Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's ..

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

note: to avoid categorical dehuminization some names have been changed.

Dr. Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

As human beings we should feel responsibility toward others, especially when these others are young adults in identity crisis and vulnerable. What Mr. Molyneux does is to feel opportunity at every vulnerability, opportunity to profit from the vulnerabilities of the people who are seeking a way to their emancipation in a dificult personal context (sometimes pathological). This is called predation. To my knowledge, Mr Molyneux does not hold a degree in Philosophy. Philosophy is not just words, Philosophy is rigourous thinking combined with an ethical methodology, Mr. Molyneux has neither, he doesn't even have doubt. Philosophy could not exist without doubt.

Stef wrote:

Clearly, you have no doubts about me.

Dr. Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

Mr. Molyneux,

My judgement is based on what is available on this site and your role in inciting young adults to cut ties with their families.

And on this I have little doubt.

If your goal is to set people free from unwanted relationships so why call your enterprise defoo (foo for 'family of origin'). The very name of this whole mascarade suggests that in order to emancipate, young adult should choose another family than their family of origin. This is not emancipation, this is subjugation. True emancipation is when young adults are able to define themselves differently from their families, not against, and definitely not in another family like your virtual one. Self defining is not true when it is set against something or someone, it is not true either when it is directed from the outside like you do. It should be only a personal matter done with personal resources and conducted in a positive spirit, not in a spirit of self victimisation.

You are not helping these young adults who defoo, you are robbing them of their true adulthood and emancipation which is the most creative process in an entire adult life.

So, yes, I have little doubt about what you do.

Stef wrote:

Well, perhaps you can tell me where I have said that the only path to freedom is through cutting ties with one's family of origin? I would very much like to correct such an egregious misstatement. I am also confused as to why I would applaud those who do manage to improve relations with their parents.

If you could provide a link or reference to back up your certain knowledge, I would really appreciate your kindness. Thanks! Smile

Cult member #1 to Dr. Sonia wrote:

Ignoring your baseless assertions about Stef, perhaps you should direct your efforts to greater concerns based on the same principles by which you concern yourself with Stef. Talk with priests and politicians first, their manipulation of people who want answers to get their money is of a much more widespread, violent and exploitive scale

DW2 wrote:

So wait a minute...

Are you saying to Sonia Mansour Robaey that she should concern herself first with the people who manipulate for money those people looking for answers on a large scale before she criticizes people manipulating others for money on a small scale? If you only manipulate a few people for money it's OK?

Besides, maybe she has already criticized those people.

Cult member#2 wrote:

Stefan Molyneux wrote:

I am also confused as to why I would applaud those who do manage to improve relations with their parents.

Typo correction: why Stef wouldn't applaud those who manage to improve relations.

As in, why do you think that Stef would not be supportive of those people who manage to have a great relationship with their parents? If his stated goal on this site is to either improve relationships or jettison them, he must necessarily applaud either. Both are very difficult.

Dr. Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

Mr. Molyneux,

My answer is twofold:

1. Facts speak for themselves. Parents have lost children to your cult and you know it and everybody knows it by now.

2. Followers speak better for you than you do for yourself and the best example is that one of them just corrected this strange statement fo yours: ''I am also confused as to why I would applaud those who do manage to improve relations with their parents.'' You are a real cult personality because your followers are fiercely protective of you, of a person who claim to be free and independant and thinking for others.

And I finish my answer with a question: why is that you help young adults in the process of their emancipation ? Normal young adults who don't have psychological vulnerability don't need help in this process.

Cult member#3 wrote:

Dr. Sonia wrote:

Parents have lost children to your cult and you know it and everybody knows it by now."

that is absolutely right. I would also like to point out here, while we're on the subject, that literally millions of men have lost "their" wives as a result of the womens liberation movement. Apparently the "rule of thumb" was not good enough for the cultist feminists. filth.

Cult member#4 wrote:

Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

You are a real cult personality because your followers are fiercely protective of you, of a person who claim to be free and independant and thinking for others.

