[last-minute insertion] TaN: It is certainly a much welcomed and long-delayed proposal to enact a law restricting the purchase of land vehicles, especially intended for family use, to the availability of a DEDICATED parking spot or garage. The big question now is whether it will become reality and, more importantly, implementable and implemented properly and justly.
May I further laud the proposal or move — and I am reserving my praises because, with our track record, it still remains to be seen — to declare all roads to be tow-away zone unless it is a pay parking zone. Perhaps they should include those who make the streets an extension of their private residences or commercial establishments — confiscate any and all properties and penalize or fine the violators, including and especially the barangay officials because it could be done without their (tacit) consent or approval.
TaN: Like I said before, there are no such things as good genes. All genes are good. They are intended to ensure the (healthy) survival of an organism. However, how the organism “chooses” to do with those genes is an entirely another matter and out of the hands or control of the genes.
Genes, like anything and everything in nature, outside of man — are neither good nor bad. Only man can be good or bad, simply because only man has free will. Free will is what gifts (or burdens, depending on the perspective or argument one takes) man to be be good or bad. Everything else are just behaving according to the dictates of natural laws.
Genes, like anything and everything in nature, outside of man can be manipulated and it is this manipulation that determines how it behaves and impacts the organism as a whole. They are not only chemical substances and sequences that govern our bodily functions and operations but also switches.
They can be manipulated by being turned “ON” or “OFF” and this determines our (state of) health. In fact, this is the “basis” for conventional or allopathic medicine’s (false and illogical) argument or “doctrine” of inheritable diseases, especially lifestyle disease.
The much-hyped theory of inheritable diseases do not hold water because, in order for (lifestyle) diseases to be inherited, they must be present in (at least one of) the parents, otherwise it cannot be passed on — it cannot be inherited if there is nothing to inherit.
Genes are inherited, that much is true. However, it is likewise true that a gene can be switched “ON” or “OFF”. Should a gene that should be switched “OFF” has been switched “ON” and it caused the manifestation of a (lifestyle) disease and later that gene was passed on to an offspring, then in that sense it can be said that (lifestyle) diseases can be “inherited”. Given this, it implies that an “inherited” disease can be reversed or “un-diseased”.
Another truth is that lifestyle diseases may be considered “inherited” in the sense that it is the lifestyle that is inherited and not the disease itself. Since the lifestyle is “copied” by the children and it is the lifestyle that is (admittedly) the cause of the disease, then by logical inference, the disease will likewise appear in the children — and often at a much earlier age, which is what is happening today in the younger generation. This is true among diseases that are not caused or influenced by genetics but by (bad) habits.
Now going back to the original declaration that good genes are a principal reason behind strong bones, it is my theory that all people have the same set of genes. The reason why people are different depends entirely on which specific protein in the genetic sequence is switched “ON” or “OFF”.
If one’s gene for strong bone has been switched “OFF”, then one would not have strong bones. However, if it was switched off, it naturally follows that it can be switched back “ON”. Therefore, in this case, “inheriting” a (lifestyle) disease does not mean a “life sentence”.
In conclusion, I will agree that genes influence bone strength (or density), other factors have greater impact, such as weight bearing exercise or physical activity (because nature is an efficiency freak and does not see any need to build strong bones if the current bone strength is enough to support the current body mass), adequate vitamin D (from the sun or natural organic sources, like eggs), enough organic plant-sourced calcium, sufficient saturated fat intake (because vitamin D is fat soluble and it must be in dissolved form for it to be used by the body for bone building processes and saturated fat is preferred by the body over unsaturated fat), and most of all avoidance of lifestyles (including diet) that is detrimental to building strong bones. The most important factors here is weight-bearing physical activity and avoidance of lifestyles and diets that are detrimental to bone health.
Btw, men should be extra careful with respect to (high) intake of calcium, especially the elderly who maintain a sedentary lifestyle and have a high risk of developing prostate problems. It has been repeatedly shown, in research and studies, that too much calcium for elderly males can significantly contribute to BPH (benign prostate hyperplasia) to say the least. Add to that that inorganically-sourced (like from those vitamin and mineral supplements derived from petroleum) is a sure thing for (calcium-based) kidney, gall bladder, liver, and urinary bladder stones.
TaN: Microorganisms are everywhere and Big Pharma — with the active and whole-hearted participation (or is it connivance) of Big Media and Big Ads — has everyone hoodwinked into thinking that all germs are bad and that they may be lurking anywhere to pounce on us. It is sad and pitiful to realize that so many of us are not using our common sense and a little initiative to search for and find out the truth behind all the lies and deceptions — that there is invisible danger lurking everywhere and mean us harm.
In truth, as I have repeatedly argued, only man can be good or evil. Everything else is amoral — i.e., morality cannot and does not apply. Only man has free will and it is due to this that it is man’s exclusive domain to be good or evil; the rest are just following what nature and natural laws orders, they have no choice but to abide by what the laws of nature dictate therefore they cannot be faulted for the consequences or effects of their actions or activities.
A case in point would be a “dead or dying” organism where the animals and microorganisms that perform the task of breaking down and reducing it back to its basic elements and substances to be recycled into other things go into action almost immediately. If there are no such decomposers and scavengers, the world will be covered in mounds of carcases and dead matter, waiting to be “processed”.
This proves that decomposers and nature’s recyclers are everywhere and are ready for action when the opportunity presents itself. To continue…
However, why is it that when in a confined space and one of you has a cold and sneezes that (frequently) not every person catches the cold? Moreover, why is it that not every person who touches a contaminated door knob gets sick — assuming that an infected person touched it and left some germs behind?
Finally, if you have the opportunity, try to find out how many millions of those tiny non-visible creatures there with or in every breath you take and through the air that you move in. Do not be fooled by charlatans and spin doctors who are out to get your hard-earned and well-deserved wealth. No germ is harmful nor beneficial unless and until you provide them the opportunity — i.e., having an acidic instead of an alkaline body. An acidic environment triggers germs into activity because an acidic environment is nature’s way of indicating that something alive is dying or dead and must be returned to its basic components for recycling to other creatures.
TaN: There are technical mistakes and there moral mistakes. Both must be corrected or rectified but technical mistakes are not bad — simply because they do not involve morality, or good and bad..
Technical mistakes are borne from lapses or inadequacies in knowledge or skills (from our imperfection) and it happens to every individual because no one is perfect and can know everything and do everything correctly.
However, making mistakes that are not bad does not excuse us from correcting them the moment we know it is a mistake, although if rectifying a mistake involves a habit, it may be (a lot) tougher. Nevertheless, what is important is that we (sincerely) try.
Others may pretend to be sincerely trying but deep down they are or do not. In these instances, we are not fooling anybody but ourselves. In the end, it will still be us who are mistaken. It is only when we do not correct our technical mistakes that it becomes bad. One reason being, although it may not necessarily be important, is that our mistake may cause harm, distress, or undue problems for others.
Meanwhile, moral mistakes are bad. However, moral mistakes are bad only when we have already achieved maturity to discern good from bad — as in the case mentioned in the Holy Scriptures that children are (inherently) good and can do not (moral) wrong, simply because they do not know any better and have not yet reached the age of discernment (the age where children begin to understand, differentiate, and distinguish between what is right versus what is wrong and what is good versus what is evil.
It is vital that we differentiate between technical and moral mistakes and not to delude ourselves by blurring their distinction in order to escape or evade guilt or responsibility and accountability. It is the trend today where people “redefine” terminologies and situations and pretend to be guiltless.
Knowing how to distinguish between technical and moral mistakes likewise prevents or saves us from unnecessary anguish, conflicts, and disagreements when (malicious-minded) people attempt to worm their way out of guilt and responsibility. This is how people, especially politicians, frequently are able to say with a straight face, without the slightest hint of shame and conscience, that they are being truthful and honest.
People today get around their guilt and responsibilities by redefining terms to suit their own ends, thus enabling them to declare, with all careless candor and a surprisingly shamelessness, that their conscience is clear.
This is also a principal reason for global confusion when unscrupulous and malicious politicians and the global elite resort to semantics — and language (re)definitions and technicalities — to skirt issues, escape responsibility and accountability, and project an atmosphere or image of cleanliness and unblemished innocence.
In conclusion, technical mistakes are not the end all and for it to become a moral mistake is the refusal — inaction to correct or rectify the (technical) mistake is in itself not yet determinable of whether it is morally wrong or not, not until or unless it is deliberate — to make amends. Ignorance of the mistake is not an excuse, especially if one is not mentally incapable or unable. Moral mistakes are wrong but are likewise subject to certain conditions, specifically those that pertain to the mental ability to discern or differentiate between right and wrong (like in the case of infants and young children as well as those mentally challenged or incapacitated). And today, people have become so morally diabolical that they resort to redefinitions and semantics and deceptions to dodge and brush off guilt and accountability.