Stefan Molyneux Exposed.

[ralis]

There have been a number of YouTube links to Stefan Molyneux's rants in which it is claimed by several posters that Molyneux is dispensing wisdom. However, I find no wisdom in his narratives, only the cry of a 'Little Man'. A few minutes on Google and I found the following.

 

Molyneux refers to the 'The Bell Curve' by Charles Murray as being established science, or so Molyneux claims.'The Bell Curve' claims that IQ is correlated to race which is a pseudoscience prejudiced belief system, which is similar in scope with the Nazi obsession with phrenology.

 

His duplicitous apologetic statement in which he claims to be a racist and not a bigot is insulting and possibly dangerously misleading to vulnerable persons seeking answers.

 

https://archive.org/details/youtube-XRkzGMnP4Mg

 

 

Quote

I am a self-proclaimed racist, and sexist. I am not a bigot, nor a misogynist. I do not blindly follow stereotypes, or engage in blanket prejudices as if they were science. Lastly, I am not a supremacist by any means.

Race is defined as a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Sex is defined either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. Ism is defined as a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. When we use words such as abolitionism, activism, behaviorism - we do not add a negative connotation to these words.

Like the word anarchy, I believe the sophists have corrupted the words racism, and sexism. They have lumped numerous definitions into this one word, and have weighed it down. They use racism to mean supremacist, negatively prejudice, stereotype driven, hateful, and misogynistic.

 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

[Marblehead]

Just more separating of the peoples instead of bring people together.  Anti-productive.

 

[Apech]

I stopped following him when I read that he was involved in some kind of cult.  I find him much to slick and full of himself to give me any confidence in what he says.

[Aetherous]

I like what he says and how he says it most of the time. If he's talking about differences between races, that's not one of the times I like his content. There are a few voices in the pro-Trump/kind of alt-right crowd that veer toward that discussion. While an honest discussion of race differences is okay, despite being controversial, I question why we would discuss it at all...I have no motivation to explore whether blacks have a smaller or larger IQ than whites. All races are obviously capable of functioning as human beings in society.

Also, this is apparently the website to his cult: http://defoo.org/  I hadn't heard about this until just now...interesting.

[ralis]

21 hours ago, Aetherous said:

I like what he says and how he says it most of the time. If he's talking about differences between races, that's not one of the times I like his content. There are a few voices in the pro-Trump/kind of alt-right crowd that veer toward that discussion. While an honest discussion of race differences is okay, despite being controversial, I question why we would discuss it at all...I have no motivation to explore whether blacks have a smaller or larger IQ than whites. All races are obviously capable of functioning as human beings in society.

Also, this is apparently the website to his cult: http://defoo.org/  I hadn't heard about this until just now...interesting.

 

Race is a classification not based in science, but by cultural differences. Genetic variables are what determines physical differences. 

[Brian]

 Human classification into "race" in English is referred to as "breed" or "variety" for many other species.

 

A grayhound is faster than a pug but isn't as smart as a border collie and doesn't have the sense of smell of a bloodhound.  A Plott hound is better at bear hunting than a King Charles cavalier spaniel.

 

Many of the variations in domesticated animals are intentional results of human manipulation but often they are accentuations of pre-existing traits.  For undomesticated species, the variations are naturally occurring based on small travel ranges or geographic boundaries or other limiting factors.

 

The idea that variation within a species is a meaningless cultural invention is nonsensical political correctness which would be properly rejected for any other species but is somehow considered appropriate when speaking of our own.  There have undoubtedly been historical abuses based on and falsely justified by such variations but those incidents of abuse don't negate the existence of such variations.

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/variation-within-species-4308521

Edited June 14, 2017 by Brian

[windwalker]

 

Talks about why some "people" can say the same things and no one will attack them they have an "armor" , while other "people"  get attacked no "armor"  wonder what this "armor" is

 

interesting, unfortunately true. 

Edited June 14, 2017 by windwalker

[ralis]

12 hours ago, Brian said:

 Human classification into "race" in English is referred to as "breed" or "variety" for many other species.

 

A grayhound is faster than a pug but isn't as smart as a border collie and doesn't have the sense of smell of a bloodhound.  A Plott hound is better at bear hunting than a King Charles cavalier spaniel.

 

Many of the variations in domesticated animals are intentional results of human manipulation but often they are accentuations of pre-existing traits.  For undomesticated species, the variations are naturally occurring based on small travel ranges or geographic boundaries or other limiting factors.

 

The idea that variation within a species is a meaningless cultural invention is nonsensical political correctness which would be properly rejected for any other species but is somehow considered appropriate when speaking of our own.  There have undoubtedly been historical abuses based on and falsely justified by such variations but those incidents of abuse don't negate the existence of such variations.

 

https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/variation-within-species-4308521

 

Humans are Homo sapiens sapiens which includes genetic variation within the species. It seems to me that you are defending racial categories in which that is a futile pursuit, given the complex genetic variation within our species.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2017 by ralis
Edit

[ralis]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

Talks about why some "people" can say the same things and no one will attack them they have an "armor" , while other "people"  get attacked no "armor"  wonder what this "armor" is

 

interesting, unfortunately true. 

 

I listened to a few minutes until he starts his rant against Muslims and I stopped listening. Character armoring is something I know a lot about and this video demonstrates it.

[Brian]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

Humans are Homo sapiens sapiens which includes genetic variation within the species. It seems to me that you are defending racial categories in which that is a futile pursuit, given the complex genetic variation within our species.

 

 

If you are going to put me on your "ignore" list, at least have the courtesy to actually read my posts before you reply to them.

 

 

Save your condescension for the lepidopterists and those butterflies.

[windwalker]

@ ralis,

 

refute what he says.  Yes you do a good job of understanding what character means as this is what you seem to respond to.  Not to facts and current observations

 

so you seem to feel the "armor" he talks about is "character"  

 

ok 

Edited June 14, 2017 by windwalker

[Stosh]

It could also be seen as duplicitous to deny racial ethnographic categorizations as being things which literally exist,

in light of defending such a categorization of people obstructing a certain pipeline ( which shall remain nameless).

Plenty of folks were supportive of a nominee for president -also remaining nameless - based on his categorization along these lines,

or call for preferential hiring based on these types of categorizations,,

Or  vote for politicians who are said to be representative or sympathetic to the needs of people conforming to such categorizations. 

All of which is bogus if there is no legitimacy to the categorizations in the first place.  

As I've said before ,, unheeded ,, You cannot defeat the mindset of the importance of these bogus categorizations , by continually high-lighting them, 

( the idea that undermines race categorization is the minuscule variability in the human genome relative to other species divisions into subspecies or race,  not its complexity ,,,, but that's not un-assailable either ), considering these distinctions to be important or as having some moral validity  , is where the fallacy is ) 

[Golden Dragon Shining]

Stefan Molyneux is Jewish, Jewish mother, his own account. 

Jewish Nazi? 

[Apech]

On 6/14/2017 at 5:17 PM, Brian said:

If you are going to put me on your "ignore" list, at least have the courtesy to actually read my posts before you reply to them.

 

 

Save your condescension for the lepidopterists and those butterflies.

 

There is more variation between individuals within what might be considered racial groups than there is between one group and another.  Also looking at the history of humanity firstly we are one species and there has been so much mixing between putative racial groups that to talk of anything even remotely approaching a pure race is impossible (unless you are referring to some Polynesian islanders or whatever).  Your butterfly example is equivalent to hair or eye colour - i.e. meaningless.

 

 

[Brian]

47 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

There is more variation between individuals within what might be considered racial groups than there is between one group and another.  Also looking at the history of humanity firstly we are one species and there has been so much mixing between putative racial groups that to talk of anything even remotely approaching a pure race is impossible (unless you are referring to some Polynesian islanders or whatever).  Your butterfly example is equivalent to hair or eye colour - i.e. meaningless.

 

 

Meaningless to whom?

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

Also looking at the history of humanity firstly we are one species and there has been so much mixing between putative racial groups that to talk of anything even remotely approaching a pure race is impossible ...

