In this modern age, people are asking if this and that is legal or not. Is that the ultimate guideline for us to follow? Have we forgotten this thing called the conscience? By the way, are we to base our acts solely on the laws?
Things that are so obviously wrong that all the while nobody finds the need for such obvious things to be explicitly stated in the laws. Interestingly, when some raise the question asking if such obviously wrong thing is wrong, there are people who really try to answer the question. More surprisingly, such obviously wrong thing could be argued to be not wrong just because legal laws didn't say so!
Showing posts with label abstinence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abstinence. Show all posts
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Mind and body age mismatch
Just heard from wife some days ago that son's classmate is a boy who was abandoned by both his father and mother. We know of another boy in our neighborhood whose young parents were separated less than a year after married and he is raised by his paternal grandparents.
We are not social workers. I believe social workers have more to tell.
Physical body grows according to natural laws, while [spiritual] mind grows from life experiences and guidance from parents and elders. There is too much academic education for the brain, yet virtually no proper education for the mind.
We are not social workers. I believe social workers have more to tell.
Physical body grows according to natural laws, while [spiritual] mind grows from life experiences and guidance from parents and elders. There is too much academic education for the brain, yet virtually no proper education for the mind.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
How can it be that easy, to abandon babies?
Just learnt about a the shelter for babies in Singapore, Sanctuary House, which was set up since 2005 in this news. Their "business" has grown, sadly.
Not that I don't pity these abandoned babies, but adopting them is not the way.
Ideally, the parents must ... still be fully, or as much as they could to be responsible for them. Yes, the abandoned ones should be taken care of, but I think it is very unwise to directly or indirectly excuse their parents of their responsibilities.
Shouldn't it be considered a crime for one to not want to raise his/her children? Thus, they should be tracked down, and made to be responsible as much as possible. Similar to bankruptcy, but more than it, at the very minimal, a portion of their income/assets must be given to the child indefinitely.
In addition, since a child is related by lineage to his family members and relatives, as long as can track down any of them, they also be somehow made to bare the financial burden. The objective here is not so much as to reduce number of abandoned, but to make everyone aware of the consequence of irresponsible (aka extra-marrital) sex.
The above is really at the bare minimum because financial is just one of the many aspects in raising up children.
Thus, think about it, at present the society/nation/community is baring the burden, i.e. all of us are bearing such increasing burden. If people are concern enough to tell people off because they let kids step on MRT seats, then shouldn't we be more concern to scold [young] people who gets too intimate, regardless in public or in private.
Not that I don't pity these abandoned babies, but adopting them is not the way.
Ideally, the parents must ... still be fully, or as much as they could to be responsible for them. Yes, the abandoned ones should be taken care of, but I think it is very unwise to directly or indirectly excuse their parents of their responsibilities.
Shouldn't it be considered a crime for one to not want to raise his/her children? Thus, they should be tracked down, and made to be responsible as much as possible. Similar to bankruptcy, but more than it, at the very minimal, a portion of their income/assets must be given to the child indefinitely.
In addition, since a child is related by lineage to his family members and relatives, as long as can track down any of them, they also be somehow made to bare the financial burden. The objective here is not so much as to reduce number of abandoned, but to make everyone aware of the consequence of irresponsible (aka extra-marrital) sex.
The above is really at the bare minimum because financial is just one of the many aspects in raising up children.
Thus, think about it, at present the society/nation/community is baring the burden, i.e. all of us are bearing such increasing burden. If people are concern enough to tell people off because they let kids step on MRT seats, then shouldn't we be more concern to scold [young] people who gets too intimate, regardless in public or in private.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Look at the smaller numbers
Quoting from the article, Aborting Abortion by Sangeetha Nadarajan.
In 2006, one out of four, or 12,000 babies were aborted. What is more disturbing is that these terminations of pregnancies were not mostly limited to teenagers or unmarried women. A study by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the National University of Singapore in 2002 reported that up to 75 per cent of women who went for abortions were married.The disturbing points are ... :
- One out of four, or 25% of babies were aborted. What should have been a near 0% is now 25%!Up to 75% were married implies at least 25% were not married. What should have been very near 0% is now more than 25%!I wonder, of the 75% married women abortions, are there any, or how many of the aborted babies were not by their husband's.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The best tool
Many are arguing that sexual abstinence is not the best tool for prevention, especially for those potentially at risk, who are already sexual active. Indeed, it is not the best tool for this purpose. A better tool might be to ... chop/seal off these people sexual organs, for this purpose. Thus, using condoms and practicing safeR (i.e. NOT safe and still risky) sex is also not the best tool.
I suppose either the purpose cannot be so narrow, or there are other considerations. The concern is the spread of STDs, especially HIV/AIDS, by and to everyone. Those who are already sexually active are the minority. Sexual abstinence may not be the best tool for this group of people, and neither is safeR sex, but it is a better tool for the majority not sexually active people. Whereas safeR sex is irrelevant to these people.
Other considerations might include the social aspects. Many studies have shown evidence of the importance of children growing up in a healthy family, which minimal requirement is to have faithful husband and wife. Here, sexual abstinence is supportive of this, while safeR sex outrightly disregards this.
I suppose either the purpose cannot be so narrow, or there are other considerations. The concern is the spread of STDs, especially HIV/AIDS, by and to everyone. Those who are already sexually active are the minority. Sexual abstinence may not be the best tool for this group of people, and neither is safeR sex, but it is a better tool for the majority not sexually active people. Whereas safeR sex is irrelevant to these people.
Other considerations might include the social aspects. Many studies have shown evidence of the importance of children growing up in a healthy family, which minimal requirement is to have faithful husband and wife. Here, sexual abstinence is supportive of this, while safeR sex outrightly disregards this.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Which are of more concern? Detected or undetected HIV carriers?
35 HIV cases detected. What a mild and unalerting title for a piece of Breaking News!
I loves maths, and thus, let me do some simple maths here.
Known figures are:
35 HIV cases detected in 6 months in the CHANGI General Hospital (CGH) among 3 out of 10, or among about 6500 people who opted to be tested.
What does this imply?
It means there might be in total 35 * 10/3 = 116.667 HIV positive among the 6500* 10/3 = 21666.67 patients who visited CGH.
By further extrapolation, it means there might be 116.667 / 21666.67 * 4M = 21538.46 HIV positive people in Singapore.
OK, there is a bias here ... , as patients cannot be used to represent general population. Thus, it needs to be corrected by multiplying by the proportion of people who visited hospital in the past 6 months in Singapore. I don't have it, but let use a low ratio of 1/100, there are about 215.38 HIV positive people in Singapore. This ratio of 1/100 seems too low since 215.38 is only about twice of 116.667 while Singapore has more than 2 similar or larger hospitals like CGH.
Thus, if we use the number of hospitals in Singapore of similar size, which I also don't have the exact figure, but can safely state as > 5, considering SGH, TTSH, AH, CGH, NUH, and many smaller clinics. Then, the number might be 116.667 * 5 ~= 583 HIV positive among only those who visited hospitals in the past 6 months. Note, this is only the estimated number of HIV positive patients, NOT general population.
What we need to pay attention to is not the 35 HIV cases detected. We really need to pay attention to the possibly 116-35=81 undetected HIV cases! From the above estimate, we need to pay attention to the possibly 81*5=405 undetected HIV cases! And if considering the whole population, there are possibly much much more than 405 undetected HIV people who have not visited hospital in the past 6 months, i.e. they are likely to be healthy people.
What are they doing? Without knowing that they are infected, they are living their normal life. What's their "normal" life? At least quite a few of them have a "normal" life of having regular casual sex with multiple partners, including their spouse.
After the first posting, I read this part:
I loves maths, and thus, let me do some simple maths here.
Known figures are:
35 HIV cases detected in 6 months in the CHANGI General Hospital (CGH) among 3 out of 10, or among about 6500 people who opted to be tested.
What does this imply?
It means there might be in total 35 * 10/3 = 116.667 HIV positive among the 6500* 10/3 = 21666.67 patients who visited CGH.
By further extrapolation, it means there might be 116.667 / 21666.67 * 4M = 21538.46 HIV positive people in Singapore.
OK, there is a bias here ... , as patients cannot be used to represent general population. Thus, it needs to be corrected by multiplying by the proportion of people who visited hospital in the past 6 months in Singapore. I don't have it, but let use a low ratio of 1/100, there are about 215.38 HIV positive people in Singapore. This ratio of 1/100 seems too low since 215.38 is only about twice of 116.667 while Singapore has more than 2 similar or larger hospitals like CGH.
Thus, if we use the number of hospitals in Singapore of similar size, which I also don't have the exact figure, but can safely state as > 5, considering SGH, TTSH, AH, CGH, NUH, and many smaller clinics. Then, the number might be 116.667 * 5 ~= 583 HIV positive among only those who visited hospitals in the past 6 months. Note, this is only the estimated number of HIV positive patients, NOT general population.
What we need to pay attention to is not the 35 HIV cases detected. We really need to pay attention to the possibly 116-35=81 undetected HIV cases! From the above estimate, we need to pay attention to the possibly 81*5=405 undetected HIV cases! And if considering the whole population, there are possibly much much more than 405 undetected HIV people who have not visited hospital in the past 6 months, i.e. they are likely to be healthy people.
What are they doing? Without knowing that they are infected, they are living their normal life. What's their "normal" life? At least quite a few of them have a "normal" life of having regular casual sex with multiple partners, including their spouse.
After the first posting, I read this part:
...many of those who did not want the test were elderly or repeat patients who had been tested before. Tests were not offered to those under 21 years old, the age of consent.OK, seems not as bad, but even after discounting, the estimated HIV positive, healthy and sexually people out there who don't know they have the virus are still among the hundreds!!!
Monday, June 9, 2008
False sense of security
Hey, I am not alone to think that bike lanes are dangerous. The false sense of security exists in many different contexts. Some that I am more aware of are ... :
a) Bicycle helmet and other protective gears. These provide some protection IF one falls, AND in a way that these gears can protect. Furthermore, some protection probably only lessen the injury, but injury is still likely or even worse than just injured. The idea of ZERO fall is under emphasized. Regardless of any protective gears worn, the minimal goal is to have ZERO fall. I recommend those who still can fall on bicycle path DON'T cycle on the road.
