So who is the true master philosopher of our times?

So who is the true master philosopher of our times?

Sam Harris or Stefan Molyneux?

Other urls found in this thread:

fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/
libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-stefan-molyneuxs-ethical.html
youtube.com/watch?v=GUs_Q_rfl9I
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Stefan's face more clearly shows him to be the product of Anal Birth. You can just tell his mom pinched him off with her sphincter while crowning

Is that what gave him such wisdom?

I don't know if it gave him wisdom, but I think it gave him an affinity for other forms of shit.

Has Stefan been raped by Chomsky yet?

if not that's a point in his favor over Harris.

I tried to watch some of Molyneux's videos after having a few laughs off the "not an argument" meme. God, what a humongus faggot, I can't stomach that self-rightous cuck, the cherry on top of the shit cake is his passive agressive attitude where he tries to really make you think at the end of each video by leaving you with some statement he considers powerful or omg so deep and follow with his retarded equivalent of a mic drop. I can see why /pol/tards and others love him, though.

If you want a real bundle of laughs, you should lookup his book, Universally Preferable Behavior, and a guy named Donny Shahar who reviewed it.

Christopher Hichens

Have to agree. I sympathize with the meme-right on a lot of stuff but I couldn't sit through enough of this guy's videos to even understand the memes.

nu-/pol/ is basically reddit at this point.

I will never understand this obsession with youtube e-celebs. Only a fucking moron sits in his room yelling at his computer against an opponent who can't defend his position.

Fuck both those meme philosophers.

Especially funny when someone will respond to someone else with 'not an argument' as though you have to have an argument on fucking Veeky Forums.

>when he talks about a terrorist attack and he puts on the quiet and somber act like he cant bepieve it's come to this.
I fucking cringe every time.

Albert Mohler
RC Sproul
Ravi Zecharias

Great Christian theologians and philosophers.

Link pls

A brief overview of the drama

fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/

Shahar's blog itself.

libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-stefan-molyneuxs-ethical.html

I've spent 15 minutes reading this goddamn thing with no end.

Is this bait?

Well this happened. youtube.com/watch?v=GUs_Q_rfl9I

...

>meme-right
>nu-/pol/
>youtube e-celebs
>meme phiilosophers

All this lack of arguments.

I like both of their views on the death cult. End of story.

two guys who jerk off to logic and rational thought and can't use them for shit

Poor Chomsky, wasting some of his last moments on the notanargument guy.

Love how you complain about reddit while using reddit spacing like no tomorrow, bitch cuck.

Will Chomsky just show up on anything?

Well he should consider it an honor that Molymeme decided to feature him.

*sniff*

Does Molymeme every actually explain why he supports private property?

Given his massively broad concept of violence and coercion isn't the force needed to maintain property just as bad as the force needed to enforce the law?

>readable formatting is reddit

No. His only argument is "muh theft".

I disagree with many things that Harris says, but they are well reasoned opinions.

Molyneux is a colossol joke

What's his point? Workers sign contracts dictating a certain amount of pay for a certain amount of work, the supposed master is an equal partner in a contract. What is his alternative? Should the government strip you of property without contract or agreement and distribute it to the "oppressed?" Is that his true libertarianism?

>reddit spacing

Forced meme by newfags trying desperately to fit in. There is no "Veeky Forums spacing", dumbass. People type and format their posts however the fuck they want. Some are more legible than others.

Owners and workers are far from equal partners in employment, which in most circumstances can't be called voluntary. Unless you're very lucky the only feasible way to get the money you need to buy food, water, and shelter is to sell your labor to a boss for a wage. The alternative to this exploitative situation is the establishment of a classless, moneyless society. The term "libertarian" originally referred to those who want such a society before the word was co-opted by private property worshipers.

Basically this, even when Harris comes to kind of weird conclusions, he is very VERY good at properly explaining how he got there. He is not trying to create some sort of logic puzzle that only he knows the answer to. You can leave almost any of his opinions saying "OK that makes sense, even if I don't agree/think it's stupid." Also I legitimately believe that Harris doesn't give a fuck what his listeners think about certain topics. He doesn't want to preach to a choir, and complains when he's forced to. He also calls himself an interlocutor and doesn't seem to harbor a combative "us vs them" stance anywhere. I think Harris legitimately believes that communication can solve any problem. Also, for better or worse, he's willing to push and challenge his audience, and does so regularly. His biggest flaw (though it's something I actually really admire) according to his critics is his "robotic" or "political" tone, which makes him sound incredibly detached from every issue. I like hearing a non-emotionally involved person talk, but I can see why not everyone does.

Molyneux makes big leaps sometimes, and claims some total contradictory shit at others. I'm also convinced that some of his stances are purely for their controversial flare. He has openly admitted to engaging in logic traps and tricks ( exact opposite of Harris here) which he justifies by saying that his ideological opponents should be expecting that much. He has a very strict "us vs them" thing, which I think is pretty patently retarded. He has already decided that anyone who disagrees with him is literally an opponent that must be defeated OR ELSE. That being said, he's very clever and charming and funny. He sounds like a real person when he talks and I can see how that's attractive.

...

>Molyneux
Didn't he get BTFO by a man who defended Pol Pot once?

>All these shills
>Never read any of Molyneux's books or essays
>Never understood the argument enough even to refute it
>This level of cognitive dissonance to justify the tyranny they were force fed in government schools as children

libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-stefan-molyneuxs-ethical.html

Jesus christ that guy is old as fuck. Why is he wasting his time with that guy?

>Also, for better or worse, he's willing to push and challenge his audience, and does so regularly
I agree, supporting torture and pre-emptive nuclear strikes does challenge the audience.

It's insulting that you'd even think it reasonable to compare the two.

Not an argument