honestly don’t care if you are sorry or not for the things you wrote in your blog, and we don’t really care much about what you think. No one is asking for an apology, or at least not me. No one can help it if you’re pompous and ignorant. Its just that you alienated a bunch of people, whether leftist or not for the belief that education is a right is not only a belief exclusive to leftists. Bottom line is, no one cares if you think that education is a right or not as long as you keep the dissertation as what it is, a dissertation. You are not offering perspectives, you’re acting as if you’re better, which you obviously are not. You need not address it to UP students, why not address it to PUP students who in truth are a lot more militant than UP students? It;s because you selected UP to be your contender, you chose to single out UP for whatever reason. You simulated controversy, because you feed on attention. You sought out to fight with people from the University, and you got what you wanted, so don’t bitch about it. 😀 peace.

    • July 29, 2010 3:38

      What is more pathetic is when you try to rationalize your evil, immoral stand on the so-called people’s right to education. Such a right is merely a concept that doesn’t exist. Only concretes exist. Your right to life is a concept. The separation of church and state and one’s pursuit of happiness are concepts. But concepts, to be valid, must be grounded in reality. Not all cool-sounding concepts like “the right to education” or “the greater good is the paramount law” are valid. Take for example this concept: “COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.” Do you think it’s valid? This concept- “COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD”- is the political basis of the death of millions in the past century. “COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD” is the foundation of the Nazi German platform. Source: http://parkforsenate.com/NaziPlatform.aspx

      But that sounds good right? Concepts that are not grounded in reality are invalid, floating abstractions, contradiction in terms. In the realm of human affairs, contradictions should not exist. The right to education is a contradiction in terms and I have explained this very extensively. I have explained why a “right to something” (or object) is not to be considered a right. The proper concept of a right is a right to action. But you don’t have any right to “something else” which is not yours. You have no right to impose any obligation on others. The right to education or health care imposes obligation on others.

      If you, guys, are really intelligent enough, then you would have the ability to understand these things.

      • napapadaan sa blog ng mga jologs n attention seeker permalink
        July 29, 2010 3:38

        “The right to education is a contradiction in terms and I have explained this very extensively.”

        how extensively? you continuously say to base things to be grounded in reality.

        but all i read is ranting. no proof in statistic form. please be scientific. ’cause it seems to me your whole argument is a concept. most likely drug-induced.

      • July 29, 2010 3:38

        It seems to me that you are purposely being obtuse whenever you don’t want to admit that someone has made a valid rebuttal and so this is getting tiring. People have made points, now you either acknowledge them and argue on THOSE points, and move on, or you can keep spouting the same, already debunked ideologies on your site and gain NO respect at all.

        I thought you wanted rational arguments? Here are the rational points gathered from the commenters that disagreed with you:

        1. Overgeneralization on your part regarding the quantity of leftists amassing in UP. Just admit it already so we can move on, it’s tiring to keep arguing a premise that has already been established. Yes, there are leftists, yes, they are selfish, yes they are ignorant, blah blah blah blah. It still doesn’t change the fact that you made a wrongful, overly eager claim to have a whole productive university abolished based on a minute sector of its population. Can we move on now to a REAL reason for the abolishing of an entire university?

        2. Your refusal to acknowledge that you are singularly targeting a particular university for insignificant reasons unrelated to your original premise, making your arguments fundamentally weak. If you are going to make a point, you should have targeted the university with the most leftists, however you chose UP. This leads your opponents to believe that you have a personal vendetta against this particular university, and to which you reply that they deserve it because they are arrogant, and have a college-bred mentality that they are better than everyone else. So, this leads us to a pattern in your reasoning: “Up has leftists. Not the most leftists, but they’re arrogant so they deserve to be abolished more.” Sorry, that argument doesn’t hold water either, especially in the light of your UP-directed attacks.

        3. You are still arguing on the basic definition of a right to combat the replies of the activists protesting that they DO have a right to education. Obviously you and the UP activists are arguing on completely different premises. Your premise is that they do not have a right to claim what is not theirs to begin with. The UP leftists on the other hand say they have a right to what they were PROMISED by the government. Obviously NOT THEIRS is not equal to WHAT THEY WERE PROMISED. This means that the reason for the demanding of a higher state subsidy in UP, indeed, in universities subsidized by the state isn’t because the student activists are inherently evil, it isn’t because the university has indoctrinated them to be leftist, it is because the government has failed in it’s initial mechanism to enforce state subsidy to students, causing them to react in no other way than to cry out for “justice”. Therefore these students are not demanding state subsidy out of a purely leftist reason (which is your premise), they are demanding the fulfillment of a contract owed to them by the government (their premise). It’s so simple and yet the conversation keeps getting longer and more convoluted simply because you don’t acknowledge points. You argue on your premise, and yet your premise is obsolete in the light of behavioral dynamics.

        4. Every other argument that resulted out of these three failures/omissions on your part is secondary, such as the debate on whether taxation makes slaves out of the working populace (this stemmed from your claim that demanding the right to education and health care imposes an obligation on the taxpayers). On this I agree, it DOES impose an obligation on taxpayers, however education is not the biggest burden that taxpayers have to shoulder, so if you’re making this about the welfare of taxpayers, there are many other things they would much rather have lifted off their shoulders than the burden of subsidizing education. In some countries, to deny education is even considered a form of tyranny against the populace.You’re not doing the taxpayers any favors, so don’t use them as a smokescreen to fend off rebuttals about your claims.

        5. yes, you are correct in saying that every concept, to be valid, must be grounded in reality, such as the right to live, and that some concepts, poorly defended and hewn from an obscure value system, like the right to education, cannot become valid unless it is presented with a definite reason why it is a RIGHT. Ideologies spouted by leftists such as common good before individual good, yes these are all concepts and so are subjective in their interpretation. So my question is, so what? So what if you’ve debunked all their ideology? So what if you’ve now sufficiently cowed the ill-informed and the misled? So what if you have refuted all their arguments based on this premise, that concepts must be rooted in reality? The answer is, nothing important. It’s another one of your smokescreens. It is beside the point and your omissions still make gaping holes in your arguments.

        If I see one more repeated post in your blog about “evil monstrosities” (honestly, don’t you know any other synonyms?) without acknowledging points, it will be definitive proof that you are not worth arguing with.

      • derp permalink
        October 8, 2012 3:38

        “In the realm of human affairs, contradictions should not exist. ”

        Sadly, Philippines is a land of contradictions… as well as impunity.

    • SecretAngent38 permalink
      January 2, 2014 3:38

      Honestly bro try this website about commercialized education..(http://antipinoy.com/should-you-be-literally-dying-for-taxpayer-funded-philippine-education/ ) btw II’m pro commercialized education..but one thing I noticed with your arguments is that you try to rebuttal first your opponent with a straightforward insulting words which only promotes war..my tip is that listen to the rebuttal of the enemy and rebut his/her statement/s with a clear, accurate and short arguments..

      What I do not like with the attitudes of this so-called ISKOLAR NG BAYAN is that do not accept new ideas..they all care about is trash-talking other people by saying they are the best and the UPCAT thingy (I bet you know what I’m talking about). These UPians are closeminded because of the fact that they do not accept any arguments from people who were not their level (not from UP) because they think highly of themselves. They believed that being an iskolar ng bayan is a title that bloats their ego to the point that air fill up their brains….I know very popular school like the Todai in Japan, Cambride U in UK and the others who are not the likes of yours. What are you trying to prove ha!? That you are the best, that you know everything. Always remember this that life is greater and more difficult after you graduate from college. You should not be entitled to your school the fact your success is not about your school but about yourself and how you will succeed in life. Your school is a stepping stone to a greater future..You should not be blown away because you are from UP..As you go on with your life, you will meet different people with different culture of different background and school..

      As for my finale of my short essay I just want to say that this country should change it’s people first. I was reminded of pinoy pride of filipinos..bashing other people from different nationality saying to other people that filipinos are the best..I think it’s best to have a harmonious conversation (but i’m too late because all is over!!) so farewell!! :DD

  3. napapadaan sa blog ng mga jologs n attention seeker permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    hahaha.hahahaha. ang galing no? palakpakan natin sya!

    alam mo, naniniwala ako sa pinagsasabi mo. kasi kung ako yung taxpayer, tas mababasa ko yung kabobohan na laman ng post mo(at ng buong blog na to), talagang di ko sasayangin ang pera ko para pagaralin ang isang katulad mo! ang galing mo!

    pero alam mo, ok lang yan pre. taga UE ka di ba? ok lang yan. di mo kailangan mainggit samin sa UP. 😀

  4. July 29, 2010 3:38

    Lol, it’s not just the hippies that disagree with you.

