User talk:LogicMaster777/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Evidence from cognitive science[edit]

"Grafman says the results show that, to the brain, religious belief is a lot like political belief.

"If you're very conservative and you have to make a judgment about what looks like a liberal statement and you disagree with that, you might find this very same brain system being activated," he says.

Grafman says the new study says nothing about whether God exists. But it does suggest that religious belief uses a brain system that evolved quite recently.

"Some of the same underlying abilities that support other sorts of complex human social behavior also support the behavior that we're terming 'religious belief,' " he says."

The evidence shows states and advanced civilizations were probably first invented right around the time the human brain first evolved its capacity for religious thought[edit]

"Joseph Bulbulia, an expert on the cognitive psychology of religion at Victoria University in New Zealand, says most evidence of religious behavior only dates back about 10,000 years, raising questions about why humans didn't become religious sooner.

But he agrees that religious belief probably had a role in human evolution because it has helped societies survive and thrive for thousands of years."

"The earliest emergence of civilizations is generally associated with the final stages of the Neolithic Revolution, culminating in the relatively rapid process of state formation, a political development associated with the appearance of a governing elite. This neolithic technology and lifestyle was established first in the Middle East (for example at Göbekli Tepe, from about 9,130 BCE), and Yangtze and later in the Yellow river basin in China (for example the Pengtoushan culture from 7,500 BCE), and later spread. But similar "revolutions" also began independently from 9,000 years ago in such places as the Norte Chico civilization in Peru[11] and Mesoamerica at the Balsas River. These were among the six civilizations worldwide that arose independently."

Gobekli Tepe, world's oldest known religious temple, site of first known religious activity in history[edit]

"Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it's the site of the world's oldest temple."öbekli_Tepe


Göbekli Tepe is regarded as an archaeological discovery of the greatest importance since it could profoundly change the understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything".[3] [40] It shows that the erection of monumental complexes was within the capacities of hunter-gatherers and not only of sedentary farming communities as had been previously assumed. As excavator Klaus Schmidt put it, "First came the temple, then the city.""LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Neolithic 1 – Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)[edit]

"The Neolithic 1 (PPNA) period began roughly 10,000 years ago in the Levant.[2] A temple area in southeastern Turkey at Göbekli Tepe dated around 9,500 BC may be regarded as the beginning of the period. This site was developed by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes, evidenced by the lack of permanent housing in the vicinity and may be the oldest known human-made place of worship.[10] At least seven stone circles, covering 25 acres (100,000 m2), contain limestone pillars carved with animals, insects and birds. Stone tools were used by perhaps as many as hundreds of people to create the pillars, which may have supported roofs. Other early PPNA sites dating to around 9,500 to 9,000 BC have been found in Jericho, Israel (notably Ain Mallaha, Nahal Oren, and Kfar HaHoresh), Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, and Byblos, Lebanon. The start of Neolithic 1 overlaps the Tahunian and Heavy Neolithic periods to some degree."

The Gods of Rome[edit]

"For reasons of space and clarity, this dissertation will focus entirely on the cults, festivals and buildings which have clear state sponsorship, and will exclude private worship."

"Roman state religion was as old as Rome itself, having its origins in the mythical founding of the city and the actions of Romulus, Numa and the Etruscan kings. The temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the Capitoline hill was begun before the founding of the Republic, and several of the other temples in the city were attributed to very early times."

"The gods that protected the Roman state were established early on, with the Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva at the pinnacle, supported by Mars, Vesta, Venus, Saturn and Neptune, among others. A host of abstract deities and personifications such as Pudicitia, Concordia, Victoria and Salus were added to the pantheon as the Roman empire expanded into the Greek east in the third and second centuries BC, and became equally important in the preservation of the state as the older deities. Various priesthoods attended the gods, usually staffed by members of the senatorial aristocracy, and their worship was conducted at festivals celebrated throughout the year at venues scattered across the city. This created a web of religious activity in time and space that permeated every action of the Roman state, from declaring war and peace to ensuring the city's food supplies."

"As well as deities in the traditional sense, Roman state religion paid homage to deified emperors, and worshipped them with temples, festivals an priesthoods much like any other god."

"The imperial cult is important in the development of Roman state religion, as it was the chief source of innovation throughout the imperial period, in the addition of new deities and the building of new temples."

"In the third century, Severus Alexander was the last emperor to receive a dedicated priesthood, and after his death Divus was a standard imperial title. Even still, the imperial cult clearly kept its significance, as the divi coinage of Decius demonstrates. This emperor minted a series of coinage depicting divi from a variety of dynasties, and through this action linked himself to his divine predecessors."

"Over time, as the person of the emperor became more and more central to state religion, the importance of Rome itself diminished. Along with the seat of power, state religion was focussed on the emperor no matter where in the empire he was."

"The importance of the city of Rome as a physical centre of religion was lessened and detached, to the point where Rome could be worshipped in the city itself. Hadrian's monumental temple of Venus and Rome between the Forumand Colosseum imported a cult that had been present in the Greek east for centuries, but had never been worshipped in Italy."

"It is evidence of the dislocation of Roman power away from the geographical location of the city and into a much more abstracted form. The idea of Rome was no longer strictly limited to the physical urban area on the banks of the Tiber, as it had been in the republic and early principate, but was expanded out to the frontiers, and the limits of Roman power of earth: if they even existed."

"It was personified in the goddess Roma Aeterna, and also in the person of the emperor, who embodied the political and military power of Rome, and its religious pedigree through his deified predecessors."

Roma (mythology)[edit]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In ancient Roman religion, Roma was a female deity who personified the city of Rome and more broadly, the Roman state. Her image appears on the base of the column of Antoninus Pius."

Genius (mythology)[edit]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In Roman religion, the genius is the individual instance of a general divine nature that is present in every individual person, place, or thing."

The Genius of the State[edit]

"The provincial troops expanded the idea of the genii of state; for example, from Roman Britain have been found altars to the genii of Roma, Roman aeterna, Britannia, and to every legion, cohors, ala and centuria in Britain, as well as to the praetorium of every castra and even to the vexillae."

Imperial genii[edit]

"Octavius Caesar on return to Rome after the final victory of the Roman Civil War at the Battle of Actium appeared to the Senate to be a man of great power and success, clearly a mark of divinity. In recognition of the prodigy they voted that all banquets should include a libation to his genius. In concession to this sentiment he chose the name Augustus, capturing the numinous meaning of English "august." This line of thought was probably behind the later vote in 30 BC that he was divine, as the household cult of the Genius Augusti dates from that time."

"The vote began the tradition of the divine emperors..."

  • Bolded text added by LM to illustrate that voting rituals and politics were heavily involved in Roman Religion. Divine status could be bestowed upon a person by a vote. Religious laws regulating sacrifices to the pagan gods were mandated through legislation. Merely mixing in some fallacious appeals to numbers in the form of democratic rituals to establish "social facts"( sacred "truths" socially accepted in a nation or culture by virtue of faith - the belief that the earth is flat or the "fact" the emperor is a god are examples of social "facts" ) does not magically wash the religion out of a dogmatic belief system based on belief in non corporeal "entities".

Imperial cult (ancient Rome)[edit]

"The Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified emperors and some members of their families with the divinely sanctioned authority of the Roman State. The framework for the Imperial cult was formulated during the early Principate of Augustus, and was rapidly established throughout the Empire and its provinces, with marked local variations in its reception and expression.

Augustus' reforms transformed Rome's Republican system of government to a de facto monarchy, couched in traditional Roman practices and Republican values. The princeps (later known as Emperor) was expected to balance the interests of the Roman military, Senate and people, and to maintain peace, security and prosperity throughout an ethnically diverse empire. The official offer of cultus to a living emperor acknowledged his office and rule as divinely approved and constitutional: his Principate should therefore demonstrate pious respect for traditional Republican deities and mores.

A deceased emperor held worthy of the honor could be voted a state divinity (divus, plural divi) by the Senate and elevated as such in an act of apotheosis. The granting of apotheosis served religious, political and moral judgment on Imperial rulers and allowed living Emperors to associate themselves with a well-regarded lineage of Imperial divi from which unpopular or unworthy predecessors were excluded."



"But the persona ficta will not be ignored. He is a corporation, a collective person, a legal fiction, a convenient factor in legal reasoning..."

"The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact. They are artificial persons or corporations, and they exist because associations of large groups of men can conduct enterprises impossible to any member of the group as an individual."

"Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt."

"The necessity for perpetual existence compels personification of the state, to designate the mind of an entire people in action."

The Leviathan shows up as a character in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States[edit]

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law."
"States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law."
  • Bolded text added by LM777 to highlight the reference to the Leviathan, the supernatural "sovereign" higher power of statist religion.

Philosophical issues[edit]

"Patriotism may be strengthened by adherence to a national religion (a civil religion or even a theocracy). This is the opposite of the separation of church and state demanded by the Enlightenment thinkers who saw patriotism and faith as similar and opposed forces."

Statists just worship the flag as a secular idol and pray to "The United States of America" as their secular higher power. It has nothing to do with religion. Really. Statedidit. After 10000 yrs of government religion, all of a sudden it's now a secular institution. How do statists know this conclusion to be true(that their belief system is "Secular")? They take it as an article of faith. Ask them for facts to prove it and they will quote scripture (sacred authoritative writings) as the "proof", completely oblivious to the irony.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitional issues[edit]

"There is no academic consensus on the most appropriate definition of the state.[4] The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range of political phenomena.[5] The act of defining the term can be seen as part of an ideological conflict, because different definitions lead to different theories of state function, and as a result validate different political strategies.[6] And according to Jeffrey & Painter, "if we define the 'essence' of the state in one place or era, we are liable to find that in another time or space something which is also understood to be a state has different 'essential' characteristics"

The most commonly used definition is Max Weber's,which describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory. General categories of state institutions include administrative bureaucracies, legal systems, and military or religious organizations.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a state is "a an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. b such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America".

Confounding the definitional problem is that "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms in common conversation and even some academic discourse. According to this definitional schema, the states are nonphysical persons of international law, governments are organizations of people.The relationship between a government and its state is one of representation and authorized agency."

  • Bolded Text added by LM777 to highlight the reference to the Leviathan, the State as a supernatural "Person"LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The state and government[edit]

"See also: Government

A state can be distinguished from a government. The government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, that controls the state apparatus at a given time. That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.States are immaterial and nonphysical social objects, whereas governments are groups of people with certain coercive powers."

  • Bolded text added by LM777 to highlight the abstract, imaginary nature of the "State" as as entity. The "Person" of the state exists outside the physical universe, yet commands a particular realm within it. This is the supernatural "Person" Hobbes called "Leviathan"; according to Hobbes, it is "a god".LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

SEperation of Church and State[edit]

"The phrase “separation of church and state” was initially coined by Baptists striving for religious toleration in Virginia, whose official state religion was then Anglican (Episcopalian). Baptists thought government limitations against religion illegitimate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed their cause.

The preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (1786), affirms that “the Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will.’” And that He “chose not to propagate it by coercions.” This legislation certainly did not diminish religious influence on government for it also provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath."

Some interesting quotes on the non-separateness of church and state[edit]

From Leviathan(Hobbes), Chapter XII:

"But where God himself by supernatural revelation planted religion, there he also made to himself a peculiar kingdom, and gave laws, not only of behaviour towards himself, but also towards one another; and thereby in the kingdom of God, the policy and laws civil are a part of religion; and therefore the distinction of temporal and spiritual domination hath there no place."LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anarchocapitalism as a religion[edit]

The market is the saving grace of humanity. This mighty entity steers the course of history with its invisible hand, allowing society to prosper through the division of labor and efficient trade. Evil entities called states wish to hurt the market with their oppressive taxes. But the market is stronger than states. Even when states try to stop the market, it always finds a way. This is because the consumer is sovereign. This means the consumer is the lord of the realm. His sovereignty MAY NOT be questioned. Marketdidit. We hold these truths to be self-evident, but as proof one need only examine the sacred scriptures of VonMises and Rothbard. Thou shalt not commit aggression shall be the whole of the law, voluntary interaction under will. Liberty. Freedom. Anarchy. Property. LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Censored from "Rational"Wiki: Rationalism, the religion of "Rational"Wiki[edit]

Rationalism: It's the stuff of legends - Parody Religion or true story? Let Nathan Poe decide...

The founders of Rationalism, collectively known as the Board, in service of the pre destined plan filed the magic paperwork casting the spell that would create the entity known as the Rational Media Foundation (RMF), the messiah of rational thought, the saving grace of humanity (lest the teeming masses be left to a miserable existence of superstition and hollow dogmas). The virgin birth of the entity known as "The Rational Media Foundation" was accomplished via the supernatural power of "force of law" (It's really quite different from the secret, really - statedidit). When one fills out the paperwork in such and such a fashion and properly invokes the invisible higher power of the sovereign state of New Mexico, a new person is created by a type of magical virgin birth called incorporation (of course an important part of this ritual is to give some people called the government some money). This golden knowledge is proven by observing the sacred authoritative writings called case law, which inform us that corporations such as the RMF are people too. The RMF isn't the type of entity one can actually observe empirically. It's an invisible entity called a corporate person. To aid us in our faith, we can conceptualize it in the form of an anthromorphized idol. Statedidit. RMFdidit. Praise rationalism. Rejoice in the sacred articles of incorporation and ByLaws. May your rationalism be refreshed.

Golden Nuggets of Statist Wisdom[edit]

A rationalist challenge to the evidential basis (if any) for the existence of "corporate entities"

"If so, what is that evidence? If there is no actual evidence, then how do we know this whole faith-based concept of imaginary "people" is consistent with rationalism?LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we to take the existence of these magical entities as an article of faith?LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)"
"No, it's a matter of law and legal precedent. Do you have this idea that people here view corporate personhood as a good thing? Ikanreed (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)"
Creation of the concept of persona ficta[edit]
Innocent IV is often credited as helping to create the idea of Legal personality, persona ficta as it was originally written, which has let to the idea of corporate personhood.
So these entities "exist" because of "precedent" set by the pope. Lol. The pope says these entities are real, so they are. The same reasoning statheists reject in "religion" used to rationalize the supposedly "secular" faith in Government articles of faith (Corporate Persons).

Censored Again[edit]

So again, a statheist crusader- this time Maxus- has banned me for posting information he would prefer not get out there relating to his religion and made a bunch of strawman arguments and bullshit claims while I am banned for purposes of ideological censorship so I can't respond to his claims - misusing admin status for purposes of ideological vandalism/censorship attacks is pretty low but I don't put anything past statists. He admits he derives his paycheck from a government source, so the conflict of interest is obvious here as well as the source of the bias behind the ideological censorship attacks. This type of ideological censorship denialism that statists must resort to in order to maintain their narcissistic religious delusions of grandeur is evidence of the base irrationality of statism. — Unsigned, by: LogicMaster777 / talk / contribs 08:59, 12 March 2015‎

You have not been censored LM. You've been sanctioned for not accepting the clear and repeated verdicts of the RW mob: That your ideas are crankery which, at most, belongs on the debate and essay pages or on your talk page. You have repeatedly ignored numerous polite and patient requests to abide by these verdicts and now you've clearly gone into full conspiracy and persecution complex mode with your post on the donations talk page.
Are you really surprised that after having put up with your crap for months someone finally reacts when you're trying to sabotage the donations financing the site you're writing on?
Do you realise that you're not even being blocked to the extent of losing your access to this talk page (that you're writing on it right now for Pete's sake!)?
And finally, just a practical notice: I've limited the block to 9 hours, effective from now. Please try to keep a semblance of sanity when you get your normal editing rights back. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hand -waving off my observations as "crankery" is not even a cognizable rebuttle yet you act as if by simply hand waving them as "crankery" you have made some sort of actual refutation. What a joke. You're not even making a rational argument. Despite your hand waving, the facts stand: this site has a history of an unofficial policy which runs contrary to the "official" fake policy. Donors deserve to know what this sites REAL policies are, not just the phony PR versions, otherwise they are being defrauded. They are told about this site:
"We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." yet, statists routinely censor fact-based observations which undermine their faith for denialist purposes.
This site purports to be about a rationalist point of view which includes challenges to EVIDENCE, yet challenges to statists to provide EVIDENCE to back their faith-based dogmas which are asserted on this site as gospel truth are censored/vandalized.
Evidence-based analysis of statist articles of faith is censored for ideological grounds. Challenging if statist articles of faith have actual EVIDENCE is subject to vandalism. Hey, sorry statists, your anti-science religion has no evidence to prove it, but why should we be forbidden from talking about that? Because your magic belief system is outside the bounds of logic? Okay, when the best you can do to support your position is hand waving and censorship attacks, you might want to re-think your ideology. If you are so scared of a rational criticism of your beliefs or that they won't hold up to rational criticism that you need to censor it out, I don't think it does much to support your position as "rational".LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, LM. Your arguments have been resoundingly rebutted and refuted by everyone who bothered to respond to your ad nauseam claims.
As for you trying to throw the book at me: notice the "constructive dialogue" bit? Ad nauseam is not constructive dialogue and trying to sabotage the donation drive is downright twattish, considering that RW is hosting your walls of text for free.
For the final time: You're not being censored. Everyone can freely view this very talk page and you can still write on it. Had you followed the many friendly (and less friendly) pieces of advice and kept your ideas to RW's "opinionspace" (essays & debates) you wouldn't even be facing even this current minimal sanction. You have been repeatedly told why your ideas are crank and don't belong in mainspace, so your weird selective amnesia is yet another example of not engaging in "constructive dialogue" and hence why what by now amounts to trolling results in your activities being curtailed. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You haven't refuted anything. All you have used is logical fallacies. While my article presents actual evidence to support my falsifiable theory, statists have presented zero actual evidence to falsify it. The Statist apologists have run the gamut of logical fallacies: Ad Hominem, Hand-waving, appeal to numbers(you cite a suuposed verdict), appeal to belief, appeal to consequence, strawman, fallacies of composition and division, reification, ad baculum, appeal to authority/scripture. You have run out of fallacies, so now you are in desperation censorship mode to deflect from your lack of evidence. Going to do an article where I go more into the fallacies in depth and refute them one by one.LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as you don't do it it mainspace, go for your life. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
My point exactly, yet LogicMaster thinks censorship means something like "not having things my way", incl. a right to plaster anything he wants onto mainspace. As for the supposed logical fallacies, again the debates and responses and LM's reactions to them kind of speak for themselves (and speak volumes, literally and figuratively). ScepticWombat (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I do think the "Logic Master" should consider creating their own wiki of "logic."

The goatherds will especially enjoy the character of your works LM. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Poe's law in full effect.LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Short version: LM, you're a fucking idiot. Why not piss off? Scream!! (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
[[Lol, Statheists think if you call someone names you have refuted their argument, what a joke. When my articles were deleted the same "reasoning" is used as a rational for removing it - ad hoiminem attacks are used in place of logic/reason. Donors deserve to know that all information posted to this site is subject to ideological censorship. If this site allows such ideological based censorship, with name calling ad hominem attacks used as the only justification for deleting the material(no rational argument was ever put forth as to why the material should be deleted) Donors deserve to know what this site's policy is on censorship. The site should make it clear:

1. Under what circumstances is an article deletable? The presently accepted policy on this site is that an article can be dismissed if statheists don't like it because like duh statism. Donors deserve to know why info is censored - if it is to promote a statheist agenda then they should know that is the real reason.

2. What specific truths are not allowed to be discussed? The articles deleted were factually correct. There really is a doctrine of "entities" called "Sovereign States" intervening in human affairs in the Statist scriptures called "Case Law". I would agree it is pretty cranky to think that, but why exactly aren't we allowed to talk about it since it is part of the statist gospel? It seems like the statheists just don't want any rationalist discussion on these alleged entities, and they are pulling a Tommy Davis, like when he freaks out when Xenu is mentioned.

3. Under what circumstances are personal attacks allowed on the site? The official policy is that the site is based on rationalist pov and personal attacks are against the "official" rules, but the reality is since that is the best argument statists usually have, the "real" policy is to allow personal attacks in place of rational debate, as long as it's part of the religiously motivated persecutory agenda of the statheist contingent. LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should donors heed the word of one who calls every critic a statist and uses the term "statist" as a snarl word by presuming everyone on this site is some kind of state worshiping figure? The goatherds are not the only going to get mocked by any potential donor, though I still think you should consider creating your own wiki if you feel so passionate about the "censorship campaign."

Overall: a statement by Maxus should be heeded.

Criticism is not vandalism; censorship is hard to claim on a wiki with public access and your continued permission to write on it. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No, because articles get deleted because of religious ideology - Donors deserve to know it is happening and that it is the real policy. You talk about this statement by Maxus. Maxus' statement is pure ad hominem and fails to address the point I raised on the Donor Drive talk page. I talk about informing the donors of the site policies. HE goes into a ranting ad hominem directed at me personally without ever actually addressing Donor's right to know or the point that there should be consistent rules applied as to why and when material gets deleted. If it is the policy to delete material exposing statheism then that agenda should be made public, not hidden from Donors. Can someone actually address these actual issues I am raising. I know Statheists think Ad hominem rants are Logical refutations(or else they are merely using them to divert from the actual issues raised), but can we address the real issues raised:

1. Site rules - what are they?

2. Donors right to know the TRUE censorship policies of RW. Do they have a right to know and have disclosure BEFORE they donate?

3. If so, then please clarify for all of us potential donors what the site's policies are on censorship such as:

a. ideologically motivated punitive bans,

b. arbitrary ideologically-motivated deletion of articles with no rational reason given(only ad hom) that actually relate to the material in the article itself.

c. vandalizing commentary on articles on talk pages

Please try to actually respond to these points instead of trying to divert from the real issues raised w/ ad hom.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The True Rebuttal of Statheist Thought[edit]

The sublimation of the anesthesia of statheism can be subsumed under the politics of the enigmatic. Stringent treatment of the relationship between the sublimation of the anesthesia of forgetting and the politics of the enigmatic is unconvincing. The epistemology of the enigmatic is closely allied with the linguistic construction of the statheism. Often ridiculed treatise son the relationship between the epistemology of the enigmatic and the linguistic construction of the statheism throws out the metatextual baby with the textual bathwater. The exploitation of the culture industry has recently been consecrated as the project of semantic drift of statheism. Thoughtful reevaluation of the relationship between the exploitation of the culture industry and the project of semantic drift of statheism deserves praise for its attention to detail. The imposition of the real revisits the legitimation of the tension between nature and history. Breakdown of the relationship between the imposition of the real and the legitimation of the tension between nature and history is unconvincing. --Castaigne (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Like any religion, statheism seems to have some sort of truthiness to it. It seems to carry certain "common sense" moral imperatives which seem necessary for the function of a civil society. "Thou shalt not steal", "Thous shalt not commit murder". Would atheists Rebut these imperatives from the bible, or the principle of the golden rule? Probably not in general. I'm sure many of them believe that more likely than not there was a historical person of Jesus. There is probably a lot of factual information in the bible that would be accepted, so they probably wouldn't necessarily rebut the entirety of "Christian thought". The religion of government contains a mixture of fact and fiction. In rebutting statheism I am not presuming that the entirety of "Statheist thought" is necessarily "wrong" or a big lie. Specifically, I challenge statheists to present any actual evidence which proves there is an "Entity" called "sovereign State" which gives the government a divine right to govern. Thomas Jefferson spoke of a mystical "Wall" between church and state. Where is this wall statheists? Show me the evidence which proves "statedidit", that there is this "entity", this"higher power" of "Sovereign State". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Statheists show me this "entity" you pray to when you worship the flag idol so I know it's not all in your imagination.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


Anarcho-Capitalism is typically defined as believing there should be no state and that everyone should live in a Mad Max-style society. In this context, a "anarcho-capitalist fief" is typically conceptualized as a sort of unorganized social order where there is no government, the general welfare of "society" overall is ignored, and there is no protection from crime and invasion/foreign conquest. There are typically a lot of faith-based presumptions tied up with this belief and it typically includes some sort of faith-based belief in a particular sort of "secular"(?!) "free market" Leviathan-type deity, that is to say, the "existence" of imaginary, scriptural "entities" which rule over "anarcho-capitalist fief" through the avatars in Invisible Hand of Capitalism. These entities have names like "private defense agency", "sovereign citizen", "freeman on the land", "redeemed person", "Tea Partier", etc. These names of these imaginary "entities" or "legal persons"/"corporate persons" of the Anarcho-Capitalist religion are often the same as actual physical objects. For example, "private defense agency" can refer to a geo-physical land mass. But when we speak of "private defense agency" as "Executing a prisoner", we are not speaking of a chunk of land as the killer. We are speaking of an abstract imagined "entity" acting on the physical universe. This is the same as saying "Santa brought the kids some presents"; it is a form of reification. This sort of faith-based reification forms the basis of a whole set of faith-based dogmatic beliefs which comprises a religion unto itself. So there is the ideology of anarcho-capitalism, but there is also a religion of anarcho-capitalism which is pretty much inextricably linked with the ideology.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

PDAs Defined[edit]

The PDA is the gang that has achieved a monopoly on violence in a given turf in an anarcho-capitalist fief. The empirically observable characteristic of PDAs is organized extortion or other forms of violent appropriation of property. A financial analysis shows that PDAs are typically funded through extortion. Attempts to define PDAs through some sort of ideal such as "PDAs are that which is meant to arbitrate disputes in anarcho-capitalism" or similar libertarian feel good-isms fail as factual definitions and are irrational. The characteristics PDAs share in common are that they use organized extortion or similar violent or forceful or coercive means of appropriating capital.

Extortion Defined[edit]

the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.
Wait, you're supposed to pronounce it as ickstortion? Dang. :/ (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Specific examples of monopolistic extortionate business practices of government gangs[edit]

1.Taxation. This is an institutionalized taking of capital, typically in the form of currency such as government fiat currency but historically taxation has also included other types of property or capital such as gold or food. Taxation is usually done on some sort of percentage basis. The violent appropriation of capital in a taxation scheme is accomplished by the use of conditional threats such as "pay or go to jail" or "pay or get shot" or similar explicit or implied threats of enforcement action such as as seizure of property or shutting down one's business.
2. Licensing. This is where a particular freedom is restricted (through coercion) outside of the government's approval where the approval is sold for capital. To engage in a particular activity in peace on the government gang's claimed "turf" without being violently attacked by the enforcers of the government gang one must pay money to the gang. For example, if one attempts to operate a car on the highway without paying into the government licensing scheme, then one is faced with enforcement action by the gang's street enforcers which could include forcible abduction or carjacking or being targeted for further extortion in the form of a ticketing scheme. If one attempts to engage in business without paying for the "privilege" then one could be targeted for attack like being abducted in retaliation for selling lemonade without a license or having one's property taken or other enforcement action that can effectively "shut down" a business.
3 Ticketing schemes. This is where predatory lawsuits or similar legal proceedings such as criminal prosecutions are used to take capital using threats like "pay or go to jail" or similar conditional threats.
This kind of extortion is typically tolerated. The use of actual physical force under these schemes is uncommon if not exactly rare. They are thus highly efficient business models.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Slavery is basically when taxes are raised to 100%. The slave "owners" not only claim the labor capital of the slave and all the slave's property but actually claims the slaves themselves as property. While it may seem tempting for the government to just turn everyone into total slaves, historically outright slavery leads to revolt and a break down of the social order so governments have learned to stay off it since revolt is a threat to their monopolies. Maintaining the monopoly requires widespread social acceptance. Widespread social acceptance requires widespread faith in the government religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Looting and plundering[edit]

Sometimes open banditry is the method by which governments fund themselves although it is not as widely tolerated and when they get caught at it, it is sort of a political black eye.LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The double standard[edit]

The "made members" of the government mob routinely engage in conduct that would be considered criminal for a "normal person" to engage in. If a "normal person" issued a conditional threat like "Pay me or I'll send an armed gang to abduct you and hold you captive as retaliation", we would consider it a crime. So why do people accept it from the government?

Actually, they generally don't. Not for very long. History tells us that when the government monopoly is based on naked gangsterism or warlordism the order tends to break down and the gang is eventually deposed, killed or overthrown or else it basically just becomes irrelevant within one or two, maybe three generations if it even manages to last for one.

The Function Government religion plays in modernized, developed societies[edit]

What is different with the Dynastic governments such as the Royal governments of Europe or the Egyptian Pharaohs, Rome? Dynastic governments who maintain their organization, enforced order and "turf" through successive generations? The difference is that the government-enforced social order is not founded on pure gangsterism. The gangsterism is blended with a core religion, a government religion. The Pharoah claimed he was a god. The King claimed to be the chosen one of God. Wherever you find a dynastic government with a succession of leadership that gets handed down over several generations, you have a government religion and widespread faith in that religion. The United States government is no exception.

Within the context of a governmentally/religiously organized "social state" or civil social order, the extortionate practices of the government mafia are legitimized and normalized using the public relations position that the government is the savior of society.LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Society is conditioned to accept the reality of a central "authority" which is what provides the rationalization for the extortion - it is necessary to fund the enforcers of the social order and in so doing solve all the problems of society. At least that is how the public relations/propaganda system of government, the corporate media and public school system portrays it to us. That is the sales platform upon which the religion is sold to us. Like all superstitions, it is a belief grounded on primal fear rather than reason.LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Statist Math or 1+1=3 aka "E Pluribus Unum"[edit]

In statist belief systems, if a group of people organize, a sort of virgin birth happens in that an additional person is then created by magical thinking, and that magical "entity" is then believed in as "real"(reified) and given its own "personality" or "corporate person-hood". This is the basis of the Leviathan-type deity. So if you and I organize into a group we can by doing so create a third person, an "us, where us literally becomes its own "person". If 50 humans live together in a town then they can create a "magical servant" in the form of the "corporate person" called a "city". So now those 50 people become 51 people. And if those 51 people organize with the 51 people in the next town then a third magical entity, the "county" can be imagined into existence. This magical entity, like the "city" "entities" is anthromorphized as its own "person" so now we made 103 people from the 100 people, 100 flesh and blood humans and their 3 magical servants, the two cities and the "county", the corporate "persons" of the cities and the counties being created through the Secret, imagining them into "existence". Then we scale this up another level and we arrive at the "corporate person" of the "State". The "corporate person" called "the United States of America" is created by combining the "States" and through the alchemy and ritual of constitutional scripture a 51st "State" is created, the over-state or super-state. This Leviathan type deity called "The United States of America" is then reified as "real" and anthromorphized as an actual "person" and is believed to be "sovereign". Politicians then claim their divine right to rule comes from this sort of Leviathan entity, the abstract non-corporeal higher power(s) of government religion.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This concept is reflected in the government religion's unofficial "other" motto: E Pluribus Unum. This is Latin for "One from Many". The idea of the "corporate person", the "One" who is also "the many".LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Authority[edit] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The word authority (Derived from the Latin word auctoritas) can be used to mean power given by the state (in the form of government, judges, police officers, etc.) or by academic knowledge of an area (someone can be an authority on a subject)."LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Magical Servants[edit]


"How is a Magical Servant made?
Perhaps first I should answer the question: what is a magical servant? A magical servant: also known as a servitor: is a magical non- physical being (imaginary friend with function) which is the servant for a mage (Magician) or witch. ("Mage" is a diminutive term for "Magician" and most people do not use it in real life other than in gaming). Servitor is usually set precise tasks to perform."LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Material on Government Religion[edit]

George Washington (1840 statue), A tax-funded sculpture depicting Washington as a classical greek god based on an ancient sculpture of Zeus[edit]

George Washington (Photo, ca. 1899)
George Washington (Photo, ca. 1899)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The U.S. Congress commissioned Greenough to create a statue of Washington for display in the U.S. Capitol rotunda. When the marble statue arrived in Washington, DC in 1841, however, it immediately generated controversy and criticism. Many found the sight of a half-naked Washington offensive, even comical. The statue was relocated to the east lawn of the Capitol in 1843. Disapproval continued and some joked that Washington was desperately reaching for his clothes, then on exhibit at the Patent Office several blocks to the north. In 1908, the statue was brought back indoors when Congress transferred it to the Smithsonian Castle, where it remained until 1964. It was then moved to the new Museum of History and Technology (now the National Museum of American History).

The second coming: Lincoln[edit]

US One Cent Obv

Lincoln is the second coming, the next messiah to come after Washington in the government religion.

From Abe Lincoln's sermon known as the "Lyceum Address" (1838)

"Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars."LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed."LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Kind of highlights one of the inherent logical contradictions of the statist belief system. Some laws are bad, but we should still follow them. In essence the assertions of Lincoln lead one to the conclusion that it can be good to do what is bad (if the legal scripture is "bad" it is still "good" to follow it because the religion of government says so).LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
[Government religion], therefore [Ought] = [Ought Not]. This is the irrationality of statism reduced to a nutshell.LogicMaster777 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Columbia" (/kəˈlʌmbiə/; kə-lum-bee-ə) is a historical and poetic name used for the United States of America and also as one of the names of its female personification. It has given rise to the names of many persons, places, objects, institutions, and companies; e.g., Columbia University, the District of Columbia (the national capital), and the ship Columbia Rediviva, which would give its name to the Columbia River. Images of the Statue of Liberty largely displaced Columbia as the female symbol of the U.S. by around 1920.[1]"LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Especially in the 19th century, Columbia would be visualized as a goddess-like female national personification of the United States, comparable to the British Britannia, the Italian Italia Turrita and the French Marianne, often seen in political cartoons of the 19th-early 20th century. This personification was sometimes called "Lady Columbia" or "Miss Columbia".

The image of the personified Columbia was never fixed, but she was most often presented as a woman between youth and middle age, wearing classically draped garments decorated with the stars and stripes; a popular version gave her a red-and-white striped dress and a blue blouse, shawl, or sash spangled with white stars. Her headdress varied; sometimes it included feathers reminiscent of a Native American headdress, sometimes it was a laurel wreath, but most often it was a cap of liberty.

Statues of the personified Columbia may be found in the following places:

The Pentagram Ritual[edit]

"On the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram
by Tim Maroney
The Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram is one of the chief rituals of Western Magick. It has been with us at least since the Golden :Dawn of the nineteenth century, and it has penetrated into all the many Golden Dawn spinoffs, including Neo-Paganism. Yet there is still no widely available, clear instruction. The directions of the magical orders are mere mnemonics for those who are assumed to have personal instructors. To formulate my personal approach to the ritual, to aid any others who may be considering practicing the LBR, and to satisfy the idle curiosity of any gawking onlookers, I have put together this short discussion of the ritual and its symbolism and performance.
A. Intent of the Ritual

The real action of a magick ritual takes place in the mind. Ritual is a form of moving meditation. The effect is also primarily psychological.* The LBR is a tool to facilitate meditation."LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Modern Day Government Religion Pentagram ritual[edit]

As Maroney informs us in section C of the tutorial, the exact form of the ritual doesn't need to be followed to a t:

"First, as with any ritual, you should feel free to make it yours, to mess around with it. If you don't start to at least play with the styles of a ritual after a while, you are probably not doing it very well. It is perfectly legitimate to substitute cognate symbols at any time. However, the saying in the martial arts is that one first learns another's style, and after mastering it, moves on to create one's own. For a beginner, it will be easiest simply to use an existing ritual form in order to explore the meaning of a banishing ritual."

The modern institutionalized government form of pentagram ritual has some marked differences from the Aleister Crowley ritual, as well as some obvious similarities. A look at the Frank Bellamy ritual with a comparison and contrast with the traditional occult ritual Crowley learned from the wizard priests of the Golden Dawn (a church based on a magical religious philosophy founded by three freemasons. It seems to share much in common with freemasonry, but with more emphasis on magic and belief in specific deities rather than the sometimes unspecified "grand architect of the universe" of freemasonry, where the exact "personality" of the supreme being tends to being somewhat left open to interpretation.):LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


"B. The Ritual
I'll just reprint the description of the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram from Liber O, a publication of the occult order A.'.A.'.
i. Touching the forehead, say "Ateh (Unto Thee)."
ii. Touching the breast, say Malkuth (The Kingdom).""LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
iii. Touching the right shoulder, say "ve-Geburah (and the Power)."
iv. Touching the left shoulder, say "ve-Gedulah (and the Glory),
v. Clasping the hands upon the breast, say "le-Olahm, Amen (To the Ages, Amen)."
This is very similar to the Frank Bellamy Pentagram ritual. "Unto thee The Kingdom" bears striking resemblance to "To the republic...One Nation". Followed by a song celebrating the glorious triumph of the revolutionary armies and their magnificent military power. All while holding one's left hand to the left breast or shoulder like in step ii or iv.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"vi. Turning to the East, make a pentagram (that of Earth) with the proper weapon (usually the Wand). Say (i.e. vibrate) "IHVH" (Ye-ho-wau*)"

In the "pledge of allegiance" there are 50 pentagrams on a flag usually hung on a pole or on a wall rather than drawn on the ground. In this regard, it resembles the "greater" pentagram ritual of "invocation" more than the "Lesser" ritual of banishing. Although the government religious pentagram ritual is meant as both invocation and banishment. "Under God" comes after "One Nation" in the statist prayer, similar to names of God and supernatural higher powers used in the invoking ritual. The main point is to invoke the higher power of "The United States", the supreme deity of the government religion and to reinforce religious devotion for the government religion and feelings of patriotism. It is also intended to banish the loyalties immigrants might hold to foreign governments or their patron politico-religious deities. LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"The Vibration of God-Names
In the LBR, the vibration of the god-names "charges" or "enlivens" the pentagrams in the air. This is difficult to describe, but easy to recognize. There is a feeling of presence in one of these charged warding images -- though not necessarily a feeling of true externality or separate intelligence. Weare told to "vibrate" the names."
The statist has a religious experience as they say the name "United States of America", the name of the Supreme Leviathan-type deity of the government religion. They feel a sense of connection to something greater than themselves. They "vibrate" in unison rhythm and pitch with others present(typically in the rhythmic cadence also used in public recitations of the Lords Prayer) and then typically have a segment of ceremonious musical vibrations in the form of a hymn. This vibrational ritual engenders a sense of mystical patriotism. The emotional charge can reach intensity levels bordering on ecstasy or a sense of rapture.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Some Background on the pledge of allegiance and Frank Ballamy, a wizard priest who made up a pentagram ritual[edit]


Author of
This tribute to Bro. Francis Bellamy was writ-ten by Bro. John R. Nocas, 33 ø, PGHP, and condensed by him for use as a Short Talk :Bulletin.

~ (Hand writen) ~

Who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance to our Flag? Can you imagine a time when this was not known?
Well, truth is stranger than fiction, for up until 1939 it was not certain who had written the Pledge, and what's more, until that time no one seemed to care. Finally, in that year, after years of research a committee of the U.S. Flag Association ruled that Francis J. Bellamy had indeed written our Pledge of Allegiance. Shown above is the Pledge in his own handwriting. The "to" was inserted for the sake of rhythm. The Reverend Francis J. Bellamy was a Mason, a member of Little Falls Lodge No. 181, Little Falls, New York. The Order of the Eastern Star erected a memorial tablet to him in 1955 in Oriskany, New York.
At the First National Flag Conference in Washington, D.C., June 14, 1923, the words "the Flag of the United States" was substituted for "my flag." The change was made on the grounds that those born in foreign countries might have in mind the flag of their native land when giving the Pledge. The Second National Flag Conference in Washington on Flag Day, 1924, added, for the sake of greater definition, the words "of America." On Flag Day, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed an Act of Congress adding the words "under God." For greater meaning and proper presentation when reciting the Pledge there should be only three pauses: 1. After "America;" 2. after "stands;" and 3. after "indivisible.""LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Some background on Aleister Crowley, a wizard priest who taught pentagram rituals in Magickal guide books[edit]

From Aleister Crowley

"The Englishman Aleister Crowley (1875 - 1947) was one of the most notorious occultists of his day, and perhaps of modern times. Self-styled as "The Beast 666," he went out of his way to live up to it with his sensationalism and self-promotion. He wrote a number of textbooks on ceremonial magick, most of which are still in print today."

"He also founded and was head of a number of occult fraternities. In short, he exerted a significant influence on occult circles that has continued to grow dramatically, long after his death. "

"The Amalantrah Working

In January through March of 1918 Crowley began a series of magickal workings called the Amalantrah Workings in furnished rooms in Central Park West, New York City. These were a performed via Sexual & Ceremonial Magick (his spelling) with the intent to invoke certain "intelligences" to physical manifestation."

So interestingly, the wizzard priests Frank Bellamy and Alleister Crowley were neighbors right around the time they were each making up their own respective pentagram rituals to summon supernatural higher powers. And both Freemasons. LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What does this Freemason speak of refering to a "Masonic Destiny of the American revolution?"[edit]


"In August 10, 1782 Washington wrote the earliest surviving exchange of his Masonic correspondents. These early letters were with his Brother and friend Elkanah Watson presenting him with a specialized Masonic Apron symbolizing the union of France and the newly formed republic under the All Seeing Eye of Providence. This apron is now in possession of Alexandria-Washington Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. In his memoirs Bro. Watson states:
“Wishing to pay respect to our beloved Washington, I employed, in conjunction with my friend M. Cassoul, nuns in one the convents at Nantes to prepare some elegant Masonic ornaments, and gave them a plan for combining the American and French Flags on the apron designed for this use. They were executed in a superior and expensive style. We transmitted them to America accompanied by an appropriate address.” (Men and Times of the Revolution, Elkanah Watson,1856, pp. 135, 136)
The Layfayette Apron

This Apron is not to be confused with the apron hand made by Bro. Layfayette Washington received at Mount Vernon in 1784. Along with this apron received from Watson and Cassoul, they included a letter celebrating the Masonic character of Washington and the Masonic destiny of the American Revolution. This Masonic destiny is the product of the enlightenment, which sought to take Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the light of liberty and democracy."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Saint Washington, the Chosen One, destined to be the Messiah of Masonic Prophesy, the perfect man[edit]

From: "Watson and Cassoul wrote “ In the moment when all Europe admire and feel the effects of your glorious efforts in support of American liberty, we hasten to offer for you acceptance a small pledge of our homage. Zealous lovers of liberty and its institutions, we have experienced the most refined joy in seeing out chief and brother stand forth in its defense of a newborn nation of Republicans. Your glorious career will not be confined to the protection of American liberty, but its ultimate effect will extend to the whole of human family, since Providence has evidently selected you as an instrument in his hands, to fulfill his eternal decrees.” January 23rd, 1782. LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


George Washington, The Mason
"George Washington joined the Masonic Lodge in Fredericksburg, Virginia at the age of 20 in 1752. His Masonic membership, like the others public titles and duties he performed, was expected from a young man of his social status in colonial Virginia. During the War for Independence, General Washington attended Masonic celebration and religious observances in several states. He also supported Masonic Lodges that formed within army regiments.
At his first inauguration in 1791, President Washington took his oath of office on a Bible from St. John's Lodge in New York. During his two terms, he visited Masons in North and South Carolina and presided over the cornerstone ceremony for the U.S. Capitol in 1793.

In retirement, Washington became charter Master of the newly chartered Alexandria Lodge No. 22, sat for a portrait in his Masonic regalia, and in death, was buried with Masonic honors.

Such was Washington's character, that from almost the day he took his Masonic obligations until his death, he became the same man in private that he was in public. In Masonic terms, he remained "a just and upright Mason" and became a true Master Mason. Washington was, in Masonic terms, a “living stone” who became the cornerstone of American civilization. He remains the milestone others civilizations follow into liberty and equality. He is Freemasonry's “perfect ashlar” upon which countless Master Masons gauge their labors in their own Lodges and in their own communities."LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Some background on Rousseau[edit]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva on June 28, 1712, was a philosopher, writer, andcomposer of 18th -century Romanticism of French expression. His political philosophy influenced the French Revolution as well as the overall development of modern political,sociological, and educational thought. Rousseau, a Freemason, was interred as a national hero in the Pantheon in Paris, 1794, 16 years after his death."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"Rousseau was active at the height of the French Enlightenment. Thinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot, and d'Alembert headed a movement that placed supreme faith on the powers of reason. They were disdainful of religion or blind faith of any kind, believing that reason and knowledge could slowly bring about the betterment of humankind. Diderot and d'Alembert undertook the editorship of the Encyclopedie, the crowning glory of the Enlightenment, which was meant to serve as a record of all human knowledge collected to date. Rousseau was initially friends with the other Enlightenment figures, and contributed several articles (mostly on music)to the Encyclopedie. However, he did not share their faith in reason or human progress, and intellectual and temperamental differences increasingly drew them apart."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"When it was first published in 1762, The Social Contract was met with outrage and censorship. Rousseau became a wanted man both in France and in his native Geneva. However,thirty-two years later, in 1794, after the French Revolution his remains were transported to the Pantheon in Paris and he was buried as a national hero. The Social Contract was the foremost influence on the intellectual development of the French Revolution, and that stormy period in history is our best example of Rousseau's ideas put into practice. It is not fair to blame the Reign of Terror and the many disasters of the Revolution on Rousseau, but his influence was certainly felt throughout."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


1. Why was Rousseau's book so controversial? 2. How did Rousseau's philosophy influence the French revolution?LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC) 3. Bonus Question. How did Rousseau's philosophy influence the American revolution?LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Some Background on magical pentagram symbolism in government and the connection with freemasonry[edit]

From "The Pentagram Comes To The New World

"In the Freemasonry order, Man as the smaller aspect of the universe was and is associated with the five-pointed Pentagon. The symbol was used, interlaced and upright for the sitting Master of the Lodge. The geometric properties and structure of the Endless Knot were appreciated and symbolically incorporated into the 72-degree angle of the compasses, the Masonic emblem of virtue and duty. The origins of freemasonry are lost in the depths of history, obscured by the traditional 'craft'-secrecy of the order, but there are signs throughout history of the associations of craftsmanship and ritual and symbolism that have remained known only to a few, and the history of the pentagram has remained occluded in the same kind of mystery. The womens branch of freemasonry uses the five pointed 'Eastern Star' as its emblem. Each point commemorates a heroine of biblical lore."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This above seams mostly true and consistent with other sources. I'm tempted to use it as a source but then:

"More than half of America's Found[ing] Fathers were Freemasons or practioners of Deism. And we can see how they strived greatly to institute a society that separated church and state in order to eliminate yet another occurrence of the Inquisition. They were very meticulous in their attempts to create a secular government. But they also incorporated elements of the pentagram symbology into American symbols. Possibly because they understood how wide spread the use of this symbol was within all religions. We see it in the 5 pointed stars on the flag, the eye/pyramid on money, and even the layout of the nations capital was designed to reflect Freemasonry symbology."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems pretty speculative and almost presumes to read the minds of the FF's. Seams highly opinionated and makes me not want to cite this as a source.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Further, the "they incorporated elements... ...into Government Symbols" isn't strictly speaking factually accurate.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"In 1791, Pierre Charles L'Enfante(the designer, who was a Freemason), laid out Governmental Center of Washington, D.C., he planned more than just streets, roads, and buildings. Through his designs, he incorporated certain occult magikal symbols in the layout of U.S. Governmental Center. And of course, many fundamental Christians see this symbol as satanic. In actuality, it's merely just the top portion of the alchemical formula."LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Central on our Rosicrucian Altars in the S.R.I.C.F. is the figure of the Pentagram (also called the pentacle, pentalpha, pentangle, pentancle), a five pointed star, formed by 5 straight lines between the vertices of a pentagon and enclosing another pentagon. The name pentagram is Greek, from penta (“five”) and gramma (“letter”). One of the most intriguing symbols of esotericism, it is has been held to have magical properties since time immemorial, and is a symbol that has been both revered by initiates as a talisman of power, and shunned by the masses in abject fear for hundreds of years."LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Right Freemasonry may not well represent Freemasonry on the average, so this may be somewhat of a biased source.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't link to conspiracy sites, it increases their rankings. Thanks in advance. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a conspiracy site. It appears to be a site on freemasonry written by actual scottish rite freemasons. While freemason-created sites in my opinion can be sort of agenda-driven, I think they are a pretty good source about what actual freemasons really believe, even if maybe they are sort of slanted in the presentation. But yeah, I am trying to stay off conspiracy-based sources (although I'm sure some of the conspiracy theories may be true, I'm trying to rely on facts that are not really in dispute and stay off speculation). Was sort of wondering where Bellamy got this idea for the pledge of allegiance. Obviously it is derived from the Lord's prayer(it uses a near-identical pitch, rhythm, cadence, stanza form, etc), but interestingly it also contains most of the elements of the greater pentagram ritual of the Golden Dawn. LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The Master of Logic[edit]

I am the Supreme Master of both Logic and logic. If you are here I own you and you must obey me for it has been decreed through the power of Logic.LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Two anti-authoritarians have a bitch sesh[edit]

Two antiauthoritarians meet in the park to play chess. They naturally get into a bitching session about "statism", which (as all statists know) is whatever anti-authoritarians don't personally like.

Anarchist: the taco I left in my car went bad. Spoiled food is so statist.
Libertarian: I told you not to buy a black car. Being all hot and uncomfortable in the summer is statist.
Anarchist: Yea, good point. Check mate. Say, your strategy toward the end was rather statist.
Libetarian: It is so statist of you to do a touch down dance like that when you win. Bad sportsmanship is rather statist, don't you think?
Anarchist: Ya, speaking of touchdowns, who do you think will win the game this weekend?
Libertarian: Football is so statist I don't even watch it anymore.
Anarchist: Shall we play another match?
Libertarian: I really state it when you win. Rematch.

LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, LogicMaster777!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hi, and welcome to Rationalwiki! Just so you know, I deleted your debate page on "is the constitution a religious document" because it would make more sense, and be more practical for a debate, if it was part of your discussion on whether government is a religion instead of off on it's own.--Miekal 20:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the actual rule or site policy that you think makes this ok? So I know it's not just authoritarian censorship? k? I mean social security is one of your advertisers, you're not just censoring rational debate because of that conflict of interest are you? User:LogicMaster777/sig
I didn't censor it, i moved it since it covered most of the same ground as the other and thus everything is better served having them be on the same page instead of two small debates on their own page. It was about making sure both got seen!--Miekal 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You are so right!Thanks!LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please fix your signature[edit]

It's supposed to link to your user and user talk pages and display datestamps for your posts.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

All you need to do is to either create the template that you are using as a signature now, or restore the default signature settings. In case you are adding that subpage manually: you can sign with four tildes (~). When you save the page, they will be replaced automatically by a signature.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
If you're going to say all those words, can you atleast have a working signature please? --Miekal 00:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

K. Thanks I hope Im doing this right.LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this helpful page if you want information on how to make a proper signature. Please let me know if you want any help, as I am always happy to assist. Noisemobile (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Awesome thanks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered sanity?[edit]

I know this is really damn antagonistic of me, but have you considered an approach where you don't go absolutely crazy defending an indefensible premise forever without capitulating points you're clearly wrong on? One of the things about communicating in natural language is that you can be alternately flexible and strict enough about your definitions to exclude the core identity of things if you're petulant enough about a debate. Arguing about existence through physicality is one of those things. You're arguing about about things existing in only one hyper-primitive sense, when you have to know better. Please, don't be crazy. You don't have to be. Ikanreed (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the premise which you say is indefensible and why is it indefensible?
Do you think there is a clear distinction between an abstraction and a physically concrete object? If so what is it? Do you think you can just imagine the state into physical "existence"? If that's not reification, then what is reification and how is that not it?LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether or not the government is an actual physical entity. The government is a sort of abstract concept that is useful for our daily lives. We could argue that the government doesn't really exist but in my mind that's really beside the point. Yes the government is an abstract idea, but it is an abstract idea that is greatly useful to our society and well being as individuals. I acknowledge the government's power because the government is a useful concept to me. If the government is a religion I guess I'll say that I worship the government and that I'm not an atheist, but to me that cheapens the definition of "religion" so much that it becomes a practically meaningless term. Samstr (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, the fallacious appeal to consequence, I get it I want to make a segment in the article that addresses this very type of argument. There are 2 types of fallacious appeals to consequence that sort of lie at the heart of the government religion: the ad-baculuum and the one you raise which is more or less the same argument made by Hobbes.
The tooth fairy is a "useful" idea if it gets kids over their anxiety when they lose a tooth. That doesn't make him "real". Spiderman has been a pretty "useful" vehicle for Toby McGuire. You are basically saying that since accepting your belief leads to good consequences, it is therefore "true". That is my interpretation - and you see this time and again from statists. The idea that an idea becomes "real" if it has good consequences to believe in it.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I define "government" as the orgainized group of men and women who charge taxes and are paid by taxes as employees or agents of the taxing orgainization. And I believe it is a very real thing.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
However you want to define it, is up to you, but this is the only empirically observable and naturalistic criterion I know of by which we can know government from non-government. Do you have any other empirical, naturalistic principle? Not an utopian ideal of what you think it should be but plainly what it observably IS? By what naturalistic principle do you differentiate "government" from "not government"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It is really, the corporate person, or the "entity" of the state, the legal person, the leviathan that is the religious deity of the government religion. It is a supernatural "being". You cannot observe the "state" directly. It is not an empirically observable phenomenon of the natural world, it is a conjured imaginary abstraction of the mind. Thus it is supernatural. Belief in this supernatural "entity" as "real" is really what makes the governmental belief system a religion in the most literal sense of the word.LogicMaster777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Success and a premature post-mortem[edit]

In the debate you started, the most sensible thing I can say is, "You'd've been better off arguing government is like religion." You didn't. I can't figure out what counts as success for you either. If it's to engage people, well, you win. If it's to be polite/reasonable, ummm, you're doing better than some (quite a few), but have room for improvement. If it's to persuade, nope, that's not working. In this debate, what counts as success for you? MarmotHead (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Where does my premises or argument fail? If I were a true skeptic success would be to arrive at a conclusion consistent with the data. What would be your idea of success?LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
My definition of success is persuading anyone else that your views have any credence. All you're achieving at the moment is persuading others that you don't know what you're talking about. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Have fun proselytizing. Have a nice night.LogicMaster777 (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So, if you're not out to change minds, what the fuck is the point of all the energy you have expended on the debate page? What is it you hope to achieve? Why are you bothering? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Knowledge of truth. What do you seek when debating?LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Except you clearly are not seeking knowledge of truth. The only "truth" you appear interested in is your own. You appear determined to force your view that "government is religion" despite many clear logical flaws in your argument. If you were seeking the truth you wouldn't be so dogmatic. Have fun proselytizing? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. What are the flaws?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


COMMANDMENT 1:It is hereby ordained that LogicMaster777 is the supreme representative of Logic. 2. Logic is hereby ordained and imagined into existence. 3. All things relating to logic, rationality, science and reasoning belong to LogicMaster777. Any person, entity or bot, computer program, intellectual property, and any other property, real or imagined in this realm is under the Exclusive jurisdictional command of LogicMaster777. 4. LogicMaster777 is granted logical immunity. He alone can use fallacious reasoning and have what he says still magically be true. 5. LogicMaster777 is the boss. All in this realm must obey LogicMaster777 6. This constitution may be amended but only through the use of logic unless by LogicMaster777 who may magically imagine amendments to the constitution and in so doing they can magically become true or untrue at any time at the exclusive discretion of LogicMaster777 through the magical power of Logic, of which LogicMaster777 is the master. 7. 777 shall be the official designation of authority. 777 and a capitol L is the official crest of Logic. 8. All who come here are citizens of Logic and must obey the Master of Logic. 9. In amending the constitution, a vote will be taken in which LogicMaster777, the one proposing change, and Logic itself shall have a 3 way vote. LogicMaster777 will count the votes since he is the only one who can directly communicate with Logic because he is the chosen one.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You're still not understanding that "consent of the governed" part where the majority of people must agree to follow the law of their own volition because you can't arrest everyone. You only understand the "or else" part. This is why most people on this site follow the rules even though most people on this site have never been the subject of serious administrator action. They do so because they want to. King Skeleton (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, maybe you can explain it to me? Are you saying there is consent of the governed?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You can challenge the commandments or propose an amendment through a democratic process.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, because the majority of the body politic must consent to be ruled, or claims of sovereignty have no meaning. In other words, we have to want to follow the rules, because following them benefits us in some way or makes sense to us. In the case of the state the benefits are all around us: standardised plug sockets, a system of law not based on kangaroo courts and lynchings, the understanding that if our house catches fire we can be sure the people who come to put it out are adequately qualified, etc. In the case of this wiki, we understand following the rules makes it a better place, because the rules generally make sense to us.
You can't punish the majority of people because it isn't practical to do so, so there must be assent from the governed.
Again, you're failing badly in your desire to "debate like an adult" with this reliance on trying to trip people up with semantics. Even if you succeed, you've just proven you're cleverer than your opponent, which doesn't actually mean you're right. King Skeleton (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Why do I need to be right? Why should that be particularly important to me in using logic to reach a conclusion? Shouldn't I accept whatever the data tells me?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Data doesn't "tell" you anything, you make conclusions based on data and reasoning. Stop trying to foist responsibility for your conclusions on your observations.
Okay. "No, because the majority of the body politic must consent to be ruled, or claims of sovereignty have no meaning." What reasoning proves this conclusion? Can you offer a formal logical proof or show how it is falsifiable?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You are responsible for your ideas.

And of course you should care about being right. If your reasoning leads you to the wrong conclusion, either your reasoning or the data is faulty. King Skeleton (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so then when you say "the majority of the body politic must consent to be ruled, or claims of sovereignty have no meaning" what facts and data lead you to accept this conclusion. Do I have a logical basis to accept this as true? Or is a dogmatic faith-based belief?LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop demanding I explain my explanations. I just told you why it must be so, a country cannot function if the majority of citizens do not obey the law because it cannot punish everyone. What part of that confuses you? Or is it that tearing posts to pieces to answer them is destorying the context of my statements? That's why people keep telling you to stop doing it, btw. King Skeleton (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
K sorry.LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Because you King Skeleton is so right I hereby appoint you the minister of education. I need you to teach the citizens of Logic how you used logic to reach the conclusion that the "majority of the body politic must consent to be ruled, or claims of sovereignty have no meaning". If you have the "right" stuff to be the Minister of Education, then I know you can do this. I believe in you.LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


You do realise appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy, right? It's also not debating like an adult. Wow, you can present something in a way that makes it sound silly. You can do the same with the laws of thermodynamics if you want to, it doesn't mean anything. King Skeleton (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes. You are correct. I apologize. So your argument, if I follow correctly, is
1. "a country cannot function if the majority of citizens do not obey the law because it cannot punish everyone, therefore the majority must consent to be ruled, or claims of sovereignty have no meaning." Ikanreed if you are reading this can you give us your take on this argument from King Skeleton? LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So this as a formal proof I would take as "If a majority of citizens do not obey the law-> then a country cannot function "If D then C" for the first part.LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If C then Majority consent or claims of sov are false or not true. so if C then M or N" where D= majority do not obey law C= Country cannot function M=majority consent N=claims of sovereignty have no meaning
So formal logical proof If D then C if C then M or NLogicMaster777 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this look right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It generally works better to state prepositions in the positive and use a ~ to indicate negation. So, D is defined as "a majority of citizens obey the law", C is defined as "the country can function", M is defined as "the majority consents to be ruled", N is defined as "claims of sovereignty have meaning", So, you state that ~D→~C, ~C→~M∨~N. This is not quite true. ~M∨~N→~C is true, but the reverse is not. What you said does not allow for a nation where people consent to be ruled but which does not function as a country. (For example, the U.S. during a government shutdown.) Here's a nice rundown of logical symbols.--TiaC (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

ThanksLogicMaster777 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"The argument you make by ~M∨~N→~C is: If There is not a majority consent and if claims of sovereignty have no meaning, the country cannot function and if they do consent and if claims to sovereignty have meaning then the country can function." Am I interpreting this right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Not quite, that's an or symbol, not an and. In natural language, "~M∨~N→~C" means "If the majority do not consent to be ruled or claims of sovereignty have no meaning then the country cannot function." This is equivalent to the contrapositive "C→M&N" or, "If the country can function, then the majority consents to be ruled and claims of sovereignty have meaning." Consent of the governed and claims of sovereignty having meaning are necessary for a country to function but they are not sufficient to prove that it can function. --TiaC (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
2. Could we also say that "a country can function if the majority do obey the law because it can punish everyone, therefore the majority must consent to be ruled, or claims of sovereignty have no meaning"?LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
How can it punish everyone? From where would it get the resources to do so? If everyone is in jail, whose money is paying for the jail, and who is locking the door? King Skeleton (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it necessary to your argument that we accept that "a country cannot function" is a "bad consequence?" for it to be true? Like if it were a good consequence, would that prove it false?
Do we have to accept that "claims of sovereignty have no meaning" is a "bad consequence"? If we can prove that "claims of sovereignty have no meaning" is a good consequence, does it falsify the argument?LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't decide if something is real on the basis of whether it is good. King Skeleton (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that since it is a desirable consequence that a country can function, and a bad consequence that it cannot, that it therefore follows there must be a punishment system, and further therefore, since there must be a punishment system for the good consequence of the country functioning, that the majority must consent to be ruled or else claims of sovereignty have no meaning?LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
At no point did I mention a state is desirable, my point is that a state cannot exist purely by forcing people to acknowledge it: they must desire to do so. What the people in the example must desire has nothing to do with what I desire. I could be one of the minority who does not desire a state and I would still have to acknowledge this is a prerequisite of the state's continued existence. King Skeleton (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So then the state is imagined into existence by wishful thinking? Statists imagine and reify the abstraction of the state as "real" because they "desire" it to be "real"?
K I'm trying to understand your argument. Please bear with me. Is my #1 above a fair characterization or is there a better way to put it?LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I see where Ikan was coming from on his criticisms of my argumentation. I want to put this into a formal logic proof. Like if p then q so I can better analyze it with formal logic.LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't see any part of it that's really mischaracterising my position, no. I think the essence of the problem here that you switched from simply proving the state derives its mandate from something other than the ability to commit violence to proving that it is good, which does not follow: no statist is ever going to claim a state is intrinsically good since there are hundreds of counter-examples of flawed or outright evil states and we must still have a definition of state that includes them. But your idea of government by force alone would give you no way to differentiate between an elected government and a military occupation force from another country. King Skeleton (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay so: If D then C if C then M or N.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"But your idea of government by force alone would give you no way to differentiate between an elected government and a military occupation force from another country." Exactly. Because in defining "what is government" we should not differentiate. "A government is that which is elected." or "A government is that which is under military occupation" fail as a definition because they do distinguish one as something else than the other.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
In figuring out what makes them like, we look at them all and ask what do they have in common, how they are different rules out that criteria as a defining characteristic.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What would Spock do Episode 2.[edit]

2 Vulcan Scouts have inadvertently strayed from their navigational path and due to the unforeseen complication of getting swallowed up in a wormhole they have been forced to land their craft on modern day earth.

Scout 1: Where is this place?
Earthling: It's called America. Shall I take you to our leader?
Scout 2: What is a leader?
Scout 1: According to my translator module it refers to a primitive earthling religious belief in a superstition called "authority".
Earthling: Huh? No, he's not a religious leader, he is the leader of the state.
Scout 2: What is a state?
Earthling: It's where we are. This is the united states. A bunch of states got together and made the united states.
Scout 2: Fascinating. And was this due to some sort of tectonic plate-shifting phenomena?
Earthling: No, a bunch of politicians decided to do this.
Scout 1: According to my earth concordance's description of 21st century earth technology humans do not develop the capabilities to do what you say for at least 1000 years. This must be a parallel earth. How did politicians join these separate land masses into one big land mass? Tractor beam? Tachyon emitter? Nuclear explosives?
Earthling: No. They used the constitution.
Scout 1: According to my concordance that is a piece of contemporary religious scripture. I believe he is using magical thinking.
Scout 2: Fascinating. He actually believes a magic piece of paper can cause land masses to shift?
Scout 1: No, I think he is equivocating a belief in a religious abstraction called "state" with a geographic area utilizing associative magical thinking.
Scout 2: Oh, so the state is a sort of abstract entity humans conceptualize as being attached to a particular geographic location? And the leader is the priest of the "state" religion?
Scout 1: I believe so.
Earthling: No I already told you its not a religion. You guys are idiots. The state is not like some imaginary thing like Santa, it's real.
Scout 1: Fascinating. How do you know?
Earthling: Cuz, there's people in jail.
Scout 1: And how does that prove "state"?
Earthling: You idiot cuz they put people in jail. If there wasn't a state how could it put people in jail?
Scout 1: How do you know that the people who put other people in jail are "state"? By what naturalistic principle do you determine they are "state"?
Scout 2: Careful I sense he may be getting emotional.
Earthling: You idiot. I'm not being mean I'm just being honest. You seriously don't understand the constitution. I already told you they put people in jail. Don't you get it?
Scout 1: According to my concordance, humans are raised in punitive environs where spanking and violence is common place and as such they often develop an equivocation complex in their neuronal programming matrix where the circuits in their prefrontal cortex are programmed via early childhood stimulus-response learning phenomena being programmed to associate being spanked and "learning" and thus the mental state of 21st century humans is such that fallacious ad-baculuum arguments are often not recognized as fallacious. This is further reinforced by the coercive nature of their education system. This coercive education system is also where the religion is taught through the use of further stimulus-response programming in the form of repeated ritual indoctrination through daily flag worshiping ceremonies meant to engender emotions of "patriotism"(from the greek root for "fatherland",πατρίς (patris) hence the reference to the religion's saints as benevolent "founding" father figures who art in heaven, immortalized in the sacred stones of Mt Rushmore).
Scout 2: You mean he thinks he can prove this religious abstraction is "real" by demonstrating that other adherents of the belief use violence as punishment.
Scout 1: Exactly.
Scout 2: Fascinating.LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, except that Vulcan has a military leadership structure and knows quite well what a government and legal system you fail in trying to portray yourself as a popular representation of logic and the subject you are using. I like how episode 1 failed so miserably so you hide episode 2 well before it. Failing again to straw man people who don't believe as you do instead of actually describing your point. If this wasn't so sad it would be funny. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
A military leadership = State? What about the "anarchist army" of Russia? Could a military organization be based on voluntary cooperation, and do we need to mentally project with the secret an imaginary collectivized "entity" to have organized self defense capability? What about government? Could such a thing exist without reifying an imaginary abstract "corporate entity" as "real"? Or is reification necessary to have a government?LogicMaster777 (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The Romulans and their militaristic state called, pleb.--Madman (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Can a constitutional claim of sovereignty be proven to be true or false or is it believed (or not) based on faith?[edit]

1 What makes a constitution true? Is it majority consent?
2 If it has majority consent is it true and if not is it false?
3 Can a constitutional claim to sovereignty be proven true?
4 Can it be proven false?
5 By what principle can it be proven true? By what principal false?
6 Is a constitutional claim of sovereignty a falsifiable proposition?
7 Is it something to be taken on blind faith alone.LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Constitutions are generally imperatives, not informative. It's a little odd to talk about truth in them. The sentence "Pass the salt." isn't really true or false. The closest you can get is whether or not you were then passed salt. This would imply that truth is a matter of enforcement. So, the constitution is true if the laws it makes are enforced.--TiaC (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
If punishment, then conclusion. The constitution isn't just imperatives it is imperatives given along with a claim that it is a law. So that's really what I'm getting at: the claim it is a law. How do statists get around this gaping fallacy? How is it different from believe in this book or fire and brimstone?LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ramblings of Logic[edit]

Did I break a rule? What rule? You can charge me in my court if you like to prove your accusation. Would you like to file a claim? I would grant such a privilege. But then I have to change into my magic suit.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact that citizens choose to obey the rules is not controversial. Sorry. King Skeleton (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But the fact that they also defy or disregard them sometimes is in dispute?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, but if even most people defy the law a state cannot function, which is why America is no longer part of the British Empire. You can't put most of the country in prison. King Skeleton (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Look Pal. I'm in charge around here. Look at my name. It says Logic Master right? What do you think that means? I represent logic. Me. I have the Logic Master name. Everything related to logic I own it because logic says so. This here is the sacred scripture of logic and it's automatically true just cuz I said so. And gues what? Logic says you owe me. Big time. Pay me a hundred bucks or prove why you don't owe the money. This is my court and you are in it. You are the defendant and the plaintiff is Logic. Now go.LogicMaster777 (talk) 11:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
OK Logic Master enough! You are hereby relieved of your privileges on the basis that you clearly don't understand them. Come home and stop bothering these nice people.--Logic Deity (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think the Logic I imagined into existence resembles some sort of deity? What would would lead you to think that?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the issue of assent of the governed. The majority of logic would have to accept your mastery in order for you to be the logic master. This does not appear to be happening. King Skeleton (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"The majority of logic would have to accept your mastery in order for you to be the logic master."

How do you know this is true? Can you give me a formal proof or control experiment to verify the conclusion?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

How can you have mastered logic if no logic has confirmed your mastery? This is like saying that you can prove you're wet without ever showing there's water on you. King Skeleton (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't reach that conclusion through logic. I imagined it to be true through the power of Logic.LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
That's how you arrived at your conclusion as well, correct? You just relied on an arbitrary made up belief system to imagine it to be true through magical thinking, right?
Appeal to ridicule, again. King Skeleton (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
How do you know what logic has accepted? Only I, logic master know that. For I am the Master of Logic and what I say is true because I imagine it into existence through the power of Logic. With a capital L asshole.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Does that captial L asshole mean you have the power to shit around corners? :O King Skeleton (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The power to do whatever Logic says I can. I even have a badge and a flag with a capital L. So it's solid bro. I just talked to the flag like an hour ago. LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
But wait, logic is an abstract concept which has no empirical existence, so your state double doesn't exist! You're double doomed! King Skeleton (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
In what way does Logic resemble a state?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I know I need to hire some guys to abduct people and lock them in jail. Then I'm back in business.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops did I say I? I meant we because you are part of Logic as well because you are here. See Rational? Like Logic-y and stuff? So I am your boss while you are in my jurisdiction. Cool huh?LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, that just means I'm composed of rat ions, which are charged particles of rat. Sorry. King Skeleton (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely you can do better to disprove than a non-sequitor? Until you prove it false you are my citizen and you must obey me.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Much as I could just block you for sixty five million years and point out you've been deposed, it is much easier to ask you to enforce your rule. Go for it, you cannot defeat the power of fifty billion trillion rat ions. We all have positive charge! Why don't we explode, you ask? It's bullshit, that's why! King Skeleton (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If you can prove why you don't owe me using logic then do so.LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Because you don't know how the OD template works. Also because you have no actual means of making me pay you, and I feel no compulsion to do so based on the services you've provided. Those thus far are worth minus two million dollars. Jesus said so and Santa backed him up, they charge per appearance in bad arguments. King Skeleton (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So then we can determine the truth value from enforcement of consequences/punishments? What if I did have my own enforcers, now do you owe me, why or why not? Does my constitution become true now? At what point did it acquire truthiness? When I made it up or when I start making people obey it by scaring them? When I punish someone? When I threaten to?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The flaw in your argument is you are assuming the truth is what ought to be rather than what is. King Skeleton (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And you accept the logical truth of my Constitution right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
"Until you prove it false you are my citizen and you must obey me." Was that just a "prove God doesn't exist or He does"-style argument I spied? I don't think that creationist debating technique box has been ticked so emphatically yet. Too bad that since it occurred here, I deem it inadmissible for the "you know which"-section. But pretty impressive that even attempts at snark seem to degenerate into a variant of creationist "logic". ScepticWombat (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Look, you haven't used the legislative tools I provided to you to change the scripture. Until you use them, the rules stand. If you don't use them then what can I say, you are refusing to participate in our democratic kingdom. So you have no right to complain. As Part of "Us" by virtue of being in the realm you are my subject. Don't start getting all seditious on me now.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Pics or it didn't happen.--TiaC (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Direct Quote:"I represent logic. Me. I have the Logic Master name. Everything related to logic I own it because logic says so. This here is the sacred scripture of logic and it's automatically true just cuz I said so. And gues what? Logic says you owe me. Big time. Pay me a hundred bucks or prove why you don't owe the money. This is my court and you are in it. You are the defendant and the plaintiff is Logic." - Now there is something truly psychotic. I have zero wish to insult, but this is witnessing something so crazy I truly think you need some real help. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, why is it crazy?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You claimed you are the master of logic because of a screen name that wasn't taken on a free website that whatever you say is true just because you said it. Then claim to own the website (which is also now your court) because, well, I guess the scripture of logic said so. A scripture I would be interested to see if it even existed. Then start trying to fine people because this scripture that doesn't exist has some entry about fining this user because you say so. This almost looks like the onset of schizophrenia. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The scripture is an electronic scripture. You don't know about those? Why is it so crazy for Logic to sue you? Oh and for your information I wasn't appointed by using logic. I was appointed by Logic using magical thinking. Get it straight. Have you even read my constitution. You are here. My rules apply to you through the power of Logic.

I am the master and you must obey me. One more thing: Logic says you owe me a hundred bucks. LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What would Spock Do?[edit]

Kirk: Spock I need you down in the Engine Room to reconfigure some computers.
Spock: Cool Story bro.
Kirk: Spock that's an order.
Spock: Ok.
Kirk: Spock, Do it now.
Spock: Why must I follow your order?
Kirk: Because I'm the captain.
Spock: Why does that mean I must obey?
Kirk: Because I represent Star Fleet.
Spock: So?
Kirk: So do it.
Spock: Why?
Kirk: Because I said so and I'm the captain and I represent star fleet.
Spock: What is Star Fleet?
Kirk: It's us.
Spock: How do you know?
Kirk: Because we're here.
Spock: How do you know we are part of Star Fleet without presuming Star Fleet exists?
Kirk: Because I talked to some guy on my telcommunicator.
Spock: Some guy said so? How do you know it was true?
Kirk: Because he represents Star Fleet.
Spock: How do you know he represents Star Fleet without presuming the existence of Star Fleet?
Kirk: If Star Fleet wasn't real, how did I talk to his agent?
Spock: How do you know what he was an agent without presuming that which you say he was the agent of?
Kirk: Look, I have this book of Starfleet regulations.
Spock: How do you prove the truth value of that book logically?
Kirk: Because the book says so. Now go fix the computer or I will dock your pay and fire your ass when we get to the next planet.
Spock: Highly illogical.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool fanfiction bro. Ikanreed (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC) this for real? Spock asks if Starfleet exists when they are the organization that built the ship, trained him and he has been progressing through the ranks for years? You need to get on drugs that can help. This is seriously the craziest things I have read by someone who can still write in somewhat normal English. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
So, would this be a pretty good argument? There is an organization called star fleet. Therefore, Spock must obey Kirk. Would we then have a falsifiable hypothesis?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Are you kidding? You forgot the part where he joined and as part of being a part of that he consented to follow the chain of command. You certainly made up that he didn't know what organization he joined, trained him, and has been serving for years...and was part of the crew of one of the starsheets they built. If he wasn't part of the organization he wouldn't need to be following orders (and likely wouldn't be on the starship). You complete missed the entire middle part and made up some fiction about his forgetfulness that borders on a traumatic brain injury. If those are things that need to be excluded for your hypothesis to work it's not even to the level of random bizarre thought...let alone hypothesis.
Okay. So Spock signed a contract. That would be using magical thinking since you are using something you imagined to prove your argument. But since I as the representative of Logic have power to use it, I will reify your abstraction. So now, the contract is the basis of the obligation to obey?LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, since the way you use reify and reification is not the way that anyone else uses them, I'm calling a Rationalist taboo on their use. From here on out, no one should use those words, they must instead define what those words mean to them in a way that can be understood by others. --TiaC (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I like this challenge. I will try to use other terminology to explain how I mean reify in this context. I can get why it seems sloppy or hard to follow because I used the term on the other page in a very different sense. Specifically, here as I use the term I mean to describe a particular logical fallacy used by Emerald city wanderer. He uses the assertion that Spock has signed a contract as one of the premises of his argument. Where do we get this "contract" from? Emerald City imagined it into existence and then framed his argument on the imagined contract. I kind of like this game of reification though so I think it's kind of cool to imagine there is a contract. It seems like it would be practical that there SHOULD be a contract if Spock is part of a "crew". But to just imagine it into existence that there IS a contract and then use this imagined contract as the basis of a logical argument would be fallacious. But it's a fantasy sci fi story anyway so the whole thing is [insert taboo terminology] IMAGINARY. In using logic I do not presume logic is better than fantasy. In writing sci fi we use IMAGINATION, but to say "spock said so and spock is an expert" when spock is imaginary and using that as a rational argument to support an argument would be a fallacy(that shall not be named since it's taboo to say its name). Just like saying "it's in the contract" and the contract is totally imaginary isn't really proof of the conclusion. You can't logically prove a conclusion just by pretending abstractions are "real".LogicMaster777 (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever even seen an episode of the series? EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No I invented the characters from scratch; why? Are you suggesting I got them somewhere else?LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay, now I know you are just being an asshole. Thanks for playing. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It's in the constitution that I can just imagine things to be true and they magically are. You accept my constitution as true right?LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Naw, this is mirror universe spock. They don't have the federation, they had the Terran Empire. Didn't you notice the goatees? Ikanreed (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Is it logical to be made out of meat? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Logic Master. Please stop this nonsense. you are making us all look bad.--Logic Deity (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If you put some Meat on a scale can you weigh it? If I had a pound of Star Fleet, what would it look like? Is there any particular reason we couldn't weigh it like meat? If so, what would be the reason?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Bro, if you give me my symbolic logic deduction we can appreciate how totally objectively right you are. Do you want a tutorial in how to use it? Ikanreed (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Fuck an A I do.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Have I presented a hypothesis?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
How about a logical proof of Kirk's hypotheseis? How's this? If star fleet and if captain and if regulations are true then Spock must obey.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So if SCR>O. Or something like that?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Meat is apparently able to make noises and communicate. A pound of Star Fleet would make a whoooshing sound as it disappeared from the pan of any scale you put it on. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutorial on Symbolic logic[edit]

Okay, so symbolic logic is a way of distancing your assumptions(premises), deductions, and conclusions from the thing you're trying to argue. It's helpful to debate because it let's your opponents challenge you on specific, undeniable disagreements or failings. It's important to note that proving things with symbolic logic only means they're valid if you assume the premises, and if someone disagrees with one of those, then your deduction is meaningless, because your disagreement is more fundamental than you thought. This typically involves going and attempting to prove the objected premise from agreed ones.

So that's why you'd use it. But I'm sure you're dying for how. There are several different forms. I'm just gonna address the simplest and most intuitive form, called prepositional calculus. This involves reducing your complex statements to simple statements of truth or falsehood, and using mathematical operators to describe the relationship of those truths.

Let's break down an example
"If a dog chases then my cat will run". There's a logical structure to this statement. If P then Q. That's denoted with the symbol "->".

So we can define P as "dog chases" and Y "cat runs".
That whole statement can be reduced to P->Q

And if I give define a third preposition called R as "My cat is missing" I can add another idea: Q->R

So if I take my two assumptions:
I can apply a rule called hypothetical syllogism
and find
P->R or "if a dog chases then my cat will be missing". That's intuitive for a simple case like this, but for more complex arguments these things can be lost.

What's more, the proof stands regardless of what P, Q, and R are

If P="It rains on my way home" and Q="I get wet" and R="I'm unhappy", the proof is identical. I arrive at the conclusion that if it rains on my way home, I'm unhappy.

What that means[edit]

Try to analyze what your exact assumptions are. No truly logical argument lacks them. Once you have them, try to construct your conclusion from them. Ikanreed (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. You are hereby appointed to the office of minister of logic.

LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's one quality I think you have[edit]

is that you are tenacious. I wish I had that level of sheer persistence and firmness. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg With just a head. And a burlap sack for a body. 13:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I am trying to present my argument in a manner that is falsifiable. Skeptic means open mind, not trying to "force" the data. I want to present my argument in such a manner that it can be falsified by evidence. Like if I say the "state" as a "corporate person" is just imagined into existence with the secret, I think you could prove that wrong if you presented an actual person who exists as a corporeal person and a naturalistic principle to prove it. LogicMaster777 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Zoo guard is a vandalizing troll bent on religiozealous censorship[edit]

Zoo guard does not understand "fair use". He deleted a bunch of images which are specifically chosen because they provide PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE to support specific evidence-based assertions which I have made on my educational essay, working title "A breakdown of the Contemporary Government Religion." He wants to engage in censorship to enable his denialist agenda trying to cover up photographic evidence which supports evidence-based conclusions he would prefer not be talked about. Now he has further abused his admin status as further censorship to prevent the discussion of this subject matter he is abusing his admin status to censor. Zoo Guard, please learn what fair use is and is not.

Fair use ≠ what zoo guard personally approves.
Fair use = Education/satire/commentary which is EXACTLY THE PURPOSE for which it was uploaded and for no other. Just because you would prefer to deny photographic evidence or want to censor a particular subject that does not in itself mean the material of which you disaprove automatically entails copyright infringement. As further evidence that your real agenda is to act in bad faith and abuse your admin status for vandalism MOST OF THE IMAGES DELETED WERE PUBLIC DOMAIN. HE DELETED THE CONSTITUTION! Anything published by the GOV IS AUTOMATICALLY FAIR USE. Either you do not care about or else do not understand fair use and copyright but are using this as a flimsy and transparent pretext for your aggressive vandalism and censorship of my educational literary work. Supposedly he claims that the photos are "random" yet they are specifically chosen for their evidence value(which is his real agenda in the censoring -covering up evidence). LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Now because I have confronted his aggressive actions of censorship perpetrated through bogus claims of copyright infringement, I am banned from posting on the site by the very troll whose abuse I am reporting and he is doing so specifically so that I cannot confront the abuse he is perpetrating or take corrective measure to resolve this attack.LogicMaster777 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the block. Regarding fair use, the Harry Potter images obviously aren't unless you're writing an article specifically about the Harry Potter films (it would still be a bit iffy then). The other stuff might be if fair use you're commenting on the content of the images & if no non-copyrighted alternatives exist. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how much of my other material you might have read but basically my assertions are based around evidence that going back to at least the jesuit priests that black robes have been associated as a symbol of priests or wizards. Showing wizards wearing this style of robe is EVIDENCE to support my historic analysis. In other words, it is used for evidential basis for an educational thesis.I think my use is germane to the assertion that there has historically been an association of black robes with wizards and priests like jesuits/catholics/aleister crowley/harry potter, etc. Which is how it ties in with the larger theory. Okay, whether you want to accept my premises or not, I am claiming the use of the images as fair use to support my educational thesis. I'm not using them for commercial purpose or spam.LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Simply asserting a conclusion that they are somehow just "random crap" is not evidence of "random-ness". If you are going to argue that they are not being used for fair use, please have something to back your argument other than naked assertions and personal attacks/ad hominem insults. Merely asserting that they are copyright infringement does not make it thus, and without evidence could be considered a libelous claim. Sorry but merely making the assertion that they are random and then insulting is not evidence which actually proves the assertion that they are random.LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not necessary to have the pictures on your userpage, because you could get the point across by mentioning them. That's roughly how fair use is defined. Do you need the pictures to make your point, or are they just decoration? SophieWilderModerator 19:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I do think they are the best way to illustrate the point. To say "look how much the robe looks like a wizzrd robe" with no picture there doesn't make the same point as well. It's one of those situations where a picture is worth a thousand words. Again, you seem to be taking the discussion away from what is relevant to "fair use". Whether the pictures are "needed" isn't what determines fair use. What determines fair use under fair use doctrine is that it IS AN EDUCATIONAL NON COMMERCIAL WORK. That's literally it. Trying to move the goalposts by trying to create a new made up armchair lawyer version of copyright law and implying my work has to satisfy this made up criteria of "is it needed?" fails as a refutation of my position. "Do you need the pictures" is established as criteria under fair use doctrine how? Because you just made it up? Please cite something beyond your opinion to support your assertion:"That's roughly how fair use is defined. Do you need the pictures to make your point, or are they just decoration." Bullshit that has absolutely zero to do with how it's defined. Cite a source or quit making shit up.LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Image copyrights[edit]

Please use the Fair use template if you are claiming fair use. Be aware that this is for specific use in one article only. (You don't actually seem to make any argument about most of the pictures on your userpage, making your fair use claims on that page shaky.) Also, don't name files things like PublicDomainFairUseEducational.jpg as that is a completely useless and annoying title.--TiaC (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Free Speech is an inherent right, even recognized as such in the scriptures of statism. Free speech is therefore presumptively "legal" unless proven otherwise. The one bringing the accusation of Copyright Infringement bares the burden of proof here. I do not have to prove the validity of their use. The merit of my argument or your understanding of the argument is not the issue in determining fair use. You can think all you want that I don't "seem" to be making an "argument". That's fine. The perceived merit or lack of merit of the argument is not an issue which has any bearing on whether or not it constitutes fair use. You will have to prove I am using them outside of an educational article or that I am using the article to make money if you want to use some technicality of the scriptural law to censor the article. No such evidence has been presented. Sorry I can tell you would rather censor the evidence china-style. It must really bother you that the scriptures are on my side here. Reporting the news as it actually happens (rather than the government approved version) in china gets you 10-15 I am sure you would love it there since you are so in love with punishment, censorship, and authoritarianism.LogicMaster777 (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
However, defending against a copyright claim still requires lawyers and therefore money. I know you think that breaking the law is perfectly acceptable, but there are consequences for doing so. Please cross your Is and dot your Ts so this won't be a problem. My point about how you are not making an argument is that there is no actual commentary using the images. You are right that merit of the argument does not affect fair use, but you do actually have to use the images in an attempt to educate instead of just putting them in a gallery without commentary. --TiaC (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a "pictographic commentary". Having said, that your criticism is noted. I will try to strengthen and expound upon the points that I am trying to demonstrate with the pictography-based segment. Thanks for the feedback.LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictures are not commentary on themselves.--TiaC (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Lol, I'm trying to make the commentary better. Thanks.LogicMaster777 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I updated your userpage to interwiki link to a clearly public domain WikiMedia Commons of the Constitution from the National Archives. I don't think you understand fair use very well, but this will obviate the need to engage the discussion at least as to this image. Check the WikiMedia Commons for other images you might wish to use (e.g. so you can directly link to the file and rely on their (competent) assessment of the license or public domain status of the image. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Any product of the federal government is automatically public domain(that's what the scriptures say anyway, shall I quote them for you?). It's not complicated - but perhaps you can further enlighten us?LogicMaster777 (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Re:The 3 reactions[edit]

You are, in fact, a religion. Can you prove your existence, brain-in-jar?--Madman (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Okay. Maybe I am. Maybe the universe is a giant hologram projected from the future. It's probably pretty likely actually.LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to AD(moved from statism talk page)[edit]

Disputed Edits[edit]

This is under dispute. It seems to significantly change the tone of the article, but there is no factual dispute. Overall, I have only ever heard the term "statist" as a snarling term used by the unreasonable, so I favor the current version over the new version, which is much more sympathetic to the libertarian demographic. Interestingly, it seems to me as though the dispute here matches the dispute about "force" that libertarians frequently bring up: trying to stigmatize the "initiator of force" and ignoring the fact that such a label is often just a matter of clever perspective. After all, if someone tries to take your television and you shoot them to stop them, a libertarian would say that they initiated force by forcefully violating your property rights, whereas almost anyone else would say that the person who employed the violence was the first to initiate force. It's a clever way of assigning guilt to anyone who disagrees with their ideals.--ADtalkModerator 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess you have to start with the empirical observation that people tend to accumulate stuff they perceive as valuable and this is a natural part of human survival-orientated behavior like ant hill building is for ants and that voluntary cooperation requires adherence to the NAP, which is kind of axiomatic although not necessarily proven. But generally, it is kind of held as self evident that voluntary cooperation is incompatible with acts of aggression. That consensual love-making to a rapist or giving a gift of charity to an armed robber is an oxymoron or self contradictory concept. You also have to use an axiom of ethics: golden rule. Just like you would consider it an act of aggression or "crime" in which you are a "victim" for a thief to break into your apartment and jack your tv, it would be also an act of aggression for you to do it to someone else since a theft is a violation of voluntary cooperation and nap since someone is intruding on your natural human survival-orientated behavior (accumulating stuff you think has value) and for you to apply a standard that it is wrong for others but not you it would be logically contradictory since there is an inherent special pleading fallacy. Just like interfering with one's natural human survival-orientated behavior of breathing or eating or locomotion and autonomy would constitute aggression. And you also have to accept the premise that you can own stuff without committing aggression by making others not own it which leftist anarchists and leftists in general seem to differ with more right-leaning. I think if these premises are legit then the logical conclusion is anarcho capitalism. Edit: Oh yeah, and you have to accept that NAP has good consequences and aggression has bad consequences and voluntary cooperation between humans has good consequences. So this can probably be tested with science. LogicMaster777 (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette.[edit]

New sections at the bottom of the page, please. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for the heads up. I am still kind of new on this site. Will try to improve my etiquette and form.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Bump because you've apparently forgotten about this. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Contribute something besides an-cap rants[edit]

Do you know why your complaints are just being instantly archived? If you answered "because we're oppressing you" read on to learn why you're wrong.

Stop it. Stop ranting on every page about one subject. No one cares. When you scream you're oppressed, no one believes you, because you're still quite free to do what you've been doing in places where it doesn't impair the work on the wiki.

If you want to be taken seriously, there's really only one thing you need to do: start making meaningful contributions. Edit any article that doesn't have to do with government. Fix something. Add something(but not about how government is a religion, we don't care). Find a factual error and point it out. Cite a source. Do literally anything but repeat the same line of reasoning that everyone rejects for reasons they find perfectly rational.

Then, after you start doing that. Someone might take you concerns about collapsed talk page comments seriously. Ikanreed (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Failing the above (excellently put, Ikanreed) why not just fuck off? Scream!! (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So then you admit that the censorship is ideologically driven rather than being done to promote the site mission or the actual rules of the site. Pointing out the logical contradictions of the Shlafly article is not a "rant", it is a topical criticism based on logical analysis. Logic is not exclusive to ancaps, we just apply it to government as well as "science" and do not recognize a non-overlapping magisterium where government is "outside the bounds" of logical, critical thought. I know you statists like to think of your faith-based magical religion as this logically consistent "secular" ideology, but it is quite self-contradictory and irrational. On the article, there is a "cultural war" mentioned. The article criticizes shlafly for his biblical faith, and then uses blind faith in case law and statute as an "authoritative writing" in a fallacious appeal to authority, using the same fallacy the article accuses Shlafly of. Pointing out this logical contradiction is being censored because the Statheist denialist agenda. Why is the irrationality of the Shlafly article above rational criticism on a rationalist pov site? Pointing out the performative contradiction from a rationalist pov is censored. That is evidence that this ideologically-based censorship is corrupting the rational pov this site claims, and undermines the legitimacy of the "site mission", turning the "rationalist pov" into a hollow excuse for this agenda for pushing an irrational religious statheist agenda as "rationalism". This is an intellectually nihilistic, corrupting influence on the site mission of a "rationalist pov".LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so no. Nothing but barking up the same tree. Shut up and enjoy your imagined oppression. Ikanreed (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Enjoy your self-deception, verbal aggression and denialist censorship. You only expose the irrationality of your agenda further.LogicMaster777 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
But seriously, it's pretty clear you're not being fucking "censored", look at how many words of yours we're more than happy to publish on the internet for free, as long as they aren't mistaken for ours or interfere with our talk pages and getting stuff done. You can either help or put up with having your rants removed where they don't belong. Boo-fucking-hoo Ikanreed (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You gave me the excellent logic tutorial. Thanks for that. One of the best things on this page. Yet on this topic, you abandon the principles of logic and argumentation ethics. You have endorsed censoring the evidence which undermines your faith, you have supported ideological censorship and vandalism. How do you reconcile these contradictions? To me it seems obvious it is driven by some sort of emotion-based religious agenda, the leftist Statheist agenda. Trying to promote the religion "secular"(?!) faith-based dogmatic belief system of government with its "secular" (?!) invisible imaginary higher power of the "National Sovereign" based on the sacred authoritative writings of magic men in black priest robes as a "secular" and even "rationalist".LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Have you considered speaking with a psychiatrist? Seriously, it'll help. CorruptUser (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate the non-intended-insult of this. There may be some value in seeking treatment, buddy. Ikanreed (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


  1. "Hail Columbia". Hail Columbia. Retrieved February 2, 2013. 
  2. Literata (2011). "Columbia". The Order of the White Moon Goddess Gallery. Retrieved February 2, 2013.