 

 

If my memory serves me well, from a documentary a while back, there was an investigation to determine the mixing of DNA around the world and there is one village in southern Africa somewhere (I can't remember) where the people have no mixed DNA at all.  Apparently the tribe oved south and no one has ventured into their village so there has been no mixing of DNA.

 

[Apech]

42 minutes ago, Brian said:

Meaningless to whom?

 

Me and other intelligent people

[Apech]

22 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

If my memory serves me well, from a documentary a while back, there was an investigation to determine the mixing of DNA around the world and there is one village in southern Africa somewhere (I can't remember) where the people have no mixed DNA at all.  Apparently the tribe oved south and no one has ventured into their village so there has been no mixing of DNA.

 

 

 

Bushmen I think.

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Me and other intelligent people

Ah.

 

Wonder whether the butterflies would agree.

 

 

Is there a meaningful difference between a dachshund and a mastiff?  A pug and a border collie? A Percheron and a Shetland?

[Apech]

4 minutes ago, Brian said:

Ah.

 

Wonder whether the butterflies would agree.

 

 

Is there a meaningful difference between a dachshund and a mastiff?  A pug and a border collie? A Percheron and a Shetland?

 

I read somewhere but cannot remember where, that dogs have a genetic makeup which makes them especially able to produce morphological variety beyond other mammals.  The different breeds of dogs are all essentially dogs and can interbreed hence the existence of mongrels -  so yes they are essentially the same.

 

Oh and I don't speak butterfly so I can't ask them if they agree or not.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Apech

[Brian]

8 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I read somewhere but cannot remember where, that dogs have a genetic makeup which makes them especially able to produce morphological variety beyond other mammals.  The different breeds of dogs are all essentially dogs and can interbreed hence the existence of mongrels -  so yes they are essentially the same.

 

Oh and I don't speak butterfly so I can't ask them if they agree or not.

 

 

A Percheron:

 

A Shetland:

[Brian]

13 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I read somewhere but cannot remember where, that dogs have a genetic makeup which makes them especially able to produce morphological variety beyond other mammals.  The different breeds of dogs are all essentially dogs and can interbreed hence the existence of mongrels -  so yes they are essentially the same.

 

Oh and I don't speak butterfly so I can't ask them if they agree or not.

 

 

So things which can interbreed are essentially the same and those which cannot are essentially different?

 

Interbreed is an interesting word.

[Apech]

2 minutes ago, Brian said:

So things which can interbreed are essentially the same and those which cannot are essentially different?

 

Interbreed is an interesting word.

 

Oh come on.

 

Try this then (from Wiki):

 

Quote

In biology, a species (abbreviated sp., with the plural form species abbreviated spp.) is the basic unit of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which two individuals can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction. While this definition is often adequate, looked at more closely it is problematic. For example, with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear. Other ways of defining species include similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche.

 

[Stosh]

Males and females breed with each other, the genetic makeup is significantly different. It just so works out anyway , that breeding may often have successful progeny. 

Individuals of Some groups of plants and animals , routinely 'hook up' with individuals from other gene pools ex, orchids, salamanders, horses ,with varying degrees of success at producing viable offspring. The ideas of- species , mongrel , and race , are just foggy rules of thumb which by conventional usage serve conventional purposes.

Homo sapiens, out of africa , could be said to have 'crossbred' with relatives which emerged sooner Denisova and Neanderthalensis Florensis , and others ,, but if one uses breeding success as a delineation of a species , then one would never have 'cross-breeding'. 

The modern view is that lineages split and rejoin rather than progress by wandering away from the basic game plan. ;; although some groups seem to hit a point of no return that factor may be a just a small difference in organ shape , voice, location , or habit. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Stosh

[Brian]

3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Oh come on.

 

Try this then (from Wiki):

 

 

Ignoring for the moment that inconvenient "often" in the bolded Wiki quote -- and ignoring that no one has claimed "race" or "breed" equate to "species" -- I find it somewhat disturbing that you apparently see no difference between a dachshund and a mastiff, or between a Percheron and a Shetland.