Okay, coming up with two topics in a single day (not necessarily posting both of them in a single day) is an extremely rare occurrence, and so I took the liberty of congratulating myself.
"Congratulations!"
Anyway, this post is certainly not about how I lavished myself with flattery, but about a highly offensive and badly written article that deeply hurt my intellect. I have never regretted reading an article this much. My brain has never received such amount of baloney, and so I am as of now suffering from a relatively mild headache, but this should not be much of a bother, especially if I'm determined to share my two cents about this matter.
Here we go. Here's the link to the article that stagnated my brain cells.
I strongly advise that you read the whole thing first before reading any further. If a case exists such that the reader of this post is by no means interested, then he/she still has the liberty of refusing to read any further.
By reading this paragraph, I assume that you have read the whole article to your heart's content. The author of the article was Mr. Froilan Vincent Bersamina, an objectivist stressing that accessibility to quality education is not a right. From this point, I shall do my best to maintain a calm composure as we scrutinize his work, piece by piece. Note that I will not expound on the links scattered around in the article, so as to avoid an unjustifiably long blog entry.
The blog article began with a quote from Dr. Leonard Peikoff, condemning the prospect of health care being a right, which gives us a good hint on what Mr. Bersamina will talk about. Not surprisingly, the following paragraph looked like this:
"First, let me open this blog by reminding protesting University of the Philippines students that the taxpayers are not your slaves! I am outraged by the worsening level of liberal indoctrination and Marxist idiotation of our so-called “iskolar ng bayan” (state scholars). With their so dangerous, so ignorant belief that they are entitled to a free and/or subsidized education, they are simply asking the government to steal from Pedro in order to serve the needs of Juan."
This introductory paragraph reeks with baseless conclusions. Full of needless emotion, this paragraph did serve what seems to be its primary purpose; the deliberate mockery of UP students. Mr. Bersamina claims that the students are "dangerous" and "ignorant" because they are striving for better financial support from the government. As far as I know, name-calling does not really help support one's stand in a logical argument, and so I deem this statement pure poppycock.
After this horribly written intro, Mr. Bersamina proceeded to narrate the following events that took place in the course of the rally (laced with an attempt to worsen the image of the students), while offering a historical background regarding the Oblation, the icon of the University of the Philippines. After the relatively harmless narration, I once again found myself reading a paragraph containing a ridiculous fantasy that seemed to be taken out from someone's arse.
"However, this is not my interpretation of The Oblation. The very first time I laid my eyes on that legendary statue, I saw a man of selfish heroism, whose only service and duty is only to himself, and who regards service to all as the most evil form of self immolation. I saw a man of purpose and of vision and not an object of social sacrifice. I saw an unbroken soul who knows his purpose— and that purpose is the commitment of his life to the highest form of virtue, which is man’s pursuit of happiness. I saw a man struggling against slavery and any form of social immolation. He does not want to be reduced to a mere slave. He wants to be free, to be left alone, and to go on living according to his will and rational ideals. No, the human soul that is being symbolized by that statue is not an object of social sacrifice. He’s an iconic symbol of individual heroism. With his outstretched arms and open hands he is all alone— and he embarks on the greatest battle a man of rational mind and of purpose could ever fight: the struggle of the individual against collectivism."
"The eff?"
Where he got these mind-blowing ideas is beyond me. But hey, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, so let's just leave his individualistic fantasies from this point and press on. The words that followed this rant are as follows:
"The message of these young students is very clear: they’re asking for the enslavement of the productive members of our society for they believe that the state must provide their educational needs. Their fight for higher state subsidy only means two things: First, they want to be the beneficiaries of “service”, and Second, the productive members of our society must be condemned to serve the good of these social beneficiaries. Where do they think the government will get the money to serve their needs? The government has no magical power to turn a stone into gold, to turn a piece of wood into a loaf of bread. But it has the power to confiscate a portion of the hard-earned money of those who work and produce wealth, which is the power of taxation. It has the power to turn a truckload of worthless paper into tons and tons of paper money, which is the power of printing money out of thin air. It also has the power to mortgage our country and the future of its people to serve the immediate need of our society, which is the power of contracting foreign and domestic debt."
How was that message clear? It's not even what the students are advocating. What they are asking for is subsidy from the government, which makes perfect sense, since the government is supposed to subsidize UP in the first place. Are you by any chance aware of how the government suddenly cut off 1.39 billion pesos from the university budget? That's why the UP students are upset; how can you justify so drastic a measure?
Furthermore, how dare you suggest that the students promote the condemnation of the citizens to suit their purpose. How were you able to come up with such a derogatory notion, while lacking considerable empirical basis whatsoever? What you've just said is a mere product of your misplaced emotions and histrionism. Such a claim is by all means pathetic.
What made you think that UP expects the government to make money out of thin air? Because you just think so? Your statements reek with ad hominem attacks, the very same attacks you claim to reject. It is devoid of substance that my intellect is deeply insulted. Of course UP does not expect the government to make money out of thin air, but it DOES expect that the government can provide for them in the first place; otherwise it won't have 1.39 billion pesos to cut off in so capricious a way. This fact alone undermines the purpose of your blabbering about how government can handle finances, because it actually can subsidize UP, and this is what upsets the students. With these said, it is not hard to figure out that your "arguments" are severely out of place, not to mention stupid.
"You complain about the country’s huge foreign debt and high tax rates yet you continue to demand more from the government? Don’t you know that more public demands and subsidies means the government will have more power to take everything you value in life? More demands means more state power. Most students of public schools believe that education is a right. They claim that the state must provide their educational needs, but where will the government get the money and the goods to perform this magical job? Who will be sacrificed in the name of free or subsidized education? To all protesting state university students, education is NOT a right!"
Mr. Bersamina pressed on with his narrow-minded judgment, to the point of saying, with a tone of warning, "who will be sacrificed in the name of free subsidized education?"
My good sir, unless I've been imagining my college expenses, education in UP is not free. There was a 3000% increase in the number of students under bracket A in the STFAP (Socialized Tuition and Financial Program), which means a whole bunch of students are assumed to be millionaires and are supposed to pay bigger tuition fees; a consequence of the drastic budget-cutting of the government, which can be also compared to the privatization program you so lovingly admire, because that's the basic idea of privatization. The government severs its ties with a sector, and so, to prevent its own collapse, it is coerced into demanding higher fees from its constituents. What happens next? Oppression of the deserving but underprivileged. Is this scenario the one you're advocating? Have you even bothered to look into what is happening within UP's walls, instead of hastily making up conclusions to support your ideals? You yourself said that you're a protector of the impoverished, but your words contradict your "cause."
Who will be sacrificed for the sake of subsidized education? No one. What UP is motioning is simply the adequate distribution of taxes to help the less fortunate students. Education is not a right? Good luck defending that bold claim against the Philippine Constitution. In all seriousness, I strongly recommend that you start reading your DYK's and statistics rather than being preoccupied with posing as a radical trying to look intelligent.
Continuing with Mr. Bersamina's "argument," he quoted his own say about the "proper" definition of right.
"Education is not a right. A ‘right’ means man’s freedom of action in a social context. It pertains only to human action, specifically, to man’s freedom of action. A person is not born with a right to a trip to tour the country’s tourist destinations. A person has no in-born, innate right to a dinner at Manila Hotel, or a free cosmetic surgery at Belo Medical Clinic or a college degree in Nursing or Medicine. Those who argue that every person in these parts has the right to a free education either do not understand the proper concept of right or have sinister political agenda. We cannot have such right to a better and free access to education because the concept of individual rights in a free society does not impose any obligation on other people. The only obligation or responsibility of every individual is to leave his neighbor alone, to not violate his rights, to not interfere with his private life. We don’t have a right to enslave the productive members of our society. Free access to education simply means socialized or highly subsidized education. It means that someone has to be immolated or sacrificed to others. While students in private schools, colleges, and universities pay the ‘agreed’ amount of school fees, student activists would like to be exempted from this obligation. I used the word ‘agreed’ since student consultation is required by the government through the CHED before any tertiary school is permitted to increase its tuition rate. If students activists demand exemption, the question is: who would pay for their “better and free education?” The taxpayers, of course."
This has to be the most stupid argument so far. It was so stupid, I feel a strong urge to reiterate what one of your critics said:
"Education is deemed as a basic need. Saan mo ikinukumpara ang right to education? sa right to have a trip to tour the country’s tourist destinations? sa right to a dinner at Manila Hotel? o sa free cosmetic surgery at Belo Medical Clinic? ano ba naman. wala na bang mas logical kesa diyan? HINDI LUXURY O COMMODITY AND EDUCATION! don’t you ever compare it sa mga bagay na sinasabi mo!"
(Education is deemed as a basic need. To what are you comparing the right to education? To the right of having a trip to tour the country's tourist destinations? To the right of having a dinner at Manila Hotel? Or the free cosmetic surgery at Belo Medical Clinic? What the hell. Isn't there anything more logical than that? EDUCATION IS NOT A LUXURY NOR A COMMODITY! Don't you ever compare it to things that you are saying!)
This statement is true in all senses. Why the hell is Mr. Bersamina comparing an important aspect such as education to trivial stuff such as country trips, dinners and cosmetic surgeries? This is a blatant display of fallacious logic and naked idiocy. And where the hell did you get the idea that the activists demand exemption? They are NOT exempted in any way, because they, together with their taxpaying families, will continue to pay the damn fees no matter what. What they are asking is a mere subsidy, which, as I have said before, makes perfect sense, since the government is supposed to subsidize UP in the first place. Also, I would like to point out the flaw in your mindset of the taxpayers getting sacrificed for financial assistance. Assuming that you are consistent with your beliefs, then you might as well suggest that the government stop doing anything at all, since everything it does is fueled by tax! Assuming that you're consistent with that mindset, then you might as well state that the construction of new roads and infrastructures sacrifice the taxpayers, because they are "forced to pay" for such projects!
It makes perfect sense!
"Problem, logic?"
"Indeed, our state universities are becoming more and more a threat to our country and to the freedom and individual rights of its people.
Since a lot of UP students are ignorant of the proper concept of rights, I have to make a significant addendum to this blog. Knowing the proper concept of rights is very important, as it is the key to understanding whether Pedro has the right to ask the government to steal from Juan in order to serve his needs. Lack of proper understanding of the real concept of rights is bringing the whole country to dictatorship and socialism. We see liberals and leftist protesters asking for exclusive government protection, free or cheap medicines, free health care, free or subsidized food, free access to quality education, and free “everything.” What do you think will happen to a country of freeloaders and free-askers? Do these “little dictators” think that the government has a magical power to create wealth out of nothing? Where will the government get the wealth and goods to provide their needs? In reality, we are not yet considered a free society. A free society means an informed society."
This is a pathetic exaggeration on the part of Mr. Bersamina regarding the current situation. Why is this so?
1. State universities do not pose any threat whatsoever against the freedom or rights of anyone. I'm going to say this for the umpteenth time: UP has been always supported by the government in the beginning, and the sudden budget-cutting measures will obviously upset the students striving in the said university. How would you feel if you had your allowance cut off for an inadequately explained reason? Won't you exercise the right the ask and plead for the return of the money you need the most? Given by the balderdash enclosed within the following statements, you're suggesting that the students must shun themselves from their right to ask and appeal, which contradicts your cause. Besides, it's not as if the government has actually DRAINED the rest of its sectors of money to supply the educational needs of the youth (which, by the way, will certainly not happen; just in case you go silly enough to start an argument from this statement), so why bear such unjustifiable hatred on our hardworking students?
2. No one's demanding for "free everything," and no one's dictating anybody. Since when was anything free at UP? Have you been there yourself to make such an outrageous claim? Students are still supposed to pay their tuition and miscellaneous fees. Professors' wages aren't rising in any way. The government subsidy is what keeps the poor but deserving students on track. And now, after the budget-cutting incident, most students' fees grew exponentially, discouraging students with undeniable potential to pursue their studies in UP. If this is good news to you, then I have the right to call you a sick bastard, for taking joy in the despair of our youth. Anyway, this horribly narrow-minded notion of yours just proves your ignorance of how our educational system works, basing your conclusions on mere speculative thinking.
Moving on:
"A right is not fundamentally a legal term simply because it is not created and should not be created by a piece of legislation or executive order. A right is not a constitutional creature. It is merely recognized and affirmed by our constitution. But the problem is even our 1987 Constitution has a confused, invalid understanding of the concept of rights. This is the reason why our country is moving towards complete political and economic disaster and collectivism."
"Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.
Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done. (Emphasis mine)"
Starting from these paragraphs towards the end, Mr. Bersamina's argument starts to break down. Although the misnomer has already falsified his stand, I must stress that the logical fallacy of his article becomes more noticeable at this point. Anyway, I shall address the last parts of his blog entry as concisely as possible in one go, so as to avoid constant quotations that will unnecessarily lengthen this article and consume more of your time. Still, if you're interested in the actual text of his article, or intent on rereading it, I have already provided the link to the Vincenton Post above.
Counterarguments:
- The word “right” itself in legal terms is as of now a subject of debate, and therefore it is unwise to use an argument whose source is subject to variation of definitions. Furthermore, Bersamina seems to criticize the right recognized by the Constitution using a different interpretation of “right.” The “right” recognized by the Constitution in his argument is subject to change, while Bersamina’s “right” refers to natural human rights. It’s like comparing a television to a refrigerator; another fallacious logic.
- The consistency of his argument breaks down at the point where he expounds on the alleged true definitions of right. It turns out that what he dislikes is not education itself (which is undoubtedly a right), but the privilege of the educational sector to appeal to the government for subsidy, effectively making the title of the article a silly misnomer.
- Furthermore, if Bersamina dislikes the educational sector’s exercise of its privilege to make appeals, then he contradicts his own cause of defending natural human rights; in this case, he is against the exercise of a right of man, which is freedom of speech.
- Assuming that he’s consistent with his mindset about the distribution of wealth, and that it’s unarguably correct, the following can be concluded:
1. The concept of taxation breaks down, since its basic idea is to utilize money paid for by citizens, the taxpayers, in order to answer other issues within society. This is analogous to the government using citizens’ tax to provide subsidies to its sectors, which in this case, the educational sector. If he truly sticks to his principles, then he is by all means contradicting himself by criticizing something which he himself advocates; the equitable distribution of wealth. In order to get rid of the contradiction, he must state that the government must stop taxation;
2. Which in turn, will go against his argument, “where will the government get its money to subsidize the state universities?” (wherein he implies that the universities are the perpetrators of the shortage of government funds), for if his mindset still holds, then the government will definitely not have money to utilize, NOT because of the state universities’ “dictatorship,” but because, according to the logical chain of his reasoning, taxation must be abolished.
- His implication itself is fallacious logic, for he equated an appeal to coercion. These two concepts are completely different things. How can UP coerce the government, let alone have other private sectors "sacrificed" (an extremely misleading exaggeration) if it is under the government? Still, if his argument still holds, then UP must have been successful in exhausting the funds of other sectors, and will have turned into a capitalistic monopoly. But none of these happened, simply because UP CANNOT coerce the government; it can only ask. Word usage matters deeply, especially in the precise realm of logic.
- Bersamina made a poor and racist argument as he stated that countries such as China and Cuba are “slave pens.”
- If he’s consistent with his mindset that right to accessible education leads to political disaster, (backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to deliver it) then the following must be agreeable to him:
1. That education must NOT be accessible to all, which defeats his "pro-poor" stance.
Here's Mr. Bersamina, declaring his pro-poor stance: Link
2. That the government stability is compromised, given by the coercive nature of the educational sector, which defeats the empirical evidence that the government is still stable, and the said sector is not given its much-needed subsidy, nor was it turned into a capitalistic monopoly.
Again, words matter hugely in tackling an issue such as this. Bersamina must stop exaggerating points just to support his far-fetched claims. The rest of his statements were not worth mentioning, as they are merely sentences stating what is obvious, yet it does not help fortify his stand.
- Posting Ayn Rand’s argument about the definition of “right” did not help support his argument, because of the following reasons:
1. His article title is a misnomer in the first place.
2. Supposing that Bersamina’s interpretation of Rand’s definition of right, which he wholeheartedly supports, is correct, he must reject the concept of taxation (explained above).
3. Furthermore, Rand’s definition of right does not contradict the Constitution’s definition of right, since a collective right is essentially composed of individual rights benefiting all societal participants through the transitivity of benefits, in the form of taxation. No coercion or theft is involved; only the transitivity of wealth and benefits.
- Ergo, posting Plato’s quote did not help either, for similar reasons.
The videos posted by Mr. Bersamina didn't really help support his stand, because they don't even tackle the same issue he's discussing. The first video was about the extreme dependence of families in welfare (in the US), while what we're simply discussing is about SUBSIDIES to merely aid college students, not to make them slaves of the government. They're just not quite on the same page. The next video referred to the loss of quality of public education in the US due to an alleged government monopoly, which is irrelevant to what he's advocating, which is rejecting the right to appeal for educational assistance. Another video referred to the discrepancies regarding how public schools in the US make the breakdown of matriculation fees for the taxpayers, which, once again, does not address the actual topic at hand, and the last video talked about the stupidity of, guess what, US. Did you post these videos because of the titles alone, without further scrutiny of the contents? I do not wish to assume anything, but my chain of reasoning brought me to this supposition.
After this extensive scrutiny, I can now conclude some points about Mr. Bersamina:
1. He desperately tries to sound like a radical objectivist.
Everybody loves a rebel. To question an established principle is an act of boldness and open-mindedness. But Mr. Bersamina seemed to take this notion far too much to the point of criticizing a fairly well-established law or concept, even if it meant going against the roots of conventional logic, because, hey, as I said, everybody loves a rebel. Hard-hitting comments are always full of boldness and fearless intellect, even if it betrays the foul stench of idiocy in the perspective of the truly observant.
2. He uses superfluous words to look smart, and to cover up possible loopholes in his argument.
A great majority of Mr. Bersamina’s articles are composed of barely understandable terms and sentence constructions, and, unless you’re after the purpose of showing off your vocabulary, there is absolutely no reason for you to frustrate a reader, especially if your purpose is to inform.
Then there’s the reason of covering up possible loopholes. I’ve noticed that an inordinate amount of needless sentences and inhumanely rare words pop out when close to a statement liable for disproving or contradiction by a logical proof. I’m familiar with such approaches, and while I hope that this strange occurrence is unintentional, we all have our subconscious tendencies.
3. He is a self-righteous hypocrite.
The comments section should serve as ample proof. He quickly dismisses obscene, although logical arguments thrown against him, while employing an unhealthy dose of foul words such as “idiotic,” “moronic,” and “stupid” in almost all of his articles. He hates ad hominem attacks, yet he himself employs them. Oh wait, this kind of commentary is a “personal attack” in his book. Oh bummer.
In summary, Mr. Bersamina, you suck. You have wasted your potential of becoming a productive blogger by imprisoning yourself within your radical and individualistic ideologies and fantasies, while kissing Ayn Rand’s arse all the time. You bitch at everything thrown against you; you even bitched at Roger Ebert for disliking your beloved Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, yet claiming that no words could hurt your ego.
Such puerile actions betray your lack of credibility. Oh, are you going to dismiss this as a personal attack?
Starting from these paragraphs towards the end, Mr. Bersamina's argument starts to break down. Although the misnomer has already falsified his stand, I must stress that the logical fallacy of his article becomes more noticeable at this point. Anyway, I shall address the last parts of his blog entry as concisely as possible in one go, so as to avoid constant quotations that will unnecessarily lengthen this article and consume more of your time. Still, if you're interested in the actual text of his article, or intent on rereading it, I have already provided the link to the Vincenton Post above.
Counterarguments:
- The word “right” itself in legal terms is as of now a subject of debate, and therefore it is unwise to use an argument whose source is subject to variation of definitions. Furthermore, Bersamina seems to criticize the right recognized by the Constitution using a different interpretation of “right.” The “right” recognized by the Constitution in his argument is subject to change, while Bersamina’s “right” refers to natural human rights. It’s like comparing a television to a refrigerator; another fallacious logic.
- The consistency of his argument breaks down at the point where he expounds on the alleged true definitions of right. It turns out that what he dislikes is not education itself (which is undoubtedly a right), but the privilege of the educational sector to appeal to the government for subsidy, effectively making the title of the article a silly misnomer.
- Furthermore, if Bersamina dislikes the educational sector’s exercise of its privilege to make appeals, then he contradicts his own cause of defending natural human rights; in this case, he is against the exercise of a right of man, which is freedom of speech.
- Assuming that he’s consistent with his mindset about the distribution of wealth, and that it’s unarguably correct, the following can be concluded:
1. The concept of taxation breaks down, since its basic idea is to utilize money paid for by citizens, the taxpayers, in order to answer other issues within society. This is analogous to the government using citizens’ tax to provide subsidies to its sectors, which in this case, the educational sector. If he truly sticks to his principles, then he is by all means contradicting himself by criticizing something which he himself advocates; the equitable distribution of wealth. In order to get rid of the contradiction, he must state that the government must stop taxation;
2. Which in turn, will go against his argument, “where will the government get its money to subsidize the state universities?” (wherein he implies that the universities are the perpetrators of the shortage of government funds), for if his mindset still holds, then the government will definitely not have money to utilize, NOT because of the state universities’ “dictatorship,” but because, according to the logical chain of his reasoning, taxation must be abolished.
- His implication itself is fallacious logic, for he equated an appeal to coercion. These two concepts are completely different things. How can UP coerce the government, let alone have other private sectors "sacrificed" (an extremely misleading exaggeration) if it is under the government? Still, if his argument still holds, then UP must have been successful in exhausting the funds of other sectors, and will have turned into a capitalistic monopoly. But none of these happened, simply because UP CANNOT coerce the government; it can only ask. Word usage matters deeply, especially in the precise realm of logic.
- Bersamina made a poor and racist argument as he stated that countries such as China and Cuba are “slave pens.”
- If he’s consistent with his mindset that right to accessible education leads to political disaster, (backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to deliver it) then the following must be agreeable to him:
1. That education must NOT be accessible to all, which defeats his "pro-poor" stance.
Here's Mr. Bersamina, declaring his pro-poor stance: Link
Again, words matter hugely in tackling an issue such as this. Bersamina must stop exaggerating points just to support his far-fetched claims. The rest of his statements were not worth mentioning, as they are merely sentences stating what is obvious, yet it does not help fortify his stand.
- Posting Ayn Rand’s argument about the definition of “right” did not help support his argument, because of the following reasons:
1. His article title is a misnomer in the first place.
2. Supposing that Bersamina’s interpretation of Rand’s definition of right, which he wholeheartedly supports, is correct, he must reject the concept of taxation (explained above).
3. Furthermore, Rand’s definition of right does not contradict the Constitution’s definition of right, since a collective right is essentially composed of individual rights benefiting all societal participants through the transitivity of benefits, in the form of taxation. No coercion or theft is involved; only the transitivity of wealth and benefits.
- Ergo, posting Plato’s quote did not help either, for similar reasons.
The videos posted by Mr. Bersamina didn't really help support his stand, because they don't even tackle the same issue he's discussing. The first video was about the extreme dependence of families in welfare (in the US), while what we're simply discussing is about SUBSIDIES to merely aid college students, not to make them slaves of the government. They're just not quite on the same page. The next video referred to the loss of quality of public education in the US due to an alleged government monopoly, which is irrelevant to what he's advocating, which is rejecting the right to appeal for educational assistance. Another video referred to the discrepancies regarding how public schools in the US make the breakdown of matriculation fees for the taxpayers, which, once again, does not address the actual topic at hand, and the last video talked about the stupidity of, guess what, US. Did you post these videos because of the titles alone, without further scrutiny of the contents? I do not wish to assume anything, but my chain of reasoning brought me to this supposition.
After this extensive scrutiny, I can now conclude some points about Mr. Bersamina:
1. He desperately tries to sound like a radical objectivist.
Everybody loves a rebel. To question an established principle is an act of boldness and open-mindedness. But Mr. Bersamina seemed to take this notion far too much to the point of criticizing a fairly well-established law or concept, even if it meant going against the roots of conventional logic, because, hey, as I said, everybody loves a rebel. Hard-hitting comments are always full of boldness and fearless intellect, even if it betrays the foul stench of idiocy in the perspective of the truly observant.
2. He uses superfluous words to look smart, and to cover up possible loopholes in his argument.
A great majority of Mr. Bersamina’s articles are composed of barely understandable terms and sentence constructions, and, unless you’re after the purpose of showing off your vocabulary, there is absolutely no reason for you to frustrate a reader, especially if your purpose is to inform.
Then there’s the reason of covering up possible loopholes. I’ve noticed that an inordinate amount of needless sentences and inhumanely rare words pop out when close to a statement liable for disproving or contradiction by a logical proof. I’m familiar with such approaches, and while I hope that this strange occurrence is unintentional, we all have our subconscious tendencies.
3. He is a self-righteous hypocrite.
The comments section should serve as ample proof. He quickly dismisses obscene, although logical arguments thrown against him, while employing an unhealthy dose of foul words such as “idiotic,” “moronic,” and “stupid” in almost all of his articles. He hates ad hominem attacks, yet he himself employs them. Oh wait, this kind of commentary is a “personal attack” in his book. Oh bummer.
In summary, Mr. Bersamina, you suck. You have wasted your potential of becoming a productive blogger by imprisoning yourself within your radical and individualistic ideologies and fantasies, while kissing Ayn Rand’s arse all the time. You bitch at everything thrown against you; you even bitched at Roger Ebert for disliking your beloved Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, yet claiming that no words could hurt your ego.
"My arse."
Such puerile actions betray your lack of credibility. Oh, are you going to dismiss this as a personal attack?
0 comments:
Post a Comment