In Austria we call this time of the year, around Christmas, "die stade Zeit" (the quiet time). We meet family and friends, spend some quality time together.
Scanning through the forums it seems Inaba post 3x as much as usual. Which made me think: Does he have no one to talk to in real life?
Of course he have someone! Look at his best friend: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/muSCrjDRiC8ysj3v6hNTzQ |
|
|
|
I think we can only ignore the obvious for long before the strain of cognitive dissonance becomes too much. I don't think government has more than a generation or perhaps two left before people no longer believe in it. Prophecy (cult mindset, check, try to convince the enquirer with predictions of a terrible future). |
|
|
|
I recommend it. Stay thirsty, my friends! Merry Xmas! Stay satiated people, that is it! Be careful with the "dehydration" of the mind! |
|
|
|
@augustocroppo & @firstascent
I listen to him now and then and i like his philosophical idea's, the free market utopia side of his idea's i like less but you can learn something from everything. even if you dont fully agree.
What exactly is your problem with the work of stephan molyneux?, which things he says do you not like' Stephan Molyneux is a delusional sophist. The paper offered by him does not have one single reference to any another work. Thus, his philosophy is selfish and void. A true philosopher/scientist would base his works on the discoveries of other philosophers/scientists. Look at history, Aristotle, Kant, Cappra and Dawkins, etc. All these philosophers/scientists studied other philosophers/scientists to form their theories. They did not just decide that their own thinking was the only source for a 'universal preferred behavior'. Stephan Molyneux's ideology is a subversion of the scientific thought. E.g. The Fascists That Surround You - Part 2: Sociopaths Stefan Molyneux· 1,072 videos Subscribe 52,882 Published on 29 Nov 2012 What you call 'culture' is merely camouflage for sociopaths. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.comThis is the kind of nonsense that Stephan Molyneux likes to produce to feed the cult mindset of his followers. It is this kind of intellectual idiocy which causes people to spread unnecessary and inaccurate information. He associates fascism, a historical political view, with sociopathy, a personality disorder. In other words, he presumes that his assumptions are already confirmed by two scientific fields without being qualified for either. A true sophist! Notice the phrase 'what you call 'culture' is merely camouflage for sociopaths.' This is completely akin to a paranoid mindset! Stephan Molyneux is suggesting that whatever anyone perceives as "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society", that is just a trick to disguise people affected by a personality disorder. His muppets, like justusranvier, come here and post this intellectual crap without providing any explanation at all. I challenged justusranvier to explain the relationship between a political regime and a personality disorder. The answers: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128492.40In the videos you didn't watch, and in the listed sources you didn't read.
 Who the fuck are you to make demands? Look at the presented material or don't but in any case I'm not going to hand feed it to you just because you're acting like a scary Internet bully. If you don't care about the video content there's no reason for you to post in this thread. I watched part 2 (sociopaths) today as I drove to work in my T/A. It was a FANTASTIC video. As usual, Stef hits it out of the ballpark.
Do you remember the part where he talks about how sociopaths respond to being unmasked? So, what happened when I questioned him? Justusranvier... ...ignored the question and proceed to "force" me to watch the video (cult mindset, check, never answer complicated questions, redirect the enquirer to the cult leader). ..., after the second question, played the victim and suggested to me to not participate in the thread (cult mindset, check, if the enquirer insists, play the victim and ask him/her to leave) ...suggested the people questioning the video title would be exactly the kind of people the video was warning about (cult mindset, check, tell the enquirer the cult leader already predicted that people would come and ask complicated questions) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131489.0Stephan Molyneux followers have been qualifying users which disagree with them as sociopaths. In the face of that, the above quote by Rudd-O is hilarious! Stephan Molyneux is a sophist, spreading misinformation in such way that his follower now think they are qualified professionals able to diagnose users in Internet forums or to assert that mental illness does not exist. I do not dislike them, I have had plenty of fun reading these (almost brain dead) idiots spreading the holy word of Stephan Molyneux! |
|
|
|
This is another typical behavior of cult followers. They like to accuse the critics as being 'sociopathic and/or evil', without present any meaningful evidence to substantiate the accusation.
All you did in this thread was assert the dude was a cult leader, and then fail to present any meaningful evidence to substantiate the accusation. Did you miss post #7? There is some evidence. |
|
|
|
Those kinds of attacks aren't surprising coming from people who are openly sociopathic and/or evil but it's surprising that he gets a lot of flack from the "old guard" Libertarians too. This is another typical behavior of cult followers. They like to accuse the critics as being 'sociopathic and/or evil', without present any meaningful evidence to substantiate the accusation. I can't help but notice that while a lot of them have been pontificating from the safety of their think tanks Molyneux has actually been out in the trenches advancing the application of the NAP in real terms. I don't know of anyone else who can claim to have advanced libertarianism by convincing tens of thousands of parents to stop violating the non-aggression principle with regards to their children.
Maybe they're upset that Molyneux is actually getting results in the real world?
...and then, the cult leader is praised as the best! The cult leader is always put in a moral high ground by the cult followers. |
|
|
|
I really enjoy Stefan Molleneux's podcasts. He does a live show every Sunday and invites and encourages criticism of his ideas. If any of you have an argument of any substance that is critical of his opinions, please call into his show and debate him. You will be treated respectfully and given a chance to explain your position. That is exactly how the cult system works. The leader creates a "temple", a place where the followers must gather often to keep up to date with the cult leader mindset. In this case, you are arrogantly inviting the critics of the cult to visit the "temple" where the the cult leader have total control of the debate. This invitation is done as challenge, 'if any of you have an argument of any substance', disguised with a false sense of security, 'you will be treated respectfully and given a chance to explain'. If you post on here comments like Stefan is a "cult leader" then I will have to assume that you lack the intellectual ability to engage in anything more meaningful than childish name calling. This obvious ad hominem, coming from who demanded arguments of any substance, it terrible funny! Details on joining his Sunday show can be found at his website. ...and then, once more, the readers are invited to gather in the "temple"! |
|
|
|
More propaganda from the anarcho-capitalist cult of Stefan Molyneux... +1 They sure do love to shovel their shit back and forth, don't they? It just never ends. Myrkul answering in behalf of his cult leader: While its great that he wants to change the way we raise children by ensuring they get what they need, WHAT IS IT THAT THEY NEED? Stefan Molyneux never answered that. If you can't answer that, telling you the answer may not help. I'll try anyway. He says they are more "people" than you or I (this is exactly the same thing you said, by the way... that we've already been crushed, they have yet to be). This implies the answer, right there. Maybe you haven't guessed it yet, though. They need to be treated like people. With respect, love, and kindness, the same as you would desire to be treated. Rudd-O invoking his cult leader name in a list of writers:
Nobody else has any other problem with intangible rights being property.
There is an epistemological clusterfuck with the fragment "intangible rights being property". It's unparsable for many reasons, so I'll attempt my best to try and parse this broken English. If you meant that "intangibles can be property", then "Nobody else has any other problem" is false. I know of at least four different people who "have a problem with" (that is to say, they have come up with refutations of) the belief that intangibles can be property: 1. Hans Hermann Hoppe 2. Stephan Kinsella 3. Wendy McElroy 4. Stefan Molyneux Your move. Runeks indicating his cult leader links with anarcho-capitalism: I've read and heard a bit about the Zeitgeist Movement, and it always amounts to some ideals about what we "could" obtain if we just did this and that. They're really good at stating the "what", without answering the "how". How do we apply all these ideals? LightRider, you keep saying that humans being are deficient, that all we care about is profit. Does this include yourself, and if so, what are you doing to change that? EDIT: Also, can some - point by point - explain the exact differences between Anarcho Capitalism and a Resource Based Economy, please? EDIT2: For anyone interested in seeing Stefan Molyneux debate a ZM advocate, check out this video, starting at 42:08 (the link will take you to that time stamp in the video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hxjwBZjADiM#t=2528sEverything before that is fairly irrelevant to the discussion IMO. Madhatter asking for donations to his cult leader: Hello all,
I am starting a fundraiser for Stefan Molyneux / Freedomain Radio.
If you enjoy his commentary/videos/philosophy you can donate by sending your coins here:
19vhXH8her5oBsZGdnRy4AU7cJoJRMuk8u
(This is a mybitcoin account that I will hand over to him in 30 days).
Cheers!
The Madhatter
Snipes777 (Rudd-O's sockpuppet) praising his initiation in the cult: Getting into philosophy and anarchism. Introduced by Stefan Molyneux ar freedomainradio.com, but then Adam Kokesh from Adam vs the Man and his new podcast has led to me getting into it much more intensely.
Myrkul recommending the holly words of his cult leader: ...and so far, Stefan Molyneux is cited up to 2010 in this forum by different users. |
|
|
|
More propaganda from the anarcho-capitalist cult of Stefan Molyneux... |
|
|
|
Indeed, I would prefer they not act, or rather - delegate their action - rather than literally firing blind. A man or a woman cannot 'delegate their action' when in face of an imminent physical attack. But they still have the moral obligation to see to their own defense, whether by learning to defend themselves without sight (doable, but not usually worth the effort) or by delegating that responsibility. People have no moral obligation to learn to defend themselves and a right of self-defense cannot be delegated. Certainly I have no obligation to defend them, nor does anyone else who has not explicitly agreed to. If you do not have a duty to defend people, people also do not have a duty to defend whoever they choose, including themselves! So, though it may be delegated, you cannot just expect someone to take care of it for you. It is your duty to see that it gets taken care of, just as with parenting. No, self-defense is not my duty. If you take away my ability to defend myself, you are taking the responsibility for that duty. You may not see it that way, but that is the truth of the matter. A private school have no moral obligation to protect you after you VOLUNTARILY agree to enter without a gun, except if there was a previous explicit agreement between you and the school to determine the protection. |
|
|
|
On the contrary, it is a moral obligation: All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.  This men and women have the full right to react against a physical threat as they think appropriate, but they do not have any moral or legal obligation to react at all. Duties can be delegated. You are not required to do your own parenting, either. People are not required to do they own self-defense. So? No, they do not. Yes, they do! In an organized society a group of people can decide if people will be allowed to handle guns in public or private schools. They have the right to choose if other individuals may carry weapons onto their property, but by denying them that ability, they are taking responsibility for their defense while on their property. In a public space, or a space not owned by the individual, no such ability exists. There is no implied agreement of protection when an person is allowed to enter a private property (in this case, a school). Unless the owner explicit offers the protection, the property owner do not have any moral obligation to defend an person from an physical threat. However, the person have the full right to react as he/she thinks necessary in face of any physical threat. |
|
|
|
I agree on right vs. duty, but the last paragraph seems to have come from you ass. Are you sayig I have the right to demand that the police officer who pulled me over to go put his gun back in his car because it makes me uncomfortable? No, that is not what I meant. I was arguing over the right that the individual have to choose who will defend him. |
|
|
|
By the way, self-defense is a right or a duty?
It appears you cannot even understand the difference of both definitions.
It appears you cannot understand the fact that it is both. Self-defense is not a moral or legal obligation. The act to react against an imminent physical attack is completely voluntary and cannot be enforced by laws or moral standards. In accordance with your delusional premise (self-defense is a right and a duty of the individual), any person would have the duty to defend itself from an attacker. Disable people, elders or children would have the obligation to react against any imminent physical attack which they could face. This is, of course, false. There is no moral or legal obligations which forces a disable person, an elder or a child to react against a threat. A disable person, an elder or children is indeed entitled to defend his body as much he/she can, but at the same time they are entitled to let another person defend their body as much they can. Therefore the action of self-defense is a right and not a duty. Individuals have the right to choice who defend them, whatever is themselves or somebody else. Individuals also have the right to choose if other individuals should or should not handle lethal weapons near them. A school which not allows individuals to own lethal weapons in their premises is not forcing another individuals to not defend themselves (it is not a duty), but exercising the right to decide who will defend themselves (it is a right). |
|
|
|
If it was not safe, I'm afraid it would be my nature to attempt to show them the error of their ways - which is exactly what I am doing in this thread. The society in the US is not safe, and it is precisely the refusal to honor people's right to self-defense (among other things) that is the cause. This majority of users in this forum are not only from USA. From what I read, few proposals were made to CONTROL the access to guns, not to BAN the access to guns. By the way, self-defense is a right or a duty? It appears you cannot even understand the difference of both definitions. |
|
|
|
Statistics and science are wrong, but the news must be right... Oh dear... What a bunch of delusional users in this thread. Tell me, what make you to trust in the above news to determine the shooters were affected by a mental disorder? |
|
|
|
Yup. We recognize that ultimately, you're the one responsible for your own defense. The courts agree with us. Unless you want to pay to have a bodyguard at all times, your safety is, ultimately, your duty. 'We' who? You and other delusional compulsive liars? I thought you were arguing that self-defense was a right, not a duty. |
|
|
|
Paid evidence from a journal published in 2001? I guess you did not even understand the abstract. Myrkul, you are fucked up... |
|
|
|
It's highly amusing that you actually spent time in order to argue my point.
Of course it is amusing! It is funny to mock you. Tell me, should archery being part of the national curriculum for all teenagers, so they can defend themselves against child abusers, rapists, psychopaths and pimps with arrows? What do you think about swords? Perhaps classrooms with Katana swords?  |
|
|
|
Teacher shoots the offender.
Academics are not known for their fighting ability.
School teachers also are not known for they shooting skills. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
