Stefan Molyneux To Ron Paul Supporters: I'm Sorry [vid]

[robert68]

lol...what meaning am I trying to give to "wrong". What do you think?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Anyone who has followed my posts in this thread can see that I have shown that atheists cannot answer as to why something is morally wrong. A few honest ones in this thread, like Mczerone, have admitted it, and I can at least respect the honesty.

But the point is: the high moral positions of property, honesty in money, anti-coercion, etc. make no sense in a worldview that can't declare anything universally morally right or wrong.. I have no problems as a Christian being against impositions of my property, but that is because I have a worldview which answers why theft is wrong.. Atheistic worldviews do not have that. This is why I laugh at the Stefan Molyneux's of the world. Completely inconsistent...

I had followed many of your posts in this thread, that’s why I asked you the question. And it seems to have been over your head because you couldn’t answer it.

 

[osan]

Except for the fact that he obfuscated the truth... yeah... pretty much right on.

I wrote "pretty much". not "completely".

For the record, I don't care for this guy and I do not agree with much of his apparent positions on various points. But if he speaks a truth I will not deny it simply because he is a douche. I won't even do that with the greatest douche on the planet. I leave it to you to figure out who that might be. And NO, I don't mean you, do unwind your undies

One point where I disagree with him was on the Ron Paul deal with recouping monies stolen through taxes to his constituency. He may have been correct on a theoretical level that RP is not in fact taking money back (though I'd have to give it further consideration that it merits not) but on a practical plane SM is full of poo.

Conversely, SM made a valid point that if the goal was to return the money to those from whom it was stolen, why not cut a check and let them decide how best to spend it? This assumes, of course, the truth of the base assertion that RP had in fact taken those federal funds. If that part is not true, then SM is a bigger douche than even I suspected. Anyone?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

lol...what meaning am I trying to give to "wrong". What do you think?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Anyone who has followed my posts in this thread can see that I have shown that atheists cannot answer as to why something is morally wrong. A few honest ones in this thread, like Mczerone, have admitted it, and I can at least respect the honesty.

But the point is: the high moral positions of property, honesty in money, anti-coercion, etc. make no sense in a worldview that can't declare anything universally morally right or wrong.. I have no problems as a Christian being against impositions of my property, but that is because I have a worldview which answers why theft is wrong.. Atheistic worldviews do not have that. This is why I laugh at the Stefan Molyneux's of the world. Completely inconsistent...

You've done no such thing. You have not shown how Christianity proves theft is immoral.

"Though shalt not steal" is just a sentence as subjective as any other ethical argument, same as Non-aggression principle.

All you have done is repeatedly ask the same question with different wording. If you scroll back through the thread I answered your questions very clearly.

 

[mczerone]

lol...what meaning am I trying to give to "wrong". What do you think?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. Anyone who has followed my posts in this thread can see that I have shown that atheists cannot answer as to why something is morally wrong. A few honest ones in this thread, like Mczerone, have admitted it, and I can at least respect the honesty.

But the point is: the high moral positions of property, honesty in money, anti-coercion, etc. make no sense in a worldview that can't declare anything universally morally right or wrong.. I have no problems as a Christian being against impositions of my property, but that is because I have a worldview which answers why theft is wrong.. Atheistic worldviews do not have that. This is why I laugh at the Stefan Molyneux's of the world. Completely inconsistent...

I feel that you have misrepresented my "concession" that a non-theistic philosophy has no universal morals.

What I conceded was that NOT EVERYONE must accept the SAME morals, but to be consistent, the morals that each individual chooses must be able to be applied universally.

I, like you, have a philosophy that answers why theft is wrong. But it only answers that question for ME, the holder of the philosophy.

Similarly your theistic philosophy gives an answer to why theft is wrong (your god says so). But again, it only answers this question FOR YOURSELF. People who haven't heard of your god, just like people who haven't reasoned a philosophy similar to mine, can have for themselves a different set of morals.

So if "atheistic worldviews" don't have a universal set of mandatory rules, neither does your theistic one.

Regardless, one does not have to reject god to accept logical, reasoned philosophy that attempts to find a set of norms by which all free actors can best survive.

 

[Mr. Perfidy]

I don't think that you need a religion to tell you that coercion is wrong when your own belly tells you it is whenever you directly witness it.

An atheist doesn't want to get punched in the face and robbed. Neither does a Christian. If a Christian tells you that he doesn't want to get smacked because Jesus wouldn't like it, he is lying- we can hook his brain up to monitors, and see that when we raise our hands over his head to strike him, the parts of his brain responding are not the academic, argumentative, critical, or religiously loyal parts- the parts that don't want to get hurt light up and order the body. Atheists have that part too.

 

[jmdrake]

As usual you've completely failed to even attempt to directly address any of the substantive points raised by your opponents. If not so sad, this stuff would probably be funny.

Well mission accomplished Stef. You've achieved more discord in the Ron Paul rEVOLution. (Trav banned. )

As to addressing the "substantive point", here it is. The BoR as currently interpreted by our government is not the BoR as written or initially interpreted. That's the problem. I have an "alternative bill of rights" in my sig based on a similar sarcastic filter, and I'm not an ancap. You don't have to go back more than 100 years to see that the federal government has expanded over time. So repeating the original BoR as written is the rebuttal. You'd have to go back and read case law to understand that, for example, at one time there was no restriction to "certain types" of guns.

 

[Travlyr]

Your responses to me are combative with intent to antagonize. My statements are not red herrings or logical fallacies, and I'm not pathetic. What is pathetic is your inability to read or understand what others write. Hat tip to jmdrake for effectively pointing that out.

Trav, either address the substantive points raised by your opponents in a straightforward, forthright manner, or just shut the fuck up, please. Your red herrings and various other logical fallacies are just becoming pathetic at this point.

For some reason this thread, indeed any "discussion" involvinr Travlyr, make me think of geometry, specifically angles greater than 90 degrees, but less than 180 degrees.

Wonder why that is?

Sadly for your case, I haven't misrepresented anyone, maliciously or otherwise. Nor have I "degraded" anyone. I've simply, on occasion, pointed out the fallacies in your arguments. Any degradation that may have occurred was completely your own doing.

On the other hand, you most certainly have now threatened me with physical violence. Over a debate on a message board.

Get help. Please. If not for yourself, for those who may care about you in real life. Seriously.

How is calling someone "Pathetic" & "Obtuse" not intent to degrade or incite violence? I certainly don't need any help ... especially if you are the one attempting to diagnose problems. I do just fine in life. A little "shock and awe" on occasion can help others to understand the seriousness of the challenges we face.

My propensity for pugnaciousness comes from my desire to live free by standing up for myself and my rights when attacked. I don't apologize for that.

My proclivity to argue with the stateless crowd is to enlighten as many people as I can on their flawed understanding of the philosophy of liberty. The stateless crowd, promoted by Stefan Molynuex and Larken Rose, are simply allies of the Mafia who overthrew our governments.

I am 100% in agreement with "The Champion of the Constitution" Ron Paul, and the "Pro-State" Ludwig von Mises. They are/were not obtuse or pathetic either.

 

[Travlyr]

I do not post on this board to make friends. I come to this board in support of Ron Paul's teachings and to learn, research, and share what I learn with like minded folks. I have, however, made a lot of very good lifelong friends while here. My mission is the same as Ron Paul's mission. To promote "Liberty!" Liberty, peace, and prosperity are not achieved through statelessness (anti-liberalism). History proves that assertion.

Pro-state philosopher Ludwig von Mises said it best,

LIBERALISM

"The philosophers, sociologists, and economists of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century formulated a political program that served as a guide to social policy first in England and the United States, then on the European continent, and finally in the other parts of the inhabited world as well. Nowhere was this program ever completely carried out. Even in England, which has been called the homeland of liberalism and the model liberal country, the proponents of liberal policies never succeeded in winning all their demands. In the rest of the world only parts of the liberal program were adopted, while others, no less important, were either rejected from the very first or discarded after a short time. Only with some exaggeration can one say that the world once lived through a liberal era. Liberalism was never permitted to come to full fruition.

Nevertheless, brief and all too limited as the supremacy of liberal ideas was, it sufficed to change the face of the earth. A magnificent economic development took place. The release of man's productive powers multiplied the means of subsistence many times over. On the eve of the World War (which was itself the result of a long and bitter struggle against the liberal spirit and which ushered in a period of still more bitter attacks on liberal principles), the world was incomparably more densely populated than it had ever been, and each inhabitant could live incomparably better than had been possible in earlier centuries. The prosperity that liberalism had created reduced considerably infant mortality, which had been the pitiless scourge of earlier ages, and, as a result of the improvement in living conditions, lengthened the average span of life.

Nor did this prosperity flow only to a select class of privileged persons. On the eve of the World War the worker in the industrial nations of Europe, in the United States, and in the overseas dominions of England lived better and more graciously than the nobleman of not too long before. Not only could he eat and drink according to his desire; he could give his children a better education; he could, if he wished, take part in the intellectual and cultural life of his nation; and, if he possessed enough talent and energy, he could, without difficulty, raise his social position. It was precisely in the countries that had gone the farthest in adopting the liberal program that the top of the social pyramid was composed, in the main, not of those who had, from their very birth, enjoyed a privileged position by virtue of the wealth or high rank of their parents, but of those who, under favorable conditions, had worked their way up from straitened circumstances by their own power. The barriers that had in earlier ages separated lords and serfs had fallen. Now there were only citizens with equal rights. No one was handicapped or persecuted on account of his nationality, his opinions, or his faith. Domestic Political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent. Optimists were already hailing the dawn of the age of eternal peace.

But events have turned out otherwise. In the nineteenth century strong and violent opponents of liberalism sprang up who succeeded in wiping out a great part of what had been gained by the liberals. The world today wants to hear no more of liberalism. Outside England the term "liberalism" is frankly proscribed. In England, there are, to be sure, still "liberals," but most of them are so in name only. In fact, they are rather moderate socialists. Everywhere today political power is in the hands of the antiliberal parties. The program of antiliberalism unleashed the forces that gave rise to the great World War and, by virtue of import and export quotas, tariffs, migration barriers, and similar measures, has brought the nations of the world to the point of mutual isolation. Within each nation it has led to socialist experiments whose result has been a reduction in the productivity of labor and a concomitant increase in want and misery. Whoever does not deliberately close his eyes to the facts must recognize everywhere the signs of an approaching catastrophe in world economy. Antiliberalism is heading toward a general collapse of civilization.

If after watching this 12 minute video you conclude that you are not a strict Constitutionalist ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duMrhvSqCSc

... then un-friend me.

 

[Revolution9]

How is such a thing "defensive"? It's the most base, irrational response you could provide outside of physical violence. When you have to resort to such tactics, you might as well concede that you've lost-as you've admitted that you can't succeed using the tools of rational debate.

You fuckers don't debate rationally. You ignore broad swaths of facts and truths that will knock your sorry assed self serving ego trip of a poseurs philosophy hard core into the dirt. The reason you ignore them is so you can continue in your bloody mortified blitherfesting of that which you will never do anything about because you can't, are incapable of and will never do anything in the slightest to change the nature of that which is around you due to the mere incontrovertible fact you don't understand where the fuck you all are and how it works and is run. The first clue is the world exist outside the area between your ears and it takes physical effort and concensus to change it. I can ruin your little political paradise in one week or less..guaran-fucking-teed pal. Me an Viinny the Brow Zinjanthropia and the boys will make mincemeat out of your little anarkissed habitat.

Rev9

 

[Revolution9]

Your responses to me are combative with intent to antagonize. My statements are not red herrings or logical fallacies, and I'm not pathetic. What is pathetic is your inability to read or understand what others write. Hat tip to jmdrake for effectively pointing that out.







How is calling someone "Pathetic" & "Obtuse" not intent to degrade or incite violence? I certainly don't need any help ... especially if you are the one attempting to diagnose problems. I do just fine in life. A little "shock and awe" on occasion can help others to understand the seriousness of the challenges we face.

My propensity for pugnaciousness comes from my desire to live free by standing up for myself and my rights when attacked. I don't apologize for that.

My proclivity to argue with the stateless crowd is to enlighten as many people as I can on their flawed understanding of the philosophy of liberty. The stateless crowd, promoted by Stefan Molynuex and Larken Rose, are simply allies of the Mafia who overthrew our governments.

I am 100% in agreement with "The Champion of the Constitution" Ron Paul, and the "Pro-State" Ludwig von Mises. They are/were not obtuse or pathetic either.

Pay attention kiddies. You just got taught a lesson from a real man. You are a bunch of pussies with your baiting and then turning around and hiding behind mommies virtual skirt. Frikkin' sissies. I ain't here to make friends either. That I have is a benefit but I ainn't all about your anarkissed BS. I seen it up close and personal and I didn't like it. I can only surmise that ya all post from a sequestered trailer park if your utopia extends from the gut wrenching end of a Stephen Molyneux driven paradigm.

Shemdogg. You shouldn't have posted this. You knew it would clog the board with idiotic blitherfesting absolutely redundant drivel and flame wars from the same ol same ol same ol crew.

Rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You fuckers don't debate rationally. You ignore broad swaths of facts and truths that will knock your sorry assed self serving ego trip of a poseurs philosophy hard core into the dirt. The reason you ignore them is so you can continue in your bloody mortified blitherfesting of that which you will never do anything about because you can't, are incapable of and will never do anything in the slightest to change the nature of that which is around you due to the mere incontrovertible fact you don't understand where the fuck you all are and how it works and is run. The first clue is the world exist outside the area between your ears and it takes physical effort and concensus to change it. I can ruin your little political paradise in one week or less..guaran-fucking-teed pal. Me an Viinny the Brow Zinjanthropia and the boys will make mincemeat out of your little anarkissed habitat.

Rev9

LOL. I don't know about the others you're speaking of, but if you're referring to me, I can and have debated circles around you. Even here you've committed a fallacy of association by assuming I'm "one of them". I'm not even an anarchist and I can recognize that they add to conversations. They actually advance debates around here much better than you do (even when I vehemently disagree with them). You're clearly far better versed in hurling insults and backwoods jabber than rhetoric, logic, and debate.

 

[Revolution9]

LOL. I don't know about the others you're speaking of, but if you're referring to me, I can and have debated circles around you. Even here you've committed a fallacy of association by assuming I'm "one of them". I'm not even an anarchist and I can recognize that they add to conversations. They actually advance debates around here much better than you do (even when I vehemently disagree with them). You're clearly far better versed in hurling insults and backwoods jabber than rhetoric, logic, and debate.

You piled on with them..so ya..all you individuals..heh..are a collective down to the authors you drag out incessantly as though you do not have a mind of your own. If I want to debate the originators of your thoughts I might put some effort into it. The only effort your teenie weenie cabal deserves is the derision I have for it and the sometimes humorous accords I deliver in dealing with it. To be under the illusion that this brand of shit thinking your team of collective individuals bandy about with references to these many demi-god authors who also sat sequestered in their little shitholes of remorse railing at that which they did not understand whilst working out that dirty diaper mommy made them sit in for several hours when they were 15 months old through their inane anti everything philosopy jot and tittered and signatured by their mighty ego in death dealing defiance of that parent..and to continue this run on sentence..and to think that motley pot of stirred illusions proffered by these maladjusted clowns you fellows waltz out here like some lame donkey at an Arabian race horse auction claiming it to be the fastest hoofed beast on the pllanet is delusional. i will not debate such inanity for it derives none of it's maladjusted lensings of the real world from anything other than subverting it further to give the entrenched assholes and the powers behind them even more girth and mass when lowering it's crunch on the commons. Ergo.. yer shit don't wash with me and yer talent for debate is as useful in context as your ability to suck your own dick and brag about it here.

Rev9

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You piled on with them..so ya..all you individuals..heh..are a collective down to the authors you drag out incessantly as though you do not have a mind of your own. If I want to debate the originators of your thoughts I might put some effort into it. The only effort your teenie weenie cabal deserves is the derision I have for it and the sometimes humorous accords I deliver in dealing with it. To be under the illusion that this brand of shit thinking your team of collective individuals bandy about with references to these many demi-god authors who also sat sequestered in their little shitholes of remorse railing at that which they did not understand whilst working out that dirty diaper mommy made them sit in for several hours when they were 15 months old through their inane anti everything philosopy jot and tittered and signatured by their mighty ego in death dealing defiance of that parent..and to continue this run on sentence..and to think that motley pot of stirred illusions proffered by these maladjusted clowns you fellows waltz out here like some lame donkey at an Arabian race horse auction claiming it to be the fastest hoofed beast on the pllanet is delusional. i will not debate such inanity for it derives none of it's maladjusted lensings of the real world from anything other than subverting it further to give the entrenched assholes and the powers behind them even more girth and mass when lowering it's crunch on the commons. Ergo.. yer shit don't wash with me and yer talent for debate is as useful in context as your ability to suck your own dick and brag about it here.

Rev9

Another mess of illogic. I didn't "pile on" with anyone. I happen to agree with them in certain instances. I agree with plenty of people on certain things and disagree on others. (Mr Molyneux especially tends towards poor reasoning and philosophy, which is why I don't take him too seriously) Why is this hard for you to comprehend?

All you've really got here is a bunch of disjointed thoughts and insults. (Hint: when all you can do is resort to petty insults like you've done here, you've lost the debate)

Tell me something-in all seriousness, are you from the Kentucky/Tenesee general area? You have a way of rambling aimlessly and incoherently like my dad.

 

[Travlyr]

Another mess of illogic. I didn't "pile on" with anyone. I happen to agree with them in certain instances. I agree with plenty of people on certain things and disagree on others. (Mr Molyneux especially tends towards poor reasoning and philosophy, which is why I don't take him too seriously) Why is this hard for you to comprehend?

All you've really got here is a bunch of disjointed thoughts and insults. (Hint: when all you can do is resort to petty insults like you've done here, you've lost the debate)

Tell me something-in all seriousness, are you from the Kentucky/Tenesee general area? You have a way of rambling aimlessly and incoherently like my dad.

No, what Rev9 has done here is entertain everyone, but you and your disjointed buddies, with the truth.

 

[Revolution9]

Tell me something-in all seriousness, are you from the Kentucky/Tenesee general area? You have a way of rambling aimlessly and incoherently like my dad.

Nah. I am from Canada and was taught young not to put up with crap and the best way to deal with bullies, trolls and baiters is to hang them humorously by their own petard. You think I ramble? This crap anarkissed/anti-creatives thinking has spawned the much of the most incomprehensible and lack of common sense drivel of nearly any political philosophy in the 20th century. It's literary history is one of sheer rambling by disgruntled fools who think their intellects amount to more than squat and complain, or those who simply were paid agents of international communism/zionism to destabilize capitalist based societies and make them ripe for takeover by the same set of crooks the writings which supposedly rail against the evils perpetrated by such criminal elements that they have by proxy, flagged themselves with..i.e..bcame the face of power of the state.l.. IOW they were paid by those self same entities they propose to denigrate but point their finger at the moon and proclaim the finger to be the moon..i.e.the state, hijacked by a criminal element gets writers to write against the state..but not mention the criminal involvement of their paymasters and use those writings to further destabilize good elements within the governance chain of authorities and offices and subvert the commons to their greed even further, then which of course they will get another round of Molyneux type to fill in the latest gap to establish momentum for further destabilization. And you fuckers think yer smart but get taken in easily by this gambit. . I see it as merely a tool of the metaphysical mafia and you suckers are being played to be shills for them due to lack of critical thinking and faulty thought experiment processes. i have no time nor inclination to correct your error. It is something that you are responsible for. My only responsibility is to point it out so others do not fall into the erroneous and corrupted momentum derived from accepting the thought virus.

Rev9

 

[Travlyr]

Your propensity for run-on-sentences is quite entertaining. Is that ... on purpose ... Rev9?

One sentence reply please ... with a period at the end.

 

[Travlyr]

Rev9 has exposed the criminals for who they are. Learn from him.

My first thought after being banned from Ron Paul forums was Rev9 & The Remnants,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYhijuMZYv0&feature=player_embedded

 

[Swarmed]

You fuckers don't debate rationally. You ignore broad swaths of facts and truths that will knock your sorry assed self serving ego trip of a poseurs philosophy hard core into the dirt. The reason you ignore them is so you can continue in your bloody mortified blitherfesting of that which you will never do anything about because you can't, are incapable of and will never do anything in the slightest to change the nature of that which is around you due to the mere incontrovertible fact you don't understand where the fuck you all are and how it works and is run. The first clue is the world exist outside the area between your ears and it takes physical effort and concensus to change it. I can ruin your little political paradise in one week or less..guaran-fucking-teed pal. Me an Viinny the Brow Zinjanthropia and the boys will make mincemeat out of your little anarkissed habitat.

Rev9

I have to disagree. Anarcho-capitalism in my view is the most ethically, logically, and morally consistent philosophy and that is why I came to admire it. It maximizes individual liberties and freedom. It is a logically bulletproof, astoundingly consistent, rock solid philosophy and after countless debates I still have yet to see it come out with so much as a scratch. That said, you're right, the world is probably not going to change, but I try to view AC as a model that should at least be as closely adhered to as possible, with the least amount of government and coercive force.

As far as Molyneux, he has said some things I disagree with profoundly, mainly his views on Ron Paul. I tend to agree with him on many other issues, though.

 

[Travlyr]

Rev9 & The Remnants,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYhijuMZYv0&feature=player_embedded

I'm making this my "ring tone."

 

[Travlyr]

I have to disagree. Anarcho-capitalism in my view is the most ethically, logically, and morally consistent philosophy and that is why I came to admire it. It maximizes individual liberties and freedom. It is a logically bulletproof, astoundingly consistent, rock solid philosophy and after countless debates I still have yet to see it come out with so much as a scratch. That said, you're right, the world is probably not going to change, but I try to view AC as a model that should at least be as closely adhered to as possible, with the least amount of government and coercive force.

As far as Molyneux, he has said some things I disagree with profoundly, mainly his views on Ron Paul. I tend to agree with him on many other issues, though.

You will enjoy "Heaven"