All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 24, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
32:56
1734 Responses to Criticisms from Metafilter.com - Freedomain Radio
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
A listener on my message board pointed me to a site I'm not familiar with, but apparently it's quite popular, called Metafilter.com, where somebody had posted one of my videos called The Story of your enslavement and a number of responses came up which I thought would be interesting to deal with rather than typing in an obscure or maybe not that obscure place on the web I thought I would record a quick video or maybe not so quick video responding to questions and objections you know people I hate to say it but people don't really understand what it's like when you're a fairly competent thinker and philosopher to be out there In internet land.
The closest that I can come to it is if you can imagine being Simon Cowell and company touring around America listening to about 20,000 bad singers in order to find the 200 good ones.
It's sort of like that.
It doesn't mean that everyone in the thread is like that, but There's a lot of noise and nonsense out there which you have to kind of whack your way through in order to get to a few nuggets of useful stuff.
But let's do this as an exercise and hopefully it will be interesting to people.
So, somebody posted the video and somebody said, This doesn't end with Lawrence Fishburne holding a battery, does it?
I thought that was pretty funny.
Somebody else wrote, extreme conservative propaganda sure is ugly.
Now, the interesting thing about this is that propaganda is an emotional assertion without reason and evidence, and...
To say extreme conservative propaganda sure is ugly is actually to engage in propaganda by not providing any counter-evidence or counter-arguments.
You might want to watch that if you're on the internet and you're calling other people propagandistic and you're not providing any reason and evidence but simply an emotionally charged statement.
You are engaging in that which you are attacking.
It really doesn't work very well.
Right. Somebody criticizes my editing by saying I shouldn't juxtapose footage of diseased livestock with Monty Python clips.
Somebody had an issue, says, you cannot swing a sword at a tree and scream at it to produce more fruit.
That's my word. And somebody wrote, clearly this man has never harvested fear berries.
Actually, I think that's very funny.
And I said, we became alone among the animals, afraid of death.
And he wrote back, or she, are you fucking kidding me?
It's too bad he doesn't list among his credentials any study of biology.
I mean, I use my words with some precision.
I didn't say that only we are afraid of pain or being eaten or even dying.
I say afraid of death, and in the video I point out one of the greatest death metaphors ever produced, which is from The Seven Seals, from Bergman's film The Seven Seals.
It's the knight playing chess with death, so well mocked by Stephen Colbert.
Clearly, in the video, I'm talking about death as a concept.
Animals do not fear death as a concept.
They don't understand death as a concept.
They certainly do fear being attacked and eaten, but they don't fear death.
Antelopes don't lie awake brooding what's life after death.
In fact, when most animals see some other animal that's died, if it's a mate or whatever, they'll just keep nosing it around and pushing it around because they don't really get it.
But rather than ask a question or even spend a few minutes or even just a few seconds thinking about it and looking at the actual images that came with the video, people just jump to these kinds of conclusions.
It's a little embarrassing to see, but it's very common.
Philosophy is hard.
Then somebody says about my novel, The God of Atheists, so it's like a Jack Collins novel, but without the sex.
Actually, it has sex in it.
Anyway, let's see here. Someone else said about the video, it's true enough, but so is it true that we're orbiting a fusion inferno that could kill the entire planet in milliseconds, casting global reality in a negative light?
It really doesn't help much of anything, because, like hating the sun, there's nothing you can do about it except lock yourself in a cave And eat moss and beetles.
And when you consider it as a whole, we're all going to die anyway.
Oh, shit. Beauty is found in the details.
I mean, that's just like a Hallmark card from hell that's got nothing to do with philosophy.
And it's not an argument about anything in the video or in the presentation.
So, you know, it's just... I think it's sad that this guy is frightened of the sun and wants to live in a cave.
But... And then somebody says, spoiler alert, he was a crank.
I think that means me. He was a crank all along.
Again, not really an argument, and in fact, if you think that is an argument, you're the one who's being the crank.
I hate to point it out, but this is just what people who have had some training and have some knowledge of actually how to think.
This is how we view this random noise nonsense that's out there in terms of criticism.
It's not criticism, because it doesn't have anything to do with me.
Somebody else had a problem that we became alone among the animals, afraid of death.
And then he says here, he said, I'm not, I mean, I'm entirely not sure.
I think he means I'm not entirely sure what to make of this.
It seems to me, looking around the Freedom Aid Radio website, that there is a very specific philosophical slant to this largest and most popular philosophy conversation in the world.
So is it really an education resource or an indoctrination slash propaganda machine?
The video linked in the FPP made me wonder if it was going to end with the narrator standing outside a Bilderberg meeting shouting at random people as they walk into the hotel for the conference.
I think that's a reference to Alex Jones or something like that.
Again, that has nothing to do with the content of what was being presented.
It has nothing to do with the content of any of my arguments.
It's just... And the weird thing is that he's talking about succumbing to fear-mongering, but he's doing fear-mongering by saying, well, is it indoctrination, or is it philosophy, or, you know, who knows, right?
Well, you're kind of doing exactly what you're criticizing, which is what you always see with this kind of stuff.
He says, somebody else wrote, That may be something you want to see a doctor for.
Somebody else wrote, what I love about videos like this is how they're accusing me of being blind to my enslavement by the government, and yet I'm not exactly sure what they're proposing as a sustainable alternative method to sufficiently organizing a large group of humans to get much of anything done.
Because I'm sure we'd be able to have the electrical grid, water and sewage systems, communication network, internationally manufactured sophisticated electronics, and ready supply of nutritious food, which this person no doubt took advantage of while making this video, without any kind of central organization system.
All of that would obviously just work itself out somehow.
Not impressed, Free Domain, mostly just kind of irritated that I wasted that much of my afternoon.
Oh, sorry, he's got footnotes, so forget about it.
Again, that's not snarky rhetorical questions.
It's not an argument.
I mean, you have no idea the amount of just random noise sentences that come back to any competent thinker on the Internet.
And I hope you don't mind.
I'll go through these. I wanted to give these people some responses.
So... The video is not about alternatives to the existing system, it is a criticism of the existing system.
You can be an oncologist without being a nutritionist, so you can say, you have cancer, you don't have to provide an alternative, you don't even have to provide a cure, you just have to say, you have cancer.
That is a fact, a true or false statement, regardless of what the alternative is.
So you can't judge the merits of an argument that is self-contained based on whether or not it provides a viable alternative.
As a matter of fact, I do provide a wide variety of viable alternatives in my free books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy, which has cavalcades of practical solutions about all of this.
And then you will get those kinds of answers.
But the fact that those answers aren't contained in one short video has no relevance whatsoever on the actual arguments within that video.
And the funny thing is, of course, that this guy is saying that things won't work without a centrally organized system, and he's saying this on a message board where there is no centrally organized system.
Maybe he's saying he doesn't work without structure or hierarchy, but that's not true of everyone.
Then somebody says, reality is so much more complicated than the simple explanations offered by ideologues of this type.
Again, it's a nice sentence.
It really doesn't mean anything, because I've never said reality.
In the video, I don't say that reality is simple, and I don't really talk about reality at all in terms of metaphysics or epistemology.
So it's not an argument.
It's just noise around the actual presentation.
Again, this is just what you get back.
People think that they're saying something, they think they're critiquing something, but it's what people used to call a stitch and bitch.
Women in the past would just sort of get around and they would sew things up and bitch about the world, and that's sort of what it is.
So, here again, you don't really want to say.
Somebody else said, well, I've learned something today.
I've learned that the best way to punctuate an undergrad hotbox dorm room rap session on the meaning of life is with Billy Crystal's midlife crisis speech from City's Licorice.
In a word, whoa!
And, um... Again, that's an interesting comment.
I guess there's some insults about calling my presentation an undergrad hotbox dorm room rap.
I don't know what that means. But again, it's not an argument, right?
An argument is put forward.
There's no current response to the argument.
Let's see. I won't read all of these things.
Somebody else wrote, you know what's funny?
How this Free Domain Radio thing, with all its learned members and speakers, really amounts to nothing more than a staunch endorsement of that status quo, whatever that happens to be.
Did I say funny? Sorry, I meant violently enraging.
Let's see here. Again, this is not an argument.
I don't even know what the person is saying.
As somebody else wrote, this is game designer Ben.
The massive increases in wealth throughout the 19th century resulted from economic freedom.
And he crossed that out, what I said, economic freedom, and he wrote colonialism.
This is a fun bit of rhetoric, and I like his speaking voice, but if you're going to talk about societal gloom and doom and completely fail to address the human drive for kindness, respect, or altruism, then you're just moving air around.
Well... I certainly agree that colonialism was an important part of the 19th century economics, but colonialism in and of itself does nothing to explain the massive wealth increases in the 19th century.
Why? Because colonialism had been a consistent and constant It seems that everyone on the internet is too busy typing to spare a moment's thought.
It's all talk, writes someone else, until these jerk-offs try in Somalia.
And this is a stateless society in Somalia, which I've got videos about and so on.
Again, that's not really an argument.
That's just a, ooh, Somalia, you know, like you say, ooh, Somalia, and every anarchist in the world is supposed to hang his head in shame.
And that's not an argument.
That is just, I don't know, it's a voodoo sentence or something like that.
Somebody else writes, His ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to his newsletter.
I wonder if he also has a site where I can buy a set of lavender pajamas and a pair of tuxedo shoes.
Actually, that makes more sense than some of the intellectual posts, but I don't know what that post is talking about, and there's no newsletter.
Do-do-do-do-do...
Looking at the design of freedomainradio.com, I feel my capacity for creative thought diminish.
And then somebody else bitches about.NET Nuke.
And somebody says, entitled white middle-class people, blind to their own privilege and the benefits society gives them, imagine themselves to be self-sufficient, isolated individuals, and imagine that being required to contribute to the well-being of their fellow human beings is the culmination of an evil millennia-spanning plot.
In other words, typical libertarian conservative bullshit.
I think I'm supposed to be the entitled white middle-class person despite the fact that I grew up in pretty extreme poverty.
I've been working since the age of 11 and pretty much self-supporting since the age of 15 when I no longer had a family.
So I think it might be tough to put me in the big boiling kettle of overprivileged white people.
And again, this is not an argument.
Of course, being required to contribute to the well-being of their fellow human beings is that I think this is some sort of negative plot.
The video is free, my books are all free, with the exception of two novels, and...
It's all free, so I think that I'm doing a fair amount to contribute to the well-being of my fellow humans.
Anyway, let's just go back to something a little shorter.
Now, this is a fellow I just had a chat with.
This is the guy I'm pretty sure.
Yeah, he's the guy who I had to chat with about his personal history with determinism.
He said, I am a member of the site, and I've spoken to Molyneux several times.
You know, just by the by, if you want to be friendly towards someone, just using their last name, it just seems a little cold.
I mean, nobody calls me Molyneux.
I guess when I was younger, teachers did when they were angry at me, but it's just a thought.
You know, you might want to warm it up a little with a staff or something like that.
That's just a thought. He said, the last thing I'm going to do here is agree with his views.
I don't have views.
I mean, I'm a philosopher.
I don't have views.
That's like saying that Einstein had views about relativity.
They're not views. They're really not.
They're not always right, and there are some times when I speculate, which are sort of openly stated as speculations, but fundamentally, I have...
Rational arguments with evidence.
And those arguments are either valid or invalid.
They're correct or they're incorrect.
A mathematician who says 2 plus 2 is 4 is not expressing his view.
He's expressing a fact, a truth.
And a philosopher either does that or he doesn't.
But he does not have views.
But, again, it's a common mistake.
So he says, I'm not going to agree with his views, I disagree with many of them, but I will say that I found him to be very open to debate.
For instance, I'm a determinist, and he is a staunch believer in free will.
Not a believer in free will.
I have a rational argument for free will, but again.
We argued this back and forth, he says, for a month, and he never once tried to silence me or use any bullshit conversational tactics.
Eventually he invited me onto his podcast, and we discussed it in a civil way.
So I give him props for wanting to discuss things with integrity.
I think some of his views are seriously whacked out.
Again, they're not views, and whacked out is not an argument.
It is not an argument.
Anyway, I mean, how do you say it?
I think that this mathematical proposition is just a view that's whacked out.
Well, then you don't understand mathematics, and it's okay.
People don't really understand philosophy.
It's not necessarily your fault, although I think a moment's thought can help, but it's really the fault of modern philosophers.
I'm trying to do my best to deal with that.
This guy goes on to say, but he also has some smart things to say, and there are some other smart people on his community, and some followers who just ape anything Stefan says.
So now he's doing first name, which is nice.
I really urge people here to take a look at more than one or two things on his site, rather than just be immediately ironic and dismissive.
Even if you hate him, pay attention, because he has a lot of fans.
So at the very least, know thine enemy.
Also, I urge people not to have any jerk reaction to libertarian.
There are many types of libertarians, and not all of them are just Republicans calling themselves by another name.
Molyneux has tons of views that are not traditionally conservative.
For instance, he's pro-gay rights.
I'm actually not pro-gay rights because I don't believe in rights.
I absolutely believe that homosexuals are full, fabulous human beings, but I'm not pro-gay rights.
And also, pro-gay rights means something in a statist context, i.e., The legalization of marriage, which I'm not for, because I'm not for the legalization of anything.
I am an anarchist, and therefore I'm not pro-gay rights.
But, again, he's trying to speak to people who wouldn't have those arguments.
And also, pro-gay rights is not a conservative or libertarian position.
The only reason that there's anti-gay rights in libertarianism is because of the Christian element.
I've never met a secularist, a non-Christian who is anti-gay.
Christian anti-homosexuality comes from the Bible.
It comes from Christianity. Christianity is very specific.
About God's hatred and hostility towards gays, so it's nothing to do with conservatism or libertarianism, it's really religion or atheism.
So, he goes on to say his branch of libertarianism comes from a hatred of violence.
No, it doesn't. It does not come from a hatred of violence.
It comes from arguments from first principles.
It comes from reason and evidence.
It does not come from a hatred of violence.
That is like saying atheism comes from a hatred of God.
No. It doesn't come from a hatred of God.
Atheism comes from the fact that there is no God.
Of course, I dislike violence because violence is evil and immoral and so on.
It is also, I do not have a branch of libertarianism.
I have philosophical arguments from first principles, they're valid or they're not.
It's not a branch of libertarianism, and it certainly does not come from, it is not defined by or comes from a hatred of violence.
He believes that when states demand that citizens pay taxes, that's a form of violence.
It's not a belief, again.
He has arguments that establish that when states demand that citizens pay taxes, his argument proposes that.
It's not just a belief. The moment you say it's a belief, then you're just falling into the pit of opinion goo that so befuddles and bewilders mankind.
If you don't pay, he goes on, you're jailed.
If you try to resist being jailed, you are hurt.
I'm not suggesting you should agree with him about this.
I have some issues with it. Unspecified, of course.
I'm suggesting that if you have any interest in being fair, you don't just hear the word libertarian and assume that he doesn't want to pay taxes because he wants everything to be mine, mine, mine.
As someone who hates violence as much as Molyneux, I have sympathy for his views, he says again.
He came to libertarianism by saying, what if I take an absolute moral stand against violence, that it's never okay under any circumstances?
What would be the ramifications of such a view?
Could one sustain a culture without allowing any violence, without having an army, without police, etc.?
That is not even close to my position.
I'm sorry, but it's not even close to my position.
I have never been a pacifist, I have never been somebody who says that violence should never be established, it should never be used under any circumstances.
I am entirely for self-defense.
Without an army, without police?
No, that is not the essence, or even close to the essence of my position.
My position is the non-initiation of force renders the morality of the state invalid.
The state is an immoral agency because the initiation of the use of force is immoral.
The police is merely an effect of that.
There were private police before there were government police.
There were and are private armies.
So I'm not against the police.
I'm not against the armies. I'm against the initiation of force because it is immoral and irrational.
And the evidence is that it's internally destructive.
But I am not saying, let's have a society without an army or police.
No state, for sure, but those other things, eh.
I think he's being way too utopian, but he's asking serious questions.
No, I'm not asking serious questions.
I'm making rational arguments.
I'm not asking serious questions.
I'm not even asking silly questions.
Okay, sometimes silly questions.
I'm deeply sorry if you don't find them worth discussing.
Above all, if you disagree with him, I really urge you to tell him so, and tell him why.
And this is why I'm reading this, to see if people notice.
Doo doo doo doo doo.
So somebody writes back.
They've snagged up this quote from the guy where he says that when states demand that citizens pay taxes, that's a form of violence.
Somebody writes back and says, I believe when you allow the disenfranchised to suffer because you have not collectively organized a social safety net that ensures that those with less access to resources with us can get food or shelter or healthcare, you're committing violence.
And it's actual violence in that actual people actually suffer, not some theoretical violence in which people are afraid of suffering if they don't pay in their fair share.
I'm sure he's a friendly guy, but anyone who thinks they're making political points by showing images of animals being abused and compares paying taxes to slavery, another form of actual violence that actually exists still in this world and actually hurts people, is not going to be especially good for my psyche to debate.
I don't especially care that he has some crackpot theories or that he makes vaguely duncy videos.
It's a big net internet.
He's welcome to his little corner of it.
Well, the moment you hear social safety net, you know you're dealing with a propaganda robot.
Sorry to say it, but it's true.
Social safety net is just one of these completely boring and tired cliched statements.
You also know you're dealing with a propaganda bot when he uses the language of voluntarism to describe Violence, violent interactions.
So, for instance, collectively organized a social safety net.
No, no, no, no. I did not collectively organize the goddamn social safety net.
I did not organize the soon-to-implode welfare state.
I did not organize...
The welfare state that traps a permanent underclass in poverty.
I did not organize the brain-rotting public school system which keeps people in a permanent underclass.
I did not collectively organize with anyone.
It was just there when I got here.
When I popped out of the womb, it was already here.
It's not collectively organized.
It's violently imposed through the state.
I'm not saying people don't want something to help the poor.
I certainly do. I mean, I do a lot to help the poor.
I mean, I took a massive pay cut to talk about philosophy and educate people for free on the web.
I have conversations, send out free books, even the print copies, which are expensive.
I'll send free books out to a bunch of people.
I'm very happy to help people.
I just don't like having a gun pointed at my head to do so.
I think that robs me.
Of my capacity to do good in a truly moral way, just forcing people.
You can't rape someone and call it lovemaking, and you can't force people to do good and then call it virtue.
It's just subjugation. So when people start using voluntary language to describe violent interactions, you just know that they just don't understand the basics of their own society.
So, violence in that actual people actually suffer.
Well, what can you say about that?
Is all suffering violence?
If I stub my toe, is that violence?
If I lose my job, is that violence?
No. Violence is a very specific thing around the initiation of force.
That is a very, very specific and technical definition.
Saying people who are poor are suffering from violence is just to say that any suffering is violence.
Anything that's negative is violence, and you lose The word completely.
Then you're using the same word to talk about somebody who raped someone as you are to talk about somebody who didn't get a date that he wanted.
I mean, come on. We've got to be a little bit more rigorous than that, people.
Somebody says, once again, I'm eternally grateful that the technology wasn't yet cheap and accessible enough for me to foist my undergraduate philosophies upon the world.
I think that's a reference to me foisting my undergraduate philosophies on the world.
Again, that's not an argument.
That's just a sort of sad and bitchy little thing to say.
I don't know. People think this bothers me or whatever, but who knows, right?
All right. Should we go on?
Should we go on?
Are they going back and forth?
Are people trying to establish themselves around violence or not?
I can post a link below if you want to go.
I appreciate that people are talking about this to this degree.
I really do. Somebody writes, the problem with anarchism, or one of the problems anyway, is that it makes ludicrous assumptions.
About what anarchy would entail.
And it does this because it imagines that an absence of government would mean an absence of oppressive ruling forces.
It wouldn't. Oppressive ruling forces are a fact of sociological nature.
All that a modern system of government does is to provide accountability for those forces.
Oh, right! Accountability, right!
Because the people who, in America, who lie to the population to get into the war with Iraq, they're completely accountable.
I mean, they're all in jail, right?
Yeah, the people who've run up all the national debt, the people who've sold out Social Security so that there's nothing in there but a bunch of dusty, useless IOUs, oh yeah, they're all really accountable.
Clinton's war crimes, oh yeah, no, he's in jail, right?
No, wait, I don't think he is.
I think he's making millions on the lecture circuit because they're all so accountable.
Anarchy, libertarianism, what have you, he says, is simply about removing the accountability which then allows the farmers to run wild.
He also imagines that his farmers...
As a conspiracy? I think that's a typo.
I think he means he also imagines that his farmers are a conspiracy, which is rich, to be sure.
I'll be referring to the state actors here who can't get anything done due to full-scale gridlock, or the captains of industry who, if they had the chance, would sell all freedoms down the river for a better competitive edge against one another.
I agree with you about the captains of industry.
Very, very few businessmen are any kind of friend of the free market.
I'm completely with you there.
But this happens quite a bit.
When I talk about patterns of behavior, immediately people want to say, aha, he's talking about a conspiracy, don't you know?
And I've never said it was a conspiracy.
I've actually explicitly stated that it's not a conspiracy any more than...
A bunch of geese flying in a v-neck is a conspiracy.
We just have instincts for certain kinds of behavior, and those kinds of behavior which allow us to dominate resource consumption, particularly through owning human beings, one way or directly or indirectly, yeah, we're good at that as a species.
That doesn't mean that it's inevitable.
It doesn't mean that it's inevitable.
It just means that we're good at it, right?
I mean, we're...
No, let's not get into that.
That's an argument for another time.
So, this is the idea, and there's some very interesting truth in what this person is saying.
Let me give him some props.
Naval Gazer. I think this is a very important truth.
I don't know that he gets it or she gets it, but there's a very important truth.
So he's saying that the state, the government, is a reflection of the drive for power.
Oppressive ruling forces, the drive for power over another human being.
That governments are a reflection of that.
And in some ways I agree, because I believe that society is a reflection of early childhood experiences.
The way that society shapes that, the relationship that we have with authority and power in society, is formed very early on in childhood.
There's lots of great research and literature about this.
You can read The Origins of War and Child Abuse, which is a book by Lloyd DeMoss that is available for free on my website.
I've read it as an audiobook.
You can go to psychohistory.com.
There's tons and tons of stuff about the degree to which early childhood experiences shape so fundamentally our relationship with authority and power and hierarchies that society is a reflection of the family.
Society is a reflection of the family.
People do this all the time. Society for the family.
The family is communist.
The family is socialist, right?
The family is, from each according to their ability to each according to their needs, which is why I do these shows and my daughter gets food, because she can't do these shows and I don't like her food.
So, the family is socialist and communist.
In the family, you need to look out for each other.
Society is not that way at all.
People make this mistake all the time.
They say, well, if you don't love this country, leave it.
Which is exactly the same as, if you don't like the rules in this house, young man, you can find yourself somewhere else to live.
People make this mistake all the time.
So, it certainly is true.
That we are habituated to hierarchical dominance, but that's only because of our early childhood experiences.
You change those early childhood experiences through better parenting and peaceful and patient and pacifistic parenting, lo and behold, society will alter as well.
It takes time, and it really is something that people can do individually, so I agree with that.
I don't think that this is the point the person is making.
I think this person is saying, Human beings are fundamentally, they want power, right?
And it's like, okay, well, why are you debating on a message board if all you want is power?
Because you don't have any power here.
Or are you not debating, but rather trying to exercise power over me, in which case I can dismiss your arguments, right?
Somebody says to me, human beings are fundamentally all about dominating other human beings, then I say, how are you trying to dominate me in this statement?
And if they say, well, I'm not, it's like, well, then your argument falls.
And if they say, well, I'm trying to do this and this and this trick, it's like, well, let's not pretend to debate then.
then I'm going on to something else.
It's a self-defeating statement, self-detonating statement.
Anyway, so do we have to keep going?
I'll post a link down below, if you like.
But I really wanted to provide feedback.
I'm happy that, I guess, people watched the video.
I think that people have a very, very tough time.
It's a hard thing to do. Listen, I mean, I very much remember, very vividly remember, in my master's program, I had a heart of nails A professor who ground me into intellectual dust, having me analyze and understand Martin Luther, like the original one from the 15th century, Martin Luther's argument, the founder of the Reformation, in a particular book.
I had to really, really understand the argument.
I had to break it down. I had the same thing in my class on Aristotle.
You had to do a logic tree, a logic map of the arguments.
You had to find the flaws. If there were any, you had to provide the counter arguments.
It's a tough and specialized thing to do, and if you're not trained to do it, if you haven't really worked hard to develop those skills, then you're going to blow a lot of pixels around on the internet thinking that you're putting something coherent and cohesive together.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's not very impressive.
It's not very impressive. Also, it's like a 10-minute video or something like that.
People say, but he doesn't deal with this in a 10-minute video, and he doesn't deal with that in a 10-minute video.
And it's like, yeah, it's true that a romantic comedy is not also a documentary about Alpha Centauri, but limited time, limited resources focusing on one particular argument.
Anyway, so I really do appreciate the people who have...
I've written this stuff down and put the links below if you want to follow it up.
If people have more questions, more comments, or if they think that I've made some complete mockery or misinterpreted their arguments, please let me know.
Host at freedomainradio.com.
And also, of course, I do a Sunday show, 4 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time. You're welcome to call in and tell me where I've gone awry.
▲
Export Selection