why i was wrong about atheism

1. 2016-04-22 at 5:19 PM UTC

   #21
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   [h=1]A Critique Of Molyneuvian Ethics ('universally preferable behavior') :[/h]
   
2. 2016-04-23 at 6:37 PM UTC

   #22
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   [h=1]Molyneux has found 'cure' for what plagues the world![/h]
   
   
3. 2016-04-23 at 6:50 PM UTC

   #23
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   [h=1]Stefan Molyneux ...just too silly:[/h]
   
   
4. 2016-04-23 at 8:20 PM UTC

   #24
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   [h=1]Stefan Molyneux and defoo, defined[/h] Here's a good one:
   
   
5. 2016-04-23 at 11:03 PM UTC

   #25
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
   [h=1]Stefan Molyneux sued for misrepresentation, defamation[/h]
   

   Something quite awkward has happened to Stefan Molyneux. The Freedomain Radio “community” leader, who is emphatically anti-state, anti-intellectual property, and anti-copyright law, has been sued by Tru Shibes for invoking copyright law and using the power of the state to protect his intellectual property.
   In an apparent fundamental contradiction to his stated beliefs, Molyneux—who frequently condemns the power of the state as “the gun in the room”—used that very power to silence Tru Shibes, a popular critic of Molyneux’s opinions.
   It gets worse.
   Molyneux’s actions may have been more than hypocritical; they may—as the suit alleges—have also been fraudulent.
   The suit filed today in federal district court for the Central District of California, seeks “a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages for misrepresentation under Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as codified at 17 U.S.C. section 512.” The complaint includes Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio forum manager Michael DeMarco, and other possible defendants. You can read the complaint in full here.
   The complaint continues, “Plaintiff also seeks damages for defamation arising out of Defendants’ published false statements about Plaintiff that she was ‘doxing’—engaging in harassment of and stalking—Defendants’ listeners and callers.”

6. 2016-04-25 at 3:13 PM UTC

   #26
   

   Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

   Probably the most incisive observation on the systemic failure of UPB comes from BrainPolice, after he had considered the various debates and critiques that occurred after the book’s publication. He captures this observation in a follow-up article published on April 15, 2009 entitled Is Stefan Molyneux A Moral Nihilist In Denial?
   
   Molyneux has little regard for nihilism—clearly, UPB was intended to be as much a stake in the ground against that mind-set as it is against men driven by religious notions. But by failing to make his case for morality, Molyneux has inadvertently created a moral nihilist’s handbook. BrainPolice explains:
   
   [INDENT] I’ve come to the realization that the logical conclusion of his UPB should in fact be moral nihilism, because it can tell us nothing about the validity of the values themselves (it can only make an analysis of compatibility between values and the consistency between one’s values and one’s actions, but it ultimately does not tell us what one “ought” or “ought not” to do; and hence it is amoral in practice).
   
   In fact, this point is particularly illuminated by the fact that a good deal of the people who have recently turned on Molyneux (which is made up of some people in the youtube anarchist community) have dived straight into hardcore moral nihilism. This is not purely coincidental. It makes sense because they are merely taking UPB to its logical conclusion, since at the end of the day it involves no actual ethical theory at all. In the absence of any other ethical theory, once one takes UPB to its logical conclusion and realizes that it cannot actually prove or disprove any sort of moral claim, one is left with nothing.
   
   [/INDENT]
   
   Molyneux is fond of saying that attempting to argue against the validity of UPB is a self-detonating argument because by demonstrating that you value the search for truth, you are also affirming that universally preferred behaviors exist. (Although, as LaughingMan0x points out, Molyneux never successfully establishes “truth” as universally preferable.)
   
   Ironically, Molyneux fails to see that UPB actually invalidates itself with its own, hidden, self-detonating argument.
   
   Stefan Molyneux wrote a book.
   He wanted it to be a rational proof of secular ethics.
   In the book, he failed to identify why anyone would want to be moral.
   Which, from his book’s perspective, actually proves that secular ethics aren’t really necessary.
   Which means there is no reason why anyone would need to write UPB in the first place.

   
   .