You have 10 seconds to explain why you haven't deFOO yet
>>73569494
but I have
>>73569542
Don't feel too bad desu
I'll keep ur mum company :^)
>>73569589
all yours m8, she's hideous lmao
>>73569589
We just keeping burned. :/
Alright, c'mon /pol. Just this once, FOR ONE TIME, let's try to get AT LEAST ONE argument in this thread.
>>73569542
Why?
>>73569494
>Legalize child prostitution
>Abandon your parents
>This is what stefanfags actually believe
>>73569820
not an argument
>>73569834
>>73569865
not an argument
>>73569865
>parading your daughter around like some kind of abusive parent?
shiggy
>>73569932
Did you think about this before FDR?
Would you defoo your waifu for Stefan, /pol/?
I don't leave people, I bend them to my will or they leave, I don't take a slave attitude.
>>73569949
If you don't understand why child prostitution should be illegal you're so dumb I hope you never have kids.
>>73570183
not an argument
>>73570144
>I bend them to my will or they leave
Mandatory hijak and "you are all my pawns" copypasta
>>73569875
>>73569949
>>73570220
All non arguments
>>73570220
Do you think there should be a law banning child prostitution?
>>73570126
I would never have to. My waifu is like a child prostitute to me.
>>73569676
Apples don't fall far from the tree.
Argument count still at zero. This is a disgrace. Again.
>>73569494
because I'm the only person on 4chan who's parents never hit them and are still married
they're statists though so I better put on my kevlar vest
>>73570118
>Did you think about this before FDR?
Of course
>>73570292
The government should not be involved in people's personal lives or passing judgement on what is morally right or not
>>73570399
>Supports legalizing child prostitution
>Claims to care a shit about morality
>>73570609
Not an argument.
UPB is hilariously bad
VIRTUE AND ITS OPPOSITE
The opposite of “virtue” must be “vice” – the opposite of “good” must be “evil.” If I propose the moral
rule, “thou shalt not steal,” then stealing must be evil, and not stealing must be good. This does not mean
that “refraining from theft” is the sole definition of moral excellence, of course, since a man may be a
murderer, but not a thief. We can think of it as a “necessary but not sufficient” requirement for virtue. (p. 65, ‘UPB: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics’)
This section is the lynchpin of Stefan’s argument and is combined with the ‘coma test’ to prove that we have no positive obligations. Unfortunately it contained a blatant error, which you’ve probably noticed already. Stefan has confused ‘negation’ and ‘opposite’.
The negation of giving is not-giving. The negation of black is not-black.
The opposite of giving is taking. The opposite of black is white.
Not-giving is not identical to taking, nor is not-black identical to white. Thus quite clearly the concepts of ‘negation’ and ‘opposite’ are distinct.
Showing how Stefan is wrong here has nullified his coma test (p.67). Stefan’s argument is that if we have positive obligations (say, giving to charity), then a man in a coma must be evil, since he is performing the opposite of virtue – not-giving to charity. This is supposedly absurd, since he is unable to avoid his ‘actions’.
But Stefan’s argument fails because the man is not performing the opposite of giving to charity – merely the negation. He need not be virtuous or wicked. The fact that an action is not virtuous does not prove that it is immoral. Eating ice cream may not be virtuous – does this prove that eating ice cream is immoral?
>>73570666
It is. It's a statement (that you support child prostitution) in support of a proposal (that you don't care a shit about morality.) That's the definition of an argument.
I don't know why you pretend you don't understand the argument, I doubt you're really that stupid. I think your just avoiding it because Stefan tells you to do so, so you wouldn't get in contact with opposing views.
He has been in a panic mode after Joe Rogan exposed him on the whole defoo thing being harmful pseudoscience.
>>73570976
Not an argument.
I support freedom of all kinds.
>t's a statement (that you support child prostitution) in support of a proposal (that you don't care a shit about morality.)
Yes, I do not believe in the use of force by a central authority based on "muh you're doing something i believe to be morally wrong"
>He has been in a panic mode after Joe Rogan exposed him on the whole defoo thing being harmful pseudoscience
Joe Rogan is a drug using idiot who shills ALPHA BRAIN(TM) AND SQUARESPACE, BUILD YOUR WEBSITE NOW
>>73569494
Because saying not an argument is not an argument
>>73569932
What the fuck?
Some of these are not even that bad
Why does he advocate this shit?
>>73571104
But that's not an argument either!
>>73571104
Not an argument
>>73570954
>post argument
>stefbots do not respond
lelmao
>>73571613
it is not an argument
>>73571101
I'm using the standard definition of an argument:
>A statement:You support legalizing child prostitution
>A proposal: You don't give a shit about morality
By saying its not an argument just shows you don't know what argument means.
>>73571948
not an argument, not going to even respond beyond that until you actually present a well-formed argument for me to respond to.
>>73570954
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't notice.
>>73570954
Not an argument.
There.
>>73570954
While there is a logical distinction between not good and evil, I would normally say you are getting lost in semantics, but since Stefan is the King of Philosophy, he should know the difference between them.
I have not read his book, so I can't say what his underlying point is is for his coma test, but it sounds like whether or not their is a positive obligation to do good.
It sounds like stefan's point is that in order to live a virtuous life all that is required is for a person to refrain from doing bad, which is a legitimate position to take. Because it all depends on how one defines virtuous. If virtuous is the negation of wicked. Then simply being not wicked is sufficient to be virtuous. This can include being good, but isn't required.
>>73569865
im pretty sure that he is in favour of strong family bonds
>>73570976
Being against government prohibiting something doesn't equal to supporting that thing.
because stefan molyneux is an ugly bald cunt
>>73569494
he was pretty good but he couldn't change oil in 10 seconds
>>73572632
>It sounds like stefan's point is that in order to live a virtuous life all that is required is for a person to refrain from doing bad, which is a legitimate position to take.
Stefan's entire coma test (that a large portion of his supposedly objective morality is based on) is to refute the point of a moral obligation (moral being defined in the thesis he attempts to disprove, as the opposite of immoral, but no justification for why morality should be preferred or what immorality is is given) yet it only deals with a man who can perform neutral actions. A man in a coma is neither virtuous, despite performing no immoral acts, nor is he immoral, despite performing no virtuous acts.
His argument is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding. How can he disprove the virtue of positive acts by referring to neutral acts?
Think about it this way, he is saying that 0 is the opposite of 1 and is inherently the same as -1 because of this.
So no, he has not demonstrated that inaction is the negation of wicked.
>>73574265
>So no, he has not demonstrated that inaction is the negation of wicked.
Well inaction is a possible negation of wicked. With doing good being the other negation. It all depends on what you define as a virtuous life. Which requires some assumptions. One being that people have an obligation to lead a virtuous life life. And the other assumption would be that a virtuous life is one which is not wicked.
Now these are assumptions that must be made for his argument to stand up. And they are just assumptions for as much as I can tell. If you disagree with the assumption that one is obligated to lead a virtuous life then that in and of itself negates the idea that one would be required to do good deeds.
If you disagree with the assumption that virtuous life simply means not doing bad, then yeah his argument falls apart. But while he has the problem of arguing that virtuous means refraining from doing bad. Proponents on the other side have the problem of arguing that virtuous means refraining form doing bad and doing good as well. Which sounds like another assumption in and of itself.
Daily reminder that Stefan only wants to dismantle the worship for Gods or for the State with worship for the solid, peaceful family.
I haven't DeFOO'd from my mostly absent father and emotionally stunted mother because I don't have financial independence. I'll get there one day, for you, Stef.
>>73577098
What does DeFOO'd mean? I've seen it multiple times in threads related to Stefan molyneux.
>>73577181
FOO stands for Family of Origin. De-FOO means to disassociate from from Family of Origin (or as Stef sometimes calls it - ABC, Accidental Biological Cage). Stefan proclaims that you should DeFOO if your family abused you as a child. He also used to advocate it for families that aren't ancap as they want you SHOT.
Both Stefan and his Wife haven't spoken to their parents or siblings in several years at least.
>>73577181
>DEpart (from) Family Of Origin
So abandon your family because they are all abusive (not an exaggeration but what he actually preaches. See: >>73569932)
It's also partly why people accuse FDR of being a cult
>>73571104
correct, it is an assertion. Answering a non-argument with an argument is nigh-impossible and pointless
>>73577324
Huh...
I guess I can understand in extreme circumstances like ongoing, severe abuse. Seems kind of overdone in most situations, even if the family member is chronically mean.
>>73577341
Does he honestly say you should DeFOO if they have done even one of these things?
>>73571397
Is there anyone alive whose parents have not had to yell at them?
Get a grip, you babbies.
>>73571784
>>73572393
It unironically is.
>>73577443
I should also add, Stefan's definition of abuse is extremely broad. It can be anything from spanking as a punishment to yelling at you to lying to you. Basically every time someone calls into his show, he goes into their family and convinces the caller they were abused. He's really good at it too.
>>73577640
This is one thing I can't agree with him over.
He expects parents to be infallible. One slip up & your child should reject you forever.
Still, that's the problem with casting a moral net and not living with reality of billions of varied lives.
>>73577973
I wonder how he would view somebody exploiting their child by plastering them all over the internet?
>>73569865
>>73573443
Nice molymeme. I hope that if I save that I'm not in violation of the NAP.
>>73569494
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9UXKOIvuYE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!RARE FOOTAGE OF STEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>73569865
lying is not an argument
