Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Anomalous




Recently, there has been a considerable amount of animosity generated towards me due to a couple of my recent posts (Manny Pacquiao on Fire and Desiccating), which have touched on the taboo subject of having multiple partners.

Before I go on, I would like to touch on that subject one more time and provide some clarity regarding what I said. I never stated that it is necessarily “right” for philandering to take place (as that is purely subjective), and frankly, I never referred to the subject of having multiple partners as philandering or “cheating” anyway. Rather, I hold the perspective that it is definitely possible for a man to have romantic/caring feelings for and fall in love with more than one woman (whatever the circumstances may be).

On the question regarding whether this is morally “right”---well, that would certainly depend on one’s definition of morality and one’s own set of moral values---that is, if one even believes in the idea of morality. It is a totally subjective matter in and of itself. However, I merely pointed out in my statements that such feelings or tendencies is natural and ever-present amongst animals (especially mammalian species). And, of course, it is a fact that humans are mammals (animals) themselves. And since I feel that it is a natural instinct, then I do not think any external agency should restrict this liberty. However, I do point out that the manner in which this act is committed is totally at one’s own discretion as it depends on various personal circumstances, and it need not be at the expense of attachments and/or the neglect of responsibilities. This is my notion.

Moving on---the original motivation for this post is the hateful reaction I received from a great number of people---most of whom came from this particular blog’s entry ( chuvaness.livejournal.com/736207.html ). I guess the “violent” reaction should have come as no surprise as most unconventional (though not necessarily invalid or false) ideas have been rejected by the herd of society. Such is what happened with Galileo, Socrates, Charles Darwin, Mohandas Gandhi, Jose Rizal, and even Jesus (if he did in fact exist)---as these people were persecuted, exiled, and/or killed for what they believed. In essence, you are rejected, ostracized, and/or attacked if your ideas conflict with that of the stronger majority---just as what happened in my case upon stating my own opinion and personal beliefs. If I had expressed an unpopular idea a few centuries ago, perhaps the penalty would have been closer to lynching, disembowelment, or the like---but then again, what am I saying, assassination is still very much a possibility today if an idea angers enough people (especially if it involves the political and religious arena).

After reading the words of “war” that were machine-gunned at me, I began giving some thought as to what type of people constituted this massive opposition. After looking over the blog where they primarily originated from and their comments, I came to the conclusion that most of these people fall into one of two categories (if not both): elitists and conquistadors.

It was not hard to see the elitist nature of some of these assailants. First of all, the blog of their origin focuses on subject matter that is not necessarily typical, relevant, or of utmost importance for a third-world country. These are some of the same people who are disgusted to brush shoulders with the poor commoners and is likely why some of them took an interest initially in my story because I chose to give up the comforts of modern life to immerse myself in the unforgiving and cushion-less life in the provinces. Along with the aristocratic fancies, arrogance emanates so profusely through their language that it is not difficult to deduce that many of these people are part of the nobility of the Philippines. And some of these people are also part of one of the primary reasons the Philippines remains as impoverished as it is. These elites constitute one end of the extreme wealth gap where money and also power remain concentrated amongst themselves, leaving the masses suffocating in poverty. Even most of their “philanthropic” deeds are misleading and worthless in the long run as the money ends up getting funneled back to their pockets anyway, since they (and their businesses) are at the top of the food chain---making progress very difficult even for the most ambitious commoner. This is a major part of the corrupt system that is in place and is the daunting giant that cannot be dismantled because it is able to consume virtually anything that may pose as a threat or competition---very much similar to the herd mentality that executes anomalistic minds.

This brings me to the next breed---the conquistadors. These are the people who seek conversion, or else (insert intimidating and/or violent verb here)… Should you happen to stray from their beliefs, they will take it upon themselves to “correct” you (or destroy you if you resist). Similarly, Ferdinand Magellan and the Spanish conquistadors of yore attempted to convert Lapu Lapu and the native Filipinos to Christianity and change their way of life (and obviously, by force, they eventually succeeded). The same kind of act was committed in the attacks I received for my own personal thoughts and beliefs where these conquistadors lashed me with words of war, attempting to seek my retraction and/or conversion, or suffer the consequences. And I chose the latter. It is quite ironic that these people (and even the Spanish conquistadors/“messengers of God” who were massacring natives in order to convert them to Christianity) who allude to Biblical moral principles are the same ones committing acts that violate those very principles. It only makes me question even more their already questionable beliefs.

