🌟 Internet Famous Max Karson / mrgirl - Pedophile pseudo-intellectual, master/suicide baiter, school shooter white-knight

Harm said:
Karson is a "harm principle" adherent and would probably argue that it's harmful, and therefore, it's bad. Although, in a debate with an Islamic ethicist, Karson admitted that bestiality wasn't considered immoral under his worldview and shouldn't necessarily be criminalized.
Click to expand...
I am so glad this max thing was rejected by the world.
 
Harm said:
Karson is a "harm principle" adherent and would probably argue that it's harmful, and therefore, it's bad. Although, in a debate with an Islamic ethicist, Karson admitted that bestiality wasn't considered immoral under his worldview and shouldn't necessarily be criminalized.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more on a axiomatic level. What his standard is for morality. Because he doesn't have a objective standard for morality, it will ultimately always result in relativism. He entire moral system is build on nothing but "preferences" which mean that, all people have to do to counter his positions on any moral claim he makes, is to just assert that it is their own preference to not follow his preferences and follow your own preferences instead.
 
Ogreboy said:
I was thinking more on a axiomatic level. What his standard is for morality. Because he doesn't have a objective standard for morality, it will ultimately always result in relativism. He entire moral system is build on nothing but "preferences" which mean that, all people have to do to counter his positions on any moral claim he makes, is to just assert that it is their own preference to not follow his preferences and follow your own preferences instead.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and you're absolutely right. After all, the "harm principle" itself is a matter of preference. "I prefer things which don't exceed a non-specific threshold for harm!" Okay, and if my threshold differs, then which threshold wins? If it isn't mine, then I will simply harm you until you acquiesce. Might is right, after all.

Morals are seemingly impossible for humans to delineate without either appealing to a higher power, such as Christian ethicists pointing towards "because God said so" or some nebulous "natural order," or appealing to mere preference. Of course, if it's all preference, then one preference can not be superior in and of itself unless we somehow designate one human as the paragon of morality whose preferences become supreme, in turn deifying them above all others as a higher power.

The only real alternative I've yet to encounter would be the Aleister Crowley mantra of "do what thou wilt," which is untenable if you want a structured, organized society which will endure and prosper. It's great if you want to degenerate into debauchery and destroy what others built, though.
 
Ogreboy said:
He entire moral system is build on nothing but "preferences" which mean that, all people have to do to counter his positions on any moral claim he makes, is to just assert that it is their own preference to not follow his preferences and follow your own preferences instead.
Click to expand...
In theory, I don't have a problem with preference utilitarianism, but like all ethical philosophies, it can take a degenerate, broken form that leads to monstrosities. For instance, a disgusting creep like this pedophile simply refuses to acknowledge that all preferences are not created equal.

Some are of positive value, for example, if someone has a preference for helping others. Some are of neutral value, such as choice of hairstyle. In neither of those cases is there a countervailing societal interest that would justify unnecessarily restricting those kinds of preferences. However, in other cases, a preference is either worthless to society or actively harmful, such as the preferences of serial killers to murder people or of pedophiles like Karson to molest children and fuck animals.

And indeed, arguably those preferences are so inherently harmful that someone should be ostracized from society, confined, or worse for even having them, much less acting on them.
 
AnOminous said:
Some are of positive value, for example, if someone has a preference for helping others. Some are of neutral value, such as choice of hairstyle. In neither of those cases is there a countervailing societal interest that would justify unnecessarily restricting those kinds of preferences. However, in other cases, a preference is either worthless to society or actively harmful, such as the preferences of serial killers to murder people or of pedophiles like Karson to molest children and fuck animals.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it is a value judgement, meaning that it's up to the individual to determine what has more value then another. Which goes back to preferences. It is impossible to measure, because it's all based on people's emotions and how they "feel."

That's why when someone says "positive value," that is a very loaded phrase. Because what do they mean by "value" and what do they mean by "positive." What standard are they using to determine what is positive and what is negative. And it doesn't even cover the pre-sup stuff. Like how you even know things have value, or how you have a concept of "meaning" in a strictly materialistic world. The word "positive" implies a sense of "meaning" to an action or out-come. And they have no standard or justification for those concepts they're appealing to. And if they deny metaphysics. They are refuting themselves. Because you would have to appeal to transcendental categories / metaphysical concepts in order to deny them 😭. Which will take you back to preferences again.

"I think it's wrong to molest children, because I don't like it! 😡"

"I think it's good to molest children, because I like it 😇"

Same justification, same rational.
 
Anyone who talks about "preferences" in regard to morality is immediately categorized as a solipsist (and often Narcissist) in my mind. Ethics is fundamentally about how what you do impacts others, not trivial personal "preferences" like saying "I prefer Coke over Pepsi." It exposes a high degree of self-centeredness which means they're likely to have a heavy stake in anything they defend in conversation. That is to say, if someone doesn't acknowledge and justify doing something with regards to the consequences FOR OTHERS, then it's often simply a pseudo-philosophical coverup of what boils down to "this is how I personally feel about it and if you don't like it then get bent." That's why I'm immediately skeptical of the "personal preferences" of anyone who does shit like justify CP or bestiality.
 
Last edited:
Max had to chime in on the "napping with your dad" discourse..
1744912567265.webp

This was in response to this tweet
1744912606326.webp
 
"Why can't people just respect healthy boundaries? Now get in here, Shaelin, I need to scream at you until you cry and then put it online so strangers will give me money!"
 
Can someone that actually watches this retard explain his black hole theory bullshit?
 
FarmEnjoyer said:
Can someone that actually watches this retard explain his black hole theory bullshit?
Click to expand...
In short, the theory is all of our observable universe is itself within a black hole. This supposedly "solves" or otherwise answers all conundrums in astrophysics.
 
FarmEnjoyer said:
Can someone that actually watches this retard explain his black hole theory bullshit?
Click to expand...
It's basically just this video by Neil deGrasse Tyson. And you know it be true if NDG's talking bout it.


Max, of course, was, as always, ahead of the curve on this one. But the issue with him is that he has no grasp of basic physics and he fully relied on ChatGPT for his theory. A theory is nice and all, but you still have to prove it for it to be taken seriously. This he obviously can't do.

But I just like that this makes (or made, before it became more accepted) redditors seethe. Just like flat earthers do.
 
1764020819738.png
1764020881877.png 1764021113233.png

It appears as if mrgirl is attempting to circumvent his Youtube ban via an exploit where his producer & showrunner Nathaniel Bloom is listed as channel owner/operator instead of himself. This is obviously retarded for a litany of reasons, not the least of which is that if this was allowed then effectively everybody could circumvent bans by having a "producer" upload on their behalf. It's especially damning that the email listed is tied to Max Karson's own professional website.

If it's that simple, why not start a company specializing in helping banned Youtubers circumvent their bans? Pay my company and we'll pretend to be your producer and "own/operate" your Youtube channel for you! It'll still link to all your websites and we'll even use your email address for it! Hey, Alex Jones, just put your Youtube account under your producer and you're allowed back! Leafy, Onision, Sam Pepper, you guys can all come back too! Just "hire a producer" to bypass the ban! Why would this ever be tolerated by Youtube?

PreserveTube

It also has this ridiculous (years old) stream clip on it criticizing Kiwi Farms. "It's a problem" that a website is simultaneously allowed to host dox information and also host negative discussions of those people, we need to edit reality so that Kiwi Farms either can't exist or its success will be permanently sabotaged. An example he gives is a government intervention where the website is assessed by regulators and even if it's found to be completely legal, they should force the website to change anyways because they "don't like what you're doing here." AKA, government corruption weaponized to suppress free speech. The only flaw he sees in this is it potentially being applied similarly to himself. What a brilliant mind.

He's still doing a weekly call-in show, but it's an atrociously impossible slog to get through, so there will probably never be clips of it outside his Youtube channel. To give you an idea, the latest episode began with a 30~ minute rant reflecting on how a recent interview he held ended terribly when he sperged out over their use of the phrase "good woman" and whether or not it's a "progressive" phrase. His conclusion is that you can't productively talk to someone if you lack a meta-agreement about your textual disagreement. Truly inspiring intellectual inquiry is occurring here.
 
Considering what he's admitted to doing and what he's filmed himself doing to her, I'm surprised it lasted this long. He brags about screaming at her over the most insignificant bullshit under the guise of "empathy." None of his fabled projects have come to fruition for years now, so they've gotta be running out of funds.

Wonder how much she's going to tell the public about their relationship. I doubt it, but who knows.
 
1. He talks like a faggot.
2. He also talks like a pedophile.
3. It's really creepy he decided to put some random drone video at the end of this with both of them together.
4. I hope he gets hit by a bus.

I think that mostly covers it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom