His free will? :-)

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <bPydnbT-D8e...@giganews.com>,
> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:57:58 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > >
> > > > The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
> > > > Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
> > > > through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist have
> > > > any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless other
> > > > libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By failing to
> > > > acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of everything they
> > > > said is gutted.
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will
> > >
> > > So I'm mildly curious: You were told your behavior would lead to you
> > > being banned. You were temporarily banned twice for your behavior. You
> > > continued that behavior and have now been banned indefinitely.
> > >
> > > That took a fair amount of effort on your part.
> > >
> > > Why did you do that?
> >
> > His free will? :-)
>
> He is compelled to behave as he does. It's in his nature.

Yep; that's his free will!

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 9:11:40 AM4/7/12

to

When you and several other evolutionists said that the citation of
Ockham and Reid did not establish that they identified the agent in a
choice subjectively, when it obviously did, then there was nothing
left for me to do but to call for your banning for surpressing an
opinion you don't agree with.

Note that nobody ever said, what it was then that Ockham and Reid did
say if it was not what I said it was. Pfhorrest phrased it as that
they said "something or other about souls". Indeed they did say
something or other about souls, and souls are agents in their
vocabulary.

This issue is simple, either you are for knowledge about freedom, or
you are against it. Being against it Darwinists act against freedom of
expression, freedom of religion, against democracy. These laws of
democracy are based on libertarian dualist understanding
distinghuishing subjective opinion from objective fact categorically.
We should expect history to repeat itself again and for all kinds of
ideologies wherein freedom plays no role to take hold on account of
Darwinism.

This incident leads me to conclude that the USA has become a parasite
nation, where a group of religious people take care of the motivation,
and another elitist group consumes the motivation without grattitude
towards religionists. The USA identity should therefore be destroyed,
or it will degenerate into a machine sucking the life out of people.
Americans should not identify themselves as Americans, but they should
think of themselves as Christian etc. or any other identity except
American. The American identity is compromised by parasites. The
simple method of destruction is to hate the USA, so as that the
parasites will have nothing to feed on. To subjectively reach the
conclusion that the USA is no good. A darwinist would deny this
opinion with statistics about the USA, saying we are forced to
conclude that the USA is a good nation. But exactly this denying
freedom of expressing subjective opinion is what makes the USA
identity in it's current form evil.

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 10:28:42 AM4/7/12

to

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 06:11:40 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

> On Apr 7, 5:23 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:57:58 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
>> > The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
>> > Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
>> > through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist
>> > have any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless
>> > other libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By
>> > failing to acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of
>> > everything they said is gutted.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will
>>
>> So I'm mildly curious: You were told your behavior would lead to you
>> being banned. You were temporarily banned twice for your behavior.
>> You continued that behavior and have now been banned indefinitely.
>>
>> That took a fair amount of effort on your part.
>>
>> Why did you do that?
>
> When you and several other evolutionists said that the citation of
> Ockham and Reid did not establish that they identified the agent in a
> choice subjectively, when it obviously did, then there was nothing left
> for me to do but to call for your banning for surpressing an opinion you
> don't agree with.

You weren't banned for calling for other people to be banned. You were
banned for edit warring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule

My question is why you were compelled to make the same edit eight times
in just over 24 hours when you had just come off of one-day and one-week
bans for exactly that behavior.

You do have free will, right? After being banned twice you could have
decided to change your behavior and persuade other editors that you were
correct, right?

Why did you make the choice instead to continue with precisely the same
behavior that had gotten you banned previously?

<snip>

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 10:48:20 AM4/7/12

to

There was no oppurtunity to persuade Garamond, Vsmith or Pfhorrest et
al, that is a lie on the part of Garamond. They had decided the
citations of Ockham and Reid were invalid, without giving any reason
whatever.

Garamond, Pfhorrest, Vsmith et al. are never going to allow the entry
that libertarians identify the agency in a subjective way, because
they are evolutionist activists. Darwin, Dennet, Dawkins, Gould,
Heackel, Fischer, and all the evolutionist on talk.origins, treat
agency, like love or hate deciding, as matters of objective scientific
fact. They all treat love and hate as branfunctions which can be
objectively measured. Darwinists don't tolerate the opinion that
identifying love and hate is categorically a matter of subjective
opinion, they are steadfast against creationism, that is why they
surpress the creationist way of seeing things on wiki.

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 11:08:36 AM4/7/12

to

That's a lovely answer but it isn't an answer to the question I asked.

Let's try again.

You behaved in a way that went against the rules of the community you
were in.

The rules were pointed out to you, as were the consequences for
continuing to break those rules.

You continued to break those rules, even after being given two temporary
bans.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 11:07:33 AM4/7/12

to

And anybody can check to see, that the opinions of Ockham and Reid
about how the agency is identified, is now completely absent from the
libertarian section of the free will wiki. There is now only mention
of dualism of substance, soul and body, but no mention of the
different ways libertarians come to reach conclusion about each
category. And this is Garamond, Vsmith, and Pfhorrest's et al's doing.
Libertarianism is thus made to look ridiculous on the wiki where
libertarians are portrayed as fantasizing about a soul without
warrant, in stead of portraying libertarians as taking care to form
subjective opinions that are just and honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

All mentions of Occam's razor by evolutionists should be retracted,
because evolutionists fundamentally disagree with Ockham. Ockham and
Reid would never in a million years agree to it that love and hate,
God, are matters of objective fact.

Boikat

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 11:13:50 AM4/7/12

to

Maybe they don't think inane rantings of an obsessive compulsive
religious whacko has any merit.

Boikat

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 12:08:19 PM4/7/12

to

My guess would be either OCD or the fact he's an idiot.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ ... the MYSTERIANS are in here with my \
\ CORDUROY SOAP DISH!! /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 12:33:05 PM4/7/12

to

But that is a lie, Garamond was acting against wiki rules by
repeatedly deleting the entry just because you didn't agree with the
opinion of Ockham and Reid. You should be banned from wiki, but
instead I was banned because the people who didn't want that opinion
of Ockham in there banned me. And for me to wait for 24 hours to
revert again, would be as much against wiki rules, as for me to revert
it immediately within 24 hours. It is not automatically against wiki
rules to revert a change more than 3 times within 24 hours, which is
why the violation is not automatic but is judged. And the judges said
that I didn't try to reach consensus, which is a lie. I did talk for
many pages, many pages of talk were deleted. But the evolutionists
simply rejected the entry outright because they didn't agree with the
opinion it presented. And now Garamond continues to lie that I didn't
try to reach consensus, where all what Garamond ever did was to delete
the entry, with meaningless appeals to wiki rules that it was not
valid.

Why was it not valid Garamond, when Ockham did in fact use 2 different
ways of understanding? He never argued anything about how the contrast
in "knowing and proof" and "faith and revelation" in Ockham's writing
should be interpreted if not in the way I said it should. Garamond is
a liar, and he is the main person guitly for misrepresenting
libertarian philosophers on the wiki on free will.

Boikat

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 1:18:43 PM4/7/12

to

If you do something over and over again, and keep mgetting the same
results, it's just possible that you're insane.

> You should be banned from wiki, but
> instead I was banned because the people who didn't want that opinion
> of Ockham in there banned me.

Or, thought your interpretation was full of crap.

> And for me to wait for 24 hours to
> revert again, would be as much against wiki rules, as for me to revert
> it immediately within 24 hours. It is not automatically against wiki
> rules to revert a change more than 3 times within 24 hours, which is
> why the violation is not automatic but is judged. And the judges said
> that I didn't try to reach consensus, which is a lie. I did talk for
> many pages, many pages of talk were deleted.

Where "talk" equals "inane babble", if your posts here are any
example.

> But the evolutionists
> simply rejected the entry outright because they didn't agree with the
> opinion it presented.

How do you know all that rejected your inanities were evolutionists?
Oh, they disagreed with you. How obvious! Were the also Nazis? I
mean, that's your fall-back excuse, isn't it?

> And now Garamond continues to lie that I didn't
> try to reach consensus, where all what Garamond ever did was to delete
> the entry, with meaningless appeals to wiki rules that it was not
> valid.
>

You never seek consensus. If nobody agrees with you, you start
frothing at the mouth and go off the deep end w2ith paranoid rants
about "evilutionists".

> Why was it not valid Garamond, when Ockham did in fact use 2 different
> ways of understanding? He never argued anything about how the contrast
> in "knowing and proof" and "faith and revelation" in Ockham's writing
> should be interpreted if not in the way I said it should.

Does the way you "said it should" include the claim that rocks can
think aand make choices? If so, well, there's your problem.

> Garamond is
> a liar, and he is the main person guitly for misrepresenting
> libertarian philosophers on the wiki on free will.

But, then again, maybe you are full of crap.

Boikat

John Vreeland

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 1:25:39 PM4/7/12

to

On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 21:47:03 -0700, Michael Siemon

The devil! The devil MADE him do it!

This was revealed to me... by God, I am sure.

--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

John Vreeland

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 1:34:06 PM4/7/12

to

That answer appears to be that Syamsu believes himself to be the
ultimate arbiter of rules which do not apply to him.

Can't you see that he was trying to enforce justice! You cannot let
rules get in the way of a fool and his right to be stupid in public.

Craig Franck

unread,

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 2:58:27 PM4/7/12

to

Go fuck yourself lying scum

Perseus

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 4:00:05 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 7, 5:06 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:50:41 -0700, Michael Siemon wrote:

> > In article <bPydnbT-D8e3LuLS4p2d...@giganews.com>,

the basic decisions we make are mostly related to feeding, drinking
water and procreate. In this sense, we are behaving in a rather
deterministic way. But most of what people call "free will" is the
result of the other people over us, either by forcing us to go to war
or by enslaving us a way or another. But when we are not apparently
being forced to act, our actions are also determined by other people's
influence over us. A person can be very obedient or very the
opposite, that is disobedient, due to the way he has been educated.
But in general, we are under the influence, not only of our parents
and relatives, but also under the influence of their peers; either
because they had influenced him positively, either because his peers
had alienated him with hate. In any case, our will is determined in a
great amount by the influence of other people.

A very clear example is the case of how are spread religions in the
world. It is mostly a fact, that most people follows the religion of
their parents. So, from Jewish parents, you got Jewish children, and
so on, for Christians, Muslims, Buddhist etc. Then, this is clear
religion is not determined by free will, but the influence of
parents.

Then, among the many people influencing a person, sometimes results
some noise, and the person is acting a few times, a few moments, as
somewhat weird, and otherwise unexplained way. In those cases, we can
invoke "free will", for some actions have the appearance of not
obeying any known rule whatever. But as we are not omniscient, we
cannot be any sure that this or that action is the result of a genuine
"free will".

If "free will" does not exist, them, our actions are the result of
some known or unknown influences. Then, we do not need to be rock
scientist to understand that most people is Christian of this or that
flavor, because their parents were Christians. The same is valid for
other religions. The fact that someone changes religion for this
brand denomination to another brand, can be explained by some
plausibly reasoning. The same is valid for those that were to
pestered by freaky religious fanatical parents, and those children
reacted becoming atheists or changing of religion.

Perseus

Perseus

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 4:12:24 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 7, 1:57 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
> Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
> through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist have
> any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless other
> libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By failing to
> acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of everything
> they said is gutted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will

That the agency of free will is identified through faith and
revelation?

Then a why a Christian has a faith and a revelation that drive him to
act in a different way a Muslim could act, or a Buddist or Hinduist?

Do you think that the faith has some immanent quality that owns
nothing to a religious doctrine external to the individual? Any
acting of a Christian, or a Muslim or an Jewish, is in great part
determined by a religion that is not inborn in the fetus, but it is
teach over the child. So, all the inspiration, as well as the nature
of his actions, on religious grounds is determined by the religious
environment. Other actions like what would look like their food and
their feeding or clothing habits, are determined by the culture of the
land in which one is living.

Then, can you explain from where comes the "free will"? What is his
essence? Can a Christian have the Muslim inspiration of hitting the
Twin Towers of NYC? Or can the free will of pious Muslim have the
Christian inspiration of burning a Koran?

Do do think that people is so free as that?

Perseus

Perseus

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 4:17:34 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 7, 5:46 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <s-WdnajjdtfUIOLS4p2d...@giganews.com>,

> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:50:41 -0700, Michael Siemon wrote:
>

> > > In article <bPydnbT-D8e3LuLS4p2d...@giganews.com>,

I think that people is behaving stupid because he prefers to enjoy
wasting the present than to take care of the land and wealth their
children should inherit. It is a sort of greed. To enjoy the present
and damned shall be the future.

Perseus

Perseus

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 4:34:37 PM4/7/12

to

This freedom you are invoking is the result of different doctrines
fighting for hegemony and domination of people. The different
political parties, the different religions, want to dominate people
and impose their own power. So, they are not fighting in favor of the
people to choose, but they are fighting to impose the peculiar
doctrine of each party that has not an hegemony yet, over all the
people. It is a sort of war among different doctrines, and that
implies different political parties, religious included.
But none of the arguments used in this war is something objective in
itself, but a mere verbal doctrine like all religions are. Then, if
you get dominated by some "Muslim truth", you end subjugated by this
"truth" and tied to it. The same can be said of a "Christian truth",
or other. None of this truths are objective entities, but subjective
humane impositions over the people.
Then, atheist are fighting to liberate people of this tyrannies of the
different religions. Then, you are invoking the freedom to enslave
other people to the truth of your religion. In this sense, all the
atheist that fight against religious fanaticism are your enemies.

> > >> >> Ah, I think the answer is starting to become clearer now. If I can
> > >> >> summarize:
>
> > >> >> You never broke any rules, and despite this you were inexplicably
> > >> >> banned three times in quick succession.
>
> > >> >> Would you call that a fair summary?
>
> > >> > Yes. Your lying took care of it. You lied about the quote of Ockham
> > >> > and Reid, you lied about me not trying to reach consensus. You and
> > >> > your fellow evolutionists manipulated the process with meaningless
> > >> > appeals to wiki rules in order to surpress an opinion you don't agree
> > >> > with.
>
> > >> Thank you.
>
> > > Go fuck yourself lying scum
>
> > 23:34, 6 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,352 bytes) (+1,493)‎
> > 17:22, 6 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,352 bytes) (+1,493)
> > 12:53, 6 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,334 bytes) (+1,507)
> > 12:39, 6 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,334 bytes) (+1,507)‎
> > 09:38, 6 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,334 bytes) (+1,507)‎
> > 08:41, 6 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,349 bytes) (+1,518)‎
> > 21:22, 5 April 2012‎ Syamsu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (95,880 bytes) (+2,049)‎
>
> > Taken from:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_will&action=history
>
> > "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page
> > within a 24-hour period."
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule-Hide quoted text -
>

<snip>

> Garamond simply does not want the opinion that the agency in a choice
> is subjectively identified in the wiki,

You do understand that "subjectively identified" has little, if any,
useful meaning?

> and he lies, and lies to
> achieve this goal, which he has.

From the sound of it, his goal was to insure the objective integrity
of the Free Will wiki, rather then let some loony-tune pollute it with
inane blathercrap.

Boikat

hersheyh

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 6:39:58 PM4/7/12

to

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:46:36 AM UTC-4, Michael Siemon wrote:
> In article <s-Wdnajjdtf...@giganews.com>,

> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:50:41 -0700, Michael Siemon wrote:
> >

> > > In article <bPydnbT-D8e...@giganews.com>,

> > > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:57:58 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
> > >> > Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
> > >> > through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist
> > >> > have any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless
> > >> > other libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By
> > >> > failing to acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of
> > >> > everything they said is gutted.
> > >> >
> > >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will
> > >>
> > >> So I'm mildly curious: You were told your behavior would lead to you
> > >> being banned. You were temporarily banned twice for your behavior.
> > >> You continued that behavior and have now been banned indefinitely.
> > >>
> > >> That took a fair amount of effort on your part.
> > >>
> > >> Why did you do that?
> > >

> > > His free will? :-)
> >
> > You have the makings of an interesting argument there. Atheistic,
> > materialistic evolution tends to (over sufficient amounts of time)
> > optimize the decision making process. We can only reassure ourselves
> > that we still possess freedom and free will by making really stupid,
> > inexplicable decisions over and over again.
>
> I'm not at all sure that your conclusion (that evolution optimizes
> the decision making process) is a sustainable argument.

In fact, evolution optimizes the reproductive process, often against the
logical conclusions of a rational decision making process. ;-)

Mark Isaak

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 6:47:17 PM4/7/12

to

On 4/7/12 9:33 AM, Syamsu wrote:
> [bulk snip]

>
> And the judges said
> that I didn't try to reach consensus, which is a lie. I did talk for
> many pages, many pages of talk were deleted.

Talking for many pages does not constitute trying to reach a consensus.
In fact, it sounds rather contrary to consensus-building.

Did you try listening? That would qualify towards reaching a consensus.
Frankly, though, I don't think your will is free enough to let you do it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Earle Jones

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 7:01:29 PM4/7/12

to

In article
<nando-bb1489e9-fa52-4...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>,

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
> Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
> through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist have
> any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless other
> libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By failing to
> acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of everything
> they said is gutted.

*
Everything?

Even if they say it might rain tomorrow?

I hope you realize that a man that is 100% wrong is just as valuable as
a man that is 100% right.

It's all of you in between that screw thing up.

earle
*

"Everyone should believe in something,
And I believe I'll have a drink."

--W. C. Fields

Perseus

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 7:03:44 PM4/7/12

to

If you want to kill me for what I was saying, this is a prove of how
much you care and respect my "wrong idea" that free will does not
exist. So, you do not not feel respect for someone that do not share
your own ideas?

I never imagined that I should kill anyone for being a Christian, a
Muslim, Hindu, or whatever. I could not care less what he believes.
But I would be watching for religious freaks were prone to fanaticism,
as you yourself pointed declaring a should be shot for not believing
in free will.

That the US is in favor of free will is a fallacy. Only the US
government so far, is in favor of letting people to believe any fake
religions he would fancy. But in general, half the American people is
not defending free will at all.
Half the US people is under a peculiar religious tyranny or other;
that can produce the impression of a free choice. But this is a
delusional appearance.

If you are living among Catholics you are being pressured to remain a
catholic. If you declare to believe other religion they would kick
you out from them. They would not talk anymore to you. The same is
valid for other religions. If you are a Muslim, you would be accepted
only by Muslims, but not by others.

Due to the existence of this mixture of religions, US can give an
impression of freedom. But you are not free to change. If you are an
Evangelist and you change to being a Muslim, all your former relatives
and friends would reject any relations with you and would not talk to
you any more. You will cease to exist for them. You will be declared
a de facto an enemy of them.
Then same is true otherwise. If you abandone the Muslim faith to
become any brand of Christian, you would be rejected and hated by your
former brothers in the faith.

So, none of this is a prove of freedom, or does not prove you have any
believe on free will.
If religious freaks would had been true believers on free will, they
would not had blinked it you tell them "I changed my faith; I am not
not any more a Muslim, but a Southern Baptist." They would not chase
you out of their midst and would had accepted you change of faith as
something natural or insignificant and banal.
But this does not occurs, for you are "de fact" enemies, one of the
other.
The different religions are not in a state of permanent war, because
there is an state above them all that forbade the to make wars.
I do not need to prove how precarious is this state of peace among the
different religions.

Then, the US is a believer in free will? this is false. That
religion..... (put here the name), is in favor of free will? False.
Only to let come other people to their own side, not to let them go
away.
Other questions are the communist regimes persecuted the religious
freaks, for they were trying to make uniform the believes of people
under their own tyranny. But this is not different of what was made
by Christians when Emperor Constantin declared Christianity religion
of the empire. The same can be said, of when the protestants rebelled
against the rule of Rome, or when Henry the VIII declared himself head
of the Church of England. They all forbade other religions under his
rule. Then the communist made a new religion, and call it
"communism". They had they own new gods and prophets. So it was a
new religion. If they were true atheists, they would not mind that
people had some superstitions or other. But the communist leaders
wanted to impose their own brand of bullshit on the people they were
ruling. They were forcing people to believe in the religion of the
state. This was not anything new in History. The Muslims also made
this.

Perseus

Perseus

Earle Jones

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 7:08:18 PM4/7/12

to

In article
<nando-515d8a77-4745-4...@m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com
>,

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 7, 5:23 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:57:58 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
> > > The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
> > > Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
> > > through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist have
> > > any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless other
> > > libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By failing to
> > > acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of everything they
> > > said is gutted.
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will
> >
> > So I'm mildly curious: You were told your behavior would lead to you
> > being banned. You were temporarily banned twice for your behavior. You
> > continued that behavior and have now been banned indefinitely.
> >
> > That took a fair amount of effort on your part.
> >
> > Why did you do that?
>
> When you and several other evolutionists said that the citation of
> Ockham and Reid did not establish that they identified the agent in a
> choice subjectively, when it obviously did, then there was nothing
> left for me to do but to call for your banning for surpressing an
> opinion you don't agree with.
>

> Note that nobody ever said, what it was then that Ockham and Reid did
> say if it was not what I said it was. Pfhorrest phrased it as that
> they said "something or other about souls". Indeed they did say
> something or other about souls, and souls are agents in their
> vocabulary.
>
> This issue is simple, either you are for knowledge about freedom, or
> you are against it. Being against it Darwinists act against freedom of
> expression, freedom of religion, against democracy. These laws of
> democracy are based on libertarian dualist understanding
> distinghuishing subjective opinion from objective fact categorically.
> We should expect history to repeat itself again and for all kinds of
> ideologies wherein freedom plays no role to take hold on account of
> Darwinism.
>

> This incident leads me to conclude that the USA has become a parasite
> nation, where a group of religious people take care of the motivation,

> and another elitist group consumes the motivation without grattitude

> towards religionists. The USA identity should therefore be destroyed,
> or it will degenerate into a machine sucking the life out of people.

> Americans should not identify themselves as Americans, but they should
> think of themselves as Christian etc. or any other identity except
> American. The American identity is compromised by parasites. The
> simple method of destruction is to hate the USA, so as that the
> parasites will have nothing to feed on. To subjectively reach the
> conclusion that the USA is no good. A darwinist would deny this
> opinion with statistics about the USA, saying we are forced to
> conclude that the USA is a good nation. But exactly this denying
> freedom of expressing subjective opinion is what makes the USA
> identity in it's current form evil.

*
I would think that you are preaching hate and that would get you banned
forever from this group. It is not possible that you could ever
contribute anything. If I were moderator, your skinny ass would be out
of here.

earle
*

Earle Jones

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 7:12:03 PM4/7/12

to

In article
<63225e24-bf4c-4ded...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

*
In fact, we are all born atheists. That is, a newborn baby has no
belief in any "God". It is only later that he is infected with the
impossible fantasies of older folks. If your parents are Muslim, you
believe Allah because that was your indoctrination.

Indoctrination is not knowledge.

Some of us (Einstein at age 12 and me at 18) had the good fortune and
education to overcome that indoctrination.

earle
*

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 7:59:23 PM4/7/12

to

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule-Hidequoted text -

>
> <snip>
> > Garamond simply does not want the opinion that the agency in a choice
> > is subjectively identified in the wiki,
>
> You do understand that "subjectively identified" has little, if any,
> useful meaning?

It is very useful for identifying you as the owner of your choices as
a fucking asshole.

> > and he lies, and lies to
> > achieve this goal, which he has.
>
> From the sound of it, his goal was to insure the objective integrity
> of the Free Will wiki, rather then let some loony-tune pollute it with
> inane blathercrap.

Indeed, "the sound of it" is how you fuckers argue about things. It
looks like, it appears, and the sound of it, they never grasp any
specifics. Like what Ockham and Reid actually meant, that is phrased
by Pfhorrest as "something or other to do with souls" not apparently
relevant to free will. The soul which decides, but nothing apparently
relevant to free will.

The goal from the outset was to get rid of the validation of
subjective opinion as being relevant to the agency in free will. You,
like Darwin in his book about emotions, treat love and hate as matters
of objective fact, a matter of scientific fact. And gee, now
evolutionists want to change the system of justice to discount free
will, and at the same time they pretend that evolution theory has no
baring on what ought and what ought not.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 8:21:56 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 8, 1:12 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <63225e24-bf4c-4ded-a22a-3817a6404...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

Except ofcourse you did not just throw faith in God out the window,
you made love and hate into issues of fact, and thereby threw all
subjective opinion out the window. Earle simply does not entertain any
truly subjective opinion whatever, any emotion he has is despite his
beliefs.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 8:41:32 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 8, 12:47 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

> On 4/7/12 9:33 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>
> > [bulk snip]
>
> > And the judges said
> > that I didn't try to reach consensus, which is a lie. I did talk for
> > many pages, many pages of talk were deleted.
>
> Talking for many pages does not constitute trying to reach a consensus.
> In fact, it sounds rather contrary to consensus-building.
>
> Did you try listening? That would qualify towards reaching a consensus.
> Frankly, though, I don't think your will is free enough to let you do it.
>

Sufficient evidence to judge the issue is easily available on the talk
page

Pfhorrest
" if they said anything about "how the agency in a choice is
identified", that would be relevant. But they don't. They speak only
of how we might know about souls."

See, Ockham and Reid didn't use the word agency, they used the word
soul, although ofcourse they both understood the soul to be the agency
which decides. This is after many pages of explaining how things work,
many pages of which are deleted from the talk. Anybody in their right
might can see in an instant that the citations are valid to the point
at issue of the way the agency in a choice is identified. But they are
liars, they will not allow that some things can only be established
with subjective opinion.

The dual categories are generic representations which can be found
througout creationist literature of libertarians. But according to
Garamond Lethe this is the original invention of Mohammad Nor Syamsu.
Totally fucking ridiculous lying. The proof that all you evolutionists
are liars is the libertarian section on the free will wiki, where the
mention that categorically only subjective opinion is valid to address
agency is missing.

Another proof that evolutionists are habitual liars is the section on
Hitler in the talk.origins faq, where Mark Isaak explains the history
of the holocaust in a way that completely exonorates Darwinists and
Darwinism.

Pfhorrest:
You evidently aren't listening closely to what the concerns are, since
you clearly do not understand them. The passages you are citing to
back up your material say nothing about agency or free will. That is
the irrelevancy; if they said anything about "how the agency in a
choice is identified", that would be relevant. But they don't. They
speak only of how we might know about souls. That some people believe
souls are the source of free will is relevant, and already noted.
Further information about souls belongs in the article about them. If
you had passages supporting something like your earlier contribution,
to the extent of "evidence of free will would deny free will", that
would be relevant, but that's not what your cited passages say.
I state again, you need several things together to warrant the
inclusion of something in the article, among them:
1.It must be clear
2.It must be relevant
3.It must be neutral
4.It must be verifiable
You were, at one point, adding something which met 1, 2, and 3 there,
after much back-and-forth with me. It did not meet point 4 yet, but I
let it stand anyway pending eventual verification.
Now you have expanded that to something which is not phrased very
clearly, relevantly, or neutrally, and others have challenged its
inclusion on the grounds of point 4, verifiability. Since you do have
cited passages, something is verifiable: but it is not what you keep
adding to the article, and what is verifiable, when stated clearly, is
not clearly relevant to this article, as outlined above.
Address this: Your quoted passage says "we can have no knowledge of an
immaterial soul; nor can we prove its existence philosophically.
Instead we must rely on revealed truth and faith" and "Reid staunchly
refuses to speculate on the substance of the self,...he describes
souls as beings of a quite different Nature than material bodies". How
do those serve to support any statement about free will?
If you continue to staunchly refuse to address other editor's concerns
and flagrantly edit war after several previous warnings, I'm going to
have to call a WP:RFC/U about you. If you want the rest of us banned
so badly, maybe you should call one of your own, but beware the
attention it will bring on yourself.
--Pfhorrest (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The entry:
Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and
physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that the
events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not
have an entirely physical explanation, which requires that the world
is not closed under physics. Such interactionist dualists believe that
some non-physical mind, will, or soul overrides physical causality. In
the dual categories the physical is established to exist by objective
measurement, and the non-physical agency is identified through
subjective opinion, requiring a choice on the part of the observer
(samelike beauty is categoricaly a matter of subjective opinion). [1]
[2]

Dualism The agency in a choice, such as love, hate, God, is
subjectively identified resulting in an opinion. What is chosen, such
as the body, is objectively measured resulting in a fact.

agency in a choice - what is chosen
subjectively identified - objectively measured
non-physical - physical
spiritual - material
soul - body
opinion - fact
God love hate self etc. -
creator - creation

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 8:45:57 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 8, 1:08 am, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I would think that you are preaching hate and that would get you banned
> forever from this group. It is not possible that you could ever
> contribute anything. If I were moderator, your skinny ass would be out
> of here.

You have the moral standing of commodore 64, since you trew out
subjective opinion as a valid way to identify hate, or love.

Boikat

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 8:54:08 PM4/7/12

to

> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule-Hide...text -

>
> > <snip>
> > > Garamond simply does not want the opinion that the agency in a choice
> > > is subjectively identified in the wiki,
>
> > You do understand that "subjectively identified" has little, if any,
> > useful meaning?
>
> It is very useful for identifying you as the owner of your choices as
> a fucking asshole.

Projection.

>
> > > and he lies, and lies to
> > > achieve this goal, which he has.
>
> > From the sound of it, his goal was to insure the objective integrity
> > of the Free Will wiki, rather then let some loony-tune pollute it with
> > inane blathercrap.
>
> Indeed, "the sound of it" is how you fuckers argue about things.

Considering you rant nonsense, "sounds like" is the best anyone can do
with your insane rants.

> It
> looks like, it appears, and the sound of it, they never grasp any
> specifics.

Okay, specifically, how does a rock make a choice, and act upon it?

> Like what Ockham and Reid actually meant, that is phrased
> by Pfhorrest as "something or other to do with souls" not apparently
> relevant to free will. The soul which decides, but nothing apparently
> relevant to free will.

What soul? Evidence?

>
> The goal from the outset was to get rid of the validation of
> subjective opinion as being relevant to the agency in free will.

That's because thee is no way to "validate a subjective opinion",
fool.

> You,
> like Darwin in his book about emotions, treat love and hate as matters
> of objective fact, a matter of scientific fact.

Once more, it is a fact that those emotions exist. Once can only
wonder why that gets your panties in a knot.

> And gee, now
> evolutionists want to change the system of justice to discount free
> will, and at the same time they pretend that evolution theory has no
> baring on what ought and what ought not.

More blathercrap.

Boikat

Boikat

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 8:56:55 PM4/7/12

to

How do you "validate a subjective opinion"?

Boikat

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 8:57:31 PM4/7/12

to

On Apr 8, 1:03 am, Perseus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you want to kill me for what I was saying, this is a prove of how
> much you care and respect my "wrong idea" that free will does not
> exist. So, you do not not feel respect for someone that do not share
> your own ideas?

Your ideas are horseshit, and the indication is that people who don't
believe in free will are agressive, anti-social and cheaters. Not just
with nazism and communism, also generally all people who don't accept
the fact free will is real. You can read that on the free will wiki,
scientific psychology research shows you to be basically a bullshit
fucking asshole, and your postings show that this scientific research
must be true.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 9:10:21 PM4/7/12

to

Say it again a few more times, with scientific certitude, it is a fact
that love exists, and you have killed your own emotions. Because then
you are telling your brain, it doesn't need freedom to deal with love,
you are telling your brain it only needs to calculate and measure
about love. The brain can go both ways, it can do tasks with freedom,
and automatically, and you put it on automatic concerning this issue.
And with freedom gone in relation to love, then your emotions are gone
with it.

Walter Bushell

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 10:35:55 PM4/7/12

to

In article <s-Wdnajjdtf...@giganews.com>,
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You have the makings of an interesting argument there. Atheistic,
> materialistic evolution tends to (over sufficient amounts of time)
> optimize the decision making process. We can only reassure ourselves
> that we still possess freedom and free will by making really stupid,
> inexplicable decisions over and over again.

I resemble that remark. :(

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Walter Bushell

unread,

Apr 7, 2012, 10:38:33 PM4/7/12

to

In article
<mlsiemon-0FE142...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
<snip>

>
> I'm not at all sure that your conclusion (that evolution optimizes

> the decision making process) is a sustainable argument. Certainly,

> human history seems to suggest otherwise. Particularly current USA
> human history [over the two generations of my lifespan], IMHO...

What works for hunter gatherers is not likely to work for members of a
highly technological state level society in competition with other
highly technological state level societies.

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 4:51:44 AM4/8/12

to

Preferably, you go to a local watering hole and get some friends to
acknowledge you're right. If need be, you just tell yourself you're right.

See http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2012/04/08

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________
< I'm ANN LANDERS!! I can SHOPLIFT!! >
------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boikat

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 12:54:35 PM4/8/12

to

On Apr 7, 8:10 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2:54 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 7, 6:59 pm, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > You,
> > > like Darwin in his book about emotions, treat love and hate as matters
> > > of objective fact, a matter of scientific fact.
>
> > Once more, it is a fact that those emotions exist. Once can only
> > wonder why that gets your panties in a knot.
>
> Say it again a few more times, with scientific certitude, it is a fact
> that love exists, and you have killed your own emotions.

How does acknowledign the existane of love "kill" emotions?

> Because then
> you are telling your brain, it doesn't need freedom to deal with love,

Is there some sort of logic behind that claim? If so, where is it?

> you are telling your brain it only needs to calculate and measure
> about love.

What a strange assertion.

> The brain can go both ways, it can do tasks with freedom,
> and automatically, and you put it on automatic concerning this issue.

What issue?

> And with freedom gone in relation to love, then your emotions are gone
> with it.

Just because you are emotionally unstable because of your obsessive
compulsive dementia does not mean everyone else is.

Boikat

Mitchell Coffey

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 3:21:02 PM4/8/12

to

On Apr 7, 12:46 am, Michael Siemon <mlsie...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <s-WdnajjdtfUIOLS4p2d...@giganews.com>,

> Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:50:41 -0700, Michael Siemon wrote:
>

> > > In article <bPydnbT-D8e3LuLS4p2d...@giganews.com>,

> > > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:57:58 -0700, Syamsu wrote:
>
> > >> > The evolutionist thugs have succeeded in surpression of Ockham and
> > >> > Reid's opinion that the agency in free will can only be identified
> > >> > through faith and revelation. No way no how does any evolutionist
> > >> > have any standing to appeal to Ockham or Reid again, and countless
> > >> > other libertarian philosophers who say the same sort of thing. By
> > >> > failing to acknowledge this particular opinion of them, the core of
> > >> > everything they said is gutted.
>
> > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Free_will
>
> > >> So I'm mildly curious: You were told your behavior would lead to you
> > >> being banned. You were temporarily banned twice for your behavior.
> > >> You continued that behavior and have now been banned indefinitely.
>
> > >> That took a fair amount of effort on your part.
>
> > >> Why did you do that?
>

> > > His free will? :-)

>
> > You have the makings of an interesting argument there. Atheistic,
> > materialistic evolution tends to (over sufficient amounts of time)
> > optimize the decision making process. We can only reassure ourselves
> > that we still possess freedom and free will by making really stupid,
> > inexplicable decisions over and over again.
>

> I'm not at all sure that your conclusion (that evolution optimizes
> the decision making process) is a sustainable argument. Certainly,
> human history seems to suggest otherwise. Particularly current USA
> human history [over the two generations of my lifespan], IMHO...

I think it means the "optimizes" in the mathematical sense, not the
practical sense.

Mitchell

Craig Franck

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 3:43:37 PM4/8/12

to

On 4/7/2012 2:21 PM, Syamsu wrote:
> On Apr 7, 7:57 pm, Craig Franck<craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/7/2012 12:33 PM, Syamsu wrote:
>>
>>> Why was it not valid Garamond, when Ockham did in fact use 2 different
>>> ways of understanding? He never argued anything about how the contrast
>>> in "knowing and proof" and "faith and revelation" in Ockham's writing
>>> should be interpreted if not in the way I said it should. Garamond is
>>> a liar, and he is the main person guitly for misrepresenting
>>> libertarian philosophers on the wiki on free will.
>>
>> Just because you are factually correct doesn't mean the editorial
>> guidelines do not apply to you:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_%E2%80%93_The_Missing_Manual
>
> Nonsense. Garamond et all deliberately misrepresent libertarian
> philosphers, and ban people who try to give a fair representation of
> their ideas.

My point was that if just believing one was correct exempted a
person from the rules against edit wars, Wikipedia would collapse
into anarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_War

> This is a case of the majority on wiki being corrupt. A
> large group of people are conditioned by school and university to
> arrive at a conclusion about what exists based on evidence. So when
> they are confronted with an opinion of Ockham to rely on faith and
> revelation to establish the identity of the agency, they reject it
> because they don't like the opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

> In any case we have seen that all evolutionists discard the opinion of
> Ockham and Reid, it is now not to be found on the free will wiki,
> because of the evolutionists. That is the fact which clearly
> illustrates what evolutionists are about in their doings, trying to
> surpress and destroy knowledge about freedom, destroy religion,
> destroy subjective opinion. Basically they want everything to fit into
> the cause and effect box, they are absolutely insane in this regard.

There is always a tension between beliefs that maximize truth
and beliefs that maximize value.

Craig

Will in New Haven

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 4:00:22 PM4/8/12

to

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 4:03:28 PM4/8/12

to

How can it matter what he wants if he doesn't have free will? For that
matter, how could he be justly punished if he did kill you?

this is a prove of how

"This is a prove"

Is language your first language?

--
Will in New Haven
I believe in a higher power; squared is a higher power

Earle Jones

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 4:38:19 PM4/8/12

to

In article
<4ae752ca-593f-4839...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

*
Evolution produces the adequate, not the optimum.

earle
*

Syamsu

unread,

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 6:58:38 PM4/8/12

to

On 4/7/12 5:41 PM, Syamsu wrote:
> On Apr 8, 12:47 am, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> wrote:
>> On 4/7/12 9:33 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>>
>>> [bulk snip]
>>
>>> And the judges said
>>> that I didn't try to reach consensus, which is a lie. I did talk for
>>> many pages, many pages of talk were deleted.
>>
>> Talking for many pages does not constitute trying to reach a consensus.
>> In fact, it sounds rather contrary to consensus-building.
>>
>> Did you try listening? That would qualify towards reaching a consensus.
>> Frankly, though, I don't think your will is free enough to let you do it.
>>
>
> Sufficient evidence to judge the issue is easily available on the talk
> page

That's what I thought. You did not, and still don't.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 7:28:32 PM4/8/12

to

On Apr 9, 12:58 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>

wrote:
> On 4/7/12 5:41 PM, Syamsu wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 12:47 am, Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 4/7/12 9:33 AM, Syamsu wrote:
>
> >>> [bulk snip]
>
> >>> And the judges said
> >>> that I didn't try to reach consensus, which is a lie. I did talk for
> >>> many pages, many pages of talk were deleted.
>
> >> Talking for many pages does not constitute trying to reach a consensus.
> >> In fact, it sounds rather contrary to consensus-building.
>
> >> Did you try listening? That would qualify towards reaching a consensus.
> >> Frankly, though, I don't think your will is free enough to let you do it.
>
> > Sufficient evidence to judge the issue is easily available on the talk
> > page
>
> That's what I thought. You did not, and still don't.

You are lying about the holocaust in your reply to creationist claims
book. You also lie about what Ockham believes, specifically that he
categorically takes some issues to be objective fact, and other issues
matters of subjective opinion. Your 2 lies are related. Ockham shows
that Darwin was wrong to objectify love and hate, that Darwin
committed the naturalistic fallacy himself, that his books are
inherently social darwinist, deriving ought and ought not from natural
selection theory. Ockham shows that the overwhelming majority of
evolutionists currently are social darwinists for objectifying love
and hate.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 7:52:44 PM4/8/12

to

On Apr 9, 12:16 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> <blockquote>
> I have said that the Ockham passage quoted supports something, but that
> that something is not what keeps getting added to the article, and that
> that something is not relevant to the article anyway.
> Imagine a conversation, here:

So Ockham said "something".

It is obvious that you are a ridiculous fucking lying asshole
Garamond, when you interpret Ockham's writing with "something". It
means you don't admit the truth of what Ockham says.

> And that is the whole of your argument. Despite several thousand words
> you couldn't convince anyone else that you were correct. One hypothesis
> is that we're all part of an evolutionary cabal trying to suppress your
> opinions, even though we know they're right. Another hypothesis is that
> you're trivially wrong.

More fucking lying of Garamond. I convinced Pfhorrest the subjective /
objective distinction was right in the pages deleted. Pfhorrest
referenced Reid as one libertarian who supposedly said the extra-
physical will was a matter of fact. I looked up Reid, Pfhorrest was
wrong, Reid refused to speculate on the soul. Through this fault of
his he let up on his groundless opposition a bit, and then the
subjective objective distinction was in the wiki and stood there for
months. Now Pfhorrest says he never was wrong.

> Ockham provided a method to evaluate competing hypotheses such as these.
> Using the principle of Ockham's razor we should assume you're wrong.

You dare much to reference Ockham now that you deliberately omitted
his opinion from the free will wiki. That's twisted.

Craig Franck

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 9:16:14 PM4/8/12

to

On 4/8/2012 5:16 PM, Syamsu wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:43 pm, Craig Franck<craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My point was that if just believing one was correct exempted a
>> person from the rules against edit wars, Wikipedia would collapse
>> into anarchy.
>
> It was Garamond et al who violated wiki rules, for surpressing an
> opinion they don't like. They never tried to reach consensus, they
> never argued specifics, they deleted the entry with meaningless
> appeals to wiki rules.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of this particular conflict.

I have noticed that unpopular opinions require more justification
than popular ones, but that is a general cognitive bias.

> The obvious fact is that the citation of Ockham and Reid is valid.
> They never argued what then Ockham and Reid did mean if not
> objective / subjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

states

"Some metaphysical libertarians, such as William of Ockham and Thomas
Reid, believe that the existence or nonexistence of a nonphysical agent
cannot be established by empirical or philosophical evidence, because
evidence forces a conclusion, destroying the freedom necessary in
reaching a belief about the agent.[clarification needed] The decisions
and alternatives are taken to be matters of fact, but the agent is
considered a matter of free belief. While such metaphysical libertarians
believe people have a soul containing love[clarification needed] which
does the job of choosing, it would not be inconsistent with their
philosophy to say that people don't have a soul, provided one arrives at
the conclusion in a free way. For example one might express a feeling of
emptiness in regards to an agent doing the choosing[citation needed]"

Perhaps you could have put your time and effort into improving
this article instead.

> There was only blindsiding that they were
> never going to let the subjective objective distinction in there,
> because they didn't like the opinion of Ockham and Reid that agency is
> categorically a subjective issue.

The quote from the article on libertarianism is anything but clear.

> And now the libertarian section is a lie, designed to make
> libertarians look like people fantasizing about soul and fairies,
> instead of that libertarians are portrayed as taking subjective
> opinions seriously.

I did not get that impression.

> And you too let this lie stand, because you also don't like the
> opinion of Ockham and Reid.

That evidence destroys freedom to decide does look more than a bit
self-refuting. (Thought kills freedom! does have a nice zen ring
to it, though...)

Craig

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 9:24:04 PM4/8/12

to

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:52:44 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

> On Apr 9, 12:16 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <blockquote>
>> I have said that the Ockham passage quoted supports something, but that
>> that something is not what keeps getting added to the article, and that
>> that something is not relevant to the article anyway.
>> Imagine a conversation, here:
>
> So Ockham said "something".

Ockham even had several things to say about free will. After you learn
how to use a search engine you'll be surprised how easy that is to track
down.

>
> It is obvious that you are a ridiculous fucking lying asshole Garamond,
> when you interpret Ockham's writing with "something". It means you don't
> admit the truth of what Ockham says.

Even for you, that's pretty stupid. Will you be taking the contrary
position that Ockham said "everything" or "nothing"?

>
>> And that is the whole of your argument. Despite several thousand words
>> you couldn't convince anyone else that you were correct. One
>> hypothesis is that we're all part of an evolutionary cabal trying to
>> suppress your opinions, even though we know they're right. Another
>> hypothesis is that you're trivially wrong.
>
> More fucking lying of Garamond. I convinced Pfhorrest the subjective /
> objective distinction was right in the pages deleted. Pfhorrest
> referenced Reid as one libertarian who supposedly said the extra-
> physical will was a matter of fact. I looked up Reid, Pfhorrest was
> wrong, Reid refused to speculate on the soul. Through this fault of his
> he let up on his groundless opposition a bit, and then the subjective
> objective distinction was in the wiki and stood there for months. Now
> Pfhorrest says he never was wrong.
>

Why are you telling me this? Should you be taking this up with
Pfhorrest? Oh, wait, you can't....

>> Ockham provided a method to evaluate competing hypotheses such as
>> these. Using the principle of Ockham's razor we should assume you're
>> wrong.
>
> You dare much to reference Ockham now that you deliberately omitted his
> opinion from the free will wiki. That's twisted.

It's amazing what you can do when you read the people you cite. I'd tell
you to try it sometime but I only have so much optimism to get through a
day and I hate to consign that much of it to certain futility.

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 9:30:37 PM4/8/12

to

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:16:14 -0400, Craig Franck wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_(metaphysics)

That looks like there's some reverting that needs to go on there as
well. Thanks for pointing that out.

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 9:39:31 PM4/8/12

to

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 21:16:14 -0400, Craig Franck wrote:

Reverted.

>> There was only blindsiding that they were never going to let the
>> subjective objective distinction in there, because they didn't like the
>> opinion of Ockham and Reid that agency is categorically a subjective
>> issue.
>
> The quote from the article on libertarianism is anything but clear.
>

That's one way of putting it, yes....

>> And now the libertarian section is a lie, designed to make libertarians
>> look like people fantasizing about soul and fairies, instead of that
>> libertarians are portrayed as taking subjective opinions seriously.
>
> I did not get that impression.
>
>> And you too let this lie stand, because you also don't like the opinion
>> of Ockham and Reid.
>
> That evidence destroys freedom to decide does look more than a bit
> self-refuting. (Thought kills freedom! does have a nice zen ring to it,
> though...)
>
> Craig

Thanks again for pointing that out.

Michael Siemon

unread,

Apr 8, 2012, 10:05:21 PM4/8/12

to

In article <ufudnRwY7L2...@giganews.com>,
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> (My original comment was meant to be taken mostly, if but not wholly in
> jest. But this is t.o., so I'm happy to spend six weeks and several
> hundred posts defending that position regardless.... <grin> )

That's the spirit! :-)

Forrest Cameranesi

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:15:05 AM4/9/12

Another fucking impressionist. What did Ockham and Reid specifically
mean in the references then liar?

was it.....SOMETHING?

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 6:21:49 AM4/9/12

to

On Apr 9, 3:24 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why are you telling me this? Should you be taking this up with
> Pfhorrest? Oh, wait, you can't....

It establishes you're a liar for saying I never tried to reach
consensus. You never tried to reach consensus, you make meaningless
appeals to wiki rules, and never argued how they applied.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 6:37:38 AM4/9/12

to

On Apr 9, 6:15 am, Forrest Cameranesi <forr...@geekofalltrades.org>
wrote:

> Then someone (I think Garamond Lethe?) challenged the verifiability of
> the entry, at which point I took a look at the citations Syamsu had
> added, and found that they said nothing in support of that position.
> They said things which would support a claim that Ockham and Reid do not
> believe that anything can be known about the soul. That's interesting
> and encyclopedic and would be worthy of brief mention in the article on
> souls or maybe substance dualism.

Obviously you are a liar as well. Clearly Ockham coupled ways of
reaching a conclusion to the duality, "prove and knowing" to material
and "faith and revelation" to the agency.

The rest of your bullshit argument shows your awful prejudiced way of
thinking. At one point Forrest thought I was an atheist activist,
because I argued Ockham also legitimized the view not to believe in
God, because Ockham made the question a matter of choice. And with the
changes of where Forrest thought I was coming from, his opinion on the
issues also changed, to less oppisition. Forrest discriminates against
people believing in God.

timoth...@gmail.com

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 6:42:41 AM4/9/12

to

Holy Underpants! Three philosophers in a single thread! Run for your lives!

The world is about to be submerged in polysyllables. Keep your syllogisms indoors and cover their ears. We are about to be suffer The Attack of the Rebarbative Neologisms.

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 6:56:40 AM4/9/12

to

On Apr 9, 11:34 am, Forrest Cameranesi <forr...@geekofalltrades.org>
wrote:

> I think it's been pretty well established that any concept of free will
> hinging on the truth or falsity of determinism is incoherent. Random
> actions are not willed actions at all and so cannot be freely willed
> actions; so adding randomness to a system cannot increase the freedom of
> will of agents within the system.

That's why, IDIOT, the meaning is added to free will through
subjective opinion about the agency. Objectively we see randomness,
and subjectively we must choose to identify the agency of the choices.
You see nothing, because you chose to see nothing, you have a black
empty heart like most scienceminded atheists, while I see love and
hate in the agency.

That has been pointed out to you 10 times. This is the "something"
which Reid and Ockham refer to. You write page after page of
horseshit, and then when push comes to shove, when it's about the
citation that it is really all about, your comment is that it says
"something".

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 11:36:47 AM4/9/12

to

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 03:21:49 -0700, Syamsu wrote:

> On Apr 9, 3:24 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why are you telling me this? Should you be taking this up with
>> Pfhorrest? Oh, wait, you can't....
>
> It establishes you're a liar for saying I never tried to reach
> consensus.

Could you point me to where I said you never tried to reach consensus?
You obviously did try --- just not effectively.

> You never tried to reach consensus,

And despite that I achieved consensus, although I don't want to take too
much credit here. When you come off of two bans and make eight reverts
in just over 24 hours building a consensus just isn't that hard.

> you make meaningless
> appeals to wiki rules, and never argued how they applied.

Most people can figure out that 8 > 3 without a whole lot of
argumentation.

chris thompson

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 12:33:38 PM4/9/12

to

On Apr 9, 12:15 am, Forrest Cameranesi <forr...@geekofalltrades.org>
wrote:

snip

>
> I don't know if I will continue to follow this thread, I don't really
> need another time sink in my life, and there seem to be plenty of people
> here to keep the crazysauce in check (a tip of the hat to you all, from
> a veteran of comp.sys.mac.advocacy), but if I do, beware Syamsu: this
> isn't a Wikipedia talk page, there are no admins, there is no
> prohibition on debate, no mandate that discussion be about the
> improvement of an article, no rules of civility... this is UseNet, no
> holds barred, and I will shit whole doctoral theses at you every night
> describing in excruciating detail why you are not even wrong for so long
> as it entertains me, without breaking a sweat.
>
> --
> -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
> "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."http://www.geekofalltrades.org/

Welcome to t.o.

Just a quick little bit of extraneous info. This is, in fact, a
moderated newsgroup, although it's difficult to tell. The main
moderation is a robo-enforced prohibition against posting to more than
4 groups at a time, and also against cross-posting to
certain .recovery or .support groups at all (a legacy of a truly vile
loon who used to hang out here).

Other than that the moderator is a very hands-off type of guy. It
takes a lot to get him riled, but it's happened. You obviously need
not worry about the types of things that would get you banned (hate
speech, consistent off-topic posts) but just a quick heads-up.

Chris

Boikat

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 1:05:25 PM4/9/12

to

Was it SOMETHING to do with rocks possessing the trait of free will
and making decisions?

Boikat

Syamsu

unread,

Apr 9, 2012, 1:32:12 PM4/9/12

to

Again, the issue is obvious, Ockham did couple dual ways of reaching a
conlusion to the duality, as anybody can see.

So you are all liars, all conditioned by school and university to
reach a conlusion based on evidence, and you hate the opinion of
Ockham to reach a conclusion through subjective opinion, which is why
you all seek to surpress the opinion of Ockham.