megane-kun

If I am understanding it correctly…

• They eat tuna often.
• They never noticed anyone that cannot draw (separate) conclusions that:
  • [were] baseless
  • made little sense
• Evidence of heavy metal (features) resembled natural pathways.
• Worrying about high lead or cadmium [in food products? doesn’t make sense].

Even laid out like that, it is still confusing. However, I think their gist is that:

1. they think heavy metals’ effects [on humans] are indistinguishable from what happens normally
2. no one can draw conclusions about heavy metals’ [effects on humans] that have basis
3. they think worrying about heavy metal contamination in food is stupid and people shouldn’t worry about it

Can you clarify this? Is China suffering from droughts and flooding (droughts up north, flooding down south) that’s affecting its food supply? I thought this was last year and that things have been better weather-wise?

That’d be giving in to Chinese provocation. They’ve been doing this harassment in hopes of the Philippine government giving up and complying with the Chinese demands, or the Philippines getting riled up and firing the first shot. The latter will give China the “moral ground” or at least ammo for their propaganda.

IMO, what the Philippine military has been doing is a good countermeasure to this harassment: asserting their rights (as per the arbitral ruling, which China refuses to honor), publicizing Chinese aggression all the while building up its defenses and network of allies.

Punching a bully in the face might feel good, but this bully is also crafty and sneaky, that some care is needed dealing with it.

Their “unity” is a lie. Even among the supporters of the Marcos Jr. and Sara Duterte tandem, it is viewed as nothing more than a marriage of convenience. But when it stopped being convenient, it’s back to the usual mudslinging.

I’d also be wary of Duterte’s promises with regards to China.

In the 2016 election, one of his campaign promises involved going by jet ski onto the disputed islands to personally protect them, a promise he later dismissed as just an empty promise and mocked those who bought into it as stupid. His promise of pushing a claim cited in the OP article might as well be one of those empty promises made to increase their dynasty’s chances of winning the elections. Their actions show where their priorities and loyalties lie. What was promised to be a “protect our islands” stance, turned out to be an “embrace China” stance.

Marcos Jr. isn’t in the clear either, with the Marcos dynasty trying to whitewash and erase from history their wrongdoing.

Moreover, his 20 PhP (~0.33 USD) per kilogram of rice promise is just as ridiculous as Duterte’s Jet ski promise. As with Duterte’s jetski, Marcos delivered a ~600 PhP (~10 USD) per kilogram of onions reality instead and later on, dropping to ~20 PhP / kg (~0.33 USD / kg) as local onion farmers had their harvests.

Of note here is the fact that the Marcos Jr. held the post of Secretary of Agriculture at the same time as him being President until November 2023. Meanwhile, the price of (well-milled) rice is around 60 PhP (~1 USD) per kilogram—thrice what was promised. For context, the average daily wage is around 620 PhP (~10.33 USD).

Not that Duterte had the best handling of the economy, it was however, overshadowed by his bombastic statements and pro-China stance.

I personally would have enjoyed watching their (word) war of the dynasties if it were not for the healthy chance that one of them would win (because any politician opposed to both practically obliterated and rendered irrelevant).

NOTE:

All currency conversions were made assuming 1USD = 60PhP

If you have such a problem with too many people existing, do something about it. IDK.

Both can be true, that we’re experiencing record low birth rates globally and that the global population is still increasing at the moment.

How?

1. While birth rates in many countries have fallen below replacement rate, it’s still not zero, which means people are still having babies.
2. Due to advances in health science, the death rate has fallen.

These two factors, especially decades earlier, mean that population hasn’t yet fallen. However:

3. Non-existent humans will not produce babies.
4. The older the population is on the average, the higher the death rate will be.

This means that if I don’t produce offspring, my non-existent offspring will not produce babies. The less babies are produced, the older the population would be, and the higher the death rate will be. If current trends continue, the death rate will overtake the birth rate, and the population will shrink.

Outside of a worldwide disaster that kills off people of child-bearing age, population will still rise before it levels off and then fall off as more and more people find less and less appealing to raise children. This is just a consequence of us humans not dying immediately after childbirth, and us humans as a whole making offspring at a certain age (say, 20 years old). These two factors explain the lag between childbirth figures and population growth.

A source close to the Pope told CNN that the phrase could also be understood as there is a “gay climate” in the seminaries.

I wonder why… Surely it isn’t because a seminary is a good place for a confused, self-hating homosexual to be in, right? Surely it isn’t because being gay was seen as so anathema in Catholic-dominant societies that the seminary seems to be a sanctuary, right?

There’s this saying “a fish is caught through its mouth,” and this is an illustration of what it means. This pope might present this ‘cool’, ‘modern’ image to the public, but his words spoken in private amongst his peers reveals his real stance about these things.

Edit:‌ proofreading.

“Going into Happyland” sounds like a great euphemism. I’m going to steal it if you don’t mind.

And that’s perhaps the most peaceful peace. A‌ peace only nothingness can bring.

There are other options other than this one that requires permission. The article mentions her reasons to choose this method.

From the article:

She had thought about taking her own life but the violent death by suicide of a schoolfriend and its impact on the girl’s family deterred her.

Whether we agree with her or not, it’s her decision.

And while I don’t think that’s exactly what you meant, it’s how it comes across. Almost all of your points are some variation of who’s gonna pay for their treatment and take care of their physical needs.

Indeed, that’s not what exactly what I meant. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

My main point can be summarized in that second to the last paragraph, which I doubt has communicated things adequately.

To reiterate: it won’t be initiated by the medical professionals. They’re simply there to ensure that someone applying for this procedure are indeed “proceeding of their own accord and have made sure options have been considered”. The waiting period is there to make sure that not only they’ve arrived at this decision after careful deliberation, but also to force them to consider and try out the options available to them. The process can be terminated at any point by the patient, and the final step will not proceed without their permission.

My point is that mental illness is much less understood than physical illness, and I wouldn’t trust any diagnosis that said the condition could never be resolved.

I accept this point. This is why I‌ put the emphasis on the decision of the patient. And this is where I think our positions fundamentally differ. Promising treatments may or may not be there, may or may not be there in the immediate or far future, but it’s on the patient to consider. The medical professionals are there to ensure that the patient has considered available options, and have exerted reasonable effort to improve their situation. Whether or not the patient has made “the correct decision” isn’t the point—but rather whether or not the patient has made an informed and well-thought-out decision.

I share your opinion that in an ideal world, this shouldn’t even be needed. That even though the option would be there for anyone to take, no one will take it in an ideal world. But we are not in such an ideal world. We can strengthen our social safety nets to help people suffering from the debilitating effects of mental illness (among other sources of suffering), and that will do a lot of good, but until we arrive at a society which no longer needs a dignified exit because no one ever wants to exit, I am of the opinion of giving them that option.

I share a lot of your questions about this, but the following parts made me uncomfortable agreeing with you:

People who are seeking death are rarely in the kind of headspace where I think they are able to meaningfully consent to that?

And this feels meaningfully different than the case of a 90yo who’s body is slowly failing them. This is an otherwise healthy young person.

She has the following to say about that: “People think that when you’re mentally ill, you can’t think straight, which is insulting.”

Mental illness is an illness, and can be chronic and progressive. They can cause someone to be unable to carry on living, maintaining a livelihood, afford their own medication, psychiatric visits and therapy that they would need to even want to live in the first place. That’s not even to go into the absolute hell people in such situations can go through everyday.

We can debate on what constitutes “a well-thought-out decision that takes into consideration every available option” and I would actually say that one should give those options a try, but to deny that a mentally ill person can make their own EOL decisions makes me terribly uncomfortable.

In my opinion, sure, there should be a waiting period, to filter out those chronic episodes that lead to spur-of-the moment impulses, or decisions that are strongly linked to temporary conditions. This waiting period can be used to think things through, prove that they’ve tried means available to them, or even give them the chance to try the means they wouldn’t have had access to otherwise (like specialized help, therapy that wouldn’t have been available to them, etc). Now, I think what happens next is up to these medical professionals: do they deem one’s condition to be intractable and no amount of medication and therapy and counseling can make a difference? If they deem the situation to be hopeless, and the patient agrees, then yeah, the patient can make their exit. Otherwise, the medication, therapy, counseling or whatever it is that they’ve been trying should continue. If funds are needed for this to continue, then so be it. Those people who want to be no exits can be counted upon to fund this, right? Those people denying exit should put their money where their mouths are.

If signing up to an EOL waiting list could be the way for people to consider their situation and try out things that might help them, then so be it.

