Stefan Molyneux is such a pretentious airhead, who likes to LARP the philosopher and "debater"

But remember, anything he doesn't like and/or want to answer:
>Is not an argument
Why does this moron have any following at all?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QQdJXC6AFmg
youtube.com/watch?v=uctL9WXEB9o
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>not an argument

where is he wrong please?

...

You know in the OP i see alot of words but i dont see an argument.

Because he seems to think he can define what is and what isn't an argument, regardless of content.

Remember, he's been doing it for 34 years, 10 years publically.

Get out shill

Reminder to ignore all e-celeb character assassination threads.

>Regardless of content

Logical fallacies are not arguments

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

lol

yeah but what has he actually said that is objetively wrong?

Not an argument is not an argument

...

>Thinking you can apply objectivity to moral philosophy.
Not an argument.

>moly gets hundred thousand views per day video
>shareblue/reagan battalion start attacking him

I don't think I detect an argument, just plenty of ad hom.

That statement is, infact, not an argument.

>trying to infer arguments to a question

pleb please

...

> anglo makes nonargument

>Muh objectivity!
You're the pleb, buddy, I'm patrician.

Antisemitism isn't an argument.

Also not an argument.

H-H-HOLD ON HOLD ON!
MIKE!
MIKE SHUT HIM DOWN!

wow careful. you don't want to violate the NAP over here. that would be an anti-argument.

cool your panties pleb.

How much do you actually get paid? It would be fun to just spam the same same shit over and over again. Get the fuck out of here

My argument is that Molyneux is too emotionally damaged and full of misplaced pride that he fails to see that his lack of faith is distorting his vision.
He needs to embrace good ol' Christianity into his heart if he wants to take it to the next level

Mike is the worse, this whiney little faggot cutting in mid-debate, that's actually bad form.

This is what I mean, Molymeme is an effette dilettante 'philosomeme'.

Don't false dichotomy me.

Not an argument, try again.

That's more like it!

>Why does this moron have any following at all?
It's because intelligent people understands what he says and finds it education.

Idiots are confused and resorts to emotions in their judgement. Those emotions usually controlled by kike-media and emotinoal libtard friends. And they hate him.

So logical people like him and emotional people dislike him.

You my friend, want to discuss your emotions and feelings and when he claims they aren't arguments you get even more emotional.

...

kek I give up, I know not an argument, but I can't larp as big stef anymore.

he is based though.

he took some self improvement books too seriously, he even believes that he is good in his activities
Poor guy!

I'm sorry, as Stef says, do you have a source for your assertions? Otherwise, it isn't an argument. :/

Not an argument, try again.

I understand that, but I think you'll find that this doesn't in fact contain an argument.

Preach!

He is fucking clueless when it comes to actual critical thinking.

you have become the "non-argument" in human form.

I-I... c-can f-feel t-t-... POWWWWEEERRRR! THIS ISN'T EVEN MY FI-FI-... N-NOT AN ARGUMENT!!!!

MIKE?????

Mike disgusts me... and who actually pays for Sup Forums, what the fuck dude?

kek

ENOUGH!

Who actually does captchas is my question to you

>I'm sorry, as Stef says, do you have a source for your assertions? Otherwise, it isn't an argument. :/
Yes I do, as you can see from my post I was quoting and judging you.
So my analysis of your statements is my source, and it's the base for my argument.

That you still doesn't understand what either he or I are trying to say, doesn't mean you are right.
It just means you don't understand us. As expected from my earlier assessment.

Not... an... argument.

Make me.

Try again

Those with a conscious, those who are too upstanding to pay a Jap money just to avoid having to WORK, like a MAN.

>He doesn't understand a source is.
No, no, I meant evidence for your claim that:
>It's because intelligent people understands what he says and finds it education.
or that
>Idiots are confused and resorts to emotions in their judgement.
or that
>Those emotions usually controlled by kike-media and emotinoal libtard friends.
or that
>And they hate him.
or that
>So logical people like him and emotional people dislike him.
Otherwise, these are just baseless assertions without grounding in reality and are therefore meaningless to the debate at hand.

Thus, I must concluded that you are still get to provide an argument to which I can apply a refutation.

I'm still not seeing an argument here.

1. OP is a faggot
2. All faggot are gay

Therefore OP is not a trap.

Association fallacy, therefore not an argument.

>Association fallacy
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? It has been scientifically proven that OP is faggot. Are you even trying?

>A historian who goes outside his expertise
Arrogance if it's anything.

I think we're going to have to:
[CITATION NEEDED]
OP is only faggot when OP doesn't deliver, I just delivered and also disemboweled each of you.

Precisely, thank you, based user.

>I want evidence for your claims
It was original research by me, answering the question why he has followers.

As more and more researchers comes to the same conclusion it will eventually be considered hard evidence.
Until then you just have to be patient and perhaps come up with your own explanations why I find him interesting while you get a netgative emotional experience.

An assertation isn't research, retard.

You need a data set.

>An assertation isn't research, retard.
There you go letting your emotions ruin any attempt at logic.

I already told you - the data set is based on myself and 100% of it confirms the initial evaluation.

That you refuse to accept that point of view just makes you unable to live in for example a democracy as it requires different opinions to be respected.

finally ended up watching that cuck once
that guy loves to smell his own fart and believes he's the ultimate walking red pill
what a tool

I've yet to see you deliver a single argument. Logically, therefore, it follows that the faggotry property holds. I'd also like to remind you that faggotry is transitive so this guy must also be a faggot. It's just math, bruh.

That's called an anecdote and isn't considered rigorous and therefore non-academic.

For once a leaf speaking the truth.

>Applying objectivity to moral philosophy.
Try again. Not an argument.

>someone hasn't read UPB
ignorance of an argument is not an argument.

That in itself isn't an argument as you are ignorant of my argument.

MIKE!

MIKE SHUT THEM OFF DO IT NOW

>subjective moral philosophy
I understand your argument.

I will NEVER be shut off, I control this forum.

Because it is, morality isn't objective.

That isn't ignorance, that's bliss.

M̳̞I͚̬K̬̩͔̣E̵͇̟̳̝̪ ̺̺͍͉͡T̠͖̗͉͕͞H̳̣̣E̟͔̼͞Ỵ̗͡ ̗D̗I̮̰̠̙̘D̡̥̲̝̞̭Ṋ̜'̳̹T̪͍͚̟̗͇͡ͅ ͕̤̣̠̺̟̱L̴͎̭̗̖̖̱I̧̹̘S̵̟̫͇̮T̗̹͓̙͓̱Ẹ͇̱̖͡N̜̲̦̱͕̭͢
͓̺̺̹͍
͎̜̤̣̲S̷̲͕̯̭̙̙̤H̠̬U̥̬̯̻̫T̲ I̻͔̙͓̰͞T̼̥̠͇̱ ͉͈̱͢D̘̳͖͓̩̮͚O͈͙W͡N̙̩̗̳̭͇̞

You're weak, Stef.

>Going for moral philosophy
Then they wonder why people laugh at them

Oh so you know better? Where's your philosphy show? Hmmm. Haven't got one? Well just you know that Stefan has the BIGGEST philosophy show out there so you'd better get some good arguments for your points or shut you fucking mouth.

That's all Stef's about, moralism, the faggot cannot even handle the objective because then he'll actually come up against smart people who wont stand for his filibustering jibberjabber.

Otherwise Mike gunna' cut in and try and cuck you from behind, amirite? :$

MIKE

MIKE

MIKE

MIKE

Not an alglument.

his head looks exactly like a circumcised penis.

>a rational proof of secular ethics doesn't exist
So, tell me, what are your arguments against UPB? After all, you're the one who made this thread. So, you must know all about it.

A rational proof isn't objective, it is the difference between valid, invalid, true or false.

You cannot apply objectivism to morality.

why all the molymeme threads lately?
Did he say something he wasnt supposed to???

Hence why I have no respect for most philosophers, especially the modern ones, as they all deal in moralism as you call it.
>This wrong
>This right
>I base my ideas on X philosopher and/or an abstract theory of what my perfect world is like
And they all back up their ideas with modern philosophers (as in renaissance up to today)

I mean, when will we get a philosopher calling people faggots and then quoting Descartes to say his collected data has shown people debating him are, in fact, massive faggots?

Modern philosophy is a joke and an insult to ancient Greek philosophy. Even though some Roman and Greek philosophers were dealing in moralism already, the big names were men of science in some way.

He railed on some undergrad for 40 minutes, using fallacy after fallacy and getting pissy.

I personally detest the rise in nihilism, it is nothing but lazy.

>That's called an anecdote and isn't considered rigorous and therefore non-academic.
You apply semantics to my conclusions but not your own. Different standards.

I gave you an answer to your original and explained why some people like him and some don't.
I followed up with source, and then you reject that source.
Pretty much like CNN you hand pick opinions you like and discard all others.
(You don't happen to be a journo at CNN btw?)

Instead of defending your own point of view you attack opposing PoV.
Unlike you I do respect your faith because that's what it is.
You bring no reasoning, so it's not an exchange of ideas - just a faith.

Notice how I don't ask you demand a source for your opinion?
>Stefan Molyneux is such a pretentious airhead, who likes to LARP the philosopher and "debater"

It's because I understand how you came to that conclusion and even if I don't agree, I can only try and explain that intellectuals have the capacity to understand all points of views. Maybe you will too one day.

Isn't UPB just molymeme's special snowflake rebranding of NAP?

Regardless, what that user said is correct. At some point, you HAVE to base your system of morality on some sort of axiom, which is not objective. The NAP, for example, is an axiom that states that aggression is bad. But WHY is aggression bad? By what objective standards?

>You cannot apply objectivism to morality.
>Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Why not? I can easily apply objective data to better fulfill this function. It's a practice, it's not an art. Like medicine.

Because society enforces standards through the THREAT of law, physical threat often, or a material threat enforced with the threat of a physical threat.

It's all about forcing bitches to be bitches.

See the post above you.

I'm tired and trolling has become boring, I declare you winner by forfeit.

i enjoyed the most recent vid, man i felt bad for the lady tho. im only 20 mins in but jesus christ this generation is fugged

>stop being a pussy pacifist
>marry and have babies

he's the adult version of a militant atheis / lolburgtardian and should be treated as such - someone who is fundamentally retarded in an idiot-savant way at best.

But his savant genius talents lends itself to highlighting demographic and racial decline in western regions.

he is an influencer and an ally for what we care about and are trying to achieve. His personality is grossly narcissitic and at times unbearable, but honestly he is rather intelligent and verbally fluent and having him espouse our viewpoints is a net positive. I'm glad he is doing what he's doing and I unironically support him.

Andrei Chikatilo

I still think you're hyping him too much, he's about as intelligent as your average Sup Forumsposter, but has the ballsack to put his actions and words to his true identity.

Well, to some extent, I understand the appeal, or rather how people get to these conclusions. If you don't believe in any deity, it is quite easy to fall for the nihilist trap.
The moment you stop worshiping a greater power, you fall for it and it's pretty hard to get out of it without the help of a deity. So you get three outcomes:
1. People become nihilists fags
2. They simply ignore that idea and move on from philosophy
3. Try to dig themselves out
To me, nihilism is a step any atheist philosopher must go through. In that pit, they truly understand what is their morality and what they live for, but it is still a subjective matter.
To me, nihilism isn't really a plague, but rather the symptom of a society with no purpose, so, as much as I share your hatred for the philosophy itself, I think we must go through it all to get out smarter.

You claiming a statement as fact or not, is not an argument.

average Sup Forums has an IQ around 115-135. Have you seen those raven matricies mensa IQ test threads here? People here really are quite smart. Mollymeme is a bit of a bellend, to use you guys' phrase, but he's a clever dude and he's using it to good ends. Support him if you can i'd say, even if only in online comment venues.

He makes some good content but he has a big ego and praises himself a lot. I prefer to stick to the videos where he's just by himself talking about a subject.

He isn't that smart. He is articulate and a decent debater, but he isn't really far above average.
If you watch some conversations he had with smart people (The one I've watched was with Jared Taylor), even though he isn't debating them, you can clearly see he's outmatched by far and if they were to debate, he would get ravaged.

>moly has a big ego
not an argument

I honestly don't understand how people can watch Molyneux. I mean, yeah, he makes good points, but I can't stand the way he LOVES to hear himself talk. He takes an hour to say what it would take anyone else to say in 5 minutes. I just wish he'd have transcripts so I can gloss over his purple prose ramblings and just take the bits where he summarizes some data and presents an argument.

Decent ideas, but his delivery is fucking terrible. I mean, I suppose it's good if you're just looking to kill some time. But otherwise, the time spent listening to him ramble in prose just isn't worth it.

youtube.com/watch?v=QQdJXC6AFmg

I don't disagree with anything you say. but here we are posting user and hoping the "hive mind" makes its impact. He's more of a middle aged adult who has gone through the rigors of middle age and succeeded, with a good career history, finances, wife, and children. And even with that good resume he chooses to put his lot with our ideology. Not to say he wants to associte with neo-hipster alt-righters, but that he is concerned about the same things we are and he is willing to put his considerable personal reputation on the line to perpetuate the ideas. I do believe he deserves respect for doing so and thusly appreciate his work.

Nihilism is woefully misunderstood. Most people think it just means some emo "nothing really matters" type shit. This is completely the opposite of what nihilism is all about. It's like everyone stopped reading halfway through Nietzsche's stuff. The point wasn't just that life has no meaning; it's that since life has no inherent meaning, YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR OWN.

And I should note that I'm not even a nihilist. I'm just pointing out how people don't seem to understand what nihilism is all about.

Reminder that "not an argument" violates principal of charity

Well then it reaches my idea of "modern nihilism" being a bridge to find a meaning without a god.

One Dollar.

I'm christian, but I think it is possible to find meaning/morality without religion. Not a truly OBJECTIVE morality, but you can create a morality system based purely in materialism. Just always ask the question, "would X benefit my society?" and there you go. Monogamous long term relationships (ie, marriage), for example, are good for society because they provide the ideal environment for raising children, and monogamy guarantees there's basically a 1:1 ratio of available men and women, meaning each man gets to have a wife and children, and is more likely to work to better society because he has his offspring invested in it.

However, I don't think it's possible on a societal scale. Individual actors in life can realize that it's best to think of morals as essentially objective because they promote things that are good for the continued existence of society, but I think the majority of people cannot handle this sort of "post-religion" way of thinking. It's why atheists tend to be fucking degenerates that do things that promote the destruction of society, as well as being directly dysgenic when you see how few kids atheists tend to have.

From a memetic standpoint (and I mean that in the academic sense of the word), religion is a eugenic meme. There's a reason why we see religion pop up again and again in varying societies all around the globe at all points in history. The societies that were irreligious suffered from poor cohesion and a lack of objective morality, and they died out. The religions that spawned helped their corresponding socieites, and they propagated. Religion is good for society.

>You my friend, want to discuss your emotions and feelings and when he claims they aren't arguments you get even more emotional.
Expect that all his "reason and evidence and philosophy based" 1 hour videos are really just him being emotionally manipulative and shaming you for not agreeing with him while he has bloodshot eyes and screams and cries and makes pointless overly complicated and emotionally charged analogies for every single thing he says. If someone calls, it's either a brainwashed cuck who will automatically agree with everything he says or he will get angry and interrupt and end the call only to berate and insult the caller for 10 more minutes after he has already hung up on him. He doesn't have a shred of intellectual honesty. He actually spits at this notion and says that as long as "the left" (by which he really only means the most extreme SJW communists, but extends it to every non-libertarian) is worse, he is allowed to be dishonest and inconsistent and rude.
Watch this and tell me you are listening to an intelligent and honest man:
youtube.com/watch?v=uctL9WXEB9o

Man, Molymeme must have really pissed shariablue and CTR off for them to spend two weeks posting about him fifty times a fucking day. I think he's trying to unseat PJW as "most disliked among the lefties"

>He railed on some undergrad for 40 minutes, using fallacy after fallacy and getting pissy.
then post the video you retard