Edit: I note that the standard "Stefan Molyneux is a cultist" defamation has already spread here like the aidscancer that these false accusations are.  It was only to be expected, and only a matter of time, that malevolent people who are unmasked as sociopaths and sycophants by Stefan's work, would try to defame and attack him here -- what are snakes and scorpions going to do, but bite and sting?

If I may speak for Stefan for a moment: he is a man who has worked very hard, for many years, to build a completely free comprehensive database of knowledge on voluntaryism ranging from peaceful parenting, to family relationships, to friend relationships, to professional relationships, to politics.  He has done so at great personal sacrifice and -- as you can see from these petty and hateful people who shit-talk him gratuitously -- undeserved personal cost to himself.

In my personal experience, those who attack Stefan do so only because they can't contemplate the man and not feel self-hate and inadequacy at their own insignificance.  They can't reason, so they insult.  They can't debate, so they defame.  They can't discuss, so they attack.  They can't come to terms with their own misdeeds, so they project.

This is, by the way, particularly true of the politically-connected parents who got Stefan's wife into trouble -- they abused their kid so thoroughly, that their kid decided to ditch their sorry asses... what did these miserable assholes do?  Instead of coming to terms with what they had done to their son, they had Stefan and his wife publicly slandered in a newspaper hit piece.  Whenever you hear these "Stefan Molyneux cult" accusations, keep in mind that these accusations originated entirely from fabrications in that newspaper hit piece.  I was there.  I saw that happen.  I would know.

I'm confident that those of you who don't just listen to random asshats vomiting hate, will take the time to actually research these defamatory claims and find that they are as baseless as they are odious.  Stef is only called a "cultist" today, solely because two parents were cowardly enough to not accept that they were abusing their child, so they preferred to defame Stefan and blame him for his kid ditching their sorry asses.

That's how low people can stoop.  Yes, some snake people will conspire to leave you without bread on your table, leave your kids without food or a house, ruin your reputation thoroughly, if what you say reveals enough of their own malevolence.  These snakes will have no scruples whatsoever.  They are sociopaths.  And then the other sociopaths -- such as the ones in this very forum, posting on this very thread -- will giddily celebrate at your misfortune inflicted on you, and use that to gain Internet points (the vernacular is "for psychic gain").

Sociopaths, everywhere.

Well said.

He certainly beats people up to get his anger across...

Exactly. This whole "capitalists collude" is just a made-up victim complex fantasy that losers use to explain away the fact that they can't contribute much value to society, thus they get shitty wages.  Whenever there's collusion to depress wages in our modern world, it's always, without exception collusion involving the government.

There you go, "mystery" explained, now you know why MoonChildAbuser is a child abuser -- he told you himself why.  That kind of shit?  Contagious -- from parent to child.

To me, this was no mystery at all.  He was abused, he hasn't processed that abuse, he abuses his children, and he rationalizes that abuse using wololololo dogma.  Thus, he's "happy" (of course, his children will likely grow up to either hate him or abuse their own children, but what does the abuser care, he just cares that he feels great after brutalizing his kid).  There's literally no mystery here -- this shit goes on everywhere, abusers are a dime a dozen, and they're all cut from the same abuse cloth.

The unexamined life isn't just not worth living -- it's also actively destructive to your children.


Note how ManlyAbuser refers to this conclusion as an "assumption" when it's really not -- it's a simple deduction.  What is torture if not pain inflicted to elicit certain behaviors?  Obviously corporeal punishment is torture -- if anyone does the exact same thing to an adult, the aggressor is guilty of battery.  How battery and torture somehow magically becomes not-battery and not-torture can only be explained through a particularly malevolent form of doublethink.

We get it, MoonBeater needs to feel like he is not a monster.  He'll never accept that he is indeed a monster for brutalizing his children.  Accepting that one has done wrong can be very, very difficult -- especially when it's one's children that one has wronged -- and that would be far too much effort for such a fundamentally cowardly person who beats defenseless creatures up, to "deal" with his own abuse issues.

Far too much effort.  For such a grown-ass coward.

Scum.

People often listen to ancap ideas and then reply with the standard condescending "Yeah it's all good brah but what you fail to take into account is human nature".  Usually, the point of the person blabbing about "human nature" is that "human nature" somehow always conspires to sabotage all peaceful cooperation (the ancap ideal).

I'd like to address that nonsense, thanks.  Here we go.

You'll note how people use the term "human nature" as a conversation stopper.  Rarely if ever does the person condescending others with "human nature arguments" actually bother explaining exactly how "human nature" (whatever that is) actually means that ancap ideas are possible.  He just says "human nature" and shuts up, as if the words "human nature" were some sort of magical incantation that stops all possible thought.

Also note how, rarely, does this person contemplate that he himself, somehow, and magically, does not conform to this alleged "human nature" of alleged nefariousness.  After all, he himself doesn't go around raping, robbing and defrauding people.  And, excuse my healthy skepticism -- I find it hard to believe that he doesn't behave in evil ways just because there's a government wth an outstanding threat of punishment against him.  Refraining from doing evil solely because of fear of punishment is sociopathy defined; I'm not particularly inclined to believe anything a sociopath says about "human nature", because what the fuck could he possibly know about that?

So, to the people who claim that they have "disproven ancap because human nature": what do you know about "human nature" that entitles you to dismiss ideas condescendingly?  What's this "human nature" you speak of?  That humans are extremely adaptable?  That on most circumstances humans seek to cooperate with each other?  That under a certain set of circumstances -- when humans posing as "state" control and order humans around -- humans kill each other?  Yeah, so what?

If your point is that "human nature" is "evil" -- which by the way is the sack of Christian bullshit theory of "original sin", repackaged to sound politically correct -- then you are evil (or you're not a human), so why should anyone listen to you giving advice about evil?  Not to mention that proposing to centralize the power to murder, kidnap and ruin human beings into a few hands is the absolute worst idea, because it will obviously empower evil people, according to your own beliefs about human nature.

You wanna see human nature?  With your own eyes?  Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-eU5xZW7cU

That is how human nature looks like, on healthy individuals who haven't had a chance to be victims of abuse or brainwashing.  Yet.

I'm sure those of you who are evil and sociopathic will find ways to defame and discredit this hopeful reality; you can't bear the thought that other people are actually better at humanity than you are.  But it's not you that I'm addressing -- after all, you're warped to the point of being incorrigible -- it's your lies. Your lies perish here.  Too bad.

On the whole "disciples" thing (which is a common accusation on the part of people who hate Stefan Molyneux but can't actually refute his arguments), Stef says something that I think applies perfectly to the situation:

http://youtu.be/KLODu02R_gA?t=16m15s

That picture is blurrier than Hubble's first pictures.

To me, this is the biggest utility of Bitcoin and gold -- they protect me against inflation, and they do so very well.

In choosing one or the other, I personally put these risks in the balance:

- Gold may be a bit overpriced right now
- Governments will want to steal people's gold in the future (they already did once)
- Bitcoin is more volatile than gold

Therefore, I'm pursuing a balanced strategy with both.

Opening your comment by putting words in my mouth, or asking me "have you stopped beating your wife yet" types of questions, does not exactly constitute an incentive to address your questions.  It makes me think "well, it's unlikely that this person will actually process whatever I say, so why bother".

cunticula IS a theologian (of the statist variety), who just happens to like yelling "theoogians!" to anyone who doesn't share his own theology.  It's entirely unsurprising that he would attack Stef -- Stef has made a number of arguments that essentially prove cunticula is a sociopath.  He can't actually respond to the arguments, so he switches to personal attacks.  That's what a sociopath would do, to avoid being unmasked.

Very true.  In fact, religious morality is the exact opposite of objective -- it is arbitrary, full of magical exceptions, and not based at all on relevant material fact.  Once again, cunticula has it exactly the other way around.  Does not surprise me.

Well said.

This comment contains pretty much every barbaric dismsssal and apology for  child abuse commonly vomited by sociopaths who can't stand abuse being discussed and feel the urgent need to sabotage said discussions.

I won't be responding to their sort of garbage, because it is pretty clear that this schmuck did not bother to actually give a responsive reply to what I said, preferring instead to go with the misrepresentation / manipulation angle (e.g. I never spoke about what criminals deserve) and the faux indignation lecture ("who are you to...").  This retard is not making a genuine effort to engage rationally, I feel no obligation to do so myself, and I won't bless garbage with a response reserved only for actual arguments.

You had a chance to make an argument, you chose attacks and fogging. Congratulations, you earn a speedy ticket to my ignore list.

Yeah, he's falsely equating agreement and surrender there.  Had you been discussing rape instead of robbery, he would have insisted that rape-at-gunpoint victims who didn't want to be shot "agreed" to have consensual sex.

That is the level of mad absurdity that passes for "reasoning" in staazis' corrupted, malevolent minds.  Either he is doing this to provoke others, or he is doing this because he truly can't think.  In any case, through his behavior, he didn't just forfeit the argument, he also ruined his own reputation.

So, people, make his reputation stick.  Let it be widely known that ElectricVomit is a scumbag, who likes to play with words, equating armed robbery with consensual exchange, just so that he doesn't "lose" an argument (which he already lost days ago).  For best effect, continually remind him on every thread that he vomits into, and refuse to engage him any further.  Let people know that they are interacting with a first-grade asshole who will steal from them (or defend theft against them) and then pretend that said theft was "agreed upon" by the victim.

A simple sentence "You're the guy who considers that being the victim of armed robbery equals agreeing to give something to someone, so you're not getting any attention from me" should suffice.  If he is already in your ignore list, you can say something like "I did not read what ElectricVomit said because he is in my ignore list since that day he claimed armed robbery equals agreeing to give something to someone".

We can't make idiots think straight, but we sure as hell can curb their idiocy by shining a light on what they do.

Well said.

I'm mostly shielded from MoonAbuser's garbage, but the few things he has said that have snuck through comment quotes reveal the absolute putrefaction and perversity rotten in his mind.  Some "Christian" he is.

I see all the people in my ignore list came here to attack the ideas in the original post. Attack, not debate.

Par for the course.

Is that an absolute?

(This question was designed to highlight a self-detonating statement, which proves itself false by way of self-contradiction.)

That picture...

...too true.  I wish I had thought of that picture *I have it saved somewhere in my JPGs folder* and posted it earlier.

Y'all talking to a truly mad person.