Stewart is a badass, which is pretty rare for a vegetarian.

I'm glad I could make such an important contribution to the field

RoR wrote:

The other possibility, is that when Stefantologists can not refute the substance of an argument, they are conditioned to resort to petty and nonsensical semantic objections.

I don't think this is the other possibility. I think it's the only one. It's only on obscure message boards that unsophisticated debaters can get away with halting entire conversations over the meaning of everyday words.

RoR wrote:

Stef does this quite often (where you say something perfectly normal and reasonable, and he acts like you just took a crap in his cereal bowl). I think the tactic is simply meant to throw you off balance by virtue of it's odd and incomprehensible nature.

Definitely. But, I wonder, is Stefan aware that he's doing this? I don't think he is. I think he's just gotten used to winning debates this way, by driving them into a ditch and then blaming his opponent for bad steering. The behavior has become reflexive for him because it's so generally effective.

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

- NonE

What? I asked you a question, what do my feelings have to do with the answer? Geeeee Zuss!
Arguing about UPB is pointless! You must assume its true!
Reminds me of Argumentation Ethics dweebs, actually.

That's rich! It is exactly because the concepts are so freaking slippery that a board discussion is necessary
It's pretty sweet how Molyneux can unintentionally parody himself like that.

Even after that whole video series, people still don't get it. People STILL think that I'm "choosing" not to debate Stef, and many people STILL don't see what the problem is with silencing critics. It's very disheartening. I'm not even trying to argue that it's "objectively morally wrong" to silence critics. I just want people to see that Stef is not what he claims to be (i.e. he has about as much to do with "truth", logic, and honesty as Scientology has to do with science).. To me, the point of philosophy is to describe and elucidate what IS. That's all I'm trying to do.

Unfortunately, not that many people have a problem with what Stef does. This is the sort of thing that has always bothered me about the Libertarian/anarchist community. Intellectual honesty really isn't considered an important virtue. The end always justify the means. It's really hard to get people to abandon bullshit arguments that they feel have utility. That's what FDR is all about (bullshit arguments that supposedly have utility). So... if all one's "philosophy" is fallacious, it doesn't matter as long as it tricks people into accepting one's political arguments/position. It sickens me sometimes. Honestly, I think that intellectual dishonesty pervades ALL political philosophy. Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong and untenable about political philosophy. I'm starting to think that the whole thing is just one giant language virus.