|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Jean-François Gariépy
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
Links[edit]
- Gariepy discusses his relationship with a mentally challenged girl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUK8x7MNZUQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4540
- Gariepy court documents about his relationship with a mentally challenged girl http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=f62ad865-d5f7-40c5-b7c9-f0d0ef5ba404&coa=coa09&DT=Brief&MediaID=cf3c652a-64d7-4ad7-a87b-30474651e634 especially https://twitter.com/HonoredSpirit/status/946908509844725762 and https://twitter.com/DamianFour/status/946808040694706178
- Gariepy claiming that the above was part of preventing white genocide https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/946963671938367488
- Gariepy discusses pedophilia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrtQ5pPkHRQ
- Gariepy discusses the death of his beloved French-Canadian ethnostate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F663p9sxprg&feature=youtu.be&t=1h44m13s
- Gariepy discusses the idea of an ethnostate: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSJoWYUXcAEUXOa.jpg
- Gariepy apparently claiming that Twitch streamer Destiny is Jewish: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSQpwLZXcAEs8b7.jpg and https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSQuzfHXUAApH7j.jpg
Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 06:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
A really dumb math quote[edit]
“”10 + 10 + 10 + 50 + 5 + 2 = 100
|
| —Jean-François Gariépy, PhD (Twitter) |
(it doesn't)
FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Gariépy likes ass?[edit]
“”ASS, ASS is what I've always been interested in, although tits I have grown to appreciate
|
| —Jean-François Gariépy |
So what? I like ass. Let's go make a RationalWiki page about my ass loving.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara 
(talk • stalk) 03:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- lol it's relevant to his porn shit Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 05:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Demodding the female mod[edit]
I'm unmodding [the sole "confirmed woman" moderator] @Charxoxo 💕 due to general unpreditability [sic] and womenness [sic] within the last few days. No disrespect Char, I love you as an individual, but I don't like some of your actions as a mod and representant [sic] of the server. Much love and I hope you stay among us as the wonderful person that you are.[1]
loool. he later undid it [2] but "womenness" is just hilarious.
The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 05:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Additional links[edit]
https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/538502039654828 https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/455403391298027
https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/search-results.php?sDocketSearch=17-1175&exact=1 https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=216949 https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=216950 https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=218774 https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=219075
FuzzyCatPotato of the Tescular Street signs (talk/stalk) 06:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
JF genuinely seems to think that "making babies" is the highest moral good[edit]
https://youtu.be/XvfoQQP7hFo?t=464
Ask Yourself: Secondly, you were saying that veganism actually hurts animals, and in your response video to me, you actually went so far as to say that it would cause an animal holocaust if everybody went vegan. Uh, so, you don't think that there's such a thing as maybe an animal sanctuary or reintroduction to the wild over time, you don't see those things as possible?
JF: I mean, I think it's a possibility, but the sad thing is, this would be such a restricted number, we could argue, that it's at least a partial holocaust, because you're gonna not, you're not gonna have as much chicken, if everyone is vegan, and you just keep chicken in some form of sanctuary. So, to me, whether we are talking about full holocaust or partial holocaust, my moral argument remains the same: they have the right to exist, and the number of chicken that currently exist has the right to exist, and has the right to produce babies, and to continue exploiting humans in their domination of the planet.
[meaningless chitchat about getting the stream live]
Ask Yourself: With it being a partial holocaust, I mean, I, I think that's kind of a weird way to put it, like, it seems like you're saying that just having the optimal num – like, the highest possible number of a species existing, that that would actually be the moral good, am I wrong to assume to that's your position? Because otherwise, I don't see how – unless you're saying that, then why does it matter if there's less of them, if the well-being is higher. And another way to look at this, you probably know, I forget what the problem is, maybe it's Derrick Parfit, but there's a basic moral problem and it looks at, if you're concerned with well-being you could have hypothetical world 1 and 2, and in world 1, there's less people but those people have a higher standard of well-being, and then in world 2, there is more people, so there's more of them alive, and the net well-being, if you were to add all of their well-being together, is higher, but since the well-being is spread among so many people, the individual is experiencing a terrible quality of life. So unless in that kind of situation you'd actually argue for the world where we have trillions and trillions of people, and everyone's living in just abject shit condition, then I don't see why exactly you would say that we need to have the optimal amount of animals as opposed to – or sorry, the highest amount of animals as opposed to the highest amount of animals we can have while they're having a decent standard of life?
JF: Yeah, so my argument is not about the number, because if we were talking about the species number maximization or animal numbers maximization, I mean, I would engage in some weird behavior, like trying to create many species, many different species of chickens, just for the fun of increasing the number, so that's not really the argument –
Ask Yourself: But the reason I'm saying that is because, when you respond to me and you say veganism would produce a holocaust, veganism doesn't involve actually killing any animals, right? So presumably you're talking about less animals existing, and that being the problem, that being equivalent to a holocaust, so that's why I'm going to the numbers.
JF: Yeah, but here's the subtlety, it's almost the number, but it's not the number, the subtlety is, I object to, um, intervening on lines of descent, because I believe that every chicken that is alive today should have a shot at making babies.
Ask Yourself: Sorry, JF, I don't know what you meant right there. Intervening on "lines of descent", like lines of ancestral descent?
JF: Absolutely, I opposed to, I opposed to, trying to block living things from having lives of ancestral descent.
Ask Yourself: Okay, okay, got you.
JF: And so, when I care about – when I say that the, that full veganism or partly veganism society would lead to a partial or full holocaust, my worry is that, there are chicken that are currently alive, that are currently engaging in potential interaction with human, where they could lead to living descendant, they could participate to the future of animal diversity on Earth, and if we were to restrict the farm industry, and to make it, I don't know, 5% as big as it is right now, or 50% as it is right now, we would be interfering with the free reproduction of a series of animals, a certain part of the chicken population that could otherwise have lead to viable descent.
Ask Yourself: Okay, wait, there's a few problems there. If it's gonna be like, the self-determination of the chickens, we're the one's breeding them. It's not chickens breeding with each other, it's humans breeding the chickens.
JF: Well, the way I see it, the chicken are breeding humans.
Ask Yourself: Okay, that does not make sense.
JF: The chickens, the chicken are, are lending us their, their meat at the end of their life, so they manipulate humans into –
Ask Yourself: JF, I can't get on board with that word, "lending", they're having their meat forcibly taken from them and their lives forcibly ended. They're not lending it to us.
JF: Well, there's no evidence that they, they morally opposed to that happening.
Ask Yourself: Well they are cert– I don't know what you mean by m–} when you say morally, it implies that they are having conscious moral thoughts, like humans do, and it's not that kind of objection, it's more like a visceral gut reaction, like if you go and try to stab a chicken, the chicken will run away, the chicken doesn't want to be killed.
JF: Yeah, but he is not as convinced as I would say, a deer, or a rabbit, he's kind of, accepting the fact that his head will be cut, of course he might have some reactions, but he's not showing as much emotion as a deer would.
Ask Yourself: I mean, JF, what do you think would happen if you actually went up to a chicken and just tried to kill it? I mean, it would resist that pretty forcefully.
[meaningless chitchat about laughing at each other]
JF: So yeah, I do not deny that they have reactions, that they are trying to stay alive, that's their goal, but the fact is that even if they die at a certain point in their life, humans have taken all of the care that they need to, to take, so that some descendants of some chickens do make it to the next generation, so we are participating to the maintenence of the lines of descent of chicken in the world. Would you agree that we offer our services to the successful reproduction of chicken?
Ask Yourself: Well, I mean, we offer the service of globally holocausting animals forever, and keeping their descendants alive by that method, but I don't think just your descendants living is a measure of moral goodness. I mean, it's a factor, but it seems to me pretty obvious that the quality of life of the being is important.
JF: Well, it's a factor that I would be willing to take into consideration, that's why I always support stuff like free-running chickens, and animals that are killed in ways that minimize suffering. So that's something that I don't deny that I prefer personally. I would not like to be engaged in directly causing animal suffering, and if I have a chance to limit it I would, but I am arguing more from the perspective of, should we totally give up the animal industry, and should we eliminate the number of animals and the number of lines of descent that we can have in the world, and that we know is sustainable in the world. I don't know, what's your argument on that part?
At least this explains the mentality behind his "white genocide" angle -- if it's a "holocaust" to stop breeding as many animals as we do now, then it must also be a "holocaust" for whites to stop breeding as many children as they did before. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
/pol/[edit]
I just noticed Hannah Hays Responds to /pol/ | TPS #116 from August 21 and was wondering if he has referred to this board in any previous episodes. Ty (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Found this good video making fun of him[edit]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtR3Zq6oa1Y — Unsigned, by: 108.26.36.33 / talk / contribs
Strawman[edit]
This article states that a straw-man is not censorship because the content posted by the person is still available. This is a problem because censorship does not necessarily imply complete suppression of an opinion, the article states otherwise. Soft or partial censorship is possible and a strategy that is used on social media platforms such as reddit and twitter. The article should be edited to reflect this fact.— Unsigned, by: 75.141.100.29 / talk / contribs