How a Gang of Hypocritical, ‘Sciencey’ Filipino Atheists Treated Plagiarism Would Make You Feel Ashamed of Being Godless

There’s a group of pro-Nanny State militant atheists in the Philippines that believes it’s absolutely OK to commit plagiarism if your goal is to attack an enemy.

A few years ago, the Filipino Freethinkers, also known as Filipino Freefarters, published a blogpost written by one of their newest bloggers named Karlo Espiritu. The blog was titled What’s So Wrong With Objectivism, and it was one of the most celebrated and most commented on the group’s website.

However upon closer scrutiny, it turned out that the Freefarters’ newest favorite blogger fooled his colleagues by simply submitting a plagiarized blog article. 

I exposed the incident here by posting an expository blogpost titled The Highly Appalling Plagiarism of the Filipino Free-farters.

My expose forced the group’s Dear Fuhrer to clear things up by suspending Mr. Karlo Espiritu, the freefarting plagiarist, “from his post as official FF writer indefinitely until he edits his post and publicly apologizes and says ten Hail Marys”.

See how these stupid hypocrites mockingly handled plagiarism? Yet these same stupid creatures had the gall to sanctimoniously attacked their fellow plagiarist, Sen. Tito Sotto, for committing the same thing.

These creatures shamelessly claim they’re advocates of science, reason and freethinking in the Philippines. No, they’re a whole bunch of stupid hypocrites!

Like their fellow statists or leftists, these Filipino Freefarters are unwitting practitioners of “Do as I say; not as I do” philosophy.

So, according to the Freefarters’ Dear Fuhrer, Red Tani, the proper cure to plagiarism is simple ‘editing’.

Hilarious!

Too bad I took screenshots of Mr. Espiritu’s most celebrated original yet plagiarized blogpost before it was finally EDITED or REWORDED.

Here it is!

PLAGIARIST-FREEFARTERS

The Filipino Freefarters’ disgusting act of plagiarism

  • Note: the following is an excerpt from my old blogpost. Compare the original blogpost to Espiritu’s edited post to see the difference.

Here’s one portion that was apparently lifted from an online source.

Karlo Espiritu: What’s So Wrong with Objectivism?

Now, what’s wrong with Objectivism? Well, basically, everything. To begin with, Objectivism’s claims are simply asserted as self-evident philosophical truths.

Even the sub-title “What’s so terribly wrong with Objectivism” was copied verbatim from an online source. Here’s the very source of that plagiarized entry somehow authored by Karlo Espiritu. An online article from a website called Antirand.org came up with the following undated statement:

Antirand.org: “What is so terribly wrong with Objectivism? To begin, it’s so-called “axiom of existence” which says that existence exists is  outright false.”

Any rational, educated, observant reader would readily notice the similarities between the two above-quoted entries.

Karlo Espiritu: Objectivism starts with reasonable ideas, and quickly descends into ironies. “Existence exists” is as far as you can get with philosophy as it relates to reality. After that, assumptions start. Those assumptions are held as real, objective truths, that lead to bullshit.

The second line was copied verbatim from a forum tread (topic: Objectivism sucks) written by a certain Euri on Feb. 28, 2005. Here’s what Euri said:

Euri: Objectivism starts with reasonable ideas, and quickly descends into ironic rambling. “Existence exists” is as far as you can get with philosophy as it relates to reality. Well, identity as well. After that, assumptions start. Those assumptions are held as real, objective truths, and lead to bullshit.

Here’s another plagiarized entry from an online source. The author of the bash-Ayn Rand article states:

Karlo Espiritu: To demonstrate, let us look at its most basic tenet, its so-called “axiom of existence”, which states that “existence exists”. If you think about it, you’ll realize that it is flat out wrong. Try that statement to different words – “abstinence abstains, difference differs, excellence excels, obedience obeys, persistence persists, life lives, etc…“. Do any of these statements make sense? Of course not. That is to say, you exist, I exist, the universe exists— but existence doesn’t exist. This is because as even Rand herself admits in her writings, only concretes exist. And existence is clearly not a concrete, because you cannot ascribe any specific characteristics to it. Existence, out of context means nothing, and hence, to say out of any specific context that “existence” exists is to effectively say that nothing exists. No other philosopher I know has ever claimed that “existence exists”. Why not? Because every other philosopher has realized that the assumption is not only meaningless butoutright false. It’s ironic that Rand is also famous for saying the words — “Check your premises…”

Now try to read carefully the entry above and compare it with the following paragraph from a website called Antirand.org.

Antirand.orgThe same can be said about existence. Living things, and inanimate things now as well, exist. We prove this by pointing to them, and describing their properties (e.g., John is tall).  But we can do no such thing with existence because existence has no properties. It has no properties because it has no existence of its own, save as a topic or topos or place in human discourse.  That is to say, existence most definitely does not exist. What is more, Aristotle never said  it did—  for the simple reason that he was too intelligent to ever say anything so ridiculous. Why is it ridiculous? Because if you think about it, you’ll realize it’s flat out wrong. That is to say, you exist, I exist, the universe exists— but existence doesn’t exist. This is because as even Rand herself admits elsewhere in her writings, only concretes exist. And existence is clearly not a concrete, because you cannot ascribe any specific properties to it.”

Filipino Free-farter plagiarist Karlo Espiritu went on with his shameless act of copying other people’s works. The seventh paragraph of his long article states:

Karlo Espiritu: “Another fundamental tenet of Objectivism is the axiom of identity: “A is A”. This statement is by itself useless. Basically, the axiom of identity is the first indication of Objectivists’ overuse of deductive reasoning. The law of identity is meant to assert that there are some truths that are absolute. We know they absolutely must be true, with absolute certainty, because they are derived through reason. Objectivism’s truths seem to be entirely built around this idea. It starts with a few axioms, and from there, everything else follows. Just as “A is A” is an absolute truth, so too, is capitalism. I found an Ayn Rand quote to that effect:

“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”

Unfortunately, Google search engine turned in an entry, which is almost the same as the above-quoted paragraph. A blogger named Miller whose blogsite Skeptic’s Play wrote an anti-Ayn Rand blog article on September 29, 2008, about two years after Espiritu published his plagiarized article on the Filipino Freethinkers’ website. Here’s what Miller wrote on his blog entitled What’s With Objectivism:

Miller: “The first time I ever encountered Objectivism, I was perusing a group’s website, and they had the oddest statement among their fundamental tenets. The axiom of identity: “A is A”. No, it’s not wrong per se (except I would call it a tautology, not an axiom). No, of course, it’s correct, it must be correct. But what of it? This is a tenet? Because the statement is by itself is useless, I had to read between the lines. I didn’t like what I saw there. Basically, the axiom of identity is the first indication of Objectivists’ overuse of deductivism. The law of identity is meant to assert that, yes, there are some truths that are absolute. We know they absolutely must be true, with absolute certainty, because they are derived through reason.

“Objectivist epistemology seems to be entirely built around this idea. We start with a few axioms, and from there, everything else follows. Just as “A is A” is an absolute truth, so, too, is capitalism. Oh, look, I found an Ayn Rand quote to that effect:

“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”

KArlo Espiritu also plagiarized another entry from Miller’s blog. Observe the striking similarity between Karlo’s paragraph and Miller’s work:

Karlo: “Another big mistake of Objectivism is that every idea can be derived from deductive reasoning, which is reasoning that leaves no doubt about its conclusions. But that is simply not true. The vast majority of other knowledge requires inductive reasoning which leaves at least little doubt about its conclusions.”

Miller: “The mistake that Objectivism makes is that they think every idea can be reduced down to something like “A is A”. They think every idea can be derived from deductive reasoning, which is reasoning that leaves no doubt about its conclusions. But that’s not the case. There is a major field that investigates what we can know through deductive reasoning; we call that field “mathematics”. The vast majority of all other knowledge, most especially including politics, requires inductive reasoning, which is reasoning that leaves at least a little doubt about its conclusions.”

More plagiarized entries

What’s admirable about this Karlo Espiritu is his ability to use the google search engine and look for appropriate blog lines and online articles that would serve his purpose, which is to expose what’s wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. As I went along, I discovered more skeletons in the Filipino Free-farters’ online closet. Compare this line purportedly written by Karlo with its alleged online source: an online article entitled “My Country ‘Tis of ME: The United States of Ayn Rand” published on Salon.com.

Karlo Espiritu: “Being independent, having happiness as a primary goal, being an individual, taking pride in your accomplishments, striving for high goals and personal excellence are captivating ideas. I am for individualism! Of course it got attention.”

Salon.com: “Now, some of her concepts are very appealing.  Being independent, having happiness as a primary goal, being an individual, taking pride in your accomplishments, striving for high goals and personal excellence are captivating concepts. I am for individualism! Of course it got attention.”

Karlo Espiritu: “Don’t like how things are going? Then blow things up. This is the basic message of her book, Fountainhead — you can be as much of a complete asshole as long as you preserve your individualism.”

Salon.com: “Don’t like how things are going? Then blow it up. The basic message of this book is that you can be as much of an asshole as you want as long as you are an individual.”

Karlo Espiritu: “In both novels, there were the top elite of people who were productive and always rational. All others were parasites, looters, second-raters, irrational ones who lived off the fruit of the productive, intelligent ones. No gray areas. Always black and white with no room for disagreement.”

Salon.com: “In her world, there were the top elite of people who were productive and always rational.  All others were parasites, looters, second-raters, irrational ones who lived off the fruit of the productive, intelligent ones.  No gray areas with her.  Always black and white with no room for disagreement.”

Karlo Espiritu “The Plagiarist” also lifted an entry from a popular websiteAbout.com that published an article by Austin Cline entitled “Cult of Ayn Rand & the Worship of Fascist Supermen” on February 4, 2006.

Karlo Espiritu: “It seems to me that Objectivists never realized that real people aren’t characters — their ideas about human beings are more caricatures than real-life understandings about how real-life people work.”

Austin Cline: “Perhaps Rand and her followers have never realized this because they don’t realize that real people aren’t characters — their ideas about human beings are more caricatures than real-life understandings about how real-life people work.”

Mr. Espiritu’s disgusting act of plagiarism continued wherein it appears that he merely googled online sources that could fit his dishonest purpose: again, to expose the what’s wrong with Ayn Rand and Objectivism. The paragraph below apparently shows that he cited the work of Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil, published in 2004. But this is not the case, as the evidence that I’m about to show you speaks otherwise. It appears that he almost copied verbatim the article of Carlos W. Porter entitled An Analysis of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Karlo Espiritu: “Morals don’t exist in nature and so, it cannot be discovered (The Science of Good and Evil. Shermer, M. 2004 ). In nature there are only actions — physical actions, biological actions, human actions. Humans act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral only when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is strictly created by humans, subject to all sorts of cultural influences and social constructions. Since almost every person and every social group claims they know what constitutes right versus wrong human action, and since almost all of these moralities differ from all others to a greater or lesser extent, reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct. In this respect, morality is not absolute. Just as there is no absolute right type of music, there is no absolute right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich continuum that makes it impossible to categorize into the discrete rights and wrongs that political laws and moral codes tend to require.”

Carlos W. Porter: “Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are just actions–physical actions, biological actions, and human actions. Human actors act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is a strictly human creation, subject to all the cultural influences and social constructions as other such human creations. Since virtually everyone and every group claims they know what right and wrong human action is, and since virtually all of these moralities are different from all others to a greater or lesser extent, then reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct. Just as there is no absolute right type of human music, there is no absolute right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich continuum that precludes its pigeonholing into the unambiguous yeses and noes that political laws and moral codes require.”

This most applauded article writer of the Filipino Freethinkers, whose work was reportedly one of the most viewed entry of the Farters’ website, also copied entries from an online article written by Michael Shermer entitled Why People Believe Weird Things.

Karlo Espiritu: “Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference. As long as morality is recognized as a human invention influenced by human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. When a social group sets itself up as the final moral authority of other people’s actions, especially when its followers believe they have discovered absolute standards of right and wrong, it marks the beginning of intolerance, and thus, the end reason and rationality. This attribute is what makes a cult, a religion, or any other group harmful to individual freedom.”

Michael Shermer: “Morality is relative to the moral frame of reference. As long as it is understood that morality is a human construction influenced by human cultures, one can be more tolerant of other human belief systems, and thus other humans. But as soon as a group sets itself up as the final moral arbiter of other people’s actions, especially when its members believe they have discovered absolute standards of right and wrong, it marks the beginning of the end of tolerance, and thus reason and rationality. It is this characteristic more than any other that makes a cult, a religion, a nation, or any other group dangerous to individual freedom.”

Karlo Espiritu “The Plagiarist”, of the Filipino Free-farters, successfully proved that he’s good at copying other people’s works in that he even lifted verbatim the entries published on online forums. For example, Mr. Espiritu copied the whole paragraph of an online article entitled The Vice of Selfishness posted by Dr. Chiil.

Karlo Espiritu: “A perfect example of how an Objectivist would act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in New York. Ms. Genovese was murdered while 38 of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Suchbystander inaction is clearly undesirable and self-defeating because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt’s oath (Atlas Shrugged, 1957), would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Furthermore, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese’s sake even long enough to make a phone call.”

Dr. Chiil: “A perfect example of how an Objectivist is required to act incorrectly is that of the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese on a street corner in Queens. Ms. Genovese was murdered while thirty-eight of her neighbors looked on for over half an hour without either intervening or even calling the police. Such bystander inaction is both obviously intuitively wrong and also self-defeating to the actor (or, more correctly, non-actor) because of the dangerous social situation it defines. An Objectivist, however, at least according to John Galt’s oath, would be required to abstain from action. He certainly could not intervene and put his life and love of it in danger. Further, by saying he will never live for the sake of another, John Galt and the Objectivists cannot live their lives for Ms. Genovese’s sake even long enough to make a phone call.”

Here’s another borrowed, lifted, plagiarized entry from the article of Chris Wolf entitled What’s Really Wrong With Objectivism?

Karlo Espiritu: If you have ever wondered why so many Objectivists are so quick to judge their opponents as evil and dishonest, it’s because they are seriously convinced that their opponents are evil and dishonest. If your only criterion for pronouncing someone to be evil and dishonest is the conclusion, “He can’t be holding that idea honestly,” then virtually anyone who opposes you can be instantly transformed into a dishonest evader. This also means that Objectivists who agree with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff’s psychological concepts of ‘evil’, ‘evasion’, and ‘inherently dishonest ideas‘, will undoubtedly end up insulting many of their opponents. Such an Objectivist, upon deciding that his opponent is expressing an inherently dishonest idea (and is therefore evading), will immediately proclaim his opponent to be a dishonest evader. Naturally, if the opponent is holding his idea honestly, he will be immediately offended at having his character and honesty smeared in so unjust a manner. He will quite properly take it as an insult.

Chris Wolf: “If you have ever wondered why so many Objectivists are so quick to pronounce their opponents as evil and dishonest, it’s because they are honestly convinced that their opponents are evil and dishonest. If your only criterion for pronouncing someone to be evil and dishonest is the conclusion, “He can’t be holding that idea honestly,” then virtually anyone who opposes you can be instantly transformed into a dishonest evader. This also means that Objectivists who agree with Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff’s psychological concepts of ‘evil’, ‘evasion,’ and ‘inherently dishonest ideas,’ will automatically end up insulting many of their opponents. Such an Objectivist, upon deciding that his opponent is expressing an inherently dishonest idea (and is therefore evading), will immediately declare his opponent to be a dishonest evader. Needless to say, if the opponent is holding his idea honestly, he will be immediately offended at having his character and honesty smeared in so unjust a manner. He will quite properly take it as an insult.”

Karlo Espiritu: “A technique called ‘guessing‘ is one very common technique that most Objectivists use to determine the mental state of another man. It’s a way for them to determine if an opponent has an ‘inherently dishonest idea’. This is why most Objectivists often start their statements with questions. Doesn’t that ring a bell? How many times have you encountered “What is…?”-type of questions from Objectivists? Well, now you know why. Always keep in mind, they’re mostly Ayn Rand copycats.

“Ayn Rand wrote that, “Morality is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions, that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” Accordingly, to an Objectivist, judging the morality of others requires that we judge how well they are adhering to a code of rational values, rather than trying to recognize the actual motivations of another man’s mind. In broadest terms, are other men acting in a pro-life, or anti-life manner? Are they being rational, or irrational? Are they using reason, or emotion? Do they tell the truth?”

Chris Wolf: Actually, there is one very common technique that most Objectivists use to determine the mental state of another man. This technique is called ‘guessing’.

“Any proper moral judgment of other men must rely on facts that are readily available to anyone; not facts that only a trained psychiatrist could hope to obtain. What are the facts that can be used for moral judgment?

“Ayn Rand wrote that, “Morality is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions, that determine the purpose and the course of his life.” Accordingly, judging the morality of others requires that we judge how well they are adhering to a code of rational values, rather than trying to discern the actual motivations of another man’s mind (as Rand and Peikoff would have us do). In broadest terms, are other men acting in a pro-life, or anti-life manner? Are they being rational, or irrational? Are they using reason, or emotion? Do they tell the truth?”

Karlo Espiritu: “But such judgments are not always easy to make, and they can never be made quickly, and none of them requires us to determine if a man is ‘evading,’ or is advocating an ‘inherently dishonest idea,’ or is ‘evil.’ Trying to answer any of these last three questions, is to push moral judgment into the realm of unjust fantasy.”

Chris Wolf: Such judgments are not always easy to make, and they can never be made quickly, but none of them requires us to determine if a man is ‘evading,’ or is advocating an ‘inherently dishonest idea,’ or is ‘evil.’ To try to answer any of these last three questions, is to push moral judgment into the realm of unjust fantasy.”

Plagiarized Conclusion

Unfortunately, even the opening paragraph of Karlo Espiritu’s amazingly plagiarized, err, borrowed, bash-Ayn Rand conclusion was apparently lifted from several online articles.

Karlo Espiritu: “Objectivism is a radical and mostly unoriginal combination of old ideas pieced together and filled with contradictions. The most obvious of these contradictions is that Ayn Rand took individualism which would seem to encourage all types of thought and questioning and turned it into a simplistic black and white way of interpreting the world.”

Again from Salon.com: “Her Objectivism is a radical and mostly unoriginal conglomeration of old ideas pieced together and filled with contractions.  The most glaring of these contractions is that she took individualism which would seem to encourage all types of thought and questioning and turned it into a simplistic black and white way of intrepreting the world.”

Karlo Espiritu: “John Galt or Howard Roark, her two famous protagonists in Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, would have never joined her collective group if they had magically come alive. Rand did not tolerate individualism in her inner circle. If you liked Mozart, you were gone. If you had any questions about the concepts of Objectivism you were labeled irrational and scorned.”

Again from Salon.com: “John Galt or Howard Roark, her two most famous literary perfect  supermen, would have never joined her collective group if they had magically come alive.  Rand did not tolerate individualism in her inner circle.  If you liked Mozart, you were gone.  If you had any questions about the concepts of Objectivism you were labeled irrational and scorned.”

Karlos Espiritu: “Ayn Rand lived a lonely, isolated life which is a contradiction for one who claimed her way was the best and only way to personal happiness. She despised all things mystical or religious yet her followers worshiped her which she not only accepted but demanded. Her Objectivism became more than a philosophy but a religion if not a simple cult (Walker, J. The Ayn Rand Cult. 1999).”

Observe that Mr. Espiritu, AKA “The Plagiarist cum artist” of the Filipino Free-farters, provided an alleged source for the above-quoted paragraph. But evidence below shows that the source of this entry was posted on Salon.com on March 6, 2010, and that the article was titled My Country ‘Tis of ME—The United States of Ayn Rand.

Salon.com: “She lived a lonely, isolated life personally which is a contradiction for one who claimed her way was the best and only  way to personal happiness.  She despised all things mystical or religious yet her followers worshiped her which she not only accepted but demanded.  Her Objectivism became more than a philosophy but a religion if not a simple cult.”

It’s both funny and pathetic that even this single line had to be copied word for word from another online source:

Karlo Espiritu: “She believed that it was more important to adhere to a principle than to behave well.”

From Standard.ca (To the Ashcan—go!, published on February 7, 2010):“She believed that it was more important to adhere to a principle than to behave well.”

And, as I suspected, even the final, last, ending paragraph of Mr. Espiritu’s most celebrated article was borrowed from the concluding paragraph of Michael Shermer’s The Unlikeliest Cult in History.

Karlo Espiritu:“What makes science light years away from all other disciplines is its commitment to the tentative nature of all its conclusions. In science, there are no final answers, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific “facts” are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but that acceptance is never final. Science is not the declaration of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation. And that is at the center of its limitations. It is also its greatest strength. Science is the best tool ever devised for understanding our world, and we should love and use it.”

Michael Shermer: What separates science from all other human activities (and morality has never been successfully placed on a scientific basis), is its belief in the tentative nature of all conclusions. There are no final absolutes in science, only varying degrees of probability. Even scientific “facts” are just conclusions confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement, but never final assent. Science is not the affirmation of a set of beliefs but a process of inquiry aimed at building a testable body of knowledge constantly open to rejection or confirmation. In science, knowledge is fluid and certainty fleeting. That is the heart of its limitation. It is also its greatest strength.”

What’s the Freefarting plagiarist’s (Mr. Karlo Espiritu) main defense against my allegation?

Well, he simply said he unwittingly copied things online.

Here’s how this brain-dead freefarter rationalized his dishonesty and intellectual thievery.

PLAGIARIST-ESPIRITU

Isn’t that hilarious? The freefarting plagiarist seriously believed his fellow farters are too stupid and that he could successfully fool them the second time around.

Well, he did. But fortunately not all of them.

Here’s how one of their active members responded to Espiritu’s dishonest comment.

FREEFARTER-COMMENT

Seriously, Filipino Freefarter Karlo Espiritu reminds me of UP grad student Mark Joseph Solis. Both of them are psychopaths or sociopaths.

One thought on “How a Gang of Hypocritical, ‘Sciencey’ Filipino Atheists Treated Plagiarism Would Make You Feel Ashamed of Being Godless

  1. Pingback: Filipino Spirituality Needs To Evolve - Get Real PostGet Real Post

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s