    Let me put this very succinctly for you. You’re an asshole. You’re like a good debater no one wants to talk to at a party, Mr Froilan Bersamina, and maybe because you’ve sparred with less eloquent people for so long, you’ve begun to think that you’re actually smarter and better than everyone else. If people do talk to you, let’s just say it isn’t for your sparkling personality.

    No, it’s not just the hippies, the leftists, or other products of societal rot that disagree with you. People who just simply think that you’re an arrogant, self-serving, context-dropping, fear-mongering asshole, disagree with you. That includes UP students, non-UP students, and I’m sorry to say, plain old regular folk.

    Please don’t start feeling like you’re under attack wrongly. You were an asshole, and you got flamed. Way of the internet. You made points, people disagreed, and for your supporters you have a motley crew of suckups, context-droppers, and bandwagon hoppers, oh, and yeah, leftists from other universities lol, how ironic. it also proves how prone YOU are to context dropping when you post stupid comments as support for your own arguments, when those comments were also obviously constructed poorly. Way to be fair in your little tirade.

    Oh, and before anyone else decides to flame this guy, do yourselves a favor and read his ABOUT page. Apparently he’s created a failsafe set of premises for this blog enabling him to make stupid statements without remorse – in his “treatise” he states that it’s his blog, his right to say whatever he wants, and he will not cater to ‘unfair, stupid or baseless comments”.

    That means then, that you can be an asshole about your opinions and not be sorry for WHATEVER reason! Nice operation you’ve got here, sir, positively foolproof! The people sucking up to you in your about page are pathetic and disgusting.

    Congratulations, more power to you. LOL. This blog is a waste of time.

  5. tagaUPako.ikaw halatang HINDI. permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    Husto ka lang sa salita. Balang araw kakainin mo rin lahat na sinabi mo. Good luck sa iyo attention-seeker.

  6. UP Supremecist permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    GUYS! THIS IS VINCENTON’S REAL FACEBOOK ACCOUNT!

    http://www.facebook.com/froivinber

  7. Hawkwoof permalink
    July 29, 2010 3:38

    I think everyone’s failing to ask the really important question here…

    Dixie Chicks?

    …really?

    • The Tattler permalink
      July 30, 2010 3:38

      IKR. Everyone’s going on and on about the whole education thingy, they missed this big mess over here. Dixie Chicks, srsly? 😀

      • pepe smith permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        hahahaa! stupid man, eveen the use of the dixie chieck is taken out of context. Boi, sino ba talaga kalaban mo? hahahahah

  8. July 29, 2010 3:38

    I admire how much free time you have on your hands. Nothing better to do, I see.

    Unfortunately I won’t be reading anymore of your posts. I have reports and papers and exams to care about. Such is the life of UP freeloaders who keep wasting good taxpayer money.

    Also, I’m wondering…do you even pay your taxes? I mean if you actually have a job or something. Because you don’t seem to have much of a life. 😀

    • July 29, 2010 3:38

      I am studying and I am self-employed at the same time. Is there any problem? Gusto mong magyabang? Go for it?

      • bitch slap! permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        callcenter agant? or mabe that’s too difficult a job for you 😛

      • Bogoy permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        The irrational pride and so disgusting, childish rants of these UP idiots is so freaky! This proves that these UP idiots are so mayabang and parasites! Don’t ever forget that the people pay for your education…

        I happened to read this post… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/why-we-ought-to-boycott-paypal/

        The blogger said:

        “As a freelance writer I once registered with PayPal and ‘nearly’ used its services. PayPal is an e-commerce business allowing payments and money transfers to be made through the Internet, and most freelance writers use this remittance system for the payment of their services with online clients and companies abroad. Instead of using PayPal my New York-based company sends my monthly salary through bank-to-bank transaction without any cut or transfer fee.”

        How about you? Matapang ka lang ba sa online. Who are you? What do you do? I know people who graduated from UP na walang mahanap na trabaho. Mga pabigat din pagkatapos tulungan ng mga taxpayers para maka-graduate.

  9. July 29, 2010 3:38

    ADMIN: This rude, pathetic, bitter, irrational commenter from the UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES is banned!
    https://i0.wp.com/seoyourblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/google-banned.jpg

    • pepe smith permalink
      July 31, 2010 3:38

      ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

      https://i2.wp.com/www.searchenginepanel.com/wp-content/uploads/banned.gif

      The commenter’s email: bernardo.cielo@gmail.com

      Bernardo Cielo

      http://yoopee.multiply.com/journal/item/6538/VOTE_STRAIGHT_ASAP-KATIPUNAN_on_March_6_2009_UP_Manila

      Commenter of that link said: ribosomelysosome
      reply
      ribosomelysosome wrote on Mar 3, ’09
      Bernardo “Cielo” Cielo II — “TRAPO!!! Plastic mo! Ang bait mo na ngayon dahil kandidato ka pero sa MaSci at last sem akala mo Diyos ka! Alam naman namin na peke ang pagiging FA Head mo! Block mo nga hindi ka suportado! At lalong hindi kaming mga taga-MaSci na nakakakilala sa totoong ugali mo!

      “Makakarma ka din! Andami mong sinirang freshie dahil pinuwersa mong sumali sa EKIT, kunyari dinner dinner lang yun pala orientation tapos pag umayaw sasampalin nyo o kaya pwersahang gagawing neophyte saka nyo tatakutin. Mahiya ka sa balat mo! Ilang ka-batch natin sa MaSci ang ginanyan mo! At maraming taga-FA ang pinilit mo!”

      WELL, THAT EXPLAINS IT…

  10. July 29, 2010 3:38

    You have some pretty interesting reads, Fraulein.

  11. July 29, 2010 3:38

    It seems to me that you are purposely being obtuse whenever you don’t want to admit that someone has made a valid rebuttal and so this is getting tiring. People have made points, now you either acknowledge them and argue on THOSE points, and move on, or you can keep spouting the same, already debunked ideologies on your site and gain NO respect at all.

    I thought you wanted rational arguments? Here are the rational points gathered from the commenters that disagreed with you:

    1. Overgeneralization on your part regarding the quantity of leftists amassing in UP. Just admit it already so we can move on, it’s tiring to keep arguing a premise that has already been established. Yes, there are leftists, yes, they are selfish, yes they are ignorant, blah blah blah blah. It still doesn’t change the fact that you made a wrongful, overly eager claim to have a whole productive university abolished based on a minute sector of its population. Can we move on now to a REAL reason for the abolishing of an entire university?

    2. Your refusal to acknowledge that you are singularly targeting a particular university for insignificant reasons unrelated to your original premise, making your arguments fundamentally weak. If you are going to make a point, you should have targeted the university with the most leftists, however you chose UP. This leads your opponents to believe that you have a personal vendetta against this particular university, and to which you reply that they deserve it because they are arrogant, and have a college-bred mentality that they are better than everyone else. So, this leads us to a pattern in your reasoning: “Up has leftists. Not the most leftists, but they’re arrogant so they deserve to be abolished more.” Sorry, that argument doesn’t hold water either, especially in the light of your UP-directed attacks.

    3. You are still arguing on the basic definition of a right to combat the replies of the activists protesting that they DO have a right to education. Obviously you and the UP activists are arguing on completely different premises. Your premise is that they do not have a right to claim what is not theirs to begin with. The UP leftists on the other hand say they have a right to what they were PROMISED by the government. Obviously NOT THEIRS is not equal to WHAT THEY WERE PROMISED. This means that the reason for the demanding of a higher state subsidy in UP, indeed, in universities subsidized by the state isn’t because the student activists are inherently evil, it isn’t because the university has indoctrinated them to be leftist, it is because the government has failed in it’s initial mechanism to enforce state subsidy to students, causing them to react in no other way than to cry out for “justice”. Therefore these students are not demanding state subsidy out of a purely leftist reason (which is your premise), they are demanding the fulfillment of a contract owed to them by the government (their premise). It’s so simple and yet the conversation keeps getting longer and more convoluted simply because you don’t acknowledge points. You argue on your premise, and yet your premise is obsolete in the light of behavioral dynamics.

    4. Every other argument that resulted out of these three failures/omissions on your part is secondary, such as the debate on whether taxation makes slaves out of the working populace (this stemmed from your claim that demanding the right to education and health care imposes an obligation on the taxpayers). On this I agree, it DOES impose an obligation on taxpayers, however education is not the biggest burden that taxpayers have to shoulder, so if you’re making this about the welfare of taxpayers, there are many other things they would much rather have lifted off their shoulders than the burden of subsidizing education. In some countries, to deny education is even considered a form of tyranny against the populace.You’re not doing the taxpayers any favors, so don’t use them as a smokescreen to fend off rebuttals about your claims. And if you don’t believe in democracy, that is no reason to dismiss your opponent’s points because you are arguing outside of the original premise.

