14 Lesta Nediam LNC2017-01-07 1615 +Twit Wit

Lesta Nediam LNC2017-01-07 1615 +Twit Wit
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/YAiFqZmt631
https://pastebin.com/1bTXc60X
__

+Twit Wit __ This is not about "Donald Trump" but is instead about "Stefan Molyneux". While this is a fairly lengthy reply you are not expected to respond let alone read it. ))

__

"Stefan Molyneux" routinely calls himself a "philosopher" who "does philosophy". A "philosopher" is someone who *"loves the truth"* and pursues "philosophy" by using "[sound] logic and reasoning".

A "sophist" is someone who uses logic and reasoning (unsound when expedient) in order to present *"the weaker argument as the stronger"*. _A skilled deceiver_.

It is not uncommon for intelligent "sophists" to portray themselves as "philosophers" because there can be many similarities but there are certain moments when it becomes self-evident that they are not really philosophers.

When it comes to issues, topics and matters that are in alignment with the current professed beliefs of "Stefan Molyneux" he is indeed a "philosopher". *_On those occasions he can be compelling and convincing_*. That is usually how he draws people in.

However - when it comes to issues, topics and matters that are not in alignment with the current professed beliefs of "Stefan Molyneux" he becomes a "sophist". On those (less common) occasions we get an opportunity to see his true character - _what he's really all about_.

"Stefan Molyneux" is not here to arrive at the truth even though quite often he might arrive at it. Rather - he is here to have his audience arrive at *his* truth. And he goes about this by appealing to a certain audience psychology (which I'll point out in a moment - it is fascinating to watch once you recognise what he's doing).

A genuine philosopher is *always* a philosopher (there is no "off switch") whereas "Stefan Molyneux" is *sometimes* a philosopher and *sometimes* a sophist.

That is why "Stefan Molyneux" is incapable of criticising "Donald Trump" *_even when and where it is appropriate to do so_*.

On that note: sophists will often say about those they support: _"It's too soon to judge X - let's see how X actually does [in office] before we pass judgment"_ whereas for those they are against they can be heard pointing out that: _"Past behaviour is often an indicator of future behaviour"_.

The caller was pointing out examples of such past behaviour but "Stefan Molyneux" the sophist would allow none of it.

A sophist does whatever is needed to get more support for a position they want others to hold (even if it is wrong or flawed) and will not hesitate to present the weaker argument as the stronger in order to achieve this. That is why - _all said and done_ - they are *deceivers*.

A sophist *routinely* does this whereas a philosopher *never* does this. *A liar can often be found telling the truth _but a truth teller can never be found telling lies_*.

Keep in mind that at every opportunity "Stefan Molyneux" reminds his audience that he is a "philosopher" who is guided by "[sound] logic and reason". _Yet his actions - at crucial moments - suggest otherwise_.

The reason we don't often see the "true sophistic colours" of "Stefan Molyneux" is because he operates *a tightly controlled environment*. While he *appears* to engage with his audience that isn't quite true. He does not discuss anything in the comments section (beyond "thanks!" or "not an argument") *and his calls are screened*.

"Stefan" does not just talk to random people though he may give that impression. _Certainly he does not talk to random people without preparation_.

"Stefan" (wisely) knows in advance what he will be talking about and the arguments he will encounter and thus need to counter. There is nothing wrong with that but through this *"controlled communication"* a sophist can more easily hide as a philosopher.

It typically comes undone when a pre-screened caller *introduces new topics and material* that "Stefan" *has not prepared for* (as was the case with the recent caller). _That is why we got a glimpse of his true sophistic colours_.

We saw how quickly "Stefan Molyneux" broke down and behaved like every other amateur (despite having "ten years of experience" doing his "philosophy show" and some "30+ years as a debater"). The fact he is not like the way he was more of the time is testament to the benefit of preparing for upcoming conversations.

However - _prepared or not_ - a philosopher will concede a good point from an opponent (on the spot) and abandon a bad idea once it becomes apparent it's a bad idea _*because* it is a bad idea_. (Even when it is not profitable - _or is detrimental_ - to do so.)

A philosopher understands that in the pursuit of truth _*it is always a bad idea to defend a bad idea*_.

But not the sophist.

A sophist will continue to defend a bad idea only until it becomes more "profitable" or "beneficial" to do otherwise. Until then sophists will fight doggedly to defend a bad idea - employing all of the "rhetorical devices/crimes/sins" they accuse others of using.

That is what we saw "Stefan Molyneux" doing and that is why he got the kind of comments I have been featuring in my recent two posts on him. When you are more familiar with "Stefan Molyneux" you will understand those comments were spot on.

A "philosopher" does not deviate from the pursuit of truth whereas a "sophist" emits a stench that blows about in the wind. And just because it's not blowing in your direction does not mean it is any less foul.

"Stefan Molyneux" resembles a "cult leader" type figure who pretends to be a philosopher (when really he is a sophist) who uses YouTube as a platform to reach a certain kind of audience. With that audience he relentlessly pitches certain moral and emotional arguments that increasingly guilts and shames his followers into donating money _"because it's the right thing to do"_.

"Stefan Molyneux" - like other intelligent and high functioning confidence artists - understands victimology and exploits it to more effectively take other people's money in a manner that remains in accordance with the law. There will be no prison time for Stefan's little "philosophy show" but that doesn't mean he's not taking advantage of people.

You admit you aren't familiar with "Stefan Molyneux" - I have been keeping my eye on him for some time. It is no coincidence that he will post a video that repeats his cute anecdote about how at the park he overheard two lazy yet conniving women gloat about *parasitically taking* from the welfare system by doing nothing more than accepting what is being *freely offered* to them.

And then a day or so later "Stefan" posts a video where he (in a more poetically histrionic manner than my paraphrasing can convey) effectively said: *_"It costs money to create my content and if you are consuming it then you know the right thing to do is pay for it because you don't want to be a parasite [like those two women in the park I mentioned yesterday which I got you to hate on before posting this video]"_*.

I was going to upload an unlisted video that pointed out his recent sneaky tactic so that others could more easily see how at least one silver-tongued sophist goes about legally lifting money out of his audience's pocket.

It's all rather obvious once you take a step back and look at the process taking place.


______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.