Total Pageviews

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Peter Joseph discusses Moly's critique of their debate.

Moly must have totally lost a debate with Peter Joseph some months ago. When he loses a debate, he always posts a follow on video on how great he did and what a fool his opponent was.  Moly pretends that he is a learned scholar.  He isn't.  He can never match up with an actual philosophy student, much less someone of the caliber of Joseph.  Which is why he has to do so many of these post debate videos.  He has to re-write history for his followers.  In this video, Joseph shows a really humorous moment.  Moly makes fun of Joseph for making up words.  OOOPs.  The made up words were a well established and well defined political philosophy concept.  You would think Moly could have looked up the term before he ridiculed his opponent.  Of course Moly sees no need for that.  He is doing the video for his sycophant followers.  He knows they will believe him no matter what he says.  It is a total shame that he is right about that.  But in this case, Peter Joseph wouldn't lay down.  Way to go Peter.  

There is quite a bit more.  But to listen to it all you kind of want to be a person who enjoys this kind of topic.  If you do, Joseph does a fine job of fully exposing things.  I particularly liked when Joseph captured Moly''s argument technique.  I believe the term was:  Hyper reductive douche baggery.  His serious point is that when Moly is faced with a serious, thoughtful and intensely complicated argument, he conjures up some simpleton analogy to respond.  I am pretty sure he does this because he is not smart enough to understand what the opponent is saying.




9 comments:

  1. Nice Work! Stefan is a fraud!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This guy nailed it.

    Stefan is a gifted orator, and clearly has some level of intelligence and knowledge. But he's completely off the rails in his philosophy and general approach to rationalthought. He will go down kicking and screaming with his pile of pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

    As for the final query, I think it's a pitiful combination of the two.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Watch the video. You can clearly see how much Molyneux has to bullshit and misrepresent his opponent in order to make himself look like the winner. He's a pathological narcissist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wouldn't say Peter is a good debater...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Moly pretends that he is a learned scholar. He isn't."

    I had no idea that one can go to the most prestigious colleges in Canada, but apparently still not be a scholar. Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's possible that he spent most of his time at prestigious colleges getting drunk and on hangover days he happened to read a book or two. But I wasn't there so I don't really know.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Peter was awful and his ideas bad. I "moly" and take his anti Christ stance and other things he says with a block of salt. But only because I am a fully developed adult and secure in who and what I am. nearly 40 (maybe this is why the founders wanted someone over 35 to be leader.) His stance against spanking is silly(moly). Only now is he raising children and in a stable relationship. The danger of moly is his well spoken hypnotic voice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think they are both narcisists but Peter is far more inteligent

    ReplyDelete
  9. What I saw was two radicals. Both simplistic. The only difference was is Peter Josef is obviously a sweet hearted man wanting to help people. And molyneux is a black hearted woman hater that's main goal is to make money.

    ReplyDelete