Yes, I just branded him with a name. I don't care. That's what he really is, anyway.
A couple of days ago, a friend asked for help in engaging in a discussion about the RH Bill.
In the thread, there was a certain man whom I noticed was such a staunch advocate against the RH Bill. Why? Based on what I've read him write earlier--as in before I came in--he says: morality; pro-creation as the sole purpose of sex; Upholding the Roman Catholic institution's idea of what pro-life is; because contraceptives are designed to kill. The list goes on.
I got so irked by his obtuseness and ignorance that I typed this long palaver of a response.
I wasn't able to resist pointing out what he really was: an incorrigible fanatic fundamentalist who attacks senseless minute words with no position in claiming detail rather than presenting logical arguments. He branded me a childish name-caller. I got annoyed and realized he was doing that to divulge from the real discussion because he had nothing sensible to say as a retort. I eventually stopped responding.
Anyway, the following are my responses. The underlined PINK statements are my explanations as to why I responded as such.
Oh, you (yes, you)...
You can rant all you want about your religious stance and be obvious to the world about being in denial that it's the 21st century, but you can't deny the fact that we are about to hit 90 million very, very soon.
Are you just going to let people go on and on and on and on making children without educating them about the consequences? It's not a secret that the people who have the most children are those who are paupers to begin with. Aren't you wondering why? Are you going to say corruption? No! It's lack of education! Politicians can straighten up and give everything they have to these poor people and nothing is going to change because they aren't armed with the right stuff in their pathetic noggins about what to do with their resources. The RH Bill is about education.
Now, yes, let's talk about procreation and life because that's what your last statement was all about. Let's say procreation happens and a human being gets born into this world? What then? How will he/she be fed if the parents have 6 other children to feed first? And on the subject of life, what kind of LIFE will this child have? A one with a very degraded quality? A one with no quality at all? Death could knock on the door very quickly, you know. Now, if you say you reject RH education, you're saying you uphold this kind of situation! Yes, no matter how much you deny that you are, it's still akin to that. Where's your love for life? Where? And where does the RC church's respect for its sanctity come in? Do tell me.
Let's move on to the subject of contraception and whether or not it kills. Take the scenario of semen splattered on a blanket. That's basically what contraception does. It prevents the union of the egg and the sperm cells. Where's the killing part there? It doesn't exists! Are you telling us you feel sorry for the sperm cells because of all 40 million of them, not one was able to make it to the egg? And that the woman has to menstruate again and put that perfectly good egg to waste? Is that why? Are we a numerically threatened species? The "killing" contraceptives that you so intelligently speak of are abortifacients. Why you're stuck on abortifacients, I don't know. They're not happening! They're not being promoted by the RH Bill and you should know that.
You can hit that gong all day and rant about your beliefs, but they will not change the fact that we are in need of concrete action against poverty. This is, for that matter, a hindrance to the corrupt system as well since all those millions of unused funds that get funneled into corrupt pockets will now be used to fund the proliferation of the RH education.
Talk about contraceptives later! That's not the primary aim, but that's what you hammer on because it's the only thing the Roman Catholic hierarchy can present a legitimate and seemingly intelligent statement on. Well, guess what? Contraceptives are tertiary in this issue! What this is about is education! Education for couples, education for and protection of the welfare of mothers, education for those who are old enough to start asking some very sensible questions (so we can provide answers to those who are curious). The antediluvian habit of lying to your children is wrong and it's tantamount to courting disaster.
If you fear a scenario where 10-year-olds will be taught how to use contraceptives and condoms, you're not sane! That's just not going to happen! This is an intelligent bill initiated by intelligent people, and that scenario is dumb! There's just no way!
Because he said I was ranting...
I'm not denying the fact that I was ranting. It's what I was ranting about that makes the difference. I'm just saying.
Because he asked if contraceptives kill...
You're putting the question this way: "Do contraceptives kill (prevent life)?" This in quotes was his statement. You can't play it like that. Killing is different from preventing life. If I prevent life by not allowing the union of the sperm and egg cell, that's not killing. You can play semantics all day long and you'll still be getting the same thing from us.