Oh, sorry, I’ve been rambling. My point is, yeah, there should be a waiting period that would double as a chance for people to get the help they need (but don’t have access to or maybe the motivation to). And more importantly, that anyone, and I mean anyone (okay, there’d be a triage system in place, but just allow everyone in, and sort them out once they’re in) can sign up.

The way I imagine things would go is I can just walk into some office, inform the person in the counter that I want to have a passport to neverwhere, and they’d ask me to file some paperwork and after a few days, I’d be in a clinic where someone would perform a psychological check-up on me, and do some interviews. Then after a few more days, some doctor will be informing me of my diagnosis and options—or perhaps just flat out saying I’m completely mentally healthy and my petition is denied (if I’m lucky maybe given a list of people to contact to help with my problems). If I’m continuing the process, then I’d choose which option I want, go with the treatment or other, and like, hopefully continue until I can manage my situation with minimal help!

Do we really need people to sign up for a passport to the great beyond just to get the help they need? No, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t even be a need for this. But in this kind of world we live in, I think allowing people to safely cross the streams with dignity and peace of mind (after giving it a good try, and concluding that it really can’t be helped) is a small kindness society can give to the suffering.

EDIT: Some proofreading.

Thanks as well. It’s certainly a POV I didn’t consider (that it’s akin to a protest) having grown up in the culture that produced such practices. Again, thanks!

Ah, my bad. I didn’t mean to imply that it being done in a religious context invalidates it, just that the religious context would inform us more about the man’s intent and whether or not they’d continue on doing so regardless of the result.

I used the term “pledge” earlier, but maybe it’s better to use the word “vow” to refer this. The term in Filipino is “panata” (which wiktionary translates to “vow”). It usually isn’t as dramatic as this, however. And as far as I’ve observed, a lot would do these vows after they deem their prayers to have been heard (usually recovery from illness or accidents, or recovery from financial ruin), and thereafter, no matter what, they’d try to fulfill their vows, whether that’d be a crucifixion reenactment, or attending processions, or even just as simple as foregoing alcohol or vices or letting their hair grow.

edit:

I must clarify my position here, I‌ guess. I am neither in favor nor against the practice. But having grown up in the country where these practices occur, I just felt I have to clarify some things. Personally? I don’t mind. They’re doing these things with good intentions, and they’re hurting no one. As far as I know, they don’t force anyone to join them, but rather, make sure that those who are following their footsteps are sure they want to.

I agree with your sentiment, but I felt compelled to comment on one crucial element here: what he has been doing isn’t a protest, but some form of a religious pledge. It just so happened that this year, he’s praying for world peace. This is akin to some traditions in India and other parts where self-flagellation is part of religious ritual, but only for those who pledge themselves to it. It’s touched upon in the article, but he’s been doing it since the 1980’s as thanksgiving for his survival in an accident. Some people just do it once, but some devote their lives to it, and it seems to me that he’s one of the latter.

Whether or not his actions will lead to results doesn’t matter, as far as I see it. He’s already devoted to the bit, and only old age (and poor health) will likely stop him.

Thanks for the explanation.

It reminds me of the concept of depreciation in accounting, in which you’re accounting for the “loss of value” of a piece of machinery as time goes on. I guess it fits how the capitalists view people (labor) as yet another kind of machine. I dunno how it fits with what you’re trying to explain here, but it somehow clicks for me. So that the factory owner can keep buying machinery, they must allocate some of their funds not just for the upkeep of the equipment, but also save up for the cost of buying a new one.

Admittedly, I’m not very well-versed with neither accounting nor the theories put on display here, but we learn something new every day, right?

(PS:‌ I’m still working through the pamphlet you’ve linked. I might have gotten a lot of things wrong, and in that case, I apologize.)

I was like “(companies) paying parents to have children” belongs to a caricature of capitalism, but here we are. (My bad, it’s companies paying parents to have children, and not some bigger entity, like the government. I already edited the previous sentence for clarity.)

If you don’t mind me asking though, what “marxist theory in action” do you see in this article?

“If I can’t have you, no one will.” – China, apparently.

And as usual, no one will do something decisive about it because China is a huge bully and is using its reputation as the world’s factory and its economic heft to intimidate anyone who thinks of doing anything about it.

I expected someone to make this joke, but this still made me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh!