We got Jolly Cow melamine milk for breakfast. Bwahahaha!

That explains a lot!

Batman says he’ll have a talk with the authorities of Arkham over this.

But we can’t say if Batman will give a you personal visit or not. He’s been so different since his last encounter with Darkseid!

As for the rest of the League, we’re extremely busy.

Having admitted to which party I belong to, which you can’t do because …

You obviously didn’t understand me the first time. There is nothing to admit on that because I don’t accept Benigno’s claim of the 2 camps!

Well, frankly, I chose to be among the “victimizers.” …

You’re lucky your rant is too childish to be taken seriously.

But nevertheless your case was referred to Green Lantern. But one look at your post; he flew away laughing, saying you don’t belong in his rogue gallery.

You belong in Batman’s!

Having admitted to which party I belong to, which you can’t do because you’re lost in your own overanalysis, I do realize that I have an unfair advantage so much so that I even have time to read up on blogs like this while my people work their ass off on a Saturday. You get the government you deserve, and I don’t blame myself for reaping the benefits.

Here’s a clue: It’s a wake-up call. I’m actually less affected by the situation than you are, so this “law” has an insight you ought to understand and understand well. If you choose not to learn from it, then by all means go the same path. I’ll just do as you do. (if you think there is anything to conserve)

I really don’t understand what your problem is.

For one, I don’t accept his claim of the 2 camps of victimizer and victim.

This victim-victimizer relationship happens all around us. Are you a victim? Are you a victimizer? What – you’re neither? ….
Lost in the metaphor?

Honeybees aren’t generally known to victimize anyone/thing when they make honey.

My, my, you’ve just implied that you’re a neutral party who doesn’t care about-, is not affected by-, and will make no attempt-, to influence any positive change that would cost you nothing (because if intervening would cost you, then you’re no longer the unaffected neutral party, you’d be a victim too).

No I did not imply whatever you are saying.

Since I don’t believe in Benigno’s claim; your scenario does not apply to me.

But since you believe in what Benigno claimed; then it definitely applies to you.

Since there are only 2 camps to choose from (and there will always be 2 camps) and that 1 camp are victims, doesn’t it follow that those who choose to be victims remain as victims FOREVER?

And Benigno implied that there would be only 1 winning side; didn’t he?

But anyway, for those victims who will be successful in influencing POSITIVE CHANGE, will they still be victims or will they now be victimizers? Benigno did say that there will always be victimizers.

How about those victims who in one way or another were not successful in influencing positive change but who live in a society where some victims were successful in influencing positive change; if they remain as victims, who victimizes them now?

How does this positive change affect the victim-victimizer relationship? Benigno did say “In this world there will always victims and there will be victimisers.”

How much of a positive change then is this positive change you are referring to?

So what about the Law of Conservation of Credibility gets your goat?

Why the question? What have I specifically said AGAINST Benigno’s so called brilliant Law of Conservation of Credibility?

… benign0 has no credibility to you.

You are the one who said that; not I!

… and illustrates an all-too-real dilemma whether one will:
(a) choose to prosper and CELEBRATE economic/social/political ADVANTAGE within an unjust system (the role of victimizer); or
(b) choose to not be part of group-a which means in keeping your integrity and maintaining your conscience you keep your principles at the expense of said eco/socio/political advantage (the role of victim).

Since you put it that way, WHICH OF A OR B DID YOU CHOOSE and which of A or B is the winning side?

That is your scenario so you should be more than willing to answer the question above but then you might want to be thinking of Benigno’s so called brilliant ‘Law of Conservation of Credibility’ right about now for yourself. (if you think there is anything to conserve)

(a) choose to prosper and celebrate economic/social/political advantage WITHIN an unjust system (the role of victimizer); or

(b) choose to not be part of group-a which means in keeping your integrity and maintaining your conscience you keep your principles at the expense of said eco/socio/political advantage (the role of victim).

This victim-victimizer relationship happens all around us. Are you a victim? Are you a victimizer? What – you’re neither? Are you telling us all that you’re not a weakling of a victim, and you’re no vile victimizer, which means you’re the third person in the room with no concern for how the other two are related? My, my, you’ve just implied that you’re a neutral party who doesn’t care about-, is not affected by-, and will make no attempt-, to influence any positive change that would cost you nothing (because if intervening would cost you, then you’re no longer the unaffected neutral party, you’d be a victim too). So, which one are you? Are you none of the three? You mean there’s a fourth person in the room? Lost in the metaphor?

So what about the Law of Conservation of Credibility gets your goat? Didn’t you get it that the more credible our elections become, the less credible our excuses for our circumstances become? conversely, the less credible the elections are, the more credible our excuses for the way things are? Bottomline: We have to own up and be accountable for putting the right people into power.

By the way, your ad hominem, to quote,
“But then you might want to be thinking of your so called brilliant ‘Law of Conservation of Credibility’ right about now for yourself. (if you think there is anything to conserve)”
does not apply.
You should’ve just said directly that benign0 has no credibility to you.

Ex- Pres. Estrada was already considered by many to be the man to beat in the 1998 elections. Yet more than 60% did not vote for him.

(As addressed to Joe America)
In this world there will always victims and there will be victimisers. No amount of liberalist whining will cure that human condition (in fact it is a condition of the overall world of living organisms). You simply have to decide on which of the two camps you’d like to join.

Since you are an advocate of that Japanese manufacturing engineers’ advice of “Do it right the first time”; you would have indicated if there were more than just the so called camp of the victim and the so called camp of the victimiser.

Since you indicated no other camps, then simply there are but 2 camps to belong to as far as you are concerned and that no amount of liberalist whining will cure that.

But then it should be no surprise to everyone that you hold only 2 sets of people.

I do remember implying that you probably have at least one “deviation” for which your book was created to satisfy.

http://filipinovoices.com/encapsulating-the-philippine-national-debate/comment-page-1#comment-58961

Allow me to start off with a famous O.B.Q. (Original benign0 Quote):
The trouble with wiping dust off a mirror is that we get a clearer image of ourselves.
- benign0

And you can show everyone how clear your mirror is for you by admitting which of the 2 camps you belong to.

So which of the 2 camps are you going to be admitting? You can even admit that you belong in both.

But then you might want to be thinking of your so called brilliant “Law of Conservation of Credibility” right about now for yourself. (if you think there is anything to conserve)

If you wish to make me appear deeper than I am, go ahead. It was an accident of expression, a search for comfort and reality amongst the angst, founded somewhat on the principle that when you strike bottom, there’s but one way to go.

Re. victims and victimisers, whiners and doers, you are absolutely correct, though we Americans would put a “zed” in there somewhere. Drawing one of those parallels you dissed elsewhere, in America, democrats suffered as victims gnashing their teeth for 8 years under Bush, now the conservative republicans are whining like the country elected a traitor to all humanity as its President.

So, really, all the gnashing and whining here in the Philippines is not so extraordinary. What is extraordinary is that there are so many gnashers and so few (simply) dealing with it.

(I’m personally a reformed gnasher. I made the mistake of reading your material, which looped around in a circle and met RealityCheck’s incessant cry for facts head-on.)

Joe