Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stephan Molyneux vs. the 'de-bunkers'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stephan Molyneux vs. the 'de-bunkers'

    This is for those of us that have been following Stephan Molyneux (for good or ill) and the debunkers have been debunked in detail in this little gem;


    "Over the last five years Stefan Molyneux has risen to fame, and while I personally enjoy a lot of his content, I maintain that a great many of his assertions are disastrously flawed… and his Universally Preferable Behaviour (otherwise known as UPB) is one of them. What follows is a refutation of the Five Proofs that Molyneux offers, and hence, this is Universally Preferable Behaviour Debunked! As promised within the video, here’s a link to Common Sense Atheism’s review of UPB (of which I found very useful in my research, and I highly recommend). Give him/her some love!
    Yes, it is an hour and a half, lots of serious things take that long.
    So, I expect the usual suspects will watch for 3 minutes and then look for somebody else's take on it based on 9 minutes of viewing.

    Here, how about this?
    Its just 10 minutes, is this something they can handle?



    here we go.....
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

  • #2
    He's wrong in the second video. The reason a society however primitive, doesn't make technological and social progress is because that society faces no particular threats. Toynbee was right here.

    Egypt rose to greatness along the swamps and flood plain of the Nile faced by warfare from various internal and external groups.
    The Aztecs were a tribe of no particular repute facing hostile neighbors and forced to retreat to an island in the middle of a swampy lake where they rose to be the greatest civilization in pre-Columbian Central America.
    China, same thing. Lots of warfare, lots of natural disasters. The Yellow River alone has probably killed close to a billion people in massive floods over the centuries.

    In North America there was no population pressure. Tribes had plenty of land and little competition. Food was abundant and the weather anywhere from great to tolerable. Cities, the few that existed, weren't walled. Warfare was small scale and rarely resulted in mass casualties.

    There simply wasn't anything to challenge society. The Aborigines were isolated and small in number. Sub-Saharan Africa faced little in the way of social competition. It was only quite late that the Zulu started to organize for mass warfare and then only because of population pressure. They had to expand or face starvation from over population.

    Japan stagnated for centuries compared to the West simply because there was no competition. China wasn't expansionist and internal warfare-- as in Aztec society-- became ritualized. Thus, both societies reached a pinnacle of advancement and went no further because they had eliminated the stressors on society that forced that advancement to begin with.

    In the 20th Century, the 1st and 2nd world wars created conditions for an incredible advancement of technology that otherwise wouldn't have happened. We'd likely still be using piston engine aircraft, steam ships, and early 20th Century technology today without those two wars. They were the stressors that forced society to advance and change.

    So, Molyneux is wrong in the second video.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      He's wrong in the second video. The reason a society however primitive, doesn't make technological and social progress is because that society faces no particular threats. Toynbee was right here.

      Egypt rose to greatness along the swamps and flood plain of the Nile faced by warfare from various internal and external groups.
      The Aztecs were a tribe of no particular repute facing hostile neighbors and forced to retreat to an island in the middle of a swampy lake where they rose to be the greatest civilization in pre-Columbian Central America.
      China, same thing. Lots of warfare, lots of natural disasters. The Yellow River alone has probably killed close to a billion people in massive floods over the centuries.

      In North America there was no population pressure. Tribes had plenty of land and little competition. Food was abundant and the weather anywhere from great to tolerable. Cities, the few that existed, weren't walled. Warfare was small scale and rarely resulted in mass casualties.

      There simply wasn't anything to challenge society. The Aborigines were isolated and small in number. Sub-Saharan Africa faced little in the way of social competition. It was only quite late that the Zulu started to organize for mass warfare and then only because of population pressure. They had to expand or face starvation from over population.

      Japan stagnated for centuries compared to the West simply because there was no competition. China wasn't expansionist and internal warfare-- as in Aztec society-- became ritualized. Thus, both societies reached a pinnacle of advancement and went no further because they had eliminated the stressors on society that forced that advancement to begin with.

      In the 20th Century, the 1st and 2nd world wars created conditions for an incredible advancement of technology that otherwise wouldn't have happened. We'd likely still be using piston engine aircraft, steam ships, and early 20th Century technology today without those two wars. They were the stressors that forced society to advance and change.

      So, Molyneux is wrong in the second video.
      Ian Morris is one of my favorite people. In his book War What It Is Good For he discusses some of the ideas you are talking about.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebRpquKFSEw
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
        This is for those of us that have been following Stephan Molyneux (for good or ill) and the debunkers have been debunked in detail in this little gem;

        Yes, it is an hour and a half, lots of serious things take that long.
        So, I expect the usual suspects will watch for 3 minutes and then look for somebody else's take on it based on 9 minutes of viewing.

        Here, how about this?
        Its just 10 minutes, is this something they can handle?

        here we go.....
        I watch Molyneux regularly but can't say I like him much, he comes across as pretty egotistical and obsessive compulsive. I will come back and comment if I end up watching this video.

        The problem with all these intellectuals is that after you are exposed to them for a while you can pretty well predict what they are going to say. I have started only watching them when they have guests on that I have not heard of.




        We hunt the hunters

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post

          I watch Molyneux regularly but can't say I like him much, he comes across as pretty egotistical and obsessive compulsive. I will come back and comment if I end up watching this video.

          The problem with all these intellectuals is that after you are exposed to them for a while you can pretty well predict what they are going to say. I have started only watching them when they have guests on that I have not heard of.




          I can understand that, but I like his works (rather than the man himself) because he uses and extensive command of the facts to build an argument using facts and reason.
          That makes him a very rare creature these days, and his personality does not emerge as the dominant feature to me.

          If arguing with his detractors isn't interesting enough, try this;




          or, what he was not allowed to say at a university -

          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #6
            OK - the True Devotee/Believer might endure that hour and a half+;

            But about 98+% of humanity has shorter interest and attention span; and such has been so since long before our media age ....

            So ... ~~~ ... KISS ...

            Keep It Short, (&) Simple ....

            As I quickly learned a couple years ago when "laid off" and back in job hunting mode ...
            @ 98+% of humanity has such a short interest/attention span that one needs a one-minute "elevator speech" ready to hand; on whom you are and what you are about!

            You can have a back-up, elaboration three-minute elevator speech,but go beyond that three minute's and likely you'd loose about 98+% of your potential audience and their interest.

            Again;
            K I S S ....

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post


              I can understand that, but I like his works (rather than the man himself) because he uses and extensive command of the facts to build an argument using facts and reason.
              That makes him a very rare creature these days, and his personality does not emerge as the dominant feature to me.

              If arguing with his detractors isn't interesting enough, try this;




              or, what he was not allowed to say at a university -

              I watched those and only found minor objections. I think you are right as far as evidence and reason goes he does try. It's a shame that people don't want to engage with ideas that make them uncomfortable. On the other hand how many people do you know that you would trust to change their minds if presented with evidence?

              Recently Molyneux has been obsessed with race and IQ. It's one of the reasons I stopped watching him. He has the evidence to support his claims but so did Charles Murray. Most people have been aware of the data for half a century even if they don't acknowledge it. It just isn't helpful.

              Anyway he is still more interesting than the mainstream media :-)
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #8
                https://youtu.be/IABRgZH12YA

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X