Post for Feb 18-24 2018 (updated: Feb 23; 2nd update: Feb 25)

TaN (2nd update): In the opening statement of Alex Jones in his online radio show (podcast), he declared a fact so obvious that I (or we) am flabbergasted I have not noticed it myself until he said it, that (and I quote) “Our biggest problem is that we adapt to tyranny…” — please refer to “rss.infowars.com/20180223_Fri_Alex.mp3“.  No truer words have been said.

God may have taught or admonished us to be patient, tolerant, and many other good virtues but there are certain things that even He will not compromise.  One of those — and I vehemently believe to be so — is never to accept or be comfortable, much less be accustomed or adapt to the “new normal”, evil in any and all its forms, one of which is tyranny. In the eyes of the Lord, it is an abomination, an unforgivable sin.

To adjust or adapt to evil (or its various other forms and degrees) is to compromise with evil and this is wrong.  The prevailing trend that something is the “new normal” and that we have to learn to live with it is wrong, especially if the “new normal” is evil or not virtuous.

One of the most dangerous today is the trend of “creeping” — like the said-to-be creeping martial law (always using the threat of violence or exercising constitutional powers if one does not get one’s way or when critics and detractors continue in their incessant “belligerency” of draconian or barbaric government policies) or creeping global depopulation (via free vaccines and near-deficient RDAs or recommended daily allowances and mass shootings and geoengineering) or creeping gun control issue in the United States of America or creeping world domination (through fluoridation and toxic corporate agriculture and disease-causing processed and GM or genetically modified foods (that target the immune system and health), just to name a few).

In conclusion, more and more, people must think for themselves and be critical thinkers — always wary of attempts by the global power elite to orchestrate, manipulate, control, and subjugate.  Even democracy is being used in the world domination agenda — for if we control the minds of the people into thinking they are free and are making their own choices and not those being “pushed or advanced” by others (trolls, spin meisters, and social engineers) and by peer or social (media) pressures under the guise that it is our choice.

TaN (update): In February 21 post in Natural News, the article titled “Competing for attention in a social media world: Global demand for plastic surgery” by a certain Jhoanna Robinson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-20-competing-for-attention-in-a-social-media-world-global-demand-for-plastic-surgery.html] presents a very intriguing and disturbing revelation.  It is both sad and pathetic that there are people so dependent or addicted to social media and with such low self-esteem that they need cosmetic surgery just to maintain their social media presence.

So many social media users are so vain and narcissistic as to be so concerned with their outward appearance that they totally neglect the more important inner self — the more important and lasting and truer.  They forget that the true self exudes or shows and shines through the face — that we can have a more accurate inkling of the true character of a person by looking and examining the facial features and expressions.

In fact, true beauty need no cosmetic assistance.  Cosmetics only masquerades the true self and is deceptive.  It reveals that people concerned with their outward appearance can likewise be deceptive in their ways.

Remember that Satan used to be Lucifer whose name means “of the light” and implies to be the “most beautiful” and yet became the Devil, the epitome of evil and ultimate deception.  When Lucifer’s true self revealed itself, Lucifer became Satan.

In conclusion, when I hear or read of such things, I can only feel sorry and pity that such people are so superficial and depend so much on the opinions and views of others and so little of themselves.  Their self-worth is at their lowest.  These are precisely the people that social media manipulators are seeking and prey on and there are so many of them.

TaN (update): Just heard from the local broadcast media, well-known Hollywood celebrities have pledged to donate $500k each to gun control — the next nail in the coffin in the agenda of gun control advocates and lobbyists.  It is as if there is a conscious, deliberate, and conspirational orchestration of mass shootings in order to sow enough panic and paranoia to “motivate” more and more public opinion into embracing their agenda of gun control.

Like most issues, there are pros and cons so it is not only important to list down and compare them but likewise give each pro and con proper weight or value to ensure better analysis to a more balance and unbiased conclusion.  It is really insidious and a great majority of the population (apparently) have become apathetic or callous and no longer exercise critical thinking — i.e., being able to correctly discern through the layers and veils of deception and trickery.

In fact, gun control advocates and lobbyists and the gun industry as a whole would like nothing more than for mass shootings, especially in schools, to continue because it is good both for business and for their cause.  And the argument that the solution is to make guns more easily accessible to the public is to “kill two birds with one stone” — greater gun sales and the depopulation agenda of the global power elite.

Meanwhile, gun control, at first glance, appears to be contradictory to promoting the arming of the citizenry but, after critical analysis, there are critical and crucial points that make them complementary.  What use is gun control if or when the public has (almost) no guns?  There will be nothing to control.

In any case, the gun issue is somewhat similar to the (breast) cancer issue where millions and billions are donated for years and we are still no where near finding a solution to cancer, but people still foolishly continue to fund and support it.

TaN (update): In the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) article cited in an article posted in Natural News for February 19, it mentioned an intriguing headline titled “Flu Vaccine Less Effective Than Earlier Estimates” by a certain Sarah Toy and dated (or updated, as the article noted) February 15, 2018 5:29 pm ET — URL: https://www.wsj.com/articles/flu-vaccine-less-effective-than-earlier-estimates-1518718596.

Since access to WSJ articles (now) requires that I either subscribe or become a registered member and sign in — either of which I can afford or desire to do — I could not gain access to the full article but just the first couple of paragraphs.  However, basing my/this TaN primarily on the headline and whatever available text I can freely read, it would seem that title of the Natural News article is slightly inaccurate or amiss from that of the WSJ article title.

In the Natural News title, it would seem to imply that vaccines ineffectivity goes way back — although this is not far from the truth, if untrue at all, no matter the degree of untruth — whereas the WSJ title appears to say that it applies only to this latest vaccine (preparation).

In any case, vaccines are unnatural and very unhealthy and it goes against all that is sane and natural and ethical.  Add to this that there is almost no incidence where the patient (“victim”) has been properly informed and an informed consent has been given.  The right to choose and to refuse, especially when it comes to personal health, is primordial and fundamental and, for as long as the choice poses no risks to public safety, the right remains intact and “exercisable”.  And when I say “poses no risks”, I do not mean the way certain government and vested business interests would define and interpret it, just like what is happening in the vaccine industry where people who refuse to be vaccinated are being demonized, marginalized, ostracized, and altogether persecuted and branded as public health risks and liabilities.

TaN (update): In Natural News, articles posted for February 19 titled: (1) “Customer service, retail and warehouse jobs to be obsolete: Experts predict 1 in 5 jobs will be lost to robots in the next decade” by a certain Jhonna Robinson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-19-customer-service-retail-and-warehouse-jobs-lost-to-robots.html] and (2) “Lunatic climate change scientists now pushing ‘outlandish, scary’ geoengineering schemes to ‘cool the planet’” by a certain Lance D Johnson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-19-lunatic-climate-change-scientists-outlandish-scary-geoengineering-schemes.html].

(1) In the first cited article, I believe automation is actually a good thing (as a bottom line).  I understand that it “takes away” employment from people but the jobs automation takes over are menial and repetitive jobs that do not require much skills.  Those jobs are actually demeaning to the human psyche.  By automating those jobs, it leaves the more meaningful jobs for us, which develops our creativity and reinforces our self-esteem.  Menial and repetitive tasks debases the human spirit and reduces man to the status of a mindless machine.
It is an entirely different story or situation when profit-oriented or -driven corporations automate for reasons of pure profit.  However, for as long as machines cannot have imagination and creativity — which is impossible — then people should not fear the paranoid notion that machines will one-day take over the world.  Such a catastrophe can only happen if a cabal of global power elite will conspire and connive to redefine traditional understanding of what is proper, right, and true as well as the majority of us foolishly accept and agree to it.
Mindless and iterative tasks should be relegated to automation with man exercising supervision and control and oversight.

(2) In the second cited article, geoengineering is a project that affects the entire planet, remembering and keeping in mind that nature has a different concept of (nor respects man-made) boundaries and borders and that whatever we release into the environment eventually not only drifts back but likewise toward or intrudes into the territory of others, like other communities and countries.  It is impossible control or dictate to substances we release into the environment where they are to go.  Moreover, it is absolutely wrong for dominant (and wealthy) nations to just go about and do as it pleases — arguing that they know what they are doing, know what is the right thing to do, doing it for the sake of all, and carrying out unilateral decisions and activities that (eventually) affect all countries and the ultimately the entire planet (and its other occupants).
And this is not to mention the fact that geoengineering (of an entire planet) is unprecedented and has not even been tested on a series of gradually increasing test samples.
Finally, just like the argument of GMO (genetically modified organisms) that are being released into the wild, it must be remembered that, once in the environment, they can no longer be recalled or contained — at least not in the way we do it, because nature has its own unique ways of containment, such as temperature zones, salinity layers, physical and geographic regions (like oceans, deserts, and canyons), and others.
In other words, whatever substances we deploy into the environment to achieve geoengineering goals or objectives can not be undone.  What is done is done and there is no turning back.  There is no “Oops, sorry!”

TaN (update): In the article titled “So-called ‘cancer vaccine’ isn’t a vaccine at all; it’s actually immunotherapy that boosts the body’s own immune function” by a certain Tracey Watson [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-18-cancer-vaccine-isnt-a-vaccine-at-all-its-actually-immunotherapy.html] in the Natural News post for February 18, this only reveals the next insidious step in the scheme for world domination and depopulation by the global power elite.  By disguising or masquerading it as immunotherapy instead of what it truly is — a deadly and malicious brew of poisons and chemical cocktail intended to illicit an inflammatory response from the body — Big Pharma even quotes from the World Health Organization (a co-conspirator in global domination and unprecedented mass-scale genocide) and I re-quote: “A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular diseaseA vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteinsThe agent stimulates the body’s immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and ‘remember’ it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.”

Although the text is factually accurate, it is misleading as it draws attention away from the real danger and focuses only on the “clinical or antiseptic” definition.  It completely avoids the ugly truth and prefers to use the less obvious negative impact of vaccines — which is that, in order to achieve the “immunotherapeutic response and ‘benefit'”, it has to illicit an inflammatory response from the body’s defenses and this means introducing something disease-causing or toxic.  [Again, please refer to the interview of Dr Suzanne Humphries by Mike Adams regarding her revelation and crusade against vaccines and the latest attempt of her life (as of the time of interview), URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEl4phdD7p4 <<==alternative site as cannot locate original video.]

This reminds me of an old television commercial advertisement regarding monosodium glutamate (MSG) where it pretends to be scientific and “objectively” analyzes the substance.  It discussed, “glutamate” is a beneficial nutrient to the body and is found also in cheese and tomatoes and then the advertisement stops there without mentioning the dangers and health risks of the sodium (component) which is what makes MSG a health risk.

This (insidious and) malicious scheme of directing attention away from what is important and crucial and focusing it on the trivial and mundane is one of the prevailing modus operandi of most (profit-driven) business practices today.

TaN (update): On the incident of Pastor Quiboloy in Hawaii just the other day, at first glance, it would seem innocent and plausible enough that the good pastor would not be guilty of the accusations considering the evidence and that his (Quiboloy’s) friend and manager of the Hawaii segment would be the one admitting to the evidence.

However, upon later analysis, would it not seem presumptive or even downright disrespectful to bring gun (parts) and that much in cash with them without the knowledge of the good pastor, after all it is his aircraft and you are not exactly bringing aboard pocket change or a child’s toy?  In the first place, you are a United States of American (for quite a long time) so you should be (or have been) aware of laws regarding transporting so much cash and especially guns.

Moreover, the fact that the gun has been disassembled or in parts only means or implies that there is a deliberate attempt to conceal the weapon from being detected or “smuggle” it otherwise it does not make sense to dismantle it.  It is not as if they were traveling on a commercial flight and bring the gun whole may prove to be too bulky and cumbersome to carry or tote that it had to be broken down into parts for easier and more compact for storage and transport.

In conclusion, all this only implies that the entire incident is not on the up-and-up and that there is an intentional attempt to take the fall for another person, not necessarily Pastor Quiboloy but since it all transpired on the property of the latter, it became his responsibility and liability and, according to the law, should answer for it.

TaN (update): I really have to get my two-sentimos worth into the foray — regarding the issue of sensitivity and over-sensitivity, as the case may be.  Snowflakes and social media netizens who are being unfriended and unliked and whatever “un” there is (or will be) — i.e., their purportedly traumatization from the experience — are becoming more and more absurd.  And the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) — global, especially those in the United States of America and the Philippines — community, are no exceptions.

I can understand sensitivity when feeling hurt, insulted, shunned, and even disparaged, but to go as far as being onion-skinned and to react to just about anything and everything with so much over-reaction and emotion that somewhat carries it to absurdity and insanity.  There seems to no longer be any line (fine or not) drawn between sensitivity and over-sensitivity (or over-reaction).

Life is not fair.  No one ever said it was.  Learn to deal with it.  You do not have to be liked or be friends all the time.  And friends do fall out of friendship, especially if the friendship was founded on unsteady or false (intentional or not) grounds to begin with.

In fact, for myself, I could not care less if anyone bashes me and even unfriends or unlikes me.  Who are they to me and in my life?  I do not need their friendship nor them to like me.  I did not know they even exist.  They can say what they want.  For as long as what others say or write about me are untruths, it will not matter to me.  My ego is neither that huge nor fragile.

