Bill White seems to be advocating lying on the Internet!

[Jake Featherston]

According to his surprisingly lengthy Wikipedia article (LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_White_%28agitator%29)), Bill White once told The Washington Post the following: "You should be able to write what you want on the Internet, whether it's true or not."

Now, there's more than one way to interpret that. If Paul Fromm of the Canadian Free Speech Association said that, for example, I'd suspect he just meant that Canadians shouldn't be oppressed for advocating political opinions that others regard as incorrect. But when a teller of tall tales and a holder of such minimalist credibility as Mr. White makes that comment, well, I guess that explains his 200+ fistfight victories per year....

[cyborg]

Should human beings never again engage in physical conflict, we are unlikely to retain capable combat ability for unforseen future needs.

Challenging people with erroneous statements encourages clear thinking to attain our higher goal of harvesting valid information.

Morality, unreliable when expected of all people equally, encourages anti-existentialism.

[Rusty Mason]

At the risk of appearing to be a defender of Bill White, it is possible to write something that is true to one person and not true to another.

[Jake Featherston]

At the risk of appearing to be a defender of Bill White, it is possible to write something that is true to one person and not true to another.

No, it isn't; what you're talking about is personal opinion. Truth supercedes such trifles. A statement is either true, or it is not (or, if complex enough, may contain elements that are both true and untrue, although in such a case would have to be regarded as an untrue statement overall, since it was partly false). Even if no one agrees with the truth, it remains true.

[Rusty Mason]

No, it isn't; what you're talking about is personal opinion. Truth supercedes such trifles. A statement is either true, or it is not (or, if complex enough, may contain elements that are both true and untrue, although in such a case would have to be regarded as an untrue statement overall, since it was partly false). Even if no one agrees with the truth, it remains true.

I guess that's why there are no courts or philosophers, because Truth is so clear to everyone.

[cyborg]

Courts force morality on everyone, not truth. Philosophers are janitors who must serve to exterminate falsehoods with extreme prejudice.

[Rusty Mason]

Courts force morality on everyone, not truth. Philosophers are janitors who must serve to exterminate falsehoods with extreme prejudice.
Man-Wolf, I did not say that Truth does not exist, or is relative. What I meant was that Truth is difficult to detect sometimes and that people perceive things differently, that's all. The difference of opinion is why there are judges, philosophers, and so many religions.

I don't like Bill White, if that helps my argument any.

[Negrotic Overlord]

No, it isn't; what you're talking about is personal opinion. Truth supercedes such trifles.

Agreed. Relativistic thinking is a hallmark of the liberal delusion.

[Kodos]

Challenging people with erroneous statements encourages clear thinking to attain our higher goal of harvesting valid information.

No its extremely annoying when other posters do it. See LF and poster "Kudzu".

[Rusty Mason]

I don't doubt that Bill White was advocating lying on purpose, for whatever nefarious plot he was dreaming on at the time. I'm only commenting on the possibility that he may swerved into some truth.

Here's an example. "Jesus Christ was God." True or not? I can take either side of a yes or no argument here, and still be considered a Christian either way, depending upon whom I ask.

Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth may or may not have been God, I don't know, and that's the whole point. I'm not advocating relativism; I know that absolute Truth exists. The Truth is in there somewhere (and maybe not in the form of a yes or no for this particular question) but who's gonna be the final arbiter of Truth for this question or questions like it? In your community, you can definitely declare the answer that best fits your knowledge, experience, and revelations. But on the Internet, whatcha gonna do for questions like this? We have to post what we believe to be right.

[cyborg]

Jesus Christ was a homosexual who sodomized Saul the Jew. Over time, Saul's tongue grew numb from excessive fellating and he could no longer pronounce the letter 'S' without an extreme lisp. His lips didn't numb as badly, so he could still pronounce 'P'. Paul sounds better than Thaul anyways, so now we have the True story of the Gospel as delivered to us from God. How can we possibly determine whether this happened? We'll just have to rely on our Faith that it is so.

[Negrotic Overlord]

But on the Internet, whatcha gonna do for questions like this? We have to post what we believe to be right.

Yes, and stupid people will post stupid things until you either:

1. Implement a caste system that restricts their "freedoms"
2. Kill them

[Kodos]

Yes, and stupid people will post stupid things until you either:

1. Implement a caste system that restricts their "freedoms"
2. Kill them

I reccomend the later for you, as part of our eugenic posting policy nobody should have to hear your stupid shit ever again.

[WFHermans]

Canadian jews have in the past prosecuted people for telling the truth in Canada, because according to the jewish Talmud the truth is a lie, if the truth prevents jews from committing crimes.
Absolute Truth exists, but what a lying jew claims to be the truh is not necessarily the Truth.

[Tchort]

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=9734

He is advocating and admitting to computer crime here..

[Jake Featherston]

I guess that's why there are no courts or philosophers, because Truth is so clear to everyone.

I never meant to imply that discerning truth was easy, or even that it had ever been definitively accomplished at all; the truth is not dependent on our ability to discern it. It just is. When we can be certain what is true and what is not, we will have achieved a status similar to that of a deity, I should think. That's a major reason I, for one, became a White Nationalist i.e., because of my enthusiasm for a eugenic regime which will hasten the day mankind achieves its higher destiny (as opposed to the more statistically likely lower destiny of extinction).

[Jake Featherston]

Challenging people with erroneous statements encourages clear thinking to attain our higher goal of harvesting valid information.

"Challenging people with erroneous statements," i.e. lying, is a despicable practice that retards the intellectual and spiritual progress of mankind. I don't advocate making it a criminal offense, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it.

[Jake Featherston]

I'm not advocating relativism; I know that absolute Truth exists. The Truth is in there somewhere (and maybe not in the form of a yes or no for this particular question) but who's gonna be the final arbiter of Truth for this question or questions like it? In your community, you can definitely declare the answer that best fits your knowledge, experience, and revelations. But on the Internet, whatcha gonna do for questions like this? We have to post what we believe to be right.

Hell, I agree with that. If that's what Bill White meant, that's what he should have said. If an honest man said what Bill White said, I might have interpreted his meaning more generously. But when Bill White says it, it serves as an explanation for some of the sometimes entertaining tales he's spun on the Internet.

[cyborg]

"Challenging people with erroneous statements," i.e. lying, is a despicable practice that retards the intellectual and spiritual progress of mankind. I don't advocate making it a criminal offense, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it.

That being the case, let us eliminate mythology which affords perceptive people archetypes and metaphor. While we are at it, ban all holy books, works of fiction and art. None of these contain correct statements about the real world. Let's not use any creative method whatsoever to change anyone's outlook.

[IlluSionS667]

It should be obvious to anyone but an idiot that White was just defending free speech as it is mentionned in the US constitution. Free speech makes sense only when offensive and untrue speech are also free. Otherwise, there is no free speech. No one bothers about non-offensive and truthful speech anyway.

Further, it should also be obvious that the generally accepted views does not always behold the truth. It would not be possible to limit speech to truth, but only to generally accepted views. This directly leads to dogma and the absolute annihilation of free speech.

Bill White therefor makes a lot of sense when he said that not only truth should be allowed. It only shows bias to read anything else in those words.

[Jake Featherston]

That being the case, let us eliminate mythology which affords perceptive people archetypes and metaphor. While we are at it, ban all holy books, works of fiction and art. None of these contain correct statements about the real world. Let's not use any creative method whatsoever to change anyone's outlook.

Those things aren't examples of lying. You understand full well the distinction being drawn here; you don't need me to explain it to you.

[Jake Featherston]

Bill White therefor makes a lot of sense when he said that not only truth should be allowed. It only shows bias to read anything else in those words.

Of course I'm biased against Bill White; I've often suspected he was lying. And now he seems to be providing confirmation.

[cyborg]

Some previous comments expose the manner in which morality tends to retard growth. What's useful, no action or limited action due to moral constraints or finding what works best in order to attain an ideal?

[Sean]

According to his surprisingly lengthy Wikipedia article (LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_White_%28agitator%29)), Bill White once told The Washington Post the following: "You should be able to write what you want on the Internet, whether it's true or not."

He does not explicitly state that people should be able to lie. It could be that people should be able to state false beliefs. For instance, if the holocaust is held by the majority to of happened, then it should be ok to express disbelief anyway.