Share all your memes, news and videos related to and regardin Stefan Molyneux.
>Youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot
>Freedomain Radio
https://freedomainradio.com/
https://twitter.com/stefanmolyneux
Related videos
____________
>The Dangers of Common Core | Dr. Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhdvRx_lmkg
>The Truth About Trump University and Judge Gonzalo Curiel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9XMioUUa3E
>The Truth About Muhammad Ali
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgouwh2Ir6Q
>Leftist Violence Against Donald Trump Supporters | True News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3yAulC10qI
>The Truth About Angry Birds: The Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzEQpLJfthM
Where all my molybros at?
>>76835962
molybro reporting in
>>76836145
Welcome. Did you watch the latest video?
>The Dangers of Common Core | Dr. Duke Pesta and Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhdvRx_lmkg
What do you guys think Stefen Molyneux thinks of based Bill Whittle? red pilled?
>>76835962
>not listening to extremely comfy david duke daily
>>76837324
>>76837525
Please leave this thread.
This thread is reserved for Stefan Molyneux.
>>76835962
>Hey guys I want to have this channel be all about philosophy. Let's start with a basic problem: What is real?
>[some years later]
>Hey guys. I am no longer a racial egalitarian. The white race must survive.
Why is he so against low ages of consent? Low age of consent is a remedy against low birth rates, and 13 year olds are perfectly capable of sex and giving birth.
>>76837866
Achmed?
In the western civilisation we do not have low age of consent because while they may be biologically appropriate for sex, they are not mentally
>>76837997
Only because we coddle them and don't give them independence. It was a viable system in the past. High AoC is a very recent phenomenon.
>>76838078
>It was a viable system in the past
Precisely, in the past. We have evolved since through experimentation and science. We do not need pedophilia any longer to survive and evolve.
>>76838271
>We do not need pedophilia any longer to survive and evolve.
You have seen birth rates lately right? Especially white birth rates?
>>76838338
That's because of overpopulation and immigration. Has nothing to do with the fact that we can't impregnate underaged kids.
this general is not an argument
>>76837744
>>76838436
Neither of those are true. White birth rates are below replacement levels. Overpopulation is a myth. The planet can sustain 50 billion people easily.
>>76838588
>Neither of those are true
>Proceeds to not explain why the first one is wrong
>Then comes up with a number out of his ass to prove his bullshit point
Leaf with proxy?
>>76838078
All (not an) arguments for banging kids aside, Molymeme has a bias towards overprotective parenting. He's staunchly anti-spanking, and he believes that the more sexual partners a woman has, the worse off she is in just about every aspect of her life (there was no data on males). High age of consent seems to fit right in with these beliefs.
That's why HE (no aggression be upon him) would be for high AoC. I'm sure you could argue that he's wrong, but that's where the Molyneux stands.
>>76838338
The problem is the r selected breeding patterns of low IQ third-world immigrants. High IQ whites are typically K selected. There is a demographic problem, but the solution isn't to throw caution to the wind and pump out millions of babies by fucking young teens. We simply do not have the financial resources available. We have to prevent immigration to the white nations to keep them white. Trying to outbreed the muzzies would be total fucking madness.
>>76838338
I like where this is going...
Low birth rates are caused by the totally unfuckable white women when they cross the age of consent?
Breed em early and often, right?
Oh, and I'm really happy there's a Molyneux general, I hope it continues to exist.
>>76838959
Welcome.
>>76838713
>Makes a point
>Prove me wrong!
That's not how debating works. Spaghetti monster exists - prove me wrong.
>>76838733
>That's why HE (no aggression be upon him) would be for high AoC. I'm sure you could argue that he's wrong, but that's where the Molyneux stands.
I agree with him 100% on spanking. Sexual partners he's somewhat right.
>We have to prevent immigration to the white nations to keep them white.
Stopping immigration doesn't prevent population decline due to low birthrates though. White birthrates are below replacement levels.
>>76838742
High age of consent was literally introduced by feminists who wanted to increase their sexual market value by artificially limiting the market. A free market in sexuality would lower the value of washed up disgusting middle-aged feminist women, because younger women who haven't had many/any partners are more desirable, and clearly more attractive. Look how popular the search term 'teen' is on any porn site.
>>76839178
They're below replacement levels, sure, but the answer isn't lowering age of consent laws. Young women are fucking retarded, I wouldn't want them raising kids. The answer is to offer tax breaks or bonuses for having children, and maybe lower taxes for parents.
I don't know how you would do this in Molyneux's free society, but that's how you could do it under the current system.
>>76839472
>Young women are fucking retarded, I wouldn't want them raising kids.
Ideally they'd have a stable husband to help.
>The answer is to offer tax breaks or bonuses for having children, and maybe lower taxes for parents.
That's already implemented in practically every Western country, to no results. Do you want to pour good money after bad?
>>76839178
Well you are highlighting the problem and I'm telling you the cause of it. You are looking at this from a very narrow perspective.
Yes, lowering age of consent would lead to more white babies, but it would present a whole set of new problems for society
1. While we would have more babies, we would also get more immigrant shitskin babies, this is just a fact. They are way more accepting of early marriage and having kids early. It literally says in the Quran to produce a shit ton of babies just to have the biggest population
2. The white babies that do come out would be from white uneducated kids who aren't financially responsible or independent yet. How would that look? How would the kids future be?
3. Society would be utterly fucked, parents would have to finance their grandsonds and granddaughters because their own kids cant take care of themselves let alone a kid or two.
Stop looking at solutions only and start looking at causes, we simply are in no position to breed more kids
NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>76837762
He's turned into a neo-con.
>>76835962
>>76835989
>>76836145
>>76836593
>>76837324
>>76837525
>>76837744
>>76837762
>>76837866
>>76837997
>>76838078
>>76838271
>>76838338
>>76838436
>>76838504
>>76838506
>>76838588
>>76838713
>>76838733
>>76838742
>>76838959
>>76839050
>>76839178
>>76839472
>>76839727
>>76839807
>>76839839
But where are the arguments?
>>76839891
That's not what noe-conservatism is.
Clinton is the closest to neocon you'll get for awhile.
>>76839807
>While we would have more babies, we would also get more immigrant shitskin babies, this is just a fact.
So close the borders, or eliminate welfare for parents.
>The white babies that do come out would be from white uneducated kids who aren't financially responsible or independent yet.
Any progress is better than regression.
>Society would be utterly fucked, parents would have to finance their grandsonds and granddaughters because their own kids cant take care of themselves let alone a kid or two.
Abolishment of anti-business laws would ensure near-100% employment.
>>76840011
Do you call this a fucking argument?
>>76840097
Thank you, now you are presenting real solutions. Lowering age of consent would only lead to regression.
I'm happy you managed to come to your own conclusion though. Real proud of you, champ
>>76839727
>Ideally they'd have a stable husband to help
I mean, it's a nice idea, but I just don't think in practice that it would actually result in a bunch more stable white families. I just think we're going to see a lot more single mothers, just younger ones.
Also, how low of an AoC are we talking here? 16? 14? Lower?
>>76840165
He looks really unhealthy
>>76840240
He had cancer
>>76840143
Yes. It is an argument. Not a complex one, but an argument.
It's like someone saying an apple is an orange and someone else saying it's an apple--no further need to explain.Things are what they are.
>>76840240
He was in the middle of chemotherapy in that picture.
>>76840301
That's not an argument. Just because the conclusion of the argument is obvious, doesn't mean the conclusion itself is an argument.
>>76840214
Is there any evidence beside subjective opinion that 13 year olds aren't ready for sex mentally?
>I just think we're going to see a lot more single mothers, just younger ones.
That issue is because of so much female-biased legislation, such as the family court system being heavily tilted towards women, and the safety net so they can hook up with terrible guys and just live on welfare when they leave.
>Also, how low of an AoC are we talking here? 16? 14? Lower?
There shouldn't be one at all. Obviously that doesn't mean I think people should be allowed to fuck infants. Existing rape laws can protect children who really can't consent.
>>76840464
Kek thanks for this one, saved
>>76840342
Did he really say all those things?
>defending trump, the israeli poster boy
lmao
>>76840617
no, its wishful thinking of the nat soc crowd here. he's still a libertarian.
>>76840614
has he been replaced?
>>76840617
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_3yAulC10qI#t=2075
>34:35
>>76837324
Idiot neocon zionist "Christian", the oxymoron of the century. He will never name the jew and blames everything in irrelevant Arabs (of course the secular leader like syria).
>>76840384
finally, an argument
>>76840554
There's plenty of evidence.
First of all I feel like we are talking about different things here. I was assuming we were talking about impregnation and not sex. My point still stands for both of the actions but there is a difference. If you want to impregnate a 13 year old girl then we can discuss that. But if you simply want to have the freedom to have sex with 13 year old girls then that's a completly other topic. I welcome arguing pros and cons regarding pedophilia but none of the arguments you have put fourth back your position up.
And for the impregnation, well yeah you don't even really need scientific evidence to prove that it's a stupid idea to be allowed to have a child as a 13 year old. You aren't financially stable, you are still in your learning years and you should be focusing on education and selv-improvment as opposed to having to take care of a child.
>zero arguments ITT
>>76840747
>shilling for hill
>>76841041
First of all, 13 year olds isn't pedophilia. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. It's only a stupid idea in current society, it was viable before and it can be viable again with law changes, to make females accountable. I'm arguing for a reduction in the age of consent, but an increase in underage pregnancy is an obvious side effect of that, good or bad.
>>76841401
So the objective is to give people more freedom or to increase white birth rates? You have been very back and fourth about this
>>76841480
Not at all. It's to give more freedom, increasing white birth rates is a good side effect.
>>76840812
Oh man, great pic anon.
Btw, The error in libertarianism isn't capitalism or its ideal of liberty. The error is any acceptance of popular sovereignty, republicanism, or democracy, because these political forms are opposed to private property innately.
When more and more libertarians begin to wake up to monarchism and reactionary thinking, I think libertarianism will gain momentum. The philosophy will no longer have to juglle the idea of anti-egalitarian capitalism with fundamentally egalitarian political systems (popular sovereignty).
>>76840768
He literally said every single one of those things at the end of a video.
>>76841701
Alright well I'm not sure why you brought up birth rates in the first place then.
>>76840011
He believes classical liberalism for white people is superior to all other races and cultures, how is he not a neo-con?
>>76841872
Because it's a good reason to support it. You don't think 16 is too high?
>>76841962
We have 15 and it's way too low. 18 is a good number, that's when you get out of highschool and are basically done education (for a lot of people atleast).
I want to have a economically stable society, and we don't have that with a bunch of minors with kids, sadly.
>>76842084
Why are you ignoring the husband of the child? What's wrong with a 25 year old having a child with a 13 year old?
>>76842200
>Implying it's possible to live well today with one working parent only.
This would only benifit the extremly well off males who can afford a young wife and a kid.
Also why couldn't he just marry a wife in his age? Literally the only reason I can come up with is pedophilia
>>76842392
Again, pedophilia is prepubescent children. Most males are attracted to postpubescent teens.
>>76842615
>615 ▶
>>>76842392 (You)
>Again, pedophilia is prepubescent children. Most males are attracted to postpubescent teens.
So if they are attracted to teens, what happens to them when they grow older? Divorce and remarry another teen?
>>76842615
>>76842842
Ignore the formatting
>>76840747
You better back that shit up with some arguments.
>>76842842
Very few people are just into teens, again hence why 'teen' is an extremely popular search term.
>>76843143
Well you are ignorign the fact that there would be a bunch of retarded kids impregnating themselves and basically becomeing a burden to society. You can't deny the fact that this would happen.
>>76843770
Eliminate welfare, and create an open market for adoption.
