Why does anybody listen to this arrogant cunt? He's the epitome of the sort of emotional reasoning he claims to oppose. He doesn't know anything much about philosophy, economics, or politics, but he comports himself as some sort of enlightened messiah come to save us from ourselves.
>inb4 libcuck
>inb4 "go on his show"
Not an argument
>>73632271
>>73632271
>Why does anybody listen to this arrogant cunt? He's the epitome of the sort of emotional reasoning he claims to oppose. He doesn't know anything much about philosophy, economics, or politics, but he comports himself as some sort of enlightened messiah come to save us from ourselves.
>>73632345
>>73632334
My argument is that all of his "arguments" are obviously wrong. Name something he's said that makes sense. I've never heard him say anything that wasn't self-evidently retarded.
>when ur daughter ignores the NAP
>>73632500
Not an argument
>>73632271
arguments in your post: 0
>>73632271
How dare you talk about molynuexism that way! Bigot. Prophet Stephen has been sent as the last hope for mankind.
It would be best if you did not stoke the ire of Molyneuxists. You're making the Internet unsafe for you and me
>>73632271
Your Dunning Kruger is showing
he's too ancap for me
>>73632500
>My argument is that all of his "arguments" are obviously wrong.
Still no argument. your 3rd post is better have one buddy
>>73632271
not an argument
>>73632345
>>73632406
>>73632564
>>73632572
>>73632631
I get it now. It's a meme. He's a joke. Thank you.
>>73632271
He starts off okay but quickly goes into being a straight up loon
>>73632760
If you want people to debate you, you're gonna have to choose a side and make an argument for it
>>73632760
no no im memeing but you clearly didnt say a single argument. your thread is garbage and you should probably never try to think again.
now go back to /b/
>>73632847
My argument: This guy has never said anything worthwhile. Tell me one thing you think he has said that is worthwhile and I will address it.
Your argument: That's not an argument.
>>73632760
not
>>73632500
this is unironically not an argument
>>73632932
You don't know what an argument is
What you posted was an assertion
>>73632932
>This guy has never said anything worthwhile.
not an argument
This thread: Retard who is mad because he cant think
(NAA i know)
>>73632271
Because he holds interesting conversations with interesting / educated people.
Surely if Molynooks is as ignorant and as irrational as you put him out to be then why not record your conversation live on the show and upload it here for us to enjoy watching him get destroyed instead of just yelling out into the sea that is /pol/?
>>73633037
Okay I'll spell it out for you again, then.
My argument:
Premise 1 - You should not listen to idiots.
Premise 2 - This guy is an idiot.
Conclusion - You should not listen to this guy.
>>73632271
You know what that isn't?
>>73632760
not an argument
>>73632760
Last episode i listened to i learned the lack of a father in a daughters life and his pheromones signal the daughter to undergo puberty at an earlier age. There, you learned something from Stefan Molyneux
>>73633158
Because he is disingenuous with his guests and relies on emotion to paint them into a corner. He is not interested in seriously addressing criticism.
>>73632932
neither of those statements are arguments as an argument requires reasoning and evidence. You've posted an assertion and mistakenly believe it to be an argument
>>73633162
>Premise 1 - You should not listen to idiots.
>Premise 2 - This guy is an idiot.
show the reasoning that lead you to both of these premises
>backs up literally everything with sources
>but he's led by emotions not logic
what the fuck op?
>>73633162
Not an argument lol you're bad at this
Thats just 3 assertions with no evidence presented
>>73632500
Not an argument. What has this man specifically said, with quotes, that he is wrong about? And what is wrong with the arguments he makes?
"It doesn't make sense" is rewritten as "I don't understand" and thus is not an argument. Neither is saying "It's complete bullshit." WHY is the argument bullshit? Because it doesn't make sense? But then you are using circular reasoning. Go read a fucking book until you get it. Then just answer the goddamn question: what does he say that is complete bullshit, and WHY is it bullshit?
Or are you going to respond just like the people who are asked how Trump is a racist?
>>73633162
ARGUMENT???
>>73632271
>>73633253
Then point out his appeal to emotion?
>>73632932
That's not how it works man, you are the one making the claim and you now have to back it up.. What is wrong with you?
OP Status: BTFO
>>73633295
Premise 1 is axiomatic. We all know it to be true. You can't make a a truly objective claim about anything because of Munchausen's Trilemma, but we all know that you should not listen to idiots.
Premise 2 comes from the fact that everything I've ever heard him say was obviously wrong and that nobody on this thread is willing to disagree with that claim. Give me an example of something he's said that you thought was intelligent and I'll deal with it.
>>73633253
Now comes the evidence.. Do I have to hold your hand through this?
>>73633405
>>73633408
>>73633320
You're asking me to give you specifics. I am giving you specifics. Put quotes around the entire body of his work. All of that is wrong.
>>73633534
burden of proof buddo
>>73632271
NOT
>>73633534
The burden of proof lies with you, my friend. It is not OUR duty to prove that he is intelligent; it is YOUR duty to prove he is an idiot.
>>73632932
>>73633162
>>73633253
>>73633534
wow im not even joking there's not even an ounce of argument anywhere.
google how to make an argument or something fucking retard
>>73632932
>This guy has never said anything worthwhile.
Not an argument. Nice feels tho.
>>73633162
A statement
>>73633657
The burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim. You could say that I am making a positive claim in that he is an idiot, or you could say that you are making a positive claim in that he is intelligent. I have asked you people to supply evidence that he is worth listening to, and all I'm getting is memes from a bunch of ancap fanboys.
>>73633651
>anon quotes entire work
>calls it specifics
Do you support me getting shot?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ
>>73633534
>>73633651
I think we have a troll or a crazy person here.
>>73633701
This. And since OP already excluded, "going on his show," as a source of information we might as well point out he's a fucking ostrich with his head in the sand anyway.
>>73633831
youre the one making a fucking thread about how stupid he is. make an argument for it or fuck off dumbshit
>>73633894
Thank you for providing an argument. This video is horrible. His ancap fantasy land does nothing to prevent people from being shot by local land barons or private security firms. The current government does not shoot people over taxes or copyright infringement. He has false premises and an argument with no basis in reality.
>>73633651
I didn't ask for specifics.
If you and Moly got into an argument and he appeals to emotion then you can call him out on it, it's an appeal to emotion fallacy.
It's interesting that you bring up specifics though, do you have a particular video / moment that you looked at where this happens? You must have one in mind if you think he's disingenuous right?
>>73633894
You could make the argument that maybe he went a lil overboard, but that actually isn't an argument lol. His argument is that if you break the law like don't pay or taxes there will be a cop to take you to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, he will force you to comply until you're dead. Now that seems objectively true to me.. You dont agree?
>>73632271
Not an argument.
>>73633939
I didn't exclude going on his show as a source of information. I excluded the possibility of me going on his show to argue with him. Every Molyneux fan just defaults to telling dissenters to go argue with him on his show.
>>73634088
Every video I've ever seen by him. Every single video. I have never heard him make a valid argument about anything at all.
>>73634167
still no argument on sight
>>73632271
OP is a Crowderfag
>>73633831
No, you fucking idiot cunt. You made the fucking thread, YOU made the assertion, YOU back it up with facts and evidence.
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT
>>73634133
Here's the thing though, he has no alternative to this way of doing things. His ancap fantasy land has the exact same problems, but without any sort of input from the people living in the territories controlled by the people with the wealth.
>>73633315
Hate to break the meme but what he said literally was an argument. The conclusion necessarily follows the premises. You don't know what an argument is.
>>73634307
Crowder is retarded. Crowder doesn't believe in climate change.
>>73634048
Well he does address this.. So the private security firm will be held to the same standards of initiating force. Neither is allowed to do it. The security firm is only an agency of defense, and everyone has the right to defend him/herself or be defended by someone else.
>>73634400
calling an assertion a premise means nothing if it's not backed up with evidence
This thread perfectly illustrates why the world is so fucked. Intelligent ideas are left to flounder and drown because the people propounding those ideas can't be bothered to make them realistically understandable for someone less linguistically talented, especially when that person is also tired from working all day.
>>73632271
He makes well reasoned arguments that are normally well sourced and backed by experts.
>>73634337
My assertion is that everything he has ever said is self-evidently wrong. Do you know what self-evidently means? My method of argumentation is for anyone on this thread to provide a single example of something he has said that was no obviously incorrect.
>>73632564
>That JUST face
>>73634608
>My assertion is that everything he has ever said is self-evidently wrong. Do you know what self-evidently means?
most things he says are well sourced or logically built to from a well-sourced premise
>>73634608
I am literally saying, "None of you can provide an example of something he has said that is worthwhile. I know this to be true, and I believe it to be obviously true. If you can provide an example to the contrary, I will change my opinion."
>>73634534
It doesn't fucking matter you retard, you could say that all bananas grow on mars and everything on mars is blue therefore all bananas are blue, and that is an argument. The truth of the premises is irrelevant.
>>73632271
Not an argument.
>>73634230
Link me one (1). Vid where he is being particularly disingenuous and emotional with a guest who has some criticism for him.
His entire body of work is not just arguments with callers, sometimes he has interviews and is just blathering on stats.
This schmuck who sold me an argument detector the other day must be laughing his ass off right now because I just stumbled upon this fucking thread and the bloody thing can't find a single goddamned argument.
>>73634341
>>73634416
>>73634608
>>73634779
Still 0 argument have been made. you literally are too fucking lazy to bother going back on a video and tell us where he's wrong and how stupid he is.
just fuck off faggot go think for an hour and come back with some arguments
>>73634473
Okay, so who holds the private security firm to this NAP? If it is a private security firm, the person who is paying them to do their jobs will have the authority to have them do as he pleases. Anarcho-capitalism would immediately break down into a series of small duchies controlled by the resident monopoly.
>>73634341
So you're saying that all the rich people would own all the land? Well what's to stop them from doing that now? No one can own all the land lol, and people would just be free to leave. And he has said that in order for land to be owned it has to be in use of some kind.
Hey lads i came here to read an argument. Are there any here?
>>73634962
What is the point? If you want me to link a video in which he is wrong, I'll just link you to his entire youtube page. Or do you just want me to link you every video I've seen so far?
>>73634984
>Okay, so who holds the private security firm to this NAP?
they'll be boycotted by their consumers if they don't
>what if they just attack people to force them to pay them
then the other security firm that actually abides to the NAP will get all their customers
>>73634984
>ask him what is wrong with stefan
>says nothing for 20 posts
>now his only ''''''''''''''''''''''''arguement''''''''''''''''''''''' is not what stefan has said or where he's wrong, it's an hypothetic scenario of what couldnt work in an ancap society
you can't make this up
ITT: cancer
>>73634984
There will be lots of private security firms, and if you don't like what one firm is doing then put your money into another firm. You can choose to give that firm money or another one, you cant do shit about the government.
>>73635002
Alright so when the people who are free to leave decide to leave, where will they go? To the neighboring quasi-state? Unrestricted capitalism always leads to severe wealth inequality, which always leads to statism.
>>73632271
Anyone have the "My nipples are universally preferable" picture??
Post more rare mollies
>>73635154
>What is the point? If you want me to link a video in which he is wrong, I'll just link you to his entire youtube page.
all you have to do you fucking inbred nigger is post 1 presentation video(not a call-in show) where he posted fact or arguments and tell us why he's wrong in that specific video
ITS
LITERALLY
ALL
YOU
NEED
TO
DO
>>73635191
That has never been how consumerism functions. People do not care about the ethics involved in production as long as they are getting a decent service for a relatively low price. The captains of industry will hold the security firms in their back pockets, and the consumers will have no say. It will be exactly like today, but without any sort of overarching laws to hold the capitalists in check. Government is not the problem. Capitalism is the problem. I am no anti-capitalist, but to just remove all of the restrictions and let it run wild is to admit that the only human lives worth protecting are those with wealth.
>>73635151
Nothing here boss.
>>73635261
Your money isn't shit. You do not have that much money. The captains of industry will own the security firms.
>>73634608
>>73634779
>>73635154
>>73634230
>>73632271
>>73633651
If Steph is always wrong then is Steph correct in defending a round earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsOz_J6tJVU
>>73635237
I have said what is wrong with Stefan. He has never said anything worthwhile. How is this invalid? As far as I'm aware, every single video he has ever made contains terrible arguments, false premises, and emotional reasoning. I am asking for a single example of something he has said which is valuable.
>>73635706
define valuable
>>73635483
Dude big companies are using government to do all this shit.. All of these issues are because of corporations using the coercive power of the state.
>>73635483
>Government is not the problem. Capitalism is the problem.
Wrong. People are the problem.
>>73635613
Fuck OFF Zio shill, we all know what the real shape of the earth is!
>>73635613
Okay. You got me. He got something right. He believes in a round earth. I should start shaping my political beliefs around his shiny round head because he believes in a round earth.
>>73635771
Something true or useful. He's telling people how to live their lives and organize their society. He is giving harmful advice.
>>73635864
Okay, I gave you one specific now do me a solid and return the favor?
>>73635807
That's just not true. The problem with government is corporations, not the other way around.
>>73635483
>>73635566
>every industrialist is a sadist that will purposely break the NAP just because
you've fallen for the trap of arguing against anti-statism because you think the worst thing that could happen is that someone creates a state
>>73632271
He's Libertarian John Oliver
>>73632271
He's good at making videos going over topics where he can look things up and just read the information to you.
As a philosopher he is second rate AT BEST. His entire "philosophical" career is based around morality that he desperately proves can be "objective" so he can force his shitty anarcho-capitalism on everyone else.
He believes in the non-aggression principle which is one of the most easily refuted "principles" ever conjured.
His stuff on free will was even rejected by his audience.
>inb4 not an argument
not an argument
>>73635808
I can agree there. Capitalism is a problem because people are a problem. That's why I don't think that letting people do as they please without restriction can possibly lead to a better world. Stefan relies on the idea that people would all share his values in his hypothetical ancap fantasy.
>ancap
>an achievable and sustainable form of societal organization
pick one
Even if ancap is achieved, there is no way it can last without any system in place to prevent people from amassing enough power to establish their own government.
>>73632271
Dude just read UPB and you'll realise that he solved all of ethics and morality, as well as the resulting political paradigm in under 150 pages
It's pretty much the most impressive and important piece of literature ever conceived by man (I use the term man here loosely, given that it borders on the ephemeral, the supernatural)
>>73636122
>force anarchism
Get out.
>>73635566
Wrong, A bunch of people do have money, why do you think they want to tax us? If people understood taxation was theft, and they got to voluntarily give their money, the people would stop giving super corrupt firms money, and the companies that own them.. Do think about it, every company kisses the asses of public opinion.. You hear how Target stock plummeted when they allowed trans bathrooms publically?
>>73636175
>mexican intellectual
>>73635937
something true?
This is so fucking stupid dude. like do you honestly believe that not a single fucking sentence he said ever was true?
ok he said blacks have black skin in one recent video to make a point. is it true?
that's not how you fucking argue go take 15minutes, check 1 presentation video and post here and tell us what's wrong. like cmon dude we're fighting with air right now.
>>73636122
>He believes in the non-aggression principle which is one of the most easily refuted "principles" ever conjured.
You may begin now. I'll wait.
>>73636276
shit meme senpai, here's a better one:
>Not an argument
His actual philosophy might not be great, but his skills as a rhetorician are excellent, and his logic work is usually quite good.
>>73636314
>>73632500
>being objectively incorrect
>while simultaneously not making an argument
>>73635999
Wouldn't it be nice if corporations couldn't use the only institution in human society that can use force?
>>73634608
Question begging, 0/10
>>73633162
wow, you really don't seem to know what an argument is laddie...
>>73636399
The wall just got 10 mexicans higher
>>73636447
are arguments spooks?
>>73635961
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXD4LKNnRIg
I just chose the shortest video I could find. He has this idea that women are the gatekeepers of sex. He has expressed several times that he believes that all of societies ills can be fixed by women choosing better mates. That's bullshit. Guys choose terrible women as well. Additionally, when you choose someone to have kids with, you have no idea how they're going to act ten years down the road. It is impossible to know everything about anybody. Shit happens. People change. If a woman chooses a brilliant, rich guy, she could still end up unemployed with no money and several kids in ten years.
>>73636122
How is the non aggression principle easily refuted? Genuinely interested in your argument.
>>73633162
Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy friendo.
>>73632271
go on his show retarded libcuck
>>73636005
No. You've misunderstood me. It would be a series of despotic duchies ruled by the meanest motherfuckers around. So yes, it would lead to statism, but a much worse form of statism than we have today.
>>73636553
Ok excluding rape, throughout history...who courted who? Men courting women, or women courting men?
>>73632932
not an argument, not even kidding
Starting up argument detector
Detecting...
0 results found
>>73636548
In a way they are because eventually you run into the Münchhausen Trilemma (either the argument is circular, or infinite regress, or uses made up axioms)
>>73636447
not an argument
>>73632271
>>73636186
I haven't read the book, but I have read that he heavily plagiarized from Kant and others and that the majority of academia wouldn't use it as a door stopper.
>>73636553
Also there are MANY MANY ways to know how competent a person will be as a parent. The key is to think about it critically, and objectively, and also learn about their past vs how they are in the present. There is A LOT of discussion that should be happening even before thinking about a kid, then having one is a completely different thing all together.
>>73633215
What episode was that?
>>73632932
gonna bite out of curiosity,
i believe he says something along the lines of: "Women are the downfall of civilization".
>>73636261
That's only because of government control. Imagine if target owned the media. This is the situations Americans were living in at the turn of the 20th century.
>>73636553
>sometimes decent people make poor choices and get screwed over anyway, thus women should sleep around and be single mothers
you haven't disproven a single word of steff's, nigger, nor did you provide quotes, more examples other than your baseless claim of "several times", or reference your claim with timestamps
also not an argument
>>73636553
Also by the way, show me one case in the last 30-40 years where a women in america married a rich, brilliant guy and she ended up unemployed with no money, and several kids. Give me just ONE example.
>>73636424
I'll admit that he is good at rhetoric. He is good at saying smart sounding things. But his logic is god awful. Everything he says falls apart under inspection and only seems respectable in the slightest because of the dramatic way in which he says it.
>>73633162
>Premise 1 - Not
>Premise 2 - An
>Conclusion - Argument
>>73636450
You're forgetting about the part where the corporations would all have their own private military under ancap.
can you cucks explain argument like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rItm9j4vg_Q
>>73636424
>his skills as a rhetorician are excellent
People like Molyneux because he can eloquently put words to their feelings in a way they cannot do themselves, so they will blindly just worship him and parrot the 'Not an argument' meme without actually having any argument or logic of their own to back up their own confused stances.
Molyneux is no better than the SJW's like Sarkeesian etc. He is using his ability at rhetoric to target a niche ('even tempered, sophisticated, educated' alt right bloggers) and he is trying to make money doing it via donations.
He's just another whore trying to exploit a group of people with his holier than thou attitude.
>>73636479
Fallacy fallacy, 8/8
>>73636482
That is literally an argument. The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. You may not accept the premises, but that is what I'm here to defend.
>>73636314
it's a ---principle---, and that is how it is used. Violence = Bad. State = Violence. State = Bad.
It is not a "general rule thats usually good to follow", but it is a PRINCIPLE.
To refute it, I will demonstrate a situation in which it is moral to use violence against someone who is not using violence against you.
A billionaire becomes bitter at the world because he was abused for all his childhood and his wife dies of brain cancer. He then finds out that he has brain cancer and has 2 weeks to live. He decides to get back at humanity by buying up precious art from people like DaVinci or Van Gough ect.. and says he is going to destroy the art and put the video on the internet before he dies. He bought the art for hundreds of millions so this is his "right".
You know one of the guards who works at his home, and the guard tells you of a plan to get the art from the guy. He gives you two syringes filled with knock-out poison. He would leave the house unlocked and the alarm off, and you would stab the guard (so he looks innocent) and the billionaire with the needle and knock them out, then take the art and hide it. A week later, after the billionaire dies, leave the art in a safe place and call the police to go get it from a payphone. The priceless art is saved, but you must stab a man and inject him with chemicals against his will.
Do you do it if some how you could be sure it was 100% safe? Remember, this is about the principle, not the practical application.
>>73632271
>entirely facts based arguments with an autistic insistence that all things must be rational and well defined
>h-he's just emotional r-reasoning
>>73635237
>Image
Oh shit my sides
>>73637242
>pointing out that an argument is fallacious means you committed a fallacy fallacy
are you the illiterate retard from the trolley thread?
My cousin married a nice guy with a chain of restaurants. He is literally a millionaire. Little did she know, he was a recovering alcoholic who was 5 years sober. He relapsed and fucked one of his interns in a parking lot in front of the staff at one of his restaurants. My cousin now has two of his kids and no income.
>>73632271
>>73637386
a principle that only comes close to breaking down in completely insane hypotheticals is still a pretty good one
>>73637131
>everything he says falls apart under inspection
Does it, though? His libertarian principles only "fall apart" when examined from a sophisticated philosophical and economic angle that goes far and above what anyone on /pol/ demonstrates (on average). I'd expect that his logical arguments are right most of the time, and only in the biggest, most far-reaching areas (such as religion) does he come to the wrong conclusion, and even then it is because of nuances in his first principles. In other words, he is quite good at logical validity, but not perhaps logical soundness.
>>73637242
Simply goes to show that you're not really making an argument. Nothing more, nothing less. You might still be right, but we'll never know.
>>73636984
That's bullshit. Empirical reality shows that when women are liberated, economies and quality of life grow rapidly.
>>73636586
> go on his show
This is honestly the only answer. OP posts this thread all the time. He comes to /pol/ asking us to defend Stefan's arguments instead of debating the man himself. If his ideas are so wrong that it's not worth your time to debate him, then maybe you shouldn't be spending this amount of time on /pol/ defending non-arguments.
>>73636725
Throughout history men courted women. Today it goes either way. There are plenty of men who are in the position to choose from a plethora of potential mates. Some of these men choose wrong.
>>73632271
I've been listening to some of his shit. I mean he's logical, he's reasonable but there is something off about him. I need to listen to a little bit more of him but his bluntness towards people asking for advice is just outrageous.
>>73636990
The people who own the media own the government.. And mainstream media is going down the shitter. America is good compared to the rest of the world at the turn of the 20th century.
>>73637001
If you think it's a baseless claim, then I have seen more of his videos than you have, and I am not a fan.
>>73637722
Debating is a skill that not many people are effective at. Just because you are skilled at debating or spouting rhetoric does not mean whatever you say is correct.
>>73632271
I swear this board gets more shills by the day.
/pol/ used to love Stefan Molyneux. A raid from shills on this board turned everyone against him.
>>73637674
no, it completely loses its principle status. The point of principles is that they withstand ALL hypothetical situations. Even the "insane" ones, even though this isn't more insane than any other act of senseless lashing out: see, random shootings.
>>73637722
I have literally never made a thread about Molyneux before today. I made similar thread about Crowder and another about Milo, but not about Molyneux. All of /pol/'s idols are mindless demagogues.
>>73637807
Jesus christ you're dumb.
>nearly 40 posts in a thread about Molyneux
>Doesn't realize every post responding to him trolling
>>73637883
>The people who own the media own the government.. And mainstream media is going down the shitter.
Then don't watch/read the mainstream media. At the turn of the 20th century you had no other way to get information.
>America is good compared to the rest of the world at the turn of the 20th century.
That's irrelevant. America has been a better place to live than the rest of the planet for most of its history, and it still it today.
>>73637386
WTF is wrong with you? I think that very well be the most absurd thing I have ever read.
It is basically,"Would you knock someone out to save art?"
I will boil it down to that, because your premise is ridiculous.
The answer is based on how you view the art. Is it considered an asset to the world that all should share? If so, he is violating the NAP by destroying it in the first place. If it is not considered as such, then who cares.
Beyond that, I could think of a million other ways this could be resolved or prevented without violence. You are an idiot. Not for challenging the NAP, but because of your hypothetical situation.
>>73637994
Molyneux is a shill. He promotes his brand, weedles his way into the minds of the disenfranchised, and lives off of your donations.
>>73638210
Hey man, there are a lot of trolls, but there are also a lot of idiots. My second post in the thread was me coming to the conclusion that nobody actually listens to him and that he's just a meme.
>>73638521
Do you even know what philosophy even is? It gets you to think from multiple angles. He asks these questions because he wants you to think. I've learnt a lot from him in the past year or so, even when it comes to debating with people in real life.
>and lives off of your donations.
So.. Like the other thousands of Youtubers out there? Especially the gamers?
>>73637386
>this ridiculous mind experiment
Is this Sam Harris posting?
At least use something like "The NAP allows you to let your own three-year old child starve to death so long as you don't prevent it from finding food somehow, is it justified for others to trespass your property to rescue the child?"
>>73638937
>>and lives off of your donations.
>So.. Like the other thousands of Youtubers out there? Especially the gamers?
You do realize that you're not actually refuting anything with this statement, right?
>>73638937
>Do you even know what philosophy even is?
Yes. I have read many philosophical texts. I mostly know about the German Idealists and the French Existentialists, but I'm trying to broaden my horizons. I came across Molyneux, and he is no philosopher. He is not rigorous enough or intelligent enough to say anything worthwhile.
>So.. Like the other thousands of Youtubers out there? Especially the gamers?
Yes. Good comparison. He is just another youtuber. He is not a philosopher. He is not an important thinker.
>>73639035
Here's something. The NAP is incompatible with ancap. The NAP relies on consent. To quote Chomsky on ancap, "The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
>>73639280
I agree he is missing something essential to the greatest philosophers. But I believe he at least thinks like one.
>>73639522
>Noam "Khmer Rouge dindu nuffin" Chomsky
>>73639640
I disagree. He exhibits Bulverism. He has radical conclusions which seem intuitive to him, and he works backward to try and justify them.
>>73639700
Nah. He never said that. He said, "I was right about Khmer Rouge given the information we had at the time." Given the information he had at the time, he couldn't have known about the genocide, but once he found out about the genocide, he admitted Khmer Rouge was horrible. He was trying to defend his original conclusion to promote his ideology, and I agree that it was in poor taste.
>>73639800
Doesn't he just start with the NAP (which he, at least, believes he has demonstrated) and work from there for everything he says?
>>73640095
That's his claim. But it's not compatible with ancap, so he's doing something wrong.
>>73632271
I only watch him because he is one of the only people talking about some issues in Canada. I don't usually agree with him but there are so few other people here saying anything at all.
>>73639035
>>73638505
its fine. as long as it shows it can be moral to aggress without someone aggress against you it refutes the principle.
>>73639280
>>73639640
I think he is more of a 'practical' philosopher, in that he is good at forming logically-argued conclusions to real-world problems, but I do not expect he ever muses over metaphysics or epistemology. He's worlds apart from any academic philosopher, and his misunderstanding of determinism is frankly laughable. That said, his videos are based as fuck.
>>73640712
Absolutely, that is the right way to put it. He just doesn't seem interested in the deeper questions, and that is why he just seems so wrong when he discusses things like religion.
>>73632271
>inb4 "go on his show"
Do people seriously say that??!! They want you to have that crying experience, where you cry about your parents.
>>73637994
Oh shut up, we can think for ourselves. We can hear his shitty interruptions, lying about shit like his wife getting reprimanded, we can see that all for ourselves.
>>73640712
>but I do not expect he ever muses over metaphysics or epistemology
Actually he has flat out called them "not philosophy".
He arbitrarily defined philosophy (not just ethics, all of philosophy) as "how do live a virtuous life" so therefore questions about the nature of reality etc. are a category error.
He used to do work on how an AnCap society might look like but I guess after getting BTFO too many times with his ideas of Dispute Resolution Organizations (kek) now he focused more on criticizing leftist thought instead of trying to build up anything of his own.
>>73637994
I like his truth series, good presentation with sources.
But I can see why people don't like him when he present his own thought though.
>>73632939
an
>>73632345
Don't know who this guy is, but if someone saying "not an argument" to you triggers you, you probably are the one not thinking rationally. Sort of like the tips fedora stuff. What the enlightened atheists say isn't exactly "incorrect" just because it sounds memey.
>>73642744
not an argument
>>73638937
>multiple angles
he could unscrew an oil plug while standing on his head
(of course he used his toes, silly)
>>73644014
not an argument
>>73644277
argue to disargue
check out these arguments
>>73632271
I hate him too, OP. I used to watch his show religiously, but the more he talked about the non-aggression principle, the more I realized that he doesn't believe his own shit. Aggression is an instinctive part of being human, and people who ask others to renounce aggression (i.e. Molyneux) seem to me like they're intent on creating prey for themselves.
> ONE FUCKING DOLLAR
>>73644942
i used to listen to him back in 2011-2012 when he was more focused on ideology and I was just getting introduced to Libertarianism. I was put off by his extremisism. In his worldview it seemed it was impossible for government to ever have a net positive role in society because it didn't fit neatly into his ideology. I'm for smaller government and individual freedom but when you start comparing taxes on your work to getting shot then you've lost your fucking mind.
>>73632271
I've always said, outside of race and iq which is honestly low hanging fruit, he really has no idea what he's talking about.
I wish fags on /pol/ would stop shilling him every second.
>>73645564
I work in biology and even on race and IQ he has no idea what he's talking about. He asserts that scientists say there's no difference between race but that's just politisized bullshit.
The latest science on 'races' is looking at genetic distancing. Essentially there are 14 clusters of human genetics and 9 of those are in Africa. Asia and Europe are very genetically similar with very little genetic variance, particularly between Europe and the Middle East. We don't call these races or subspecies, but clusters.
He just repeats mainstrem pop bullshit and asserts this is the official narrative among professionals, which is how uninformed and lazy he is.
Taxation isn't theft because monarchy is sanctioned by God
But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them (1 Samuel 8:6-7).
And [Samuel] said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles (1 Samuel 8:11-20).
