Skip to content

To Filipino Freethinkers: Your Plagiarism is INCURABLE!

April 13, 2010

It came to my knowledge that the Filipino Freethinkers released an article, or an online memorandum, that aims to address the following issues: Freethinking, Objectivism, and Plagiarism.

According to this memo, the group has “decided to suspend Karlo [Espiritu] from his post as official FF writer indefinitely until he edits his post and publicly apologizes and says ten Hail Marys.”

This issue stems from my expose on April 12 about the highly appalling plagiarism of one of the writers of the Filipino Freethinkers, an atheistic collective I passionately call Free-farters. A Freethinkers’ writer, Espiritu, produced a well-written and highly applauded blog posted on the group’s website on March 27 entitled What’s So Wrong With Objectivism. Some ecstatic, brainless members of the Freethinkers were fooled into believing that Mr. Espiritu really authored his article, but their knee-jerk fanfare was only short-lived until I posted my own blog detailing how their most-commented blogger creatively copied the works of some professional writers and bloggers online. Since it would be highly impossible for Mr. Espiritu to deny the plagiarism allegation, he posted a statement on the Freethinkers’ Facebook group on April 13, wherein he claimed he “honestly wrote the essay hurriedly and published it without rewriting/revising it very well.” However, Mr. Espiritu did not apologize for his plagiarism but for his “being too careless.”

Personally I agree that an organization cannot have full control over the articles or reports submitted by its members, as well as over the latters’ personal behavior and beliefs, but my idea of an organization is that it has to have a set of standards, by-laws, or any policy or system that must be made known to, and observed by, all members. But yes, the memo says it so clearly- that the FF has no stance on various issues like politics, religion, or “anything” since it’s only “an informal group.”

However, I do not agree that there is a cure to the plagiarism of their ‘suspended’ member. An overwhelming evidence shows that almost all important, pertinent, or material portions of the blog article in question were taken illegally and unethically from various online sources. Thus my conclusion is that the blogger does not own the ‘fundamental ideas’ outlined in his blog post. They came from various online authors. And I don’t believe that the blogger has ever read the books of Ayn Rand which he mentioned (and I have stated very clearly my reason here.)

The memo read in part:

But still, I agree with the comments so far that Karlo should take responsibility for his actions. He has already replied and said that he will fix the plagiarism in his post. Do I think Karlo should be punished for what he did? Personally, not so much. But again, that’s just my opinion. If you think plagiarism, particularly what Karlo did, is a grave matter deserving of excommunication, do say so. Write a post about it if you like. You will not be censored. But please, try to stick to the issues and avoid the insults.

Let me tell you that editing or revising the article is a mockery of truth, integrity and honesty. The blogger himself claimed that what he wrote is “unimportant,” yet he produced nothing but borrowed premises, second-hand ideas, and rehashed lies from people who were either dishonest or who knew very little about the subject of their attack. How can you revise an article whose contents were lifted from various sources? How can you correct a lie? Is this not against science and logic?

A lie remains a lie! A is A. Nothing can be true and false at the same time. A borrowed idea remains a borrowed idea. You cannot correct it by simply rewording or paraphrasing it. The fact remains that the author stole the ‘fundamental idea’, which he sourced for his article. Any person who didn’t read the works of Ayn Rand would naturally resort to secondary sources, and that’s exactly what the blogger did, as he simply googled ‘friendly’ online material for his purpose: to somehow expose what’s wrong with Ayn Rand and her philosophy.

Now I have to tell you that this issue is scientific. Yes, it’s about the science of logic. All of us cannot cheat reality. We may try to escape reality consciously, but we cannot escape the consequences of escaping or evading reality. Reality shows that the blogger in this issue is a plagiarist. And because he’s a plagiarist it is only safe to conclude that he didn’t read any of the books of Ayn Rand, because if he really did, why the plagiarism? One doesn’t have to copy the works and ideas of others in order to make a point.

Now the proposal to edit or revise the work of Mr. Espiritu is unthinkable. It’s an act of intellectual exorcism. You cannot bring the dead back to life! You cannot correct a mistake by making another mistake! Everybody knows that an act of plagiarism was committed, and your proposal to revise the article in question is a travesty of logic and reason. It is, in fact and in reality, a mockery of reason and logic.

I have to say that this proposal simply reveals your ‘relativist’ premises. If most of you reject the fact that there is such thing as an absolute, then let me use this situation by pointing out that your decision to allow Mr. Espiritu to revise his blog is a good example of moral and epistemological (truth) relativism. The memo itself shows that you admit that a wrong has been committed, yet you evade to accept the fact that a wrong remains a wrong, and that it is no longer susceptible of any cure. Do you believe that such an act of revision could ever cure the fatal defect of that blog in question? Do you believe that a lie can be converted into a truth by simply making a compromise? That article, which is a product of plagiarism, will remain a product of ‘dishonesty’ even after a series of revisions. Again, A is A.

Such a proposal also reveals your moral agnosticism by refusing to make an absolute moral judgment, by calling a moral wrong a “moral wrong.” An act is immoral if there’s a breach of man’s rights and reality. Here, two moral breaches have been committed: 1) a breach of one’s values and principles (e.i., honesty, truth, integrity, moral principles), and 2) a breach of other people’s rights (e.i., intellectual property, recognition, acknowledgment).

Are these not scientific? If the answer is NO, then reality to some people in these parts is not even percepts but words.

And to Mr. Karlo Espiritu who wrote the following on the FF online forum: “There seems to be another fuss about this topic”: If you ever try to use your mind, you’d realize that this issue gained public attention not because you wrote a crappy blog, but because of the undeniable, irrefutable fact that you are a PLAGIARIST! C’mon, get back to reality!

35 Comments leave one →
  1. April 13, 2010 3:38

    If you reread the article by Red, you will find that it explicitly states that FF has no official leader/s – FF is not a hive nor a collective nor an organization lead by a fascist regime. As such, Red or any other member cannot act on his/her own. Although one member of FF may want the article to be removed, that cannot be done.

    More generally, it is possible that a member of FF may subscribe to an objective or even absolute moral system. In fact, we do have members who subscribe to absolute systems of morality. But if this member respects the individual rights of the other members of FF, she must merely voice her opinions, try to convince the others and hope that the others are not impervious to reason. This applies not only to ethics in general, but also to the case of Karlo.

    After all, is not the free will of individuals sacred to an individualist like you?

    You are an individualist, you should be the first to appreciate the fact that FF is not a collective.

    • April 13, 2010 3:38

      @ Pecier Decierdo:

      First, I appreciate your comment.

      Here’s what you said: “If you reread the article by Red, you will find that it explicitly states that FF has no official leader/s – FF is not a hive nor a collective nor an organization lead by a fascist regime. As such, Red or any other member cannot act on his/her own.”

      I understand fully well the import of his online memo. But you should also understand that your organization loudly champions the following virtues: reason, science, logic, and freedom. This plagiarism incident is a reflection of the nature of your organization.

      I agree with what an FF “member” who “riled up” said, that the blogger should “reconsider calling himself a Freethinker” (if this label means a person who upholds reason as an absolute, I would agree). This incident reflects the personality of the blogger himself, but yes, I agree- your founding leaders do not have any control over the behavior, actions, or activities of their members.

      Yet here’s another issue that somehow reveals the nature of your organization. I laugh at the fact that your founding members allow the blogger to edit or revise a blog, which is undeniably, irrefutably a product of plagiarism. I have stated my opposition above. A wrong remains a wrong. Plagiarism is plagiarism, which cannot be cured by a series of revisions.

      I repeat what I stated above: “Now the proposal to edit or revise the work of Mr. Espiritu is unthinkable. It’s an act of intellectual exorcism. You cannot bring the dead back to life! You cannot correct a mistake by making another mistake! Everybody knows that an act of plagiarism was committed, and your proposal to revise the article in question is a travesty. It is, in fact and in reality, a mockery of reason and logic.”

      You said: “After all, is not the free will of individuals sacred to an individualist like you?”

      A “freewill” is irrational and deserving of condemnation if the action it produces would result in the negation of one’s values, evasion of reality, and disregard of another person’s rights. Let’s stick to the issue. Do you mean to say that plagiarism can be considered a rational product of freewill? I define freewill as a man’s freedom to choose his actions. But if such actions include the abrogation of another person’s rights, then the person acting must be condemned. Honestly, do you think that Mr. Espiritu is not guilty of plagiarism?

      You also said: “You are an individualist, you should be the first to appreciate the fact that FF is not a collective.”

      I don’t exactly understand what you mean here. If you’re asking my opinion about FF, I liken it to compromising, nihilist Europe that is now in the process of committing suicide. Europe is now being destroyed by its anti-values: tolerance, multicultural relativism, compromise of cultures, and political correctness. These are the anti-values that are bringing Europe to a total collapse. Because of its tolerance, compromise, multicultural relativism, and political correctness, Europe continues to embrace evil cultures, which are now bringing the entire continent to its feet.

      Yes, I understand very well the ‘mental’ or ideological’ foundation of your organization.

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        April 13, 2010 3:38

        Just would like to ask, what then do you think should be done to this Mr. Espiritu?

  2. April 14, 2010 3:38

    @ Migue Garcia.

    I am not a party in interest in this issue. I just exposed his plagiarism. The real parties in interest are those authors/writers whose articles/writings were plagiarized by Mr. Espiritu. I think it is this guy who should do something. He must admit his mistake and apologize for what he did. That’s a sign of decency, respect and reason.

    • April 14, 2010 3:38

      @froivinber

      Honestly, I was not able to confirm the plagiarism allegation myself. But given Mr. Espiritu’s reply (“it’s just a blog”), I suspect that he indeed plagiarized. And it personally saddens me that many of my fellow freethinkers in FF do not know the weight of Mr. Espiritu’s action. Personally, I would want an “official condemnation letter”, although the ‘official’ will make it impossible because, once again, the FF does not make any ‘official’ position on things.

      I agree, although not entirely, with your comment on Europe and the evil of cultural relativism that has taken hold of it. The greatest evil is to tolerate intolerance. To tolerate intellectual dishonesty is a close second. However, understand that the members of FF vary in their opinions regarding what sanction to give Mr. Espiritu. If he indeed performed the great Cltr-c, Cltr-v you accuse him to have done, then I believe mere ‘citation’ at the end of his article will not correct his misdeeds, and I believe he should never be allowed to write another article in FF again. Ever. I even agree with you that allowing him to “revise” his plagiarized article, if it is indeed plagiarized, does not correct the wrong he did, if he did it.

      Don’t worry, the more conscientious members of FF will see to it that intellectual dishonesty will not be tolerated in the FF. Keep on updating yourself regarding events on FF – it will show you what true democracy means.

      You said “Yes, I understand very well the ‘mental’ or ideological’ foundation of your organization.” No, FF does not have an ‘ideological’ foundation. As Red has said, FF is a ‘where’, not a ‘what’, a conversation and not a set of conclusions. FF is a collection of people who have a wide array of convictions and beliefs. It might be a disadvantage sometimes (as in the case of a suspected plagiarism), but it has its advantages too.

      • April 14, 2010 3:38

        If you haven’t seen the detailed comparison between the FF blogger’s article and the ‘borrowed’ sources, here’s the link- https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/the-highly-appalling-plagiarism-of-the-filipino-free-farters/ .

        In regard to this: No, FF does not have an ‘ideological’ foundation, I respect your opinion.

    • April 14, 2010 3:38

      @froivinber

      You said, “He must admit his mistake and apologize for what he did. That’s a sign of decency, respect and reason.” I agree. So far, his only reply to your allegations are dismissals such as “it’s just a blog” or “there are mores important things in life”. I believe he must owe up to his mistakes. If he cannot make a good refutation to your allegations, and so far we are still waiting for such a refutation, I will try to convince other members of FF to impose sever sanctions to Mr. Espiritu.

      By the way, I hope you would be less dogmatic about things, froivinber. You can sound such an ideologue sometimes. Remember that you are relying on your own reason to reach conclusions, and we all know that human reason is fallible. This means that you might be wrong — consider that in all your actions. Why, Rand may even be wrong about some things. I am not suggesting that we abandon the use of our reason — nothing can be more foolish than such a suggestion. What I am saying is that philosophizing is a process, an act. This fact is best appreciated by the person who is skeptical.

      • April 14, 2010 3:38

        @ Pecier:

        You said: “By the way, I hope you would be less dogmatic about things, froivinber.”

        If by “dogmatic” you mean compromising my basic moral principles and convictions, then I should be more dogmatic. There are things that we cannot compromise.

        “You can sound such an ideologue sometimes.” – I don’t know how you define “ideologue”. Okay. To be very frank, I consider FF a dangerous organization, and I have stated very clearly the reason here, here, here, here, and here.

        We might be wrong in our decisions and actions, but what is important is that we have to be certain of our convictions and principles and that we must be willing to admit and correct our mistakes. I believe that there should be no compromise on moral principles. But you should understand that we all embrace a certain form of philosophical system. I was engaged in an online debate with some of the FF members before who utterly reject ideas and philosophy for the so pathetic reason that they’re not science, or that they’re unscientific. They believe that science and math and gap-minder are the paramount of man’s life, but they don’t know that these ‘aspects’ are a product of man’s use of reason, which is the very result of a rational philosophy.

        Any organization that upholds tolerance and compromise as an ‘ideological’ base would sooner or later transform into a battlefield of conflicting or competing systems, ideas, beliefs, or ideologies. And such an organization is an invitation to an open clash between competing belief systems, wherein victory is determined by the number of heads and not by rational moral principles and the value of truth. And it would be the loudest group or the gang with the biggest number of followers that would sooner or later take control of that compromising, nihilist, tolerant organization.

        The situation I have outlined above already took place in your nihilist group. And I suspect that the “victorious” ideological system existed from the very first day the FF was conceived. Did you not notice the political advocacy of the Freethinkers? They are the loudest, most ardent, and most passionate supporters of the Reproductive Health bill authored by the socialists in Congress. Can you tell me if this collective advocacy of almost all members of that group does not represent the totality of their common belief, ideology, or philosophical system? They claim that this socialist RH bill must be enacted into law to serve the interest of women and the poor, yet they refuse to see that this legislation is an affront to individual rights. They claim that health care is a right, yet it seems that they don’t really understand the very concept of right. Right is a man’s freedom of action, which is not synonymous to freedom to act by government permission. You have the right to health care services, but you don’t have the right to tell your doctor to treat you for free or ask the government to provide free health care services to the poor at the expense of those who produce wealth and work very hard for their own survival.

        Yet it appears that it is their absolute adoration of science and man and gap-minder and statistics that is blinding the most passionate members of the Freethinkers who claim that the United Nations-backed data on overpopulation is scientific, thus it must be taken as an absolute fact. Like the socialist proponents of the RH bill, most Filipino Freethinkers strongly believe that there is an undeniable symbiotic relationship between poverty and overpopulation. If they’re so concern about poverty, why don’t they try to understand the very root of this social and economic phenomenon? Why don’t they try to grasp the very source of wealth, which is man’s mind, and what makes it possible? Wealth is not produced by manual labor alone.

        I say that the psycho-epistemology of the Freethinkers is the carbon copy- a reincarnation- of the collective mentality of the nihilist mystics who lived during the Dark Ages. Yes, when it comes to the issue of over population and poverty, their intellectual ancestor is none other than Thomas Robert Malthus (1766 – 1834) who conceptualized a tribal economic idea that man’s capacity to procreate is the enemy of his survival. Why am I saying this? It is Malthus who popularized this evil idea that is still being regarded as scientific today: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” And this idea is what is now being embraced by the strongest advocates of population control.

        Malthus wrote his thesis against population at a period wherein the technological and scientific wonders that we enjoy today were still beyond man’s imagination. And this is the kind of mentality that is now at work at the very core of the Filipino Freethinkers’ collective.

        In regard to Ayn Rand, I consider her the greatest philosopher on earth because of her intellectual honesty, virtues, and rational ideas and principles. Yes, she committed mistakes, but she was willing to correct them, which she did. Unlike any philosopher I read, Ayn Rand offers an integrated philosophy for living on earth. Like I said, if you wanted to know how I view things, my blogsite is my only testimony.

  3. Miguel Garcia permalink
    April 14, 2010 3:38

    Just would like to ask you froivinber, have you ever committed a mistake? Because it seems that you’re always right and you have all the answers to all the problems of our country.
    Also, can you blog about why you think there is No God? – just a request.. thanks!

    • April 14, 2010 3:38

      “…have you ever committed a mistake?”

      Yes, I did. A lot of mistakes. But I never made a stupid, boastful claim that I’m the “owner” of this and that when in fact and in reality I’m not.

      If you’re interested in my atheism, you may check my blogs here: RELIGION.

      And by the way, if the tenor of your question is “who are we to judge when we also committed mistakes”, you’d discover one day that there are situations wherein we have to make a moral judgment.

      When it comes to making a moral judgment, you may check this great article: How Does One Lead A Rational Life In An Irrational Society?

      • April 14, 2010 3:38

        And oh, Miguel Garcia, if you’re not part of the FF, do you know much the guy and the farters bragged about their so-called greatest achievement over the past two weeks? Do you know how much they glorified it? There was fanfare all over the FF website, forum and Facebook group!

        Why would I keep my silence if knew that guy is simply dishonest? That he just made a bucket of lies? Are you trying to say I should have kept my mouth shut?

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        April 14, 2010 3:38

        froivinber, nope i honestly think that your expose on FF’s plagiarism has a point and it was well written. it’s just that you sound soooo angry and it seems that no one can ever tell you that you are wrong because you always have a response or a rebuttal to anything or anyone whose views are different from yours.
        don’t get me wrong, i am against all forms of plagiarism. maybe you got so mad because the ff blogger all of a sudden turned his serious plagiarized blog into “just a blog” instead of owning his mistake and apologizing to everyone.

  4. Farter na Farter permalink
    April 14, 2010 3:38

    went to the FF forum. here’s what i found http://www.filipinofreethinkers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=969&start=30 . grabe! ang yabang talaga pala yang karlo espiritu na yan! what an ass! and the members! para silang mga adik hahahaha! kung anu-anong pinagsasabi nila! kadiri yang grupo na yan! yuckiE!

    • Peter Keating nga e permalink
      April 16, 2010 3:38

      “It’s nice to know that my first essay became very popular, it even reached the top 5 in just over a week. I’m stoked:) Hehe. ”

      Reminds me of Peter Keating. Pathetic.

  5. April 14, 2010 3:38

    @ Miguel Garcia.

    Angry? Yes, I am angry with some people who proclaim they are defenders and advocates of reason, science, and freedom when in truth and in reality they’re not. FYI, that creative article written by a plagiarist is in response to my expose of their group. And it’s so pathetic that the plagiarist passed it on as his own masterpiece, and what’s more pathetic, amusing, and disgusting is that his fellow farters were applauding him. Now that his hands were caught in the cookie jar, some angry members thought what this plagiarist did’s just OK since he was dealing with an enemy. Now that’s how they define reason and logic.

    • April 14, 2010 3:38

      @ Miguel.

      Here’s the source of all this fuss: https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/freethinkers-or-free-farters/

      and this… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/filipino-freethinkers-versus-reason/

      and this… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/filipino-free-farters-the-new-mystics/

      • April 14, 2010 3:38

        @froivinber

        You said “Any organization that upholds tolerance and compromise as an ‘ideological’ base would sooner or later transform into a battlefield of conflicting or competing systems, ideas, beliefs, or ideologies. And such an organization is an invitation to an open clash between competing belief systems, wherein victory is determined by the number of heads and not by rational moral principles and the value of truth.” This scenario will only be true if all the agents in such an organization are impervious to reason. I believe in the power of reason, good philosophizing and science — I believe it has the capacity to brighten up this dark world of ours. We at FF are all truth seekers. We come to FF to share our ideas and to present our opinions for the scrutiny of our fellow freethinkers. We come at FF not to find agreement, but to be disagreed with. As such, we are always open to the ideas of others. If a certain position is the most rational one, it is our hope that the greatest number of people will be won by that position.

        You said “I was engaged in an online debate with some of the FF members before who utterly reject ideas and philosophy for the so pathetic reason that they’re not science, or that they’re unscientific.” I agree, the reason is pathetic. To fight this, I intend to correct such ignorance in some FF members. I want to introduce the fundamentals of good philosophizing to some of the group members who have very wrong ideas regarding philosophy.

        Now, you said “Malthus wrote his thesis against population at a period wherein the technological and scientific wonders that we enjoy today were still beyond man’s imagination.” Are you saying that Malthus’ thesis was valid back in his day?

        In my opinion (I am a physics major, I’m no expert in economics or demography), Malthus’ thesis is indeed not applicable to the present day, because in the language of economics, human civilization has escaped its “Malthusian trap” ever since the Industrial Revolution (IR). Since the IR, production increased at a rate that greatly exceeded the increase in population. This lead to a surplus of goods, which developed nations and the wealthy enjoy today. However, back in his day, Malthus was correctly, and scientifically so. This is because back in Malthus’ day, advanced technology was not yet at man’s disposal.

        However, we must always take note that the planet earth has a limited carrying capacity. That’s a scientific fact. Do a little research if you are not convinced. While it is true that human ingenuity creates goods and adds value to raw materials, the fact stands that the earth can support only so many people. As such, before we invent a way to build human settlements on the Moon or on Mars, we must be conservative in our use of the earth’s limited resources. Such ecological conservatism is in our best interest as a civilization, for after all, what’s more important than our own survival?

        Another scientific fact: the environment, on which we rely greatly, is a very complex system. The destruction of one ecosystem can have catastrophic effects to our very lifestyle. As such, we must respect the rights of the creatures we share this planet with — again, it is to our best interest. Altruism or selflessness are not what’s asked. On the contrary, if we are to act selfishly but in a rational manner, we will see that taking care of the planet will be to our benefit as individuals in a civilization.

        You said, “They claim that this socialist RH bill must be enacted into law to serve the interest of women and the poor, yet they refuse to see that this legislation is an affront to individual rights.” I completely disagree with you — the RH bill will do the exact opposite, it will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health. The right to choose the size of one’s family and the spacing between the births of one’s children (that is, the right to family planning) does not exist in the Philippines today. Even more importantly, the right to correct and scientific information regarding proper contraceptive methods is something that does not exist in the Philippines today. It is the hope of most members of FF that the RH bill will give women the powerful right to gain control over their reproductive capacity through proper eduction regarding family planning.

        I gotta go for now. I’ll continue this discussion later. Thanks for debating with me.

  6. jeff permalink
    April 14, 2010 3:38

    like my two other post on your previous blog entry, Mr. Espiritu’s blog entry is not the most commented blog entry…

    one of the most commented but not “the most commented”

  7. April 14, 2010 3:38

    @ Pecier Decierdo:

    You said: “This scenario will only be true if all the agents in such an organization are impervious to reason.”

    But they are impervious to reason. In fact most of them don’t even know the real concept of reason. I stated very clearly my analysis in my blog Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason.

    You said: “I believe in the power of reason, good philosophizing and science — I believe it has the capacity to brighten up this dark world of ours. We at FF are all truth seekers.”

    Reason, science, and logic have become the mantra of the FF. Reason is not one sided. When you use reason, you use it in a holistic way. Reason is not simply about converting to atheism. It is a process which man could use to understand reality. He could use reason to answer the fundamental questions of his existence: Where am I? How do I know it? What should I do? And we would be able to understand the very essence, significance of this process to our lives and existence if we embraced the right, rational philosophy. And philosophy is the science that studies the existence of man and his relationship to reality or existence.

    Ayn Rand said it so clearly: “No matter what conclusions you reach, you will be confronted by the necessity to answer another, corollary question: How do I know it? Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason — or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses — or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality — or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty — or is he doomed to perpetual doubt?”

    You said: “However, back in his day, Malthus was correctly, and scientifically so. This is because back in Malthus’ day, advanced technology was not yet at man’s disposal.”

    No, you’re wrong. If you claim to have embraced reason, you should have understood the fatal flaw of your statement. Do not rationalize. When you said that Malthus was “correct” and “scientific” during his days, then you are trying to pervert the meaning of truth and science. Truth and science are absolutes. They have a universal impact. What you’re trying to imply is the nihilist/relativist view that “What is true today may be wrong tomorrow.” If that’s the case, then that’s not true and scientific. This is the reason why we must always base our judgment on reality. And the process to attain truth and science is reason, to be guided by a rational philosophy. One plus One should always yield the answer TWO at any time, space or place. The law of gravity is present on earth because of the atmospheric nature of our planet. This means that there is an order in the universe. How did man get to outer space? through the fundamental process of reason, by studying reality and the nature of the universe, a process which yielded what we know today as science.

    You said: “However, we must always take note that the planet earth has a limited carrying capacity. That’s a scientific fact. Do a little research if you are not convinced. While it is true that human ingenuity creates goods and adds value to raw materials, the fact stands that the earth can support only so many people. As such, before we invent a way to build human settlements on the Moon or on Mars, we must be conservative in our use of the earth’s limited resources. Such ecological conservatism is in our best interest as a civilization, for after all, what’s more important than our own survival?”

    First, you have raised a number of issues here. Based on that statement I understand that since the planet earth has a limited carrying capacity, then we must support government programs that are aimed at controlling population. This is how I understand that statement since I believe that it is related to the issues of Malthus and the RH bill. Yes, it is true that the earth has a limited carrying capacity, but I don’t believe in your idea of “ecological conservatism.” It does not follow. That’s a non sequitur fallacy. Do you really understand the goal of the environmentalists who are all “ecological conservatives”? They call for the preservation of nature yet disregarding the fact that it is a requisite for the survival of man. Meaning, we must use and exploit earth’s resources to survive. They oppose every kind of new technological and scientific development for the sake of preserving nature itself. They oppose nuclear programs for the reason that it harms the environment and human beings. They oppose scientific activities for the reason that it harms certain types of animals that are being used in the laboratories. They oppose the cutting of trees for industrial and economic development for the reason that it harms the environment. Yes, they are opposed to the advance of this civilization.

    Now I don’t believe in shrinking resources. There is shrinking resources because man’s freedom is shrinking. What do I mean by this? If world governments allowed economic freedom to flourish and if the stupid environmentalists and their nihilist cohorts (e.g., the secular humanists, freethinkers, and religious people) stayed at bay and kept their stupidity a private matter, there would have been a new technological and scientific renaissance on earth. Technological and scientific development is only possible in a free society. By free society I mean an informed society. A society that does not regard man as a sacrificial animal or the means to the ends of others. And we would only be able to achieve a free society if men truly understood the real essence and concept of reason.

    When you use the term “ecological conservativism” I saw the sheer contradiction in your philosophy or belief system. I stated very clearly my opposition to this view in my blog entitled The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult. But let me relate this point to your view of the RH bill which you strongly support.

    In my blog The Psychology of the Anti-Population Cult, I stated the following:
    “Observe also that the overpopulation issue serves as the melting point of all the altruists, collectivists, and ecologists or environmentalists. The environmentalists claim that the enemy of nature is man, so there is a need to control population growth. The socialists proclaim that since earth’s resources are scarce, the government must do something to limit “population explosion.” Both these two groups of mystics are altruists. Their mongrel philosophy, which they consciously or unconsciously hold, upholds the virtue of self-sacrifice, self-abnegation, and self-immolation. They declare that they are for the welfare of the world and men, but they are unaware that the belief system, which they dogmatically embrace, is anti-Man.

    “Overpopulation is the problem,” they say, but they reject the fact that population is a private matter only left to private individuals and families. “Overpopulation is linked to poverty,” they claim, but they refused to understand the very source of poverty. If these altruistic people are concerned with suffering and human poverty, they should have the patience to discover their cause. They should ask—Why some countries continue to progress, while others do not. Africa and certain nations in Asia are being used as the poster card of global poverty. But why most people in Kenya cannot even build a deep well to solve widespread thirst and hunger? Why most people in Africa cannot even develop a practical system of agriculture as a way of solving mass starvation? Why is that the Philippines still had to rely on foreign relief during the past natural calamities that devastated the nation. “Why is it that most Filipinos are poor in spite of the fact that we’re rich in natural resources?” most people in this country wonder. The difference between the developed and underdeveloped nations is a matter of philosophy.”

    “The anti-population advocates should ask not why America became a superpower nation, but how it reached it current status. The communists claim America became a global power because of imperialism, disregarding the fact that Soviet Russia had also conquered nations and killed millions of its own people. America is a product of philosophy, while the rest of the world is a product of history. America, the first free society on earth, was based on the philosophy of Aristotle—that man has inalienable rights to his life, property, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the first nation on earth that recognized individual rights, and it is this concept that led to the development of rational ideas and principles that spread throughout the world. This is why our Constitution recognizes individual rights. But most of you would argue, “but America was built by immigrants!” Yes, but what kind of immigrants? The brilliant minds of the world, the creators, the scientists, the innovators, the thinkers, and all those who loved life and achievement, migrated to the United States over the past 200 years because it was the only nation that permitted them to practice their profession without the risk of being sacrificed to society or the “common good.” America was based on the premise that man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.”

    “Both the anti-population advocates and the environmentalists demand for more government powers. They believe that population growth would lead to what most of them fear—a so-called Malthusian catastrophe. This anti-population philosophy devised by Thomas Malthus in the early eighteenth century, which was imbibed by Population Bomb author Paul Ehrlich and the rest of the modern-day environmentalists and the so-called population experts, postulates that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.”[viii] Despite the fact that it was developed about two centuries ago, this Malthusian theory still poisons most modern-day population intellectuals. Malthus wrote his thesis for irrational men at the time when such things as genetic engineering, wireless technology, high-end machines and apparatuses, innovative architectural engineering, among many others were still beyond the imagination of man. Malthus, his followers, and fellow thinkers believed that man is a helpless being who cannot improve his status on earth.”

    And then you said: “I completely disagree with you — the RH bill will do the exact opposite, it will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health. The right to choose the size of one’s family and the spacing between the births of one’s children (that is, the right to family planning) does not exist in the Philippines today. Even more importantly, the right to correct and scientific information regarding proper contraceptive methods is something that does not exist in the Philippines today.”

    Here are my answer to that statement:

    First, reproductive health is not a right. In my blog entitled Reproductive Health Care is NOT a Right I stated the following: “Health care is not a right! We’re not born with a right to a ride in Enchanted Kingdom. We’re not born with a right to enslave other people by coercing them to contribute something for the benefit of the majority. We don’t live—and we’re so lucky that we don’t!—in a statist or socialist society, where a so-called presidium has the monopoly of all social, economic and political powers, including the authority to allegedly provide all the needs, be it health care, education, housing, and some other basic necessities, of all its communal members to survive. I do believe that this “man-is-his-brother’s-keeper” scheme is impractical and evil at best. No, we cannot contradict reality. If the RH bill is so good, why criminalize those who want to opt-out? Why impose penalty on the employers who don’t want to be reduced to mere slaves? Why do the Leftist politicians who proposed this bill have to force some people to contribute to what they call the “common good” if their proposition is for the good of everybody?”

    “One of the greatest fallacies ever invented to corrupt man’s mind is the distortion of the concept of “right!” That which you passionately call or claim as “right” means the “right” by, for, and of the socialists or the communists. There’s a big difference between a right and a privilege. A right is one that is incumbent upon an individual since birth. You have the right to exist, but you don’t have the right to command your neighbor to feed you. You have the right to education, but you cannot demand that you be spared from school fees to obtain a degree. 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.”

    Second, when you said the RH bill “will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health”, don’t you think that’s not provided under the current set up? The RH bill aims to redistribute wealth. Any human being that claims to be a defender of reason and freedom will not support that socialist legislation. Did you read the bill? Now I tell you what’s wrong with that bill.

    FIRST, under Sections 21 to 22 of the bill it is stated that failure by employers to provide RH services for their employees would constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Again, if the RH bill is so good, why criminalize those who want to opt-out? Why impose penalty on the employers who don’t want to be reduced to mere slaves? Why do the Leftist politicians who proposed this bill have to force some people to contribute to what they call the “common good” if their proposition is for the good of everybody?

    SECOND, all the nice-to-hear coverage of the bill– (1) Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women (8) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health (9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers (10) Male involvement and participation in RH; (11) Prevention and treatment of infertility and (12) RH education for the youth– are PROVIDED UNDER THE CURRENT SET-UP, and that there are existing and open government agencies that can deliver these services.

    For instance, departments and agencies under Section 4(n) like the Department of Health, Department of Education, including public clinics, and other specialized government health centers like the Lung Center of the Philippines, Health Center of the Philippines and government hospitals, can be given additional or even special functions only to comply with the supposed social welfare mandate of this bill. All of the alleged welfare state boons are guaranteed under our present set up. In other words, there is no need to enact this so absurd legislative proposal. However, it is important to note that this bill includes a “pass-on provision.” It’s proponents seek to shift the burden of paying for the RH services to employers. By virtue of their success and economic status, employers are being offered to a sacrificial altar to satisfy the reproductive health care needs of a particular group of people. This trend simply means that need now is a claim on slavery.

    THIRD, Overpopulation cannot be legislated. Overpopulation is, indeed, a problem but it cannot be legislated. This attempt to legislate population is tantamount to reducing it to mere statistical problems, which can be solved by orchestrated government actions and social edicts. Population is not synonymous to goods, which are determinable by statistics. In a capitalist society, a regime can only increase the domestic production output by letting the capitalists perform their job. But population is a different matter. A proposal to legislate population is an attempt to invade every household in this country. There’s only way to solve population without the use of government’s arbitrary powers, and this is through voluntary education. Like I said, there are government agencies that can perform this function, and I’m certain that there are also private organizations and non-profit institutions willing to help the government fulfill its goal. History tells us that most socialist states that attempted to legislate their population resorted to force and even mass killing. Socialist countries like Sweden used sterilization or eugenics programs to control the growth of its population. This only means that if you allow your government to rule your lives, the use of arbitrary powers and force is inevitable.

    FOURTH, overpopulation is not the main problem. It is true that population is increasing, but I don’t believe it can be legislated. It appears that the main reason of the bill’s supporters is the unfounded fear that overpopulation is somewhat linked to poverty. This contention is debatable and the burden of proof rests upon those who claim that overpopulation is the problem. It is wrong to totally attribute poverty to overpopulation, considering that fact that there are even worse social problems confronting this country, like corruption, people’s stupidity and faith-based fanaticism, and most especially massive government intervention. Almost all crises that took place in this country were caused by excessive state interference. Population must not be used as a scapegoat to correct an evil with another evil. We can’t solve poverty by expanding the powers of the government. Only Capitalism can save this country from poverty, and I have clearly and explicitly stated the reason why in my previous blogs. Population is not the culprit. It cannot be controlled with the use of political edicts. It can only be managed through proper education—by giving every family the right to choice and proper information.

    FIFTH, it is dangerous to our rights and freedom. Can’t you see that the main target of most statist/socialist bills are the producers of wealth, while the main excuse or justification for forcing them down our throats are the poor? Yes, nobody is defending the rights of employers and doctors in this country. Well, who likes to defend the rich? Ellsworth Toohey of The Fountainhead, who’s the philosophical figure of the bill’s proponents and supporters, is right in saying that—“It is always safe to denounce the rich.” In fact, some “rich” people even support their own destroyer.

    We all know that the country’s medical field is experiencing an ongoing brain drain. This is not a myth. Most doctors, nurses, and other health care providers would like to leave the country any time now if they had the chance. Just imagine if this bill were passed, I believe we should expect a massive exodus of not only health care providers, but the people who produce as well.

    Now some politicians are proposing to implement a universal health care system in the country, a proposal that is more dangerous than the RH bill. And I predict that this universal health care proposal would unite the religionists, who oppose the RH bill, and the bill’s supporters

    • April 14, 2010 3:38

      @ Pecier Decierdo:

      Here’s why I oppose the RH bill, which you Freethinkers strongly support: NO To RH Bill!

      Yes, we have to be very careful with our use of words not merely because they are a tool of communication, but primarily they are a tool of COGNITION.

      • April 16, 2010 3:38

        Kindly read my long replies to your latest blog entry.

  8. Kristen permalink
    April 15, 2010 3:38

    You seem to be more eager to crucify rather than to correct. Is this the proper response of an Objectivist? To take pleasure in the mistakes of others? These series of posts seem to focus more on taking pleasure when you see someone stumble in a “buti nga sayo” type of chidish behavior. Shame… I would have expected more maturity from a writer such as you… Tell me, does Objectivism espouse schadenfreude as a primary virtue, or is it just you?

    … and *gasp*, not even making amends and revising his work will make up for what what he did. For all your long-winded chest-thumping, you never even mentioned what you feel would be considered “just” reparations. Are you afraid that if he were humble enough to accept such terms, you’d eventually have to shut up and have nothing more to write about? Or would nothing less than the death penalty suffice? As you said… its incurable.

    I’m so sorry that not everyone can be as perfect as you are. I’m pretty sure that I can never ever find even a sentence in your entire blog quoted from say, one of Ayn’s books that doesn’t have the requisite formally documented citations and footnotes. Oh wait, here’s one, and another… and other…. *gasp!* are you also an incurable plagiarist? It must be catching!

    And the worst thing about your incessant ranting is this gross over-generalization of condemning the whole organization of things that annoy you. Get it through your thick skull, its the first-time work of *one* person. I mean that’s like calling all Filipinas mail-order brides or domestic helpers.

    • April 15, 2010 3:38

      @ Kristen.
      “You seem to be more eager to crucify rather than to correct. Is this the proper response of an Objectivist? To take pleasure in the mistakes of others?”

      It is the proper response when such an article is “boastful”, buffoonish” rejoinder to what I have written.
      It is the MOST proper response when MY silence can be taken to mean an agreement to an improper, irrational, evil act.
      It is the proper response when they distort reason and think and it’s just OK to plagiarize the works of others when one is dealing with an “enemy.”

      First, do you know why Mr. Espiritu concocted that crappy, “inspired” article? If you’re not part of the FF, why not check the FF forum to see how they glorified, worshiped, and praised that piece of copied crap?

      Tell me, is it OK to plagiarize the works of others to produce an article which you later pass on as your own? Is this act rational?

      This has nothing to do with being an Objectivist or a Freethinker. This has something to do with what is right and proper, sanity or insanity, good or evil.

      Why not just sing praises to the subject of this blog?

    • April 15, 2010 3:38

      This girlie just couldn’t get it. You can never correct a plagiarized work! The damage has been done! Did you not read the comments of one Freethinker who agrees that the guy who wrote the article shouldn’t be allowed to revise his blog. Why? Again, because the damage has been done, stupid! Ba’t ba ang daming makikitid ang utak! Uminit ulo ko! hmp!

      Hindi masama mag-quote ng idea ng iba so long as you cite them. You may copy a few paragraphs of what your source said, but you must acknowledge him/her. This way, you won’t be charged with plagiarism. Ganun lang kasimple! Claro?

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        April 16, 2010 3:38

        I think this is clear. One question though, what do you think should happen to this Mr. Espiritu? Do you think he should die?

  9. April 15, 2010 3:38

    For some close-minded, dogmatic apologists who see nothing wrong with what that Freethinker writer did. The point is:

    1.) The guy plagiarized the works of others.
    2.) Claimed that he wrote his blog.
    3.) He provided a silly, pathetic response to the allegation instead of refuting it.
    4.) He’s guilty of plagiarism.
    5.) He must be condemned accordingly.
    6.) He must own up to his mistakes and apologize to his colleagues.

    Are these hard to understand? C’mon peeps, get some life!

  10. Alejandro C. Patagnan permalink
    April 16, 2010 3:38

    This is a great discussion. I love it. A true free objective thinking discussion. I expect more of it here.

  11. TradCath permalink
    September 11, 2010 3:38

    Wow! You’re my saint mr. froivinber! I just want to ask if you’re a Catholic Traditionalist. Are you?

    • September 11, 2010 3:38

      I’m a hardcore atheist, IDIOT!

  12. TwiceOnASunday permalink
    February 7, 2012 3:38

    ha ha ha…spoken like, or written like a dominique francon, Howard roark, or Dagny Taggart, no bs, in your face attitude, a real giant, so refreshing. When I first Learned about this freethinkers and watched some of their videos, I find them very sketchy, what are they talking about? where are they coming from, parang chopseuy ecclectic philosophy what have you kindathingy,Its a good thing I found out about this froivinder, It saved me a lot of time trying to figure out about those freethinkers, To anybody who is familiar with Ayn Rands work, from her fictions ( The Fountainhead, Atlas shrugged) to her non fictions about philosophy, ethics, romanticism, you would understand where froivinder is coming from, but to those who are not, he would sound like an egotist….Who is John Galt

Trackbacks

  1. The Art of Lying « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. A brief comment on the Filipino Free-FARTERS « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Plagiarism scandal rocks Philippine Supreme Court | Asian Correspondent
  4. Sen. Pia Cayetano: Another Plagiarist in the PH Senate? How About Miriam Santiago? « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. A Short Remark on Plagiarism « THE VINCENTON POST

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: