Skip to content

In Defense of Truth

April 15, 2010

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.

I had an online conversation with one of the members of the Filipino Freethinkers, a neo-mystic collective group I passionately

Science is the by-product of man's use of reason.

Science is the by-product of man's use of reason.

call Filipino Free-Farters. I appreciate the zeal and politeness of this Freethinker named Pecier Decierdo, who’s one of the many bloggers of the group.

Pecier Decierdo’s comment on one of my blogs gradually turned into a full-blown conversation— a debate— about such issues as reason, science, philosophy, and the infamous Reproductive Health bill.

First, let me tell you that this stems from the plagiarism issue that involves one of the new writers of the Freethinkers. The FF writer named Karlo Espiritu produced a well-written and highly celebrated blog posted on the group’s website on March 27 entitled What’s So Wrong With Objectivism. Many ecstatic members of the Freethinkers were fooled into believing that Mr. Espiritu really authored his cause célèbre article, but their knee-jerk fanfare was only short-lived until I posted my own blog detailing how their favored blogger creatively copied the works of some professional writers and bloggers online. The rest is history.

I was surprised that some of my commenters who were obvious apologists of plagiarism didn’t call me pathetic, desperate, hateful labels like “day dreamer,” “stalker,” “bum,” etc.

In my conversation with Pecier Decierdo I stated my observation of the Filipino Freethinkers:

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, and 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 math 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 with 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 in 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.

However, Pecier Decierdo disagreed with my observation about the Freethinkers, saying “This scenario will only be true if all the agents in such an organization are impervious to reason.”

He also wrote the following: “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.”

Here’s my reply:

But they are [Filipino Freethinkers] 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, wherein I wrote the following:

“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.”

Reason, science, and logic have become the mantra of the FF. Reason is not one sided. When you use reason, you should use it in a holistic way. Reason is not simply about converting to atheism. It is a process which man should use to grasp 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?”

When it comes to Malthus, Pecier Decierdo  wrote: “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.”

Here’s my reply:

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 absolute. 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.

As expected, Pecier Decierdo strongly defended his position on the RH bill. Record shows that most, if not all, of the Filipino Freethinkers strongly support this legislation authored by some socialist politicians in Congress.

He strongly believes that the RH bill “will give women and their husbands the right to attend to their own reproductive health.” He added: “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.”

Pecier Decierdo also wrote: “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?”

Here’s what I said:

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 are 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 had they been given 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.

  • @ Pecier Decierdo, I have to say that I appreciate your time and effort in exchanging ideas with me. I’m delighted to know that there’s one FF member who values ideas and philosophy. I can judge it from the way you argued your case, though I disagree with some of your views, which I consider to be against my convictions (my political beliefs, philosophy, and my morality), that you regard ideas as important to our lives and existence. That ideas relate to reality. That without ideas we cannot possibly deal with reality as ‘rational’ human beings. Actions without ideas would only result in breach of one’s nature and rights and reality. This is how I value ideas, and this is what I learned from the woman who taught me that ideas matter, that my life is an end in itself, that my mind is valid, and that reason is my only absolute. This is the woman who told me the following: “Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error.” If this is what others call “cultism”, fine! But I resent people who blindly proclaim that ideas are simply words or jumbled sounds that do not have any relation to reality. It is not ideas that these nihilist, hippyish people tend to attack, but my life, my values, my existence, and all the things I love and value in life. Have you ever asked yourself what kind of society these people are going to enshrine with their anti-idea, anti-reality mentality? Dictatorship! But they wouldn’t be the cause or leader of this “dictatorship” or “tyranny”; they would only serve as blind instrument by any scheming collectivist/statist demagogue or ideologue who is the only beneficiary of an anti-man social system- a society that glorifies collective good or common good as the standard of value and condemns the ‘Individual’ as the means to the ends of others or the State.
39 Comments leave one →
  1. Alejandro C. Patagnan permalink
    April 16, 2010 3:38

    You did it again Vincent. Excellent discussion. I love seeing that kind of mind of your flourishes and multiply in our society. What else can I say but an appreciation of an objective mind like yours.

    • April 16, 2010 3:38

      Amen to that. We need more minds like Fro’s in this country.

      • April 16, 2010 3:38

        You mean we need more minds ignorant in science and philosophy? (Kindly refer to my very long comment below.) Seriously, you don’t see the holes and logical jumps in his arguments? You do not see how ignorant he is of elementary logic and philosophy of science? You do not see the fatal flaws in his thinking? How very blind of you.

        The blind (Froi) leading the blind (Froi’s drones and clones). If ignorance was criminalized, you’d all be in Guantanamo by now.

    • April 16, 2010 3:38

      Kindly read my comments below.

      By the way, I laugh at your intellectual pretension, oh ignorant man.

  2. April 16, 2010 3:38

    Froi, you said, “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.” You have your philosophy of science all wrong. But of course, it’s not just you who’s wrong; because everything you say is simply lifted from your goddess, Rand, then it is also Rand who is wrong. Horribly wrong, in fact.

    First of all, some truths are absolute. Among the group of truths that are absolute are the truths of logic and the truths of mathematics. A is A, a=a, 1+1=2, “Cogito ergo sum” and so on and so forth. In the language of philosophy, these truths are a priori, analytic and necessary. When these truths are not tautologies (such as A is A) or axioms (1+1=2), then they are deduced from tautologies or axioms. Arithmetic, which is called a formal system, is a system of propositions whose truths are absolute. This is because it is a system of propositions (theorems, lemmas, corollaries) that are logical deduced and hence logically follow from the axioms and definitions of arithmetic.

    However — and here’s where you’re wrong big time — the truths of science are never absolute. The truths of science are provisional, which means that they are true only as far as the present body of evidences is concerned. Take the splendid example of Newtonian mechanics. It was considered true back in the day of Newton. However, because Newtonian mechanics is a scientific theory, its truth is not absolute but only provisional. When evidence came up that new theories should replace it, the scientific establishment did so, albeit warily. As such, today Newtonian mechanics is considered only as a good approximation of the truth for daily-life scales. At the scale of the universe, general relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics, while at the scale of subatomic particles quantum mechanics did. Because general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) seem to have problems with one another, new theories, such as the superstring theory, are being suggested to replace both GR and QM. And why are scientists ok with replacing their most fundamental theories? Because GR and QM, like all scientific theories, are merely provisional and are not absolutely true.

    But why are the truths of science not absolute? The answer is very simple, and the fact that you do not know it is telling of your ignorance of true philosophy, especially of your epistemology (which is badly flawed), your logic (which is very poor and outdated), your idea of causality (which is even more outdated) and your philosophy of science (which is so wrong true philosophers would just laugh at it). The laws and theories of science are not absolute for the following reasons: the facts and theories of science are inductive generalizations inferred from a finite body of observations, data and evidences. And — again this is elementary logic and I’m surprised a “philosophy enthusiast” like you doesn’t know it — no inductive generalization can ever be absolute. Inductive generalizations are merely probable and provisional, it’s in their very nature.

    Note that everything I said above are generally known in philosophy. Actually, they are taught to sophomore or even freshman philosophy majors in universities. They are even taught in GE courses in UP. In GE courses, for crying out loud! (That’s where I learned them.)

    To confuse induction with deduction and science with formal systems (such as modern symbolic logic and arithmetic) is to make a very sophomore mistake in philosophy. If you are indeed the philosophy enthusiast you claim to be, you should have known that. Perhaps you’re no philosopher after all.

    Another thing that is so flawed with your comment on Malthus’ thesis is that you think all scientific theories have to be true for all time. But that’s flat-out wrong. A certain process in nature (such as the operation of the Malthusian trap) will only take place as long as its prerequisites are in place. The prerequisite of a Malthusian trap is a population that grows faster than the growth of production. That prerequisite was satisfied in the times before the Industrial Revolution, thus the Malthusian trap. The prerequisites are not satisfied today, thus the exponential growth of the human population. But the situation will not last for long; the earth has a limited carrying capacity and the day is drawing near when the growth of our production cannot beat the growth of our population, hence the need for conservationism for the sake of our species’ survival. If you want another example, here’s one (I can give you as many as you want — I’m a science major after all): the oxygen cycle, which is going on today in our planet, and which involves many oxygen producing and utilizing organisms, did not take place in the beginning of our planet 4 billion years ago. There was very little oxygen then, and there were not bacteria utilizing or producing it, hence the non-existence of the biological O2-CO2 cycle 4 billion years ago. But the cycle goes on today, because we have trees, algae, grass and creatures that utilize O2 (such as humans).

    You want more examples? Let me give you another (since that gaping holes in you knowledge need an awful lot of filling, it seems to me). The grand unification theory (GUT) states that long ago, near the beginning of the universe, the electromagnetic force and the weak force were one and the same force, a force which we shall call the electroweak force. And even farther back in time, nearer to the beginning of the universe, the electroweak force was united with the strong force to form a single grand unified force (GUF). But are these true today? Of course not; today there are four fundamental forces, the electromagnetic, the strong nuclear, the weak nuclear and the gravitational forces. But way back in time, near the beginning of the universe, the three non-gravitational forces were one and the same force. And it is the hope of many modern physicists today to discover a theory that will also show that the gravitational forces was linked with the GUF even farther back in time.

    There you go, splendid examples of why theories in science can have limited validity over time. Given the above statements, I hereby pronounce your argument against Malthus’ thesis is invalid, QED.

    Rand’s philosophy of science and epistemology is very outdated. In my opinion, Rand is a philosopher only so far as Voltaire, Rousseau and Marx are philosophers. But Rand’s epistemology, logic and philosophy of science fails big time when compared to that of Kripke, Quine, Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege and the rest of the analytical school of philosophy. If you want real philosophy, go to the analytical school, cause when it comes to epistemology, logic and philosophy of science, Rand has very little to offer — all she has are restatements of Aristotle. She’s not such an original thinker after all. By golly, she’s not even in the level of A.N. Whitehead!

    Seriously, go give yourself a true philosophy education. You owe it to yourself to give yourself a coherent, cogent and valid worldview, because your current worldview is full of gaping holes.

    You are correct that we should be uncompromising with the truth. This is me being uncompromising with the truth: you do not have the truth; so search for the truth, for the truth is not with Rand, at least not entirely.

    • April 16, 2010 3:38

      @ Pecier Decierdo, here’s my lengthy REPLY.

  3. April 16, 2010 3:38

    You said “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.”

    In science, we follow the superlative dictum “observation above theory”. It’s time you do too.

    You see where pure reason lead Aristotle? What, do you think, is the reason why a very intelligent and first class mind as Aristotle got it very wrong in physics, astronomy, biology and basically all of science? I am not downgrading Aristotle’s contribution to philosophy and logic –I am an Aristotle fan, after all, and between Plato and Aristotle I’d bet my but on Aristotle any day — what I am asking you about was his failure to discover the modern theories of science despite his superlative intellect. Why was Aristotle’s theory of motion wrong? Why was his theory of gravity? His theory of forces? His theory of momentum? Answer: he was not empirical enough; he was not experimental enough.

    He believed he could deduce the absolute truth about the nature of the universe using pure reason alone, but he was very wrong. Using pure reason he argued that the earth must be at the center of the universe, that the planets must be perfects spheres and that they should revolve around the earth via perfect circles. How did we know that these are wrong? Did we use pure reason? No, no and no. Galileo proved Aristotle wrong because he used his senses, because he performed experiments, because he was meticulous in his observation, because we was not an armchair philosopher like Aristotle (or Rand, or you) but was instead a Natural Philosopher in the original sense of the word, what we would call today a Scientist.

    You also said, “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.”

    You are confusing an a priori proposition with an a posteriori proposition. That is an error in elementary logic. Kindly refer to my comment above, or, better yet, visit your nearest library and read on elementary logic. I highly recommend the book “Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric” by Howard Kahane.

    You also said “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 are confusing pure reason with the scientific method. Reason is essential in the scientific method; without reason, science will be impossible. Before a person can be a scientist, he or she must first be rational. However, you cannot proceed with science using reason alone. Yes, you can proceed with symbolic logic and mathematics using reason alone, but not in science. In science, you must perform observation, experimentation, data gathering, analysis of data, formation of hypothesis and formulation of theory. An armchair philosopher can never be a scientist. To be a scientist, one must go to the field and to the laboratory.

    And to be a scientist, one must not be dogmatic about the nature of reality. As an aspiring scientist, I would say that there is an objective reality. The world out there exists and we must enjoy our brief stay in it. However, knowing the nature of the world out there is a challenging and sometimes even daunting task. How one wishes that reality can be discovered using pure reason, a-la-Aristotle or a-la-Rand. But both Aristotle and Rand failed to discover deep truths regarding what Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman called the “inconceivable nature of nature”. Reality is not something we can call down from up above while we are just sitting at our armchairs idly philosophizing. And most especially, reality is not something our minds and its theories has a power over. As such, it behooves us who believe in an objective reality to be more respectful before the majesty of nature, since it is the only way to have her divulge her secrets.

    Also, because the body or our observation is always finite, we must always be suspicious of our conclusions. The theories of science are not necessary conclusions arrived at using logic and deductive reasoning, thy are probable inferences arrived at using inductive reasoning based on a finite body of evidences. It is because of these facts that our knowledge of the nature of nature will always be held true but with an element of doubt. Absolute truths are trapped in the province of the mathematicians and logicians; certainty can never be had in science.

    Knowledge comes only to him who doubts his own beliefs.

    • April 16, 2010 3:38

      @ Pecier Decierdo, here’s my lengthy REPLY.

    • April 17, 2010 3:38

      This Pecier Decierdo knows nothing about Aristotle and Induction.

      Induction is the foundational reasoning activity, and is built upon sense-perception. More specifically, induction is (following Socrates’s practice) reasoning from particular cases or individuals to general or universal knowledge.

      An example would be forming the concept “animal”: we can observe with our senses the similarities among individual species (humans, dogs, mules, etc.) and how different they are from both inanimate objects and other life-forms which don’t seem to be conscious (plants would largely be our data for this conclusion)–all of this could eventually lead to forming the concept “animal” through induction. (In addition, it might lead to concepts such as “consciousness,” “awareness” “life,” “mobility” and concepts of particular animal species.)

      Relatedly, he thought that induction is part of the means of forming general concepts (“genus”) and, from there, building even more generalized concepts utilizing the knowledge gained from the earlier-formed ones. An example Aristotle gives is the inductive forming of the genus “animal” from the various animal species, and this kind of reasoning being the first leads to the formation of an even wider generalization; in our current case, we can integrate plants and microscopic lifeforms with our knowledge of the “animal” genus into a wider genus “organism.” Regarding induction and concept-formation, Edwin Locke summarizes Aristotle’s position this way:

      His view was that one groups entities according to their perceived similarities and identifies their essential characteristics, the essence of a kind … [t]his included the formulation of definitions based on genus and differentia [a genus–integrating the concept into a wider category—and a differentia—differentiating the concept from other existents in that genus, namely, man is the rational animal—meaning he is the animal who has the capacity to reason].

      • April 17, 2010 3:38

        Your knowledge of induction and deduction is very, very outdated. I don’t want to be the one lecturing you on induction and inductive reasoning: go pick up a book on modern logic. A little learning is dangerous indeed.

  4. April 16, 2010 3:38

    By the way, can I use MY comments above for my blog?

    I want to quote them in my blog, but since they were first posted on YOUR blog, I believe it’s only proper that I ask you permission to quote them verbatim.

    Again, thank you. This debate is stimulating me to fight for the truth with great ferocity. And note that my enemy here is not you, but your ignorance and your pretension to knowledge. Indeed you are right, we should not tolerate ignorance — I will not tolerate yours.

    • John Brooks permalink
      April 16, 2010 3:38

      I think it’s very clear to me who’s ignorant and stupid in this debate. It doesn’t take a philosophy or physics major to notice Mr. Pecier Decierdo’s creative context-dropping, floating abstraction, and cherry-picking. The two long responses to Vincenton’s blog clearly reveals Pecier’s utter ignorance and laziness because of the fact that he knows nothing about the subject of the attack, which is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. To my understanding, Vincenton is talking about scientific truth and metaphysical truth. Scientific theories are theories, plain and simple.
      Pecier’s creative tactic is really deceptive, as he focused merely on vague issues such as Malthusian trap, science, logic, among others. How about your ‘theory’ of health care bill, Pecier?

      • April 17, 2010 3:38

        Please don’t call anyone stupid. If you’re soooo not stupid, why not just join the debate? Back up what you say with facts and your arguments.
        It’s one thing to say “You’re stupid, You’re ignorant!” It’s another thing to prove it.

      • April 17, 2010 3:38

        @John Brooks

        You said, “To my understanding, Vincenton is talking about scientific truth and metaphysical truth. Scientific theories are theories, plain and simple.” What is a scientific truth, then? How different is it from an empirical law? Remember that “truth” implies human knowledge. We cannot call something “true” if we cannot explain it within the context of logic or science. That things fall to the ground is a scientific fact. The exact way these things fall to the ground is explained and described by a scientific theory. Now where does your “scientific truth and metaphysical truth” go in?

        You said “Pecier’s creative tactic is really deceptive, as he focused merely on vague issues such as Malthusian trap, science, logic, among others. How about your ‘theory’ of health care bill, Pecier?” The RH bill issue hangs on the fact that there is an overpopulation problem and the fact that individuals have moral responsibilities to protect the environment and thus to be conservative regarding the exploitation of its resources. The point regarding Malthusian trap and science are not tangential but essential to the debate.

        By the way, if you’re impressed by Froi’s blog post, then you’re the one who’s ignorant.

    • April 17, 2010 3:38

      ANOTHER LIE FROM MR. KARLO ESPIRITU. This proves that A SINGLE LIE breeds a series of LIES.

      By the way I read Mr. Karlo Espiritu’s funny comment on an FF blog.
      Here’s what he wrote:

      Okay people, I really want to settle this issue once and for all. First of all, my apologies for not having the time to read all your comments. I already added the disclaimer to my blog post. My ONLY reason for writing that post on Objectivism is because I observed that a significant number of people in this community seem to be putting too much attention to personal attacks from a blog that promotes Objectivism; without a true understanding of the belief system. The Facebook page, forum discussions seem to be filled with reactions to statements by a group (probably just one) promoting Objectivism. I decided to support this community because I think that it is very important that a group that promotes science and reason need to exist in a very theocratic country…It really disappoints me that this group’s attention seem to be diverted to fending off insults and condemnation from a blog that promotes Objectivism. Objectivism is just a tiny insignificant movement that’s not even recognized by anyone in the academic world. Objectivism is not a real philosophy and Ayn Rand is not considered by many as a real philosopher.

      If anyone of you have carefully read my blog post and compared it to the source of this plagiarism complaint, you would immediately notice that he wrote it in such a way that the plagiarism was intentional. And it seems very obvious that he has a personal grudge against me personally for writing that post. (Just look at the insults and effort he made, not to mention repetitive mention of my full name). My blog post on Objectivism is roughly a 3,000-word essay and I only wrote it in my free time. It is a very tedious process to write a piece of this length about a subject that is so broad…which just became recently familiar to me. I just missed adding some of the links and properly revising text portions of my post; it was an honest mistake, and unintentional. If you have doubts, just check the links I cited as sources and compare the ratio. (Emphasis mine)

      If you want to talk about intellectual honesty, that’s perfectly fine. To begin with, I always used my real name and NOT hide under multiple online profiles. My blog post never insulted or morally condemned anyone personally, but a great number of the comments I received were insults and condemnation (mostly from Objectivists). And yet most people seem to immediately give merit to the source of this plagiarism complaint; never mind the malicious intention and personal attacks; never mind that the ideas, tactics, and words he used were just imitation of Ayn Rand’s; never mind that he posts malicious statements in the online pages of this group under different names, and so on…

      Just to end this issue, I have already added the disclaimer in my blog post and revised portions of the text. I encourage anyone who has the time and passion to to edit it if there are still errors, factual inaccuracies, unrevised content that would be still considered as plagiarized, and so on. If that is still not enough, then please feel free to take it down. It’s perfectly fine with me. If there is someone who has the time to write and replace it with a better one, that would be cool. I only wrote it because I can’t find a comprehensive article about Objectivism that would help other people in this community understand the reason behind the personal attacks when arguing with Objectivists.

      In my opinion, the best way to stop the discussions and petty issues from Objectivists is to completely ignore them. By responding to their personal attacks, it just gives them more online ’street’ credibility (if there is such a word). I’m all for being open but not too open that people with malicious motives are still allowed to post links and statements in the online pages of this community; and I think it’s very easy to identify them.

      To Mr. Espiritu: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU’RE FOOLING? Perhaps you may fool some of your colleagues, which you already did, but NOT this guy!

      The funny, hilarious question is: How is it possible to produce a copied, plagiarized article if the person guilty of plagiarism didn’t do it deliberately/intentionally? I don’t have any “personal grudge” against Mr. Espiritu. Anyone who’s aware of the history of this Ayn Rand-FF issue would understand why I exposed his plagiarism and his intellectual dishonesty and buffoonery and why I am trying to slap reality across his face.

      But it seems that Mr. Espiritu and his blind apologists need to be reminded about what he did and said prior to my plagiarism expose.

      1. Last year I had an encounter with some Filipino Freethinkers on line because of the notorious RH bill. I don’t know how they found out that I’m a “student” of Objectivism. Perhaps they checked some of my blogs.
      2. A certain Freethinker posted a topic on the FF forum entitled Ayn Rand and Objectivists are so confusing. I’m aware of this because a certain FF named Jobo (or whatever) invited me and a friend to join the discussion. I declined the invitation.
      3. I also observed that most Free-Fasters hissed whenever the name Ayn Rand was mentioned on the FF forum.
      4. And then I wrote my blog entitled Freethinkers or Free-Farters.
      5. An FF member, Innerminds, commented on my blog to which I replied with another blog article (Filipino Freethinkers Versus Reason). Better check this blog to see how some FF members display their idiocy and irrationality on the comment section.
      6. Suddenly a friend told me I was one of the newest topics of the FF forum. It turned out that Innerminds posted a topic entitled “What do we do with this guy” (referring to me).
      7. And then on March 26 I wrote my blog entitled “Filipino Free-farters: The New Mystics.”
      8. A day after that blog, Karlo Espiritu posted his bash-Ayn Rand crappy article on the FF website. He claimed that he wrote this blog.
      9. So in short, Mr. Espiritu’s anti-Rand blog was a REPLY to all of my anti-FF articles. This is the reason why I am involved in this issue.

      Consider the following statements Karlo made on the Freethinkers’ forum (CULT: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Cult of Personality):

      * On Wed Mar 24, 2010 6:45 am: “Recently, I keep hearing about Ayn Rand and Objectivism, and so I decided to read about it to understand what’s the friggin’ fuzz all about. I even started to read about “Atlas Shrugged”. The novel was badly written but it has some powerful ideas. To make things short, I found out that Objectivism is just a philosophy, it’s not science. I repeat that …NOT SCIENCE!…One more time…NOT SCIENCE!” — How is it possible to read Atlas Shrugged ( 1,200 pages and with a very small font size), The Fountainhead, and The Virtue of Selfishness in just a few months?
      * Same date and time: “I also found a book that investigates Objectivism and Ayn Rand in detail — “Why People Believe Believe in Weird Things — Psuedoscience, Superstition, and other Confusions of our time (1997)” By Michael Shermer. — So apart from the three Ayn Rand books, he also claimed he did a detailed investigation.
      * Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:47 pm. He also made this claim: “I’m quite new to Objectivism but it seems to me Randroids are like any mythical creature or religious prophet. You never see them in real life but they’re everywhere online. I bet no decent individual would ever admit being friend with one…well, at least for the Randroid trolls I encounter so far.”
      * Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:25 am. Another claim: “I already posted an article about Objectivism. So that I won’t feel I wasted my time reading about that bullshit belief system. LOL.”
      * Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:55 am. Here’s the most important thing: “Thanks for comments. If you see some factual inaccuracies, typos, link errors, or grammar errors. Just let me know. Thanks.” — This means that his pathetic excuse that “I honestly wrote the essay hurriedly and published it without rewriting/revising it very well” is a BIG LIE!
      * Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:02 pm: “But there’s no point in arguing with them since they are honestly convinced they know the truth. He only commented on my ‘supposed’ misunderstanding about capitalism, disregarding all the other facts I presented in my essay. I did not discuss much about capitalism because the article is too damn long already. Hehe.” — Another CLAIM.
      * Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:27 am. Another CLAIM that he WROTE the essay: “Wow, the essay I wrote got another new comment from a Randroid…”
      * Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:58 am: “To those who are curious to understand the psuedo-philosophy called Objectivism, here it is in a nutshell…” Here Karlo is trying to make it appear that he’s an authority in Objectivism.
      * Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:29 pm. A PROOF that Mr. Espiritu did make a lot of LIES: “Wow, that’s awesome! I still have to revise the text since most of the content are just in my notes, I forgot to write down the source. Anyways, I’ll try when I’m not busy anymore. 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.”
      * Thu Apr 08, 2010 1:36 pm. “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.” — A PROOF that Karlo is a second-hander (Perhaps he knows the meaning of this term if he really read The Fountainhead.”
      * Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:15 am: “There seems to be another fuss about this topic. I also posted the following response in the FF wall…” — And Karlo’s lies and temporary fame and happiness CAME TO A BITTER, TRAGIC END.

      Again, may I remind you what he said in his insincere “I AM SORRY” statement:

      “I honestly wrote the essay hurriedly and published it without rewriting/revising it very well. (Because honestly, Objectivism is a very broad topic, and it’s a very tedious one; and I feel it is not worth my time to put much effort into it). But now I realized it was a big mistake on my part, because it is remarkably obvious now that FF is very influential and there are people who are intensely affected by it. My sincere apologies for being too careless.”

      But yes, this incident also made me realize that there are some rational, conscientious members of the FF. This reminds me of what a Freethinker, who “is still happy to associate with the FF group,” said: “if karl espiritu has passed the article on as his own, or has failed to mark appropriately entries that aren’t his, then he is guilty of plagiarism. sadly, it looks to me like that was what happened here. and it matters diddly squat if he had made a good point; if you plagiarise, you do not deserve to be heard, period.” (statement copied verbatim)

  5. Miguel Garcia permalink
    April 16, 2010 3:38

    I think in his (Vince’s) previous blogs, one said “Kulang ka pa sa aral..”

  6. Miguel Garcia permalink
    April 16, 2010 3:38

    A Little learning is a dangerous thing indeed..

  7. Miguel Garcia permalink
    April 17, 2010 3:38

    Both Froi and Pecier have points

  8. Chico permalink
    April 17, 2010 3:38

    This is a nice debate, im learning so many things!!!1 🙂

  9. Marcy permalink
    April 17, 2010 3:38

    Good Job Froi! Im impressed as always! 🙂

  10. Jiggyboy permalink
    April 17, 2010 3:38

    Very good discussion here, keep it up guys!

  11. FreeFartersSuck permalink
    April 17, 2010 3:38

    Very good reply Froi. very good!!

  12. yobitch! permalink
    April 23, 2010 3:38

    I have a feeling that Marcy and FreeFartersSuck must be froivinber’s made up accounts in his desperation to congratulate himself. Poor boy. Tsk.Tsk.Tsk.

    • April 23, 2010 3:38

      you could only speculate. speculation without proof is desperation. anybody can accuse anyone of any kind of act out of desperation.

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        April 23, 2010 3:38

        Myrtle Mila? 🙂

        how are you?? yeah you’re right speculate without proof, just like what most of the babies of froi including yourself does. 🙂 cool! just like telling those who disagree with Vince’s views stupid and ignorant. 🙂

      • April 23, 2010 3:38

        Well, that’s what you call ENVY… But what a very interesting discussion. Oh! It’s a waste of time dealing with some envious, jealous people…

        @ Miguel. Since you disagree with the blogger’s idea, May I know your opinion on the matter. That might interest me… Thanks!

  13. Miguel Garcia permalink
    April 23, 2010 3:38

    KIKAY TIPS – i think you are M. Mila too 🙂 or her sister perhaps? or Vince’s girl? (if he has one 🙂 peace Vince)

    What’s your opinion on the matter? You first? 🙂

    • April 23, 2010 3:38

      Wow! Now that’s desperation… lol! I’m just an avid reader like you. First, I don’t have a brother and I don’t know M. Mila. Second, it seems that you’re sort of desperate. I don’t know… It’s a woman instinct. Perhaps try to visit my site and comment… I can answer you there. I have to warn you… it’s for women only!
      Well, I’m not interested in politics and philosophy coz I know nothing about the subject. It’s just amazing that there are bloggers who are interested in politics and philosophy. It’s not my piece of cake. I think I have to take the matter seriously since kunti lang alam ko sa philosophy. But what’s he’s talking about is pretty interesting.

      Perhaps you’d like to share your opinion.

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        April 23, 2010 3:38

        Id rather not give you my opinion on the matter, i don’t want you getting too interested at me. 🙂 me desperate? well, i think your woman instincts need cleaning, it’s not working properly. 🙂

      • April 23, 2010 3:38

        Pretty odd, Miguel. You had the passion to denounce the blogger’s opinion and yet you don’t have the same passion to share what you have with other people… I tell you, every blogger has his/her own piece of cake. Since I’m not interested in politics, economics, etc. I appreciate those who share their ideas with other people. But sometimes, mostly yung mga bloggers that deal with political and interesting issues ay maraming naaapektuhan… That’s just my observation. That’s why safe ako kasi I’m focusing on ‘kakikayan’ or kaekekan…

        Just a simple observation, parang galit ka sa mundo at pati ako dinadamay mo… It’s simple… Just share what you think is wrong or stupid with Vincenton’s idea. Yun lang!

      • April 23, 2010 3:38

        or… what if sasabihin ko na ikaw Miguel Garcia at si yobitch ay IISA LANG! Which is VERY POSSIBLE…

      • Miguel Garcia permalink
        April 23, 2010 3:38

        then i have to answer you with this:

        M. Mila permalink
        you could only speculate. speculation without proof is desperation. anybody can accuse anyone of any kind of act out of desperation.

        lol baby 🙂

      • April 23, 2010 3:38


      • April 23, 2010 3:38

        See it shows you’re just envious and jealous and mad and angry and ugly and rotten potato and stinking cabbage and trash old chocolate and sari-sari store…

  14. Miguel Garcia permalink
    April 23, 2010 3:38

    See it shows you’re just envious and jealous and mad and angry and ugly and rotten potato and stinking cabbage and trash old chocolate and sari-sari store…

    very intellectual i must say 🙂 you amuse me

  15. April 28, 2010 3:38

    hi wat is yo facebook name?


  1. In Defense of Truth: PART II « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. On Malthus, Overpopulation Myth, and the Fascist RH Bill « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Debate Challenge to a Stupid College-Bred Troll « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: