Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[mannyamador]

---

How else did you try to discredit his arguments but by attacking his personality?

I discredited his authority because citing him in the first place was an INVERSE AD HOMINEM. Are you having trouble understanding what that is? It is an argument based on alleged authority. It is not a logical argument but can be effective if people accept that authority. Discredit that authority and it loses any other force it may have had.

Have you got more ignorance you wish to display? Do the clowning onstage. Make that career move, kiddo.

Either you know nothing about economics and International Monetary and Loan Agreements or you want to defend your arguments so much you say debt servicing can be done without.

Are can't seem to understand the word "INDISCRIMINATE". Look it up, if your head can handle it.

The Freedom form Debt Coalition advocates, at the very least, selective repudiation of odious debts. Are you so mindless and uncaring that you will force Filipinos to pay debts that were illegal in the first place? Why do you insist on brown-nosing to unscrupulous foreign interests that "loaned" us money knowing full well that the projects were tainted? It's obvious that not only do YOU know nothing of economics, you know nothing of justice either.

Your sources are unimpeachable? ROFL Let's see:

AAwww, it looks like you can't find any arguments to support your dubious claim. I noticed you mentioned nothing about the 79 scientists who dispute your claim or about their studies (oh, did you forget to look them up?). All you have are ad hominems (and inverse ad hominems), as usual!

Well, since ad hominems are all you can understand, let's look at the Global Warming doomsayers.

Al Gore has a home that uses 20 times the power of the average American home and flies around in a private jet (whopping huge carbon footprint too). And he has the unmitigated gall to "offset" this by purchasing carbon credits through the company Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman! He get's to "pay" for the right to pollute, eh?

What about Global Warming doomsayer Stephen H. Schneider? The guy misrepresented the work of the Danish Space Research Institute when criticizing someone else. The Institute said: "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism." Real credible by your standards, eh?

Your "sources" are just as tainted. Maybe you ought to try looking at the arguments instead of resorting to ad hominems (or inverse ad hominems).

Now why should I go on debunking the rest of your posted entry and waste my time

Just to prove you know how. So far, you haven't succeeded even once! Bwahahaha!

And you even think I'm a priest! With ZERO evidence to back you up too. Not surprising, as that is your usual practice.

You're hopelessly outclassed. Better work on getting that clown costume. OWNAGE!!!

[szichri]

after reading all the posts..... NOSEBLEED KO!!!! hehehehe...

we need this bill... wala na daghan tuyok2x istorya... agree ko ani, kay akong asawa agree sad... dili siya pa***t nako kung way condom or dili siya kapalit og pills... sus kalami raba sa ***t unya balibaran ta... tagam na siya kay upat na among anak... ABSTINENCE (murag imposible ni sa ako kay barako man kong dako) og RYTHM method... didn't work for us... unsa pa kaha nang lesser fortunate nato nga bro and sis nga dili kaaford og pills or condom, dili man sad pwede puston lang og plastic ang kinatawo sa lalaki para dili mabuntis si babaye... so ANTI-LIFE nami ani kay nigamit man mi og artificial contraceptives?

[MRchurchill]

Coming from Mr. Hitman himself, it's not sur[rising. He shoots first and doesn't even bother to ask questions. It's little wonder that htis murderer doesn't care about the lives of the unborn. He's quite willing to shoot those who are already born too when they get in his way. Should we be listening to this homicidal trapo?

LOL call a spade a spade will you. You were reacting to what he said and not merely citing him. LOL you are in denial father. ^Come on read it out loud to your fellow false prophets in your seminary and even they will side with me.

Are can't seem to understand the word "INDISCRIMINATE". Look it up, if your head can handle it.

The Freedom form Debt Coalition advocates, at the very least, selective repudiation of odious debts. Are you so mindless and uncaring that you will force Filipinos to pay debts that were illegal in the first place? Why do you insist on brown-nosing to unscrupulous foreign interests that "loaned" us money knowing full well that the projects were tainted? It's obvious that not only do YOU know nothing of economics, you know nothing of justice either.

Avoiding the issue are we father dear? Take note that the word "indiscriminate" was only a recent addition. Trying to cover your tracks father? You don't know the answer hence i knight thee "ignorant."

Al Gore has a home that uses 20 times the power of the average American home and flies around in a private jet (whopping huge carbon footprint too). And he has the unmitigated gall to "offset" this by purchasing carbon credits through the company Generation Investment Management, of which he is the chairman! He get's to "pay" for the right to pollute, eh?

What about Global Warming doomsayer Stephen H. Schneider? The guy misrepresented the work of the Danish Space Research Institute when criticizing someone else. The Institute said: "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism." Real credible by your standards, eh?

Your "sources" are just as tainted. Maybe you ought to try looking at the arguments instead of resorting to ad hominems (or inverse ad hominems).

Hey hold up Damaso, what's with Mr. Schneider and Al Gore? They never were my sources so why use them as a rebuttal? YOU PHAIL AT LIFE.

And so what if my arguments regarding the reputation of your sources amount to ad hominem? Their reputations are relevant to the issue; a far cry from your murder and mr hitman tag on mayor duterte. Those are facts mind you and not mere insinuations. And one more thing, I never invoked that fallacy as a defense unlike the hypocrite that you are. Sa balaod pa, you were estopped you kwanggol.

Father you are childish in trying your best to compete in leet speak. Go back to your Bible study please. You have been exposed, weighed on the balances, and found to be wanting.

[mannyamador]

@szichri

after reading all the posts..... NOSEBLEED KO!!!!

Sorry bro if we post a lot of data and arguments. We're trying to provide evidence for our different claims. I wish there was an easier way. Please bear with us. Thanks very much!


Hey @MrChurchill...

Some food for thought. Try to find real arguments instead of your usual ad hominems in your next response. Yeah, yeah, as usual you'll find something nasty to say about the authors but no real rebuttal against the arguments. That's boring already. Won't do good to your career.

Lorne Gunter: There are two sides to the climate story. You're getting one.
Posted: August 06, 2008, 11:00 AM by Kelly McParland
Lorne Gunter, Full Comment

Record high temperatures on Baffin Island last month — it hit 27C on July 21 — have made the news around the world, as has the evacuation of 21 visitors from the island’s Auyuittuq National Park. Fear that melt water from the park’s glaciers might lead to flash flooding and landslides has been reported by everyone from AFP to the BBC as proof of the adverse side-effects of man-made climate change.

Meanwhile, it is barely reported outside Alaska that America’s northernmost state is having a record cool summer.

If it reaches 19C in Anchorage today, it will be just the eighth time that’s happened this summer. Indeed, this could be the first summer ever that Anchorage never hits 24C.

Auyuittuq is at 66 degrees north; Anchorage is at 61.

The Baffin story may be more significant than the Alaska one. But why are we hearing all about one and nothing about the other? You can bet that if Anchorage were suffering a record hot summer, it would be all over the news and presented — as the Baffin temperatures are — as yet further proof of the dangerous impacts of global warming in the north.

And what of the study, released in July by Switzerland’s Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, that shows European temperatures, at least, have risen in large part because of efforts over the past 30 years to clean the continent’s skies?

Christian Ruckstuhl and 12 co-authors found that of the 1C rise in temperature in Europe over the last three decades, “at least half of the warming” is attributable to a reduction of aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and black soot particles. As Europeans have cleaned up their smokestacks and tailpipes, and as dirty old Soviet-era East European plants have been modernized to Western standards, more sunlight has penetrated the continent’s atmosphere and warmed things up a bit.
In other words, environmentalism is causing global warming. As eco-advocates have won tighter clean-air regulations, their efforts have been rewarded with brighter days (a good thing), but also warmer temperatures.

But you may not have heard about this little piece of climate-change news.

Nor may you have heard about conclusions by University of Guelph environmental biologist Jonathan Newman and his graduate student Anna Mika. Last week, Prof. Newman and Ms. Mika warned other researchers to use results from the UN’s 31 climate computers with great caution.

Apparently, if you are using these computer models (the data sources on which all of the UN’s climate doom and gloom rests) to determine what will happen to human or animal populations for the next century, or to forecast the spread of disease or pests and so on, the answer you get will vary according to which computer you use.

"These models are the basis on which all research in climate change is done," Prof. Newman said in a press release. Yet despite using two computers — one Canadian, one British — that both predicted the same future climate, "we basically got opposite answers” about the potential impact on insect spread “when we should have gotten the same answer."

