Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Abrahamic sophism (the world was created), Abrahamic Critique (straw manning), F

    Abrahamic sophism (the world was created), Abrahamic Critique (straw manning), Feminine GSRRM (Gossiping, Rallying, Ridiculing, Shamming,Moralizing) …. And No Argument Found.

    Now, restore the duel, libel, slander and what happens to these “non-arguments” by such schoolgirls?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 12:51:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167057300206641152

    Reply addressees: @TheAndrewMeyer @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167053312572702720


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable โ€” we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167053312572702720

  • This is true. It is also an anathema to people malinvested in sophism and fantas

    This is true. It is also an anathema to people malinvested in sophism and fantasy moral and political literature. ๐Ÿ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 12:47:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167056227748253696

    Reply addressees: @PseudoHeraclite @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167053186038976512


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable โ€” we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167053186038976512

  • Influential among philosophers, Intellectuals, Politicians – or among common peo

    Influential among philosophers, Intellectuals, Politicians – or among common people? Some of us work in R&D (like Research Academics), and some in Education (like Teaching Academics). Stefan is by far the most popular Teacher reaching the most people – by far.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 12:46:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167055814949048321

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167052216018116609


    IN REPLY TO:

    @StefanMolyneux

    Sure, I respect empiricism.

    My grad thesis was on the history of philosophy: Plato, Kant, Hegel and Locke – I got top marks.

    600 million views of my philosophy shows.

    Speeches around the world.

    Over a million of my books read every year.

    https://t.co/6wMFyyFP69 https://t.co/K9JpkHi0gt

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167052216018116609

  • @JakeWojtowicz Influential among philosophers, Intellectuals, Politicians – or a

    @JakeWojtowicz

    Influential among philosophers, Intellectuals, Politicians – or among common people? Some of us work in R&D (like Research Academics), and some in Education (like Teaching Academics). Stefan is by far the most popular Teacher reaching the most people – by far.

    By that logic,shouldn’t Mark Dice,Crowder,Shapiro,Peterson be put above Stefan in reach according to ur criteria”—Checkov Pavlov @slimshadyrap98

    There is, empirically, a demarcation between philosopher/philosophizing the demarcation is a) the internal consistency (grammar of constant relations) that the speaker relies upon for his arguments and b) the publication of a work of at least one novel idea in that grammar.

    There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE of that grammar of constant relations.

    My specialty is the disambiguation of science (operationalism), natural law, rational philosophy, justificationism, sophism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism.

    You just engaged in conflationa and sophism in the Abrahamic (GSRRM, Pilpul, Critique). And it’s unlikely that the others you mentioned know the difference. Peterson practices science but relies on suggestion using wisdom lit rather than operationalism. Borderline theology.

    You can claim that Stefan didn’t produce a durable work of philosophy – and that would be true (Zizek either). And that it is difficult to disambiguate from self help (wisdom) rather than decidability (truth). But he practices the grammar of philosophy, and has produced a work.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 11:27:00 UTC

  • some idiot did it, not fb per se

    some idiot did it, not fb per se.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 02:10:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166895748170027009

    Reply addressees: @Nationalist7346

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166887020968513536


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable โ€” we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166887020968513536

  • Agreed

    Agreed.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-28 01:35:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166524753861074944

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166398897872416769


    IN REPLY TO:

    @StefanMolyneux

    I certainly have my weaknesses, but false modesty is just another form of hypocrisy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1166398897872416769

  • Friend’s Rant on Creationists

    (Rant from a friend, I found humorous partly because of the obvious frustration) By @Septeus7

    I’m tired of this round of PR from the Creationist/IDist. The “new” tactic is borrow from SJWs by employing a univariant (fallacy) model of mutation and then claim Darwinian selection fails because the probably of functional mutation in a single domain. So dumb.

    Quote from  @curtdoolittle: —“Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time.”—

    This statement shows that you will get variation in any system that copies information of itself. Natural Selection is simply the 2nd Law applying to replication. All creationists deny the 2nd law. They fundamentally don’t understand it. All order flows from the 2nd. I have idiots asking stupid questions about mutation boundaries…like why doesn’t mutation kill entire populations? Because you can’t mutate if you are dead. The boundary system is differential reproduction i.e. NS. Creationist/IDist are dumbest f*kers on the planet. The stupidity of Creationists is greatest argument for why there is no Intelligent Designer because no Intelligent Designer would create a system of biology with a built in selection bias for the cognitive failures that are the low IQ ID believers. If you going to challenge a “theory of biology” then present a physical mechanism for the changes we observe. It’s not that hard. Explain how you pre-adopt changes to memory of a reproductive machine….go ahead do it. You can’t. Darwin didn’t defeat Creationism. Boltzmann did. Boltzmann was incredibly rigorous and eventually committed suicide out of guilt. What guilt? He rigorously systematically destroyed Plato, Kant, all every Metaphysician in all of philosophy and religion killing them forever and they are still butthurt about it.

  • Friend’s Rant on Creationists

    (Rant from a friend, I found humorous partly because of the obvious frustration) By @Septeus7

    I’m tired of this round of PR from the Creationist/IDist. The “new” tactic is borrow from SJWs by employing a univariant (fallacy) model of mutation and then claim Darwinian selection fails because the probably of functional mutation in a single domain. So dumb.

    Quote from  @curtdoolittle: —“Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time.”—

    This statement shows that you will get variation in any system that copies information of itself. Natural Selection is simply the 2nd Law applying to replication. All creationists deny the 2nd law. They fundamentally don’t understand it. All order flows from the 2nd. I have idiots asking stupid questions about mutation boundaries…like why doesn’t mutation kill entire populations? Because you can’t mutate if you are dead. The boundary system is differential reproduction i.e. NS. Creationist/IDist are dumbest f*kers on the planet. The stupidity of Creationists is greatest argument for why there is no Intelligent Designer because no Intelligent Designer would create a system of biology with a built in selection bias for the cognitive failures that are the low IQ ID believers. If you going to challenge a “theory of biology” then present a physical mechanism for the changes we observe. It’s not that hard. Explain how you pre-adopt changes to memory of a reproductive machine….go ahead do it. You can’t. Darwin didn’t defeat Creationism. Boltzmann did. Boltzmann was incredibly rigorous and eventually committed suicide out of guilt. What guilt? He rigorously systematically destroyed Plato, Kant, all every Metaphysician in all of philosophy and religion killing them forever and they are still butthurt about it.

  • On Intelligent Design: I Support Truthful Speech

    —“Are you saying you support darwanism over Christianity or intelligent design?”—Mark E. Haney

    1 – I cannot falsify evolution, and every single evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. 2 – The five rules of christianity are,logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically) the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christians are wealthier than competing cults. 3 – Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time. I cannot falsify that statement – it’s a physical and logical impossibility. As to what I ‘Support’: I support truthful speech. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to. I can only testify to that which is: … – categorically consistent … – logically consistent … – empirically(observably) consistent … – operationally consistent … – rationally consistent … – reciprocally consistent where it is: … – parsimonious … – scope consistent … – and fully accounted … – within stated limits and where … – due diligence has been demonstrated, and where … – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism Christianity survives under natural law as does all literature under natural law, in that the parables advocate natural law, despite being stated in language and grammar of myth, instead of the language and grammar of Testimony (law). Deliver faith and obedience to any gods compatible with natural law. Deliver Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity to mankind because Truth, Duty, and Reciprocity ARE the natural law.

    —“The point is, you don’t have to believe in anything supernatural to understand why natural law works. In fact, it hinders you. But as long as we both believe in the natural law, regardless of where it comes from, we can still be allies. I have to have faith in that law to deliver but that’s all. You believe whatever you want but in reality, evolution is the most intelligent design possible.”—Martin ล tฤ›pรกn

  • I SUPPORT THE ICONOCLAST (do it)

    I SUPPORT THE ICONOCLAST
    (do it)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeAJ-l3C1lA&feature=youtu.be


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-24 14:37:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165271891306852353