I’ve recently learned about the plagiarism in a recent post and think that some sanctions are necessary. Therefore, together with our stakeholders and board of directors, we, the official leaders of FF, have decided to suspend Karlo from his post as official FF writer indefinitely until he edits his post and publicly apologizes and says ten Hail Marys.
But seriously.
First of all, the FF is an informal group. Although we’ve been trying to get organized, herding cats is close to impossible. Nor would freethinkers want to be herded anyway. I’d thought that we — the original members of FF — made this clear from the beginning, but apparently we haven’t, and for the benefit of nonmembers and new members here it is again:
The Filipino Freethinkers is not a formal group with an official, homogeneous stand on anything.
We do not have an official stance on gods — although many are atheists, we have agnostics, deists, pantheists, panentheists, apatheists, etc. We even have several theists — Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Spirituals, and yes, even a Satanist.
We do not have an official stance on politics — although most prefer democracy and capitalism, we have all sorts of socialists, anarchists, and even one fascist (that I know of).
We do not have an official stance on anything. I thought this was unnecessary, but maybe each post on our blog should be introduced by a disclaimer: The views on this post are my own, and do not reflect those of any other member of FF.
What we do have is a common language that we do try to speak: freethinking. You are freethinking when you try to use reason and evidence to figure something out for yourself. At least that’s my definition. Others may have their own definitions, which is why our members are so varied. And that’s a good thing.
What we — the original members — tried to achieve with FF when we started it was not a WE (a group of people with the same thoughts on everything) but a WHERE. You could compare FF to a room where anybody could come in and talk to each other about whatever. The only thing is, the people in the room speak in the language of reason and Science, and your enjoyment in that room would depend on your fluency at freethinking (our lingua franca).
Obviously, people define Reason and Science in different ways, from the absolutist definitions of Objectivism to the relativist definitions of Postmodernism. But even with the wide range of interpretations, I believe we can all agree on some things:
One, that freedom to talk about things is a good thing, and that no idea is too sacred to justify its permanent status as Truth. In short, nothing is sacred, so there’s no such thing as blasphemy. Even Science does not grant such status to any theory. (Indeed, if it did, it would cease to be Science.)
Two, that assertions made without supporting arguments can be dismissed without any argument. That an argument is only as good as the reason (critical thought free from fallacies) and evidence (repeated and repeatable, peer-reviewed and scientifically valid) backing it up.
Three, although freely thinking (and talking) about something (One) in a way that is rational and evidence-based (Two) is the best way to arrive at conclusions, those conclusions may be different, especially with complex and complicated topics. And even when a group of people — however rational and scientific — somehow reaches the same conclusion, that conclusion does not gain the status of Absolute Truth (One).
Again, I hate to have to say this, but this is MY point of view and it may be different from those of the other FF members.
Now let me share some of my thoughts about this conflict with Objectivists, particularly VB and some of his friends. First of all, we have at least three members (that I know of) who are now Objectivists. Geri was once an Objectivist. I read enough Ayn Rand to understand her philosophy, and although I do not agree with all of her conclusions, I do think she deserves to be called a Philosopher (some FF members think otherwise) and as a writer I particularly value her thoughts on the writing process (I have both her books on the topic).
So I have nothing against Objectivism. In fact, several times I’ve invited Josh Lipana, and through him, VB, to attend our meetups and even to write about Objectivism on our blog. (Both invitations are still open, by the way.)
This was before all the free farter talk on VB’s blog. Personally I do not appreciate personal attacks used in rational discourse. And besides, it only weakens your argument — when you have to resort to it, it usually means you’ve run out of reason.
But things have been said and the discourse has devolved into name calling, unfortunately on both sides. And where there is some semblance of reason it has been quite irrational — again on both sides. Because of the support of some members (myself included) for the RH bill, all of our members have been called irrational, unscientific, and even a fellowship of death. As if the only proper way to be rational and scientific is to agree with Objectivism. And some FF members have called Objectivism a cult of Randroids, lumping together all Objectivists, even though there are those who do value the ideas without any reverence for Ayn Rand.
