I, Dustin Celestino, the number one authority on anti-RH arguments, have been mentioned in a recent article by Sun Star Baguio. In this article, my arguments against the RH Bill have been justly juxtaposed with the arguments of none other than the principal author of the RH Bill, congressman Edcel Lagman.
Here’s paragraph #4:
Dustin Celestino, a critic, said, “[The] RH bill is wrong because it then assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated; it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women; the RH Bill will put Filipinos into extinction; it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion; and assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”
Here’s paragraph #5:
But Lagman fortified and added, “Reproductive Health Bill promotes information and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs. He added “the bill does not have any bias for or against natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptives methods and their purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.”
Let me repeat, in this article, the Pro-RH side is represented by the principal author of the RH Bill, Edcel Lagman. The Anti-RH argument is represented by the number one authority on Anti-RH arguments, me.
It’s truly a clash of the titans because my opinions for why the RH bill is bad (dinosaurs are extinct because they used condoms, therefore people will become extinct if they used condoms) bear as much weight as any scientific study that proves how the RH Bill could be beneficial to our country.
I’m very proud of what I’ve accomplished as the number one authority on anti-RH arguments. I would like to thank my friends and family for their support. I would like to thank all the Catholics who quoted me, especially St. John the Baptist Parish of Taytay, Rizal for making a virtual poster based on my gospel:
But I have a confession to make: I’M NOT ANTI-RH.
I never thought I’d be quoted by Anti-RH people (and media!) to make arguments against the RH Bill, because the article I wrote (“Why the RH Bill is Bad”) was satire. It’s even categorized as humor. I thought this was obvious because:
1. No, you can’t live on the ocean floor.
2. No, dinosaurs didn’t use condoms.
3. No, women can’t have abortions if they’re not pregnant.
4. No, priests don’t have the most knowledge and experience with sex and reproduction… well, that point is debatable.
In any case, there is a reason why people thought that the article was serious. The formal term for the effect is called Poe’s Law.
The core of Poe’s law is that a parody of something extreme by nature becomes impossible to differentiate from sincere extremism. A corollary of Poe’s law is the reverse phenomenon: sincere fundamentalist beliefs being mistaken for a parody of that belief.
People can’t tell if the article I wrote was a parody or not because they’ve probably met people online and elsewhere that have made statements that are just as, if not more, absurd. As Red Tani has mentioned in his article “Satire and Straw Man,” “Some anti-RH arguments are so stupid that satirizing them is almost too easy.”
What’s interesting to me, however, is some people’s insistence on quoting me and pointing to my article as a credible source of Anti-RH arguments. Did they actually think that dinosaurs used condoms? It seems to me that a lot of Catholics read my article in the same way they read their Bible – they only quote and remember stuff they agree with while ignoring every other fallacy found in the same document.