My actions and I are answerable only to my Creator.  For as long as I (believe that I) am obeying what my Creator has directed me and all people on how to live and treat others — and seek and tell and promote the truth and faithfully comply with His admonitions and commandments through the Holy Scriptures and, especially, through the personal teachings and parables of His Only Begotten Son Jesus — with respect to critics, detractors, bashers, bullies, trolls, spin meisters, and all the assortment of what-have-yous.

I am nobody so what people say about me is not important — at least not enough to be of any real (global) consequence.  I am not important.  What is important is the message that I write in this site.  Are the contents true?  I think it was St Thomas Aquinas who once wrote, “The truth, even if it comes from a liar, is still the truth.”  Do not focus on the messenger, but the message.  This is precisely the same reason why Jesus came to us as a lowly carpenter and then a traveling or wandering preacher instead of royalty or some other high-profile figure.  God did not want the status of His Son to interfere with the message He was trying to bring us.

So, returning to topic (as I am frequently wont to digress), it is good to be sensitive because it is how we can respond to and interact with feedbacks and reactions, be they positive/constructive or negative/destructive.  However, it is entirely a different thing when we exaggerate that sensitivity to the extent that we become “paralyzed” into inactivity, that our daily living is being severely hampered, that we have to watch our every word and action, as if our very thoughts are being controlled.

And this is exactly what the global power elite wants and has in its centuries-old agenda — complete world domination.  As David Icke once (and probably continues to) proclaim (and I paraphrase or interpret), It used to be that the population is subjugated by the elite few through authoritarian rule — as in monarchies and fiefdoms and dictatorships and empires.  They ruled through brute force and strength, through the use of oppressive armies and the military.  The biggest turning point in their strategy for/of world domination came in World War II, through the “charisma” and glib (but with forethought and a lot of advanced planning and scheming) of the likes of Adolf (Schicklegruber) Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

Today, these dominators have learned from the mistakes of the past (their ancestors) and corrected many of the past mistakes and have polished and perfected their craft.  They found out that, since “what the mind can conceive the body can achieve”, this means that the mind controls the body (and its actions).  Ergo, if the mind is controlled, the body follows.

And this is what it is today.  In fact, if you recall the recent admission by a social media giant that it has been experimenting on manipulating people’s (social) behavior via social media.

It looks like the “snowflake” project is the logical next step in the quest or agenda for world domination, preying on people’s feelings to manipulate them into being so conscious about their actions and thoughts that they have become paranoid and psychotic.

TaN (update): In today’s (February 19) Senate hearing on the Philippine Navy’s frigate deal, there are two things that caught my attention: (1) resurgence of the fake news issue and (2) the argument that the (Philippine) Navy must shift its attention and focus to procuring a (combat) submarine to beef up and improve the modernization program of the military.

(1) On fake news — I suddenly realized that fake news is not anything new but merely another phase in the evolution of terms describing what has been ongoing for decades or even scores — i.e., a score is twenty years.  In the past (among other nomenclature and not necessarily in the order specified), it was called sensationalism (in journalism), propaganda (in public relations), raw (unvetted) news (especially in social media), gossip and rumors and blind items (in entertainment and show business), scuttlebutt (in military parlance), and water cooler or grape-vine stories (in offices and other places of business) just to name a few — although there are slight differences in the various forms it took.  Whatever it was called and now fake news, it is all the same thing — irresponsible spreading of unverified and potentially damaging information.

(2) Regarding the acquisition of a (combat) submarine as being vital to the armed forces’ modernization program (and national security) — A submarine is more of an offensive than a defensive weapon (system), especially for a poor or underdeveloped or developing country.  If the proponent of acquiring submarines for the Philippine Navy during the Senate hearing is concerned with national security and considering that the Philippines is an archipelago, there are a variety or mix of both active and passive defensive systems that can be deployed that is more effective and considerably cheaper than acquiring a submarine.  Large surface ships such as frigates may be ideal to patrol the high seas, fast surface crafts are more suited for the territorial seas between the islands since the waters would be shallow and prove a challenge for large vessels such as frigates.

Moreover, there are passive and much cheaper underwater defense systems that are far more effective — such as networks of wire meshes that are (are fine enough to be) undetectable by sonar yet are strong enough to prevent penetration under the water surface.  In fact, I predict the (military and monitoring or surveillance) drone technology will soon go underwater.  It is not unlikely that underwater drones armed with appropriate weapons (or scanning) systems can be remotely operated as deterrent similar to those that are now operating in the air.  In this day and age of networks and individual stand-alone units working as a cohesive team, it is far better to have multiple much smaller units operating in unison than a large behemoth lumbering around — because a small unit is cheaper to build and less costly to lose and can be taken offline without affecting the integrity and cohesiveness of the working group whereas a monster of a warship may be formidable but once it is disabled, your whole system goes down.

In addition, just because the Philippines is an archipelago and the islands are separated by water does not mean that submarines are a must.  It must further be remembered that the maintenance of a submarine is drastically different from surface (war)ships and the cost goes down if there are more units — remembering the economics of scale where maintenance of one unit is just as expensive as maintaining two or three.  Forget the submarine and go for drone technology.  Take our cue from nature — where the whole organism is built with miniature components that are almost identical but perform different roles and functions depending on where they are assigned or situated (in relation to the whole organism).

TaN: I think I have stumbled upon the most convincing argument for Creation and against (Darwinian) Evolution — the principles of breeding.  In the Holy Scriptures, there was (and was “permitted”) inbreeding, especially in the case of man — for how else can man carry out the command of God to “go forth and multiply” when God only created Adam then fashioned Eve from his rib.

It is obvious that today, incest is a BIG NO-NO — otherwise there will be what-is-known-as hemophilia.  However, this was not the case in the beginning, when man was still in the process of populating and subjugating the planet. It was not until much later that the condition of hemophilia “developed” which now prevents man from inter-marrying within a certain degree of familial blood lineage.

In the case of animals (and plants), Darwinian evolution argues that there was a (sudden) appearance of an offspring exhibiting or possessing a (slight) mutation from the parents which then gradually transitioned into a more significant deviation and so on.  However, this supposed (for argument’s sake) mutation or aberration would have to be simultaneous in a relatively wide range of the same species and in close proximity else how will these find “suitable” mates to ensure the continued existence of the mutation.

[Nota bene: Certain mutations are minor and need not require others with the same mutation to reproduce — as in the finches in the Galapagos which merely involved the size and shape of the beaks — but other mutations are significant, such as transitioning from three-chambered hearts to four chambers and the replacement of scales with feathers or fur.  Major mutations cannot persist without others with the same mutations.]

Moreover, mutations in a species which will eventually lead to the emergence of an entirely different species would require inbreeding in order to preserve the mutation but inbreeding today, even among animals, are extremely rare if it still exists at all.  Even in the case of social animals or those that live and/or travel in herds or groups and especially among those that congregate only during rutting or breeding season, inbreeding is still rare — although I think this argument of mine may still need to be supported and proven by genetic testing of social animals during breeding season.

TaN: Furthermore, as some sort of a rejoinder to this TaN above, assuming, for argument’s sake, that conventional science estimates that there are literally billions upon billions of other star systems and that quite a number of them (even just one percent of one percent would mean at least 10 million) would be not just a couple of centuries or even millennia older than our Earth, if live would have likewise somehow accidentally and randomly evolved, a bunch of them should have evolved to such a state that they would literally be centuries ahead of us in technology.

Given this wild assumption or presumption, it is very strange that these “advanced civilizations” would have developed technology much much superior to ours and would have visited us by now — unless, of course, we are truly unique (as the Holy Scriptures mentioned) or no one wants to be our friend (us being such a troublesome and (self-)destructive species and all).  It does seem very odd that no astronomer or astrophysicist had stumbled upon this line of thinking yet.

They keep arguing and pointing out that there are so-and-so many Earth-like exo-planets out there and then repeating just how much older much of the universe is and how our Milky Way and solar is just about half as old (or young) but never once thinking that all those much older star systems with Earth-like exo-planets would have passed our present age so there should have been some “accidental and random” evolution of life that occurred — unless they, by some weird fate that may happen to us likewise, eventually became extinct (by self-destruction, just like what are may be facing “soon”).

Moreover, let us further assume (and for argument’s sake again) that these “ancient super races” somehow developed, evolved, survived, and went to other stars to populate them and Earth happened to be one of them, making us descendants of the star people, would it not make sense that these “colonies” would have kept in touch with each other?  And if so, why did we have to “start from scratch” and go through the whole shenanigan of having organic molecules accidentally combining to form fundamental life beings that slowly and painstakingly went through the whole process of evolution again.

This all seems very strange and boggles my common sense. I am beginning to think that all these cash outlay to support and maintain our SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence) program is just another expensive ruse to get hard-earned taxpayer’s money to spend on a wild goose chase instead of using them for solving much of global famine and starvation, global poverty, (altruistic or philanthropic) global technological innovations to benefit the common good instead of lining the pockets of the (already filthy and obscenely) wealthy through monopolistic patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property mechanism and devises.

If we pause for a while and really mull over what this ever-increasingly faster pace of greed- and profit-driven modern life is making us do, we will realize that all these are just benefiting those at the top of the economic and power food chain — the top 1 percent — who already has and dominates every aspect of our lives and seek to even further tighten their stranglehold over the rest of us lowly mortals by promoting a subtle but brilliant depopulation mindset.

Having less people on the planet not only reduces the need to have a large “security or controlling or policing” force to maintain (the New World) order and keep them subjugated but likewise a much larger piece of the wealth-and-power pie — in an old TED talk video where WIlliam “Bill” Gates III spoke about “health care” with the use vaccines and other means and the need to “reduce the global population”.

The biggest problem is much of the global population are not critical thinkers and are too occupied (read: distracted) with the trivial things such as sports, celebrities and gossip, being politically correct, gender and race issues, and the like.  [Nota bene: I included “being politically correct” and “gender and race issues” because, although they are undoubtedly major concerns, the manner in which these issues are being discussed and manipulated comes out as being superficial and ludicrous.  ‘Nuff said!]

TaN: One of the most mis-used (and abused) terms today is “free”.  Free means no obligations; it is one-direction and no need for reciprocity.  I do not require anything from others in exchange, especially money — it is truly at no cost whatsoever.

However, most of today’s free are not.  Business has appropriated it to mean no reciprocal monetary or financial obligations or liability.  One of the most common business usage is in advertising or marketing, like “Free something for every purchase of some other thing”.  How can that be free when you have to spend in order to avail of whatever is “for free”.

Cyberspace is no exception either.  There are so many sites offering free this and free that but people mistake it to mean no financial outlay.  In truth, these sites require that you register, become a member, or otherwise shell out (valuable and negotiable) personal information in exchange for the freebie.  This is not free.

My blog is truly free.  The visitor can take anything or nothing. I does not matter to me.  My only condition — which is without reciprocity, at least to me — is that whatever was taken must likewise be freely given away.  [Though I have a condition requisite, there is no way I can ensure compliance so it is actually no condition.  It is but a plea, a favor.]  Pass it forward.

In today’s money conscious world, money is and will always be at the root of all dealings, even if it is “free”.  Even the “buy one get another free” is not free because you have to pay for something to get whatever “free” is being given away.

When you say “free”, it should be free in every sense of the word.  No strings attached.  Not even conditions to be met in exchange for whatever is being given for free.  Free is free…period.

TaN: I just realized the recent decision to change the color of the P100 denomination — because the color was too close to that of the P1000 denomination — was fiscally wrong.  It should have been the P1000 denomination that should have been changed.

My argument is that since the P1000 denomination is a larger amount, there would naturally be less of it in circulation as compared with that of the P100 denomination.  In this sense, changing the color of the P1000 denomination instead of the P100 denomination would take less ink.

TaN: Morality is what you do, not what others do.  A moral person thinks only about what s/he does — regardless of what others do.  What others do is their business.

However, this does not mean that what others do are no concerns of a moral person.  It is part of the duty/obligation and responsibility of a moral individual to inform and, if possible or when applicable, teach and correct the misdeeds of others.  It is one’s moral responsibility that others should be moral likewise.

Although this being the case, it does not mean that a moral individual must insist, much less impose, his/her morality upon others — for it is said and acknowledged that “No person has a monopoly on morality”.

In this temporal and imperfect world, everything is objective or amoral but only when it is apart from man.  As far as man is concerned, everything (in his world) is subjective because one cannot escape being subjective.  Man tends to perceive things from his/her (own) perspective and this taints everything with subjectivism.

So, in essence, as far as man is concerned, there is no true objectivism or objectivity.  Even when we take the commonality among different perspectives — somehow arguing that what is common to many surely must be “objective” since it is no longer based solely on a single viewpoint — there is still bound to be some residual or rudimentary bias because people, by nature, will always have self-interest at heart (as a species) and the bias would still have traces of subjectivity.

And so, the best that can be done or expected is as much of cultural and self-interest biases as can be “removed” so as to be as objective as possible.  Total objectivity is an impossibility.

Advertisements

About anotherworldispossibleforall

nothing
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s