I'm not asking you to rest your case. In fact, I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm merely pointing out to the world the shores of your arguments. You know why I say shores? 'cause I can bathe in it without drowning myself. It's just not deep.
Because he said the average children of poor families is 1 to 4 from what he sees in places...
From what you see in places? 1 to 4 children? Where have you been going? And you're insinuating I watch too much TV? Wow! Blaming my youth, huh? Now, who's generalizing?
Because he asked me where I base my arguments and told me I watch too much TV...
Where exactly do YOU base your arguments?
He ridiculed my analogy and attacked the detail when it was insignificant to begin with.
And talking about the semen on the blanket. If you can't stick your brain to such method of comparison, I can't help you there. I only said it's a similar scenario of waste. I never said it was exactly THAT.
Because I said "If you fear a scenario where 10-year-olds will be taught how to use contraceptives and condoms, you're not sane," he automatically assumed I said he wasn't...
And I never called you "not sane." Geez, sensitive much on that? Go back up and read it again. Unless you're thinking about such scenario (up there)... Then you're probably right about me thinking you're not sane.
Because someone said "Wow! Very good," as a compliment to my long palaver.
You're just jealous about me being called "very good" since you haven't merited such a statement and you probably feel that, for what you're doing, someone should put a gold star on your forehead and give you a pat on the back. Not happening.
The following in quotes was my statement that led him to insinuate that I called him not sane.
"And if you're thinking about a scenario where 10-year-olds will be taught how to use contraceptives such as condoms, you're not sane!"
- So you really are thinking that way? Are you the bull's eye of fanatic obtuseness that my arrow has struck? Read it again. I said you're not sane if you think this way. Do you?
Because he asked me where I have been...
Where have I been? I've been in slums talking to people. I've been in remote areas advocating dialog with poor people who don't have access to regular resources. On average, those families have 5 kids. And if we say 4, do you think that's too little to consider? And do you know how many children there are in a regular elementary public school setting? Do you think 50 is too little? Yes, there is a need to allocate funds for building new class rooms. But why is that? Because there are just too many of us.
I'm not saying these children aren't blessings. They exist now and they should be cared for, but you cannot deny that most of them are products of irresponsible parenthood. My heart bleeds for the children who need to get up at 5 in the morning to do this and do that and get cooked under the scorching sun to do manual labor because they have to help their parents feed their siblings.
Once or twice every month, I visit a certain place in Bohol where people are in such kind of living condition. Parents who seek transient employment just to get a little milk here and there; 5 children; NO HOUSE! There are literally hundreds of these breeding all over that place with early marriage and the machismo tradition of I-am-better-than-you-because-I-have-more-children-of-my-own. Because they don't know any better. Because the RC church tells them that using condoms is a sin.
What's a bigger sin? Using condoms or leaving your child hungry? Let's not mention the fact that because this happens ever so often, children get sick and the parents fall into more debt (sometimes life-endangering).
Because he was starting to pick insignificant words from my statements and playing semantic... I got irked about his immaturity at such an old age and decided to let him be since the argument was obviously not productive anymore.
For lack of sensible things to add, he ridiculed my words.
You're incorrigible, Manolo. Go fly a kite. Swim in the shores of your own ideas because that's all you're going to be doing for the rest of your life.
I have my sanity to lose in this kind of internet conversation. You obviously don't. I'd rather do this with a person who doesn't play semantics to get his way and one who actually knows how to read. That's another thing you don't do very well.
The RH Bill is for progress through education. You can beat the keyboard about your twisted and fundamentalist views on morality until your fingers get necrosis. That's all you have to say, anyway.
While we work for progress out here, you can stay in your cave and preach there--with your fellow fundamentalists who just love a good power play.
This is me getting annoyed to the point of utter disgust.
Typical... When your kind doesn't have any valid logical arguments, you resort to threats of excommunication and so-called eternal damnation. Wow! You are epic that way! And let's also mention the play on semantics regarding contraception being technical killing. Nobody really cares what the word connotes. We all know what it means.
The fact is, this is going to happen and your weak retorts won't do you any good. Deal with it. I'm not going to sit here and respond to your redundancy any more. I have better things to do. Good luck fighting your fight.