Now that the dust has settled, who was in the wrong here?

Rousseau was a motherfucker. Abandoned his children, thought he was persecuted all his life like a diva.
And last but not least, he introduced one of the worst ideas of all time: The myth of the noble savage.
This idea is responsible for most of our demise and extreme leftism.

I meant Voltaire was rich, which is why he hated Rousseau's Second Discourse

jesus wtf

Both were faggots

>when you're so manly that feminine men are women to you too

>This idea is responsible for most of our demise and extreme leftism.
Wrong. The leftist urbanite bugman couldn't be farther from the natural man.

I mean, Voltaire was arguably a much better trap than Rousseau

>not wanting free speech
Cuck
>anti-clericalism bad
Hate of religion has gone way too far in recent times but Voltaire lived at a time when religious institutions committed great crimes

my bad, i read the question wrong.

But you could chain up Rousseau and make him tell you you own his privates.

Free speech is a meme with no basis in any of the great religious traditions.

I didnt say it was bad, just the way he did, exercising it for the sake of being able to and not to elevate human condition by producing subkime thought was fucking cancer.
But Candide was a very pleasing read.

Retard, you don’t understand the way that ‘the noble savage’ idea has influenced leftism, it’s part of the reason that people now see civilising empires as evil

That’s fair enough then, he could be pretty preachy
Needing religious traditions to support your philosophy is intellectually lazy
>I don’t need free speech because this book written hundreds of years ago to keep a society which no longer exists in line doesn’t mention it
Pretty cucked

Rousseau did not believe in the noble savage. He was simply critiquing Hobbes.

Why would you "need" free speech? That's not the point. It's inherently wrong.

no, he died like a dog. that was his reward!

You don’t ‘need’ anything to stay alive apart from food, water, sleep, and shelter from harsh conditions. Not ‘needing’ something doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have it, we don’t ‘need’ agriculture or metalwork but they make life better
How is anything inherently wrong?

>He doesn't believe in objective morality.

Attached: 729.gif (340x340, 137K)

I find your post pretty objective.

>civilising empires as evil
they are indeed

>why yes, I believe in objective morality, how could you tell?

Attached: 86076EF2-F811-4E6B-AD6A-44D9B0845564.jpg (800x450, 44K)

t. degenerate who died young

Yeah Central America was way better off with institutionalised ritualistic human sacrifice

Why is murder wrong?

They didn't just rip people out of their homes and sacrifice them you retard. It was voluntary, and the sacrifices were treated as celebrities.

more like murdered young.

praise be unto the spanish for erradicating this barabarian institution by genociding the entire continent, indeed

I don’t understand how this stops it being barbaric

How is it barbaric in the first place?

>This idea is responsible for most of our demise and extreme leftism.
what the fuck rousseau sounds based

>explain how the ritual murder of people is barbaric
You are a danger to those around you my man.

We simply don't share the same presuppositions, and that upsets you.

Diderot >