Thunderf00t vs. Howtheworldworks (Continued)

[CosmicSpork]

As requested this is a continuation of the a thread from the archive. Below is the original starting post of the thread:

For anyone who isn't up to date on this latest debacle, just go to Thunderf00t channel and watch his latest video. Apparently, some arrogant conservative got in a debate with theamazingatheist, and Thunderf00t jumped in and called him out on it.

What's even better is, in Howtheworldworks response video to Thunderf00t, he strays into the topic of science several times - you know, just in case his opponent wasn't up to chops on his politics.

Anyone else excited to see how this unfolds?

Also, sorry for the brevity of this post, I'm in a bit of a rush.

If you wish to read the replies the archived thread is here:
http://leagueofreason.forums-free.com/thunderf00t-vs-howtheworldworks-t1216.html

 

[irmerk]

I think Thunderf00t and the like are ill-equipped to adequately stamp HTWW out. Sure, they are smart enough to, but the effort of research into the fields he talks about - which are not in Thunderf00t and the like's forte - would be too much. I think they don't care about him enough to efficiently deal with him.

Sure, this is tragic, but sooner or later someone will come around and put him in his place. I think he is almost entirely wrong on just about every single thing he says. Moreover, he skews everything into his own definitions to fulfill his own claims - hardly respectable.

 

[AntiSkill42]

Easy access to the channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/HowTheWorldWorks


Try to keep sane while listening to him. Have something to bite on helps...

In this video he makes a statement about gun control
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb2jLeJLkHU)

He really asks for it...

 

[sckewer]

I think it'd be fun to get a philosopher to do a series titled deconstructing how the world works, where in the philosopher uncovers his first principles and then applies deconstructionism to them. After all it was already noted that he tends to contradict himself even within a single video. Plus when is anyone gonna get to use a title like Deconstructing How the World Works, and still be less pompous than their opponent.

A quick and dirty example from his last video, and I am paraphrasing:

I don't want the U.S. to take away guns from anybody because then only criminals, police and military would have guns.

I want the U.S. to have more nukes than anybody so that they can fuck shit up with loonies that try to fuck shit up. And N. Korea can't have nukes because I trust the U.S. not to use them, unlike N. Korea.

Anyone else see how this is hypocritical? So you don't want it to be illegal to have weapons, unless I don't trust you. It could also be pointed out that the U.S. is the only country to ever use nukes against anyone, but that is making the son inherit the sins of the father.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think Thunderf00t and the like are ill-equipped to adequately stamp HTWW out.

A team of psychiatrists might be required. :lol:

Seriously, that guy is so completely delusional that it would be difficult to pin down one area and school him, since every few seconds he says something that seems to contain at least one falsehood based on flawed first principles. So, if you wrote a 10-page paper showing how very wrong he is on every level... well, that's only 20 seconds.

 

[Synystyr]

I think the comparison made by f00t to liken HTWW to creationists is fairly accurate when you sit down and analyze it. He expects you to believe that the free market is infallible and benevolent when nobody is watching, we just don't let it get benevolent because we obviously like to inflict injury on ourselves. If f00t wanted to squelch this guy, he should have just cited what happened to the soviet union after the collapse, when the "free market" allowed 9 or 10 families to buy up Russia and pwn everybody, alienating the entire population, and expecting them to take it like cogs in a machine because they weren't exploitative enough to compete. Any Ron Paul retard can argue the things hes saying, its just that he clearly has suspended disbelief in order to swallow the idea that somehow the fact a well-spoken college graduate who is able to think somewhat freely has let the "free market" convince him that it is ok to be forced to live in a 12x16 apartment, basically conceding that the free market affords even the educated, average man, to accept a life on par with an Austrian rapist/murderer, but of course the libertarian is trained to see it the other way around - the Austrian should be killed, the taxpayers are evil, and corporations are good. Brain. Washed. Idiot. Maybe someday when he realizes his masters aren't really looking out for him, he'll figure out an Austrian rapist's prison cell is all they ever wanted him or anyone else to have.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Brain. Washed. Idiot.

That's pretty much the size of it. How do you argue that? How do you even have a rational discussion with someone who is incapable of connecting hypothetical claims to what has actually happened throughout history.

 

[Synystyr]

That's pretty much the size of it. How do you argue that? How do you even have a rational discussion with someone who is incapable of connecting hypothetical claims to what has actually happened throughout history.

All he had to do was throw his argument right back at him.

"I am recognized as a top debater in the country. I graduated from a top college. I believe you get what you earn. I live in a 12x16 apartment, and it would make me feel better if Europe just killed their prisoners, then I wouldn't have to accept that I live like one, and have come to not only enjoy it, but blindly promote it.

Embrace the free markets, live like Austrian prisoners."

Flawless argument, sir staresalot.

 

[Brunks]

Why is he calling Thunderf00t "the expert" I don't think he everclaimed to be one on the subjects of politics.

did you see this video where he cherrypicks a bunch of comments to show he's right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVNkO-T_f6Y&feature=channel_page
Also offers a small glimpse of his delusion, claiming his channel is now better of. Most of his videos are in the 2 star region.

 

[Synystyr]

Why is he calling Thunderf00t "the expert" I don't think he everclaimed to be one on the subjects of politics.

did you see this video where he cherrypicks a bunch of comments to show he's right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVNkO-T_f6Y&feature=channel_page
Also offers a small glimpse of his delusion, claiming his channel is now better of. Most of his videos are in the 2 star region.

He took offense to f00t calling him out for saying on his channel where he claims that he somehow knows what experts don't, when clearly much of his "knowledge" is politically driven. He was pushing 5 star videos out when the Paultards were backpatting him like 2 months ago, you will probably see him start bending on his opinions since he really is a money grubber and wants subscribers. The fact he took his first video down is sort of telling.

 

[irmerk]

He seems like another Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly to me, just not as popular. He will bend, skew, misrepresent, quote mine, lie, appeal to emotion and anything else to make whatever he is currently talking about fit his agenda and ideology - but only to . . . What was it? Mindless drones? Huh... Weird, huh? Absolutely nothing he says is correct in the context of the issue at hand; everything that sounds true is either actually wrong and or misrepresented or just way out of context.

Anyone who agrees with him is just another person you hear saying, "Well, Limbaugh said and that's good enough for me." Pathetic.

 

[philebus]

I did post a video response to HTWW voicing an area of concern that seems to be being overlooked. However, I'm a new voice there and still figuring out how to make a film, so I'll give you the gist here.

HTWW seems to have little regard for moral consistency. He has stated very clearly that he believes in Natural Rights - this means moral rights that we have by virtue of being persons and are dependant upon nothing else such as the collective. From his description of welfare as theft, it is also clear that he is a Libertarian, so these Natural Rights are of a kind known as Negative Liberty Rights, the defining characteristic of which is the denial that omissions are actions.

Now, he runs into his first problem by endorsing state execution - a policy that would end a life going against a Natural Right. If we were talking about a theory of Social Contract and legal rights conferred by the collective, then we might construct an argument to allow execution but he has specifically endorsed Natural Rights - they don't work that way. Of course, there is one clear connection between rights and duties, that between an individual's rights and the duties of others, such that if I assert a right, I am prescribing duties to others, while if others declare a duty to me, then I may infer a right. However, implicit to the claim of justified state execution is the claim that there is some connection between an individual's rights and that same individual's duties - such that if I fail a duty I am forfeit a right. What connection? This just doesn't work for Natural Rights.

Still, when charged with the fact that innocent lives will inevitably be lost to even just a few wrongful convictions, he responds by saying that the lives that would be lost from second offences would outweigh them. Now we can respond in kind by pointing out that life imprisonment would serve the same end of protecting against second offences while leaving open the possibility of reparation in the event that a conviction is overturned - but to do so would be to miss the point. It is also worth noting that he makes a similar case with regards to 'protecting' prison guards. The point is that these two arguments are consequentialist. Consequentialism is the moral position that states an action is right if and only if it brings about the better outcome when the options are weighed against one another. Firstly, consequentialism treats the outcomes of an omission the same as it would of an act of co-mission - treating omissions as actions in contradiction to Negative Liberty Rights. Secondly, consequentialism does not admit Natural Rights at all - a person can only be said to have a right to life in a particular moment if and only if the continuation of that life means the better outcome.

I'm not about to endorse Natural Rights, Libertarianism, or Consequentialism, but if someone is going to adopt a moral position, then they need to make some small effort to be consistent. These arguments are NOT open to him as a Natural Rights Libertarian and he should not be allowed to think that he can have his cake and eat it.

I have only watched a few of the video's related to this conflict but if the rest of his work is of this standard, I can't see lasting long when people notice it.