No predictions of future climate-related catastrophes are reliable enough for use in making public policy "unless they are run through many models," according to Prof. Newton, and then only if most of the models are in rough agreement.

Or how about the discovery last month by NASA that at least 70% of global warming to date is due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the pattern of ocean currents and cloud formation connected with the El Nino and La Nina phenomena?

Or the paper by Gilbert Compo and Prashant Sardeshmukh of the Climate Diagnostics Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that concludes, “the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases.” Where were the mainstream news stories about that?

Could the oceans have warmed due to human activity and then warmed the land? Perhaps a little, say Messrs. Compo and Sardeshmukh. But natural changes in ocean temperatures could account for all the warming, even without any effect from greenhouse gases.

Why is it we hear only the Baffin stories and not the clean air/faulty climate computers/ocean warming ones? Surely it’s not because environmentalists and the journalists who cover them refuse to see any news except the news that confirms their biases.

National Post
lgunter@shaw.ca


New Study Shatters Supposed Scientific Consensus on Global Warming

Originally aired as CBC Radio One Commentary, Thursday 10 July 2003

Remember the vaunted scientific consensus on global warming, that it is a "fact" the slight warming the Earth has experienced in the past century is the fault of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses? If we didn't ratify the Kyoto accord and cork our factories, cars and cows, global warming would devastate life on the planet in the next century.

Remember that vaunted consensus?

Well, if it ever existed, it's gone now.

On July 1, the esteemed Geological Society of America published an earth-shattering - or make that Kyoto-shattering - study by Canadian scientist Jan Veizer of the University of Ottawa and Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Veizer and Shaviv discovered that nearly three-quarters of the variability in our climate can be attributed to the interplay between solar radiation and cosmic rays.

The cloudy tentacles of our Milky Way galaxy generate new stars in surprising numbers. Yet many of these stars are unstable and supernova very quickly. As they die in violent explosions, they spew out billions of highly charged cosmic rays. When these rays reach Earth, they change our climate by encouraging cloud formation, lowering our planetary temperature.

Incoming radiation from our own sun can have a profound effect, too, in the opposite direction. According to Veizer and Shaviv, over the past 500 million solar radiation, not greenhouse gasses, has driven up our global temperature. In other words, it is the S-U-N not SUVs that cause global warming.

This should surprise no one. Why shouldn't Earth warm when solar activity is at its peak? Or our planet’s temperatures fluctuate when we are being bombarded with cosmic rays from exploding stars?

Veizer's and Shaviv's explanation is far more plausible than the so-called consensus view. Supposedly, carbon dioxide, which makes up a tiny fraction of one percent of the atmosphere, is going to build up to such an extent that it triggers catastrophic - but as yet unidentified - reactions in the climate that raise global temperature beyond safe levels.

Veizer's and Shaviv's work has profound implications for federal climate change policy, too. If human activity is not the cause of global warming then all our prevention policies are useless. Capping and regulating industry and drivers - and spending billions of tax dollars subsidizing solar panels on everyone's roofs - will be futile. The warming is happening naturally and it won't be devastating, anyway.

If Veizer and Shaviv are right, then Ottawa's obsession with stopping global warming is no less ridiculous than the ancient English king, Canute, placing his throne in the surf and commanding the tide to stop.

Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
e-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca

[MRchurchill]

@szichri
Hey @MrChurchill...

Some food for thought. Try to find real arguments instead of your usual ad hominems in your next response. Yeah, yeah, as usual you'll find something nasty to say about the authors but no real rebuttal against the arguments. That's boring already. Won't do good to your career.

Boring? hehe father that's an irony considering all you do is copy paste with reckless abandon. So that's how it ends? Too bad. You are a fraud.

[mannyamador]

Take note that the word "indiscriminate" was only a recent addition.

Really now? Look at message #18 of this thread, dated 07-18-2008, 7:57AM, last paragraph. The word "indiscriminate" was there a very long time ago. Got you again, kiddo!

It's bad enough you can't think rationally, must you also demonstrate to all and sundry that you can't read?

what's with Mr. Schneider and Al Gore? They never were my sources so why use them as a rebuttal?

They advocate the Global Warming theory, and using your standards, they are fit targets, in case you haven't noticed. What's the matter? Can't take your own medicine?

And so what if my arguments regarding the reputation of your sources amount to ad hominem? Their reputations are relevant to the issue

So is Duterte's reputation (as he has npo other qualifications on this issue). Now YOU are using a DOUBLE STANDARD. Looks like you can dish it out but you can't take it. Tsk, tsk...

And I'm still waiting for YOUR evidence that I'm a priest. Well? Found any yet? Bwahahaha!!!

Too bad. You are a fraud.

Aaaww, now you're lying. And, as expected, you have no counter-arguments. Get that clown costume and make that career move.

[diatabz]

I have to disagree with the assertion that population growth exacerbates bad policies, etc. The reason is that such a claim still assumes that population has the bad effects claimed by others (even if it is admitted that population is no longer the major cause). That is not the case. Slowing down population growth will have no beneficial effects because the major causes are not being addressed. In fact, I would think population control itself is what will exacerbate poverty since resources (2 billion pesos as proposed) will be wasted on it. it will also make people think that the problem is being addressed when it isn't. There simply is no evidence whatsoever that population growth is exacerbating poverty on a large scale in the Philippines. It may be possible in theory, but it's not happening in reality now.

I understand that. Perfect example would be Ireland IMO. Low population of over 6,000,000 people but still relatively poor. That's due to the fact that their government never came out with enough policies to rebound from The Troubles. Like I said, for it to work, it has to be a combination of both sound economic policy, and population control to a certain extent. Mind you, not permanent population control, but rather up to a point until the economy catches up.

Recent case in point: Peru and the work of Hernando De Soto's Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD). They did not rely on population control (although they could not stop the population control NGOs there). The ILD instead focused on expanding property rights, making it easier for the poor to own their property and move their black market businesses into the formal market. He did this by eliminating bureaucratic red tape (a major source of corruption). This changed the entire country's economic system, bringing about economic growth and stability, and eventually even caused the defeat of Peru's Shining Path rebels ( a good side effect). This is clear evidence that population control is irrelevant if policies address the real problem. Conversely, if the policies are wrong, no amount of population control will help.

You forgot to note that Peru has a low fertility rate. Women have an average of only 2 children as of 2006. You undermine that fact.

If you disagree with him, try to find fault with his arguments. Ad hominems against him have no probative value whatsoever.

And is that all you got against him? Do you think women being forced into abortions have any power to grant "permission"? If we follow that reasoning, then reporters should not attempt to record crimes being committed. Gimme a break! Mosher is far more credible on this issue than anyone like you who has only a couple of years of limited experience.

Well, I'm a health worker, and maybe you don't get how unethical his methods are. Regardless of the circumstances of those women's abortions, he absolutely had no right to violate their privacy.

And yes, I reckon he has more experience and know-how on the economic side of things, but his methods are extreme. I'm not the only person who thinks that way too. Ask anyone in the medical field.

Nope. Condoms were a REMOTE LAST RESORT in Uganda's program. The MAIN component was ABSTINENCE and FIDELITY. Condoms were a sorry footnote. And that is why the program was so successful while condom programs in other countries were a dismal failure. The evidence simply blows away Beatrice Were's illogical claims. And now that condoms are being pushed over abstinence, the infections are RISING. That is what should piss you off if you really care about saving lives.

Please look up the numbers of Africans actually using condoms. Condom programs in other African countries were futile due to the lack of govt. cooperation and funding. Condoms are not being pushed over abstinence in Uganda today. It's up to you if you want to deny the evidence. Read these articles and please get your facts straight.

Uganda's HIV rate drops, but not from abstinence / Study concludes basis of Bush policy apparently irrelevant
Africa: Bush’s Trip Highlights Flaws in US HIV/AIDS Policy (Human Rights Watch, 14-2-200
US regime caught making AIDS worse in Africa

Face it, abstinence only programs are not working. Not in Uganda, even with Bush's funding. They have never been proven to work on a large scale.

BBC NEWS | Health | No-*** programmes 'not working'
'Tragic Outcomes' Of Teen Pregnancies Shows Abstinence-Only Programs 'Not Working,' Opinion Piece Says
Experts say US *** abstinence program doesn't work | Reuters
The Political Voices of Women Teen Pregnancy Rising - Abstinence Only Not Working

It has to be a combination of abstinence, condom use, and *** ed.

And you have to get your history right. Thailand started promoting condoms a long time ago, and it was accompanied by a HUGE number of infections. Condoms totally failed. It was only when they pushed proper education -- which results in behavioral change -- that infections went down. Condoms FAILED and behavioral change WORKED. Get your facts straight.

You're denying the evidence. Did you read the article from TIME? Are you questioning their credibility?
Again, the article from TIME as well as other material.

***, AIDS and Thailand - TIME
HIV and AIDS in Thailand
http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global...nd_profile.pdf

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that it was the population control programs that exacerbated HIV infection in the first place. As I have pointed out, improper and unsanitary insertions of IUDs, injection of Depo Provera, and use of manual vacuum abortion methods resulted in numerous infections. If there's anyone to blame for helping to spread AIDS in Africa, it's the population control programs themselves!

As I have also pointed out, agenciees like USAID cooperates with African health workers who sadly, in the past, have not been adequately educated on sanitary procedures. AIDS wasn't the only problem caused by needle sharing, but Ebola as well, but that's another discussion though. AIDS is a problem in Africa, not because of USAID's help, but because of the lack of funding (from problems such as the lack of medical gloves, masks, heck even sanitary napkins), and the quality of health workers. Africans acknowledge this fact and are learning from their mistakes.

Let me elaborate further. A year ago, we went to Mambaling to do some check-ups. An outreach program of sorts. With the sanitary conditions of the area, it was a little difficult to keep everything clean. Hard to know if our patients had Hepatitis, TB or whatnot when you lack resources right? But we still kept at it though.

The same exact thing is happening in Africa. Work against AIDS is underfunded. Lack of health workers, lack of equipment etc., are all contributing to the spread of AIDS.

[szichri]

@mannyamador

no need to apologize... all the posts (Anti and Pro) was very informative...

i made my stand on this matter na... i am for the bill... i'd rather kill a million sperms or egg cells than have 6, 8, 10 or more children niya mag suffer sila sa kalisod sa kinabuhi kay kuwang na akong kita para ikapakaon sa ila or mapa eskwela sila sa nindot na skols or ma comportable sila sa ilang kinabuhi.

[diatabz]

@mannyamador

no need to apologize... all the posts (Anti and Pro) was very informative...

i made my stand on this matter na... i am for the bill... i'd rather kill a million sperms or egg cells than have 6, 8, 10 or more children niya mag suffer sila sa kalisod sa kinabuhi kay kuwang na akong kita para ikapakaon sa ila or mapa eskwela sila sa nindot na skols or ma comportable sila sa ilang kinabuhi.

You know, call me callous or what, but I take the same stand too.

[MRchurchill]

Really now? Look at message #18 of this thread, dated 07-18-2008, 7:57AM, last paragraph. The word "indiscriminate" was there a very long time ago. Got you again, kiddo!

It's bad enough you can't think rationally, must you also demonstrate to all and sundry that you can't read?

Forgive me father for I have sinned. That was an error on my part I must admit.

They advocate the Global Warming theory, and using your standards, they are fit targets, in case you haven't noticed. What's the matter? Can't take your own medicine?

You make a very convincing case for abortion. You lang ha it's exclusive to you. You attacked their reputation instead of attacking those of my sources (you just proved the integrity of my sources though indirectly). I attacked your sources for the sole reason that they were your sources to debunk your claims. Why is it when you act so retaliatory you take it on someone else? LOSER.

So is Duterte's reputation (as he has npo other qualifications on this issue). Now YOU are using a DOUBLE STANDARD. Looks like you can dish it out but you can't take it. Tsk, tsk...

Me use a double standard? LOL you were the one pulling the "ad hominem" defense left and right you hypocrite. If there was any dishing done at all, it was by me.

And I'm still waiting for YOUR evidence that I'm a priest. Well? Found any yet? Bwahahaha!!!

Now your true colors shine. Behind the mask is a childish fag.

Aaaww, now you're lying. And, as expected, you have no counter-arguments. Get that clown costume and make that career move.

wow that's real classy of you father.