Skip to content

Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason

February 26, 2010

No, you are never an advocate of reason. You are, in reality, an advocate of secular mysticism, which is even worse than the advocacy of the religionists whom you passionately reject.

  • A notice to my Free-farter visitors: I don’t expect you to adduce any sane, rational, logical argument. Do not even attempt to rationalize a floating abstraction or any premise grounded in whims and caprices, and masquerading as a by-product of science, logic or reason. Let this be my final encounter with you, and I end it with this quotation by Thomas Paine: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead .”

A commenter code-named “Innerminds” reacted to my blog entitled “Freethinkers or Free-farters.” He defended a certain

A promoter of reason?

A promoter of reason?

atheistic group called the Filipino Freethinkers by claiming that they are not promoting atheism but reason. Here’s what this Filipino Freethinker said:

“First of all, the Filipino Freethinkers are not promoting atheism, but reason. Mind you, there are agnostics, deists, and even liberal theists in the group.”

Here’s my reply:

I don’t think that that atheistic group promotes reason. I don’t think they really understand the concept of reason. Do not confuse secularism with rationality. Being a secular doesn’t mean you embrace reason. If that’s the case, what kind of reason does this atheistic group promote? Is it reason by, for, from the liberals, socialists, secular humanists, etc.? For the liberals, reason constitutes in sacrificing one group to another group through their progressive programs and the concept of egalitarianism.

No, it is not reason that this atheistic group promotes, but secular mysticism. The proponents and advocates of secular mysticism are motivated not by a quest for truth, but by hatred of religion and of man’s mind. Indeed, it is only proper to blast the cover of the self-avowed Freethinkers by calling their mystic group by its proper name. But yes, these Freethinker mystics are worse enemies of reason than the religionists whom they fervently decry.

I also observed that this group serves as a cultist sanctuary for communists, Satan worshipers, and even deists as this commenter claimed. So it is only proper to call this mediocre group “Filipino Free-FARTERS”, instead of Freethinkers, a self-serving word invented by and for the secular mystics.

The Filipino Freethinkers explicitly states its understanding of reason: “When you try to use reason and science to reach your own conclusion about something, you are freethinking.” (emphasis not mine)

For your information, reason is not an end in itself; it’s a noun not an adjective; it’s a process not a bumper sticker. Reason, from the Aristotelian  and Objectivist point of view, is a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by one’s senses. Reason does not simply mean science. In essence, reason is a process, which every scientist or inventor must possess in order to produce a productive idea or any object with commercial value. Epistemologically, reason tells you that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Objectively speaking, it is this faculty that integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.

Metaphysically, a rational human being believes that existence exists. This is because reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality. That said, I say that both the liberals and progressives act against reason because almost all of their programs are in breach of reality and of reason.

In the United States, it is the liberals, progressive and statists who caused the creation of the Federal Reserve that is now the root of all crises in America. It is the Frankenstein Community Reinvestment Act and the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of the Liberals and Democrats with the help of statist Republicans that triggered the economic crisis.

In the Philippines, it is the mongrel orgy of the statists, liberals, progressives that worked for the passage of the EPIRA law that led to the monopolization of our power industry, and caused poor services, high costs of electricity, etc. All government intervention into the Philippine economy was inspired by the spirit of altruist liberalism, progressiveness and egalitarianism.

Now the Leftists in Congress are pushing for the passage of a socialist bill called the Reproductive Health bill that is being ardently supported by members of the Free-farters. The RH bill is the brainchild of the liberals and leftists in Congress, and it is only expected that their absurd followers support this evil legislative proposal. This, in essence, is in breach of reality and reason not merely because it seeks the sacrifice of the successful and the rich to the poor, but because its provisions violate the inalienable individual rights of a particular group in favor of another group. (Check the full detail of my explanation here, here, here, here and here).

When rights are at stake, contradictions cannot and should not exist. Those who support the RH bill are all IRRATIONAL and illogical because they are acting beyond reason. Any person or group whose ideas or actions breach reality and individual rights cannot claim to be an advocate of reason. Now you irrational supporters of the RH bill claim we must control or manage population, but how are you going to control/manage it? Through the use of government force? You fervently assert women and poor people have the right to reproductive health services, but what about the rights of the employers and doctors? Is this what you call rational? You don’t have the right to force a certain group in order to serve another group. This RH bill which you Free-farters passionately and insanely support is a mockery of reason and justice. No, you are never an advocate of reason. You are, in reality, an advocate of secular mysticism, which is even worse than the advocacy of the religionists whom you passionately reject.

Like I stated in my blog entitled Freethinkers or Free-farters,  “What most New Atheists failed to understand is that they share similar “code of morality” with the religionists whom they fanatically denounce. This “code of morality” that empowers the two destroyers of our civilization— Faith and Force— is Altruism. Yes, altruism is the morality that deeply polluted the minds of both the New Atheists and the religionists. This type of man-sacrificing ethical system conceptualized by Auguste Compte, states that it is the moral duty or obligation of individuals to serve the good and welfare of others and put their interests above their own.”

You must understand that thinking is not an automatic function. In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort.

Objectively speaking, “Reason is man’s tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong.”

If you Free-farters claim to be an advocate of reason, what then is the underlying philosophy of your mongrel atheistic movement? Or do you ever believe in philosophy? I observe that you agree on a number of issues like the RH bill. The real reason for the opposition of the RH bill is not the societal view of women and sex. Opposition to this progressive bill must be based on the concept of individual rights. Yes, you have the right to medical services, but you can’t tell the doctor, who spent a lot of money and years of his/her life studying medicine, to treat you for free. The proper concept of “right” means the right of every individual to choose and to reject self-destruction. Such a right cannot extend to enslave your neighbor. It simply means a right to choose or not to choose.

Your altruistic stance on the RH bill and a few political and social issues reveals your liberalism, progressiveness and egalitarianism. If you truly know the real concept of reason, you would understand that these “isms” are an affront to reality, justice and reason. I have clearly stated here my strong opposition to these three pillars of a collectivist society:

“Unknown to many, the 1987 Constitution was shaped by the following anti-ideologies that are now delivering the Filipino nation to complete collectivism and dictatorship: political correctness, progressiveness, and egalitarianism. The logical effect of these three enemies of reason and individualism is this dominant culture in this country— the culture of mediocrity.”

I repeat, do not ever kid yourselves that you make sense by claiming you are advocates of reason. Even Immanuel Kant claimed he was an advocate of reason when in fact it is his subjectivist philosophy that continues to distort and pervert the very concept of reason. It is this mystic philosopher who closed the door of philosophy to reason. No, Kant did not obliterate reason; he merely distorted it in order to poison and destroy man’s rational faculty. You may not know it, but all of you are closeted Kantians. Many of the so-called intellectuals today are avowed or closeted Kantians. It is his followers today who have been diligently widening the breach between reason and reality. Now it is “you”, the followers of these mini-Kantian thinkers and philosophers, who continue the destruction of reason in the name of reason by ignoring reality and the concept of individual rights. And in the name of reason, you pragmatists set up a range-of-the-moment vision as an enlightened standpoint on life, context-dropping as the rule of epistemology, expediency as a fundamental code of morality, and collective subjectivism as a surrogate for metaphysics (real reality).

So you also claim that you offer a good defense of science? Did you know that science was born as a consequence or corollary of philosophy? Science cannot survive without an epistemological and philosophical foundation. If philosophy dies, science will be the next to perish. History tells you that the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment saw the propagation of science. I know that some of you utterly reject philosophy and ideas. But did you ever know that it is the philosophy of Aristotle that led to the propagation of science? Aristotle was the first philosopher of science, a fact clearly understood by the scientists and thinkers of the Age of Reason through St. Thomas Aquinas’ revival of Aristotelian philosophy in the medieval age. [1] A true defender of reason and science truly understands what makes reason and science exist and prevail. A truly rational individual understands that science only exists in a free society governed by objective laws and principles and supported by a socio-political system that respects man’s nature and rights- Capitalism.

Yes, most of you have not yet discovered the true concept and virtue of capitalism. You reject this socio-political system because you have been taught by your college professors that it is evil. It is only Capitalism that guarantees the existence and the survival of science and reason. Science cannot exist in a collectivist, statist society like North Korea, Cuba, and Maoist China. Now the intelligentsia of socialist Venezuela is leaving the country because dictator Hugo Chavez put a moratorium on brains through his statist/pro-poor programs. Scientists, capitalists and men of ability and of self-esteem cannot exist in a self-sacrificing society. No one can ever rule a man of self-esteem.

A true advocate of reason truly understands that contradictions cannot exist. In order for Man, who is the standard of value, to live and exist, he needs a society that does not contradict his nature and respects his inalienable individual rights. Thus, for a society to be free, it has to embrace a certain type of socio-economic system that is consistent with man’s nature and rights. Man’s nature suggests that he cannot exist in a society that regards him as a sacrificial animal. Man’s rights also suggest that he has to live in a society that embraces rational principles and objective moral ideals. This is how the United States of America developed and became the most prosperous nation in the world.

You cannot defend reason with your progressive, egalitarian, liberal ideologies. It is utterly wrong and even immoral for the members of this Filipino Free-farters group to claim they advocate for reason and science if the ideas, which they passionately  propagate were against individual rights, liberty, reality and the ideals of a free society.

SEE RELATED ARTICLES:

Freethinkers or Free-FARTERS?

Why the Philippines Doesn’t Need Edsa?


[1] Hunt, Shelby D. (2003). Controversy in Marketing Theory: For Reason, Realism, Truth, and Objectivity. New York: M.E. Sharpe, p.16. Shelby states: “Aristotle not only did science, he was also the first philosopher of science.”

28 Comments leave one →
  1. A Doer not a Daydreamer permalink
    February 26, 2010 3:38

    This friend of mine, the author of Innerminds, is far more reasonable and in touch with reality than you are. My friend has had been making money and has applied his skills with his field while you have been endlessly imagining and theorizing your social and personal agenda with no material result. My friend, Innerminds, is a doer unlike the author of this blog, a daydreamer, someone who has not proven anything yet. Zero. Nil.

    • Anonymous permalink
      August 31, 2011 3:38

      More ad hominems from these so-called “freethinkers”? I thought you bunch were LOGICAL and enlightened? Point me to the nearest C.R. please, I’m about to vomit!

  2. February 26, 2010 3:38

    My name tells it all. How irrational it is for one to assume that when one replies to a blog comment of a stranger, then the latter is now trying to throw some weight around. That’s a sign of repressed of envy of other people who can truly articulate their convictions. What then if your friend is making money? That style is indeed a good example of attack by intimidation. I saw your group and it seems that you’re all nothing but a bunch of empty-headed socialists.

    So if your friend really is successful, why not introduce him to us readers of this blog so that we would know his achievements? This is simply a response to your swaggering, bumptious comment which tries to put this discussion to the level of a blinkered, pretentious pea-brained like you. I don’t think Objectivists speak that way. But yeah, why not introduce your friend to us, tell us his real name and his achievements? Perhaps that might enlighten and encourage readers of this entry.

    Well, that comment truly shows what kind of idiots you are!

  3. Chris permalink
    February 26, 2010 3:38

    I share the same sentiments with you that hatred towards religion can be fanatical sometimes. However, there is a difference between atheism and freethinking. Im sure you can make the distinction yourself by googling.

    I myself am an atheist but I dont share the same belief as the other members of filipino freethinkers. I dont share the same hatred for religion. I dont share the same views are Richard Dawkins in his commentary on religion. I even believe that repetitive prayers induces well-being!

    Does that mean I not a freethinker? Does that mean I should not be a freethinker because I do not share the beliefs of the majority regarding the issue of atheism?

    No.

    I dont think so. Because the Filipino Freethinker Community is an advocate of Freethinking. It is not a advocate group of hatred against religion or atheism. Many members share the same beliefs as Hitchens and Dawkins. But you dont have to agree to become a freethinker.

    Remember that Filipino Freethinkers website has an open forum set up. You can discredit or disprove ideas using reason, logic and science by simply commenting on an article or thread. When a member makes a statement about religion, it is open for comments and criticism and it does not represent the statement of the whole group.

    If you argue that religion is good, its okay as long as you use logical, reasonable and scientific arguments.

    If you think atheism is bad, its okay as long as you use logical, resonable and scientific arguments.

    But if you say “religion is good because god said so… end of question” – that aint freethinking.

    Freethinkers have uncensored forum… there are no fanatical ideas to which you should comply to make your voice heard. You just have to be rational and scientific so that you’ll be taken seriously. I agree with you that atheism can sometimes be fanatical but I disagree that atheism is freethinking or that filipino freethinkers as a group promotes freethinking – that would be jumping into conclusion.

  4. Hardcore Liberal permalink
    February 26, 2010 3:38

    For those who doesn’t know this guy, check his Facebook account… I hope he wouldn’t delete it lol!

    http://www.facebook.com/froivinber?ref=ts

    • Anonymous permalink
      March 18, 2010 3:38

      loser

  5. Progressive Me permalink
    February 26, 2010 3:38

    Hey, guys! I think this blogger is online right now! Look at his Facebook Account…

    http://www.facebook.com/froivinber?ref=ts
    http://www.facebook.com/froivinber?ref=ts
    http://www.facebook.com/froivinber?ref=ts
    http://www.facebook.com/froivinber?ref=ts

    • Anonymous permalink
      March 18, 2010 3:38

      oh look… another loser….

  6. February 26, 2010 3:38

    Brilliant. Superbly done.

    I’ll bookmark this in my site, okay?

  7. February 27, 2010 3:38

    Advocates of reasons? Freethinking? Free to think rationally or irrationally. From from (correct) thinking? Which is which. Mind-boggling. Well, you are free to join or not to join. Free to argue up to the last of your rationality or not. As long as there is no physical touch. LOL

    • March 23, 2010 3:38

      In the first place, I don’t think “outsiders” read the crappy, sophomoric blogs on the Filipino Free-FARTERS’ website. It’s good to see at one time how they praised and consoled each other.

      • March 26, 2010 3:38

        A SUB-HUMAN FREE-FARTER IS NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT…
        https://i2.wp.com/pzrservices.typepad.com/advertisingisgoodforyou/images/2007/05/15/geico_caveman.jpg

      • March 27, 2010 3:38

        another L-O-S-E-R…

  8. Anon permalink
    March 23, 2010 3:38

    Love your post. funny how their “supporters” have resorted to childlike tactics which are not even rational.

    e.g posting your facebook page, name calling, etc.

    keep up the good work and truly free the minds of the people

  9. IESVS permalink
    March 26, 2010 3:38

    you sir are sure very well educated and lectured. too bad you had been brainwashed as a child by your parents, church, and this county. and you can’t accept the fact that there is no god that fills the gaps of your human limitations. blind faith is really blind.

  10. Kev permalink
    April 28, 2010 3:38

    Yo! Enjoying the comments so far?😀 Hope your in the process of self reevaluation.😀

  11. November 2, 2010 3:38

    First of all, I am not associated in any way with Filipino Freethinkers. I am not here to defend or to criticize them for the lack of knowledge on their philosophical belief or lack thereof. But since you already described them, you have already given me an idea. Second, I call myself a “freethinker” not out of grandiose scheme but for the simple reason that I “think freely” as any rational being does; and in the hope that such neutral I.D. would insinuate a sensible discussion on matters of significance with like-minded people. However, basing from first-hand experience, exchanging views with other people of different perspective (particularly the religious fanatics, hardcore atheists and other secular extremists) has neither been productive nor amicable. Lastly, being a self-identified “theist”, I must say I am really surprised to agree with most of the arguments you raised here so far considering you’re a self-confessed “atheist”.

    • November 2, 2010 3:38

      I appreciate your comment. I understand that someone defined “freethought” as follows: “Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.”

