If you are not already a supporter checkout everything you are missing out on in the Preview Article.
https://rumble.com/vmlvdc-how-to-deal-with-verbal-abuse.html
FROM A LISTENER:
People get "upset" when you brag about your supposed achievements because your narcissism and self-aggrandizement is absolutely blaring in this instance. How you don't see it as such an apparently intelligent person is completely mystifying to me. You did this hour long call-in show about why people point out your obvious narcissism, which is, in itself, highly narcissistic. You speak about self-knowledge, but you clearly have no self-knowledge at all if you can't see your own narcissism.
Your fuzzy math about how many kids you've saved from being abused is just hilarious. Like even if you have saved some kids from being abused, your ridiculous fly-by-night equations to get the numbers you did is just absurd. Like just say "I've saved children from being abused". Even I would agree with that, but when you try to quantify it with these ridiculous numbers, it shows how self-glorifying you are.
Even in this call in show, you ignore one of your listeners when he brings up the valid argument that in the show, you set up an impossible standard: you said that you'll only listen to criticism from people who can be shown to have saved children. As if that has any bearing on the validity of someone's argument. This is just a really weird Ad Hominem fallacy. "I'm not gonna listen to you because you don't work for CPS!"
The vast majority of people, obviously, can't demonstrably show that they've saved children from harm like some kind of caped superhero. That's an absurd, impossible standard. It's a complete fallacy. What you're doing is setting yourself up as being above criticism, given this impossible standard - as the caller rightly points out (albeit in a very timid manner).
The irony here is just absolutely astounding.
Is this what's become of the great Stefan Molyneux? Whining for an hour because of what one of his paying subscribers wrote on his locals page? Maybe it's time to think about retiring, man.
All donors get the Peaceful Parenting book / audiobook / AI access to share with any and all parents you know who need help!
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This clip comes from "DO I GET OWNED BY A PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR? Twitter/X Space", get the full show at https://fdrpodcasts.com/6101
Ever wonder why theft can never be universally acceptable? 🤔 It's a self-defeating idea! Respecting property rights is always possible and logical. Let’s talk about why respecting property rights matters! 💡
Watch and share more shorts at https://fdrurl.com/tiktok
This clip comes from "DO I GET OWNED BY A PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR? Twitter/X Space", get the full show at https://fdrpodcasts.com/6101
Communism fails on moral and practical grounds. Property rights are the key to freedom and efficiency! 🚀 When they’re denied, only a few control everything.💡
Watch and share more shorts at https://fdrurl.com/tiktok
Stefan Molyneux critiques "The Sopranos," praising its storytelling while questioning female character portrayals and anti-Christian themes. He contrasts Tony Soprano’s violence with Carmela’s suburban life, exploring gender dynamics and moral complexity. Ultimately, he invites listeners to rethink narratives shaping our views on morality.
Preview at the Premium Content Hub: https://premium.freedomain.com/d922d786/the-philosophy-of-the-sopranos
Subscribers can access this content at:
X: https://x.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1980797732198514917
Locals: https://freedomain.locals.com/post/7385399/the-philosophy-of-the-sopranos
Subscribestar: https://www.subscribestar.com/posts/2140829
Freedomain: https://freedomain.com/the-philosophy-of-the-sopranos/
Not yet a subscriber?
You can subscribe on:
X: https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Locals: https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Subscribestar: https://subscribestar.com/freedomain
Freedomain: https://fdrurl.com/members
...
The concept of Universal Consequentialism 😱
A year ago, I presented a different view of consequentialism in this community, which is to devide the concept into rational and irrational consequentialism.
Here's a different approach to explain what consequentialism actually is, based on an example Stefan is providing in his book "Peaceful Parenting", chapter 11, page 153, timestamp 38:19 in the audio book. Quote:
"Since you are all very clever readers, you will be replying to me in your mind something along the lines of this: 'Ah, you say, Mr. Philosopher, that no one can accurately predict the future, but you also state that hitting children has negative outcomes!'
That is certainly true – both that I make that claim, and that hitting children does have generally negative outcomes.
However, we do not judge the morality of hitting children based upon positive or negative outcomes.
For instance, we know that state control of the economy leads to massive inefficiencies – but we don't judge the morality of state control of ...
If you are not already a supporter checkout everything you are missing out on in the Preview Article.