BongBongLand (Philippine) Discussion Thread

[Stormwrath]

Now THIS kind of quota killings are the ones that have to be solved, not the ones done in the name of self-defence. Bringing up "human rights" and "extrajudicial killings" without specifically stating your subject of concern is just stupid; the word "human rights" is beginning to lose its original meaning wherein it's becoming a negative connotation of people who overreact towards the use of force to maintain stability.

You mean we shouldn't react negatively when we're being coerced into submission? Man, I do not understand how your brain works.

"Son, wash the dishes or no computer."

"What!? This violates my human rights!"

[Pasong Tirad]

You mean we shouldn't react negatively when we're being coerced into submission? Man, I do not understand how your brain works.

"Son, wash the dishes or no computer."

"What!? This violates my human rights!"

Yeah, cause your mom's going to kill you for not washing the dishes.

[Kovacna]

He's literally using the "dem ebil muslems" argument.

You should seriously read Geert Wilders' book entitled "Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me.

[Pasong Tirad]

He's literally using the "dem ebil muslems" argument.

You should seriously read Geert Wilders' book entitled "Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me.

Rather than telling me to read something I obviously won't read, you should instead use what you've read to formulate constructive arguments. Using the "read this guy" argument makes it look like you don't know how to argue, so you're telling me to read somebody who will argue for you. Not going to happen. So, unless you can properly argue that "dem ebil muslims need to go aweigh," I'm not going to believe jackshit.

[Kovacna]

You should seriously read Geert Wilders' book entitled "Marked for Death: Islam's War Against the West and Me.

Rather than telling me to read something I obviously won't read, you should instead use what you've read to formulate constructive arguments. Using the "read this guy" argument makes it look like you don't know how to argue, so you're telling me to read somebody who will argue for you. Not going to happen. So, unless you can properly argue that "dem ebil muslims need to go aweigh," I'm not going to believe jackshit.

I've never seen anything bad with the anti-Islam arguments circulating in the European Right-Wing parties. Speaking of the "dem ebil mooslems" argument that you're talking about, as well as those that the leftists are crying "islamophobic", I'll present to you certain situations regarding my position on political islam. I'm just stating these, because you've never asked anything specific regarding the matter.

1. Europe is a continent in danger. Why? If you've ever heard of the European Migrant Crisis that swept the continent over the recent years, you'll see two types of approaches. You have the open-border (globalist) approach and the closed-border (nationalist) approach. Look at the countries that took the globalist approach (France, Netherlands and Germany). They are now ridden with terrorist attacks and sometimes even their neighbours don't even care anymore if they're hit by those terrorist attacks. Why? Because people like Macron want the French citizens to accept more refugees and immigrants and then tell them to live with terrorism and that there is no such thing as "French Cultural Values". Compare them with the V4 countries. (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia). These are the countries which are strict on immigration and refugee policy and they took the closed-border approach. We know that refugees wanted to invade these countries like they did to the ones that did the open-border approach. If you'd observe the terrorist attacks by country, Poland had none of them while the other V4 countries that took the closed-border approach had a significantly lower number of terrorist attacks. Simply put: the open border approach to welcoming "refugees" is a very dangerous approach.

2. I don't hate muslims for believing in the ideology of the quran. I just don't trust these refugees that go out of their war-torn countries that implement Sharia Law, then "look for a better and more prosperous life" in Europe, and then start living there and demanding Sharia Law in the country that is not theirs. They just want to impose their culture in other countries that have their own culture while not respecting the culture of the country they "immigrated" in. This is what's called cultural jihad. Now, look. I'm not saying all muslim refugees are evil. It's just that it's hard to tell if the person is a genuine refugee who can be trusted or if he/she is the invader type. And of course, the host country should first serve the interests of their OWN people before others.

[Pasong Tirad]

Rather than telling me to read something I obviously won't read, you should instead use what you've read to formulate constructive arguments. Using the "read this guy" argument makes it look like you don't know how to argue, so you're telling me to read somebody who will argue for you. Not going to happen. So, unless you can properly argue that "dem ebil muslims need to go aweigh," I'm not going to believe jackshit.

I've never seen anything bad with the anti-Islam arguments circulating in the European Right-Wing parties. Speaking of the "dem ebil mooslems" argument that you're talking about, as well as those that the leftists are crying "islamophobic", I'll present to you certain situations regarding my position on political islam. I'm just stating these, because you've never asked anything specific regarding the matter.

1. Europe is a continent in danger. Why? If you've ever heard of the European Migrant Crisis that swept the continent over the recent years, you'll see two types of approaches. You have the open-border (globalist) approach and the closed-border (nationalist) approach. Look at the countries that took the globalist approach (France, Netherlands and Germany). They are now ridden with terrorist attacks and sometimes even their neighbours don't even care anymore if they're hit by those terrorist attacks. Why? Because people like Macron want the French citizens to accept more refugees and immigrants and then tell them to live with terrorism and that there is no such thing as "French Cultural Values". Compare them with the V4 countries. (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia). These are the countries which are strict on immigration and refugee policy and they took the closed-border approach. We know that refugees wanted to invade these countries like they did to the ones that did the open-border approach. If you'd observe the terrorist attacks by country, Poland had none of them while the other V4 countries that took the closed-border approach had a significantly lower number of terrorist attacks. Simply put: the open border approach to welcoming "refugees" is a very dangerous approach.

2. I don't hate muslims for believing in the ideology of the quran. I just don't trust these refugees that go out of their war-torn countries that implement Sharia Law, then "look for a better and more prosperous life" in Europe, and then start living there and demanding Sharia Law in the country that is not theirs. They just want to impose their culture in other countries that have their own culture while not respecting the culture of the country they "immigrated" in. This is what's called cultural jihad. Now, look. I'm not saying all muslim refugees are evil. It's just that it's hard to tell if the person is a genuine refugee who can be trusted or if he/she is the invader type. And of course, the host country should first serve the interests of their OWN people before others.

That's all well and good but what does that have to do with the Philippines

[Kovacna]

That's all well and good but what does that have to do with the Philippines

I'll admit that my answers are off-topic for this forum, but you wanted to ask me for a constructive reason for my opinion on that subject, so there's that.

Anyways, what city/province are you from?

[Pasong Tirad]

That's all well and good but what does that have to do with the Philippines

I'll admit that my answers are off-topic for this forum, but you wanted to ask me for a constructive reason for my opinion on that subject, so there's that.

Anyways, what city/province are you from?

Sa Metro ako, thanks for asking.

My only problem is that I've heard that line of "dem ebil mooslems" apparently "want to establish Sharia law in the Philippines" before.

[Kovacna]

I'll admit that my answers are off-topic for this forum, but you wanted to ask me for a constructive reason for my opinion on that subject, so there's that.

Anyways, what city/province are you from?

Sa Metro ako, thanks for asking.

My only problem is that I've heard that line of "dem ebil mooslems" apparently "want to establish Sharia law in the Philippines" before.

I don't see that yet in the Philippine setting. But it's spreading across Europe. Most likely because the people in the Philippines aren't as immersed in the Quran compared with those in the ME. Southeast Asian Muslims are pretty different from those outside SEA. Couldn't really generalize yet, but that's how I observe it as of now.

[Pasong Tirad]

Sa Metro ako, thanks for asking.

My only problem is that I've heard that line of "dem ebil mooslems" apparently "want to establish Sharia law in the Philippines" before.

I don't see that yet in the Philippine setting. But it's spreading across Europe. Most likely because the people in the Philippines aren't as immersed in the Quran compared with those in the ME. Southeast Asian Muslims are pretty different from those outside SEA. Couldn't really generalize yet, but that's how I observe it as of now.

It is a generalization. A bit wrong, however, since most of our Filipino Muslims are also Sunnis (not sure which schools they belong to, however). It was prevalent a few years ago when Aquino was pushing for the Bangsamoro Basic Law to pop up. People were using blatantly Islamophobic "facts" (not really facts) to discredit the establishment of an autonomous Bangsamoro region for our Moro brothers.

[Victoriala II]

You mean we shouldn't react negatively when we're being coerced into submission? Man, I do not understand how your brain works.

"Son, wash the dishes or no computer."

"What!? This violates my human rights!"

Your mom making you do chores is merely a simplified utilization of defining personhood and in turn the structure of power that comes along with it

Report to your local party office, destroy the old order

[Victoriala II]

Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human person, correct? If a policeman kills a criminal in self-defense, it's not murder because it is in performance of duty and it is what policemen have been trained to do in the face of imminent death by the actions of the criminal. Therefore killing a criminal in self-defense is lawful.

Also, many criminals don't want to go to jail. Should we just leave them be then?

1. Murder due to SELF DEFENCE is LEGAL; that's what the policemen are doing.

2. "Surrender or die". People don't get killed for not surrendering; they get killed because they resist arrest and of course the policemen get threatened with such resistance, so they have to defend themselves.

3. Are you trying to use "human rights" as an excuse?

Human rights is absolute. Murder due to self defense is legal, but that's not what's happening. People get killed because of quotas that need to be reached, financial incentives and the like.

Human rights is just another morality that disagrees with the more enlightened and objective nature of the hierarchal order of things

/satan's avocado

[The Republic of Pantalleria]

Well it's not as simple as that, the fact remains innocent children have been killed under his encouragement in the form of non-police related extra-judicial killings.
He's also stirred up quite a bit of unrest from the more moderate members of our Islamic citizenry with his disgusting decision to bury the late former dictator in a place that is only reserved for the highest of heroes in our country.
And there's also the fact that terrorist attacks have been literally happening more frequently and in places of greater importance under his Administration relative to the last one, which by your logic with regards to your rebuttle on Europe, would mean that "he should be replaced" as the EU leaders you advocate for replacement too, so you don't actually have a case in that regard.

"Well it's not as simple as that, the fact remains innocent children have been killed under his encouragement in the form of non-police related extra-judicial killings."

You mean his joke on how he wants us to kill 1,000 drug lords each? I have to admit, he should make it clear that he's joking about it. I also joke about killing 1,000 drug lords but I can't do it because I don't have a gun. It's true that he should

"He's also stirred up quite a bit of unrest from the more moderate members of our Islamic citizenry with his disgusting decision to bury the late former dictator in a place that is only reserved for the highest of heroes in our country"

I'm anti-Marcos myself. I also rallied against the Marcos burial for the sole reason of historical revisionism and the whitewashing of the Marcos family. But when I've been reflecting on things, the real problem with the issue is that it's COMPLETELY LEGAL to bury him and there were loopholes in the jurisdictions regarding his LMNB burial. Anti-Marcos or Pro-Marcos, we can agree that it's legal for him to be buried, regardless of the feelings we have which should have nothing to do with upholding the law. While it is completely legal to bury him there, we should still recognize that his administration was a total failure which could have been successful if not for his corruption and cronyism. Speaking of moderate muslims and their trigger, let them suit themselves. I still won't recognize Marcos as a hero, though.

"And there's also the fact that terrorist attacks have been literally happening more frequently and in places of greater importance under his Administration relative to the last one, which by your logic with regards to your rebuttle on Europe, would mean that "he should be replaced" as the EU leaders you advocate for replacement too, so you don't actually have a case in that regard."

Terrorist attacks are going to be more rampant and it will intensify over the years. In our country, the administration is declaring an all-out war against Abu Sayyaf and terrorism, but of course, it's not that easy to curb these attacks. The comparison with the other countries is bogus: countries like France, Netherlands and Germany are not doing anything to curb terrorism other than placing more patrols. They are not addressing the root problem which is the open-border policy which allows an influx of migrants (where at least 10-20% of them are terrorists or people who want to implement and preach sharia law in a country that they just "migrated in") in their country and then trying to figure out why terrorist attacks happen there.

They don't close their borders to protect their own citizens unlike here in the Philippines wherein the President declares a state of lawlessnes and puts a tighter military control to protect the citizenry. Trust me, if another terrorist attack happens in France, I don't think people would care as much anymore because they elected an idiot like Emmanuel Macron instead of Marine Le Pen.

Uh, no. This is what I'm referring to.

Well Marcos did a lot of terrible things, whether it be significantly increasing the poverty rate, to the creation of the MNLF after the Malisbong Massacre of 1974. As such, it should be legally a no brainer, because given past hatred of Marcos, there's nothing preventing future Presidents from removing the Marcos remain from that site and throwing them off in the Pacific Ocean somewhere.

You do realise in some parts of our country, Sharia Law is already being implemented right? And this Adminstration is doing squat about that.
You also have to take into consideration that the Quiapo bombing is an example of growing terrorist attacks in the country, I mean isn't Duterte supposed to be the "security" President? Isn't he supposed to be providing safety? However if a terrorist attack can happen anywhere in the country under his Administration then how does that make his Administration better than the Aquino one?

[Kovacna]

Uh, no. This is what I'm referring to.

Well Marcos did a lot of terrible things, whether it be significantly increasing the poverty rate, to the creation of the MNLF after the Malisbong Massacre of 1974. As such, it should be legally a no brainer, because given past hatred of Marcos, there's nothing preventing future Presidents from removing the Marcos remain from that site and throwing them off in the Pacific Ocean somewhere.

You do realise in some parts of our country, Sharia Law is already being implemented right? And this Adminstration is doing squat about that.
You also have to take into consideration that the Quiapo bombing is an example of growing terrorist attacks in the country, I mean isn't Duterte supposed to be the "security" President? Isn't he supposed to be providing safety? However if a terrorist attack can happen anywhere in the country under his Administration then how does that make his Administration better than the Aquino one?

1. Honestly, the people should be more paranoid of a potential raid to prevent more collateral damage. Living in fear of effective authorities is better than living in lawlessness.

2. I only care about what is legal and not legal. But if they want to take marcos away from the cemetery, even if it's unconstitutional, then I'd say it's unconstitutional. But honestly, I'd rather not call it "heroes' cemetery" anymore because of the standards of burying people there. Or best off, change the guidelines and requirements so people like Marcos don't get put in that burial site. Don't get me wrong, the only reason I hate Marcos is because he made our economy crash and that the end failed to justify his authoritarian means of ruling. If the result was good and that our economy continuously got bigger, then I wouldn't care about his authoritarian means.

3. Terrorists are harder to track than drug lords/addicts. I see the government doing everything to prevent this, and it won't happen overnight. We can see progress in the next few years once more terrorists get killed; something that the Aquino administration failed to do without much casualties on the side of our own army.

4. Speaking of Sharia Law, at least here in the Philippines, it's only confined to Muslim-majority areas, and not a product of cultural jihad.

[Victoriala II]

wow i sure do hope social order just breaks the fuck down and we all end up in chaotic entropy

[Kovacna]

wow i sure do hope social order just breaks the fuck down and we all end up in chaotic entropy

go to somalia if you wanna experience that lmao

[Kovacna]

Give me one example of this "Self-defense killings" just one.

I will most likely not hear it because I'm not staying for long.

I personally know a policeman who had to kill an addict because the addict was also armed. He had no choice but to shoot him, because he would have been killed if he did not do so.

[Victoriala II]

wow i sure do hope social order just breaks the fuck down and we all end up in chaotic entropy

go to somalia if you wanna experience that lmao

somalia's an overdone joke jingo take me to the cyberpunk death drive

edit: or the solar supernova, either or

[Pasong Tirad]

go to somalia if you wanna experience that lmao

somalia's an overdone joke jingo take me to the cyberpunk death drive

edit: or the solar supernova, either or

The whole self-defense argument is also pretty overdone.

[Stormwrath]

"Son, wash the dishes or no computer."

"What!? This violates my human rights!"

Yeah, cause your mom's going to kill you for not washing the dishes.

Funnily enough, that's what they say all the time. x]

Well Marcos did a lot of terrible things, whether it be significantly increasing the poverty rate, to the creation of the MNLF after the Malisbong Massacre of 1974. As such, it should be legally a no brainer, because given past hatred of Marcos, there's nothing preventing future Presidents from removing the Marcos remain from that site and throwing them off in the Pacific Ocean somewhere.

It's also not provided that the government or the army exhume the corpse of a certain somebody because it turns out he committed something that makes the person "less of a hero".

You do realise in some parts of our country, Sharia Law is already being implemented right? And this Adminstration is doing squat about that.

Yes, in Bangsamoro. Obviously.

You also have to take into consideration that the Quiapo bombing is an example of growing terrorist attacks in the country, I mean isn't Duterte supposed to be the "security" President? Isn't he supposed to be providing safety? However if a terrorist attack can happen anywhere in the country under his Administration then how does that make his Administration better than the Aquino one?

Because apparently one failing of the current Administration makes it worse than the previous one despite the latter's failings.

The whole self-defense argument is also pretty overdone.

So is the whole "muh human rights" argument.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yes, in Bangsamoro. Obviously.

There are literally sharia courts in many areas in Mindanao. That's legal. They've been operating legally for years now.

The whole self-defense argument is also pretty overdone.

So is the whole "muh human rights" argument.

Fuck your human rights then. I'd like to keep mine.

[Emperio Maharlika]

Sure, perhaps his scare tactics worked with drug dealers, but to the more intellectual populace, they lose respect for a man who cusses 24/7 and keeps on presenting this "bravado" personality like he's constantly trying to prove something. See Trump.

It's not like intellectuals make up a majority of the population anyway, (...)

Which is the main problem at hand. Lack of education equates to ignorance and eventual ignorance and apathy.
Should majority of the population remain uneducated, we will keep on falling for politicians promising to open the floodgates of heaven, accepting the almost-reactionary beliefs of the Catholic Church (because fully exposing yourself to sexually-transmitted diseases is a more "Christian" option than actually buying condoms... see the cancer that is the debate over the Rh bill.). If only a majority of the populace would be able to think for themselves effectively, then we would be able to put leaders with principle in power without tearing down our democracy.

[Pasong Tirad]

It's not like intellectuals make up a majority of the population anyway, (...)

Which is the main problem at hand. Lack of education equates to ignorance and eventual ignorance and apathy.
Should majority of the population remain uneducated, we will keep on falling for politicians promising to open the floodgates of heaven, accepting the almost-reactionary beliefs of the Catholic Church (because fully exposing yourself to sexually-transmitted diseases is a more "Christian" option than actually buying condoms... see the cancer that is the debate over the Rh bill.). If only a majority of the populace would be able to think for themselves effectively, then we would be able to put leaders with principle in power without tearing down our democracy.

They are thinking. They're just not thinking the way the intolerant liberal elite are thinking. They aren't bobotantes, they're thinking voters who have come to a different conclusion based on different factors many other people might not consider.

Education is one thing. Getting rid of this classism is another.

[Kovacna]

Which is the main problem at hand. Lack of education equates to ignorance and eventual ignorance and apathy.
Should majority of the population remain uneducated, we will keep on falling for politicians promising to open the floodgates of heaven, accepting the almost-reactionary beliefs of the Catholic Church (because fully exposing yourself to sexually-transmitted diseases is a more "Christian" option than actually buying condoms... see the cancer that is the debate over the Rh bill.). If only a majority of the populace would be able to think for themselves effectively, then we would be able to put leaders with principle in power without tearing down our democracy.

Nope, even if the whole populace were educated, people will only vote for which propaganda machine suits their own self-interests, and they wouldn't care about the overall effect of the proposals of the politicians. They will only care about what makes them more privileged or which option will give them more money and a higher status symbol. It's inevitable.

Democracy is all about moving your propaganda machine in such a way that it will put your self-interest on top of anything while getting the majority to agree with you to lead the country.

[Victoriala II]

Quite the pure ideology