      This definition is very crude and very unreliable. Based on this crude definition, any opinion formulated using “science, logic, and reason” and not influenced by “authority, tradition, or any dogma” is to be considered “freethought” idea or concept or whatever.

      Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not mocking you for calling yourself a “freethinker.” I am attacking this idea. This formulation is wrought with lots of confusion and contradictions. It seems to me that this term is like a “bumper sticker” or a facile semantic code designed to confuse man’s cognition.

      Also, according to this definition “freethought” is a philosophy. Let me state here that a philosophy, especially a good one, has an organized structure. A good philosophy is like a building. It should be well-designed. It must have a solid foundation in order to support the body. This is not simply my opinion. This is how philosophy was developed from the time of Aristotle to Aquinas and then to Ayn Rand.

      What do I mean by this? A philosophy has the following five branches:

      1. Metaphysics: the study of reality.

      2. Epistemology: the study of knowledge or how do we gain knowledge.

      3. Ethics: a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions

      4. Politics: pertains to man’s relationship to men and to state.

      5. Aesthetics: pertains to art.

      Now let me tell you that I’ve encountered some FF who laughed at these concepts as if they’re immaterial. They call these stuff unscientific, which simply reveals their ignorance of science. Science would not be possible without metaphysics and epistemology, as well as its consequential process of induction and logic designed by Aristotle. There would be no language without induction. There would be no science without induction. And induction is fundamentally attached to metaphysics and epistemology, and it bases its validity on observation and the law of identity.

      Eratosthenes, the Greek who measured earth’s circumference without the use of telescope, used induction and observation. Science is an inductive science. Science would not have been possible without philosophy. This is the reason why Aristotle is being considered the Father of Science. First he had to understand the nature of things by means of induction, and devised logic and his philosophy.

      It’s no surprise why MOST of the Freefarters are DEAD WRONG on all social issues they support. They support the RH bill on evil grounds. They correctly criticized the Catholic Church but on WRONG GROUNDS… and so on. They are dead wrong on Economics, Politics, and even on Global Warming issue. This is why I call them Freefarters.

      • November 3, 2010 3:38

        And I do appreciate your response as well. Yes, I’d heard about “freethought” just recently. Its novelty caught my interest for awhile. But upon contemplation, I realize that its “philosophical viewpoint” is just a claim and cannot be considered a genuine philosophy. I have no problem with its definition on the part of forming opinions “on the basis of science, logic and reason”. What I am questioning is its implication, that views “should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.” So deriving from its meaning, how can anyone be certain that one’s opinion is 100% pure “freethought” and is not affected, adulterated or manipulated by outside influence, belief or motive?

        Yes, Science originated from Philosophy, and scientific inquiry is based from philosophical investigation. This is utterly fundamental. I think every person with deep interest in any discipline should have learned this during his academic years. Moreover, both philosophy and science deals with the study of nature. The only difference is the method used. In Philosophy – logical reasoning; while in Science – experimental method.

        Historically speaking, Science owes much from Philosophy. Those great philosophers as Plato & Aristotle paved the way for illustrious scientists as Galileo & Newton. Philosophy has worked hand in hand with science. Even some scientists as Descartes were (at one point or at the same time) philosophers, too. Millennia before the advent of Science, Philosophy were the mainstream knowledge. In fact, the term “scientist” was coined just recently in 1833. Before then, those who pursued science were called “natural philosophers”.

  12. August 26, 2011 3:38

    Dude, you watch too much Fox News.

    Btw, “This is how the United States of America developed and became the most prosperous nation in the world.”…not.

    America is in great debt with absolutely no means to pay it (unless they stop spending for wars and US military bases in other nations), have a high unemployment rate (and still going up), ran by fundamentalists (a.k.a. Sheeples) and about to experience the greatest economic downfall in history.

    Still…damn, you watch TOO MUCH FOX NEWS.
    That’s sick, even by American standards. Ew.

  13. August 31, 2011 3:38

    Eh karamihan naman ng mga Atheists na yan mga Jihadist na nagpapanggap na Atheist lang eh. Kaya nga panay Attack lang sa Simbahan at non-Muslims. Ang mga Ibang tunay na atheist members naman nila mga Tuta ng Muslim. Gagawin nila ang lahat para sa Islam at ang kanilang mga Masters ang mga Muslim.

    Galit na galit sila sa Catholic Church at sa ibang NonMuslim religions dahil ano?
    Ang daming dahilan para magalit sa mga Terrorists… paulit ulit magbibilang ka ng mga bangkay na obvious na pinatay nila… sa Church ano lang problema nila, RH Bill daw.. hahaha wala ka namang patay na binibilang dun… walang lasug lasog na katawan ang bibilangin dun… pero bulag bulagan… Hindi nila purpose ikalat ang Atheism. Matagal ko nang naoobserbahan ang mga engot na yan…

    ISLAMIZATION ang habol ng mga engots na yan… gusto nilang ikalat ang ISLAM para raw si ALLAH na lang ang sambahin ng mga tao walang iba hahahaha …. Religion of peace daw eh araw araw badnews makers. tsk…

    http://www.facebook.com/orcsnews

  14. September 3, 2011 3:38

    I am an atheist, and also a freethinker.
    I belong to the FF south chapter. To answer one of the commentaries above, I am, by no means, a Muslim. Nor am I an atheist fundie or whatever.
    I also understand the arguments raised in this blog. Some may have crossed their lines or gotten carried away like most people do when large numbers of them who share the same beliefs are put together against something.
    I, for one, am against religion. And I mean ALL.
    But I am NOT a militant atheist nor do I practice atheistic fundamentalism to eradicate religion or any of what you have claimed, so far.
    I simply reject the idea and the concept of religion overall.
    I, too, may disagree on some of the things some of the members of the FF may have to say or claim. But this is why we are a freethinking community. If there is ever a wrong on our part, then I am gravely sorry and I promise you that I’ll encourage a reevaluation on what might have gone wrong within our confines.
    Let me inform you, though, that whatever some of the FF members will say or do, does not represent the whole or the entirety of the community or the people under the label itself.
    Much like some of the religious people, as well, may not represent their respective religions in the same sense.
    I will be the first to admit that I do not like the way some of the FF facilitators handle their talks with the roll-calling of atheists in the room, as if they are promoting atheism and attempting to convert their audience.
    But that’s why I would like to address this concern to the leaders of the FF community.
    Your criticism and arguments are all point-taken well. I appreciate your concerns and I would just like to apologize on the behavior of some of the members of FF and their behalf.
    But I have just one concern that I might ask you. I don’t feel the need to lambaste the name of freethinking or the community itself where you have only met a number of people who you disagree with.
    I respect your freedom to speech and to opinion.

    Now, another thing. I also, do not consider myself as a socialist.
    Neither am I an egalitarian or a totalitarian. But I am against Capitalism for countless reasons.
    I consider myself, somewhat, a moderate anarchist or simply an activist of the moment.
    In terms of being against the current established government.
    Somehow, in anyway, I do support the RH bill and I don’t think it’s forcing any group, in this case, a med group to serve another group in favor of the latter.
    Med students have had spent bulks of money, effort, and time. Yes.
    But that does not give them the right to take away another individual’s right to treatment just because the person cannot pay them for their services.
    That is an outright injustice. Just as you have said: If it takes away or contradicts another individual’s right, it isn’t freethinking or whatnot.
    I believe that while it may be wrong to squeeze our med students and future doctors of their money and time, it is their job and their duty, nonetheless, to serve this one purpose: to treat, help, and heal those in need.
    Not to make a business out of it. If they wanted to become businessmen, then they shouldn’t have gone to med school in the first place.

    Thanks and I appreciate your time reading this comment.

    -Kevin Limbo

Trackbacks

  1. The Highly Appalling Plagiarism of the Filipino Free-farters « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Individual Freedom is My Religion, Too! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. The pseudoscience and pseudo-intellectual Fililipino Freethinkers, their trolls and sockpuppets « aristogeek
  4. Freethinkers are Post-Modern Progressives, Social Reproductivists, Statists « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. Name-calling Versus Identification « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason | VINCENTON

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: