ProfessionalTeabagger

Friendly Hacker you've made the claims that our very life depends on the hobbies Stef questions the legitimacy off and that he attacked their profession out of ignorance. I've yet yo hear you give any evidence for those claims. Stef is well aware as is probably everyone on this site that much science you mentioned has been funded through government. At no point did Stef say this was not the case. He said people should stop stealing to fund their hobbies. Do you agree or disagree that people should stop stealing to fund these things?

Yeah, people who ask how the free-market will fund science answer their own question.

The same method of funding has been used to murder a quarter of a billion people, kill and maim millions more in countless wars, enslave millions of people and to vastly increase the likelihood that we'll end ourselves completely. I think I'll take my chances with global warming and rouge asteroids. The solution is to pay for it yourself. So what? That's a nice meme but humans are not the only animals to pay to live on the planet. Non-human animals also pay because they really have to work hard to survive. If you think animals don't have to pay to live on the planet then go live like an animal. The horrible thing about this kind thing is that we'll never know what technologies or ways of doing science would have evolved without all the retarded government funding. Perhaps because of the limitations people would have come up with a way to do the same things at a fraction of the cost; necessity being the mother of invention. We may be living with warp drive now for we know.

Sure, if it's their property. There are easier and cheaper ways of making people conform to the rules though. The are already armed guards on the roads but even the state has come up with better ways of preventing road safety violations. I think in a free society you'd have to buy your road pass and if you break the rules it gets cancelled. If you continue to use the roads after that then you are subject to all sorts of problems. Maybe there'd be a pay as you use system and if you break the rules your costs go up. People who are consistently good drivers may get reduced rates. Driving safely may actually become profitable.

I get the feeling that Brand is sincere but he just hasn't thought about these things philosophically.

You can have that and call it government but it appears to be no different from services we already use. Aaron clarey has writen a book called Privatizing Governments that argues for this idea.

The fact that one ought to use the scientific method (in order for their conclusions to be correct) is conditional on one wanting their conclusions be correct. But the fact that this is conditional is not itself conditional.

I am also irritated by you now. You did not say you are happier because she is feeling better without you. You asked if you should be happy because she's found something that makes her happy. Those are two different things. She can feel better without you without having casual sex with lots and lots of people. If you only came here to have that one question answered then , No, promiscuity is not unethical, it's only unhealthy in many cases.

I'm not surprised you feel jealous. A woman you love has broken up with you and within a few months or weeks is living a promiscuous lifestyle. She is expressing a preference for meaningless sex over a relationship with you. Then she expresses a desire for future friendship in the full knowledge that you love her and what she's doing will most likely be extremely hurtful. You should be more than a "bit" jealous. It must be very painful for you. Your feelings of jealousy are perfectly valid. She is giving something away recklessly that she used to give exclusively to you; this is before you've even had time to process it and adjust. I'M wondering about the phrase "happy for her". What does it really mean to be happy for someone? In your post you mention nothing about your own happiness. It's as if it's secondary or even irrelevant. Why must you be happy for her? I think you need to ask, does her behavior make you happy? It seems obvious it doesn't. It also seems pretty obvious to me that you are being the "nice guy". I suspect a woman who becomes a nympho has some issues she needs to explore and such women are not attracted to the nice guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMnM_cQu6Fo

I have no idea how to respond to this either. Is there some joke I'm missing?

I have no idea how to respond to this.

It was a history degree with a focus on the history of philosophy. That it was a history degree does not negate the fact that he studied philosophy formally so you're wrong. Not that that matters very much at all. I rarely heard Stef even mention his formal training. It's people like you who wave their degrees around as if it gives you some authority. Stef is familiar with the concept of utilitarianism and has done pod-casts on it and discussed it many times so you're wrong there too. Your view that he's unable to characterize it accurately based on Anarchopac's characterization of it is just your opinion as is your view on which philosophers (analytically or otherwise) are "serious". Who are you to dictate who and who is not "serious"? Isn't anarhopac serious? Matt Zwolinski is just as free as to debate Stef as you are. It's not like you would debate him live from anywhere other than behind your keyboard. When I say "retarded" I mean it literally. Your standards are retarded and I explained why. Allow me to demonstrate again. You say I am juvenile and anti-intellectual. Okay so that's a standard. If you were to have violated that standard while pompously asserting it here then it would be retarded, right? So on the actual video that the original post is taken from you claim Stef may have Dunning-Kruger syndrome because he isn't knowledgeable enough to know he's wrong. Is that juvenile? Is the title of the video "Hilariously bad error that ruins Stefan Molyneux's UPB" juvenile? Is THAT intellectual or anti-intellectual? Is it juvenile when someone suggests this video and you respond with "Nice Find". Is it your intellectual integrity and maturity that makes you pal up with the people who run smear sites against Stef, several of which you mention in that comment section? "I know you are emotionally invested in stefan..." What a snarky statement. Again, directly after setting a standard you break it. Do you think for a second anyone here cannot see straight through your fake civility? Perhaps YOU are emotionally invested as your 13 videos in a row against Stef and constant denigrating comments about him throughout your comment sections would suggest.

That you think the stamp of some authority changes the nature of his credentials only shows your statist mindset. It's the mindset of someone who just assumes education and schooling are necessarily the same thing. The quote you use is from Stef who was being honest. If he had not mentioned his thesis adviser's behavior then you would be none the wiser and by your own standard you would have to accept the credential. This highlights the flaws in the academic system which you seem to respect. By your own standard one could dismiss Socrates because he didn't get an "A" (btw I have read Stef's masters thesis and it deserves an "A" imho). That's how retarded your standards are. You say he only has degrees in history but as stated, the graduate degree focused on the history of philosophy. He has studied philosophy for over 20 years and is able to to prove his expertise, knowledge and training quite easily in debates and discussions. I know this means little to someone who requires some academic mark of approval in order to be educated but he is not an amateur. He is a professional philosopher in every way. Your intention was not to be accurate. You are anything BUT accurate. Your intention is to denigrate Stef's standing as a philosopher. You are a passive aggressive sophist. Is there any chance the up-voting, down-voting system on posts can be done away with? I'm tired of whiney manginas trying to score pity points from claiming some victim-hood because their comment was down-voted.

Trane is aware of these credentials. He's a passive aggressive sophist with a strong resentment for Stef. The claim that Stef is "an amateur, untrained in philosophy" is unlikely to have been used with any good intention.

Then you have to be agnostic about everything including being agnostic. How the heck would you KNOW that you don't know how the heck you would know goblins don't exist? How would YOU know the logic you're using is valid? Apply agnosticism consistently and everything falls apart.

I don't think it's been argued that both parties are better off in that sense. Both parties are better off in terms of their desires being satisfied. That people may make choices that are bad for them is another point. How have other animals "done very well"?

It's not aggression. It's necessary surgery. If it was aggression then any alternatives would also be aggression. You can kill it, isolate it, spay it or let it breed (thereby multiplying the problem). Circumcision is unnecessary surgery and unlike spaying the cat it breaks universal ethics. Why are you very concerned about this? Is spaying especially painful?

Oh man, I read your profile as well. I'm sorry for the abuse you received. I don't think you need to apologize for what you think is a UPB violation. That slap doesn't sound anything like the initiation of force. You did nothing wrong. It sounds like you deeply resent having to do anything and that is not surprising given that you've been treated like a slave. Please do not be so hard on yourself and remember you don't HAVE to do anything. You are free and you're only 19. What I wouldn't give to be 19 again, jobless with the dishes piling up and butter melting on the microwave. You are already miles ahead of were I was at that age. I was a completely useless tool at 19 and I hadn't received half the abuse you did. Screw the dishes and screw getting a job and screw anyone who orders you around. You don't have to do a god-damn thing. You deserve to enjoy yourself and self-improvement will happen when and if YOU decide. IMHO I would recommend calling back in sometime when you are comfortable doing so. But as I say, you don't have to do anything. All the best.

UPB applies whether you decide X person is human (Human, intelligent alien, inter-dimensional time-lord, whatever) or not because you can understand it and have a choice.

Don't worry about it Mike Fleming. We all have no choice or control over anything we do.

I don't think Stefan has ever said anything like violence is inherent in the family. I think he's said that violence IN the family can result in the violence of the state. For something to be inherent it has to be a necessary part. Stef has said the violence is not necessary in the family. What has liking or not liking the term "structural violence" got to do with whether it is valid or not?

I find your post to be snarky and dishonest. If people are using the rep system improperly then prove it and don't just assert it. How would you know people are using it in the way you claim? This is just your opinion. People ARE attempting to disprove the argument and whether they give a negative rep to something says nothing about whether they've dis-proven the argument or not. Your claim that it hasn't been dis-proven is also just your opinion. Telling us we have to grow up is so god-damn patronizing. The fact of whether the OP's criticism is valid is not necessarily up to you. You claim that ALL you've read is is a blind, emotional defense of Stefan. If you're going to make a claim like that then you should obviously have read the whole thread. Are you actually saying there's nothing here but a blind, emotional defense? No one has made ANY rational arguments. Please describe how all MY responses are blind emotional defenses of Stefan. I don't think you can and I'M positive you will not be accountable for that claim or actually back up without back-peddling. you also don't seem to have even noticed that the OP has deliberately avoided certain challenges (which I'm going to call him out on). Who cares if it reminds you of "Randians"? What kind of argument is THAT? Who are you to assert that we need to "grow up" and then make a facile point like that? The premise of the opposite and negation being the same thing and whether the referenced passage in UPB actually does that is what we're debating. You just state that opposite and negation are not the same thing as if that's what's actually been done in UPB and it's just case-closed. You can't have read many of the responses if you're saying that and the fact that you criticize us for not responding rationally and then don't actually respond to any of our arguments is hypocritical. You're argument against UPB is to mis-characterize it, call it a farce and then say "HA HA HA". You're not going to get around having to provide actual rebuttals by flinging shit. If there's any immaturity in this thread it has come from YOU and your entire post is just a stink-bomb.

I'm confused by your post Kospe. Who said that because Trane stated UPB was wrong his argument about confusing "opposite" with "negation" was wrong? Could you make a list of those people who are saying this and quote them?

This fails. Those in need is not specific. Anyone can claim to be in need and giving can be defined any way. Completely retarded. If it is a moral obligation then people are obliged to give. That means they must give or be forced to give. This renders the "giving" part irrelevant. If the rich do not give then "those in need" can take because the rich are not meeting their moral obligation. So the positive moral obligation of "if you are rich, give to those in need" is identical to "if you are poor, take from the rich". Of course welfare statists never put it this way or else their thuggery would become apparent.