Hee, guys. Pape jf, yoo promisead to takae mae to teh zoo

You are

>i want to see more people go after his scientific reductionism and nihilism.
Yea it's so funny that he is nihilistic, and like a french libertarian idealist at the same time.

I think he will claim that the former is a meta-position on morality, and the latter is "just what he likes" something like that.

he admitted in the debate with Jay Dyer that he believed he was merely a pre-programmed monkey with no free will, though i think for him to actually be consistent with his reductionism he'd have to embrace solipsism and accept that from his perspective there is no objective reality at all.

>December 2018
>still watching JFG

he had a good run there a half year ago but the intensity has fizzled.

ironically the jewish lawyer's 7 or so episodes were the best. but there was other excellent content

David Duke interviews are excellent when something exciting it going on - it's when he's at his best - but regular appearances didn't really work

he waxes autistically about how much poosy he gets it's just stupid. it's difficult to address without attacking the person rather than the issue, and with incomplete information, but the occasional basic bitch about family courts, plus the infinite pussy rants, makes him look like a really bad father.

Molyneux is right in this matter, and JF would probably agree: choose your partners carefully. and preferably marry before having kids. JF did not execute on this and is a bad role model.

also, alt-right shouldn't be promoting any kind of degeneracy whatsoever. Fuentes is solid on this matter, and for regular content is better.

Based nose.

Yea I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
To me it's difficult to pin someone down and force them into something like solipsism; there's always logical loopholes he can invent to get out of any trap you set.

That fat autist can't get any better.

i don't see any way for a scientific reductionist to avoid solipsism. i've never heard anyone challenge a person like Dawkins or JF on it and I've never heard their rationale for why they haven't fallen into it. as far as i can see it's the only possible conclusion of that worldview.

Well, I don't know what JF will say, but I have thought of one way to escape solipsism.

If you define truth in accordance with the scientific method, you can say that the existence of objective reality is itself a scientific theory.

but the scientific method is dependent on your means of perception, which as any scientist can tell you are ultimately illusions created within your mind. there is no possibility of objectivity.
but it's also possible i didn't grasp what you just said.

so for example: "Objective reality" is the claim that (some of) my experiences are result of things that are independent of my mind... .And that I am detecting their presence.

If that's true, then there are certain things that I should not be able to change merely by thinking about it. For example: If i left my car keys on the table, I should find that they remain on the table next time i look at it. Something like that.

You can do experiments like this, and you will find that there are indeed aspects of your reality that you can't control with your mind which supports the theory that they are independent of it.

interesting if proof provided

now, a common objection to this idea is that i have not DISPROVED solipsism.

But if we treat objective reality as a scientific theory, it doesn't have to disprove the competing theories, it merely needs to be validated according to its own claims.

So importantly: The claim that objective reality is true is not the same as the claim that solipsism is false.

Fuentes does nothing but divide everyone and call everyone a fed

I dont think hes hit 4 digits but lets pretend he had. For the incels on the board this is a sound strategy. Dress in nice warm ups and keep your hair just enough to look like you give a fuck. This is an easy way for a woman with money to think you have money, so long as you dont smell.

what is she? a 3/10 at best? jesus christ i thought a bit of celebrity was supposed to move you up the ladder snatchwise, I guess he would be bagging 1's and 2's if not for youtube

I like her, she sounds really stupid. It's amusing how she interrupts the stream yelling unintelligible shit like an imbecile.

not what i've heard but sure

gimme something constructive and i'll give it a chance

inb4 FTN and TDS which are always first

So what do you think??

he stated it recently on one of his shows

it's an interesting take but at best it only leaves you with competing theories, none of which can be proven. and generally the people who i'm talking about who should be solipsists are those who say "i only believe what can be proven scientifically." i do not see how they can believe in an objective reality given that the scientific observation of our own biology has itself undercut any possibility of objectivity. they can find some small evidence that an objective reality is plausible, but the usual means of independent testing, peer review and the entire scientific method is thrown out the window by the question itself.
and so if he holds to his own burden of proof, the materialist is left in the position of having no possibility of belief in anything other than his subjective experience. but i find that none of them actually live this way, and instead act like normal people day to day, despite the fact that they live in an insane world.

please do everyone a solid and provide a link and time code. He does a lot of shows and they are long.

not entirely correct and he's explained it to my satisfaction. It was not for his current channel and it was before he became entirely independent.
If you don't know that he's the most important Utuber then you're a fool

When I say the scientific method, I mean the idea of testing and validating a hypothesis through experiment. You can do experiments even if you think solipsism is true. You can still validate or invalidate statements about your experience. The scientific method is still useful in that context.

Peer review, and independent testing are important aspects of science as an industry, but aren't integral to the scientific method itself.

>it's an interesting take but at best it only leaves you with competing theories, none of which can be proven.
Scientific theories are never "proven". It's not mathematics. They're validated inductively. The more correct predictions it makes, the more solid it becomes, but it's never "proven". This fact doesn't depreciate the value of these theories. The fact that evolution hasn't been "proven" isn't really important. It's still true enough.

And just as a matter of point fact: You can't disprove solipsism either.

You might actually be in the matrix. It could be a factual statement. You don't know for sure. Having a philosophy that doesn't account for this possible outcome is just dishonest.

>JIDF detected
you're negging and dividing, not fuentes

fuentes is a funny cunt shut up nerd

don't remember mate. i can tell you he brought it up quite randomly and of his own volition, and the story is that he was making some shitty science show on youtube with 1000 subs, and had mass canvassed billionaire philanthropists all over the world for money. and randomly, epstein responded and donated $25,000. apparently there was no actual contact between the two other than figuring out the payment process. it's pretty odd.

but the relevant question is "what do i believe?" even if you did all the experiments you wanted, i cannot see how a scientific reductionist could honestly find his way to believing that his observations had any independent reality outside of his own experience, it is not demonstrable and therefore by his own standards is not to be believed.
either he has to lower his burden of proof from "i only believe what can be proven scientifically" to something much less rigorous like, "i will believe what appears probable through scientific study and is also 'reasonable,' or he has to ignore it. but at that point i don't think he's a scientific reductionist.

Well I think the disagreement must hinge on the word "proved" when people normally say proved scientifically, they don't mean "proved beyond all doubt". They mean inductively validated.

There's a version of the objective reality theory that makes a lot of predictions that are always correct.
Similarly, there's a version of the solipsism theory that makes a lot of predictions that are always correct. (In fact, they both make the same predictions).

I'm suggesting that BOTH of these theories are scientifically proved to be valid theories.
Now, since people have trouble conceiving the world in two ways at once, they have to make a choice of which of these two models to believe.

MOST people chose the objective reality model (i'm guessing because it's simpler to think about); but the point is there's a choice you can make between these two theories. And you're not constrained to solipsistic worldview by scientism.

Attached: 1534819729348.jpg (256x257, 6K)

Did you know he wrote a book? That you can buy. Also it’s 50$ for a signed copy. I understand your concerns, but this question is answered by his book, that’s just realesed.
-Every JF show for the past month

Imagine advertising the fact that you wrote a book on your own youtube show!

You have an ugly sister.

>Well I think the disagreement must hinge on the word "proved"
Yeah I think so, this is why this conversation has always been from the perspective of a scientific reductionist, ie someone whose beliefs are reduced down as far as it's possible to take them, not someone who is willing to believe in spite of uncertainty.
It's one thing I respect about JF, that he didn't cuck out on his own principles. By which he is nothing more than a pre-programmed ape shaped computer existing within a universe of flux that has no free will and no objective value set. My issue with him is 1, that he isn't a solipsist (as far as I know,) and 2, despite his stated beliefs he lives in a completely different way. It's possible he can rationalise his position out but I've not heard anyone push him on the absurdity of it. Jay Dyer did a little bit, saying there was no point having a debate if he believed it was all just pre-programmed. I'd like someone to hammer it in a bit though, because the consequences of that belief system end up being laughable.
>I'm suggesting that BOTH of these theories are scientifically proved to be valid theories.
You've put forward a good case for how a materialist could justify his belief in the objective world, but I still think a person who's rigorous in what he believes and is thereby intent on reducing it down will end up in solipsism.

I yuh juz wanted to help zis young lady wiz her je ee dee. Yes, yuh sheez a little soft in ze head. I'll yuh fix er wiz my phenotypes.

French can look Jewish sometimes. She is 100% frog though. Hope bulli JF takes her to the zoo.

>interesting if proof provided
youtube.com/watch?v=ka3QZewLY1Q&t=837

her being thin puts her in the the B+ range when compared to modern western women.

This is the type of chick mgtows call HB9 when they're posting a field report.

A thousand hookers maybe.

Looks juden

omg im so mad over that #metoo just like you

meh

Attached: jfg.jpg (968x1069, 110K)

>References
>15 Gene, Wikipedia. Retrieved in December 2018. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene

Attached: references.jpg (1022x1818, 394K)

I wanna sniff Bratass

Attached: CCC246AB-75DC-479B-9B27-1BDB9780CE5B.gif (480x270, 885K)

JF stands for Jew Fucker.