"no claims originating from the inventor of an idea about its effects can be accepted as useful theory to develop a technology from."
On what possible basis, and with what evidence, can you make this claim? It sounds ludicrous. It would literally call for ignoring Einstein on E=mc^2.
Wow, I guess you are so defensive because your position is so weak?
You admit yourself that you made an error by eliminating a word that totally changes your meaning and argument and I'm the troll for pointing this out civilly?
ROFL. No wonder you want a bot to "smack" other people with. Must be easy to debate when you call everyone else a troll when they point out your errors, make sure you put the word "logic" in every post 6 times so you must be using it, and then just mute people when you get defensive.
By the way, most snake oil salesmen aren't really known for being inventors, they are hucksters. This should be pretty obvious.
Good attempt trying to claim the logical high ground though. Pathetic though it may be, it's a nice shot at optics, in a Machiavellian-intellectual-dishonesty sort of way.
You, sir, are the troll. Or a biased idealogue.
Why don't you get back to "drawing so much satisfaction" from creating flagging bots to control people's behavior? That's a totally healthy, totally non-statist activity to focus your efforts on.
PS - This: "...what rock you have been living under if you never heard the term 'Snake Oil Salesman'."* is called a strawman fallacy (we'll set aside the ad hominem for now). I never said it, nor did I imply it. If you're such a champion expert of logic (we know you are, cause you used the word like 5 times, right?) you must know this? So you just argue intellectually dishonestly on purpose?
https://www.amazon.com/Prince-Niccolo-Machiavelli/dp/1548070688/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1499417573&sr=8-2&keywords=the+prince
I think you'll like it:
"The Prince has the general theme of accepting that the aims of princes—such as glory and survival—can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends."