Feb. 13, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
17:43
Friends with Evil!?! Sophistry Unpacked
Stefan Molyneux rejects the idea that personal conviction ("I’m not convinced") overrides moral principles, critiquing blanket condemnation of friendships with criminals like Jeffrey Epstein (2008 Florida conviction for procuring minors under 18, 30+ complainants, lenient 18-month plea deal) and Ghillaine Maxwell (2021 federal conviction on five counts, including sex trafficking, 20-year sentence). He argues unrepentant exploiters—like Chomsky—who actively defend them become complicit, exposing sophistry as a tool to evade accountability while framing guilt-avoidance as the real issue. [Automatically generated summary]
This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomaine at FreedomAin.com, and we're going to check in to an almost perfectly encapsulated Patrick Bateman style of sophistry.
We're going to go through this piece by piece to show you how philosophy is absolutely necessary to defend you against this kind of corruption.
All right.
But I'm not convinced by the principle that you need to cease all correspondence with or friendship with someone convicted of a crime.
Okay, so I'm not convinced.
I don't know why his eyes are going in different directions, but that's neither here nor there.
So he says, I'm not convinced by the principle.
And there's this sort of draw, dead-eyed voice that is sort of taken on with this kind of stuff.
So let's just do this first sentence.
I'm not convinced by the principle.
Okay, so whether someone is convinced or not is irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant to a moral principle.
So whether you're convinced, I'm not convinced by the proposition that two and two make four.
I'm not convinced by the opposite angle theorem or the triangle inequality relation.
So when you start with I'm, I'm like, what?
Who are you?
The standard of truth?
You're the standard of reality.
You're the standard of fact.
Who would care at all whether you are or not convinced?
So when somebody starts with I, this is pure narcissism to me, right?
It's just my amateur opinion.
It's just pure narcissism.
I'm not convinced.
Why would anybody want to bother convincing you?
People make an argument.
Why would you care about whether people are convinced by you or not?
And furthermore, why would you think anyone else who has half a brain cell to ignite a spark or two of thought would care whether you're convinced or not by anything?
People who start off moral arguments with I, maybe I, I this, I that, I, it's, bah.
How about you examine the principle?
So.
But I'm not convinced by the principle that you need to cease all correspondence with or friendship with someone convicted of a crime.
Okay.
I don't know.
I don't know.
It depends what the crime is.
It depends whether the crime is major or minor.
It depends whether the prosecution is just or unjust.
It depends on a whole bunch of things.
Alexander Solchenitsyn was convicted of a crime and spent what?
Years and years in a gulag.
For most people, of course, the fact that Nelson Mandela spent 25 plus years in prison was irrelevant.
So it depends what kind of crime, whether it's severe or unsevere.
Oh no, I got convicted for trespassing or failure to yield in traffic or I don't know, whatever, right?
So you can't say that all crimes are the same.
And you also have to figure out whether or not the crime or the prosecution was justified or unjustified.
There are certainly people who are persecuted by governments all the time for wrong think or negative things.
And so there's no definition here at all, right?
And it's just anyone, and this is sophistry, right?
This is sophistry.
So he's talking about Jeffrey Epstein, of course.
So let's be clear.
Let's be clear about what's being talked about here.
Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in 2008 in Florida State Court of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution.
He received an 18-month sentence with work release as part of a controversial plea deal.
There were, in fact, over 30 complainants.
So a person under 18 would be called a child legally.
That is a child.
So he procured a child for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution.
Okay, that's not a little crime.
And he was not unjustly prosecuted.
I think that it was way too light a sentence, but he belongs to intelligence, whatever it is, right?
And of course, he was married to Ghillaine Maxwell.
Ghillaine Maxwell was convicted in 2021 in federal court on five counts.
Sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity, and three related conspiracy charges.
She was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022.
So when they say minors, sex trafficking of a child, transporting a child for illegal sexual activity, and these are not little crimes at all.
And they were not unjustly prosecuted.
I mean, according to anything that I've ever heard or read about.
So putting this under the blanket of all crime, all crime.
I mean, somebody who was who shoplifted when they were a teen, right?
They took a dare.
They shoplifted.
They took a candy bar.
Must you disassociate yourself from all of these, right?
All of these sorts of people.
Somebody who had some sort of wrangle with the tax authorities and so on.
So you're taking this rubric of all crime and cutting off everyone for any crime conviction.
That is your sophistry 101.
It's all correspondence with or friendship with someone convicted of a crime.
First of all, the ethics of that, I think, are dubious.
Okay.
So again, I think I'm not convicted.
I think these ethics are dubious.
What does that mean?
Who cares what you think?
Make your case.
But starting off with, I disapprove, I think this is dubious.
I'm not convinced.
Who the living frack are you that anybody should want to convince you of anything?
Or how are you some sort of crumb-like standard of truth, reality, proof and virtue?
A lot of religious Christians are joining the fray in this argument, but friendship is supposed to be a virtue.
Okay, so friendship is supposed to be a virtue.
So this guy is very, very interested in virtue.
In virtue.
Loyalty.
You're supposed to look after people in trouble.
Okay, so you're supposed to look after people in trouble.
Well, this is portraying someone as in trouble.
Like, I'm in trouble.
Some guy's picking on me in a bar.
I need you to cover my back as I battle my way to the exit.
Right.
So this is all just this amazing, slippery redefinition of virtue.
Friendship and loyalty and standing up for and standing by people in trouble.
Okay, so how would this not apply to organized crime?
Sopranos, uh, mafia, whatever.
How is this not supposed to, you've got to stand by people who are convicted of crime, which means, oh, murder, it means the vow of silence.
It means you take care of the hitman's wife and children and you make sure that you don't testify against him.
So friendship is supposed to be a virtue and loyalty and standing by people in trouble.
How does this not justify criminal collusion, avoiding testifying, or in an extreme case, rubbing out a witness?
Loyalty, you're supposed to look after people in trouble.
I certainly feel like members of my family or close friends who were convicted of terrible crimes, I would still want to stay in touch with if I need to help them and make sure that they were surviving and going through the ordeal as best they could.
So this, of course, if his friends or his family, if somebody, a friend or family member was convicted of a terrible crime, in other words, the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, that you would, oh, I want to help them, you know, go through things.
I want to give them support and so on.
Why?
Because you see, taking care of people who are in trouble is a plus.
Now, of course, the sexual exploitation of children is distinctly not taking care of people who are in trouble, i.e. the lost wayward youths who are being exploited for a couple of hundred bucks at best.
So you see, this is the principle.
Taking care of people in trouble is good.
Okay, so let's say that taking care of people in trouble is good.
Therefore, it's bad to not take care of people who are in trouble, which means sexually exploiting vulnerable children would be bad, right?
So this is the selective application of principle, and it's absolutely repulsive.
I got to tell you, this is skin-crawling stuff to me.
You know, I don't mean to make it about me.
I'm just giving you my honest experience.
Going through an ordeal.
It's just an ordeal.
You see, if you sexually exploit children, you're just going through an ordeal.
Sure, that they were surviving and going through the ordeal as best they could.
So I think it's quite a dangerous new principle that is coming out, which.
Ah, you see.
Now he's very interested in things that are dangerous.
Oh, my gosh.
Things that are dangerous are so important because things that are dangerous, you see, are really bad.
So, for instance, you could argue that preying upon vulnerable children for purposes of sexual exploitation, well, that is really dangerous, right?
So this guy, his spider sense is tingling.
His radar is just right out there for things that are dangerous.
You've got to be careful of things that are dangerous.
And there's a principle called standing up with child sex exploiters, standing up to them.
If you don't do that, well, that's really dangerous.
Apparently, the danger that was inflicted by these monsters on actual children, that danger is irrelevant.
What matters is the dangerous principle of not standing tall and by and providing endless amounts of material, emotional, and perhaps financial support to child sex predators.
You know, anyway.
It's that if you are friends with or know someone convicted of a bad crime, you are somehow culpable or guilty of said crime by continuing to have any kind of connection to them.
Okay.
So let's go back to this, right?
Let's go back.
So people say somehow as if it's incomprehensible.
Like somehow, it somehow is that, right?
So somehow is just a sophist word, right?
So if you are friends with or know someone convicted of a bad crime.
convicted of a bad crime, you are somehow culpable or guilty of said crime by...
No, you are not culpable or guilty of said crime.
Nobody is saying that anybody who remained friends with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction in 2008, right?
A decade plus before he died.
Nobody's saying that if you continue to be friends with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted, are procuring a child for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution with regards to that child.
Nobody's saying that you should go to jail and receive the same sentence.
So, no, what we're saying, what any sane human being is saying, is that you cannot claim to be a good person and pal around with convicted child sex exploiters, traffickers, and offenders.
That's what people are saying.
Now, it's one thing if Jeffrey Epstein were to have said, oh my gosh, I am the worst Satan spawn that matter has ever assembled.
I am going to, I have found virtue, I found Jesus, I found morality.
Okay, that's a little unlikely.
But let's say Jeffrey Epstein got out of prison and he was like, oh my gosh, I have to pour my efforts and energies into providing restitution for my victims.
I have to set up foundations and advertisements and raise public awareness of childhood sexual exploitation.
I have to stop doing bad things.
I have to reform myself and I'm going to do everything in my power to make up for the evils that I did for many decades.
That's right.
That's a whole different matter.
That's a whole different matter.
Or, of course, if the people in constant communication with Jeffrey Epstein were saying, Jeffrey, I'm concerned that you are still not taking full responsibility for the crimes that you did.
I'm concerned that you're still fighting with the victims.
I'm concerned that you're not releasing all the information that you have about dangerous actors and players on the world stage.
So you're still a pretty fucking bad guy.
You're still evil.
You did evil.
You got convicted from evil.
And you're still evil.
And you're still promoting evil.
And you're still refusing to take responsibility.
That's a different matter.
Look, we've all made mistakes.
Okay, maybe not Epstein Maxwell mistakes, but we've all made mistakes.
And we are supposed to accept our mistakes, own our mistakes, apologize for our mistakes.
And then we're supposed to try and live a better life and make up for our mistakes and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
So that's...
So I don't understand.
Let's go back a little bit.
If you're friends with or know someone convicted of a bad crime, okay?
That's not the issue is, okay, convicted of a bad crime is one thing.
If the person reforms and does great virtue and amends their ways and tries as best they can to make restitution for the terrible evils that they've done, that's a different matter.
So if someone is convicted of a bad crime, fights it tooth and nail, right?
Convicted But Never00:03:07
Jeffrey Epstein fought tooth and nail against any kind of punishment, which is how he ended up with this absolutely repulsive, never run past the victim's sweetheart plea deal.
So he did not take responsibility.
He did not take ownership.
He fought and fought and fought and took the minimum punishment and then continued on with his creepy, appalling ways going forward.
So it's not, it's not the matter if they've convicted.
Have they accepted moral responsibility?
Have they worked to make restitution?
Or do they still fight like crazy and are outraged that they were ever convicted?
If you are friends with or know someone convicted of a bad crime, you are somehow culpable or guilty of said crime by continuing to have any kind of connection to them.
It's a new thing.
Well, no, and that's also not the case either.
I don't believe that Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers would be judged in horrible negative ways just for continuing to have association with him.
I assume he had accountants.
I assume he leased office space and so on.
So it's not anyone who has any kind of connection.
It's the people who are asking him for favors and making jokes about his crimes and continuing to prop up and reward his repulsive ways because Jeffrey Epstein was unrepentant.
He fought the charges like crazy.
He fought the victims like crazy.
He was unrepentant.
I don't know if he ever said, I've never seen it.
Maybe he did.
And I haven't seen it, but I never heard him say, gee, I was really bad.
Gee, I was really wrong.
I think it's fair to say that Jelene Maxwell was unrepentant.
So it's not, this is entirely left out of the equation.
And you can't, I guess, know how to button your shirt.
A little bit open of the waist, scratchy, scratchy.
You can't know how to button your shirt and not understand this and not understand this.
I guess I'm not convinced by it.
I guess I'm not convinced by it, right?
So again, this is a perfectly encapsulated chunk of sophistry.
People who have this drawling voice, well, I suppose I'm just not convinced by this.
And then when they completely strawman and misrepresent the entire argument, if you are enthusiastic, best buds with an unrepentant child sexual predator, convicted, and continue to promote him and call him your best friend, as Noam Chomsky and his wife did, and you're joking with him and you want to go visit his island and you never bring up his crimes and you never say, have you repented?
Are you sorry?
So no, unrepentant evildoers, if you continue to associate them, you're a piece of scum.
You are scum with the caveat that at least scum has some biological benefits in a pond.
And so this level of sophistry is, to me, it's just hiding a massively guilty conscience.
We'll find out about that.
Or maybe we won't.
Freedomain.com slash innate.
If you'd like to help out my show, appreciate that.