Source: Facebook

YES GOING ON JFG’S SHOW

Yes, going to complain about the JFG/@[510991678:2048:Stefan Molyneux] debate, in which both parties failed, but JFG failed harder. Whether by ignorance, incompetence, posturing, entertainment value, or intellectual dishonesty, I have no idea. Stefan tried to force JFG into his frame, and jfg refused to do so. Stefan couldn’t get past jfg’s frame because he just engaged in denial and sophistry. Stefan’s frame of construction by non-contradiction attempts to produce a via-positiva (universal preference) rather than a universal prohibition. I mean… it was ridiculous.

JFG and @[510991678:2048:Stefan Molyneux] are Entertainers and Opinion sources. Stefan is additionally an Educator. Stefan philosophizes well, but is a pretty lightweight philosopher.

I know this. But i’m frustrated with everyone on our side of the spectrum. the libertarians are pseudo intellectuals, and the conservatives are anti-intellectual, and the christians don’t know the meaning of the term.

We (Europeans) are defeated by pseudoscience, sophistry, false promise, and propaganda, in the postwar period like the romans were by the jews in the late roman period.

And the only solution to winning is intellectual conservatism, where conservatism means ‘the european group strategy of heroism and duty, excellence and beauty, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth and contract, jury and law, and markets in everything, resulting in tripartism and trifunctionalism in elites, and the markets for association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war, at the cost of suppression of the rates of reproduction of the underclasses and the direction of surpluses saved to the production of the high returns on the commons.

And ass-clowning by JFG and lack of sophistication by stefan means two people with reach only reinforce pseudo and anti-intellectualism.

JF plays this game ‘universal’. then makes up universal. He doesn’t ask SM what SM means by universal. He assumes he knows. So, he assumes he knows the square root of two yes? But then ask in what base? So you can’t make an argument about anything at all without agreeing on the terms. Stefan was saying known, possible action between human beings but with the term ‘reality’ – demonstrating why idealism fails. Jf’s argument is that he won’t agree on the meaning of the square of two if stefan defines it as base ten. F–king childish.

Is UPB nonsense. Well, it’s amateurish. But that’s different from intellectually dishonest or argumentatively incompetent, or discursively evasive.

And don’t get me started on the f–king quantum nonsense. There is nothing magical about quantum mechanics. It’s just a lot of moving parts using a lot of probabilities. The minute you hear ‘god’, ‘metaphysics’, or ‘quantum’ you know the other party is lying.

=== NOTES ====

JFG – Moral rules are simply statements of preferences (a strategy).

Moly – if you are going to claim a statement is moral and universal, then it must fulfill three conditions: (a) Universal independent of time and place, (b) something they can prefer, (c) something demonstrated behavior.

(a means of falsifying moral claims)

Errors:

– “don’t advocate”: stefan positions as a commons, when the individuals is claiming such a commons cannot be imposed upon him. (He’s making a lame attempt at argumentation ethics.)

– “ethics”: he conflates criminal, ethical, and moral behavior under the claim that this is ethics, when demonstrably we treat criminal (physical), ethical (informational), and immoral (commons) behavior as a spectrum of competing interests.

Question: Define existence? Persistence.

Question. Define moral?

Need to Acquire > Possibility of Predation > Possibility of Cooperation > Reciprocity within Proportionality > Altruistic Punishment > Defection > Boycott or Predation.

via positiva Market for morals between individual preferences, interpersonal interactions, and normative, and civilizations.

In competition with via-negativa market for resolution of criminal, ethical, and moral conflicts.

The evidence is that empirically, all systems of law test for reciprocity within the limits of the local market conditions. As such regardless of preference, opinion, or justification,

So we cannot make universal positive statements, we can however limit the scope of positive claims to specific tests that fail. In this sense, in very primitive

This is why we study calculation, science, economics, law, and group strategy – so that we don’t make mistakes of applying the logical paradigm

– “universally preferable” is an imprecise inversion of universally decidable. In other words, ethics or morality or the criminal, ethical, moral spectrum is not a preference, but an individual’s demand for treatment from others in return for his or her cooperation. This varies by gender, ability, and sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value. Stefan is just unsophisticated and using a very primitive form of philosophy called philosophical rationalism to make his case. I don’t. I use the sciences.

Stefan demonstrated how his shallow, philosophical rationalism – an evolution of theology by wan of kant – is insufficient to defeat JF’s sophistry.

JFG

You made a statement that his claim was false on your definitions rather than on his definitions.

How do in-group morals differ over time among say hunter gatherers, Brazilian hunter gatherers, early farmers, indo european raiders, combinatory farmer pastoralists, manorialists,

The pseudoscience to avoid the argument was ridiculous.

The whole taxicab reality / square circle. would no longer be a square or a circle but a conflation (ambiguity) lacking definition. In other words a categorical error.

In our universe no… well, a universe must be actionable to be existential. The rest are not actionable, they are FICTIONAL.

Quantum means we don’t know yet because of high causal density.

There is no evidence of other universes.

There are no systems of brief that matter, there are only systems of action and defense of one’s actions that matter. 😉

I don’t make statements that are universals – but you do.

Lets explain bride capture.

JFG is trying to say he is unaccountable to others for his thoughts words and deeds.Updated Mar 27, 2020, 11:57 AM