    5. yes, you are correct in saying that every concept, to be valid, must be grounded in reality, such as the right to live, and that some concepts, poorly defended and hewn from an obscure value system, like the right to education, cannot become valid unless it is presented with a definite reason why it is a RIGHT. Ideologies spouted by leftists such as common good before individual good, yes these are all concepts and so are subjective in their interpretation. So my question is, so what? So what if you’ve debunked all their ideology? So what if you’ve now sufficiently cowed the ill-informed and the misled? So what if you have refuted all their arguments based on this premise, that concepts must be rooted in reality? The answer is, nothing important. It’s another one of your smokescreens. It is beside the point and your omissions still make gaping holes in your arguments.

    If I see one more repeated post in your blog about “evil monstrosities” (honestly, don’t you know any other synonyms?) without acknowledging points, it will be definitive proof that you are not worth arguing with.

  12. nobenta permalink
    July 30, 2010 3:38

    It’s just absurd. In your recent blog posts, you were quoting a lot of thinkers (thought you might know, that does not even make you look intellectual at all) and now it seems like you ran out of theories to quote. You are now resorting to the lyrics of- what the heck- Dixie Chicks!

    First and foremost, I would want to commend you for being so massively successful in your endeavor to seek for attention from the UP Community. With all these bashing and lambasting, you’ve earned a name for yourself. Unfortunately, after all these arguments, you are not much of a threat. In fact, you are not threatening at all. After all, UPans only see you as that guy from UE who goes blah blah blah. They might not know what you are capable of doing regarding your hatred against state universities, but they know exactly what you can’t do. You can’t take the system down single-handedly with this blog.
    See, you take quotes from different people, sew them together and think you’ve come up with something really brilliant. What you’ve created is as grotesque as Frankenstein’s monster: ignorant, appears to be powerful and has no other purpose but to feed its’ creator’s ego. In the end, it will come back and haunt you. Please, try to understand what you are proposing, dear. Expressing your opinions is not bad but asserting that you are right when you are wrong is unacceptable.
    You should also know that UPans shall never wage war against you and your ideas. To begin with, how can you play when your opponent is in the wrong court? Or worse, how can you play when the opponent knows nothing about the rules of the game? You overgeneralize. You foolishly abide with stereotypes. If you really want to be knowledgeable of the system you’re trying to topple and criticize, try walking around with your eyes open to the reality in our country. Oh, just don’t come near UP campuses, because by now, I bet, Bio students would want to dissect you.
    To everyone who deserves to be called an Iskolar ng Bayan, ignore this person because he blatantly does not know how it feels like to be in your shoes. When I first read about his To All UP Students: Education is NOT a Right!, I was enraged as you all were. Truth be told, you don’t need to argue with him. He is a fan of his own folly. Instead, use your time in proving him wrong. The Philippines couldn’t wait for the new batch of graduates who would soon submit themselves in service of their nation.
    These people you collectively call hippies would give the country a better future while you sulk for the rest of your life writing about this.

    • July 30, 2010 3:38

      I agree wholeheartedly. Bravo for this comment, it sums up the correct attitude in dealing with this horn-tooter.

      “expressing your opinions is not bad but asserting that you are right when you are wrong is unacceptable.”

      Also, now UP students knows what he looks like, and what school he goes to. I think that is enough to say that the future will resolve itself somehow. Ah, the world is just. haha!

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        It shows na apektadong apektado ka. Wala naman kwentang pinagnganganga mo. UP ka ba? Pwes, wala ka palang kuwenta. At bobo ka pa. Kung sa tingin niyo walang kuwenta pinagsasabi ng blogger, why troll here?

        Ganyan ang mga bobo at walang pinag-aralan at walang argument. Puro nganga. Puro mura. Puro lait. Pero pinagtatawanan na lang sila. Ang mga bobo na lang ang nakakaintindi sa kanila, kasi pare-pareho silang bobo.

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        @Mike G. Reyes

        Obviously you are a UP-hater, the worst kind, with no points, hate lang ng hate. Supporting froinviber mindlessly, because he’s brave enough to say what you have no sufficient brain capacity to formulate for yourself. What a moron. I’ve studied in both UP and Ateneo, so I don’t hold any irrational love for UP, making me prone to irrational statements. What else have you got, Mike G. Reyes? Sige pa, para makitang katawa-tawa ang katangahan mo. Haha!

  13. diehardfroivinberfan permalink
    July 30, 2010 3:38

    Malaking pagkakamali naming mga UPians an pagpansin sa’yo.
    Oo na. Nakuha mo na attensyon namin. Masaya ka na ha? Masaya ka na?
    Pero wag ka nang umasang magwawalk out kami sa klase para ipagprotesta ang mga sinasabi mo? Aba! Sino ka sa tingin mo?
    So feeling mo dahil sa mga nagpapaka-intellectual blogs mo eh, sasambahin ka namin?
    Yeah right. In YOUR FACE. IN YOUR REALLY REALLY FUUUGGGLLY FACE DUDE!
    Mas pinababa mo ang tingin namin sa’yo..

    Don’t bother apologizing anyway, we care about you. Say everything you want, it’s your right anyway. Or do you want to question your right to freedom of expression like how you questioned and rationalize about the right to education? Go lang dude!

    YOU”RE SIMPLY IRRELEVANT. Kapish?

    • July 30, 2010 3:38

      No. I am very much disappointed because you simply exposed your collective IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. Read my other blogs and the comment section to see what I mean. I am very much disappointed because you proved nothing but pure gibberish and arrogant, conceited, out-of-this-world rants. Some even made threats. Does that prove anything? Yes, it proves that some of you are nothing but mediocre hippies! Bring them on!

      And I am so sad that this thing proves my hypothesis- that UP and the kind of students (not all, of course, since there are a few students and graduates there I personally know who believe in free-market capitalism) it produces are a threat to this country, to our future, and to the freedom and well-being of the people.

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        No, this thing does not prove your hypothesis. It proves that you are great at ignoring real rebuttals and prefer to spar only with the absurd and pointless. Way to prove what everyone else has already concluded: you love the attention, and you only argue with people dumber than you.

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        @ JC. Kahit ano pang sabihin mo. It proves that you’re no match for Froivinber. All your rants shows you’re nothing but a piece of shit. Kakahiya kayo at nakakaawa.

        Hindi kayo mananalo kahit sa anong debate. Siguro sa pagalingan ng mura at walang kuwentang idea. Dun lang kayo magaling.

      • diehardfroivinberfan permalink
        July 30, 2010 3:38

        Yeah sure. Look who’s ranting about nothing.
        We did not posted comments on your blog to prove our collective “ignorance” and “stupidity”, we did because we pity you so much and we wanted you to wake up on the sad realty that your theory won’t work. I have read your other blogs and most of the comments. Our arguments doesn’t seem gibberish and stupid at all, but your replies to them are. You simply repeat and repeat what you have already stated. Dude, copy-paste much?

        If you consider as a threat to the society, you are so right! Not only because of our number but because we actually do something.

  14. July 30, 2010 3:38

    @Mike G. Reyes

    Sorry, who are you? I hope you don’t expect me to be intimidated. haha! Way to argue with me by summing up all the points i made into “rants’ and calling me a piece of shit. I don’t care about you, I replied to the blogger and commended another poster for his/her insightful statements. So kindly go back to your little hole where you came from – you’re not contributing. 🙂 I don’t see froinviber replying to comments that have real points, so kindly stop being such an obvious froinviber suckup by saying no one matches him in debate. Haha!

    • July 30, 2010 3:38

      @ JC

      I’ve been following this discussion. I consider myself a Libertarian. I would like to see a productive, good debate free from irrational bashing, and nonsensical arguments.

      I don’t care if you commended another commenter, but all of those silly arguments have been addressed by Froivinber. I can’t believe why the hell you don’t get the message- that education is not a right. I’m sick and tired of seeing valueless comments from you, people. I don’t think most of you are avowed leftists, but I do believe that most people aren’t really aware that they subscribe to leftism.

      Froivinber presented his arguments very clearly. He explained why education is not a right, why public education must be abolished, why free-market capitalism is the only way to solve poverty. I agree with what he said although I know he rejects Libertarianism. But this is the issue where Libertarianism and Objectivism (Froivinber is an Objectivism) agree on.

      Please, argue properly. This is how a debate is conducted. No bashing. No silly rants. No stupid arguments. And please, if you want to attack the blogger, attack his arguments by reading his blogs. We had a lot of encounter with Froivinber in the past. Check how he argued with us…
      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/why-we-should-support-the-visiting-forces-agreement/

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/on-intellectual-dishonesty-relativism-and-subjectivism/

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        exactly, that is how a debate is conducted, so if you had bothered to read my post deconstructing his points, you would have seen that that was what I called for in the first place. I also said that arguing based on premises that evolve, like stepping from one step to another in a ladder, is the logical flow of reasoning and makes for reasonable debate, WHICH NO ONE SEEMS TO GET because they keep arguing on their original premises. K, I’m bored with you.

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        You raised no points at all. It’s useless for Froi to answer your points which he already addressed in his other related blogs. All you have to do is read his blogs. What you did is what Froi said as context-dropping. I know that style. That’s the usual style of the leftists. That is why I said YOU’RE NO MATCH FOR FROI. That’s a fact and it is clearly shown here.

        Now, let’s define our terms here:

        1. What is your concept of rights? This issue was sufficiently addressed by Froi. Clearly you concept of rights is the opposite of what you said. You have to attack it.

        2. What is the role of the government? This same issue was addressed by Froi. You have to present yours.

        3. Where will the government get the money or the wealth to provide what people think is their right to education?

        4. What is your understanding of free-market system?

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        I’ve raised points bigger than the both of you. I’ve read the blog posts, and I’ve read the definitions, and don’t say that by properly defining concepts you have defended your case well. The moment this blogger presented his claims to the public world, it is no longer the validity of his claims that is in question, it was his claims PLUS his motives for presenting them, and how they work out in the current status quo. he is in the public eye now, and this is not merely a case of concept definition. I have even agreed with some of his points! That said, I have tried to follow his reasoning to the very end, amd still in the scope of the status quo he is faulty. Why? Because he fails to factor in NECESSITY. Even if he is correct in all his points, which he isn’t, you all fail to recognize the DYNAMISM of society as it evolves. Now, if we all give the blogger what he wants, and we agree that we are all inherently leftist, and we abolish state subsidy, and we agree that freedom is not a right, then what?

        Nothing will change. If you revisit history and put the blogger smack dab in the creation of the philippine constitution, it is my good bet that things would have still evolved to create our current situation today. Why is this? Behaviors were not included in his original premise, and that is why he has taken the time (quite smart of him, I may add) to create another blog post predicting this. That nothing will change. So now the REAL debate lies in why the blogger created all his blog posts, knowing that nothing will change.

        he knows this, you do not.

        So don’t proceed to lecture me on things that you are too narrow-minded and small to understand.

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        @ JC

        Talk about nonsense who knows very little. By the way I’m from UP, fyi.

        You said: “The moment this blogger presented his claims to the public world, it is no longer the validity of his claims that is in question, it was his claims PLUS his motives for presenting them, and how they work out in the current status quo.”

        What do you think is his motives for presenting them? What do you any inkling idea how his ideas work out in the “current status quo”? And by the way, what do you know about the current status quo?

        Where is you argument against what Froi said?

        You said: “he is in the public eye now, and this is not merely a case of concept definition. I have even agreed with some of his points! That said, I have tried to follow his reasoning to the very end, amd still in the scope of the status quo he is faulty.”

        What points do you particularly agree on? Kindly cite some? What’s this: “still in the scope of the status quo he is faulty”? Kindly use proper English, please?

        You said: “Because he fails to factor in NECESSITY. Even if he is correct in all his points, which he isn’t, you all fail to recognize the DYNAMISM of society as it evolves. ”

        What is this “factor in necessity” or more properly, “factor of necessity?” You mean to say it’s necessary for the government to provide people’s education because it’s their right? Froi addressed this very clearly. Not only did he argue that this is not the proper role of the government, but this conceptual mindset would lead to economic crisis and even dictatorship. You clearly have to understand the relation between economics and politics, production and distribution, market and the state to understand this concept. Also, what is the “DYNAMISM of society involved”? A society has no right. Only a living being has a right. A society is composed of a definite number of individuals. You talk nonsensical things!

        You said: “. Now, if we all give the blogger what he wants, and we agree that we are all inherently leftist, and we abolish state subsidy, and we agree that freedom is not a right, then what?”

        Please user proper English. We have to abolish state subsidy for the very reason that it is not the government that subsidizes a particular beneficiary but the people or the taxpayers. That’s why there should be less government spending, more economic freedom, and less government controls. That’s why Froi explains why we need to establish free-market capitalism in RP. Read this blog where he stated his premise… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/separate-state-from-education/

        Again, read the rest of his blogs to understand what you’re trying to attack. You are simply attacking a STRAW MAN, which means you’re not directly attacking the blogger’s arguments but nothing. This is why I said you’re no match for him, intellectually and grammatically.

      • July 30, 2010 3:38

        @ JC.

        Are you trying to evade my previous questions? I’d like to now how you understand the following:

        1. What is your concept of rights? This issue was sufficiently addressed by Froi. Clearly you concept of rights is the opposite of what you said. You have to attack it.
        2. What is the role of the government? This same issue was addressed by Froi. You have to present yours.
        3. Where will the government get the money or the wealth to provide what people think is their right to education?
        4. What is your understanding of free-market system?

  15. July 30, 2010 3:38

    @Mike G. Reyes

    Speaking of debating properly… I hardly think calling a fellow commenter a “piece of shit” qualifies as such. Practice what you preach, brother.

    • fghjkl permalink
      July 31, 2010 3:38

      in a word, HYPOCRITE.

  16. July 30, 2010 3:38

    @Mike Garcia

    K, so I’ve just turned on the computer and checked the comments here and it seems you will not respect any argument except that which dwells on semantics, and I don’t even know why I’m humoring a fellow commenter since my previous comments were directed towards the blogger, but since you seem to be even more narrow-minded and bigoted than he is, perhaps arguing with you is more ethical. Also, don’t pretend to be more grammatically correct than me, since by doing this you are providing us with an excellent example of “attacking the straw man”. “Talk about nonsense who knows very little”? Where is your subject verb agreement? My English is impeccable and you are trying to intimidate me with nonsensical and absurd accusations, which doesn’t do you any favors, it only shows that you are willing to stoop to disgusting levels to gain a verbal and argumentative advantage. More smokescreens from arrogant would-be philosophers in an ivory tower. Also, I have studied in both UP and Ateneo, ergo both state subsidized and privatized schools, so don’t presume to know my motives for disagreeing. Who cares if you are from UP? Obviously you are a disgrace to the entire educational system, alma mater or no alma mater. YOU are no match for me, intellectually and grammatically. Don’t think it has escaped my attention that you are merely parroting the blogger.

    1. The concept of rights that I am pertaining to would be rights in the context of an evolving status quo. Even if you cement a certain definition to a right, even if you argue based on a premise that is correct, you have follow the reasoning to the very end of its culmination, which is that the minority will eventually control the majority. Now YOU defend that. Why wrest this control from its current place and give it to a few? Does it fulfill the necessity previously stated better than the current mechanism? No. If you say that to let the situation continue would only end in economic crisis (wow, how specific) and dictatorship (an excellent example of a leap in logic), and I say back that to follow the blogger’s premises and train of thought would result in a country of communists, with much less freedom than what we have now.

    2. The ABSOLUTE definition of the role of the government is not so much in question as its PRESENT ROLE IN THE STATUS QUO. Given that it has a certain role and that it has evolved in order to fulfill it, you must factor in the things beyond and above its control, as any analyst of social science would acknowledge. Now, given its mandates and given the best it has done so far, how dare you judge the current situation by a textbook definition! Absurd. You are ignoring the concept of dynamism and attributing the reactions to a collectivist form of thinking. Obviously you cannot grasp the concept of evolving premises and so can do nothing else except reiterate points that have already become obsolete.

    3. “Where will the government get the money or the wealth to provide what people think is their right to education?” this is a secondary argument. Obviously, it has already been established that the money comes from taxpayers. My rebuttal to this is why are you using the welfare of taxpayers as a reason? Because in the bigger scope of things that is what it comes down to. Do you speak for the taxpayers? If you are willing to split hairs about what the taxpayers should and should not take the burden of, then you are using this reasoning out of context. If you use the welfare of the taxpayers to support the premise that education is not a right, be prepare to enumerate very clearly an ENTIRE list of unnecessary burdens on taxpayers. To this I reply, education is not a burden but a necessity. To this I reply, to withhold education is considered a form of oppression against the populace. The premise “Withholding education” is supported by the fact that if you do not educate those unable to educate themselves, you consequently allow society to become lopsided and unbalanced because you are unwilling to compromise. There is no critical mass of thinking minds. There is no foundation for a free market.

    4. I like how you dug your own grave by giving me your own skewed definition of society. “Only a living being has a right. A society is composed of a definite number of individuals. You talk nonsensical things!” Give me a break. Dynamisn in society factors in the collective action of individuals without labeling them collectivist. We are not a hive mind. That means whatever evolution a society goes through, it was not planned, it simply happened through the course of history. You act as if our current society is the way it is simply because a group of people decided to all act and think the same way, ergo what you call collectivism. What you do not understand is you are judging them unfairly based on narrow-minded and unfair criteria.

    You, Mike G. Reyes, are boring.

    • Claro M. Recto permalink
      July 30, 2010 3:38

      This is the funniest thing I’ve ever read ever! My goodness… Talk about so loud people with empty brain.

      @ JC. Try harder… You failed.

      • Camilla permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        Kayo ang mas nakakatawa. Inis na inis kayo na may ayaw sa ideyolohiya ninyo, at apektadong apektado kayo. Sinasabi ninyong mali ang kanyang Ingles at gramatika, pero kayo naman ang mukhang bobo. Isa pa, yung “so loud people”, halatang grammatical “tic” o manerismo ng blogger. Mahilig siya gumamit nun. Mukhang isa ka talagang matibay na taga suporta. O di kaya, ikaw lang din nga ang blogger.

        Kawawa naman kayo. Kahit anong gawin ninyo, walang natatakot sa inyo.

      • July 31, 2010 3:38

        @Claro M. Recto
        iyan naman kasi ang problema kung Narrow-minded ka. kahit anong paliwanag ang gawin ng isang tao, hahanapan at hahanapan mo siya ng butas. para lang ikaw ang maging tama. oo na sige tama ka na sa pananaw mo. kaligayahan mo yan e. peole have different perpectives and opinions, why bother arguing?

      • pepe smith permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

        https://i2.wp.com/www.searchenginepanel.com/wp-content/uploads/banned.gif

        The commenter’s email: bernardo.cielo@gmail.com

        Bernardo Cielo

        http://yoopee.multiply.com/journal/item/6538/VOTE_STRAIGHT_ASAP-KATIPUNAN_on_March_6_2009_UP_Manila

        Commenter of that link said: ribosomelysosome
        reply
        ribosomelysosome wrote on Mar 3, ’09
        Bernardo “Cielo” Cielo II — “TRAPO!!! Plastic mo! Ang bait mo na ngayon dahil kandidato ka pero sa MaSci at last sem akala mo Diyos ka! Alam naman namin na peke ang pagiging FA Head mo! Block mo nga hindi ka suportado! At lalong hindi kaming mga taga-MaSci na nakakakilala sa totoong ugali mo!

        “Makakarma ka din! Andami mong sinirang freshie dahil pinuwersa mong sumali sa EKIT, kunyari dinner dinner lang yun pala orientation tapos pag umayaw sasampalin nyo o kaya pwersahang gagawing neophyte saka nyo tatakutin. Mahiya ka sa balat mo! Ilang ka-batch natin sa MaSci ang ginanyan mo! At maraming taga-FA ang pinilit mo!”

        WELL, THAT EXPLAINS IT…

      • pepe smith permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

        https://i2.wp.com/www.searchenginepanel.com/wp-content/uploads/banned.gif

        The commenter’s email: bernardo.cielo@gmail.com

        Bernardo Cielo

        http://yoopee.multiply.com/journal/item/6538/VOTE_STRAIGHT_ASAP-KATIPUNAN_on_March_6_2009_UP_Manila

        Commenter of that link said: ribosomelysosome
        reply
        ribosomelysosome wrote on Mar 3, ’09
        Bernardo “Cielo” Cielo II — “TRAPO!!! Plastic mo! Ang bait mo na ngayon dahil kandidato ka pero sa MaSci at last sem akala mo Diyos ka! Alam naman namin na peke ang pagiging FA Head mo! Block mo nga hindi ka suportado! At lalong hindi kaming mga taga-MaSci na nakakakilala sa totoong ugali mo!

        “Makakarma ka din! Andami mong sinirang freshie dahil pinuwersa mong sumali sa EKIT, kunyari dinner dinner lang yun pala orientation tapos pag umayaw sasampalin nyo o kaya pwersahang gagawing neophyte saka nyo tatakutin. Mahiya ka sa balat mo! Ilang ka-batch natin sa MaSci ang ginanyan mo! At maraming taga-FA ang pinilit mo!”

        WELL, THAT EXPLAINS IT…

      • Camilla permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        @pepe smith

        Sinasang ayunan ko si JC, hindi si frovinber. Pakibasa ulit.

      • pepe smith permalink
        August 1, 2010 3:38

        ahh, sorry, I recognize my fault on that one, nag-jump yung mata ko from the previous comment, akala ko it was your comment above, thanks for the clarification though

  17. bitch slap! permalink
    July 31, 2010 3:38

    my fellow UPians, please join me in the move of simply not replying anymore to this blog post. There is no point against such people so indoctrinated by the prevalent capitalistic perspective. It is only to be expected from non-UP students to worship a book (or a set of books) as if it is the ultimate truth as long as it fits his ideological standards. We’ve learned a long time ago that not everything can be learned in the classroom, and not everything written in books are accurate, that is why we’ve become critical of a lot of things. The more we reply to this blog, the more we seem to affirm his importance and relevance to the world, one thing which he obviously is not. Let him post what he wants to post because he is an attention-seeker, he just wants to make controversy for the sake of controversy. And the more we reply, the more we push him into thinking that what he says matters, even if it doesn’t. We seem to forget that he’s just one kid with too much time on his hands, a luxury that we do not have. So let him waste his time and let’s not let this prick waste ours. If he’s stupid enough to start fire and get angry when he gets burned, well then so be it, its not our problem. thanks, and peace out!

  18. justcurious permalink
    July 31, 2010 3:38

    Hello po, Kuya! napadaan langh po ako and i must admit, andaming nagbabasa ng blogsite mo ah. you must be flattered. =)

    Hmm. First, para sa akin mahalaga ang edukasyon. In fact, it is necessary in promoting equality of opportunity and thus enabling an individual to acquire intellectual and work skills for productive activities. Inequality of opportunity and income is partly due to unequal distribution of property and to uneven distribution of skills as a result of uneven education. Siempre, kung hindi nakapag-aral, paano ka makakahanap ng job to support your family. paano ka makaka-acquire ng properties kung wala kang perang pambili. In short, education is an effective measure to address social, economic, political and cultural inequalities that cause mass discontent. This is in line, take note, of the provision in our constitution (Article XIII) which promotes social justice. what then is social justice? simply, it’s the humanization of laws and equalization of political rights and economic opportunities. therefore, it promotes the general welfare of a particular territory. Bakit nagkaroon ng concept ng social justice? Unang nagkaroon ng concept ng social justice noong nmaipatupad sa bansa ang 1935 constitution. at na-carry over na ito sa succeeding constitutions natin. basically, nakita ng mga gumawa ng constitution ang growing disparity in between classes, the rich and the poor. and para mabalance or mastabilize ito, kinakailangan mag adopt ng measures ang govt. Una dahil talaga naman lamang ang mayayaman dahil sila ang may pera. at bukod doon, sila rin ang may kakayahan bumili ng properties.

    Ngayon, siguro naman makukuha mo na ang stand ko sa issue na yan ay oo, karapatan ang edukasyon. Kung isasapribado ito, bulnerable ang mga taong hindi kayang makapag-bayad ng mataas na presyo na maaaring iimpose ng administrasyon ng isang eskwelahan. Kung isasapribado mo ang isang bagay na sa tingin ng konstitusyon ay makaktulong para mabalanse ang widening gap between the rich and the poor, nasaan ang social justice doon? and since advocate ka ng free market, based dun sa nabasa ko, let me illustrate kung ano ang magiging implication ng gusto mong pagsasapribado ng edukasyon o pagtatanggal ng budget sa mga SUCs.

    Bakit nga ba viable na negosyo ang edukasyon? kung isasapribado mo ito, it is safe to conclude na negosyo ito and u’re making money out of it. una kaya maraming nag iinvest sa mga pribadong eskwelahan dahil mataas ang demand sa edukasyon. Dahil ang perception ng tao naman talaga ay makakatulong ang edukasyon upang guminhawa ang kanilang buhay. Pero dahil sa mataas ng demand sa edukasyon, ang pribadong paaralan ay magiimpose ng mas mataas na presyo kumpara sa karaniwan. Justifiable case ito kasi siempre hindi naman lahat kaya nilang iaccommodate. at kapag tumaas ang presyo, magseset na ito kung sino sa mga taong nais mag-aral ang makakpasok lamang sa paaralan na iyon. siempre kung sino ang may kakayahan magbayad. at iyong iba ay doon sa ibang paaralan pupunta upang mag-aral. Paano kung walang state universities? well, wala silang pupuntahang iba? pansinin mo ngayon ang paglaki ng populasyon sa PUP. masyado ng mataas ang presyo ng edukasyon sa mga prbadong paaralan kaya nagsipag-alisan sila.

    Kung iaargue niyo naman po ang Say’s law, kasi ito un inaargue ng mga economists kapag may sobrang supply sa merkado. basically, ang main point lang naman ng Say’s law ay, Supply will create its own demand, na darating din sa point na magbabalanse o magmimeet ang supply and demand curves kung hahayaan mo lang ang market na mag-work on its own. pero ano ang underlying premise nito: may full employment sa society, which I think is not the case in out country.

    Bakit mahalaga na maging state-funded ang edukasyon? una kasi hindi lang naman tuition fee ang ginagastos ng bawat pamilya o bawat estudyante. Bukod sa tuition fee, nariyan rin ang ancillary costs of education, ito un pamasahe, pagkain o baon, projects at iba pa. Hndi ko sinasabi na pati ang ancillary costs ng edukasyon ay dapat isubsidize ng govt, dahil una sa lahat, may mga ginagastos ang mga estudyante na pinpoproduce ng pribadong sektor. ang point ko lang malaking kaginhawaan para sa isang pamilya, lalo na sa isang mahirap, na ang edukasyon, as much as possible, ay maging abot-kaya. Siguro naman po nagtatrabaho ka na, alam mo naman na hindi pare-parehas ang suweldo ng mga manggagawa. Magkano lang ba ang minimum wage ngayon? not to mention na mahilig pa sa contractualization schemes ang mga private companies.

    Ang usapin sa edukasyon ay katulad rin sa issue kung karapatan din nga ba ang kalusugan o ang health care? Ayon sa UN, ang right to health ay isang inclusive right meanign encompassing siya at hindi para sa “selected few” lamang. right to health is frequently associated to access to health care and building of hospitals. Pero ayon sa Committee of Economic, social and cultural rights, ang body responsible for monitoring the Intl covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, may mga underlying determinants ang health. Dinagdag din ng UN na ang financial situation ng isang bansa does not absolve the state from having to take action to realize the right to health. therefore, no state can justify a failure to respect its obligation because of lack of resources. the right to health is also recognized at least 115 constitutions worldwide.

    Basic social services ang kalusugan at edukasyon. Kaya ang gobyerno ay may obligasyon na tumugon sa dinadaing ng mga mahihirap, na inuulit ko, ay dehado sa mga mayayaman na may perang pambayad. Sa kasalukyang budget allocation ng gobyerno, mataas pa rin ang nilalalan nila sa pambayad utang ng bansa. hindi ko sinasabing kalimutan natin ang responsiblity natin sa mga obligasyong katulad ng utang kasi tayo rin magsasuffer nito. bago ka makautang eh amy credit history munang tinitingnan at kung pangit ang record ng bansa ay hndi na tayo makakaulit sa mga international lending banks. ang magandang tingnan sana ng gobyerno ni Pnoy ay kung saan napunta ang mga perang nautang (o sino ang nangurakot nito) dahil sa tingin ko may mga inutang naman talaga tayo na hndi napunta sa public service. Bago tayo magbayad, sana tingnan muna ito at alisin sa mga inutang natin. may konsepto naman ng debt forgiveness sa intl arena and i guess kung backed ng matinong financial reports, pwede natin iargue na may mgha nautang ang bansa na hndi napakinabangan. and makakasave tayo pag nangyari iyon at iyong pera na iyon ang pwedeng magamit para mabigyan ng mas malaking pondo ang edukasyon.

    Lastly, hndi ako nag comment para awayin ka. kasi nakita ko rin naman po na may mali sa side ng mga students na nagrereact sayo. guys, sana before tayo magalit, subukan muna natin ishare un side natin. kung aawayin niyo agad ang isang tao, hndi yan makikinig sa inyo. kahit naman din ako, kung sasabihan ako na sguro hindi ka pumasa ng UPCAT kaya mo nasasabi iyan, masasaktan rin ako. Daanin natin sa diplomasya ang mga bagay na ganito. masaya naman na may natutunan tayo mula sa isa’t isa. HIndi iyong kailangan magpataasan tayo ng ihi, kung sino ang mas magaling makipag-argue.

    • justcurious permalink
      July 31, 2010 3:38

      *the right to health is also recognized in at least 115 constitutions worldwide.*

      Salamat po sa pagbasa ng reply ko. =)

      • bitch slap! permalink
        July 31, 2010 3:38

        like!

      • justcurious permalink
        August 1, 2010 3:38

        thanks!

    • Huh permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      Very well said, justcurious. Especially ung last paragraph 🙂

  19. Huh permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    Ung mga nagsabi na “hindi ka kasi taga-UP”, it’s your own malicious mind who thought na kami ay “nagyayabang”. It is true, hindi ka kasi taga-UP kaya hindi mo alam how it really is like in UP. Madaming deserving na estudyanteng kinailangan tumigil sa pag-aaral dahil hindi na nila kayang bayaran ang mataas na tuition ng UP. It’s a fact. It’s reality. At dahil sa ganyang scenario kaya nagpoprotesta ang ILAN sa mga ISKOLAR NG BAYAN. Take note, ILAN. Isa sa mga napuna kong kamalian mo ay ang pag-GENERALIZE.

    Moreover, we are not asking the tax payers to pay more. We are asking the government to simply increase the budget for education, kesa mapunta sa mga corrupt na officials who, I believe, are the ones who are selfish. I do not know if it’ll be the same case for the new administration, but for the previous administration (Arroyo), napakalaking parte ng kaban ng bayan ang napunta sa pansariling kapakanan ng mga matataas na opisyal. Instead of attacking the people who are fighting for their rights, why not attack those who are ignoring the people’s rights for their selfish interests?

    • justcurious permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      =)

  20. tangina ka permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

    https://i2.wp.com/www.searchenginepanel.com/wp-content/uploads/banned.gif

    • boyzone permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      Agreed

  21. Anton Lozado permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    I too have to agree.

  22. Jack E. Bagbaga permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

    https://i2.wp.com/www.searchenginepanel.com/wp-content/uploads/banned.gif

    • August 1, 2010 3:38

      Another bitter UP student. Your sentence construction is soooo sophomoric. You really from UP? Bobo!

  23. Martin D. permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    Based on what I read on the comment section, most commenters, whom I think from UP, cannot argue properly without bashing or showing their being uneducated.

    Umayos kayo. Kasi pabigat kayong lahat sa taong bayan. Puro na lang “di nakapasa sa UPCAT” ang banat niyo wala namang maayos na pinagsasabi. Yung iba malili-mali pa ang grammar. Marami namang commenters na akala mo kung sinong magsabi ng bobo or magmura eh balu-baluktot naman ang kanilang mga pinagsasabi at walang kuwenta ang kanilang mga pinupunto.

    Tama. Nagsasayang lang tayo ng pera sa mga mayayabang na ipokritong mga taga-state U. ABOLISH UP!

    • justcurious permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      Kuya, may mga nagcocomment naman po ng matino. sabi mo nga sa first part ng reaction mo na most commenters lang. Hindi lang din naman usapin rito ang UP bilang isang state university. ang usapin dito ay ang pagsasapribado sa mga SUCs (isang umbrella term para sa mga paaralang state-funded). Kung sa tingin mo ay hindi sila magaling makipagtalastasan, sana sabihin mo na maglaan pa sila ng oras para mag-aral o magbasa ng libro at isapraktika kung ano man ang natutunan nila, nang sa gayon ay hindi nasasayang ang perang ibinabayad ng mamamayan.

      Kuya, bago ka din sana pumuna sa ibang tao, punahin mo rin muna ang sarili mo. =)

      Ikaw: Based on what I read on the comment section, most commenters, whom I think from UP, cannot argue properly without bashing or showing their being uneducated.

      Mas angkop na pangungusap: Based on what I read on the comment section, most commenters, whom I think are from UP, cannot argue properly without bashing or showing their being uneducated.

      kulang lang naman po ng “are”. hindi kita mamaliitin sa pagkakamaling iyan. maaaring typo error or talagang nagmamadali ka lang. hindi sukatan ng personalidad ng isang tao ang kanyang mga kamalian. we learn from our mistakes. UP students, tama naman din siya, cool lang. makipag argue ng maayos. alam ko naman kayo niyo eh. =)

      • justcurious permalink
        August 1, 2010 3:38

        Ikaw: Marami namang commenters na akala mo kung sinong magsabi ng bobo or magmura eh balu-baluktot naman ang kanilang mga pinagsasabi at walang kuwenta ang kanilang mga pinupunto.

        Mas angkop na pangungusap: Marami namang commenters na akala mo kung sinong makapagsabi ng bobo or makapagmura eh balu-baluktot naman ang kanilang mga pinagsasabi at walang kuwenta ang kanilang mga ipinupunto.

    • pepe smith permalink
      August 1, 2010 3:38

      ADMIN: THIS PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATED HIPPIE IS BANNED. You can argue properly without dropping your manners. Are you even EDUCATED?

      https://i2.wp.com/www.searchenginepanel.com/wp-content/uploads/banned.gif

      The commenter’s email: bernardo.cielo@gmail.com

      Bernardo Cielo

      http://yoopee.multiply.com/journal/item/6538/VOTE_STRAIGHT_ASAP-KATIPUNAN_on_March_6_2009_UP_Manila

      Commenter of that link said: ribosomelysosome
      reply
      ribosomelysosome wrote on Mar 3, ’09
      Bernardo “Cielo” Cielo II — “TRAPO!!! Plastic mo! Ang bait mo na ngayon dahil kandidato ka pero sa MaSci at last sem akala mo Diyos ka! Alam naman namin na peke ang pagiging FA Head mo! Block mo nga hindi ka suportado! At lalong hindi kaming mga taga-MaSci na nakakakilala sa totoong ugali mo!

      “Makakarma ka din! Andami mong sinirang freshie dahil pinuwersa mong sumali sa EKIT, kunyari dinner dinner lang yun pala orientation tapos pag umayaw sasampalin nyo o kaya pwersahang gagawing neophyte saka nyo tatakutin. Mahiya ka sa balat mo! Ilang ka-batch natin sa MaSci ang ginanyan mo! At maraming taga-FA ang pinilit mo!”

      WELL, THAT EXPLAINS IT…

      • justcurious permalink
        August 1, 2010 3:38

        pepe smith? kanino ka ba galit? wait. ang labo kasi eh..sorry.

      • justcurious permalink
        August 2, 2010 3:38

        oh my god. tlaga? shucks. i personally know this guy. ang foul ng initiation ng ekit if that’s the case. pero sana nagreklamo ang mga students. kasi meron naman OSA eh. normally hndi sila papasok sa recruitment ng neophytes kung wala nagrereklamo kasi ibig sabihin walang problema sa part ng nirerecruit. pero kung meron naman pala, mag iimpose ng sanctions ang OSA. SDT ang katapat niyan eh.

      • clarrifications permalink
        August 2, 2010 3:38

        uhm, nope, di ganyan yung initiation ng ekit, this was one of a series of 3 black propaganda materials released when he was running during the council elections by a rival (fraternity?). I personally know this guy as well and he was able to clear his name after. Ekit has never had a case filed against them relating to forced recruitment. Although I know it is off topic, I just want to clarify this. 😀

      • pepe smith permalink
        August 2, 2010 3:38

        @just curious: like what this guy said, hindi siya totoo, Black prop to nung election before when I was running nung elections. P.S. never ako naging mabait per se 😀 But honestly, it doesn’t really matter for me because inevitably may mga taong di ka talaga magugustuhan (unfortunately for this guy, maraming tao ang may hindi gusto sa kanya, me included). What is more important to me is clearing the name of ekit, wala pang ever naging case ang ekit na forced recruitment, kasi what use samin and isang brother na hindi naman committed at napilit lang? Anyway, i don’t want to make more of hte issue na matagal nang patay, best wishes and I hope you won’t grow a brain tumor like this blogger. 😀

      • insult boy permalink
        August 2, 2010 3:38

        to me* sorry for the typos 😀

    • Lufthansa permalink
      August 4, 2010 3:38

      It might have hit you’re tiny brain that being a UPian does not automatically mean that he is a good writer/arguer. It might have been possible that he has little or no political academic background and that he usually sucks at such discussions. Of course, it would be safe to assume that since he is inferior in this field, he might be superior in other fields being a UPian. Consider all possibilities, as simple as that. And you should have discovered by now that being educated in U.P. does not mean ignoring outrageous attacks such as this blog. You could have inferred that not all U.P. students are mature enough to act properly and intelligently. It might have been that you’ve thought too highly of U.P. that you’ve been shocked to discover that some UPians are like that. Well, you could lower your standards a bit now ^_^

  24. Camilla permalink
    August 1, 2010 3:38

    This whole blog cries wolf.

  25. pepe smith permalink
    August 2, 2010 3:38

    hahaha, thanks for posting that old bit of black propaganda, that’s two years old I think. Its kind of funny though that you’ve become so insulted by my comments that you’d post that in your blog. Thank you for complimenting my insulting skills 😀

    P.S. I find it sa though that you’d already made my pen name useless, and I must congratulate you for burdening me of the task of thinking of a new one. You’ve cost me about 30 seconds of wasted time. 😀

    • justcurious permalink
      August 3, 2010 3:38

      wow. ngayon ko lang nalaman na may ganun issue nun tumakbo si mr. cielo. buti naman nasagot niya ng maayos. nananatiling mataas ang pagtingin ko sa ekit dahil hindi sila namumuwersa ng prospects nila. thanks for bringing this up. =)

  26. insult boy permalink
    August 2, 2010 3:38

    also, biased pag-censor mo ng blog mo, pathetic mo pre!

  27. August 2, 2010 3:38

    It’s very interesting to see how future TRAPOS are made. I don’t have any further comment on this “issue.”

  28. Ayn Rand permalink
    August 3, 2010 3:38

    oh yes, just admit that you’re wrong.

    and admit it that you’re hurt when people call you “aesthetically challenged” aka ugly.

    Sticks and stones may break your bones (but words do hurt you).

    you may present a tough exterior, huh… But I guess you’re weeping inside.

    Grieve for your idiocy and appalling face.

    Ad Hominems are fun!

    And if you think you can sway people with your copy-pasted inserts. Well, hindi lang ikaw ang may quote boy….

    As Mr. T always says “I PITY THE FOOLS!”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA

    • August 10, 2010 3:38

      🙂

  29. Lufthansa permalink
    August 4, 2010 3:38

    If you could be a Hitler in the future, then I am really scared ^_^

    I really acknowledge your writing skills as superior to that of mine and other UP bloggers. The number of comments and heated arguments should make proof of that ^_^

    Some UPians it seems, could not keep at par to your stunning writing since I doubt they write that well. A person could be smart yet he may not be able to express his thoughts smartly through writing. I am aware that some UP comments are what you call “mababaw”, but I think that as an intellectual, you must not abruptly dismiss them but try to extract a little bit of idea on what they are trying to say.

    As an advocate of democracy, I am inclined to respect your opinions even though they’re quite insulting. But I ask you these: do you, even for a moment, try to imagine yourself in their (I mean the ones you’re attacking)boots? Do you really think you’re ideas would be the effective solution? or do you even consider some flaws in your line of thinking? Is there any communist/socialist ideal that you like? or do you despise them all? Did you really think U.P.’s that bad? have you no respect for us, even a bit?

    P.S. Now I come to think of it, if I were you, I would be totally delighted at the response my blog gained. I really pissed those arrogant “leftists” !! They would flock at my posts, arguing helplessly, while I sit back enjoying the fact that they can’t really topple me. I gained the reputation I want – I can slap in their faces the fact that even though I am not from U.P. I can more than go toe-to-toe with their feeble arguments!! Well, self-confidence levelled up!

    • August 4, 2010 3:38

      “If you could be a Hitler in the future, then I am really scared ^_^”

      Don’t you realize that you are all “little dictators” with Hitler tendencies? I’m for free-market capitalism, a system that is the enemy of all forms of collectivism and dictatorship. Hitler’s Germany was not a free-market economy, but a fascist slave pen. I had a lot of encounters with stupid Filipino socialists in the past, most of whom are from UP, and I had to write this blog https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/communism-and-fascism-the-twin-evils-of-collectivism/. Here, you will see the striking similarities between Germany’s fascism and Russia’s socialism. Plus, https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/the-insane-logic-of-stupid-socialists/ .

      I am against democracy and I have explained very clearly why this social concept is evil. It is the only road to socialism. That is why we are moving towards socialism or dictatorship.

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/salus-populi-est-suprema-lex-is-an-evil-concept/

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/why-the-philippines-doesn%E2%80%99t-need-edsa/

      https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/the-moral-base-of-the-filipino-nation-and-philippine%E2%80%99s-intellectual-bankruptcy/

      “P.S. Now I come to think of it, if I were you, I would be totally delighted at the response my blog gained.”
      I should say I’m very much disappointed. I am very much appalled at how they responded to my blog. But I am glad that there are some people who found it very helpful in informing the public of the true essence and virtue of free-market capitalism. However, my controversial blog opened my eyes to reality that our country is morally and intellectually bankrupt because of the young people’s anti-capitalistic mentality, glorification of collectivism, and refusal to think. Most of them don’t know the real and proper concept of rights. This is the reason why they act like hippies. Perhaps they believe that words and terms have subjective meaning. I hope that they would realize one day that words have an exact meaning. I have explained here why words must have an objective meaning here… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/language-as-tool-of-destruction/

      Yes, I’m one of the most hated bloggers in the Philippines. But that’s just OK. Nobody likes the guy who brings the people bad news. I brought them a news they wouldn’t like to hear or to read. I rammed through their very throat that education is not a right and I did my best to explain my views. Instead, they call me names for trying to blast an orthodoxy that deeply poisoned the minds of the people. They failed to distinguish the difference between “natural rights” and “legal rights.” The one they’re advocating is “legal right”, which was fully guaranteed by Hitler of Germany, Mao Tse Tung of Maoist China, and Stalin of the defunct Soviet Russia. This legal right to education is also being guaranteed in all socialist/collectivist slave pens on earth like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

      But I am hated for the wrong reason. It would have been OK if I’m hated for the right reason. Do you know how people in Soviet Russia were scammed by the early socialists led by Lenin? They thought they made the right choice. That’s what also what Hitler did to the Germans. Hitler and his Nazi party scammed the whole of Germany. A country of millions and millions of people can’t be wrong! Perhaps this is the contention of my critics. But truth is not a popularity contest. For centuries our ancestors were wrong in their collectivist, relativist beliefs. For hundred of years the Vatican City thought it had the monopoly on truth and many kingdoms and empires in Europe supported that mystical belief. The TRUTH is not relative; it is absolute!

      “P.S. Now I come to think of it, if I were you, I would be totally delighted at the response my blog gained.”

      But I am not a second-hander like you… Those who have that kind of sick mentality wished they had that kind of attention. But I am not a second-hander.

  30. Lufthansa permalink
    August 4, 2010 3:38

    oh… I thought you said you were amused? (just lazy to quote it out but I found it somewhere) Were you not amused to discover that some UP students can’t think like you do? Were you not feeling a little bit superior after you’ve shoved your “intelligent” arguments down their throats? Were you not expecting this kind of attention once you started attacking “leftist” U.P. mercilessly? You know, I think you are contradicting what activists here claim, that and we become more enslaved from capitalism as time goes on coz students choose the “marketable” courses na…anu ba talaga?? could you kindly explain that one….and WE ARE “ALL” LITTLE DICTATORS aren’t we?? ALL?? and with Hitler tendencies to boot?? …stop generalizing please… You think too biased…poisoning minds…duh…why doesn’t people look at things on a wider perspective?? I always thought capitalism and communism had its roots in human nature…and that they emerged for the need of establishing a much fairer coexistence with one another… seems like nothing has worked perfectly…not even your free-market concept which to some seems like the idea on which the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer ( sorry, I still lack the right political academic background to match you, you see, my current course is architecture, that should tell you much ). Capitalism and Communism, both seem to be highly justifiable but in the end are all ineffective solutions to organize how society would work…

    Second-hander huh… it’s no wonder you are a “hate-able” person… I was just assuming on what you might have been thinking… in other words I mimic your possible personality… I can change mentalities you know… and you might call that second-handing but did you ever understand the necessity of doing so??

    P.S. You might have been unconsciously being a second-hander… or to avoid that you must have been listing all the criteria of being a second-hand so as not to be one… I just hope you did very well and you’ve already considered yourself a first-hander – the UberMan

    • August 4, 2010 3:38

      Yes, I was amused by your utter ignorance and stupidity…

      • Lufthansa permalink
        August 4, 2010 3:38

        Yes, I admit I am a stupid and ignorant person when it comes to political discussions… but I think you haven’t read everything… I think I had a question waiting to be answered there… And since, you’re the superior one, would you kindly enlighten me???

        P.S.
        And please, I am trying to be fair here… It won’t do to throw insults at me… In fact, I am trying to learn your ideas and here you are shoving shit at me??

      • August 4, 2010 3:38

        I have posted a lot of blogs discussing my politics and my views on ethics. All you have to do, if you’re sincere and not just wasting my precious time, is read them and try to understand the concepts I presented through the process of identification and integration. That’s the function of reason, which is a faculty we use to identify and integrate the material provided by our senses. My personal view is that politics cannot be divorced from philosophy. Philosophy is the forest from which the trees (the special sciences) would grow. If you ever noticed, my anti-public education polemic is purely philosophical, and this is the reason why I’m very much disappointed that most of my critics blindly, stupidly tried to assert that the purpose of my blog is to attack an institution of learning, otherwise known as a school of soul leeches, according to a reader from UP.

  31. Lufthansa permalink
    August 5, 2010 3:38

    Oh okay, to answer my questions I’ll just have to reread everything here… I guess the best way is just to ask someone else who has a much more understandable view of everything here.

    “If you ever noticed, my anti-public education polemic is purely philosophical, and this is the reason why I’m very much disappointed that most of my critics blindly, stupidly tried to assert that the purpose of my blog is to attack an institution of learning, otherwise known as a school of soul leeches, according to a reader from UP.”
    – yes I certainly hoped that was your intention, but it really looks like you are attacking an institution… Maybe without the insults, it could’ve sounded much better. And I noticed that when answering a comment, you deliberately omit a part of the question that should’ve been prioritized in answering.

    • August 5, 2010 3:38

      “yes I certainly hoped that was your intention, but it really looks like you are attacking an institution…”

      It’s because that’s how insecure people and those who are impervious to reason think. We have to make a moral judgment. https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/how-does-one-lead-a-rational-life-in-an-irrational-society/

  32. August 10, 2010 3:38

    If you are not sorry. We are for you. 😉

    • August 10, 2010 3:38

      Sorry for what? Now I’d like to say I’m so sorry for you, guys, because you’re simply showing your amazing analytical skills you’ve learned at UP. And your pathetic comment clearly shows you have the perceptual level of an animal.

      • Lufthansa permalink
        September 10, 2010 3:38

        then would you kindly explain why your brand of reasoning is superior? Do you have the right to call us stupid you arrogant bastard if you even admit yourself that you can’t do everything? I am really pissed at you for calling us idiots, second-handers (etc.) just because we failed to understand you COMPLETELY and replied DIFFERENTLY. Damn, if you’ll just be a little more soft. You’re like – “ah, what kind of response is that, you’re so stupid!” and then generalize that “Oh, is this all what UP students can do? Then they’re really stupid and my taxes are not really worth paying for them!” You could’ve been great, but your continued insults and purely biased views would send you to the dogs.

  33. Sarah permalink
    October 30, 2010 3:38

    While I am unsure of Hegel’s influence upon Nazi Germany, as I am not very familiar with his ideas, Nietzsche was taken up by Hitler because he was German not because his ideology agreed with the Nazi Agenda. Nietzsche would not have been attracted to the submission to the state found in Nazi Germany.

    • October 30, 2010 3:38

      “While I am unsure of Hegel’s influence upon Nazi Germany, as I am not very familiar with his ideas, Nietzsche was taken up by Hitler because he was German…”

      All you have to do is understand Hegel’s and Nietzsche’s philosophy. In fact, even Kant had influence the Nazi ideologues and intellectuals during Hitler’s time. Adolf Eichmann, the engineer of the nazi gas chambers, admitted he was greatly influenced by Kant’s categorical imperative. I’ve written several essays explaining why Kant was the worst man who lived on earth. Certainly Nietzsche was never a philosopher and an advocate of individualism. He was a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics represents a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe, and his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or BLOOD or innate virtues of character.

      His rebellion against altruism consisted of substituting the sacrifice of oneself to others with the sacrifice of others to oneself. Nietzsche argued that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim.

      On Hegel (as well as on Nietzsche) I can only share these excellent articles written by a Facebook friend, Dr. Stephen Hicks. He’s an American academic and a philosopher.

      http://www.stephenhicks.org/tag/georg-hegel/
      http://www.stephenhicks.org/tag/johann-fichte/

  34. yeontura permalink
    April 27, 2011 3:38

    Err, not related to education, but read “Fast Food Nation” by Eric Schlosser. The end.

  35. derp permalink
    October 8, 2012 3:38

    Ad hominem here.. ad hominem there.. /sigh

Trackbacks

  1. To All UP Students: Education is NOT a Right! « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Tweets that mention Let the Whole Woodstock of Hippies Disagree With Me! « THE VINCENTON POST -- Topsy.com
  3. Idiot’s Guide to My Anti-Public Education Argument « THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Navy Works to Laser-Proof Its Drones | AboutScienceNow.info
  5. What “Iskolar ng Bayan” Means « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. How to Bitch-Slap a Stupid Statist « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: