Are your Facebook friends demonically possessed?

I come from the swamp and applaud with my flippers/hands/flukes/tail at the drowning of the witch Baade. It does a village good to shun a few and behead a few and drive a few off.

Some can be kept awhile like a cow, milked and fed and let roam the pasture. Like that odd zillionaire employer-of-vague-brown-servants E Percival JewHating YouGuessedIt. A Kiwi to cosset and blandish and coo at and titter with and nudge, until he let drop some remark, and then the SOLO Bolt Gun. And then a return, as if on a saline-drip, wan, pallid, a humbled simulacra.

And a few more drips and then radio silence. it is so satisfying to vilify, expunge, exclude and excoriate. It is as good as the gym, and I encourage the remaining denizens to maintain formation around the Leader. Begone all but the faithful. Begone Diana, Ed, Richard, William, Jonathan, Ross, YouGuessedIt, Janet, Janet's Discovery Institute geekboy friday, bye bye Phil. Goodbye not hello George. No welcome to you, bitch. Swamp dwelling lowlife whore. Goodbye James and kiss my ass, Casey. Ba bye Sciabarra you foul spawn of Kant.

All in all, I gotta say, the most free and open Objectivist site in the Known Universe. Expanding. Onward. Upward, ever outward, like gas. Low-hanging and as envigorating as Hydrogen Sulfide can be.

Free. Open. Buzz. Proceed. Clang. Shibboleth check. Barbara Bitch Whore. Buzz. Proceed.

ALARM. Intruder. Intruder. Exhibit hysteria. Purge. Purge. React. Lash out. Buzz. Clang. Clang. Clong. Boom. Tinkle. Clink. Stumble.

I find it extraordinary that someone supposedly steeped in Goblian charitableness feels it is an intolerable restriction that he's not allowed, on my site, to call someone who is the antithesis of a dishonest scumbag, a dishonest scumbag.

I find it extraordinary that someone supposedly steeped in libertarianism doesn't grasp that his freedom of speech is not violated by my withholding my microphone from him or imposing conditions for his use thereof.

I find it extraordinary that someone supposedly steeped in his goblin's commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," remains unrepentant about the blatant act of fraud and theft he committed in trying to pass my writing off as his own.

Observe the similarly conscientious, unrelenting, slimy nastiness of his fellow-Goblian Darren, and contemplate anew the malignancy of their mysticism.

Robert says Baade's name, in a just world, would be synonymous with "botulism." I disagree. That would be an injustice to botulism.

I shan't wait around any longer for Gobby to drag Baade into the garbage. Baade is gone.

Well stated, and thank you very much.

Michael

You perfidious cunt.

I can think of no surer to dull the luster and muddy the meaning of a phrase as iconic as "Freedom of Speech" than to associate it with the agenda you just outlined.

To be specific: how dare you bemoan as a restriction on ~your~ freedom of speech the prohibition against slandering a second man while using a "microphone" belonging to a third.

Furthermore, given that you have your own "microphone", I must conclude that the only reason you want the license to slander Michael using Lindsay's microphone is because the two men are friends and using Lindsay's site to deliver your insults adds extra venom to them. Vile creature!

How dare you - as a graduated scholar - usurp another man's thoughts and deeds without proper attribution. Setting aside the property argument, yours is a prima facie case of intellectual fraud: passing someone else's thought off as your own or anybody other than its true creator. Even the most ardent anarchist would not stoop so low as to actively deceive their audience as to the origin of their beliefs.

And if all that wasn't enough reason to restrict your activities on this site; we have this racist gem.

If there were any justice in this world, your name would become a synonym for moral botulism.

Baade's latest post is a further lift from my Brash speech, and is intended to imply that the Bill of Rights endorses plagiarism of the kind he has practised so shamelessly.

It does, though, doesn't it?

We await Baade's answer to Mr Moeller's question:

Bottom-feeder ... Do you take any responsibility for ripping off the writings of another? Or does it not bother you because you consider it your "right" to do so?

You'll continue to await until such time as you formally lift your restriction on my freedom of speech on your website. (I'd like to say it goes without saying, but it doesn't, so I'll say it. I am NOT demanding that you change your rules to suit me. I am NOT presuming to tell you how to run this website or SOLO. Heaven forbid!)

And you've lifted the following para from a speech I wrote for Don Brash, without attribution. ... Baade's latest post is a further lift from my Brash speech

Interesting. No doubt you, as a believer in the fiction of "intellectual property," can give a robust answer to the following question. Does the speech "belong" to you, or to Brash?

“What you're talking about isn't clear. SOLO is a "community of folk trying to figure out what sort of rules are congruent with liberty and prosperity, etc." So you could be talking about you, me and SOLO on any given day. Or you could be talking about you, me and our fellow seasteaders about to set sail in one of these.”

I was not talking about any community in particular but talking in generalities, as people do when they speculate about the need for rules and so on in political philosophy. But you knew perfectly well what I meant but were being a tease and a bit of a jerk. It is why I cannot take you seriously and don't intend to ever comment to you again.

“Because I can tell you now, unequivocally, that I don't want to reward pioneering inventions. (Unless they're my own.)”.

The looter morality in full, wide-screen technicolour.

You sneer at my remark about it being “too bad” that people might not agree with my views. You seem to overlook the point that I am not primarily concerned with trying to win a debate like a boxing match; I am mainly concerned with getting the issues clear in my own mind. As to whether you are persuaded, I could not give a flying fuck.

... of those who don't realise, the thieving Baade's latest post is a further lift from my Brash speech, and is intended to imply that the Bill of Rights endorses plagiarism of the kind he has practised so shamelessly.

We await Baade's answer to Mr Moeller's question:

Bottom-feeder ... Do you take any responsibility for ripping off the writings of another? Or does it not bother you because you consider it your "right" to do so?

Makes one wonder how much of Baade's doctoral thesis, on ethics (!!), was original?

I urge you to immerse yourself in the spirit of Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say but defend to the death your right to say it."

I'd also commend to your attention Section 14 of our own Bill of Rights, which says:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form."

Do you take any responsibility for ripping off the writings of another? Or does it not bother you because you consider it your "right" to do so?

It is not about rewarding a specific form of merit like in a running race, Goode, where someone hands out medals at the end.

Is it about rewarding a specific form of merit like in a race to file at the patent office, Burroughes, where someone hands out patents at the end?

"Bottom-feeder, you are dumb as a rock and cannot grasp basic arguments. The reason the second inventor is not granted property rights is classic property principles of exclusivity and first-in-time, first-in-right. The same reason that "so what?" is said to the person who arrives second in homesteading. If you had any education on the topic, perhaps you would not need to build strawmen in rebuttal.

Be that as it may, these arguments have been pointed out to you multiple times and we understand you are plum stupid, but mis-characterizing the position does not make your points any more valid.

Furthermore, bottom-feeder, even if you disagreed with not granting the second inventor patent rights, if patent law allowed for independent creation there would be no problem for the game-maker to produce his games. But being the totally irrational being that you are -- like advocating for demon possession -- you would use this to strip the first inventor of his property, NOT grant the second inventor rights.

And that is the clear motivation driving you, isn't bottom-feeder? Because if you were interested in protecting rights, at the very least you would adopt the position that the second inventor should be granted rights. But you are not interested in rights, you are interested in looting, so you advocate stripping the first inventor of his rights. It fits perfectly for bottom-feeders and their hyprocisy, make an argument based on independent creation, then use it as a club to bash in the first inventor. Gives bottom-feeders the subterfuge needed to continue their looting ways.

But we are on to you now, bottom-feeder. Yes, bottom-feeder, we know your kind and we have seen you in action. We have seen you ripping off other people's writings, and we are quite sure you would do it to their inventions too, if you thought you could get away with it.

Yes, bottom-feeder, this is the important for us in law enforcement, and also the lawyers who protect IP from parasites like you. We want to see that people are secure in their property. And we particularly hate dirty little hypocrites that preach about people having a right to their work, and use it as an excuse to go rip off other people's work.

Do you know anybody like that, bottom-feeder? Yes, we're talking about you, bottom-feeder.

If you had any integrity, bottom-feeder, you would apologize for your looting ways, and correct your article by putting in quotations and giving proper attribution. But we have dealt with you before bottom-feeder, and know that is not a moral bone in your body, so we don't expect it."

And then one day ... the police pay me a visit and examine my latest games and puzzles. Anything they deem to be a co-invention they seize, and tell me, "Sorry, you got busted copying somebody else's stuff. You bottom-feeder, thief, and overall piece of garbage!"

I ask them to justify their seizure of my possessions. They tell me, "It's to keep people from treating the work of others as communal property and pretending that it's their own, including reaping the rewards from copying another person's work. You know anything about that? I think you do!"

I say, "Hey, wait a moment. Actually, I invented all the games you just seized, why shouldn't I reap the rewards? It's what I've always done. And everything was going swimmingly until my competitors persuaded Libertopia's government to enact IP laws. And now here you are, threatening my livelihood." The police response is, "Ah, but all the games we just seized were independently invented by one of the other games inventors." To which my reply is, "So what?"

I really struggle to understand the justification for what's going on, but it turns out that I can continue to sell some of my games, and actually sell a whole lot more units of each, so that the extra units nearly compensate for the loss of sales from the games I'm no longer allowed to sell ... just so long as I do LOTS OF PAPERWORK and pay LOTS OF MONEY to a patent attorney.

Perhaps we see the motivation behind said patent attorney's defence of patents? I think we do! (Nice work if you can get it.)

Goode wrote:

"I tell him I think it's a terrible idea and suggest to him that his ideas are viciously violent. That they constitute criminal attacks on the rights of others (mine, in particular)."

Is it "viciously violent" that there are laws that protect Linz from having his writing ripped off by -- oh, I dunno -- say, YOU? And YOU are the victim of "criminal attacks" in such instances?

Interesting theory you got there, Goode. Turn those who produce writings into advocates for "vicious violence", while Goode the Looter -- who rips off other people's writings -- is the victim. Nice work, if you can get it.

Michael

Now suppose that I'm not Libertopia's sole games inventor. Suppose that there are other Libertopian games inventors. And suppose that the other games inventors have been trying to figure out what sort of rules are congruent with their liberty (not mine) and their prosperity (not mine). They agree (among themselves) that we have property rights in intangible goods.

Libertopia's existing legislation upholds property rights in bodies and in tangible goods. The other games inventors want to enact IP laws to uphold property rights in intangible goods. The ambassador for Libertopia's other games inventors pays me a visit and tries to talk me into the idea. I tell him I think it's a terrible idea and suggest to him that his ideas are viciously violent. That they constitute criminal attacks on the rights of others (mine, in particular). And that, indeed, if he actually did what he suggests to me is right (instead of cowardly hiding behind Libertopia's very small government while it does his dirty work) that he should probably be confined to the bilge for it. The visit doesn't go well. His parting shot is, "You are unconvinced by my arguments, well, that's just too bad!"

Life goes on. I invent games and sell them. Life at sea is great, and what's greatest of all is NO PAPERWORK!

Is your comeback, Goode? After you got busted copying somebody else's writing without quotations and attribution?

Just when I thought you could not sink any lower, you still manage to find new depths of immorality.

Michael

Demons don't exist. And neither does the button on my keyboard that would cause your PC monitor to levitate 5 feet, rotate through 360 degrees and belch pea soup all over you.

And you know that it doesn't exist because if it did, I'd be pressing the damned thing and often!

Bottom-feeder, thief, and overall piece of garbage.
Michael

Another good reason for copyright is -- oh, I dunno -- to keep people from treating the work of others as communal property and pretending that is their own, including reaping the rewards from copying another person's work.

You know anything about that? I think you do.

Linz:

"Freedom of speech is foremost among the “rights and privileges of British subjects” bestowed on all New Zealanders by the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century, the British prided themselves on valuing eccentricity over conformity, on untramelled freedom of speech. Thousands of New Zealanders went on to give their lives for this freedom. We should rage, rage and rage again against anything which threatens its demise."

Perhaps we see the motivation behind your attacks on copyright?

Second-hander Bottom-feeder, thief, and overall piece of garbage.

Michael

Suppose that I'm a games inventor. Suppose that I invent, publish and manufacture puzzles, board games and computer software and that I plan to make my living in Libertopia accordingly. What basic rules are we going to agree on? What sort of property rights do we both recognise?

I think we'll agree that we have property rights in our bodies. And I think we'll agree that we have property rights in tangible goods. We're done, time to set sail! (Worse things happen at sea.)

As for the point about "we", I am talking about any community of folk trying to figure out what sort of rules are congruent with liberty and prosperity, etc.

What you're talking about isn't clear. SOLO is a "community of folk trying to figure out what sort of rules are congruent with liberty and prosperity, etc." So you could be talking about you, me and SOLO on any given day. Or you could be talking about you, me and our fellow seasteaders about to set sail in one of these. (Click to embiggerate.)

Let's assume the latter. So, we're trying to figure out what sort of rules are congruent with liberty and prosperity, etc., right? Because the very next day what we come up with will become the law of the stead!

What does "etc." stand for, Tom? Are you sure you mean "congruent"? Surely, all sorts of sets of rules are "congruent" with all sorts of things. And what do you mean by "prosperity," exactly? Ye cannot serve God and mammon!

Patent defenders might argue that we want to reward pioneering inventions...

Patent defenders are doomed to lose the argument. Because I can tell you now, unequivocally, that I don't want to reward pioneering inventions. (Unless they're my own.) Thanks all the same.

The point is to encourage innovation, etc as that happens to be in the rational self interest of people.

What does "etc." stand for, Tom? Perhaps the point is to encourage smoking cessation, as that happens to be in people's rational self-interest, too. The point for whom? Don't you think you should leave it to the individuals concerned to decide what happens to be in what they happen to consider to be their own self-interest?

You are unconvinced by my arguments, well, that's just too bad.

I'm unconvinced by your arguments. You say, well, that's just too bad. Too bad for whom?

The devil is in the detail.

It is not about rewarding a specific form of merit like in a running race, Goode, where someone hands out medals at the end. The point is to encourage innovation, etc as that happens to be in the rational self interest of people. As for the point about "we", I am talking about any community of folk trying to figure out what sort of rules are congruent with liberty and prosperity, etc. You are unconvinced by my arguments, well, that's just too bad. Even Shayne (over at the other main IP thread), has speculated about how copyright might work in a voluntaristic way, even on a non-statutory basis. Open your mind.

Don't indulge in Satanism again. All those virgin sacrifices can be tiring and a terrible strain on the nerves.

Patent defenders might argue that we want to reward ... a willingness, in some cases, to defy conventional wisdom (often putting up with ridicule and so on)

Keep the reward, Tom. I hope it goes some way towards compensating for the embarrassment I caused you earlier. I had quite forgotten that one does not use the 'D' word in polite company. I don't know what got into me!

Thanks for the link. You said

I have already dealt with why I think IP does not proactively impose on people against their will

Well, you say you have already dealt with the issue, but you haven't dealt with it successfully. That is to say, while you might indeed have dealt with the issue, you haven't dealt to the issue!

I'm going to summarise what I take to be the guts of the deal.

I see the issue of independent invention like this. With the "I got there first" principle as applied to physical stuff like land, the "I got there first" is a sort of rough and ready way of dealing with the conflicts that could arise otherwise when dealing with virgin things where no ownership structure is in place already ... the "first-to-claim" principle makes sense, as far as i can see it, in resolving conflicts over physical stuff, but it gets, in my view, more difficult to defend this principle with commercial inventions.

Patent defenders might argue that we want to reward pioneering inventions, or inventions that involve a significant, non-obvious improvement on the ones already invented, as these require a willingness, in some cases, to defy conventional wisdom (often putting up with ridicule and so on), and that rewarding such things rewards a specific form of merit.

Now I'm going summarise some more.

I see the issue of independent invention like this.

Patent defenders might argue that we want to reward pioneering inventions... and that rewarding such things rewards a specific form of merit.

At last, we have the pure, distilled essence of your justification of IP.

Now, whether you award only a gold medal, or a silver medal as well and perhaps a bronze medal also—in other words, whether the optimal way to proactively impose on people against their will is this or that—does not concern me. And I hope it no longer concerns you. Because I hope you can now very clearly see why the whole notion of IP is fundamentally flawed. (And, if not, I'm happy to elaborate, but here goes.)

What you mean 'we', white man?

"What part of 'demonic possession' don't you understand?"

Will Holy Water help? If not, can you suggest a proper procedure of exorcism?

Richard, you are capable of looking up the IP thread and seeing how I along with others tried to debate the issue. But to be generous, here were go with one such comment: http://www.solopassion.com/com...

Tom

What part of 'demonic possession' don't you understand? (Or, what part of 'demonic possession' don't you like?)

"I can't sustain the realisation of how low folk can go without regular empirical reminders."

He does serve as a useful reminder. No son of Voltaire.

I'll admit I do find it shocking when beliefs I'd shrug off if I found them in some Papua New Guinea tribe turn up among grownups in the West. I shouldn't be I know, but I am. At least the PNG tribes might be interested in learning white man's magic. But there it is.

It's like the sight of grown men praying. Yes, there are grown men who still do this. I cannot look at it. WTF is wrong with you? You make yourself an object to be pitied, and I don't do pity. Sell the Minivan.

Leonid, on the TIME thread, nutshelled Mrs Kant's metaphysics. What a string of metaphysical atrocities (TM) that is when you see it in two sentences. Give me Mr Hume any day.

It does steel the self to see things as they are, even being demon possessed and all. Haha. Bwaaharharharr!

No, I don't expect anything else from this belly-crawler. And of course I should ban him. But I need the regular reality check. I can't sustain the realisation of how low folk can go without regular empirical reminders.

Linz wrote:

"Not only dishonest...but gleefully so. A brazen thief.

Reprehensible.

For all to see."

Does anybody expect anything else from that belly-crawler? He only slithers out from under his rock to prove how irrational he is and to launch personal attacks. And that is why I previously argued that he be banned. He has totally outlived his usefulness as paragon of dishonesty. And he as outlived his usefulness as a human being (if he ever was one). In Goode's case, one generation of imbeciles is enough.

Michael

I do not agree with the church's being prohibited from making false claims. You try to imply that I do.

You know you're being premature and uncharitable. I go on to say

In fact, I’m confident that Perigo’s imminent press release will blow the Advertising Standards Authority to kingdom come.

... but gleefully so. A brazen thief.

Reprehensible.

For all to see.

So much for "Thou shalt not steal."

So much for "Thou shalt not beg the question."

And you've lifted the following para from a speech I wrote for Don Brash.

Did you file a missing paragraph report?

Again you expose your own dishonesty. I do not agree with the church's being prohibited from making false claims. You try to imply that I do.

And you've lifted the following para from a speech I wrote for Don Brash, without attribution. We know you have no scruples on such matters, but I draw folks' attention to the fact that the following is stolen:

Freedom of speech is foremost among the “rights and privileges of British subjects” bestowed on all New Zealanders by the Treaty of Waitangi. In the nineteenth century, the British prided themselves on valuing eccentricity over conformity, on untramelled freedom of speech. Thousands of New Zealanders went on to give their lives for this freedom. We should rage, rage and rage again against anything which threatens its demise.

So much for "Thou shalt not steal."

RIP Lady Liberty.

You overlooked to say why not.

Infantile hocus pocus because demons do not exist, neither do gods, fairies, Santa's-little-helpers or harpies. You've never seen one, heard one, touched one, smelled one nor tasted one, neither can you provide an iota of rationale that there exists such a spirit in the universe.

What was called "demon possession" by religionists is mental illness. You're giving a psychiatric condition a superstitious definition. You call that scientific?

You're talking like a complete nut-case. It is no wonder you feel a need to be saved. If I was thinking like you I would probably feel a need for help outside of myself too, but you won't find it in Christianity, my friend. It's a superstition for people who want to be told what to think. It's a superstition for people who want to be told what is right and wrong. Simplistic, immature and unworthy of a thinking adult. Not to mention rooted in fear. I feel sorry for you.

Nice try, Richard. I have already dealt with why I think IP does not proactively impose on people against their will, so the rest of what you say is a non-sequitur.

It's customary to provide a link to where you did what you said you did. Unless, like James Valliant, you're bluffing.

How do I justify calling you a fool? Because you suggested -- in the 21st Century, using a micro-chip powered interface to the world-wide web -- that your opponents on this forum were possessed by demons.

How does suggesting that you are possessed by a demon justify calling me a fool? You don't say.

No, Richard, your speculation is not a legitimate scientific theory

You overlooked to say why not.

Jeezy doesn't cure cancer:

I suppose it would be an affront if he were to. Cancer is presumably Gobby's work? To heal it would be an act of rebellion against one's father.

RIP Lady Liberty. Involuntarily euthanased after a long battle with the big C.

Does New Zealand's #1 libertarian see fit to pay her appropriate tribute? Does he even acknowledge her passing?

Demon possession?

My hypothesis—while admittedly highly speculative—was the best explanation I could think of. My claim, that Objectivism is a form of demonic possession, is a legitimate scientific theory. I arrived at it by inference to the best explanation. Inference to the best explanation is central to the scientific method.

No, Richard, your speculation is not a legitimate scientific theory, it is infantile hocus pocus, which is all I've come to expect of you.

Jeezy doesn't cure cancer:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa...

I suppose it would be an affront if he were to. Cancer is presumably Gobby's work? To heal it would be an act of rebellion against one's father.

Regardless of the man's mathematical prowess his 12 principles of rationality are a castle built on a foundation of air. For instance:

"Let the winds of evidence blow you about as though you are a leaf."
Evidence gathered by what means and evaluated against what standard of proof?

"...empiricism. The roots of knowledge are in observation..."
Observation by what means and through what prism? How do you know that your observations are not distorted or limited and if they are, by what means are you to resolve that issue?

Now I suspect that the author may be arguing from a presumption of the existence and primacy of reality even though he doesn't explicitly state so (which is probably why you like it) and this is key because we both know that you ain't operating on that presumption.

And lastly:
"...argument... Those who smile wisely and say: “I will not argue” remove themselves from help."

To which I reply, I refuse to argue with you because you are a fool and as it is said: "Never argue with a fool, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

How do I justify calling you a fool? Because you suggested -- in the 21st Century, using a micro-chip powered interface to the world-wide web -- that your opponents on this forum were possessed by demons. And I don't think you were joking.

What the are you like during a full Moon if you are like this now during a half moon phase? FFS!

Perhaps you need to purchase a longer ethernet cable. After all, if you wish to dine with the devil, make sure you have a long spoon.

Nice try, Richard. I have already dealt with why I think IP does not proactively impose on people against their will, so the rest of what you say is a non-sequitur.

With folk like this, there is nothing to be done, so long as they don't try and impose themselves by force.

There is nothing to be done. Rest assured, I won't try to impose myself by force. Whereas,

your ideas are viciously violent. They constitute criminal attacks on the rights of others. Indeed, if you actually did what you suggest is right (instead of cowardly hiding behind the government while it does your dirty work) then you should probably be thrown into jail for it.

Obviously we must try harder.

Please do. I suggest you start here.

Perigo is a leading proponent and exponent of Objectivism—which he describes as "a philosophy extolling reason." Perigo declares that I have gone mad. He asks, "Did you imagine he was *this* irrational??!!"

Perigo seems to think that he is a paragon of reason and that I am estranged from reality. The evidence, however, is quite to the contrary. Take a look.

This thread, for instance, is a comment of mine copied and pasted from the intellectual property rights thread. Perigo's purpose in reposting it here is to distract from the other thread, where it has just been suggested that he might like to shoulder a "burden of proof". Rather than take up the suggestion, Atlas shrugs and runs away. In a word, evasion.

The other thread is conspicuous for the absence of any indication that the main voices in favour of IP, including Perigo's, are even acquainted with reason, let alone any indication that reason is their only absolute. And it was this peculiar absence that I sought to explain. My hypothesis—while admittedly highly speculative—was the best explanation I could think of. My claim, that Objectivism is a form of demonic possession, is a legitimate scientific theory. I arrived at it by inference to the best explanation. Inference to the best explanation is central to the scientific method.

My comment was a challenge, one that Perigo has so far declined to accept. The challenge is to come up with a better explanation. My explanation says that absence of evidence of rationality is evidence of absence of rationality. In fact, it is evidence that one's rational faculties have been taken out by demonic possession. Where are the competing hypotheses? So far, at least, demonic possession is the only game in town.

Let's examine my first four sentences for signs of madness.

I'm going to go out on a limb here ... I think Objectivism is a form of demonic possession.
Satan's greatest trick was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.
Rand's greatest trick was convincing mental cripples that they are the epitome of rationality.
There's a connection.

We covered the first sentence already. No indication of madness. Just an application of the scientific method.

The second sentence is a hypothesis that makes testable predictions. It predicts that people are convinced that Satan doesn't exist. As predicted, Perigo denies that Satan exists, thereby confirming my hypothesis.

The third sentence is also a hypothesis that makes testable predictions. It predicts that Objectivists will make grandiose claims about their own rationality, while showing no sign that they are anything more than the mental cripples my hypothesis says they are. Indeed, Perigo claims to "extol" reason, otherwise we'd never know.

There's a connection. Both disbelief in the person of Satan, and uncritical belief in the superiority of one's intellect, are massive blind spots. Shayne thinks my assessment of Objectivism is too harsh. He says, "One of [Rand's] ideals was a commitment to reason, and it is through this ideal that anyone can avoid her mistakes, if they are honest." That's why Objectivism is such a great trick. Objectivists don't avoid Rand's mistakes. They repeat them.

Another claim I make is that Objectivism is a cult. This hypothesis, too, makes testable predicitions.

Rather than honestly and intelligently debating with critics, using facts and logic, the cult will resort to low personal attacks on the critic, using name-calling, slander, condescending put-downs, libelous accusations, personal slurs, accusations of bad motives, and casting aspersions on the critic's intelligence and sanity.

Sure enough, this thread confirms that Objectivism is a cult. Rather than honestly and intelligently debate with me, using facts and logic, Perigo resorts to a low personal attack on me, casting aspersions on my sanity. He signally fails to provide any evidence to support his assertion that I'm mad.

As far as reason goes, I've gone "by the book." Perigo has yet to turn a page.

The evidence sits well with me, but flies in Perigo's face.

To be accused of being a mere plaything of demons and not a manifestation of the actual thing. Obviously we must try harder.
The man is starting to sound nuttier than Joseph Smith, Jr.

He hasn't started soliciting donations to pay for the founding of a new Zion in Independence Missouri has he? You will warn me if he does won't you?

I don't need another crackpot taking up residence in my neck of the woods. The value of our house has only just started to rise again.

His comment (on the IP post of mine) was pretty nuts. Even the others with whom I was debating seemed, well, a little embarrassed by it.

With folk like this, there is nothing to be done, so long as they don't try and impose themselves by force.

Baade was basing "demonic possession" on you. I tried to explain to him that you weren't typical ...

But yes, seriously, I wonder each day what new metaphysical atrocity will be perpetrated by whom. You were present with me when I entertained Baade in my hotel room. Did you imagine he was *this* irrational??!!

I had a long standing friend - an MA in Philosophy - who one night said he believed in fairies. Thinking he was kidding, or talking metaphorically, I prodded him only to find out that he was serious. The friendship pretty much ended that night, with a whimper. I couldn't seriously discuss anything with him from there.

If the best Baade can do to explain Objectivists to himself is "demonic possession" well, yup, he's lost it.

KASS Linz - more so for being so gloriously objective.