b) Pedestrian crossings. Most pedestrians I noticed over rely on traffic signals. Once the green man appear, they started crossing. They are putting their lives on the trust that all approaching vehicles are driven by alert and qualified drivers. It does matter IF an accident occured AND the pedestrian is alive to sue the driver. The idea of ZERO accident and safety is under emphasized, compared to the legal rights. Regardless of whether one has the right of way or not, the minimal goal is ZERO accident. I always check the green light, instead of the green man, as the on coming traffic will be blocked by traffic from the other direction. I don't just watch out for cars when crossing roads, but I would also observe if the the driver notices me and has intention to slow down.
c) Condoms. I have mentioned this in many other posts on abstinence. Safer sex practices are giving many the wrong impression that extra-marital sex is OK. The idea of abstinence and ZERO extra-marital sex are under emphasized. Extra-marital sex is a very irresponsible attempt to potentially create a new life without a family, i.e. creating ophans. Thus, going for abortion in these cases is worse as it kills the ophan, while the culprits escape. Sounds like hit and run to me.
a) Bicycle helmet and other protective gears. These provide some protection IF one falls, AND in a way that these gears can protect. Furthermore, some protection probably only lessen the injury, but injury is still likely or even worse than just injured. The idea of ZERO fall is under emphasized. Regardless of any protective gears worn, the minimal goal is to have ZERO fall. I recommend those who still can fall on bicycle path DON'T cycle on the road.
b) Pedestrian crossings. Most pedestrians I noticed over rely on traffic signals. Once the green man appear, they started crossing. They are putting their lives on the trust that all approaching vehicles are driven by alert and qualified drivers. It does matter IF an accident occured AND the pedestrian is alive to sue the driver. The idea of ZERO accident and safety is under emphasized, compared to the legal rights. Regardless of whether one has the right of way or not, the minimal goal is ZERO accident. I always check the green light, instead of the green man, as the on coming traffic will be blocked by traffic from the other direction. I don't just watch out for cars when crossing roads, but I would also observe if the the driver notices me and has intention to slow down.
c) Condoms. I have mentioned this in many other posts on abstinence. Safer sex practices are giving many the wrong impression that extra-marital sex is OK. The idea of abstinence and ZERO extra-marital sex are under emphasized. Extra-marital sex is a very irresponsible attempt to potentially create a new life without a family, i.e. creating ophans. Thus, going for abortion in these cases is worse as it kills the ophan, while the culprits escape. Sounds like hit and run to me.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Approaches are different
It started from an article about youths and teens getting AIDS/HIV in Singapore last week. The author prefers safer sex message over abstinence. Then, there were three articles published in oppose to her article, all published on Monday. Next came two articles highlighting the issue in relation to business organisations, on Tuesday and Friday.
All of them concerns about AIDS/HIV. However, there are two groups being concerned here, the employees, who are typically adults, and the youths and teens. As such, I question is the approach towards employees by corporate management for the sake of business, suitable? ... when applying to the youths and teens.
Employees are adults. Thus, management won't want to influence their attitude towards their sexual life. Employees are not with the company for life. Thus, management is mainly interested in their wellbeing during the years they are serving the company. In the corporate context, the main concern is business performance. Thus, if an employee, regardless being HIV negative or not, can remain productive for the company, managment is happy.
Youths and teens are not adults. Thus, adults of this society share some responsibility in their good wellbeing and upbringing. I agree that judging others by our standard is not nice and unproductive. However, that doesn't mean that we should shunt from expressing what our standard is. I am quite sure that in general, no extra-marital sex is still the best preference by vast majority, even though many may not think that this should be the only preference.
Youths and teens will be in this society, or world whole of their life. Thus, our concern for them shouldn't be limited to when they are young, although our influence on them will be very limited when they are older. When they became adults, they will be influence the youths of their time. Thus, our concern should also not be limited by the youths of our time, but all youths at all time.
In society, we are here to live our life, and work is only a part of it. Getting married with our life partner, building a happy family, and parenting next generation are some of the other parts. Thus, being infected by HIV is not simply a health issue, but it affect many other parts of one's life.
I can understand that managment doesn't have the position and the need to promote abstinence lifestyle to their employees. Doing so has little or no business value for the company. It is also quite unlikely that employees will care about such messages as these are not job or career related.
Thus, from the perspective of management, it may be OK as long as the employee is productive during the employment with the company, and the company can manage when many of them are infected with AIDS/HIV. How getting AIDS/HIV would affect the employee life, family, future, next generation (if any) are quite out of the scope of the management.
However, youths and teens are learning and observing about this world and what is life from those who have been here longer than them. They may not like us to indoctrinate them, but they are still being influenced by adults in many ways since the society they live in have been built by us.
Thus, as adults who care about the society and its future, our concern is much more than that. We don't want just to delay their extra-marital sex behaviors until they are old enough, but we should at least mentioned that extra-marital sex is bad. We don't want just to reduce their risk by teaching safer sex, but we must clearly present the simple logic that risk avoidance is much better than risk managment.
Thus, the corporate's approach in raising awareness about AIDS/HIV among their employees should not be used when targetting youths and teens.
All of them concerns about AIDS/HIV. However, there are two groups being concerned here, the employees, who are typically adults, and the youths and teens. As such, I question is the approach towards employees by corporate management for the sake of business, suitable? ... when applying to the youths and teens.
Employees are adults. Thus, management won't want to influence their attitude towards their sexual life. Employees are not with the company for life. Thus, management is mainly interested in their wellbeing during the years they are serving the company. In the corporate context, the main concern is business performance. Thus, if an employee, regardless being HIV negative or not, can remain productive for the company, managment is happy.
Youths and teens are not adults. Thus, adults of this society share some responsibility in their good wellbeing and upbringing. I agree that judging others by our standard is not nice and unproductive. However, that doesn't mean that we should shunt from expressing what our standard is. I am quite sure that in general, no extra-marital sex is still the best preference by vast majority, even though many may not think that this should be the only preference.
Youths and teens will be in this society, or world whole of their life. Thus, our concern for them shouldn't be limited to when they are young, although our influence on them will be very limited when they are older. When they became adults, they will be influence the youths of their time. Thus, our concern should also not be limited by the youths of our time, but all youths at all time.
In society, we are here to live our life, and work is only a part of it. Getting married with our life partner, building a happy family, and parenting next generation are some of the other parts. Thus, being infected by HIV is not simply a health issue, but it affect many other parts of one's life.
I can understand that managment doesn't have the position and the need to promote abstinence lifestyle to their employees. Doing so has little or no business value for the company. It is also quite unlikely that employees will care about such messages as these are not job or career related.
Thus, from the perspective of management, it may be OK as long as the employee is productive during the employment with the company, and the company can manage when many of them are infected with AIDS/HIV. How getting AIDS/HIV would affect the employee life, family, future, next generation (if any) are quite out of the scope of the management.
However, youths and teens are learning and observing about this world and what is life from those who have been here longer than them. They may not like us to indoctrinate them, but they are still being influenced by adults in many ways since the society they live in have been built by us.
Thus, as adults who care about the society and its future, our concern is much more than that. We don't want just to delay their extra-marital sex behaviors until they are old enough, but we should at least mentioned that extra-marital sex is bad. We don't want just to reduce their risk by teaching safer sex, but we must clearly present the simple logic that risk avoidance is much better than risk managment.
Thus, the corporate's approach in raising awareness about AIDS/HIV among their employees should not be used when targetting youths and teens.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Abstinence is not to say no
Clarification: Abstinence is not to say no.
Abstinence is need not to say no.
I have been educated since I was young that smoking is bad and I shouldn't smoke. They didn't need to tell me how to say no when someone offer me a cigarette. In fact, nobody has offered me any cigarette. Why? ... Because people around me knows that I don't smoke. In addition, most people around me, or I let myself to be with when I have the say, don't smoke.
That is abstinence.
Another analogy. If a guy decided not to play basketball this month, what should he do? Does he need to brush up his skill of rejecting invitation to basketball games? Most likely, there is a reason why he makes the decision, or there must be many other things that he wants to spend his time on. Thus, he should be spending time in all these other things, which quite likely is not related to basketball, such as study, reading book, playing playstation, etc.
That is abstinence.
Abstinence is not for me to always hang around with people who smoke, or carrying a lighter, matchbox, or whatever other smoking peripherals with me whereever I go, or to be interested in discussion on the various brands of cigarette, etc.
Abstinence is not for that guy to carry a basketball, go out in basketball attire, to a basketball court, and keep telling everyone that he does not want to play basketball that month.
Thus, abstinence from extra-marital sex is not to say no, but is to have no need to answer such a question.
Have this decision/intention of not agreeable to extra-marital sex clearly display in your daily behaviors, attire, interests, and etc. Be with friends and people that clearly show similar intentions. Thus, people you meet will not need to ask you questions that you need to answer no.
This is abstinence.
Abstinence is need not to say no.
I have been educated since I was young that smoking is bad and I shouldn't smoke. They didn't need to tell me how to say no when someone offer me a cigarette. In fact, nobody has offered me any cigarette. Why? ... Because people around me knows that I don't smoke. In addition, most people around me, or I let myself to be with when I have the say, don't smoke.
That is abstinence.
Another analogy. If a guy decided not to play basketball this month, what should he do? Does he need to brush up his skill of rejecting invitation to basketball games? Most likely, there is a reason why he makes the decision, or there must be many other things that he wants to spend his time on. Thus, he should be spending time in all these other things, which quite likely is not related to basketball, such as study, reading book, playing playstation, etc.
That is abstinence.
Abstinence is not for me to always hang around with people who smoke, or carrying a lighter, matchbox, or whatever other smoking peripherals with me whereever I go, or to be interested in discussion on the various brands of cigarette, etc.
Abstinence is not for that guy to carry a basketball, go out in basketball attire, to a basketball court, and keep telling everyone that he does not want to play basketball that month.
Thus, abstinence from extra-marital sex is not to say no, but is to have no need to answer such a question.
Have this decision/intention of not agreeable to extra-marital sex clearly display in your daily behaviors, attire, interests, and etc. Be with friends and people that clearly show similar intentions. Thus, people you meet will not need to ask you questions that you need to answer no.
This is abstinence.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
"You can't" and "I can"
What are the differences between these two phrases: "You can't get good score" and "I can get good score"?
The former focus on "you" and what you "can't" achieve, while the latter focus on "I" and what I "can" achieve.
What is the reason to make the first type of statement? When it is more likely to focus on "you" then "I" and "can't" than "can". What kind of situations could that be? ...
When there isn't much to say about "I" and/or about "can".
When a person can achieve something, would he be interested in telling people that who are the people who can't achieve it? I don't think so. Thus, when someone is telling the world who can't achieve something, I bet the unmentioned fact is that this person also can't achieve it.
Thus, when we read news such as Abstinence [programmes] 'not effective', I bet the opponents also didn't achieve effectiveness, else shouldn't they mention it? Also, it should suggest that there are growing number of supportive people and beliefs that abstinence programmes work, which typically imply there are evidence that abstinence programmes work. Furthermore, by conducting studies targeting on some selected abstinence programmes, but none of other programmes, is quite a bias approach.
More importantly, the results only suggest that the situation is quite bad, and I don't think they are showing that the situation is getting worse. In addition, abstinence programmes are not controlled experiments where the subjects are not allowed to be influence by many other things that they are exposed to in their daily life. I would say that common sense should point towards the argument that when abstinence programmes are not effective yet, shouldn't we reinforce them, and tune down other counter influences, especially in media and adults' behaviors, that are undermining the effectiveness of such programmes.
E.g. "Have sex without love is wrong, or isn't ideal" should be a better and correct message than "Have sex before the age of 16 is not allowed" which is obviously a way for adults to hide from guilt.
The former focus on "you" and what you "can't" achieve, while the latter focus on "I" and what I "can" achieve.
What is the reason to make the first type of statement? When it is more likely to focus on "you" then "I" and "can't" than "can". What kind of situations could that be? ...
When there isn't much to say about "I" and/or about "can".
When a person can achieve something, would he be interested in telling people that who are the people who can't achieve it? I don't think so. Thus, when someone is telling the world who can't achieve something, I bet the unmentioned fact is that this person also can't achieve it.
Thus, when we read news such as Abstinence [programmes] 'not effective', I bet the opponents also didn't achieve effectiveness, else shouldn't they mention it? Also, it should suggest that there are growing number of supportive people and beliefs that abstinence programmes work, which typically imply there are evidence that abstinence programmes work. Furthermore, by conducting studies targeting on some selected abstinence programmes, but none of other programmes, is quite a bias approach.
More importantly, the results only suggest that the situation is quite bad, and I don't think they are showing that the situation is getting worse. In addition, abstinence programmes are not controlled experiments where the subjects are not allowed to be influence by many other things that they are exposed to in their daily life. I would say that common sense should point towards the argument that when abstinence programmes are not effective yet, shouldn't we reinforce them, and tune down other counter influences, especially in media and adults' behaviors, that are undermining the effectiveness of such programmes.
E.g. "Have sex without love is wrong, or isn't ideal" should be a better and correct message than "Have sex before the age of 16 is not allowed" which is obviously a way for adults to hide from guilt.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Family Rights
Read an article about TNT babies, which are babies born from Filipino moms who are not allowed to get pregnant. I always do not like the arrangement of foreign maid. What happen to their families, or even their life?
When we are tired of sweeping the floor, we can get a vacuum machine to ease the job. When we are tired of hand washing clothes, we can get a washing machine to ease the job. When we are tired of washing dishes, we can get a dish washer machine to ease the job. But, ... maids are not machines.
When we need help in caring for kids, we get nanny to helpout. However, it is OK if the nanny is part time. May be the kids go to the family of the nanny, which is OK for the nanny, though not so OK for the kids. May be, the nanny comes over but go home daily. But, foreign maids can't go home daily, some not even able to afford to do so yearly.
When will the world, and societies realize clearly the importance of Family Rights? We have Human Rights for many decades. Some "Human Rights", or I call them individual rights, are destroying Family Rights. Put it technically, when will more decisions be make in alignment to system thinking.
Everyone should have come from a family, and shall have the goal of setting up his own family. Having a foreign maid to sacrifice her family life for years so that my family life can be easier is quite terrible, I think. Some may think this is a win-win arrangment, but I say this is like only looking at revenues, but not all expenses. Or, I think such is a terrible "win-win" arrangment, while better ways must exist for a better win-win.
When we are tired of sweeping the floor, we can get a vacuum machine to ease the job. When we are tired of hand washing clothes, we can get a washing machine to ease the job. When we are tired of washing dishes, we can get a dish washer machine to ease the job. But, ... maids are not machines.
When we need help in caring for kids, we get nanny to helpout. However, it is OK if the nanny is part time. May be the kids go to the family of the nanny, which is OK for the nanny, though not so OK for the kids. May be, the nanny comes over but go home daily. But, foreign maids can't go home daily, some not even able to afford to do so yearly.
When will the world, and societies realize clearly the importance of Family Rights? We have Human Rights for many decades. Some "Human Rights", or I call them individual rights, are destroying Family Rights. Put it technically, when will more decisions be make in alignment to system thinking.
Everyone should have come from a family, and shall have the goal of setting up his own family. Having a foreign maid to sacrifice her family life for years so that my family life can be easier is quite terrible, I think. Some may think this is a win-win arrangment, but I say this is like only looking at revenues, but not all expenses. Or, I think such is a terrible "win-win" arrangment, while better ways must exist for a better win-win.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Computer computes
I always feel that a very basic advantage brought by the use of computers is under utilized. Computers do calculations well, and they can easily do complicated conditional computations. Here, it was only after months of motorists slowing down and waiting before ERP gantries then the system of gradual increase and decrease of ERP charges was implemented.
I like this approach, the 15by2015 ... 15by2015 - A Campaign to Strengthen Primary Healthcare Around the World. Most administration procedures seem to remain in the pre-computer era where rules are clear and simple. Follow the link to read how a patient has to pay 7 days of hospital stay because he was fortunately not having HIV, because AIDS/HIV related donations will pay for him if he were HIV positive. This is quite typical in many administrative procedures.
I hope the number 15% is just a guideline, while it can be 17.98% or any more optimal figures since computer does not require a nice number in order to do the calculations correctly.
Furthermore, I suggest a minimum portion of such donations be used for education and prevention.
I like this approach, the 15by2015 ... 15by2015 - A Campaign to Strengthen Primary Healthcare Around the World. Most administration procedures seem to remain in the pre-computer era where rules are clear and simple. Follow the link to read how a patient has to pay 7 days of hospital stay because he was fortunately not having HIV, because AIDS/HIV related donations will pay for him if he were HIV positive. This is quite typical in many administrative procedures.
I hope the number 15% is just a guideline, while it can be 17.98% or any more optimal figures since computer does not require a nice number in order to do the calculations correctly.
Furthermore, I suggest a minimum portion of such donations be used for education and prevention.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Out of the mainstream
Out of the mainstream doesn't necessary suggest wrongness. However, it also doesn't suggest not so.
More importantly, it suggests that the majority do not consider it normal, or correct. Thus, relatively speaking, it is not correct. So, using the phrase "out of the mainstream" may sounds not accusing, but it is ... , relatively speaking.
Absolutely speaking, wrongness or correctness of something is regardless of if it is out of the mainstream or not. E.g. the Sun was once thought to be revolving around the Earth.
Yet, statistically and evidently speaking, most out of the mainstream stuffs are wrong. This also implies that some of them are right.
Basically, being out of the mainstream, or not, doesn't imply wrongness nor correctness.
LGBT is out of the mainstream, and I say it is also wrong.
More importantly, it suggests that the majority do not consider it normal, or correct. Thus, relatively speaking, it is not correct. So, using the phrase "out of the mainstream" may sounds not accusing, but it is ... , relatively speaking.
Absolutely speaking, wrongness or correctness of something is regardless of if it is out of the mainstream or not. E.g. the Sun was once thought to be revolving around the Earth.
Yet, statistically and evidently speaking, most out of the mainstream stuffs are wrong. This also implies that some of them are right.
Basically, being out of the mainstream, or not, doesn't imply wrongness nor correctness.
LGBT is out of the mainstream, and I say it is also wrong.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
No need to know is better
Finally, I managed to locate more details about the survey I was searching for. According to this article, Many S'poreans still ignorant about Aids, in AsiaOne.
To stop the spread, some of those myths are good so that people can be more careful. It may not transmit throug kissing, but here, kissing is kissing, period. Practically, kissing doesn't usually stop at kissing. Also, medically, kissing with wounded openings in or near the mouth should still allow trasmission of the virus. It may not transmit through mosquito bite. However, if someone who is HIV positive but doesn't know mistakenly suspect that he/she might have been infected by a mosquito and go for a test, then that will make him/her know and be able to take proper step not to unintentionally keep spreading the virus.
In fact, I think we should not need to know so much about AIDS/HIV if we have only one sexual partner, who is our life long spouse, within marriage. Thus, from another angle, the "ignorance" might reflect the high percentage of normal people who don't practice sexual promiscuity.
The survey, which polled 705 people, was conducted by World Vision in conjunction with its One Life Experience (OLE) exhibition on World AIDS Day last December.I sense that all the other media/blogs that reported the figures in this survey are mocking at us. Without any other reference point, it sounds like Singaporeans are really terrible not know AIDS/HIV that well. However, ... are we that bad? one third is quite on par with the G7 countries in their more thorough survey. Then, regarding mosquito bites, it is only us since I found this article 3 years back, Filipinos highly misinformed about AIDS: survey (I'm sorry to mention Filipinos here.)
Most Filipinos still believe HIV/AIDS can be transmitted by a mosquito bite or by sharing the food of an infected person, a government survey showed...Besides the figures, again I want to question the ultimate motives of all these AIDS/HIV related organisations. Is their top most priority to stop the spread? Or is it to help the infected ones to live a normal life?
To stop the spread, some of those myths are good so that people can be more careful. It may not transmit throug kissing, but here, kissing is kissing, period. Practically, kissing doesn't usually stop at kissing. Also, medically, kissing with wounded openings in or near the mouth should still allow trasmission of the virus. It may not transmit through mosquito bite. However, if someone who is HIV positive but doesn't know mistakenly suspect that he/she might have been infected by a mosquito and go for a test, then that will make him/her know and be able to take proper step not to unintentionally keep spreading the virus.
In fact, I think we should not need to know so much about AIDS/HIV if we have only one sexual partner, who is our life long spouse, within marriage. Thus, from another angle, the "ignorance" might reflect the high percentage of normal people who don't practice sexual promiscuity.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Priority ~= urgent but =/= correct
I found this earlier report while trying to, but haven't succeeded yet, locate a similar and more recent one done in Singapore. Below is one particular set of key finding and my comments (in italics) on them.
World Vision’s Global AIDS Attitudes Survey
Key Finding – Policy Preferences
... • Children are the top priority for action.
–Publics everywhere are most likely to support programs that help children affected by HIV and AIDS, including children who are orphaned by AIDS and AIDS-related illnesses.
If getting HIV/AIDS is like getting a death penalty, at least the person has enjoyed some of his life. However, for children born with HIV in them, it is like getting a death penalty even before they have life!
• There are marked differences across countries in support for programs aimed at discouraging sexual promiscuity, the widespread use and availability of condoms, and increased availability of clean needles for people who need them.
This suggests different countries have different situations and priorities.
–Programs to discourage sexual promiscuity are a high priority for 39% of adults in the seven countries.
Majority didn't put them as top priority probably because this is something difficult to achieve, and may be sensitive due to "human rights" issues. However, this doesn't mean that it won't work, rather, I think this is the long term solution while the rest aren't solution, but just fighting fire.
–Americans are polarized on all three of these potential measures. One-fifth of the population feels that each should be a low priority or not a priority at in the fight to stop the spread of HIV.
US is a very multi-racial, multi-religious, and therefore, multi-opinions country.
• Raising taxes elicits a strong push back: 41% disagree (with 23%strongly disagreeing) that they would be willing to pay more fortheir government to fund HIV and AIDS-prevention, treatment, research and care programs globally.
Surely, if the rightful approach to discourage sexual promiscuity is a "human rights" issue, then the wrongful burdening of such problems on the innocent majority should be rejected.
World Vision’s Global AIDS Attitudes Survey
Key Finding – Policy Preferences
... • Children are the top priority for action.
–Publics everywhere are most likely to support programs that help children affected by HIV and AIDS, including children who are orphaned by AIDS and AIDS-related illnesses.
If getting HIV/AIDS is like getting a death penalty, at least the person has enjoyed some of his life. However, for children born with HIV in them, it is like getting a death penalty even before they have life!
• There are marked differences across countries in support for programs aimed at discouraging sexual promiscuity, the widespread use and availability of condoms, and increased availability of clean needles for people who need them.
This suggests different countries have different situations and priorities.
–Programs to discourage sexual promiscuity are a high priority for 39% of adults in the seven countries.
Majority didn't put them as top priority probably because this is something difficult to achieve, and may be sensitive due to "human rights" issues. However, this doesn't mean that it won't work, rather, I think this is the long term solution while the rest aren't solution, but just fighting fire.
–Americans are polarized on all three of these potential measures. One-fifth of the population feels that each should be a low priority or not a priority at in the fight to stop the spread of HIV.
US is a very multi-racial, multi-religious, and therefore, multi-opinions country.
• Raising taxes elicits a strong push back: 41% disagree (with 23%strongly disagreeing) that they would be willing to pay more fortheir government to fund HIV and AIDS-prevention, treatment, research and care programs globally.
Surely, if the rightful approach to discourage sexual promiscuity is a "human rights" issue, then the wrongful burdening of such problems on the innocent majority should be rejected.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What is your generation?
In Taiwan, they used the decade to classify people into generations of the 60's, 70's, 80's, and so on. There are also the descriptive names such as hippies, gypsies, punkies quite some years back. Anyway, I like the name of this ministry, Generations of Virtue.
Check out Generations of Virtue's clearance page and you'll find handfuls of great books at low prices. Choose from titles such as Preparing Your Son for Every Man's Battle and "Setting a Paradigm for Purity".
Check out Generations of Virtue's clearance page and you'll find handfuls of great books at low prices. Choose from titles such as Preparing Your Son for Every Man's Battle and "Setting a Paradigm for Purity".
Monday, February 4, 2008
Can I say that to have intimacy is to infect each other?
In an excerpt, Homosexuals Squelch Facts About MRSA Outbreak, of an article in CNSNews.com:
Looking at the medical perspective on infection, it seems like most intimacy behaviors are acts of infecting the other party. Thus, having only one partner in one's lifetime is a smart choice!
But the media are now obscuring that fact, according to Matt Barber, director of cultural policy for Concerned Women for America (CWA).and ...
“The real story here is the way that the media have whitewashed this outbreak,” Barber told Cybercast News Service. “It is amazing to see what they’ve done with this.”…
Medically speaking, any break in the skin that is exposed to the organism can then set off an infection, which can destroy “a lot of tissue” before it’s brought under control, [Internationally known infectious disease specialist Dr. John] Diggs said.Since the main media have whitewashed such news due to concerns about political correctness, let the side media like bloggers who do not have political correctness concerns spread these important information out.
Looking at the medical perspective on infection, it seems like most intimacy behaviors are acts of infecting the other party. Thus, having only one partner in one's lifetime is a smart choice!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
One for all and All for One
Is vaccine for you? Actually, most people had it without saying yes, or even ever had had this question in their head. However, in this era, what's the chance that you will be infected if you were not vaccinated? The chance could be very low for certain infections that certain vaccines are designed for. So, should someone then say, "It isn't for me."
Some years back I heard a discussion regarding should individual choice or rights be ignored for the sake of welfare of the population, and make it compulsory for all to be vaccinated?
In 18 Dec 07 TodayOnline's article: a 56 year-old man said: "It's not for me … It's good for single, young men only. Elder and married men like me who have only one partner are more decent and safe." If a person is safe, there isn't any big different to go for the test, other than the extra few dollars to pay. If only "more" decent and safe, i.e. not 100% safe, isn't it good to be tested? And, even if you have only one partner, not questioning faithfulness, but you can't know for sure if your partner is also decent and safe.
Also, another 54 year-old man said: "Testing isn't for me — the more you know, the more problems there will be." This is similar to choosing not to be vaccinated because somebody would rather die if infected. However, this is not about a single person's life, but about avoiding potential epidemic of infectious diseases that can cause much much more lives.
So, one test for the benefits of all, and all live properly for the benefit of One Human Race.
Some years back I heard a discussion regarding should individual choice or rights be ignored for the sake of welfare of the population, and make it compulsory for all to be vaccinated?
In 18 Dec 07 TodayOnline's article: a 56 year-old man said: "It's not for me … It's good for single, young men only. Elder and married men like me who have only one partner are more decent and safe." If a person is safe, there isn't any big different to go for the test, other than the extra few dollars to pay. If only "more" decent and safe, i.e. not 100% safe, isn't it good to be tested? And, even if you have only one partner, not questioning faithfulness, but you can't know for sure if your partner is also decent and safe.
Also, another 54 year-old man said: "Testing isn't for me — the more you know, the more problems there will be." This is similar to choosing not to be vaccinated because somebody would rather die if infected. However, this is not about a single person's life, but about avoiding potential epidemic of infectious diseases that can cause much much more lives.
So, one test for the benefits of all, and all live properly for the benefit of One Human Race.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Sex education: the ABC Model, and Is abstinence education bad?
Just found and would like to read these two articles:
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Go Speeding
We know that it is dangerous to speed. In educational materials that tell drivers don’t speed, we don't see a further message that says, if drivers really cannot abstain from speeding, then please wear more protective gears, just in case.
Let suppose someone were to produce a video to curb speeding behaviors.
A catchy title is chosen: “Go Speeding.” 99.9% of the contents are about the potential fatal consequences of speeding such as lost of lives, both one’s own and others’, heart pain of loved ones, permanent injuries, and etc. That is, a very strong and clear message of “don’t speed!”
However, for the sake of some who just couldn’t help but will surely go speeding, the producer also includes “DVD extras” such as how to wear proper and top notch protective gears, do regular checks and maintenance on the vehicle, speed only on familiar roads, and etc.
I doubt any traffic related authority will agree to the inclusion of the above “DVD extras.” It basically tells the audience that you may still go speeding, contradicting the “don’t speed!” message.
I think it is not an issue to most, if not all, that why educational materials for drivers only send the “don’t speed!” message, without, at the same time, also giving advises to some people who just couldn’t help but speed.
Yes, it is also important to know about safety precautions. However, these safety precautions in driving are for normal driving, and should not be used to suggest that speeding is conditionally acceptable. Furthermore, these safety precautions are designed for, and are only quite, but not fully effective to prevent injuries in accidents during normal driving. These are not designed for speeding scenario.
This article is not about traffic safety. This is about a recently DVD entitled "Go Have Sex."
I find it illogical to include the “DVD extras” in the “Go Have Sex” DVD. The “safe sex” message simply contradicts the “no pre-marital sex” message.
Yes, it is also beneficial to know about contraceptive measures. However, these contraceptive measures are for family planning, and should not be used to suggest that pre-marital and extra-marital sex are conditionally acceptable. Furthermore, condoms and the likes are designed for, and are only quite, but not fully effective to prevent pregnancy in normal sexual life, i.e. within marriage. These are not designed for prevention of STDs infections, and pre-marital and extra-marital sexual lifestyles would further reduce their effectiveness.
To all parents and educators, please do not include contradictory contraceptive materials when sending the “no pre-marital sex” message!
Let suppose someone were to produce a video to curb speeding behaviors.
A catchy title is chosen: “Go Speeding.” 99.9% of the contents are about the potential fatal consequences of speeding such as lost of lives, both one’s own and others’, heart pain of loved ones, permanent injuries, and etc. That is, a very strong and clear message of “don’t speed!”
However, for the sake of some who just couldn’t help but will surely go speeding, the producer also includes “DVD extras” such as how to wear proper and top notch protective gears, do regular checks and maintenance on the vehicle, speed only on familiar roads, and etc.
I doubt any traffic related authority will agree to the inclusion of the above “DVD extras.” It basically tells the audience that you may still go speeding, contradicting the “don’t speed!” message.
I think it is not an issue to most, if not all, that why educational materials for drivers only send the “don’t speed!” message, without, at the same time, also giving advises to some people who just couldn’t help but speed.
Yes, it is also important to know about safety precautions. However, these safety precautions in driving are for normal driving, and should not be used to suggest that speeding is conditionally acceptable. Furthermore, these safety precautions are designed for, and are only quite, but not fully effective to prevent injuries in accidents during normal driving. These are not designed for speeding scenario.
This article is not about traffic safety. This is about a recently DVD entitled "Go Have Sex."
I find it illogical to include the “DVD extras” in the “Go Have Sex” DVD. The “safe sex” message simply contradicts the “no pre-marital sex” message.
Yes, it is also beneficial to know about contraceptive measures. However, these contraceptive measures are for family planning, and should not be used to suggest that pre-marital and extra-marital sex are conditionally acceptable. Furthermore, condoms and the likes are designed for, and are only quite, but not fully effective to prevent pregnancy in normal sexual life, i.e. within marriage. These are not designed for prevention of STDs infections, and pre-marital and extra-marital sexual lifestyles would further reduce their effectiveness.
To all parents and educators, please do not include contradictory contraceptive materials when sending the “no pre-marital sex” message!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