This has led to the ugly situation we have now. I’d rather we all move on and talk about something more relevant, say HIV/AIDS and the Vatican scandal, but that’s just me. If some members still want to wage an all out war with VB, that’s fine. But please, when you argue with someone, be it VB or anyone else, make it clear that you are arguing for yourself and as yourself — not as a representative of FF.
Sadly, any argument between VB and an FF member has been framed as a battle between Objectivism and FF. Please guys. Keep it between yourselves. The way you have been arguing you might as well have a Yo Mama contest.
Which brings us to the latest attack against Karlo for the plagiarism in his first article. This attack on Karlo is an attack manufactured by those who want to discredit the FF and can be compared to anti-semitism, the Holocaust, and the recent attacks on the Catholic Church.
But seriously. In case your bullshit detector wasn’t on in my first paragraph, we do not have stakeholders and directors and official leaders. We do not even have full-time editors, let alone fact-checkers. I say full-time because sometimes our volunteers fix mechanical errors — spelling, grammar, etc. — and even peer-review articles before posting. But these editorial fixes will remain a rarity until we get volunteers who can dedicate a lot of their time to the necessary work. Or until we get a lot of money (any takers?).
This bears repeating: We are a group of volunteers. We are not paid for what we do.
But still, I agree with the comments so far that Karlo should take responsibility for his actions. He has already replied and said that he will fix the plagiarism in his post. Do I think Karlo should be punished for what he did? Personally, not so much. But again, that’s just my opinion. If you think plagiarism, particularly what Karlo did, is a grave matter deserving of excommunication, do say so. Write a post about it if you like. You will not be censored. But please, try to stick to the issues and avoid the insults.
I’ve already passed the TL;DR point a couple of paragraphs ago, so let me end this rambling (sorry for any errors in spelling, grammar, or plagiarism) with this:
If FF is to be about something, it is not about shared conclusions but shared conversations. Once conclusions are reached conclusively the conversation is over, and a fellowship without conversation is a fellowship concluded. Peace!
According to the writer of this article, you have at least one fascist "that you know of"? We are a small group forming up a Filipino Union of Fascists and National Socialists….
http://www.philippinephalange.4t.com/
Please convey to your fascist member the good news. Maraming Salamat Po.
Hello all Free Thinking Fili Peeps. A new pro-Free Thinker, pro-Science, pro-Fili (and pro-Homeschool too) company is emerging . . . <a href="http://www.scienceandtechnologyresources.com” target=”_blank”>www.scienceandtechnologyresources.com. In memory of my Dad who created the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST). Sorry, will say more later, just need a link to propagate the site 🙂 Just remember, Hydrogen (The oldest Element) came with the Big Bang, and an isotope of it evolved which is Helium and came about more atomic evolutionary phylogenies, long story short, then carbon came into being, C-H, voila! You have the simpliest Methanogen. Among other current exciting geographical changes, just look what's happening to Iceland's volcano, the lightning bolts over it and dazzling surrounding atmosphere over it . . . The new insect and amphibian species popping up – Read up!
Okay people, I really want to settle this issue once and for all. First of all, my apologies for not having the time to read all your comments. I already added the disclaimer to my blog post. My ONLY reason for writing that post on Objectivism is because I observed that a significant number of people in this community seem to be putting too much attention to personal attacks from a blog that promotes Objectivism; without a true understanding of the belief system. The Facebook page, forum discussions seem to be filled with reactions to statements by a group (probably just one) promoting Objectivism. I decided to support this community because I think that it is very important that a group that promotes science and reason need to exist in a very theocratic country…It really disappoints me that this group's attention seem to be diverted to fending off insults and condemnation from a blog that promotes Objectivism. Objectivism is just a tiny insignificant movement that's not even recognized by anyone in the academic world. Objectivism is not a real philosophy and Ayn Rand is not considered by many as a real philosopher.
If anyone of you have carefully read my blog post and compared it to the source of this plagiarism complaint, you would immediately notice that he wrote it in such a way that the plagiarism was intentional. And it seems very obvious that he has a personal grudge against me personally for writing that post. (Just look at the insults and effort he made, not to mention repetitive mention of my full name). My blog post on Objectivism is roughly a 3,000-word essay and I only wrote it in my free time. It is a very tedious process to write a piece of this length about a subject that is so broad…which just became recently familiar to me. I just missed adding some of the links and properly revising text portions of this post; it was an honest mistake, and unintentional. If you have doubts, just check the links I cited as sources and compare the ratio.
If you want to talk about intellectual honesty, that's perfectly fine. To begin with, I always used my real name and NOT hide under multiple online profiles. My blog post never insulted or morally condemned anyone personally, but a great number of the comments I received were insults and condemnation (mostly from Objectivists). And yet most people seem to immediately give merit to the source of this plagiarism complaint; never mind the malicious intention and personal attacks; never mind that the ideas, tactics, and words he used were just imitation of Ayn Rand's; never mind that he posts malicious statements in the online pages of this group under different names, and so on…
Just to end this issue, I have already added the disclaimer in my blog post and revised portions of the text. I encourage anyone who has the time and passion to to edit it if there are still errors, factual inaccuracies, unrevised content that would be still considered as plagiarized, and so on. If that is still not enough, then please feel free to take it down. It's perfectly fine with me. If there is someone who has the time to write and replace it with a better one, that would be cool. I only wrote it because I can't find a comprehensive article about Objectivism that would help other people in this community understand the reason behind the personal attacks when arguing with Objectivists.
In my opinion, the best way to stop the discussions and petty issues from Objectivists is to completely ignore them. By responding to their personal attacks, it just gives them more online 'street' credibility (if there is such a word). I'm all for being open but not too open that people with malicious motives are still allowed to post links and statements in the online pages of this community; and I think it's very easy to identify them.
Search engines analyze links and keyword phrases to determine the ranking of search results. Hence, if you would respond to his attacks, you are just making his insults and negative comments about you have a higher page ranking. To demonstrate, I checked some of the names who responded to the personal insults of this guy, and his blog is one of the top results in Google search. So please don't respond or counterattack; just move on to the bigger issues – religion, overpopulation, corruption, declining education, Vatican scandal, etc…
Just to reassure the people who are sincere in writing for this community, my sincere apologies to you all. I did not intend to demean your effort for this group, in fact, I enjoy reading your articles; and please continue contributing. My blog post was just a response to the increasing attention placed on Objectivism, and nothing more than that.
I hope this response will finally settle this issue once and for all. And honestly, I really don't have the time and effort to pursue this further.
Peace.
but seriously, ryan (et al.?), you need to take the issue of plagiarism within your — our — ranks more seriously.
when, as freethinkers, non-theists, secularists, progessive theists, etc., we lambaste evolution, or contraception, deniers, for either (or both) cherry-picking or distorting what science/scientific research tells us, we decry their dishonesty—both moral and intellectual.
did karlo plagiarise wilfully? it shouldn't require saying (especially for that amount of writing and admitted researching), but let's: how does one /accidentally/ copy somebody else's train of words, rephrase some parts, in the hope that it looks more 'believable' that he came up with it? only in the most contorted kind of reasoning—or more aptly, rationalising (in the perjorative sense)—can one accommodate or accept that as being credible.
which brings me to my next (minor) point, a pet peeve of mine. that habitually misused and abused word: 'mistake'. ('error', too.) a 'mistake' is something you commit when you don't genuinely know better. i notice some here are in danger of sounding like politicians whenever their (politicians') misconduct gets exposed to the public. your typical trapo: 'it was a mistake to spend it on my wife's suvs.' or pedo-priest: 'it was a mistake to fondle that child.' no, you dick, that wasn't a 'mistake', is my customary reply at the talking head on the tv.
before anyone thinks it: no, i am not comparing plagiarism to pedophilia, nor corruption by politicians. it is not as serious as the aids epidemic, nor holocaust denialism. the incredible thing is, my and others' criticism of karlo's plagiarising has been turned into a caricature. please, give us some more credit; we have not equated plagiarism to any of the other acts that you tell us we should give more importance to. we are capable of more discerning and sophisticated reasoning than you allow us.
this is where i feel i should also admonish you, ryan, for failing to take this more seriously. statements like '… until he edits his post and publicly apologizes and says ten Hail Marys' and 'can be compared to anti-semitism, the Holocaust, and the recent attacks on the Catholic Church' looks to me like you really are taking this lightly. yes, i know you're joking in one and attempting at satire in the next (italicising here will help shield you from someone waiting and wanting to quote-mine you. just trying to help.) but my observation still stands. i also think you miss what plagiarism really means with statements like this one: '… sorry for any errors in spelling, grammar, or plagiarism.'
we ignore the gravity of plagiarism, or looking like having accommodated or excused it, at our peril. this will come back and rear its ugly head at us the next time we're in a debate with an i.d.-er or any of their ilk.
on the issue of ff accountability. i do not believe ff is to be held responsible for karlo's plagiarising. you (and us your readers) put trust on the individuals, for whose blogs/articles you host here, to uphold truth in their writing. you (ryan) need not excuse the volunatry nature of ff or its lack of resources. even a journalistic instituion such as the new york times have had a plagiarist in its employ. it is what you do accordingly afterwards that matters. allowing karlo to revise the original form of his article is the wrong recourse, in my opinion. you (we) risk appearing like we want to cover up what has happened. transparency will only help us in the long run and to recover from this mess.
i believe we should also be 'thankful' that we have someone like this vince guy casting a critical eye (ok, maybe not always, i don't know*) on what we write or read here. it took the likes of him to tell us we have a fellow ff-er plagiarising. take the name-calling, his axe-grinding (as thinking adults we should know how to deal with it), if that means we are made aware of some important things we may happen to miss.
ryan, i was in awe of what you did recently, getting in there, asking a representative of the cbcp questions that others maybe too polite or afraid to ask, at a venue which can easily turn against you. i hope this is the start of more visibility from ff in the media. (i hope you see why i want this plagiarism issue sorted swiftly and thoroughly. i'd hate to see any momentum from ff being derailed later on by this plagiarism issue.)
karlo, i do no know you personally. you may mean well for ff and only wanted to defend it from what looks to me like the cultish fanatacism of ayn rand by some*. that is to be commended. but the way you went about it, brother, is just dishonourable and dishonest, plain and simple. how you choose to reform from here is entirely up to you. the reason i love science and reading it and frequenting online communities and blogs that champion freethought is because i'm constantly reminded of how little i know about the world, about stuff. (i think richard feynman said something to the same effect.) case in point: *i am ignorant of ayn rand, ignorant of a lot of things. only recently in ff have i been reminded of this by the hugely enlightening posts by pecier decierdo and michaelm (thanks, guys). all i'm saying, karlo, is it doesn't end here.
i believe we are all behind the idea that the majority of us are here, at this venue that calls itself 'filipino freethinkers', because we like to be amongst or associated with a communtiy of people who seek truth and knowledge. we value intellectual honesty and integrity highly. in the event that someone comes to ff advocating to us her view of the racial supremacy of the white race, offering us her sources of science literature, i relish in the confidence and expecting there to be a majority of ff-ers on the wings ready to dismantle her ridiculous postulation and pick apart her sources whether they'd be true or not. so, although we come from differing politics, world-views, etc., we should never compromise on intellectually honesty. it is precisely because i put filipino freethinkers to higher moral and intellectual standard that i am very vocal about the issue of plagiarism within our ranks. and, like it or not, ff may in the future pave the way for an aclu equivalent or an active formal or recognised humanist/secular organisation in the philippines. so there is that responsibility we give ourselves when we chose to stamp ourselves 'freethinkers'.
That was one thoughtful comment. Thank you so much. I appreciate your support and the importance that you put in what we do. I admit that I do not take plagiarism as seriously as some of our members do. Jong and Pecier have shown their disappointment in some of the comments above, and Jong has written a separate post dedicated to what he thinks Karlo should have done: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/04/15/poison….
I've also clarified in that post what I think Karlo should have done:
"Anyway, Tin suggested that instead of taking the articles down, Karlo should edit the plagiarism out of his article and add a brief note, summarizing all that’s happened and apologizing for it. What I suggest is that Karlo write version 2.0 of the article as a new post, with a link to the original version for the sake of transparency. Both versions should contain the introductory note Tin suggested.
As always, others are welcome to chime in and make suggestions, but at the end of the day, it’s Karlo’s call.
Or perhaps it’s time we agreed on an editorial policy? (of course, not on the subject matter but on style, mechanics, and issues such as plagiarism)"
I suggest that you also share your insights in that post.
Anyway, I'm sorry that you were disappointed at the way I reacted. When I found out about the issue, the first thing I did was tell Karlo, trusting that he would take responsibility, which he did. Some people were content with his promise to fix the post. Others were disappointed with the way he shrugged things off. Honestly, I'm still hoping that when Karlo fixes his post over the weekend as he promised, we'd get a better apology from him as well.
In any case, a lot of you were expecting a quick, decisive action from the leaders of FF, perhaps particularly from me. And I took this as an opportunity to define through this post the kind of organization we are. If I had acted quickly and decisively, with the assumption that I had the authority to, and the power to represent the entire group in dealing with Karlo, then we would have a different kind of organization, and believe me, even more members would be disappointed.
I admit that this fiasco has made me question the kind of organization FF should be. Should we have a more traditional hierarchy? Should we be more formal? (If not with the group as a whole then at least with our editorial decisions on this blog.) But this is a good thing. We've learned and will learn a lot from this and from people like you who care a lot about what we do. I'm sorry if I somehow gave the impression with the humor in my post that I do not take all this seriously. I do take what we do very seriously.
We have been discussing this issue (of plagiarism) in private conversations and in the comments section of three posts now (Karlo's original, this one, and Innerminds' latest). I've also added plagiarism to the agenda of our meetup this Sunday. By then Karlo would've already fixed his post, and enough people would have the chance to share their points of view on the issue. And by then, we'd be in a better position to make a decision.
Thanks again JG. By the way, you should definitely consider being part of our writing team 🙂
"If I had acted quickly and decisively, with the assumption that I had the authority to, and the power to represent the entire group in dealing with Karlo, then we would have a different kind of organization, and believe me, even more members would be disappointed."
Ryan, I greatly admire and appreciate your respect for the other members of FF, and I find your restraint in the use of your "authority" noble.
I also appreciate the idea of having Karlo write a version 2.0, keeping version 1.0 intact. We need to show "outsiders" that we will not hide our mistakes, if indeed a mistake has been made.
I am sorry if I sounded more angry that I actually was and am. I guess it's part of my training as an aspiring scientist to be extra-sensitive to issues regarding intellectual integrity. It's especially relevant to me since I experienced something similar (to the incident regarding Karlo's alleged plagiarism) in one of my physics classes; heads rolled on the floor and blood was spilled because of that particular incident. It was a very shameful event for our class.
But looking back, I'm in a way glad it did happen, for it taught our class one very important lesson: in science, nothing is as important as intellectual integrity. Everything hangs on intellectual integrity.
If we at FF value science, then I believe we ought adopt the values of science.
And Karlo, don't worry, some of those who committed the mistakes in our class are graduating this month. The sanctions given to them were harsh, but forgiveness was offered in the end. After all, punishment without forgiveness is simply revenge, and we here at FF are, I believe, too enlightened to commit mere vengeance.
well said, all of you. I'm glad for how people are reacting to the situation. For a while there, i feared the worst and thought that people were ok throwing people to the wolves. I for one wouldn't want to be part of such an organization if it came to that. contrary to what "someone" else might say, everyone gets second chances, right? If the erring party is willing to eat some humble-pie and make suitable reparations, then everyone learns a lesson and life moves on.
I'd just prefer that reparations are done sooner rather than later because every day delayed just keeps the wolves howling more and more, and its starting to get annoying.
thanks for the invite, ryan, but i will have to refuse. there's very good reason—and it's for everyone's welfare—why i try and limit myself to the comments sections (in all blogs). just trust me on this, ok? 🙂 but seriously, i enjoy reading (when i can) the informative articles by your current team of writers—i would hate to see the quality go downhill with my addition.
i can always criticise the time it took you, ryan, as 'head' of ff to respond, and perhaps your attitude toward plagiarism, but i cannot fault your (and the rest's) dedication and sincerity in having this plagiarism episode addressed, resolved and rectified. i now understand better how a 'loose' definition of your role, if there even is one, and how an absence of ff bylaws have prevented you from swiftly directing a course of action with regard to an erring member. i also criticise cognizant of the fact that you are the one/s with the rolled-up sleeves, getting your hands dirty, while i type away on my keyboard, at my leisurely pace, on my free time.
on the issue of plagiarism: count me contented. not that the actions taken and dissenting opinions voiced were done at my pleasure, of course not; and their (innerminds', pecier's, others) dissension on the matter will've come without my own warnings, i have no doubt about that now.
(it's josh, btw. same guy in the ff fb group. i opted to not use my full name here as i'm really not fully 'out' of the religion closet yet, and i'd rather have some control over it if only little, this being a fully public or easily accessible [as opposed to the ff fb group] website and all.)
By the way, who is JG? Who is John Galt? 😉
Yes, it's the fact that VB and his group resorted to a lot of below-the-belt name-calling and personal attacks *aimed at the whole group* that really showed their lack of maturity.
Generalizations like what he did could be akin to saying that *all* PEX'ers are complete assholes just because he didn't like what one writer had to say. This site hosts a lot of different viewpoints, some may agree with Objectivism, some may not. It's how well you defend your side that shows what you're truly made of.
But all I saw in VB's counter-arguments (aside from the oh-so-mature name-calling) could be summed up into "you just don't understand the true essence of our philosophy because you disagree with us. Go read our sacred scriptures again until you agree with us." How can you even begin to open up a constructive discussion with a mindset like that? Shouldn't they instead call themselves "Objectionists" because they object to other people objecting about their object of infatuation?
Wes, you wrote that comment on April 15. Then on April 17 – two days after – VB wrote this as a reply to Percier in their debate in the Randoid's blog:
"I no longer have the interest to prolong this discussion- and your utter stupidity- because you clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about. If you want to know more about epistemology and metaphysics, go read Ayn Rand. And to think that you don’t even understand the relation, connection, between the basic branches of philosophy. What you only know are the drivels- all kinds of philosophical distortions- concocted by third-rate, irrational philosophers. What I wrote above is my final answer and you are free to debunk them if you want."
Are you psychic, Wes?
VB's RIGHT! We HAVE MYSTICS!!!
ah there now, all settled then?
seriously now, isn't this just a case of making mountains out of molehills? I don't see what all the fuss is about. Karlo already had a source list at the end of his post almost half as long as the text itself. Were they any more sources left uncredited after that?
I think allowing Karlo to revise his article before he has given a satisfying refutation to the plagiarism allegations is the wrong course of action. Let him answer the accusations first, and let him answer logically. Replies like "it's just a blog" or "my essay was a hurried work" are not counted, what we need are replies like "I did not plagiarize because…"
As a fellowship of truth seekers, we must adhere to high standards of intellectual honesty. This means that we should treat plagiarism with contempt.
There are two prerequisites in avoiding plagiarism. First, we must adhere to high standards of intellectual honesty — we must be our own plagiarism police or IPR judge. And second, we must learn proper citation methods. For instance, mere "citation" at the end of an article is not enough if one lifted whole paragraphs verbatim from another source. Stating another person's ideas in your own words is one thing, copying what another person said is another.
I already posted my response to this issue in the FF wall page and FF forum:
Okay guys, first of all, I did NOT expect the blog post to be very sensational. Since it was my FIRST post, it didn't occur to me that it will be extremely popular. Most of the posts I see in FF just average about 10 comments and then it becomes buried by newer posts.
After reading a lot of discussions about Objectivism in the FF forum, I became curious and started to read about Objectivism and Ayn Rand; and eventually decided to write a blog post about the philosophy.
I wrote the essay hurriedly and published it without rewriting/revising it very carefully. (Because honestly, Objectivism is a very broad subject, and it's a very tedious one; and I feel it is not worth my time, OR ANYONE, to put much effort into it). But now I realized it was a big mistake on my part, because it is remarkably obvious now that FF is very influential and there are people who are intensely affected by it. And so, my sincere apologies for being careless and not being serious about it.
I intended my blog post to be very casual (c'mon peeps, it's just a blog post), it's not a graduation speech or news article to be taken seriously. I never aspired it to be an authoritative material by anyone. The post did not morally condemn or insult anyone personally, but a lot of the feedback I received were hateful and insulting. C'mon, there were no children molested in this issue to deserve such personal attacks. Lol.
The people (probably just one) who make this such a big issue is also a plagiarist. All of their words, ideas, and tactics just came from Ayn Rand and no one else. Just read Ayn Rand's writings and you'll immediately recognize the imitation. Furthermore, Objectivism is just a combination of old ideas put together by Ayn Rand, there's nothing original to this belief system and its claims have no evidential foundation.
But since there is now a craze for this blog post, and just to satisfy (well, some or most of) you, I'll revise my post properly this time over the weekend. In the meantime, enjoy your life, meet real people, and have a blast while I find time (actually, waste precious time) to properly revise that (insignificant) blog post. I'll probably have the inspiration to write after watching Lamb of God/Testament play live this weekend.
Be cool people, it's just a friggin' blog post. There's more to life, it's too damn short already to waste your time with unimportant issues. And seriously, c'mon, it is not comparable a graduation speech that people should be inspired or follow. Again, It's just a friggin' blog post, no child molestation here…Don't be too serious about it, bokay?
Cheers and live life. Seriously.
But did you really do the Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v, Karlo? If so, then that saddens me deeply.
Karlo, kindly learn the proper rules of citation first before you write an article that makes heavy claims.
And a blog post is not "just a blog post", it can be an indication of your intellectual honesty and your high moral standards (or your lack thereof). In fact, anything you do can be an indication of your intellectual honesty and high moral standard, so be careful and cautious about everything you do.
I urge you to read more on plagiarism, intellectual honesty and the rules of proper citation before you write another article.
Karlo – no effing worries dude. The armchair philosophers who populate this site take themselves and their views wayyyy too seriously. They cant possibly be wording their posts with complete originality given the complex subject matter nor can most others. use your time more productively by reading legitimate sources instead of wasting it here. seriously.
"They cant possibly be wording their posts with complete originality given the complex subject matter nor can most others."
I think no one here at FF can claim "completely originality" when it comes to our ideas. After all, we attend(ed) school, read books and listen to others; much of what we know we get from such sources.
However, when you post a blog entry, it is understood that when you are not quoting a source, then you are writing an idea in your very own words, regardless of whether the idea is novel or generally known.
Suppose you are a History teacher in high school, and you instructed your class to write an essay stating their opinion regarding the 300 years of Spanish rule in the Philippines. How would you feel if your students submitted to you copy-pasted articles from the web?
"The armchair philosophers who populate this site take themselves and their views wayyyy too seriously."
It is true that ideas without action are empty. But action without ideas are blind. And actions coupled with bad ideas are dangerous; plagiarism is such an action.
I don't know or have read the post in question but I would just like to add that it seems Karlo is confused with what is plagiarism and what is not. Having similar ideas is not plagiarism. It's copying (portions of) somebody else's original (written) work without proper citation that's plagiarism and is very dishonest.
But like I said, I never read the article so I am not judging Karlo for that.
More power to the Collective. Hehe.
Karlo, kindly read my reply to Ryan's latest post.
I hope the last paragraph, which is addressed to you, will give you hope. And I wish it will lessen the seeming self-righteousness of my other comments.
It's clearly they just took down on the technical terms. If they really against Plagiarism then the internet is full of it, why don't they go after those other articles?
Then VB took on the offensive and made a fuss about it. Branding the whole group Plagiarist. It's a typical strategy of someone on the losing side. Maybe he is happy somewhere. Sleeping soundly claiming victory. Di ata makatulog e. Wawa naman.
Why don't he brand himself a fraud. He is using dummy accounts when posting in our FB page and making false statements about our group. Honesty & Integrity? Yeah right to him too!
I agree regarding the disclaimer part, I need to add those on my blog posts (in my own blog, not here, I don't have the courage to post any articles here yet).
I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think 98% of the FF Facebook account know better than to listen to someone caught several times and Red Handed using fake accounts and trolling ALL OVER the internet.
I can now hear the presses rolling, and the full-page spread reads:
"Pope Tani Compares Attack on Member to Anti-Semitism"
Karlo did a Manny Pangilinan? Pray and repent of your ways my brother!
He still don't understand the point we are making here. He is still branding the whole group Plagiarist.
Hands-down with his narrow-mind. Can't argue or reason with a person who thinks 1 dimensionally.
im a discordian!! HAIL ERIS!!
"If FF is to be about something, it is not about shared conclusions but shared conversations. Once conclusions are reached conclusively the conversation is over, and a fellowship without conversation is a fellowship concluded."
Some people seem unable to grasp that, particularly someone who posted the following questions on our Facebook page and expected to get a unanimous answer:
1. What is your ethics or code of morality?
2. What is your most preferred political system?
3. What is your understanding of REASON, which is the most important question.
4. What is your understanding of economics. Your most preferred economic system or philosopher, if any.
5. Who's your guiding philosopher or thinker?
6. What is your moral and political goal for this country. You want it to be a socialist, capitalist or a fascist state?
The FF is a fellowship, not a cult. Our beliefs and philosophies are as diverse as the personalities of the individual members. If you visit the FF online forum you will see how threads start off with a member presenting a certain issue and his/her opinion about it. Then the other members will jump in to point out the flaws in the original poster's argument – or to express agreement. Threads sometimes grow into full-blown debates reaching 10 pages or more. Now if we could not even achieve consensus on 'simple' topics such as the existence of God (yes, there are theists in the FF), how do you expect us to have a common answer to issues as complex as morality, politics, and economics? As I have said before, the good thing about being a freethinker is that discussions can be a great learning experience. For some people, discussions mean defending one’s position – and pride – to death. But for the freethinker, the ego only comes second to the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
As for the plagiarism, I think Karlo should respond to the accusations. Let's hear him out, and then we can comment on what he has to say.
Well said, Jong.
"As for the plagiarism, I think Karlo should respond to the accusations. Let’s hear him out, and then we can comment on what he has to say."
Karlo made a comment below. What's your take on it, innerminds?
As for me, I don't think it's satisfying or even rational. Given his reply, I suspect that he indeed performed the Ctrl-c,Ctrl-v he was accused to have done.
I appreciate the fact that FF is not a collective. However, I believe that if most of our members adhere to a high standard of intellectual integrity, then they should give Karlo heavy sanctions. Of course, such sanctions are products of the personal choice of the members and not the "official action" of the FF as an organization. Ryan made that very clear in his splendid article above.
However, I urge the other members of FF to consider Karlo's reply to the allegations. Is his reply satisfactory? Do they answer the accusations? Do they acquit him of plagiarism? If they don't, then how should we personally act toward Karlo? Again, this is directed to the individual FF members and not to the "corporate entity" that FF is not.
Forgive me, Karlo, but I think you can do a better response than the comment you've just given.
I really hope he gives a better response. He needs to.
That's what I really pointing out to our regular detractors.
Filipino Freethinkers is a group of free thinking Filipinos. But apparently they don't understand or they don't want to understand the whole point of the group.
We don't have a single stance on certain things. Although most of us agree on something (atheism, church-state separation, morality, etc.) but we don't agree on everything. Well, that's why we call ourselves free thinkers. Duh? "Free to think" "Thinking freely"
Not like their little gang that submitted themselves to Ayn Rand's philosophies of selfishness and invented realities. And if you don't submit to their randroid non-sense you will be branded as communist & the so called FREE-FARTER, nice argument. Talk about logic & rationality.
What I hate more is their generalization which shows their stupidity. for example: If someone among us believes in fairies they will automatically brand us all fairy believers! Yeah! That's logic for them.
The author of the Vincenton Post is just a FREE-LOADER. Who rides with our group's increasing popularity. Who hides behind dummy accounts when posting in our FB page. What's that about? Why does he need to hide behind those dummy accounts? The better question is, what's with that guy? Is he desperate for attention? Want's to get more hits on his blog? Want's to get popular? Is he really desperate to spread the philosophies of Ayn Rand?
He really dedicated his time for us. Creating anti-FF pages in Facebook. But he banned FF members try to reason out to him on those FB pages. Now that's a reasonable person. He almost dedicated his entire blog for the purpose of bashing us. He even allotted so much research time on the Objectivism article of Mr. Espiritu and other stuffs in the FF site.
Oh man this guy really loves us. He really care about us.
This post/statement is entirely mine and not the collective statement of the Filipino Freethinkers.
Thank you!