Indeed, ingenious systems have been set in place that allow the elites to exploit, manipulate, and maintain control over the populace. Big businesses control the food supply (agriculture and processed foods), addictive products (fast food, liquor, pharmaceutical drugs, etc.) reel in the ignorant/weak-willed masses and their cash, showbiz sells and dazzles the crowds, and politics remains as the art of corruption. Undeniably, the schemes are ingenious. And perhaps one of the longest-running business schemes of them all is religion itself, where groups of very clever individuals long ago formulated a means of taking advantage of human fear of the unknown and transforming it into power for themselves by creating a religious script (e.g. the Bible, Koran, etc.) to brainwash the masses and a place to conduct the business (e.g. a church, mosque, etc.). These elites would then work together with the conquistadors to spread the word (deception), to herd the people (customers), and to protect and enforce their ideas (the process of conversion). To broaden the scope even more---to an extent, the elites are also the major influencers of civilization itself, as they have the power to ensure that the laws in place, the values taught, and their version of “morality” are all geared to their benefit.

With such overwhelming powers controlling so many aspects of our lives, what can we do? Indeed, there is always the option of leaving it to natural selection---otherwise known as “survival of the fittest,” but not necessarily in the traditional sense anymore. In this manner, we would just play them in their own game---attempting to outsmart the deceptively clever elites and get a larger piece of the pie (wealth, power, etc.). But I believe that, for the most part, that’s already naturally taking place.

I also offer the reminder that power can also come in numbers. The masses are just that---they are the multitude. This is why revolutions are sometimes successful at removing problematic figures in power. The only problem is that revolutions do not always place an ideal figure in replacement or they do not totally reform the problematic governmental system. Moreover, masses are difficult to coordinate, organize, and mobilize. This is why a military was created (an organized mass)---and whoever controls that usually controls the nation. Regardless, masses can equate to power when effectively motivated and synchronized.

And finally, perhaps one of the most powerful pieces of advice I can give is to hold onto your beliefs. Just because what you believe is vehemently rejected and/or attacked by society, it does not mean that it is a worthless idea or one that should be sacrificed. If you have given your thought ample judgment and carefully considered its balance of positive and negative attributes and it still stands, then it is a thought worthwhile of holding on to. Such unique thoughts unfazed by the pressures of society are the ones that constructively and creatively contribute towards the healthy balance of our collective ideology. Always remember, if you throw away your own thoughts and freedom of thinking, then in essence, you not only discard the worth of yourself but you throw away your own very being in the process.

55 comments:

warpig said...

DAMN BOY, YOU CAN WRITE!!! LOL, YOU JUST DROPPED THE BOMB ON THOSE HATERS! WAY TO GO COCONUTER!! WOOHOO

juan said...

these followers of that blog represent the type of person who wrote that blog - HATEFUL and ARROGANT. in essence it is like telling the person by the company she keeps, in this case by her followers.

she keeps saying that she hates negativity but she spear-head them nonetheless with her abhorring entries. she is quickly becoming the person she hates, spreading discord and hate.

Coconuter said...

With that said, I plan on using this incident as further motivation for future posts, especially in my return to the Philippines this coming December. Stay tuned for new adventures!

reyna elena said...

'Yo da man! Welcome to the club dude! Hahaha!

bert said...

very strong article. your writing prowess and logic is unbelievable. aabangan ko yung mga bago mong adventures. pero dave, because of this incident, ingat ka sa pagbalik mo sa pilipinas. always watch your back.. the elitists, they have so much power

Anonymous said...

whoaaa go go go coconuters.

from a married woman with children

Thysz said...

Can you not categorically say from this line "he should not be restricted of his liberties. I find the situation quite natural and the instinct innate in the human male. I believe that it gives Manny added inspiration, motivation, and/or pleasure in his life" that Manny, for all intents and purposes, is free to have an affair? Please, Chuva is stating her side as much as you are stating yours. And the behavior of her readers who commented (hateful or not)on your blog is entirely theirs. Your blogpost shook a hornet's nest. Don't expect them to just fly away.

warpig said...

if that little bit shook up a hornets nest, then this coco BOMB just blew it up, LOL!!!

carlosceldran said...

"Among all of the human sexual perversions, the most unnatural is fidelity."

I don't know who said that but I just wanted to throw that in there.

I totally see your point (and might agree with quite a few of them) but I won't take sides here, if that is alright.

Cheers Coconuter.

chuva said...

I must say -- Well said!

Anonymous said...

I still believe in fidility it is the foundation of TRUST....which follows the Golden Role that do unto others what you want others to do unto you.

PJ said...

We cannot just simply compare ourselves to where we originated (if indeed we were animals before we evolved to what we are now) because almost all of the species in the animal kingdom lack what we have; and that is common sense. Animals compensate for this with their instinct. Though we do possess animal instincts, it is our common sense that keeps it at bay.

The haters from your previous entries are prolly just conquistadors. Anyone (rich or not) can still have a sense of morality. Some are just stupid enough to force them to others without respect of that person's own set of beliefs.

Good article. :)

Kat said...

