I mean Ive already won the debate seeing as no one seems interested in refuting anything so you might as well
Eden Project, where black people are banned.
- Thread starter Mr Fish
- Start date
Nobody likes to debate a Gish-Galopp.
Thats why I dont like @Buxbaum666 's posts.
Literally all I ask is that he take bare minimum two clicks required to actually look at the sources in the video description before just writing the whole thing off as unbelievable but he cant even do that.
How is that a gish gallop and not his long paragraphs of irrlelevent bullshit?
He's literally talking about everything BUT the topic at hand lol
Actually refute the points made, the sources SOMETHING
Just form an actual argument thats all he has to do because so far all he's done is gish gallop his way through multiple pages of not addressing the subject matter.
He has not givin me a SINGLE sentence as to why Molyneux's South Africa video is innacurate.
tl;dr
Give me reasons why the video itself is wrong.
Last edited:
Molyneux's Gish-Gallop is more annoying because if I wanted to find out why, for example, he cites this source I'd have to watch his entire 90 minute video or scroll through it for ages because he didn't write it out (looks like he doesn't even use that page, actually, it's just there to fill up the page). There's a long list of links where I have no idea what he takes from it and how he interpretes it. I'm not going to find reasons why his video is wrong (if it is. SA is a shitty place, we all know that), because it would just be tedious to do so.
I simply don't care about Molyneux enough for that. He's a terrible philosopher (and unoriginal to boot; does he think he can get away with claiming Kant's philosophy is new?), and just not interesting enough.
I simply don't care about Molyneux enough for that. He's a terrible philosopher (and unoriginal to boot; does he think he can get away with claiming Kant's philosophy is new?), and just not interesting enough.
Ok great then he should admit he cant/isnt willing to prove the video wrong and leave.
The issue is he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to be able to simply write the whole thing off but isnt willing to put in the effort to credibly do so.
Well, you have to think about it that way, if Stalin wrote an essay about the virtue of capitalism and how it should be improved in the west according to his 'philosphy', would you take it seriously and go over his 90 min youtube video to find his sources deeb burried within somewhere?
Vergil, you're living in a bubble.
Vergil, you're living in a bubble.
Without Shermans, there would be no South Africa!
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Did someone say Stalin?
Except the sources aren't "buried in a 90 minute video", they're right there in the description. Please actually read the thread before responding next time.
Also this isn't him saying anything according to his own "philosophy", he's literally just relaying historical and statistical facts from third party sources.
Last edited:
Well, I thought Hass was a reliable source on this one.
I really hope this is bait.
Well, I like you, kinda, but at the end of the day I respect Hass more 
. He's the only one here that can actually build a nuclear weapon for fucks sake.
. He's the only one here that can actually build a nuclear weapon for fucks sake.Ok but it's not his word vs mine. It's his word vs multiple sources that no one including himself has even tried to refute. Like, everyones acting like this is two people just saying shit but the big long list of evidence is RIGHT THERE and everyone just shuts their eyes and ears and refuses to acknowledge any of it or the ACTUAL. FUCKING. TOPIC. OF. SOUTH. AFRICA.Well, I like you, kinda, but at the end of the day I respect Hass more
Everyone wants to say his video on South Africa is bullshit.... without telling me why anything in that video is bullshit.
But I guess if in usually fashion you'll just believe whatever the right guy says and just ignore all evidence to the contrary alright go ahead.
I'll still be waiting here for someone to give me a real reason why his South Africa video is wrong......................... guess I'll be waiting for a fucking while since no one seems to be willing (able) to...
What a waste of time this has been, theres no point in having any discourse on anything if nobody is going to actually put forth any actual arguments.
Everyone wants to talk about the guy Stephan Molyneux but no one seems to want to touch the actually important and relevant subject matter of the South Africa video and it's supported sources.
Last edited:
Hmm? No, I mean his statement that the sources are burried inside a 90 min. video. But it was sure to see you throwing a tantrum about it.
The fuck do I care what Molyneux has to say about South Africa.
The fuck do I care what Molyneux has to say about South Africa.
In the description, the sources are.
Because thats what everyone youve responded to so far has been talking about and the thread itself is about South Africa.
It was sure nice to see that I was right since no one seems able to even approach trying to prove me wrong.
What Hassknecht wrote really isn't that hard to understand:
Talking for 90 minutes and just dumping a list of links into the description isn't how you use sources. Have you actually looked at the sources? It's literally just a list of 91 links that are grouped by basic topics but with no indication as to which of his statements they are supposedly relevant to. It's absolutely impossible to verify anything he says because you'd have to either completely memorize all 91 sources or scrutinize every one of them for hints about what information he used to draw his conclusions. And then do it again for the next statement.
Ok so you are going to dismiss the video (that you didnt watch) as unreliable garbage but arent willing to actually do anything to back up and prove your claim that the video (that you didnt watch) is inaccurate, thanks for playing.
So I take it you would be willing to watch a 90 minute video and then sift through 91 links to verify what was said? Have you maybe already done that? In that case you should be able to point out at what point Molyneux used the source Hassknecht linked to earlier. Because I, too, would be interested how exactly he incorporated a rebuttal of the claim that white South Africans are being killed "like flies" into his rant.
*Shrugs*
Hass is one of the few people here, that knows how an actuall thesis and scientific work has to actually look to be taken serious.
The point is, that what ever Molynex says, is first and foremost nothing but a hypothesis, his opinion, just because he provides some 'evidence', doesn't meant that it actually is. No one of us, is actually literate enough about the subject to actually decide if his evidence is true or not. Pretty much everyone can create a video these days, rant about stuff, maybe even coherently, include some 100 of links as 'evidence' and call it the 'truth'. But to know if it is REALLY true, you would have to actually look at the links, the websites, check THEIR sources again, verify those sources, looking into it, who actually came up with it, and so on. You know as well like we do, that a survey for example is only as much worth like the people that made it. Alone the fact that you can heavily influence the desired answer with suggestive question, is proof enough how complex the act of verifying 'evidence' can be. Particularly in a field like history.
If people here can't easily access the so called 'evidence' and easily link it to his statements, then it already is a problem and makes it simply look rather like the typical Molyneux's Gish-Gallop, for which he is also considentally pretty well known for. To be honest, I have no clue what ever if he has a point, if he is right or not. I am just saying:
1. He is not the most reliable kind of person. He has a questionable reputation.
2. He is not a scientist. He is neither a historian, sociologist or researcher of any kind. He's a game developer first and foremost.
3. His opinion so far, because that is what he's stating, hasn't started any kind of stir in the history about the South Africa. There isn't any real debate going on and certainly don't hear much about it so far.
If he really discovered some undeniable truth here, then you would have seen and heard a lot more about it. Com on, Youtube alone is FULL of videos that say 'New truth revealed about XYZ!', 'The REAL reason why XYZ happend!' or something like that. If Molynex REALLY wanted to make statement here, then he should have written a paper about it, and offering it to the scientitic community. Historians. Real researchers. People that actually spend half of their life learning and teaching something about South African history, Aphartheit and all that stuff.
There is a reason why real scientists stay way from Youtube when it comes to pupblications and sharing some real scientific content - this also includes historians. It's simply not very credible. Youtube is not a scientific platform. There is a very riggid process when it comes to how new insights are made. The process is slow and tedious, but that has a reason. It's simply not enough to make a 90min. video with thousands of 'links', and bam! That's your evidence, right in your face! Now acknoledge me! I just have my doubts that Molyneux has spend years and years of research to come up with something that no historian before him ever even thought about. Then name alone, 'The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid', seems more like something that you would expect from the so called 'History Channel' which also features documentations including Aliens that worked on the Pyramids. It reeks like click-bait content. It's not like you never see changes and adjustments in history, but going against a well established theory or notion? That's like if you would come up with the claim that Stalin is actually still alive and just faked his death. You would need more then just a few 'links' and a 90 min. video to convince people of something like that. But of course! If the scientific community doesn't recognize your evidence and genius! THen it must mean that they either are to proud to acknoledge their error, or they are even in on it! There are countless of mavericks and lunatics like Molyneux out there, claiming to have this undeniable truth. But it is strange how no one who's actually a professional, even cares to take a look at it.
What Hass and Bux try to tell you here, is that Moleneux 'statement' is simply missing the scientific riggor that usually goes in to this kind of stuff, which makes it his opinion and not something that has been now proven without any doubt - like as doing something like that would be even easy in historical research.
You can say, well we are just to dumb to take a look at it. Fair enough I guess. But is it what really happens here? I would say, no. There is a certain view about South Africa and Apartheit, that is accepted by the majority of historians - they differ in details, but that's not important here - and the burden of proof is simply on those that go against this view. As long as there is not actually some REAL scientist and historians behind Molneux backing him up, I see no reason to take a serious look at his work. I mean, how comes that if white people die like flies in South Africa, you kinda don't really hear anything about it? - No one dennies that white South Africans experience issues though, even viollence, particularly the communities which are rather poor and vulnerable, but considering the history of the nation, this is hardly any surprise, but in general white people in South Africa still have a lot of influence and in general a better position, which is also on the decline, which is again considering the history of the nation understandable. We are talking about a nation with an almost only black population.
So in other words, there is a reason why people don't take Molyneux and what he says serious - anymore.
Anyway, those are my 5 uneducated cents on that matter.
Last edited:
Wrong Molyneux dude xD
Yeah my bad. Still the rest of the point about scientific rigor stands. Try to see where I am coming from.
Changing something in the historic community, is extremly difficult which makes the process slow and painfull, but that has a reason.
Changing something in the historic community, is extremly difficult which makes the process slow and painfull, but that has a reason.