- Joined
- Jun 30, 2021
All of them.
The only philosopher worth a shithouse fuck was Carl Sagan.
The only philosopher worth a shithouse fuck was Carl Sagan.
Which philosopher do you dislike the most and why? - Massive ego, autistic levels of verbosity, shallowness, degenerateness or just plain boring.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
Cringelord Kant and the King Contrarian Socrates.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2020
That guy redpilled me so hard on McCarthyism. How does an out and out Marxist NOT get investigated by HUAC?
CAPTAIN HAPPY
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2021
The website doesn't allow me to give a like to this post.
Null is an aynrandianist confirmed.
Bonesjones
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2021
All of post modernism ideas are just intellectual justification for why being a pedophile isn't a terrible thing.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2018
Easy choice: Karl Marx
He's the root cause to the disease that's named after him.
He's the root cause to the disease that's named after him.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
Descartes- just about all of his conclusions are based on logical fallacies.
Bonesjones
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2021
Was there any post modernist philosopher who wasn't a pedophile? I can't think of one.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2019
Any of the euphoric fedora tipper philosophers. The only instance of intellectual honesty from them is the blink-and-you'll-miss-it moments when they admit they have no standards of good and evil to appeal, but they're going to play pretend anyways.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
Not to mention all the commie revolutions and tyrannies.
A world without communism may have been a better place.
Reminds me of Victor Stenger, who thought a good future was humanity turning into atheist space robots.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2020
If you stretch the definition of "philosopher" to include faux-intellectual motherfuckers that dumb motherfuckers think are smart motherfuckers, then it'd be a three-way tie between Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson and Malcolm Gladwell.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
Yizu
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2021
A lot of other offenders but the worst is probably Hegel when it came to pretentious verbosity. The man was the Deepak Chopra of his time, using exciting jargon (e.g. "Absolute Spirit," "Objective Spirit," etc.) to make conclusions about things that didn't follow.
Him cucking his landlord and Schopenhauer's perpetual grudge against him were hilarious though.
Him cucking his landlord and Schopenhauer's perpetual grudge against him were hilarious though.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2021
John Rawls has the dubious honor of being the only philosopher criticized by Ayn Rand, of all people, where academic philosophers eventually acknowledged that she was right and he wasn't. And that is just humiliating.
And his frenemy Nozick is similarly pointless to read if you don't start by agreeing with his conclusions already.
And his frenemy Nozick is similarly pointless to read if you don't start by agreeing with his conclusions already.
Mœbius
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2021
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2020
Baudrillard didn't sign the petition. Lacan was a psychoanalyst, but he didn’t either.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2016
Sometimes I think that H L Mencken is the spiritual grandfather of this site, and all the world's shitposters.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2013
Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Mostly because he just had such an overly simplistic and sophomoric view on human nature.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2020
I want to rewrite this and give a more nuanced view even though this is still a bit spergy.
I have mixed feelings about John Rosemond. Some love him and think he is a saviour/saint, some detest him with all their heart and compare him to a nazi. He is neither. In his defense, he makes some good points about discipline, marriage being very important, and advocates for parents to keep their cool. Parents shouldn't be friends to their kids and those are great points. I think some of his advice is very good and logical, and then at times it is inconsistent and strange (i.e. believing children are all fundamentlly bad, destroying childrens' self-esteem because self-esteem will literally make them "another Hitler" (yes he actually said that) and placing spouse relations over parent-child relationships and ranking them whilst ignoring the different dynamics and that they are entirely different relationships). Children just don't know any better and they must be taught to be good individuals of society. Nothing too complicated. It's understandable why some may think he isn't too fond of children at times.
Part of the issue I have with him is that he is very dogmatic about his beliefs and his logic of "because I said so" without explanaiton doesn't cut it for teenagers. It may work for young children who are still developing, but for teenagers and young adults, it doesn't make sense. His romanticized rose-tinted view of the 1950s and refusal to listen to others and the changed world of today is very frustrating. I really dislike his smug, condescending tone towards those he disagrees with and "young people bad old people good" attitude. Characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as a "snowflake", and "oversensitive" is just as bad as when SJWS call everyone they disagree/dislike with as "Nazis" and "Fascists". We are not all sensitive entitled idiots who get offended by everything. There are plenty of nasty entitled elderly people as well thanks very much!
I feel that at times Rosemond seems very dismissive or of children/young people and some of his advice is a bit cruel and draconic. Children are more than just their parents' offspring, they will grow up to be their own people one day with their own ideas and beliefs and rather than just getting them out of the house, parents and their offspring should try to forge good relationships once the child reaches adulthood.
I understand his views, but I think he makes mountains out of molehills and is too narrow-minded. TLDR; Guy's just a well-intentioned but arrogant old boomer who has too much to say and not informed enough.
Here's are a few examples
Our 19-year-old daughter is dating a 19-year-old boy, who, in general, we like. He’s not a partyer; he doesn’t smoke or drink; he’s serious about his education; and he has a rational career plan mapped out. Our daughter is also a responsible, levelheaded girl. The problem is that the boyfriend’s response to almost anything my daughter says is a cut or put-down, a dismissal of her accomplishment or mocking. She says his father does the same thing to him, his brother and their mother, so to him it’s “normal.” Our daughter is an upbeat confident person by nature, but I know a constant stream of negativity will eventually wear down even the most self-assured person. I have tried calling him out on this in a humorous way, to no effect. My husband is restraining himself from giving this kid a poke in the nose! Any suggestions are welcome!
A: I suggest you obtain a copy of the Feb. 19-20 (weekend) edition of The Wall Street Journal and read “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” by Kay Hymowitz. Or, go out and get her book “Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys” (Basic Books, due out March 1), from which the WSJ article is excerpted. It will surely put this problem into a fresh perspective.
Hymowitz’s basic premise is that whereas adolescence for males and females was, not so long ago, between 13 and 18, inclusive, that’s no longer the case. Today’s girls are growing into women and accepting adult responsibilities much faster and more effectively than are today’s boys, for whom adolescence now extends through their twenties and even, for many, into their thirties.
Your daughter’s boyfriend is an exception to the rule, obviously. He’s not into partying, playing video- and online games, proving that he can drink more beer than his friends and still remain conscious, and dressing in oversized, ill-fitting clothes that make him look like a 6-foot toddler. From your description, he’s a find! Do everything you can to keep him!
So he has one annoying habit. OK. Can we all overlook this? Can you persuade your husband not to poke him in the nose? Please? For your daughter’s sake? I mean, the likelihood of her finding another boy her age who has a coherent plan for the future (as opposed to “I’m planning on winning ‘American Idol’ and then replacing Jon Bon Jovi as lead singer of Bon Jovi” — don’t laugh … I’ve heard pretty much the equivalent more than once) is slim.
This talent for sarcasm is most likely the influence of the “family” sitcoms his generation has consumed, in which the constant stream of put-downs is supposed to be funny (unfortunately, for many Americans, it is). His attempts at bad humor are probably symptomatic of a certain amount of social insecurity. I would forgive him for that. He’s simply got some growing up to do. That’s forgivable, isn’t it?
Lastly, I encourage you to let your daughter deal with this in her own way, in her own time. Growing up for this young man means letting go of this annoying habit. Growing up for your daughter means helping him learn the value of letting go of this annoying habit. In short, stay out of it. And definitely don’t poke him in the nose. That’s against the law.
This is an abuse apology at best. Podcast TLDR; is Rosemond saying he had a few friends thought they were homosexual, now they're straight, so therefore only he is right and homosexuality is a choice.
Very creepy to be honest. The teenager should not be even thinking about having sex or even allowed until she is an adult. But the "virginity" partfor the husband and father at the end is really weird. Her sex life when she is adult is nobody's business including her father's but hers! That's a parent-child boundary that must be maintained.
Sorry for the long sperg! I needed to get it out of my system. I don't think Rosemond's entirely bad, I just find his reasoning very flawed.
I have mixed feelings about John Rosemond. Some love him and think he is a saviour/saint, some detest him with all their heart and compare him to a nazi. He is neither. In his defense, he makes some good points about discipline, marriage being very important, and advocates for parents to keep their cool. Parents shouldn't be friends to their kids and those are great points. I think some of his advice is very good and logical, and then at times it is inconsistent and strange (i.e. believing children are all fundamentlly bad, destroying childrens' self-esteem because self-esteem will literally make them "another Hitler" (yes he actually said that) and placing spouse relations over parent-child relationships and ranking them whilst ignoring the different dynamics and that they are entirely different relationships). Children just don't know any better and they must be taught to be good individuals of society. Nothing too complicated. It's understandable why some may think he isn't too fond of children at times.
Part of the issue I have with him is that he is very dogmatic about his beliefs and his logic of "because I said so" without explanaiton doesn't cut it for teenagers. It may work for young children who are still developing, but for teenagers and young adults, it doesn't make sense. His romanticized rose-tinted view of the 1950s and refusal to listen to others and the changed world of today is very frustrating. I really dislike his smug, condescending tone towards those he disagrees with and "young people bad old people good" attitude. Characterizing everyone who disagrees with you as a "snowflake", and "oversensitive" is just as bad as when SJWS call everyone they disagree/dislike with as "Nazis" and "Fascists". We are not all sensitive entitled idiots who get offended by everything. There are plenty of nasty entitled elderly people as well thanks very much!
I feel that at times Rosemond seems very dismissive or of children/young people and some of his advice is a bit cruel and draconic. Children are more than just their parents' offspring, they will grow up to be their own people one day with their own ideas and beliefs and rather than just getting them out of the house, parents and their offspring should try to forge good relationships once the child reaches adulthood.
I understand his views, but I think he makes mountains out of molehills and is too narrow-minded. TLDR; Guy's just a well-intentioned but arrogant old boomer who has too much to say and not informed enough.
Here's are a few examples
Our 19-year-old daughter is dating a 19-year-old boy, who, in general, we like. He’s not a partyer; he doesn’t smoke or drink; he’s serious about his education; and he has a rational career plan mapped out. Our daughter is also a responsible, levelheaded girl. The problem is that the boyfriend’s response to almost anything my daughter says is a cut or put-down, a dismissal of her accomplishment or mocking. She says his father does the same thing to him, his brother and their mother, so to him it’s “normal.” Our daughter is an upbeat confident person by nature, but I know a constant stream of negativity will eventually wear down even the most self-assured person. I have tried calling him out on this in a humorous way, to no effect. My husband is restraining himself from giving this kid a poke in the nose! Any suggestions are welcome!
A: I suggest you obtain a copy of the Feb. 19-20 (weekend) edition of The Wall Street Journal and read “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” by Kay Hymowitz. Or, go out and get her book “Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys” (Basic Books, due out March 1), from which the WSJ article is excerpted. It will surely put this problem into a fresh perspective.
Hymowitz’s basic premise is that whereas adolescence for males and females was, not so long ago, between 13 and 18, inclusive, that’s no longer the case. Today’s girls are growing into women and accepting adult responsibilities much faster and more effectively than are today’s boys, for whom adolescence now extends through their twenties and even, for many, into their thirties.
Your daughter’s boyfriend is an exception to the rule, obviously. He’s not into partying, playing video- and online games, proving that he can drink more beer than his friends and still remain conscious, and dressing in oversized, ill-fitting clothes that make him look like a 6-foot toddler. From your description, he’s a find! Do everything you can to keep him!
