Why does anybody listen to this arrogant cunt? He's the epitome of the sort of emotional reasoning he claims to oppose...

Why does anybody listen to this arrogant cunt? He's the epitome of the sort of emotional reasoning he claims to oppose. He doesn't know anything much about philosophy, economics, or politics, but he comports himself as some sort of enlightened messiah come to save us from ourselves.

>inb4 libcuck
>inb4 "go on his show"

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ
youtube.com/watch?v=hsOz_J6tJVU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Not an argument

...

>Why does anybody listen to this arrogant cunt? He's the epitome of the sort of emotional reasoning he claims to oppose. He doesn't know anything much about philosophy, economics, or politics, but he comports himself as some sort of enlightened messiah come to save us from ourselves.

My argument is that all of his "arguments" are obviously wrong. Name something he's said that makes sense. I've never heard him say anything that wasn't self-evidently retarded.

>when ur daughter ignores the NAP

Not an argument

arguments in your post: 0

How dare you talk about molynuexism that way! Bigot. Prophet Stephen has been sent as the last hope for mankind.
It would be best if you did not stoke the ire of Molyneuxists. You're making the Internet unsafe for you and me

Your Dunning Kruger is showing

he's too ancap for me

>My argument is that all of his "arguments" are obviously wrong.

Still no argument. your 3rd post is better have one buddy

not an argument

I get it now. It's a meme. He's a joke. Thank you.

He starts off okay but quickly goes into being a straight up loon

If you want people to debate you, you're gonna have to choose a side and make an argument for it

no no im memeing but you clearly didnt say a single argument. your thread is garbage and you should probably never try to think again.

now go back to Sup Forums

My argument: This guy has never said anything worthwhile. Tell me one thing you think he has said that is worthwhile and I will address it.

Your argument: That's not an argument.

not

this is unironically not an argument

You don't know what an argument is

What you posted was an assertion

>This guy has never said anything worthwhile.
not an argument

This thread: Retard who is mad because he cant think

(NAA i know)

Because he holds interesting conversations with interesting / educated people.

Surely if Molynooks is as ignorant and as irrational as you put him out to be then why not record your conversation live on the show and upload it here for us to enjoy watching him get destroyed instead of just yelling out into the sea that is Sup Forums?

Okay I'll spell it out for you again, then.

My argument:
Premise 1 - You should not listen to idiots.
Premise 2 - This guy is an idiot.
Conclusion - You should not listen to this guy.

You know what that isn't?

not an argument

Last episode i listened to i learned the lack of a father in a daughters life and his pheromones signal the daughter to undergo puberty at an earlier age. There, you learned something from Stefan Molyneux

Because he is disingenuous with his guests and relies on emotion to paint them into a corner. He is not interested in seriously addressing criticism.

...

neither of those statements are arguments as an argument requires reasoning and evidence. You've posted an assertion and mistakenly believe it to be an argument

>Premise 1 - You should not listen to idiots.
>Premise 2 - This guy is an idiot.
show the reasoning that lead you to both of these premises

>backs up literally everything with sources
>but he's led by emotions not logic

what the fuck op?

Not an argument lol you're bad at this

Thats just 3 assertions with no evidence presented

Not an argument. What has this man specifically said, with quotes, that he is wrong about? And what is wrong with the arguments he makes?

"It doesn't make sense" is rewritten as "I don't understand" and thus is not an argument. Neither is saying "It's complete bullshit." WHY is the argument bullshit? Because it doesn't make sense? But then you are using circular reasoning. Go read a fucking book until you get it. Then just answer the goddamn question: what does he say that is complete bullshit, and WHY is it bullshit?

Or are you going to respond just like the people who are asked how Trump is a racist?

ARGUMENT???

...

Then point out his appeal to emotion?

That's not how it works man, you are the one making the claim and you now have to back it up.. What is wrong with you?

OP Status: BTFO

Premise 1 is axiomatic. We all know it to be true. You can't make a a truly objective claim about anything because of Munchausen's Trilemma, but we all know that you should not listen to idiots.

Premise 2 comes from the fact that everything I've ever heard him say was obviously wrong and that nobody on this thread is willing to disagree with that claim. Give me an example of something he's said that you thought was intelligent and I'll deal with it.

Now comes the evidence.. Do I have to hold your hand through this?

You're asking me to give you specifics. I am giving you specifics. Put quotes around the entire body of his work. All of that is wrong.

burden of proof buddo

NOT

The burden of proof lies with you, my friend. It is not OUR duty to prove that he is intelligent; it is YOUR duty to prove he is an idiot.

wow im not even joking there's not even an ounce of argument anywhere.

google how to make an argument or something fucking retard

>This guy has never said anything worthwhile.

Not an argument. Nice feels tho.

A statement

...

The burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim. You could say that I am making a positive claim in that he is an idiot, or you could say that you are making a positive claim in that he is intelligent. I have asked you people to supply evidence that he is worth listening to, and all I'm getting is memes from a bunch of ancap fanboys.

>user quotes entire work
>calls it specifics

Do you support me getting shot?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBY0bZWKehQ

I think we have a troll or a crazy person here.

This. And since OP already excluded, "going on his show," as a source of information we might as well point out he's a fucking ostrich with his head in the sand anyway.

youre the one making a fucking thread about how stupid he is. make an argument for it or fuck off dumbshit

Thank you for providing an argument. This video is horrible. His ancap fantasy land does nothing to prevent people from being shot by local land barons or private security firms. The current government does not shoot people over taxes or copyright infringement. He has false premises and an argument with no basis in reality.

I didn't ask for specifics.

If you and Moly got into an argument and he appeals to emotion then you can call him out on it, it's an appeal to emotion fallacy.

It's interesting that you bring up specifics though, do you have a particular video / moment that you looked at where this happens? You must have one in mind if you think he's disingenuous right?

You could make the argument that maybe he went a lil overboard, but that actually isn't an argument lol. His argument is that if you break the law like don't pay or taxes there will be a cop to take you to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, he will force you to comply until you're dead. Now that seems objectively true to me.. You dont agree?

Not an argument.

I didn't exclude going on his show as a source of information. I excluded the possibility of me going on his show to argue with him. Every Molyneux fan just defaults to telling dissenters to go argue with him on his show.

Every video I've ever seen by him. Every single video. I have never heard him make a valid argument about anything at all.

still no argument on sight

OP is a Crowderfag

No, you fucking idiot cunt. You made the fucking thread, YOU made the assertion, YOU back it up with facts and evidence.

NOT

AN

ARGUMENT

Here's the thing though, he has no alternative to this way of doing things. His ancap fantasy land has the exact same problems, but without any sort of input from the people living in the territories controlled by the people with the wealth.

Hate to break the meme but what he said literally was an argument. The conclusion necessarily follows the premises. You don't know what an argument is.

Crowder is retarded. Crowder doesn't believe in climate change.

Well he does address this.. So the private security firm will be held to the same standards of initiating force. Neither is allowed to do it. The security firm is only an agency of defense, and everyone has the right to defend him/herself or be defended by someone else.

calling an assertion a premise means nothing if it's not backed up with evidence

This thread perfectly illustrates why the world is so fucked. Intelligent ideas are left to flounder and drown because the people propounding those ideas can't be bothered to make them realistically understandable for someone less linguistically talented, especially when that person is also tired from working all day.

He makes well reasoned arguments that are normally well sourced and backed by experts.

My assertion is that everything he has ever said is self-evidently wrong. Do you know what self-evidently means? My method of argumentation is for anyone on this thread to provide a single example of something he has said that was no obviously incorrect.

See

>That JUST face

>My assertion is that everything he has ever said is self-evidently wrong. Do you know what self-evidently means?
most things he says are well sourced or logically built to from a well-sourced premise

I am literally saying, "None of you can provide an example of something he has said that is worthwhile. I know this to be true, and I believe it to be obviously true. If you can provide an example to the contrary, I will change my opinion."

It doesn't fucking matter you retard, you could say that all bananas grow on mars and everything on mars is blue therefore all bananas are blue, and that is an argument. The truth of the premises is irrelevant.

Not an argument.

Link me one (1). Vid where he is being particularly disingenuous and emotional with a guest who has some criticism for him.

His entire body of work is not just arguments with callers, sometimes he has interviews and is just blathering on stats.

...

This schmuck who sold me an argument detector the other day must be laughing his ass off right now because I just stumbled upon this fucking thread and the bloody thing can't find a single goddamned argument.

Still 0 argument have been made. you literally are too fucking lazy to bother going back on a video and tell us where he's wrong and how stupid he is.

just fuck off faggot go think for an hour and come back with some arguments

Okay, so who holds the private security firm to this NAP? If it is a private security firm, the person who is paying them to do their jobs will have the authority to have them do as he pleases. Anarcho-capitalism would immediately break down into a series of small duchies controlled by the resident monopoly.

So you're saying that all the rich people would own all the land? Well what's to stop them from doing that now? No one can own all the land lol, and people would just be free to leave. And he has said that in order for land to be owned it has to be in use of some kind.

Hey lads i came here to read an argument. Are there any here?

What is the point? If you want me to link a video in which he is wrong, I'll just link you to his entire youtube page. Or do you just want me to link you every video I've seen so far?

>Okay, so who holds the private security firm to this NAP?
they'll be boycotted by their consumers if they don't

>what if they just attack people to force them to pay them
then the other security firm that actually abides to the NAP will get all their customers

>ask him what is wrong with stefan
>says nothing for 20 posts
>now his only ''''''''''''''''''''''''arguement''''''''''''''''''''''' is not what stefan has said or where he's wrong, it's an hypothetic scenario of what couldnt work in an ancap society

you can't make this up

ITT: cancer

There will be lots of private security firms, and if you don't like what one firm is doing then put your money into another firm. You can choose to give that firm money or another one, you cant do shit about the government.

Alright so when the people who are free to leave decide to leave, where will they go? To the neighboring quasi-state? Unrestricted capitalism always leads to severe wealth inequality, which always leads to statism.

Anyone have the "My nipples are universally preferable" picture??

Post more rare mollies

>What is the point? If you want me to link a video in which he is wrong, I'll just link you to his entire youtube page.

all you have to do you fucking inbred nigger is post 1 presentation video(not a call-in show) where he posted fact or arguments and tell us why he's wrong in that specific video

ITS
LITERALLY
ALL
YOU
NEED
TO
DO

That has never been how consumerism functions. People do not care about the ethics involved in production as long as they are getting a decent service for a relatively low price. The captains of industry will hold the security firms in their back pockets, and the consumers will have no say. It will be exactly like today, but without any sort of overarching laws to hold the capitalists in check. Government is not the problem. Capitalism is the problem. I am no anti-capitalist, but to just remove all of the restrictions and let it run wild is to admit that the only human lives worth protecting are those with wealth.

Nothing here boss.

Your money isn't shit. You do not have that much money. The captains of industry will own the security firms.

If Steph is always wrong then is Steph correct in defending a round earth?

youtube.com/watch?v=hsOz_J6tJVU

I have said what is wrong with Stefan. He has never said anything worthwhile. How is this invalid? As far as I'm aware, every single video he has ever made contains terrible arguments, false premises, and emotional reasoning. I am asking for a single example of something he has said which is valuable.

define valuable

Dude big companies are using government to do all this shit.. All of these issues are because of corporations using the coercive power of the state.