Ok, now how to go about this.....let's start with some logical evaluation of what you've said, see if there are any incorrect assertions, logical inconsistencies, that sort of thing.

> It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death.

"It is exactly what Molyneux meant by...." - here you assert that he isn't approximately saying something, he is saying it exactly, unequivocally.

"...clear the breeding arena of "crazy"... " - this is the phrase whose meaning we are discussing.

"...because,..." (here comes the proof of your assertion/belief) "...as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death."

So to clarify, you are asserting that: usage of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" unequivocally refers to (and is advocating) eugenics, because(!!!!) the phrase can mean only one thing (it is literally not possible for it to have a different meaning, regardless of the intended meaning or actual context in which it was used), and that meaning is "...the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death".

There are a number of problems with this:

> "that is the one and only thing that phrase means"

For this statement to be true, necessarily (always and everywhere, with no exceptions), then either of these must be true:

a) all phrases must have only one meaning

b) the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning

The first is obviously not true, and with a quick Google search you will discover the second is also not true.

I suppose I could also point out that in the process you've also implicitly inferred specific meanings for "clear" and "breeding arena" as well, which is part of the mechanics of how the overall incorrect conclusion was formed, but I won't belabor the point.

Therefore, one cannot say "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" is a known, indisputable fact. It appears to be pure speculation on your part.

> But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it.

Here I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you have taken for granted that Molyneux was referring to eugenics, and therefore I can choose whatever word I want, because (if I follow correctly) the fact is indisputably established/proven that his specific meaning is clear. Even though he didn't use the word eugenics (you are the one that injected it into the conversation), and the reasoning you used is not logically sound.

Unsurprisingly, there is some irony here as well. "utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it" suggests you are philosophically aware enough to realize that objective reality exists independentlt of the words we use to describe it. However, in your previous comment, you said:

> Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. Use whatever word you want for it. English speakers call it eugenics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/

Here you have completely manufactured reality (or more accurately, the model of reality in your mind). You independently and arbitrarily declared an association between "clear the gene pool of "crazy" people" and eugenics (as described in that article). But nothing in that article supports the assertion that that phrase refers to that article, and no association between that phrase and that article existed in reality, prior to our conversation. The only association that exists in reality is in your personal mental model, and now (after the fact) on this web page now that you've personally written it down. So, despite knowing that objective reality is not changed by the way we describe it, you've unknowingly (I presume) done just that. (Interestingly, now that the imaginary association you've defined here is in Google's cache, at some point in the future it may be used as in a future internet argument by someone who believes it is a fact, when in reality it is only a meme, with a factual rating of 0 or NULL, depending on how you think about such things....which would be kinda cool if you think about it.)

> Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening.

This is true, it sometimes does happen. I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here.

I'd really like to know what you think my "thesis" is. I have a feeling you would describe it as something that cannot be proven by the words I've written on the page, just as you believe you know the very specific intended meaning of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people", even though that phrase has no specific meaning, and the one you have inferred is clearly incorrect, first based on the actual words used in the 5 minute clip (he is clearly referring to the environment he is raising his daughter in), and secondly based on your non-logically sound reasoning.

To me, Stefan Molyneux' opinion on the relative merits of eugenics isn't the interesting thing in this and similar conversations. What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it.

I'd really like to understand what is going on here at a psychological level, I think it would be interesting if we could talk about it to try to figure out how this particular misunderstanding came to be. An interesting start to that would be knowing what you think my specific beliefs are on this topic, what you think my goal is in this conversation, and what you think I believe is accomplished/proven by demonstrating that your argument/assertion is incorrect (or perhaps more importantly, what conclusions others reading this may come to after reading that). I have a feeling these things have an effect on the discussion, because it changes the dynamics quite a bit.