You Sir make no sense. People's anger at your opinion has nothing to do with elite vs. masa. It has to do with the male chauvinism behind it. Period

Manny is married, meaning he has made a contract (legal and spiritual) to be faithful to the woman he married. Now if he feels as you do that fidelity is stupid, unnatural blah blah blah. Then he should not be married. Period. As long as he remains married, then his extra-marital activities remain wrong. Your philosphizing and justifying doesn't change that.

If you are married, I pity your wife. If you aren't married, then please spare some poor woman the anguish and NEVER GET MARRIED.

Oh. You may be great with words, but you are still a pig.

jdlc said...

"Your blogpost shook a hornet's nest. Don't expect them to just fly away."

don't you think it's the other way around? she initiated the attack and she was the one who shook a hornet's nest. SHE cast the first stone!

the thing with that other BLOGGER is it's either you have the same views as her or you don't. obviously when you don't share her views she put it up on her blog and all her rabid followers barrages you will all these nasty comments simply because you don't have the same opinion.

oh and as an added surprise, she takes things out of context and she gives it a perverted spin completely distorting what the writer is expressing.

that BLOGGER sees things in black or white, moral or immoral yet she only uses it when she sees it fit. she conveniently forgets her high standard of morality with other matters.

she has a high sense of morality now let her be judged by her high sense of morality she supposedly hold.

Anonymous said...

The problem with your post is that what you are trying rationalize and defend comes out as nothing as an excuse to condone something that you yourself probably want to be the norm.

"And since I feel that it is a natural instinct, then I do not think any external agency should restrict this liberty."

This is flawed reasoning. It's the natural instinct of men to be selfish and violent as well. Does that fact of being 'natural' completely justify them as well?

You also ignore the fact that not everything is about natural instincts, but our societal obligation. Not everything we do is hardwired by nature; there's a lot of room for improvisation, in order to adopt to the unique circumstances of our environment. Monogamy is there for a social function, perhaps as a way to manage scarce resources, as well as it being best arrangement that would bring-up children most effectively in a given culture. To disrupt a given societal norm just because of some naturalistic reasoning is lacking. And fyi, in pre-hispanic Bikol society, serial monogamy is the norm: http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue13/mintz.html

Another is: Did you see how hurt Jinky was? How this will negatively affect their kids? What this means for the kids who look up to Manny? Are you saying that all of these are just "OK"?

All in all, your main argument is nothing but shameless rationalization.

Danilo said...

Great article! Keep on writing Coconuter so that your followers including me of course can use our worthless time reading your blogs :) In this way, I can say that my time will be a bit of a value! Cheers!

Anonymous said...

Elitist, conquistadors,

and gold-digging self-absorbed narcissistic closed-minded hypocritical women ("How DARE this man speak his own mind, show him who's the boss girls!")

Kudos for allowing all negative comments David - that's integrity.

Arlini said...

very well said. keep writing.

Anonymous said...

" hold the perspective that it is definitely possible for a man to have romantic/caring feelings for and fall in love with more than one woman"
<-- feelings, yes. possible. How they act on those feelings are a different story.

" never stated that it is necessarily “right” for philandering to take place"
<-- I think your statement,
"he should not be restricted of his liberties."
shows that you did state that it is right for him to carry on a sexual affair.

"On the question regarding whether this is morally “right”---well, that would certainly depend on one’s definition of morality and one’s own set of moral values---that is, if one even believes in the idea of morality."
<-- that's just it. Pacquiao is bounded by his morals which makes the act wrong. The world sees him pray before every fight, so if his definition of morality is the same as the Catholic Church, like what he shows on TV, then it's not acceptable.

Issey said...

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public. Let's applaud this nutter who learned to string together the most wonderful of words only to mean: "I have nothing to say but I know some mighty fancy WORDSES and thus I can pretend!"

The trouble with your winding, airy little mouthful is that you can't help but contradict yourself, how can you not when your fundamentals, your basic history, justifications and reasonings from which you call on for this rubbish are all faulty?

You talk about the normalcy of infidelity in one paragraph and then switch to deluded musings on how you are so very much like the great and persecuted men such as Galileo for voicing out something out of the ordinary. If you hadn't spoken on such a tone that even real authorities on the various subjects you touched on, I'd feel sorry for you.

"And since I feel that it is a natural instinct, then I do not think any external agency should restrict this liberty."
But human society's established laws and moral standards are what separate us from animals that act only on pure instinct. Please remember that liberty is a right that can be taken away from you (yknow, like, when humans are put in jails) when you cannot function in the outside world. No matter what you feel or think, an "external agency" like parents or the police will always admonish wrong doers and more often than not, give them ample punishment.

And if you're trying to find out the reason behind reactions to your chicken scratch, next time try asking, then you'll find out that married people don't usually enjoy their spouses having extra-marital affairs, that children don't usually enjoy having their families broken and there are more people with more opinions and reactions regarding your mistaken views (as voiced by other people, not just you) that haven't posted on chuvaness.com or here- they don't even know of this issue and so you cannot generalise and lump everyone in one of your two so-called categories. One of the rules in writing: the moment you start generalising, you become automatically WRONG one way or another. The world is far more diverse than you may know.

Whoever you are, please study some history or at least pick up a real book written by real, educated authorities on the subjects that you speak such fallacies about. And maybe one day you will learn that:

1. The Spanish did not massacre Filipinos just to convert us into Christianity but they used Christianity as one of the ways to control the natives, as one of the ways to posses whatever natural resource they can get, such as our cinnamon.

2. Jesus' presence on Earth is confirmed by various learned historians and archaeologists of different races and beliefs.

3. In marriage, couples sign a legally binding contract, which, when breached by adulterers can help put them to jail, for adultery is a crime in the Philippines, regardless of whatever kind of morals anyone may have or have not.

And a whole lot more! Promise, a real book is a wonderful thing! =)

And while you're at it, take some lessons on effective human communication. It helps if you first know what you're writing about and write it well. "Well" doesn't equate to using "big words." The real art and challenge in writing is saying what you mean in the most succinct choice of words.

bert said...

Issey,

the only humiliation is upon yourself.

david never said that he is so very much like galileo, darwin, etc. he just said that, like him, they were persecuted for unconventional ideas.

"And since I feel that it is a natural instinct, then I do not think any external agency should restrict this liberty."
--that statement was purely an opinion. david was just expressing how he felt it should be. you are aware of "opinions" right Ms. Conquistador?

david never generalized and never categorized "all" people. if you read carefully, he used words like "some" and "most" for the groups of people he referred to. you have heard of these words "some" and "most" right Ms. Elitist?

oh, and by the way:
1. david never said that the Spanish massacred the Filipino natives "just" to convert them, so you cannot make that assumption outright. and while on the subject, just like you are forcefully imposing your beliefs onto others through your comment, it cannot be denied that the Spanish conquistadors were doing the same thing... no matter their extra intentions (control, cinnamon, blah blah)... and just like you, those Spanish conquistadors were just so friendly! and I guess they were good Christians too, spreading the word of God and murdering people at the same time =) kinda like you, spreading your logical fallacies through verbal attacks...

2. Confirmed? You must be joking. It's all speculation. There is no concrete evidence to confirm Jesus' existence. scholars have made "probable" reconstructions of his life, but you do know what "probable" means right Ms. Smarty Pants? it means, not definite... what about confirmed, identifiable fossils? Nada... it's all just speculation and hearsay...

3. yes, marriage is a contract, and adulterers can go to jail... did david say otherwise??? if you read carefully, you would have also read this statement made by david - "However, I do point out that the manner in which this act is committed is totally at one’s own discretion..."

Oh Issey... you are just so silly, you know it? but i'm sure you don't... you arrogant, dim-witted b*tch...

If you learn how to read carefully, double-check your facts (and separate them from fiction), communicate without logical fallacies, and respect other people's opinions, then maybe you could rise above the level of "Ignorant Troll"... you would then be just a "Troll"... lol

warpig said...

HAHAHAHA, OH MAN, ISSEY GOT WHOOPED BIG TIME!! ITAGO MO NA YANG MUKHA MO ISSEY,, KAKAHIYA KA. PATIRA-TIRA KA KASI EH,, NGAYON IKAW NAMAN ANG NATIRA....... GO BACK TO YOUR DEMOLISHED HORNET'S NEXT, ESTE, CHUVA-NESST!~!~! HAHHAHAH

Anonymous said...

"2. Confirmed? You must be joking. It's all speculation. There is no concrete evidence to confirm Jesus' existence. scholars have made "probable" reconstructions of his life, but you do know what "probable" means right Ms. Smarty Pants? it means, not definite... what about confirmed, identifiable fossils? Nada... it's all just speculation and hearsay..."

There is no way to "confirm" any historical fact. You cannot prove it. There's no way to bring the past to the present and demonstrate it.

Nevertheless, Jesus' existence isn't as debatable as you put it. The consensus now is that he really existed, but while Christians claim divinity, the secular camps simply say that he was a wise and charismatic man.

"yes, marriage is a contract, and adulterers can go to jail... did david say otherwise???"

coconuter says: "And since I feel that it is a natural instinct, then I do not think any external agency should restrict this liberty." This is tantamount to saying that the person shouldn't be jailed, that the marriage shouldn't be a contract.

Coconuter said that the extra-marital affair is acceptable and is a way to keep a top athlete like Manny going. Wow, really? Even in liberal European societies, affairs like these by the top sportsmen (e.g., Roger Federer, David Beckham) are looked down upon. What else do you expect in the more conservative Philippie society? What suddenly made Pacman an exception? And as someone pointed-out, Pacman is Catholic, so you cannot invoke liberal ideas to defend his actions.

For the women's part, we all know that it's "natural instinct" for women to marry men who could provide, i.e., those who are rich, and there's evolution to explain this desire. Does this suddenty justify golddiggers? In the society they are looked down upon, and women who do not let this desire for economic freedom at all cost blind them are respected. Are you claiming that this is a wrong reaction? If men feel insulted when they are reduced and basically quantified according to their earning power, women are also hurt when the husband is being dishonest. Both sexes have their own selfish 'instincts', but this does not mean that we should give way to them. We can go beyond mere instincts and choose, in a way, what is more 'noble.'

Anyway I partly agree with Issey. Just because the author writes well does not make the thoughts in his post intelligent. His main point (re: adultery) is filled with a lot of flaws. As I said, it's nothing but rationalizing.

Anonymous said...

All those being said, kudos anyway for approving dissenting comments.

Carlos said...

Please don't use the Masa vs Elitist crap anymore, it's total baloney.
Coconuter, I respect your opinion and your ultimately entitled to it the same way I am as well as others taking the time to write comments on your blog (you should thank them/us for getting more hits on your site).
With this freedom to express your views, comes a responsibility when you express it in public.
You gain popularity, pull and admiration from your followers. Or people who won't agree with you. That goes hand in hand when you put yourself/views out there in public. Subjecting yourself to admiration as well as scrutiny.
In my opinion, this dialogue is healthy as long as you get to express your views and your followers theirs.
At the end of the day, you're just as right as you think you are until the person next to you says otherwise. A pinch of salt won't hurt. =)
I don't believe in infidelity, I'm not from the elite, single, gay guy.

" 3 additional hits to your site today "

Anonymous said...

I don't understand how you can include God in your banner below, and yet you believe that it's ok for Pacquiao to have an affair. It makes you look like a hypcorite. But that's just my opinion.

Mon said...

I agree with Kat. If he was to have multiple partners, then he should get a divorce. Plain and simple. He made an agreement. Maybe you can philosophize about justifying his breaking this agreement?

Lady Fontina Manchego said...

By characterizing this as MASA vs ELITIST and saying anyone who sides with Chuvaness is "elitist" are you then implying that "masa" people have no values and don't find anything wrong with what Manny & Krista are doing (if it is true)? Like the other poster before me said masa vs elitist is baloney.

Trying to pass off infidelity as natural is ridiculous too. Dogs eat their young if they die in childbirth does that mean we have to if a child is stillborn? No because as some point being human comes into the equation. We have reasoning and moral codes.

jenggay said...

walang tama o mali sa opinyon ninoman. wlang nag-utos na magbasa, o magbigay ng opinyon. para sa isang simpleng mambabasa na tulad ko, higit sa opinyon o sinulat ng mga taong nandito, ang paraan kung pano sinulat or sumagot ang isang ang syang higit na nakakakuha ng aking atensyon.

hindi ba tayo pwedeng magpalitan ng kuro kuro ng hindi magbibitaw ng masasamang salita para sa kapwa? hindi ba parang ipinipilit na rin natin ang opinyon natin sa iba kung ang pagbabasehan ay ung pagsasabing mali ka at ako ang tama na may kasamang pang-aalispusta dahil lang iba ang opinyon niya sa iyo?

alam ng lahat kung ano ang tama at kung ano ang mali. namulat na tayo dyan. pero higit sa lahat, dapat alam nating gamitin ang salita sa paraang gusto mo lang makipagpalitan ng kuro kuro, at hindi para ipagpilitan ang alam mong tama kasabay ng masasamang salita.

dahil sa huli, hindi naman to pagalingan at padamihan ng nalalaman.

magdalo said...

@Anonymous and @Carlos:

"There is no way to "confirm" any historical fact. You cannot prove it. There's no way to bring the past to the present and demonstrate it."
--Yes there is, as long as you have enough evidence. That's how the court systems work. Regarding Jesus, since there is no definitive evidence, then it will continue to remain debatable. So Coconuter's speculation remains justified. And by the way, "consensus" doesn't necessarily equate to truth.

"Coconuter said that the extra-marital affair is acceptable and is a way to keep a top athlete like Manny going. Wow, really? Even in liberal European societies, affairs like these by the top sportsmen (e.g., Roger Federer, David Beckham) are looked down upon. What else do you expect in the more conservative Philippie society? What suddenly made Pacman an exception? And as someone pointed-out, Pacman is Catholic, so you cannot invoke liberal ideas to defend his actions."
--Yes, really. Coconuter didn't say it was acceptable to you all. Coconuter said it was acceptable to him. The title of the article is "Anomalous." Apparently, you missed the whole point. Brush up on your English. And regarding Manny, if that's what he wants to do with this life, then so be it. It is really none of our business, regardless if he is a Catholic, Filipino Hero, international figure, etc. Pacquiao is the owner of his own self.

For the women's part, we all know that it's "natural instinct" for women to marry men who could provide, i.e., those who are rich, and there's evolution to explain this desire. Does this suddenty justify golddiggers? In the society they are looked down upon, and women who do not let this desire for economic freedom at all cost blind them are respected. Are you claiming that this is a wrong reaction? If men feel insulted when they are reduced and basically quantified according to their earning power, women are also hurt when the husband is being dishonest. Both sexes have their own selfish 'instincts', but this does not mean that we should give way to them. We can go beyond mere instincts and choose, in a way, what is more 'noble.'
--Regarding women who are golddiggers and are frowned upon... that is their choice. According to Coconuter's philosophy, that is fair game and is a natural reaction. It is up to the man to decide whether he wants to remain in that kind of relationship. But regarding making choices, you again missed Coconuter's point. Coconuter said that we do have instinct as basis and we do have the freedom to make our own decisions. BUT, he also said this condition regarding our choices--"If you have given your thought ample judgment and carefully considered its balance of positive and negative attributes..." Thus, he never said that it is perfectly fine to outright hurt others. He said you have to weigh the circumstances and act with your best judgment--BUT that does not necessarily mean that the popular choice is the right one.

"Please don't use the Masa vs Elitist crap anymore, it's total baloney."
--No, it's neither crap nor baloney. It's well justified and quite relevant to the Philippines' current situation.

"Coconuter, I respect your opinion and your ultimately entitled to it the same way I am as well as others taking the time to write comments on your blog (you should thank them/us for getting more hits on your site)."
--Coconuter doesn't need to thank anybody for this traffic or comments. He never asked anybody for anything. He just speaks his mind. And you all flock, attack, and simply make a ruckus. Which is fine, as everyone is entitled to make their own decision.

Danilo said...

There is no such thing as divorce under Philippine law. It is called annulment! There is a big difference between divorce and annulment. I need not to elaborate further.

magdalo said...

@Anonymous, @Mon and @Lady Fontina Manchego:

"I don't understand how you can include God in your banner below, and yet you believe that it's ok for Pacquiao to have an affair. It makes you look like a hypcorite. But that's just my opinion."
--Yes, that is just your opinion. And so is God. God is a totally subjective matter. They don't have to use anybody's or any religion's specific definition of "God." God can be whatever a person believes it to be.

"I agree with Kat. If he was to have multiple partners, then he should get a divorce. Plain and simple. He made an agreement. Maybe you can philosophize about justifying his breaking this agreement?"
--Whether Pacquiao should get a divorce is totally up to him. It's up to Pacquiao to weight out and deal with whatever circumstances and consequences that are present and may arise. And, of course, it's none of your business.

"By characterizing this as MASA vs ELITIST and saying anyone who sides with Chuvaness is "elitist" are you then implying that "masa" people have no values and don't find anything wrong with what Manny & Krista are doing (if it is true)? Like the other poster before me said masa vs elitist is baloney."
--Coconuter never said that "anyone who sides with Chuvaness is elitist." Re-read the article (carefully). And no, Coconuter never implied that the masses have no values or have no care regarding what Manny is doing. Coconuter never even discussed that. He merely said that Pacquiao is free to do what he wants, at his own discretion, and using his own best judgment, regardless of what other people think or the current social pressures. Gets mo na???

"Trying to pass off infidelity as natural is ridiculous too. Dogs eat their young if they die in childbirth does that mean we have to if a child is stillborn? No because as some point being human comes into the equation. We have reasoning and moral codes."
--There's nothing ridiculous about it. If sometime in the future some people find it unnecessary to "drink water," does that mean we should all just drink something else? Well, it's still definitely your choice. If dogs do what you say they do, then that's their choice and way of life (and if there exists one dog who prefers not to do that, then that's its choice). You are not a dog, so you wouldn't know better anyway. Humans are humans. They are not all the same and not all have the same reasoning and moral codes. Reasoning and moral codes are NOT universal.

Anymore rebuttals? Ay, wala na pala...

Anonymous said...

David - I suggest that you continue to share your perspectives in life. This is one of the reasons why we continue to log in to your site. It is great to have a 360 perspective in life. Whether readers agree with you or not, that is their choice.

Danilo said...

It's very difficult to argue if some people doesn't have the basic understanding of the word LOGIC. In other words, these people have low IQs.

warpig said...

SHUT OUT AGAIN... UWI NA LANG KASI KAYO MGA QUEEN BEES AT HORNETS... WALANG EPEKTO ANG IYONG MGA VENOM DITO... BALIK NA KASI KAYO SA CHUVANESST!~!~!

Millionaire Acts said...

Mahaba habang diskusyon and debate ito.

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'ma 18 (I know, its not important) Female but I just want to voice out my "opinion". All of these comments or post would be consider as a moot point.

You could argue for the nth times, but no sides will ever win! LOL. I do know how sensitive women could get with Marriage matters -I'm not married but I am a woman (soon!) -although I do somehow think that Mr. Coconuter is just saying his opinion, too. To be honest, as devastated as we are, Mr. Coconuter might be disappointed with Pacman's doing, but he just stated on his blog that what Mr. Pacman did was completely a 'natural' thing. Man are polygynous, I so believe to that, but in some way we women should accept that (well, not 'like', ofcourse). Manny was just tempted, he has balls like any other men. Although, I am not saying that I am please of his infidelity to his wife, yet he made a decision to either fall into the pit of temptations or NOT, right? And we are still unsure of the details about Manny and Krista (or Ara Mina) rumors --meaning there is no such big and strong evidence about it just yet. So basically, we can't say that Manny should be single, or Jinkee should divorce him, it is really up to both of them. If Jinkee forgive Manny..then that's settled. It is basically, a married-couple's fight or problem; not OURS! Its really a personal matter, thanks to media you people are now arguing about it, now. LOL! And as to Krista? its such ashame that a pretty lass like her is in that kind of situation. tsk

PS (: I am not on Mr. Coconuters side nor Ms. Chuvaness's side. They BOTH, for me, are great bloggers saying their own opinions/beliefs. Thank You. ΓΌ

Anonymous said...

Great answer I'ma 18!

Pacquiao is like a big rock star, and GORGEOUS WOMEN WANT A PIECE OF HIM, it's amazing how he stays with his wife & family, rumors aside.

It's moot like you said, wow what a firestorm David's post has unleashed, Coconuter's words go far and wide!

TEMPTATION is everywhere for Pacquiao: Marian Rivera is so cuuuute!!

ava said...

Awww, isa siguro sa influences ng pagiging Presidente ni Erap yang extra-marital affairs exposed in public... Baka kasi pwede tanggaping ng publiko si Pacman na marami ding chikas kahit may legal wife, kung si Erap nga tanggap ng tao naging Pangulo pa ng Pilipinas... Kay Pacman at Krista libog lang yan... Sa ating lahat naman, Inggit lang yan... Mga guys inggit kay Pacquiao sa Richness and dami Chikas... Mga gals inggit kay Krista kasi katawan lang ang puhunan, daling yumaman... Let them be... Babagsak din sila... (Crab...)

Noi Ramirez said...

Whoa....

Forget the haters David....
Just write and write from the heart.
Those whose sensitivities are touched because of truth need to check themselves first before doing it to others....

Best of everything as always Coconuter... See you soon.

Anonymous said...

Good job!...

I love it... I should have read this before I commented on your other article...

You nailed it...


^_^

Anonymous said...

It's pretty obvious that most of your defenders here are males with similarly absurd principles in life. Do the rest of humanity a favor and keep yourself from sharing your points of view with the younger generation. People like you turn this nation into a living hell.

You, Sir, are free to think and perpetuate with your abominable logic, but to be frank, I don't think your thoughts belong to the world wide web where we try to incorporate knowledge with advancement. I can't believe you have the nerve to compare what you're going through to Jesus', Galileo's, Socrates', or even Jose Rizal's persecution. These great personalities tried to change the world for the better. They introduced grand discoveries & ideas that folks then were afraid to embrace, whilst you're just a brazen **shole who thinks he can get away with being a jerk through pretentious writing and objectionable name-dropping. Get your facts straight next time.

May your twisted beliefs bring you real happiness at the least. I pity your wife and offspring.

fufu said...

it's too long.. but i enjoyed reading =p

pinkbutterfly said...

coconuter, since you are visiting the philippines this december, may i suggest that these people who comment (especially the haters) meet up with you in person. i think this would facilitate better communication, because i doubt they would have the nerve to curse you in public, and more importantly.... i think they will realize how good of a person you really are. *peace* everyone

Les said...

Yes. There are certain human behavior that cannot be explained or rationalized by logic. Human nature is the best way to explain certain mindsets. Yes. We should mind our own business and let Manny do whatever he wishes. Yes. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You are free to express your thoughts.

However, you forget that you are a "public figure" in the blogging community. Many people look up to you, idolize you even, because of your life experiences, and your good stories/articles. There may be no blogging law that states that you have a responsibility to your readers, but as someone who is supposedly well-respected in this community, you should be more careful with the ideas your bring out to the world.

Your blog is accessible to impressionable youth, to students, educators, single men & women as well as married ones. How come you seem surprised that you have garnered such violent responses to your view on extra-marital affairs?

OF COURSE the conservative ones will react.

OF COURSE the married ones will react.

OF COURSE the individuals who have been raised with Christian values will react.

Whether they fall under the umbrella categories of ELITISTS and CONQUISTADORS, we will never know, and it is unfair for you to assume that those with an opinion different from yours fall under these categories already. As I have mentioned above, all kinds of people are bound to have some sort of reaction to your statement(s). It would have been better if you had taken it like a man and accept the fact that there are views which are different from yours (the same line of thinking that you have used in defending your side), and just stopped at your first article. I would have retained my respect for you if that were the case.

I believe that you were very irresponsible with your gift of writing. It is the freedom of journalists / writers to express what they feel, to defend their opinions, to support their views with facts (as what you have supposedly done). But you have to be more careful with the values you project to your readers. Identify what is important to you and be consistent in the messages you send out.

It is one thing to express an opinion regarding politics or to critique a movie...but to openly condone an act that is basically an infringement of the law, that shows us that you have a twisted view of what is right and wrong. Do not restrict men of their liberties to what? To have a relationship with another woman while married with kids? Because no matter how you defend it (by saying that it is a natural instinct of mammals, etc), you still come off as trying to defend something that society has already considered as unlawful and immoral. WHY DEFEND IT? Would you defend murder? Theft? Justify it as a "human instinct?"

The values you project are very shocking. It saddens me to think there are people (men, specifically) in this society who think the way you do: why even try to justify an openly immoral act? Do adulterers have a right to rationalize their actions when it is so blatantly wrong and hurtful to those involved? Do rapists use this argument in court, and do the victims understand that it is just their nature, their instinct to do such acts?
What raises us above animals is our ability to rationalize, to think, to choose. The basic foundations of our society are its values, and if they aren unstable and undefined, we have nothing more to expect than chaos.

I do think that you are a good writer, and you have something to share to the world. But as a blogger, as a writer, you have to be more responsible with your words.

Do not hate us haters, sir. You have to admit that there is a reason why we have reacted to violently. You have touched a subject of morality, of family values, or honor, of faithfulness. You have thrown your opinion into a community which values God, life, love (the same things you value)...and family. Do not act surprised or offended that there are people who have reacted so strongly to your statement. Accept the responsibility and move on.

bert said...

Les, if Coconuter just goes with the status quo, with what you all want him to say, then what's the point of him sharing his thoughts? People like you only want to read what you want to hear. You obviously missed the main point of the article. At the very least, re-read the last paragraph of David's article...

Les said...

To pinkbutterfly: I am not questioning the goodness of Coconuter's heart or mind...I am sure that he has some good traits. The reason why many people have reacted so violently to his blog is because he has touched on a moral issue that has seemed so clear cut and defined in our faith and society: ADULTERY = UNLAWFUL / IMMORAL.

We are all free to express our own opinions on issues. We all have different takes on this issue, I'm sure. The thing that troubles me is that today's society has such a different view of what is right and wrong. So many compromises are made, for the sake of love, money, etc, and it has blurred the lines of what is acceptable and what is not.

It is disturbing to think that many out there accept this act as natural (not right nor wrong, per se...but something INHERENT in humans, as what Coconuter pointed out). THAT statement is what caused the ire of many.

I don't know how Coconuter's private life is, and I don't care (I'm sure his wife and kids love him, etc etc). I just think that Coconuter should just be more careful with his words.

Coconuter: The defense of your statement in this entry just made you come off as arrogant. SORRY. That's just MY OPINION. :))

pinkbutterfly said...

i'm sure other people find you arrogant and disturbing... that's MY OPINION... so i guess we'll just leave it at that...

Anonymous said...

mabuhay ang bagong henerasyong Ilustrado!!

efd said...

dear coconuter,
welcome to our beloved philippines. like you, i have been attacked because of my opposing beliefs about certain doctrines. to me, what is important is that we hear out thers so that we may learn from them as well. after all, no one can claim complete knowledge or have his only say on the subject of morality.
God bless.
efd

Anonymous said...

you can't really flip the situation on dave and say okay lang para sa kanya na gawin din ng babae sa asawa niya because dave has an alpha-male mentality... natural lang... kasi understandably, alpha male siya... ang problema nga lang, he has a lot of filipino readers, and in the philippines medyo baliktad, may pagka alpha-female mentality ang marami... anyway dave, you've won many more fans with your guts to write what you think... thank you

Anonymous said...

David, don't listen to these haters. I know where you're coming from. I, too, am interested in evolutionary biology as the best field to explore and understand issues concerning almost everything, even rape. Do not let these narrow-minded people silence you. I suggest though that continue reading and grasping materials that interest you so you will know more and you will have more to share. Your thesis about having multiple partners, romantic or otherwise, as biological is partly true. In animal species, when there is overpopulation, they tend to practice monogamy to prevent genetic problems caused by in-breeding. Penguins are good examples. In some cultures and societies, when population is that of the minority, such as Muslims, monogamy is not religiously practiced. You are almost there. Take care.

Anonymous said...

with all freedom comes the freedom to take the consequences. in fact, it is the freedom on which all the others are based. - terry pratchett

Anonymous said...

who don't some of these haters just make their own blogs and put all the scummed words on it? duh!

Anonymous said...

Boy, i dont know you but im amazed with what you wrote...

Post a Comment