Okay, so by your logic anyone that "protects" someone else from baseless accusations is a follower of a cult? Looks like all of Obamas supporters and all the followers of any political party are cultists too. Everyone, by your statement, must be a cult leader/follower if they stick up for someone else, brilliant.

Cult member #3 wrote:

speaking of logic. I think it is very funny that most people automatically assume that if there are numbers preceding words, the words must contain logic. Whenever somone's logic is compromised they start numbering their baseless assertions.

Cult member #2 wrote:

Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

2. Followers speak better for you than you do for yourself and the best example is that one of them just corrected this strange statement fo yours

So... I'm a cult member because I corrected a typo?! Wow! Then so is every editor in the world.

Let me correct one of your typos:

strange statement fo yours

Should be "strange statement OF yours" sweetheart.

LEIK OMZ! I'm now in YOUR cult, too!

All hail (sieg heil, sieg heil!!) Sonia!

Dr. Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

In no way you can compare relationships in a marriage to a relationship between parents and children.

Stef wrote:

I am sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting here. I don't think that you have any real understanding of philosophy or psychology, because making statements and accusations without any proof whatsoever is not productive to a positive conversation.

I wish you the best

Dr. Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

Logic is not about numbers, just for your knowledge

Cult member #3 wrote:

I was pointing that out for your knowledge.

Cult member Pc #5 wrote:

:wow, that was not a commercial for academia. I wonder what makes people storm in with a bunch of unfounded accusations and an attitude. It was defenitely something personal.

DW2 wrote:

You mean like in this thread? Every single bullet point contains numbers.

stef wrote:

* Over the course of FDR, we have had about 50,000 fairly consistent listeners.
* That generally means potentially 100,000 parents.
* If we take that down by 10%, because of death, say, we end up with perhaps 90,000 parents.
* I can think of about 20 deFOOs - perhaps there are more, but I can't say for sure.
* Each deFOO affects say 2 parents.
* Thus 40 parents out of 90,000 parents have been affected by family separation - or 0.044%.
* This represents one out of 2,250 parents.
* Interestingly, sociopaths apparently comprise 4% of the population.
* Out of 90,000 parents, this would mean 3,600 sociopathic parents.
* If we assume that separating from a truly sociopathic parent would be emotionally advantageous, then we are far below the average, since only 40 parents have been affected out of 3,600 - or 1.11% of sociopathic parents.

The first four responses to the original post were people assuming that the numbers accurately described the group of listeners. They automatically assumed that the numbers represented data.

And no, I'm not completely nuts--I'm just reacting to things that other people say on this board, in the threads that they say them. But it look like I've been trolling, and I didn't mean to come trolling, and I didn't join to troll, and I don't want to be one, so I'll stop posting.

Sorry.

hmmm (Dr. Sonia = deactivated user account) it continues.

superkamo · Number of posts: 51 Registration date: 2008-10-28

Stefan Molyneux says, ''I am also confused as to why I would applaud those who do manage to improve relations with their parents.'' I absolutely love this mans little freudian slips. Absolutely priceless, Hey Stefan I think I know why your confused, because you have absolutely no empathy for any parents! And the only reason your applauding is make your self look SANE!

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

xelent wrote:

Indeed this conversation is vital to the future wellbeing of mankind and its children.

Hmmmm... sounds familiar. Where was it I heard something like that before...

L. Ron Hubbard wrote:

In all the broad Universe there is no other hope for Man than ourselves.

(referring to $cientology, not mankind in general)

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Quote of the day: Philosophy could not exist without doubt.

The Don't waste my time til I waste yours tactic: If you could provide a link or reference to back up your certain knowledge, I would really appreciate your kindness.
Hypocrisy in action: I don't think that you have any real understanding of philosophy or psychology, because making statements and accusations without any proof whatsoever is not productive to a positive conversation.
Stupid is as stupid does: that literally millions of men have lost "their" wives as a result of the womens liberation movement. Apparently the "rule of thumb" was not good enough for the cultist feminists. filth.

and for superkamo:
Freudian slip of the day: ''I am also confused as to why I would applaud those who do manage to improve relations with their parents.'' [b]

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:01 pm

hey Dr. Sonia,

I read that you have a PhD in philosophy. Cool! And that one of your specializations is philosophy of mind/AI/cognitive science. Cool once more.

One of my fav all time books is

the Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience: it gives a Wittgensteinian perspective. Couple of years ago I did quite a bit of research in this area (not at PhD level though, BA&MA)

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:09 pm

btw, I think the argument on both sides in the thread mentioned above weren't of a very high quality. And -gasp!- Stef was right to say 'Well, perhaps you can tell me where I have said that the only path to freedom is through cutting ties with one's family of origin? I would very much like to correct such an egregious misstatement.'
I mean, indeed, that is not what he has said. it tends to be his prefered solution but it is not necessarily or always.

And so you'd need to be more precise in your accusation and then be able to back it up fully. Problem is that with stuff like this, that will take quite a lot of time and energy.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

The failure of the Stef-bot's priority argument was deafening.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Free Radical · Number of posts: 170 Registration date: 2007-09-27

Welcome Sonia. I'll add you to the FDR Excommunicated google map soon. (See the link in my signature.)

_________________
Links:
Freedomainers Cult (Excommunicated) Google Map!
MolyneuxCultWatch

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

has anyone seen Conrad?

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:34 pm

damn you and your vile sarcasm... ;-)

seriously though, what part of what I said do you disagree with? and why?

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Conrad wrote:

btw, I think the argument on both sides in the thread mentioned above weren't of a very high quality. And -gasp!- Stef was right to say 'Well, perhaps you can tell me where I have said that the only path to freedom is through cutting ties with one's family of origin? I would very much like to correct such an egregious misstatement.'
I mean, indeed, that is not what he has said. it tends to be his prefered solution but it is not necessarily or always.

Umm, maybe. If your parents are atheist AnCaps who spend all day apologizing to their kids for everything, you might not have to defoo. What parents could he possibly accept beyond that?

_________________
-Q.E.

superkamo · Number of posts: 51 Registration date: 2008-10-28

Here is Sonia's Blog she mentions her banning at FDR and says she may go into further detail about what happened.
http://naturalminds.blogspot.com/2008/11/i-have-been-signed-out-from-free-domain.html

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:45 pm

QuestEon wrote:

Conrad wrote:

btw, I think the argument on both sides in the thread mentioned above weren't of a very high quality. And -gasp!- Stef was right to say 'Well, perhaps you can tell me where I have said that the only path to freedom is through cutting ties with one's family of origin? I would very much like to correct such an egregious misstatement.'
I mean, indeed, that is not what he has said. it tends to be his prefered solution but it is not necessarily or always.

Umm, maybe. If your parents are atheist AnCaps who spend all day apologizing to their kids for everything, you might not have to defoo. What parents could he possibly accept beyond that?

I think the parents of Nash and Graeme are down with FDR and were in podcasts with Stef. I don't know if they have 'converted' to anarcho-capitalism and atheism though.

Again, I think it only weakens 'the case against the Stef' to exaggerate what he says. There is plenty to criticise him for without having to do that, even and especially re his views on and treatment of a lot of/the great majority of parents.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Conrad wrote:

damn you and your vile sarcasm... ;-)

seriously though, what part of what I said do you disagree with? and why?

She did not say in quotes he said that. He surmised from what she had to say that, that is what she was getting at. He asked if perhaps she could tell him where he did say what it is he thought she was saying. (unless of course I missed it). So he was sending her on a hunt for those words. Not examples of the number of times he has counseled to defoo.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:57 pm

ExyPhylo wrote:

Conrad wrote:

damn you and your vile sarcasm... ;-)

seriously though, what part of what I said do you disagree with? and why?

She did not say in quotes he said that. He surmised from what she had to say that, that is what she was getting at. He asked if perhaps she could tell him where he did say what it is he thought she was saying. (unless of course I missed it).

damn, you're right. She never said that. Stef created a strawman and then asked her to defend that strawman.

Quote:

So he was sending her on a hunt for those words.

yeah, that's often what he does. Likely because he knows it is just too much work to find the quotes in 1200+ podcasts etc. Although it should also be said that had she actually said this then there is *some* justification in Stef's asking her to back it up.