Author Topic: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality  (Read 30654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lisa

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Respect: +2
Re: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality
« Reply #75 on: February 13, 2013, 12:05:42 AM »
0
There is simultaneously a thread started (still no responses) about how unfair it is for women to choose to have an abortion and men can't get out of responsibility for children accidentally conceived, and how awful it is men should be responsible for the welfare of those children, and how the money women seek from these fathers for the children is the women getting off scot-free from any responsibility. These people hate children as much as women, and all their hand-wringing about protecting children and changing the government to save them rings completely hollow. They are not enlightened and they do not care about anyone but themselves, and this whole FDR business is a scheme to justify it.

I agree with "financial abortion" option. It's an incentive thing. It would eliminate any financial incentive for cheating on women's part. And increase an incentive for choosing wisely with whom she chooses to have a child.

Some feminists support this too, so it's hardly a woman hating thing to say.

Both men and woman would have a choice to abort responsibility for a child. Having more expedient adoptions system would help too.

To me it is an attempt to change reality because the man thinks it is unfair.  What about the child?  When the woman has an abortion there is no child to consider.  If the woman has the child, then the man is still the child's father whether he likes it or not.  He cannot legally make believe that his child hasn't been born.  As such, he is responsible for supporting his child.  Who do you think should pay for the child, the taxpayer? 

The man does have choice over whether he wants to be burdened with responsibility for a child or not and that is before having sex.  If he fears an accident, then that is his incentive to either choose his sexual partners more wisely or make a prior binding agreement.

The child being born is not responsible for the situation.  What does the author propose to tell the child when he asks about his father? "Oh sorry son, he aborted you."

This is such a ridiculous concept, that I am not even sure I understand it correctly. Financial abortion option? So, a man can present a case in which he argues why he shouldn't have to fund a life he created because the sex was just casual? lol ok

Phoenix

  • FDR Curious
  • Posts: 3
  • Respect: +1
Re: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality
« Reply #76 on: March 03, 2013, 08:50:12 PM »
0
This thread has become as much about misogyny as anything else, and whether or not you think Molyneux is himself misogynistic, you can't deny that this new thread--"On Women Calling Men Creepy"--is dripping with contempt and disgust for women as a class.

http://nullrefer.com/?http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/38115/295870.aspx#295870







So if a guy is making you uncomfortable, ignoring your attempts to distance yourself for him, and you call him a creeper, you're in the wrong? So much for voluntary relationships.

I can't decide whether it's more frustrating or amusing that the commenters on Roush's website complain about guys being called creepers and at the same time throw around words like "feminazi"or "mangina".

My head hurts now.

Anarchist

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • Rarr!!
  • Respect: +11
Re: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality
« Reply #77 on: March 05, 2013, 12:38:29 PM »
0
So if a guy is making you uncomfortable, ignoring your attempts to distance yourself for him, and you call him a creeper, you're in the wrong? So much for voluntary relationships.
He's never really been a fan of voluntary relationships. The amount of unchosen obligations he attempts to impose on people is quite large. You need to donate, you need to conform, you need to take him seriously, you need to get people he thinks are bad out of your life, you need to follow what UPB says, etc.

The reply that you can easily walk away from what he's doing does not count as evidence that he's not doing it...or even that you can easily walk away from it. He thinks that the only objectionable thing he could be doing is chaining someone up in his basement, and, since he doesn't do that, people's complaints about other objectionable things are invalid.

This is, of course, the same thing he complained about when parents use the idea that other children had it worse. Stefan likes to do just about everything he complains about parents doing. His claim to purity is that he refrains from physical violence.

Listener

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 103
  • Respect: +3
Re: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality
« Reply #78 on: March 06, 2013, 04:30:45 PM »
0
Quote
Now let's look at his UPB fantasy ... where UPB anarchists supposedly control all the resources and use the threat of ostracism and exile as the enforcement mechanism for compliance and conformity.  Well, theoretically, if UPBer's control all the resources, isn't that a death sentence?

It's also not very original and quite in the style of statism, probably totalitarianism.  It sounds like excommunication by church theocracies, or being blacklisted by the state.  How is his ostracism concept any different or less cruel/violent/abusive than leaving a helpless child in the basement without food?

Personally, I'd like our society to move towards a Hans-Hermann Hoppe-style private property-based model.  In this scenario, ostracism would be a powerful consideration for anyone seeking to "act out."  I actually acknowledge that this society, in which social mores again carry weight, would in many ways be less free than the one we have today, though I think it'd be worthwhile nonetheless.

I do have to take issue with your implication that in a private property society, there would somehow be a monopoly of property owners acting in unison.  It would be quite varied and pluralistic.  If you want to walk around without shoes, for example, that's fine -- you just wouldn't tend to be able to do it in wealthier areas.  Each property owner would have his own values.  I'm ignoring the childish UPB implication that there is one "right" preference.

BobPage

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Respect: +1
Re: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality
« Reply #79 on: March 07, 2013, 07:37:00 PM »
0
I do have to take issue with your implication that in a private property society, there would somehow be a monopoly of property owners acting in unison.  It would be quite varied and pluralistic.  If you want to walk around without shoes, for example, that's fine -- you just wouldn't tend to be able to do it in wealthier areas.  Each property owner would have his own values.  I'm ignoring the childish UPB implication that there is one "right" preference.

I wasn't trying to imply that.  I don't even think it is possible.  I was saying that that was how Stefan saw his "free society" and how it would enforce its rules.

Societies already have, and always will have, ostracism/ rejection as a way of punishing people it doesn't like or want around.  It is nothing new.

Some people will take that as feedback and conform/ "improve" their behavior.  Others, like Stefan (who I believe has faced much rejection, real and perceived), will react by finding fault with everyone else (justified or not), and create fantasies of an alternate reality ... a society where he is in control, he makes the rules, and he does the rejecting.  That's how he perceived his relationship with his mother, and his relationship with the State.  His vision of freedom isn't different though, it just has him as the other end of the power spectrum.

Well, that is something that he's created with his "conversation." He'll even reject your girlfriend for you if you bring a relationship to him for summary judgment. He'll tell you not to try certain career paths, because you'll suffer inevitable rejection, because he "knows that everyone knows everything."

Elvis_left_the_building

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
  • Lewd and raunchy freethinker
  • Respect: +21
Re: Stefan Molyneux's ableist morality
« Reply #80 on: February 06, 2015, 01:30:18 PM »
0
Then, there's the job interview where his interviewer told him he didn't have the qualifications he was looking for.  Stefan responded by questioning the interviewer's qualifications and telling him he wasn't qualified for his position :o.   He thought he was being clever pointing out that one should be able to get a job without the qualifications, by showing his interviewer that he was also not qualified for his position.  Stefan only succeeded in insulting him...  nice professional networking skills there (sarcasm)!   What successful business person would fall for that?

Wow, a fact is an insult.  ;D I forgot to mention that to derive intentions from facts is a non-sequitur.  :)