Of Utter Dishonesty and Misrepresentations
“Beware of those who smuggle a false premise into the mind of a careless listener” – Ayn Rand
This is my take on a brainless, desperate and Nazi advocate member of the Filipino Free-farters named Nikolas Balthazar. Try to read his sophomoric, poorly written blogs on the Free-farters’ website to see his utter idiocy, illogical analysis of certain issues, and outlandish pragmatism.
A friend of mine led me to the Facebook account of a dogmatic supporter of the RH bill whom I mentioned in my previous blog. This staunch anti-population fanatic named Nikolas Baltazar, also known as Justin Aquino (this shows he’s a living troll) describes himself in an online collective called the Filipino Freethinkers in the following manner: “I am a pragmatist whose altruist beliefs are based science and math. I don’t like Philosophers or their “Play on words”, I only deal with results, evidence and action. I continuously work toward my Machiavellian-altruistic beliefs and I leave nothing to chance especially the supernatural, mystical or faith. I live in the real world and I am aware of real suffering, and how easy it is to hide behind the little lies I and others tell themselves. I’ve stopped dreaming.”
It is clear that Mr. Balthazar is opposed to any form of philosophy when in fact he embraces a mongrel viewpoint consisting of pragmatism, altruism, Machiavellian-type ideology, among others. His self-description is explanatory. He believes that issues can only be solved through the application of science, math, statistics, and so on. He claims that ideas and philosophy do not matter, and champions what he calls beliefs “based on science and math.” However he is silent as to how he would present his argument without relying on a particular premise. He also failed to present his own argument on the Reproductive Health Bill issue, which is the center of contention, using his science-and-math style of argumentation.
Now as usual, like those who don’t have any sane argument to adduce, Mr. Balthazar resorted to dishonest claims, spins, distortions, and utter misrepresentation of the philosophy of Objectivism. For instance, Mr. Balthazar on his Facebook wall boasted to his friends the following claim which is a very dishonest misrepresentation of Objectivism:
“We have their books and we are giving them our facts. Objectivists aren’t trained to study Science just preach ideology so they are pretty much just all hot air. Problem of a entirely Philosophical Doctrine is that Ideologies cannot be proven.”
What this anti-population supporter fails to grasp is that philosophy is on top of all the special sciences. Like Ayn Rand said,
“Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible.”
Objectivism is a well-developed philosophy whose ethics is rational selfishness and whose principles are centered on the sanctity of human life and the primacy of the individual over the collective. Reality is superior to man’s consciousness, and this is the basic tenet of Objectivism.
I wasn’t surprised when I read Mr. Balthazar’s posts on his Facebook wall. He resorted to lying and distorting my statements to perhaps please his Facebook friends.
He states: “Mr. Bersamina keeps pointing me to his blog but he has no scientific or statistical backing to support his extremely dangerous and ill conceived theories. He also mixes in the religious crowd thinking they are ok with Randian Philosophy (maybe just the Opus Dei).”
I don’t know how this guy got his opinion that I have “no scientific or statistical backing to support” my premise. For the record, and Mr. Balthazar knows it, I only had eight replies to the baloney questions—which were not even questions—he posted on different threads of I Oppose Reproductive Health Care group. Reality should tell him, if he’s honest enough, that I never said I “have no scientific or statistical backing to support” my claim. Also, I did not intend to “mix” with the religious crowd “thinking that they are ok” with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. In fact I stated several times, if he was honest enough to know my position on the RH bill issue, that I disagree with the religionists’ point of view.
In my first blog entry on the RH bill, I stated: “I oppose RH Bill not on the grounds of religious argument (that it is anti-Life), but because it is not part of the function of a government to institutionalize slavery, by sacrificing one group to another group. I do not share the sentiments of the religionists and the Catholics that this bill is pro-abortion or against the sanctity of life.”
In this blog, I expressed my opposition to the religious sector’s position in the following manner: “One cannot oppose the altruistic RH bill on religious grounds. The religionists are not making any sense by basing their opposition on biblical dogmatism, while the blind apologists of the bill rely on pragmatism, altruism and mysticism.”
I stated in this blog the following: “For the religionists, they oppose RH bill on religious grounds (their premise). For those who support it, their premise is linked to altruistic agenda, like common good, the need to solve overpopulation, and the provision of free health care services.”
Also in my latest blog, I argued: “Today the issue of population control in this country is widely seen as the battle between the anti-population mystics who support an altruist legislative proposal and the religionists, who tied their arguments to Biblical grounds. Unfortunately, none of the opponents of this legislative proposal—the Reproductive Health Bill authored by socialist representatives in Congress—offered a proper, rational argument to counter the assumptions of the anti-population cultists. This is the reason why the RH bill debate is gaining more supporters than opponents—and this is also the reason why this country is moving toward complete collectivism.”
So where’s the proof of this anti-population fanatic that I mixed with the religious crowd “thinking that they are ok” with the Objectivist philosophy? This dishonest claim only exists in the mind of Mr. Bathazar.
Mr. Balthazar also states the following: “Most of the Anti-RHB has no scientific backing. The woman who loves spreading Pills are Abortive has no solid ground because, If it was then the church SHOULD then follow through with the reasoning and Excommunicate all women who took the pill!”
If he read my latest blog entitled The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult, he would know that I stated there that the RH bill issue is a philosophical and moral one (not the religious morality). Like I said, I oppose the bill because it’s a breach of individual rights. I clearly said, “Everything that is not consistent with man’s nature and rights is a breach of reality. This is the reason why I believe that this anti-population RH bill is detached from reality, for it purports to demand the already “given” yet hints the “impossible”.” Now I don’t know the connection of his example about a “woman who loves spreading Pills are Abortive” with my position on the matter. Again, it only exists in his mind.
Here is another spin and dishonest claim. Mr. Balthazar shares the following with his Facebook friends: “Like our dear president (GMA). If they don’t then there is no uniformity to the definition of life in the church and at the cost of the lives being lost to the Lack of RH, this are are in fact killing people. Worse is that they are not treating the matter with the severity it deserves: these are lives and families, and claims of self righteousness should be backed up with reasons CLEARLY stated.”
This is the problem with people who refuse “to know their enemy.” If this guy wants to “slam me down” like what he claims he did to a “60 year old Objectivist from Arizona”, then he should have spent some time and effort trying to understand my philosophy and where I’m coming from. But it seems that all he could do is resort to evasion and misrepresentations where he is obviously an expert of. I don’t know the connection of his “our dear president” claim with my position. It is obvious, since this guy rejects reason and ideas—that he failed to see that I oppose the bill on the ground of individual rights. Again, his claim only exists in his mind.
He contends that “Objectivism isn’t supported by numbers” so I failed to argue my case. Objectivism is a philosophy that deals with reality and real-world facts and problems. I don’t know where he got the idea that for us to better argue our position we must have numbers or some sort of mathematical expressions. Like most positivists and relativists, this guy does not believe that legal principles and objective morality and values matter. He failed to understand that every argument is tied to a certain premise. What he calls scientific facts, mathematical expression, and statistics are merely secondary. Population is a MORAL ISSUE, not a statistical issue. Many times I urged him to present his statistical, mathematical, and scientific argument on the RH bill issue. Instead, his response is in the form of dishonest claims, misrepresentations, and adhominem attacks. Again, his contention only exists in his mind.
Mr. Balthazar further states:
“What concerns me is the Dehumanization. To them these Statics of Mortalities and Suffering are numbers to them. They do not understand these are RECORDED observation of Death, Suffering, and Tragedy. They asked me why “Gapminder is my Bible?” Why arent your own senses the foundation of your rational? Especially policy regarding Other people.”
Well, I never asked why Gapminder is his “bible.” I’m never interested in his autobiography. I never stated that sufferings and mortalities are numbers, because I don’t believe in suffering. What he means to say is that senses are everything that must guide man’s action. He totally rejects reason which, for the benefit of other people who are open to reason and real logic, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. My evaluation then is true, as I stated: “Observe that these men are also detached from reality, as they allowed themselves to think and live by the whim of the moment. This kind of people proclaims that they are only interested in results, in the ends of their goal, and reject ideas, which they regard as impractical and senseless abstractions.” Again, his claim only exists in his mind.
I think it would be an overkill to evaluate and critique the rest of the commentary of Mr. Balthazar. Here’s what he has to say:
“They have apparently removed ALL empathic association to the families who suffer and hide behind their dogma of righteousness. Clearly the psychology is rooted in denial and the inability to come to grips with facts.
“A woman dies of her 4 to 5th child, leaving her family motherless; A youth is in a desperate situation and gets pregnant; children are not raised well because they are beyond to their family’s means; are a stories are just examples of people who do not have the same amount of FAITH as them. That GOD has rewarded them, and only them, and everyone else should do what they did- without regard of their circumstance.
“All their arguments, bottom line, are claims with no Proof or carefuly explained science and facts. Their proof is one sided and mostly divided. Even in the definition of LIfe they are inconsistent. Abortion is Excomunication but Exceptions are made. What is the church’s defintion when it is not Entirely Belived enough to be Enforced!”
I see no further reason to answer Mr. Balthazar’s abovementioned statement, which is full of misrepresentations, lies, distortions, and spins. They never represent the philosophy of Objectivism and to answer it would be to sanction a misguided, dishonest altruist. It is obviously clear that the subject of his bragging and dishonest attack is a straw man. All of his claims, lies, spins, and distortions only exist in his mind. If this anti-population supporter is honest enough, he would know that Objectivism is a philosophy that regards man as an end in himself. He would also know that population is a moral issue which can only be critiqued by means of reason and logic. When logic is employed, scientific facts, mathematical data, and statistics are merely secondary. They are merely employed to back a certain premise. Since I do not believe that overpopulation is a problem and the main reason to pass the RH bill, the presentation of scientific, mathematical, and statistical evidence is only optional.
Like I stated in one of my previous blogs:
“Any critic who resorts to dishonesty- that is, by arguing his cause by means of dropping the context of your premise or statement, or resorting to adhominem attack- has nary a sane, proper argument to adduce.” Well, it’s too bad I found out the dishonesty and misrepresentation of Mr. Balthazar through his Facebook status. If he were perceptive enough, he would know I wasn’t interested to deal with him. But no, it would be inappropriate to ho down to his level.
Here’s what he said about my giving him a speck of my time:
“I hope they continue to verbally attack me. He doesn’t know it but, he is just making the Anti-RHB wary of being associated with him. If it was going to be this easy to provoke him, he should I would have done this earlier.”
Isn’t that utter dishonesty? This guy, like most irrational people, is a typical flame bait. No, Mr. Balthazar, I won’t provoke you. I’ve known your intention the very moment you asked me an outlandish, out-of-this-world question. It’s pretty clear from your platitudes of lies, dishonest claims, and misrepresentations that you don’t want any answer from me, you only wanted to provoke me. You don’t want my honest position, your sole intention is to impose your mongrel belief system on me. You don’t want any rational discussion, you only wanted to show your so-called mathematical prowess and brag about it to your Facebook friends.
It’s no surprise this guy “stopped dreaming.” No, I won’t sanction this kind of people who hold a form of mongrel philosophy and who couldn’t even define the difference between reason and senses- between the sensory capacity of an animal and the cognitive function of a man’s mind. These people do not even have any fundamental premise to tie their arguments, but a mystical floating abstraction consisting of borrowed premises, undefined contradictions, absurd slogans, and vague technicalities.
Now look at how some of the anti-population fanatics impose their baloney altruistic beliefs on other people. I do not agree with the position of the religionists, but the post below is a good example of how some of the anti-population cultists dishonestly distort the argument of those who do not agree with them. Utter dishonesty and rejection of law logic and reason are their primordial means of attacking and intimidating anyone who goes against their irrational, senseless position. They proudly claim that they are for the poor and for equality of wealth and services, but they don’t know that the means by which they pursue their socialist-altruistic goal run roughshod over the rights of other men. Their method is totally dishonest, as their technique is to provoke anyone who disagrees with them in order to put him in bad light and to make him appear that he only based his position on emotion. Reverse psychology- this is the dishonest method of the staunchest fanatics of this evil RH bill.
Now, do not fall into the trap of these dishonest people. Their cunning, deceitful intention is only to provoke you. Most leftists, both conscious and unconscious, are simply good at black propaganda, myth-making, and provocation. This is the psychology of most anti-population advocates.