Thread by @TheEnergeiaBoy

I'm done grading for the day so I'm now going to subject everyone to this:

For those out of the loop, this is a logic textbook Stefan Molyneux wrote in order to dismiss his feminist critics as not following the rules of "The Argument" and to justify being able to say shit like "black people tend to have lower IQs" because induction

(I should have put "logic textbook" in quotes)

What is the argument, you ask? Good thing Molyneux defines it on the first page:

We shall either be rational, or we shall die like dogs

So the first distinction he makes is between "truth arguments" and "value arguments" but then he says that truth has value and value must have truth (?) so I'm just going to skip this. It's especially odd since he later rejects Hume's is/ought distinction.

He starts with "truth arguments" and defines deductive reasoning pretty accurately (except uses "valid" wrong)

Oh wait I forgot he defines "deduction" and "induction" in basically the same way

Okay, so in order to own his critics, he has to explain how reasoning can go wrong. And he does in the "bad deductive reasoning section"

However, he goes on to give examples of bad deductive reasoning by listing *valid deductive arguments*

He concludes by saying that bad deductive reasoning is ad hominims

Skipping ahead a bit, he now claims that deductive reasoning is Alpha and inductive reasoning is Beta

Skipping ahead to his criticism of Hume cuz it's gold

Fuck I forgot that he calls self-contradictory arguments "self detonating" arguments

Anyway, as far as I can tell the anti-Hume argument seems to go:
1. Ought implies can
2. Therefore, cannot implies ought not
3. We cannot derive an ought from an is
4. Therefore, we ought not derive an ought from an is
5. But wait, I just derived an ought from an is
6. Fuck you

He then argues for some form of deontology where wrong actions are the ones that are not universalizable?

Not sure if Aristotle said this

It's astounding that he spends so much of the book going through good and bad forms of deductive and inductive reasoning and then all he can say when criticizing his opponents is they have ulterior motives

Workers shouldn't create "unions" that fight for "increased wages." They should *checks notes* organize and approach management with a list of demands, such as an increase in wages.

Stefan Molyneux on why we shouldn't listen to Stefan Molyneux

Ah, he's going to talk about interpreting other's arguments charitably

oh

Plot twist: he's a positivist

Second plot twist: he's now a pragmatist

Holy fuck

These are his literal arguments:
1. All humans have the right to education
2. Some humans must provide education
3. Those who provide education cannot simultaneously receive education
4. Therefore, not all humans have the right to education

1. All humans have the right to healthcare
2. Some humans must provide healthcare
3. Those who provide healthcare cannot simultaneously receive healthcare
4. Therefore, not all humans have the right to healthcare

1. All humans have the right to housing
2. Some humans must provide housing
3. Those who provide housing cannot simultaneously receive housing
4. Therefore, not all humans have the right to housing

In his chapter on the importance of definitions he (1) defines capitalism wrong and (2) argues that the government having the power to determine what is legal tender is anti-capitalist?

Taking a break on this thread for my own mental health. May or may not return, who knows

Okay so I'm not going to continue live-tweeting the book cuz it really goes off the rails, but I want to end with some of Molyneux's views on women and politics (views that he seems to think just follow from logic?) so you can get a sense of who this guy is:

We've had some fun, but the moral of the story is fuck Stefan Molyneux. He makes me ashamed to be Canadian.