Limits of reason

This isn't an argument.
Even if you're right about human psychology, you're pretty much just using this as an opportunity to rant about it, juxtaposing your own views against what you perceive to be Molyneux's anarcho-capitalism based around universally preferable behavior, respect for property rights, peaceful parenting, and the non-aggression principle.

Stef needs to understand one critical thing about people: Some people are fucking batshit insane. So batshit insane that, to understand them you'd have to be just as batshit insane.

I count myself lucky that I can't understand the reasoning of some SJWs, for example.

What was the quote? 'If you stare long into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you'.

...

It's fucking hilarious how atheists will denounce God at every turn but then seek out some other figure or concept to worship like a god with twice the fervor.

It's because they know, as every human being does on some level, that God is real. The harder they try to pretend He isn't, the more they feel driven to 'prove' he isn't. I have a friend who goes from perfectly reasonable, amiable man to spitting, ranting loon the moment you mention Ben Carson. Why?

Because Ben Carson is a Christian, and before El Rato cheated him, he had a very real shot at becoming President.

Molyneux bills himself as a philosopher, and never addresses the disorder because he can generate more content addressing symptoms. Anyone ranting about personal politics is a narcissist. What he extols is dangerous, aggression is a mandate when you're surrounded by a suicidal society. Don't listen to this idiot, he's just treading water to generate clicks and is in no way a philosopher. He's also completely insane and Joe Rogan's retarded ass reduced him to a quivering mess. Believe in the tenets of Christianity but don't buy into any metaphysical bullshit, there's your answer.

I think he understands this along with a growing number of other AnCaps.

The NAP is slowly being replaced with the PRP, the Physical Removal Principle.

I wonder to what degree Toxoplasma Gondii plays into this phenomenon. Fucking brain parasites, man.

Maybe there is yet an unknown microscopic protozoan that causes this behavior. Genetic biologists have given up trying to find a schizophrenic gene and may be looking for a pathogenic explanation, even though close family members with schizophrenia are the highest risk factor.

I really enjoy these reaction images so I'm going to use another one, not only because it brings me pleasure but because it's true. What you said even resembles the pictured text.
Care to elaborate, support, or explain what you mean by this?
I don't know what you mean by "the disorder." Do you mean thanatos? How do you know that he doesn't take it into account? How familiar are you with his philosophy, actually?
Coming from the guy posting on Holla Forums's politics board, eh.

It's been painfully obvious for a long time to everyone with libertarian inclinations and a brain that the NAP and PRP are meant to compliment each other. The problem is that anyone who says so is advocating a form of fascism, which isn't politically correct.

I always laugh when you theists do that. When you try to insult atheism by calling it a religion, you are insulting yourself as well.

kek.
If I'm remembering this correctly from primary school, to be healthy you need to fulfill your needs for mental, physical, social, and spiritual health. This would be being happy, fit, having friends/love, and worshiping God/some deity respectively. I'm sure if you look into anyone's belief system they'll have a place for a God or at the very least something considered sacred to worship.

But nobody ITT has done that.

I didn't even need to prove my point. Thanks, atheist.

Instant replay.

It's not. OP is a fag.

Thats why you have friends and family OP, go seek comfort in your safe space and gtfo.

Not an insult. There's nothing wrong with veneration.
Not an insult. This is simply a psychological observation.
You're overreacting, honestly.

Because his fedora is on too tight.

:^)

Now now, let's not start giving him ammunition. He might go full Columbine on us.
OH WAIT, that was the Jews.

That's literally the faggiest thing I've ever heard. Proves anCaps and libertards live in fantasy land.

You want to read faggotry?
Go read Plato's Symposium.

Pretending not to be OP would do nothing to enhance my argument, and you making that accusation is not an argument.

Furthermore, the importance of emotion in modeling human behavior lies at the macro-scale, not on an individual level.
If you could tell entire mobs of angry people to "Go back to your family and cry out your frustrations", then there would never be irrational riots; you could simply tell a swarm of niggers "Hey this is dumb." and they would disperse.
Why don't you try it?

Of course, the completely unavoidable presence of emotion in the modeling of human behavior IS demonstrated at the individual level by even your own irrational posting, since it is driven not by any observation or even anecdote, but rather wishful thinking and (understandable) disdain for irrationality.

No place for such things in me, user. No such thing as sacred. It's either is open to examination, or I piss on it an move on.

You were complimenting him? Do you really expect anyone to buy that garbage?

...

What are you, some kind of kike?

Wanna know how I know you're new here?

No, I'm an argument.

Here's a hint.

Arguments are for people who aren't fags.

Why would I do that, when I can engage in universally preferable behavior, and practice peaceful parenting and raise a self-center hellion monster?

One-dollar-man is doing audio books of Japanese light novels now?

I don't think this would strike anybody as an astonishing revelation

Could you be more specific? Many insane behaviors can be classed as fairly predictable pathologies, like drug use or, as one poster mentioned, gambling.

But did you know he has a call-in show and regularly fields questions from people critical of his viewpoint? Why not just debate him head to head? Or e-mail him and post the exchange to pol?

lol no he didn't

brb burn ward.

It wasn't a compliment, either. It was just an observation: having watched a few of his videos, it just seems like he reveres the rational faculty and thinks that it has the power to positively impact people's lives in ways that other things don't.
It was a comment, made in passing, about a particular atheist. You took it to be a general statement about atheists.

No you aren't.

How many children do you have, user? What are your parenting strategies?

Why would he do that when he can construct strawmen?

To exercise non-aggression is to submit to being trampled. There has never been nor will there ever be a nonviolent rational society. To even entertain the notion is erecting a straw man to virtue signal. I'm here because of reactionary politics, the kind that actually matter. Laws are political artifacts, people break laws all the time, the only consequence of politics is ex post facto or an abstract construction born of fear of aggression and reprisals.

The fact that you don't have a rational response to my posts, and have thus become irrationally upset, thus proving my posts, is for you, repeat the meme

Once again, I'm not seeing an argument in this post.
So go attack an army or something. You're being trampled as long as you're not out attacking people, by this standard. Are you OK with this?
You're just posting a series of unrelated premises, this isn't an argument.
Why?

A rational response and an argument are different things. I'm not upset, either. You're the one that got offended.

Yeah. Just read notes from underground. It's short. Stefan desperately needs to read it, among other things.

kek

There are a few words missing off the title, the caller is massively cucked though.

forgot embed

Listen to his podcasts on emotion. He argues that emotions, true emotions, are rational, and most of the crap in our lives is due to going with mythology/propaganda over true feelings.

Why, I've easily got 137 children, and I raise them all to walk a chalk line - some death threats here, some corporeal punishment there.

Every now and then, I'll set a few on fire and let their panicked flailing burn the house down. Afterward I blame the others for not stomping the flaming ones out, and punish them accordingly.

I've even abandoned a dozen or so (I can't remember) in a cornfield in Nebraska (or was it Iowa?). Meh, can't be bothered to give a shit.

they better all be white, user

shit

Humanity isn't purely rational and most of the time what makes us do or stop doing something isn't careful analysis. Shared common moral principles and values are what makes us tolerate others. Reason is very handy if you want to improve your country's GDP and if you can convince others that's the highest purpose of men, everything can work for a while. The problem is that we haven't established why a higher GDP would give purpose to anyone's life. Modern societies where most men won't stand against injustice in front of them out of fear of being hurt breed weak men who live their existence without a real aim. You could try to use reason to maximize the global index of happiness (leaving aside that maybe it would be healthy if some people were extremely miserable), but you could also teach people to say they're as happy as possible and get the same result. This is a problem that always happens with things that can't be reliably measured.

BTW talking about pure reason, I haven't watched too much Molyneux.

I can't really tell what color they are anymore, from all the bruising and third-degree burns.

Because your model isn't valid. You can say the world would be xyz if everyone had six arms and shit golden eggs, it's just irrelevant.

You're being overly clinical because you have nothing going on upstairs and can only point to the holes in the arguments of others. To sell any product that is non-essential is aggression. That ONE DOLLAR could have purchased an essential food item/water/shelter for the person that was sold a bill of goods on how "essential" listening to one guy's opinions is. Just because a transaction is voluntary doesn't mean it isn't predatory, and Stef is preying on soft-headed libertarians that want to feel virtuous about their own predatory behaviors (they call it "entrepreneurial" as if it means something more than deceit for profit). You don't have to feel good about everything you do. Accept that you are born unto a world of sin and you are a sinner, or go insane like Stef.

my nigga

Didn''t you get the memo moshe?

The term "e-celeb" has all but been proven to be a shill tactic meant to kill discussion and promote low energy forced memes such as dogs in jew costumes and advice on oral hygiene.

Besides, poleneux threads get bumplocked all the time for no reason at all other than shills or faggots like you crying "muh eselab"

But most importantly, that's not an argument

holy shit jim fix the fucking captcha page

For anyone who's not clear on Stef's view of emotions, read this excerpt of Real Time Relationships.

are these his quotes … ?

Leave this website forever

That's actually an interesting way of squaring that circle, however, what he is doing is very literally the definition of "rationalizing emotions" due to confirmation bias.

Now, that confirmation bias has basis, Stefan is a smart man, and I'm very sure that his emotions have a much firmer foundation and nuanced justification that your typical person, but that still doesn't change the fact that there are very few "logical reasons to feel". The primary "logic" behind emotion is motivation, but a stronger emotion quickly begins to sap a person's ability to reason properly.
If one wanted to "emote reasonably" in the way that Stefan suggests, he would have to have the ability to not only have "rational emotions" but to modulate their strength.

Suffice to say, all of this is getting pretty far beyond the capacities of normal people, and its questionable whether it would even be a preferable substitute for simple prudence, virtue, and emotional balance. It also goes without saying that such a model offers zero insight into existing human behavior, as it merely represents a theoretical ideal.

He argues emotions are results of thoughts.

Example?

They're from his book.

He really fucking hates his mother, doesn’t he? His statements on the matter can’t be taken as evidence of anything because he’s so biased against parents and didn’t have a proper upbringing. He can only ever give one side of the discussion.

Well in all fairness she was nigger-tier abusive to him.

And what do you think about how his mother raised him?

Addendum: for those of you who think that I'm advocating for some sappy, "muh feels" interpretation of behavior, or whatever nonsense is being projected onto me, let me direct your attention:
Stated otherwise as Wisdom, goodness, and simply balance.

Well of course, but what I mean by "logic" there is "If we were to objectively justify the existence of emotion, this is how we would do it"

Imagining your wife cheating on you results in anger, which can lead to prudent steps to subtly warn other men away from her without appearing as a social spurg.
WITNESSING your wife cheating on you has often resulted in murder as a function of poor cost/benefit analysis in those moments.

Why would you be suspecting your wife was cheating on you?

Stands to reason, but still it removes his objectivity.

I don't understand.

I said imagining. The anger that such an imagined scenario invokes can be applied when you see somebody sniffing around her. By engaging with that person in a way that conveys subtle hostility, the "warning" is sent.

This essentially mimics animal territorial behaviors.

Heh, even the common adage, "Sniffing around my wife" is drawn from animal behavior where these things are concerned.
I just realized.

...

Dostoyevsky's degenerate parents were part of a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational

But if you become enraged by that thought that assumes that you suspect she's capable of that.

Like when I imagine my best friend talking about me behind my back I don't get angry because I know that's not who he is. If I did get anxious about that then my feelings are trying to point me towards something about our relationship I'm neglecting.

This entire conversation is about LEVELS of emotion. If you cannot grasp that there is more than one type of anger, and all anger is equivalent to "blind rage" in your eyes, then you are not equipped for this conversation. additionally, this dim view of anger probably also makes you a cuck

The idea that certain people "aren't capable" of certain things is a delusion. There is no point to subjecting your wife to unnecessary temptation when you could instead assert yourself as a man and ward off someone who is trying to draw her into adultery.
Demonstrating that kind of strength makes you attractive to a woman.

Also, it's like a Muslim trying to scare me about burning in hell for not converting.

I think about the possibility, but I have no evidence it's true so it holds no ground.

Like the possibility of me being hit by an asteroid doesn't make me afraid of going outside.

But that's irrelevant to figuring out how people behave using reason and rationality. It's entirely possible to use reason to understand the actions people take based on their emotions.

The only problem I have with Stefan is his stance on violence. The "non aggression principle" is not supported by any sort of biology, history, psychology, or anything out of fanciful philosophy. Violence created this universe, and through violence we live or die.

Where do you use violence in your personal life?

Your question cluelessly identifies the problem.
Cucks (among whom you are probably included) have forgotten that all power is built upon violence or the threat thereof. This has resulted in the various crises that the white race faces.

People think that you can just drop your borders, let in foreigners, abdicate your cultural dominance, and that nothing bad will happen.

You yourself have advocated the position that a person doesn't need to even become angry at the thought of becoming LITERALLY cucked out of his wife and assert his territory in a socially-appropriate way, instead advocating for "trusting that she isn't capable of adultery". These ideas exemplify the "Nu-Male", about whom there is, in fact, little that is male, but advocating for the cultural dominance of this type of "masculinity" (only for whites) has been a top Jewish priority to disastrous effect.

And tell me, what wisdom has your ignorance and feelings granted you as to insight on the behavior of humans, that you knew enough about to express in words?

It should be noted, one does not, as you are implying, have to actually BECOME emotional to recognize that emotion is part of the models for human behavior.
The argument here, rather, is that any model for human behavior that treats emotion with disdain, seeks to expunge it, or pretends that it does not exist, is doomed to be incomplete and to fail fairly consistently.

Example: If disproving the holocaust hoax were as simple as presenting the facts of the matter, then that meme would have been dead for decades. Any solution to that (really pretty complex) problem would have to involve maneuvering the public into a position where they are PREPARED to be told the truth.
That is an emotional element to be considered while crafting memes.
Those disdainful of such considerations hamstring themselves.

Where have I proposed a model? What do you mean by 'valid?' I don't think you understand how refutation works, I don't need to make an argument to point out that yours have flawed premises. This is basic logic.
Seems like you're conceiving of 'aggression' in an odd way. I've never heard anything like this before.
For someone who claims to be making rational arguments, you're doing a really bad job.
This isn't philosophy, this is an appeal to my religious sensibilities. Even if you're right, this isn't an argument.

You didn't answer the question, you just called him a cuck. That's not an argument. You used a lot of Holla Forums's favorite buzzwords, which, while they have referents IRL, have no bearing on the question you were asked.

Responding to violence with violence doesn't break the non aggression principle.

...

...

Op knows better hahahaa delusional cunt. Go cut your wrists or something faggot.

Every time I find a clip of him with a nice title for a five minute dissertation it's 90 minutes long. Maybe he's a bit slow?

Now I know that good feeling.

he was a borderline Christian monarchist

So where do you use violence in your personal life?

You can study people that way to the same extent you can study ants, without a moral compass it's all pointless. Sure, you can reason to accept that instinct exists, but morals will be left aside in favor of selfish material desires. We have a lot of knowledge about sex, children are more educated about it than ever before but that doesn't mean it's had a positive effect. If having a family becomes inconvenient someone can be made to rationalize that there's nothing wrong with baby murder and then we can use baby bodies to improve our life expectancy

How could you reason your way to that conclusion? You can delude yourself into thinking that, but delusion =/= reason.

Autism is a mental illness. We should stop taking libertarians seriously and instead get them the mental health assistance they need to cope with a neurotypical world they don't understand.

Oh, and…

is-ought gap. Every libertarian argument immediately destroyed.

Ben Carson is not Christian and he had no chance to win anything because he is too retarded and has zero personality.

While Foucault was a degenerate faggot, his simple idea that relations in power are everywhere, and that everything in this world is an expression of this struggle for power is a great one. I am right now committing a very mild act of violence (but violence none the less) upon you - I am trying to convince you that violence is a constant occurrence in day to day life, thus forcing my will upon you from a position of authority (again, a mild one - me having read Foucault and you most likely haven't gives me a minor edge to me in this discussion, thus authority). Violence is everywhere. Thus, violence is something completely natural and all the cultural marxist bullshit of tolerance, multiculturalism and so forth are idiotic pipe dreams that are completely hypocritical.

Coincidentally, in the context of this theory, SJWs are onto something when they talk about microaggressions, but they fail to realize that they perpetuate the same cycle of violence. A broken clock is right twice a day, I suppose.

Buddha had it right all along.

Fresh Moly with Roger Stone on Hillary

I have read a bit of Foucault, actually. His views on power relations are more complicated than you let on. There's more to coercive violence than disagreement, The History of Sexuality Volume I is full of examples of explicit violence being used to back up the implicit aggression. You are not using explicit violence against me right now, and I do not feel threatened because of a disagreement with you. If you were an Inquisitor and I a medieval Jew, I might feel more threatened; as it is, unless you're a federal agent or a moderator, I don't know what you can do to me for posting here, short of violating the law, which would be transgressing your own place in the network of power relations that we exist in.
I don't see how you're an authority here: you and I are two anonymous posters on an anonymous imageboard. Neither of us has more authority than the other. I don't understand why you think you're the authority figure, here. You're defining 'violence' very broadly if you think that trying to convince somebody of something counts as violence. Yes, we are involved in a power-based relationship right now, but it isn't one based on violence. It's one based on aggressive disagreement. Your attempts to impose your views on me are aggressive but nonviolent.
Outside of the Internet, where do you use violence?

The non-aggression model you dolt, it's an ontological fallacy because a non-aggressive world has never existed nor will it and the burden of proof is on you to suggest otherwise. Religious sensibilities? You don't know what a literary device is, and you're dumb and covering by being overly clinical as dumb people often do. Scamming people out of their money to support your non-essential service is aggression by preying on their fear and insecurity. You're cherry-picking non-arguments out of a much more formidable argument because you're blowing in the wind. Nice straw man.

Look at the forced theatrics and psycho-drama of Moly's body of work. Periodic shouting followed by quiet reflection, Jones-tier fear mongering peppered with backdoor propaganda and sketchy data sets devoid of any context. Invents a definition of child abuse and then goes on to use statistics based on a false premise. Come the fuck on lad. You like molyneux because you are clearly incapable of forming your own opinions and need a priest to confirm your feelings for you. This guy's a con artist and he needs to stop shilling his shit here.

He also deletes comments he finds problematic and contradictory to his narrative. After that "Truth about 9/11" video was bombarded with "get Ryan Dawson on instead of this lunatic" comments, he just deleted all of them as if it wouldn't raise suspicion. This guy's bad news. Also outright denying his wife's professional history in an interview with Joe Rogan and being caught dead-to-rights in his lie. Don't trust this guy, he's got an agenda and that agenda is making trite observations for clicks with a side-order of propaganda.

I was broadening the definition of violence both for the sake of quickly illustrating the argument and because I care more about the principles themselves more than minute detail on an imageboard discussion.

You dismiss my example too early. Yes, perhaps me alone is not enough to violently coerce you to change your mind. But what if there was another user here that agreed with me and tried to do the same? Two? Three? Ten? How many drops of water are there in the sea? How many grains of sand make a hill? It's a question of degree.

This kind of violence is all around us and constantly invasive. You are on Holla Forums for possibly the same reason as many more - we are fed up with the nonsense in the news, media et cetera. It is all a kind of violent persuasion - it's not quite Room 101 and electro shock to force you to believe that 2+2=5, but it is pretty close in its constancy. We are being violently attacked every waking hour by people who wish lies to be truth. Going against the liberal multicultural grain is quite dangerous, wouldn't you agree? The very fact that you can be persecuted by a federal agent for browsing a Butanese carpet weaving apprentice discussion site is evidence of the violence. By your definition it is not actualized, no, but it is the implied consequence for disobeying. To me, that's as good as actual violence, it merely delays physical act of harming you while constantly harming you mentally.

Look at SJWs. Look at the rabid state they drive themselves (are driven) to in defending their place in the hivemind, their social status, and simultaneously trying to climb upward that ladder. You think that driving a regular, healthy child into a nervous wreck by slathering layers upon layers of white guilt every day on them is not violence, that they are merely being aggressively persuaded and it comes with no actual harm upon them?

The fuck literally said in a podcast that ww2 facts dont matter because we are supposed to "learn" something from it.
Well, I know I learnt something. Anarkiddies/lobergs are going to the same oven as the kikes and commies.

therefore crypto-jew

Fair, but the observer is also affected by his own emotions, and shouldn't be expected to be able to examine all data like a completely detached machine. The answer to some questions should be "we don't know" but we're too proud to accept that and most rationalists will accept popular theories until a more refined one comes along. If you want to call that delusion instead of reason you're not necessarily wrong but most observers won't be able to tell them apart. Going back to your question, a rationalist would have to decide if some innocent dead babies are too high of a price in order to make every future baby last longer. I believe that using only reason most people will answer yes, but I guess that could be argued. Different people will reach different conclussions, but like I said, the observers are flawed.

I remember him in the debates and he gave a lot of succinct answers that were absolutely accurate. But it was also obvious they weren't firing up anyone and that's a death sentence.

Nice thought out post. There isnt a single "rational" philosopher out there nor has ever been one. Arguments are never won with just facts alone. Moneyjew is the same as every fear mongerer, wrong or right. Thats how it works.
NAP is also full of shit like you said. It has never existed nor will it.

Wasn't this thread bumplocked?
Did you just create an identical one?

Dostoevsky was hated by the Jews since he reference blood libel in one of his books

I have read a bit of Foucault, actually. His views on power relations are more complicated than you let on. There's more to coercive violence than disagreement, The History of Sexuality Volume I is full of examples of explicit violence being used to back up the implicit aggression. You are not using explicit violence against me right now, and I do not feel threatened because of a disagreement with you. If you were an Inquisitor and I a medieval Jew, I might feel more threatened; as it is, unless you're a federal agent or a moderator, I don't know what you can do to me for posting here, short of violating the law, which would be transgressing your own place in the network of power relations that we exist in.
I don't see how you're an authority here: you and I are two anonymous posters on an anonymous imageboard. Neither of us has more authority than the other. I don't understand why you think you're the authority figure, here. You're defining 'violence' very broadly if you think that trying to convince somebody of something counts as violence. Yes, we are involved in a power-based relationship right now, but it isn't one based on violence. It's one based on aggressive disagreement. Your attempts to impose your views on me are aggressive but nonviolent.
Outside of the Internet, where do you use violence?>>6354242
You broadened it too much.
Unless one of you comes up to me and threatens me with physical violence, you aren't being violent.
Then you ought to start making better distinctions. There's a qualitative difference between being told that you will be attacked and actually being attacked.
This is about you, not the education system. Where in real life do you use violence to attain your goals? Do you intimidate everyone around you into agreeing with you?

I'm not advocating pacifisim, I'm advocating not being the one to initiate the use of force. Nobody is denying that people are aggressive and nobody ITT is saying that a world without aggression is possible.
What was the point you were trying to make? I thought you were trying to scare me away from anarcho-capitalism by threatening me with damnation. If that wasn't what you were doing, I don't know why you think your hyperbole should convince anyone.
The rest of your post is just ad hom.

What do you mean by "rational?" I'm genuinely curious, I don't know why you're being so aggressive about this point.

actually uses physical violence against me*

...

Who?

You're not bumping the thread, that's a step in the right direction.

Remember to filter, hide and report.

...

...

...

Ad hom is warranted when you're attacking a personality cult, you idiot. You are not advocating non-aggression, you are advocating moral grandstanding whilst doing the very thing you are advocating against. Your non-essential service is robbing your victims of their money by convincing them through deceit that philosophy and your brand of philosophy is worth purchasing because the world is too dangerous to go it without your expertise. You are a liar and a thief. I say this as a liar and a thief as we are all liars and thieves. The world of sin is a world of casual merciless nature. You cannot justify a profit margin whilst extolling non-aggression. I'm not saying what your doing is contemptible, but it isn't moral and you are performing mental gymnastics to appear that way. Not everything a person does has to be virtuous, selling non-essential things isn't violent but it is aggressive and the burden of proof is on you to say otherwise. Voluntary =/= truthful or moral. People voluntarily buy drugs because they are addicted to escapism and confirmation/validation. You are just another pill robbing the desperate and stupid of their wages. You don't have to stop what you're doing, but I won't hear that being an "entrepreneur" qualifies as moral high-ground.

So you aren't addressing any arguments?
How am I initiating the use of force agianst you?
Do you seriously think that I'm Stefan Molyneux? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

...

Uh dur, and? An ad hom by itself still isn't an argument. It doesn't prove anything. You're not PROVING anything. If you're going to move beyond rhetorical and logical arguments and into specific examples of where Moly has fucked up, try BACKING IT UP.

You're not a mind-reader.

You're robbing me of my time and money by spewing your non-essential words on how following Moly is too dangerous without your expertise. I'm a mind-reader, so I already know you're doing this by deceit. You are a liar, a thief, and a bully.

Wow, I didn't even need mind-reading, he comes right out and says it. Therefore I don't need to listen to or trust anything you say.

You're right, therefore I don't need to listen to or trust anything that you say, since you're a sinner, thief, and liar. Wow, it's like I don't even need to start conversations because I can just shut them down instantly.

More lies and deceit. Also, please, tell me I'm doing mental gymnastics. Because I'm doing exactly what you're doing.

More lies and deceit. Also, burden of proof that selling non-essential things isn't violent nor aggressive? Do you also hate guns? Because you remind me of a Britcuck baby who posted a video shouting, "GET RID OF THE GUNS, IT'S NOT WORTH IT! YOU GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET THE MONEY TO GET THE POLICE, GET RID OF THE GUNS! IT'S NOT WORTH IT!" It makes me think you don't know what AGGRESSIVE is.

If you think using words to try to make people voluntarily buy your shit is aggressive, then how about I come over to your house and show you what aggressive is?

And while we're at it, tell me - what ISN'T aggression? Oh right, we're all liars and thieves and sinners, everything we do is fundamentally aggression, even the air we breathe. So tell me, what's the FARTHEST THING REMOVED FROM AGGRESSION, OR DOES THE CONCEPT OF DEGREE NOT COME INTO YOUR WORLDVIEW?

Pffffffffthahahahaha. No one said that except you, you little bitch. Assuming ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, if the exchange is voluntary, then you *could* say it's moral. BUT NOT ALL VOLUNTARY EXCHANGES ARE EQUAL. Just because muh voluntary drugs is bad doesn't mean ALL VOLUNTARY EXCHANGES ARE BAD. What a little bitch way of thinking. Oh wait, voluntarily exchanging money for thoughts, ideas, books is equal to voluntarily buying drugs, my god how could I have been so blind.

You're a liar, thief, sinner, bully, and a little bitch.

You're mad because you're wrong. None of that was a refutation or an argument. Sorry kiddo, you aren't very smart and need people to feed you a constant stream of stimulation via trite observations on youtube. What's worse is that you're defensive about it. Back to reddit Dr. Doublespace, nice cultist meltdown :^)

...

I honestly can't tell if you're baiting at this point.

...

Want to see your pope get his dick pushed in? Scrubbed this video from search results, wonder why?

The position I'm defending is that worshiping the opinions of an internet "philosopher" is a waste of time and he's gaming you for money (fact). Your argument is that watching news commentary is good for independent thinking. You are an idiot and your position is indefensible. Think for yourself, else you be susceptible to gatekeepers and propagandists like "believe the official 9/11 story or you're as bad as a flat-earther" molyneux. You suck lol get better.

Don't dish it if you can't take it, little bitch. Oh right, when you do it, it's different.

Who's worshiping Molymeme?
I watch his news commentary because he offers interesting commentary. It isn't because I think he's a god. He's just better than MSNBC and he cites statistics and somewhat reliable sources, unlike a lot of alternative media sites.
What do you think of people who believe that the Nazis killed a lot of Jews?

Moneyjew is just another in the long list of modern intellectuals. Which means lying sack of shit.

The claim that I took issue with was that no philosopher has ever been rational. I want to know what that's supposed to mean, since it's a fairly broad statement, and if any non-philosopher has behaved rationally in your opinion. Do you reject the notion that people can behave according to rational principles?

Cry more faggot, you're in a cult and you're pissed because I insulted "ONE DOLLAR KILL MY MOM" Jim Jones. He's not a rational person, he's just a confident libertarian retard. Does this asshole send you birthday cards or something, why are you so defensive? Pretty telling tbh fam. I'm embarrassed for you. You're addicted to content and will suckle at the tit of any silver tongue to pony up a strong opinion. You need a father in your life.

Again, this guy defends the official 9/11 story and deletes objecting opinions to his cult narrative. I really hope you guys aren't donating or subscribing to this loser for your sake.

Consider how the representative of An-Cap, the supposed only rational and truthful ideology out there, literally said that facts dont matter because we are supposed to learn from a pozzed version of history, yes.
All of you can shove a 12 gauge up your ass for all I care.

I actually said several things, among which was the speculation that he MIGHT be a cuck.

Cherry-picking is you should know

wew lad
I bet you think Nietzsche was the height of Western philosopohy.

wew lad
Who claimed that ITT?

Yeah, you're right about cherrypicking :^)

Nobody. Stefan Moneyjew did that in a recent pod cast.

And who ITT has endorsed Molyneux's philosophy 100%?
You assume you're dealing with a bunch of cultists when in fact you're just dealing with a bunch of people posting on a right-wing imageboard and who dislike a lot of the things Molymeme rants about.
So how about you back up the claim that no philosopher has ever been rational, instead of talking about how Molymeme makes hyperbolic statements that nobody ITT has been proven to take particularly seriously?

And he used to associate with socialist revolutionary circles in his youth.

How is his heritage nor past relevant when compared to his later positions and work for the good of the empire?

This is why limiting one's self to "non-aggression" as a principle is itself an irrational emotional proposition that is getting us killed.

Our (((Enemy))) has designed mostly non-violent systems which are designed to exterminate us. These cycles are designed to provoke cost/benefit analysis among whites that leave the only options as, "I can either take action/speak out and take on personal risk, or stay silent and allow minor harm to my race". Those "minor harms" naturally building up over thousands and thousands of cases as white populations continuously do nothing.

This system can only be broken through violation of the non-aggression principle.
This is why the non-aggression principle is cucked.

This shilling is ___

The only system that was rational was the Old Order with its Monarchies and Churches. Post-revolution any form of Absolute Truth was utterly rejected and all systems were built on "subjective-truth" or left over capital from the Christian civilization.

oodegr.co/english/filosofia/nihilism_root_modern_age.htm

Did someone say Holla Forumsyneux?

The physical removal corollary has that covered, though. We just have to kick the bad eggs out.

Who's shilling for who? Not everyone who disagrees with you is being paid by your enemies.

I get it, you must've been that old boomer cuck who got demolished during a call while crying about how it's other people's duty to pay old boomer cuck's pensions by paying into government and you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to other old boomer cucks that blinds your ability to reason.

Now that you mention it… he is a skinhead.

...

I'm a biologist and a man of means. I don't have to read philosophy because I have concrete answers for behaviors and use them to make big boy money. Philosophy is for weak-minded people that can't make their own astute observations. Sorry you've been led to believe that intelligent people read classical philosophy, that isn't the case. There are scientific answers to philosophical questions and not the other way around. If you're into philosophy, you're into being fleeced. Get gud faggots. You're wasting your time, real knowledge isn't borne of staring at your naval and conjecturing in circles about the nature of xyz. Molyneux is a security blanket for retards who are addicted to online content and a self-asserted moral high ground.

Why are you so committed to arguing about philosophy, then?

Are you a marine biologist by any chance?

...

I'm halfway through, but did you even watch this video?

This is a valid criticism of state-capital relation, but it has nothing on AnCap stuff at all. I expect this to change.

Molecular, but I work with zebra fish a lot if that counts. You're arguing about opinions while I'm cloning transgenic vertebrates, do you feel smart? You aren't.

How specifically does biology inform your political opinions?

Try backing up your stance without going into philosophy.

I think Zebras are mammals.

He's jewish so he over rationalizes everything

It's in his nature to sterilize culture, he can't help it

Also he's a diehard holdout lolberg who, in the face of exponential amounts of niggers chimping, still believes in the insane jacobin cult of egalitarianism.

Molyneux would presumably just reject Dostoevsky. "He's not a philosopher." That's what he said about Nietzsche.

I don't think Molyneux has read much philosophy other than Aristotle and Ayn Rand, if you want to count her.

Every time he calls himself a philosopher, or mentions philosophy, it's cringeworthy.

He's essentially a delusional moron at the core, but redpilled in some ways and very good at controlling conversations with people and making them sound bad.

Where? I remember an episode when the caller claimed that.

I understand game theory, understand that group-selection is not an evolutionary factor, and understand population studies. Idiots like molyneux have a cursory understanding of biology and convince you faggots that r/K selection is a real thing. That's not how scientific consensus works, I'm really sick of hearing this faggot parroted here. Biology is how you exist, philosophy is why you exist. The former has an answer that provides immense benefit to mankind, the latter is self-affirming garbage that you needn't concern yourself with as it helps no one but yourself and Jewish publishing companies.

youtube.com/watch?v=nQvk0t33i2Y

This may be the one

Step off your high horse. I would exist without biologists, you would be sitting in a mud hut without my profession.

I will ask you again. How does biology inform your political opinions? You can try with an example.

Not anymore.

He didn't find Jesus or anything, but he has become more aware of the role of Christianity in upholding Western values and the role of atheism in degeneracy and big government.

How does it help 'yourself?' I thought it was pointless navel-gazing.
And not everyone who posts here or watches alt-right-related YouTube videos takes r/K theory seriously, most of us understand that one book is not scientific proof.

Well, he's still a staunch atheist. Understanding the significance of religion in the history of Western civilization =/= ceasing to be an atheist.

I've seen that, but he was very much a contrast to the caller.

Personally, I only read Thus spoke Zaratustra. Genealogy of morals is my next on the read list, but judging by what I've seen so far - he might have been a philosopher. It also carries an interesting message, and there is some wisdom.

But the way it is delivered to the reader is more in the form of postulates through poetry, rather than getting the reader to understand the rules behind the thought.

It is more of showering with his conclusions (and perhaps forcing you to evaluate yourself) than it is teaching you something.
It is akin to teaching a child mathematics by yelling "25+14=39", "12/3=4". It might be correct, but it hardly enlightens the child to the point of the mathematician - if the guy is mathematician in the first place.

Same with Nietzsche. Hope the future reading changes my mind.

You know a trade, big deal, you aren't rigorously finding out anything new or difficult. I'm busting ass trying to cure genetic disease while you're the guy on a high horse thinking that bricklaying is something only a professional can do. Idiot.

It helps idiots sleep at night knowing that the world is beneath them because they know the names of 18th century philosophers while having zero employable skills.

wow based tbf

Yeah, that's why I'm skeptical about his status as a philosopher.

So what?

I am talking about engineering, not laying bricks, you pretentious cuck. You're not the only one with a diploma here.

Nice job avoiding the question for the second time. Shows how full of your worthless work you are.

btw Beyond Good & Evil is worth reading

If that's not a video of an atheist losing his staunch-ness for atheism — I don't know what it is.

Just look at his videos, see how far back you have to go to see a video of Moly promoting atheism or criticizing Christians.

You have to go pretty far back.

Lately, he has not being saying anything bad about Christians — in fact, he has been complimenting them.

You can tell that lately he has been feeling downright cozy about Christians as allies against Islam.

People change gradually, user.

banned?

...

Theism isn't approval toward theists, it's a belief in God. Stef still doesn't believe in God.

Unfortunately, atheism got tied with degeneracy.

An atheist is either a hipster (and more likely so than not) or a very intelligent person.

No, really. One has either committed the ultimate sin of denying the existence of "God" because one truly is convinced he doesn't exist, or one is trying to fit into a crowd.

I am the latter kind of Atheist. So is Dawkins. So are many more very intelligent individuals.

FORMER

Doesn't sound that smart to me with that mistake m80

t. fedora

Ok, but that's just semantic autism.

There's a big difference between the Moly who made this video 2 months ago:

And the one that made embedded video 9 years ago.

But in your mind — doesn't matter — both "staunch atheists", right?

Semantics is more important than you let on, but you're right.

Oh God the autism…

...

I'm fucking lost on the subject, moly doesn't discount emotion

Just replied to say that your example is a matter of mate guarding, not territoriality, but since they are both fairly related from an evolutionary point of view, it's interesting at how similar the feel and response to interlopers/outsiders is. Most people aren't territorial, so that may not make sense..

Wait, what the hell is OP going on about?

Cucked pol is bad enough with the shill threads, what the hell is this about reason not being an effective tool to analyze the world around you? Feelings have no place, they cloudy everything up and stoop the argument down to an emotional level. This is not to say that feelings are negligible in determining human behaviour, if that's what you're getting at. He isn't a robot, just realizes that misplaced emotional arguments (happens more often that not) have no place in a civilized discussion.

So you're an unintelligent hipster? :^)

Doesn't that kind of vindicate his point? His mom was a narcissistic cunt, so he feels repulsed by her. Considering his argument that emotions are in large part result of conditioning, it's an entirely predictable outcome.

Fanboyism is pretty unbecoming for Holla Forums

Haven't you heard, user? Reason is just an emotion and therefore isn't relevant.
Or something. I don't even know what motivates this line of thought, I've tried to figure it out and usually it seems like the person doing it is using reason to put the claim forward. I know to some people this isn't an obvious contradiction, but those same people are the ones I'm talking about.

He have said pretty much the same thing on several occations.

Because otherwise a lot of people won't even allow a thought to enter their minds. If you don't go for that approach all you'll get is
So of course the arguments against reason have to come from reason, nothing else can reach the believer. We're too pozzed by modernity to have a discussion in any other way.

You're a fucking idiot.

No, we can have irrational discussions, they just don't accomplish much. I can say "Blue black icicle red ice," where's the rational argument there? There isn't one. It's a string of gibberish.

I am why your laboratory cannot be broken into by any random dindu, and why if you are mindless and lose your keys or fuck up your vault, you can still get into.

You are over specialized and are dependent on the skills of tradesmen to have the level of comfort that allows your profession to exist at all.

I have great respect for scientists that actually follow the scientific method and produce applicable results.

However, that does not mean you should insult tradesmen who are the bulwark against decaying infrastructure and the front line of implementing what allows civilization as your know it to function.

We must have mutual respect for one another, or we will all fall.

JUST