Just discovered this guy. Did he just win philosophy?

Just discovered this guy. Did he just win philosophy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0
fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Molyneux
libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-stefan-molyneuxs-ethical.html?m=1
fdrliberated.com/freedomain-radio-destructive-cult/
theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/family-relationships-fdr-defoo-cult
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143106.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No. Go read something else.

You can't win philosophy. Stirner already won it. Everything after him is just busywork.

Why?

Because he's trash, and I suspect you know that.

Read Max Stirner or even Thomas Paine.

I don't know, what's he known for?
Does he think people should just bee themselves

>Because he's trash, and I suspect you know that.

He isn't trash. Why do you think so?

>Because he's trash
Not an argument.

Typical leftist, gets offended by logic and goes away once he's supossed to answer.

HA. So you admit it!

With a face like that, how can you not hate philosophy?

youtube.com/watch?v=gDoIilJ-_Z0
>stefags will defend this

What is his philosophy anyway?

Look faggot, we've had this discussion before. You are wrong, and Molyneux IS trash, and a sore loser and a crybaby, and a general autist. Read all 5 parts of the following article. Then check out that guy Danny Shahar for a definitive deconstruction of your idol. Then fuck off back to your containment board freedomain.

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

A better Molyneux: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Molyneux

What? That's just a triggered leftist rambling on how about how molyneux is apparently butthurt because of some academics, which isn't true btw. Occasionally he throws in some other stuff but basically it's just an ad hominem. Not an argument.

Not sure what the fdrliberated is about. It's an endless cherrypicking of quotes just to make Molyneux looks bad. Poisoning the well that hard should be a clear sign of dishonesty to any person interested in rational debates.

Will read the Shahar stuff later

>"molyneux wasn't butthurt!"
lying is discouraged
>will read shahar later
you might as well do it now, before you shitpost moar and make another shitty thread

NOT
AN
ARGUMENT

DO YOU WANT TO SHOOT ME? ARE YOU WILLING TO HAVE ME SHOT?

libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2009/04/critique-of-stefan-molyneuxs-ethical.html?m=1

Makin it easy for the newfags

That feel when the lefties AND the righties can agree that Molyneux is a hack

>Libertarian left

Wealth redistribution is inherently authoritarian. I don't accept any philosophy that is based on a contradiction in terms.

What other 'intellectuals' are generally agreed to be objectively worthless charlatans?

Molyneaux
Harris

>two groups of retards have an opinion

Are you saying that proves something..?

fdrliberated.com/freedomain-radio-destructive-cult/

Oh god, this is too good.

" 'i had a good relationship with my mom and dad.' 'They were fine.' 'They were this and that.' No, im sorry. I gotta tell you, i hate to say it because i dont mean to be a bully, but you're wrong."

"Not lots of parents kill or maim their children but that's only because children comply."

My god the level of delusion in this man is mind-boggling. He's one step away from jeffrey dahmer

>I will find the laziest, cheapest excuse to dismiss this refutation of my intellectual sugar-daddy
ftfy

you're not even trying at this point and it's just sad

stefan molyneux is a madman who obviously wants to be the next jesus.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." luke 14:26

"So face it: your parents were bullies, or weak curriers of favour, or manipulative emotional infants themselves. You have no respect for them, for respect requires courage, and courage requires logical morality. You do not love them, since love demands virtue, and manipulating children into blind obedience is not at all virtuous." Molyneux, "Are people just stupid?" (a serious title of a real essay)

theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/nov/15/family-relationships-fdr-defoo-cult

But he's right. Loving virtuous people is not the same as being compliant to violence.
Is that so hard to understand?

>that p word

your statement is both self-evident and irrelevant. the relevant matter is that molyneux thinks all parents are bullies, tyrants, and incapable of loving their children. he is obviously wrong.

you're free to defend this hack at your own embarassment

As long as spanking is still accepted as a viable and "loving" parenting method, as long as single motherhood/fatherlessness is as prevalent as it is, as long as religion and leftism bullshit are inflicted upon children, as long as male circumcision is practiced at birth, I will stand by the sentiment that children are not loved but controlled.
Hell even pets are more respected than children.
Try to read some psychohistory and you will see how prevalent sexual abuse and infanticide was and still is

Wow what a fag

Why are there so many leftifags on lit?

> tfw /pol/ has better taste in philosophy than Veeky Forums

>you're not even trying at this point and it's just sad

I don't know man. If some lefty or righty retard believes something, I'd say it doesn't make it true and it doesn't make it false. So I just don't know how your cryptic "both da left and da right hate him" statement proves a point either way about Molyneux.

> AND the righties

No, I think he's one of the most brilliant philosophers there are.

Control and hierarchy are necessary when there exist obvious divides in capability and development between individuals. To say that children are 'controlled,' does not mean that they aren't loved. I cannot think of much of a motivation for mere control of children by the methods you describe, except for shaping their world view and response to authourity; altering their behaviour as parents for some personal gain.

I emphasise personal gain because it is important to shape your child's behaviour as an adult in some way, it's unavoidable and the prime principle of parenting. You want them to develop into a moral, healthy, functional person. I do not think parents who introduce their children to their faith, or spank them when they act out of hand, or even circumcision (which I disagree with) because they want to control them for a self-serving purpose.

Veeky Forums has always been a left-leaning board

not really

LOL. Was he trolling?

i remember back in 2012 it was insufferably marxist

No, he's one of these people that thinks if you aren't producing something for the free market you are a leech on society.

there's no greater power disparity than between a parent and a child.
his main message is peaceful parenting.
why do you object to that?

you're stupid
if you become smart, you will understand that one can see truth above all dogma
de benoist is right; marx is right, etc

ideological universalism, in other words

>Control and hierarchy are necessary when there exist obvious divides in capability and development between individuals.
How do you know? This is premise is not obvious at all. In fact I will argue that controlling helpless children is a proof of sadism because of the power disparity.
What do you think a child can do against his parents? Nothing but comply. So if you use violence to make your point instead of peaceful win/win negotation, it only shows corruption.

>To say that children are 'controlled,' does not mean that they aren't loved.
I completely disagree. Love is all about virtuous behavior. Controlling others is not virtuous therefore controlling cannot be loving.

>shaping their world view and response to authourity; altering their behaviour as parents for some personal gain.
Exactly. You want to make them dysfunctional slaves of the system and not individuated people because they will be easier to manipulate by the system.

>You want them to develop into a moral, healthy, functional person.
Maybe you disagree with my arguments up until here. Let's check then what science tells us:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160425143106.htm
That study like many others meta-analysis show that spanking has long lasting effects that creates dysfunctional people.

I could go on and on but I will simply conclude that I have nothing but contempt for your position. Like the many I have debated on this issue, you have probably been abused or neglected. Worse than that you've internalized your abuse and will most likely reproduce the circle of violence that we're deseperately trying to break.
I hope you won't ever get close to any child before changing your mind. Try reading parenting books before going on any further.

how does he make a living?

My very very limited (almost non-existent) understanding of ancap types is that they're generally against the idea of borders. What are this guy's views on the subject and how has he arrived there? (I recognise he supports Trump which is why I am asking)

Borders do not exist in reality (i.e. they're man-made) thus they don't define anything.
You know like moving and immigration are describing the same action but they are used in different context.
That's how a society based on the free market should work (no State, no borders, no public welfare, only voluntary transactions and charities etc...)
Now, when using the Statism paradigm, as wealth is redistributed through taxation, you need strong borders because otherwise you get economic migrants.
Not the best answer but that's what I got.

>libertarian right
If any man whatsoever has to work for another man, it can't be libertarian either

>profit isn't theft
kek'd hard famalam

I was never spanked or punished harshly dude.

>What do you think a child can do against his parents? Nothing but comply.
Have you EVER been around children?

Your property doesn't exist in reality. Um, you don't want homeless people coming into your house and business? Sorry kid, your artifical boundaries don't mean anything.

He's dis
....
info

>Stirner

Property is theft

I like how you people get mad at any semblance of "m-muh SJW" and yet spew fucking retarded shit like that.

>What do you think a child can do against his parents? Nothing but comply.
literally get out more, just go to a fucking shopping mall on a saturday afternoon and see children being "opressed" inside fucking toy stores

> Controlling others is not virtuous therefore controlling cannot be loving.
I assume any friends you have are "InCel" or some shit, but a lot of my friends are having children lately and from what I see, the child controls the parents much more, specially on the first years

>Exactly. You want to make them dysfunctional slaves of the system and not individuated people because they will be easier to manipulate by the system.
What is teaching critical thought from an early age?

The thing is, there are indeed parents who comlpetely suffocate and mistreat their children, and this is awful, but it still doesn't mean children don't need some authority.

I'm not sure you've realized, but kids will stick forks on fucking electrical plugs, eat anything they come across and shit like that out of sheer boredom, they literally don't know better most of the time.

you can't study philosophy while being a libertarian. The only people defending extreme capitalism are ignorant people or those who benefits from the system

Building a house with a fence does not exist in reality?

Borders typically have walls and border guards.

Let's say I'm completely wrong and you're right. How would you explain then the 50 years study I posted earlier? I mean you can't just skip over this like it's a detail.

Paid by taxation, which is force. Not the same thing.
You can't put private business (i.e. building a house) on the same level as what the State is doing.

The cult like nature of the fdr forums is scary shit.

And how do you protect the jurisdiction of private property? Through force.

how do you protect collective property?

Force? It is just force, though.

Libertarianism as espoused by Molyneux and co. is worse naive utopianism than Communism.

Through voluntary contract like "this is my property and these are my rules". If these rules are infringed upon your property, you can use self-defence or attack someone using an insurrance company.
Using force and using force as self-defence is completely different.

This is our country and these are our rules. These rules are recognized as legitimate through the process of democracy and popular vote.

>falling for the democracy meme
Democracy is not a valid way of doing things. It's ridiculous in Science, it's a fallacy in logic and it's not respecting the non-agression principle.
Establishing any rules that goes against the non-agression principke would create strong ostracism in a free society if not outright physical force as a response in self-defence.

But that's true

>Is that so hard to understand?
Stefan's followers actively push him on Veeky Forums, trying to make him into a meme. This should be banned for marketing.

Go to bed Stefan

Report and sage