So he has one annoying habit. OK. Can we all overlook this? Can you persuade your husband not to poke him in the nose? Please? For your daughter’s sake? I mean, the likelihood of her finding another boy her age who has a coherent plan for the future (as opposed to “I’m planning on winning ‘American Idol’ and then replacing Jon Bon Jovi as lead singer of Bon Jovi” — don’t laugh … I’ve heard pretty much the equivalent more than once) is slim.
This talent for sarcasm is most likely the influence of the “family” sitcoms his generation has consumed, in which the constant stream of put-downs is supposed to be funny (unfortunately, for many Americans, it is). His attempts at bad humor are probably symptomatic of a certain amount of social insecurity. I would forgive him for that. He’s simply got some growing up to do. That’s forgivable, isn’t it?
Lastly, I encourage you to let your daughter deal with this in her own way, in her own time. Growing up for this young man means letting go of this annoying habit. Growing up for your daughter means helping him learn the value of letting go of this annoying habit. In short, stay out of it. And definitely don’t poke him in the nose. That’s against the law.
This is an abuse apology at best. Podcast TLDR; is Rosemond saying he had a few friends thought they were homosexual, now they're straight, so therefore only he is right and homosexuality is a choice.
At an online source of parenting advice, a mother recently asked a female marriage and family therapist how to handle her eighth-grade daughter’s announcement that she and her ninth-grade boyfriend have decided to ‘‘prove their love’’ by having sex. The mother says, ‘‘I don’t think she’s ready to have sex with this boy.’’
Did you get that? Mom’s not really sure whether her 14-year-old daughter is ready for sex or not. That’s at least 50 percent of the problem. And believe me, this mom isn’t alone in her confusion. Many of today’s parents, faced with the same problem, aren’t sure they have a right to be unequivocal with their kids, as in, ‘‘Over my dead body.’’
And the therapist isn’t quite sure either. She tells the mom not to tell the daughter she can’t see the boy because the girl might become sneaky. Instead, the mother should acknowledge her daughter’s trust, validate her desire to make her boyfriend happy, discuss the emotional ramifications of having sex, talk about how she will feel if after she has sex with the boy and he dumps her, tell her about the hormone oxytocin (it supposedly causes girls to emotionally bond with any oxytocin-absent boy they have sex with), and invite the boy for dinner so mom can keep tabs on the relationship.
Oh, and mom is also advised to tell dear daughter that if she begins making bad decisions, mom will have to get more involved. The exact nature of that involvement, however, is left to one’s imagination. I’m reasonably certain it does not involve the word ‘‘no.’’ Mom is told to appreciate how much peer pressure her daughter is under, to give the child understanding and support, and to tell her that if the boyfriend really loves her, he will respect her refusal.
This female therapist is obviously out of her league. First, if the boy truly loved this girl, he wouldn’t be pressuring her into having sex in the first place. And if he is pressuring her to have sex, he is not going to ‘‘respect’’ her refusal. That’s not how it works when boys are 15. That’s not how it works for some 40-year-old boys, in fact.
This child is in dire straits. I suspect she has come to her mother hoping Mom would put her foot down and say exactly what the therapist has told her not to say: Absolutely not, period; followed by, ‘‘And furthermore, because I am ultimately responsible for your welfare, I am not going to allow you to put yourself in danger with that boy again. Your relationship with him is hereby over.’’ Then, and only then, mom should explain to her daughter the reasons behind that decision. By the way, said therapist thinks that approach is ‘‘harsh.’’ I think it’s responsible, unequivocal, authoritative and everything parents should be, especially where a child’s health and overall welfare are concerned.
The wishy-washy approach is exactly what this child does not need. She is asking for her mother to stand up for her principles, to take away from her the responsibility of dealing with this boy’s desire. Mom needs to be unequivocal concerning her values (said therapist never talks about values, by the way, which is very politically correct of her) and equally unequivocal concerning her position on the issue. I will now model being unequivocal: Parents! It is all right to tell a child no, even a child of 14.
By the way, the age of sexual consent in every U.S. state is between 16 and 18. Mom should point that out and assure the girl that she is not shy about pressing charges against the boy. When the girl tells him that — and she will — he will vanish.
Lastly, dad is not mentioned by either mom or the therapist. Maybe he’s not in the home, but if he’s available, then he needs to sit down with his daughter and tell her how much he loves her and how important it will be to him that he walk a virgin to the altar, not to mention how important it will be to her husband.
Did you get that? Mom’s not really sure whether her 14-year-old daughter is ready for sex or not. That’s at least 50 percent of the problem. And believe me, this mom isn’t alone in her confusion. Many of today’s parents, faced with the same problem, aren’t sure they have a right to be unequivocal with their kids, as in, ‘‘Over my dead body.’’
And the therapist isn’t quite sure either. She tells the mom not to tell the daughter she can’t see the boy because the girl might become sneaky. Instead, the mother should acknowledge her daughter’s trust, validate her desire to make her boyfriend happy, discuss the emotional ramifications of having sex, talk about how she will feel if after she has sex with the boy and he dumps her, tell her about the hormone oxytocin (it supposedly causes girls to emotionally bond with any oxytocin-absent boy they have sex with), and invite the boy for dinner so mom can keep tabs on the relationship.
Oh, and mom is also advised to tell dear daughter that if she begins making bad decisions, mom will have to get more involved. The exact nature of that involvement, however, is left to one’s imagination. I’m reasonably certain it does not involve the word ‘‘no.’’ Mom is told to appreciate how much peer pressure her daughter is under, to give the child understanding and support, and to tell her that if the boyfriend really loves her, he will respect her refusal.
This female therapist is obviously out of her league. First, if the boy truly loved this girl, he wouldn’t be pressuring her into having sex in the first place. And if he is pressuring her to have sex, he is not going to ‘‘respect’’ her refusal. That’s not how it works when boys are 15. That’s not how it works for some 40-year-old boys, in fact.
This child is in dire straits. I suspect she has come to her mother hoping Mom would put her foot down and say exactly what the therapist has told her not to say: Absolutely not, period; followed by, ‘‘And furthermore, because I am ultimately responsible for your welfare, I am not going to allow you to put yourself in danger with that boy again. Your relationship with him is hereby over.’’ Then, and only then, mom should explain to her daughter the reasons behind that decision. By the way, said therapist thinks that approach is ‘‘harsh.’’ I think it’s responsible, unequivocal, authoritative and everything parents should be, especially where a child’s health and overall welfare are concerned.
The wishy-washy approach is exactly what this child does not need. She is asking for her mother to stand up for her principles, to take away from her the responsibility of dealing with this boy’s desire. Mom needs to be unequivocal concerning her values (said therapist never talks about values, by the way, which is very politically correct of her) and equally unequivocal concerning her position on the issue. I will now model being unequivocal: Parents! It is all right to tell a child no, even a child of 14.
By the way, the age of sexual consent in every U.S. state is between 16 and 18. Mom should point that out and assure the girl that she is not shy about pressing charges against the boy. When the girl tells him that — and she will — he will vanish.
Lastly, dad is not mentioned by either mom or the therapist. Maybe he’s not in the home, but if he’s available, then he needs to sit down with his daughter and tell her how much he loves her and how important it will be to him that he walk a virgin to the altar, not to mention how important it will be to her husband.
Very creepy to be honest. The teenager should not be even thinking about having sex or even allowed until she is an adult. But the "virginity" partfor the husband and father at the end is really weird. Her sex life when she is adult is nobody's business including her father's but hers! That's a parent-child boundary that must be maintained.
Sorry for the long sperg! I needed to get it out of my system. I don't think Rosemond's entirely bad, I just find his reasoning very flawed.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
Ayn Rand. She's legit just the opposite of Dorothy Day. She was anti-religious, capitalist fundamentalist, liberal. I can't stand her ideology.