Globe and Mail article by Tu Thanh Ha on Stefan Molyneux

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

Patience wrote:

Stewart wrote:

And, of course, all of this information is already publicly available. It's just that it's now more visible than before to a wider audience. If Tom was actually worried about people knowing that he's attracted to members of the same sex, the of course he would not have posted about it on a public web forum, or would not have spoken about it on the audio of a freely-downloadable podcast series.

He's had another conference call with Stef in the last few hours. It's bound to become another podcast.

I think Molyneux is really starting to plunge off the deep end on this. The Guardian article was hurtful to him, but the Globe and Mail was many times worse. It was probably on the doorstep of all his neighbors, Christina's clients, et. al. For the very first time, he's having to deal with a world where all of his activities are right out in the open.

If he were truly a philosopher focused on ethics and truth, he'd be able to rise above it. But he's not, of course. My guess is that we haven't yet seen the fullness of his narcissistic rage and he will make this uglier--with more personal attacks--before it gets better.

Something seems different now, however. For all his sputtering and fury it is clear that the dam is burst and the number of people who see him for what he is are now far, far greater than members of this "hate" forum and a "few parents" suffering in silence. Until he realizes that, his responses will not simply be ineffectual, but actually more evidence in the case against him.

_________________
-Q.E.

wilheldp · Number of posts: 191 Registration date: 2007-10-12

I agree, QuestEon. The fact that site registration is now highly restricted at FDR, and that the threads linked in the recent article have been moved to the Premium Forums, is starting to show a whole new level of damage control. MSM and LiMi are being cast at scapegoats or straw men in order to distract the paying membership from the fact that they are members of a full-fledged cult. I find it interesting how readily Stef met the MSM with open arms, and how quick he is to dismiss their findings.

There is one particularly hilarious comment in the FDR thread about the Globe and Mail article...

Quote:

The little bit of the interview that was actually used was taken completely out of context. He actually seemed like a reasonable guy in the interview, but I guess the kind of article he wrote is exactly what will get the most hits. Sad

So I'm guessing that Stef has never taken anything out of context to be used against the members of a web-based forum. Oh wait, he did EXACTLY that in his LiMi bashing piece.

_________________
I philosophize, therefore I evangelize

Conrad

but what was even taken out of context or misrepresented in the G&M article? What examples have they (the FDR'ers) given of this?

anyway, the recent coverage of Stef finally officially qualifies him for his own Wikipedia page

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

wilheldp wrote:

... I find it interesting how readily Stef met the MSM with open arms, and how quick he is to dismiss their findings...

That's a recurring theme with Stefan. Once bitten, twice shy. He did the same with Danny, and some other intellectual types interested in his work on YouTube, but once they got a good long look at him and didn't exactly like what they saw, suddenly they, not he and his philosophy, weren't worth the time of day.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

reddeerrick · Number of posts: 431 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Registration date: 2007-10-17

wilheldp wrote:

I find it interesting how readily Stef met the MSM with open arms, and how quick he is to dismiss their findings.

I'm not so sure he really meets the MSM with open arms, although he would like people to think that he does. Listening to the recording of his conversation with the G&M reporter, he seems to me clearly out of his element when talking to someone who has the power usually reserved for himself i.e. access to a larger audience, and ability to frame the issue without further input.

I mean... "Caribou technologies is a very Canadian name" , "FDR is a Canadian success story" , " U of T is a pretty mainstream school"?? WTF?!

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Well the thing is, as Stefan himself has pointed out on occasion, philosophy is a dialogue. If someone comes to the table wanting to present his ideas and hear everyone else's, that's wonderful and exciting. But if someone plops their theory on the table and just sort of walks away, people might take a few sniffs, and if the idea doesn't seem to work, there's nothing more that can really be done with it.

I mean, I wrote up a critique in which I made the argument that Stefan's theory is simply broken. No one, including Stefan, has attempted to refute it, or even to respond to it constructively. If there was any doubt before about whether Stefan had seen the critique, it should be resolved by now (to be read, "I sent it to him myself in an e-mail that he responded to"). So what more can I be expected to want to do? I assume others have probably had similar reactions.

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

Danny Shahar wrote:

I mean, I wrote up a critique in which I made the argument that Stefan's theory is simply broken. No one, including Stefan, has attempted to refute it...

What? I thought his refutation was brilliant:

You served up a typo-hunt as a formal critique.
You lacked the vision to understand you were holding something as world-shaping as the theory of evolution in your hands.
Oh, and by the way, all academic philosophers are time-wasting naval gazers

.
You got to admit, there aren't many who can pull off a refutation like that with a straight face.

_________________
-Q.E.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Well the thing is, Stefan said that he had only read the early parts of my project, and if that had been the critique I was talking about, that response would not be entirely unfair. However, I've written a more poignant critique which he has now seen, and he has not yet responded to it in any way I've been made aware of.

Admin · Admin Number of posts: 131 Registration date: 2007-07-21

Danny Shahar wrote:

Well the thing is, Stefan said that he had only read the early parts of my project, and if that had been the critique I was talking about, that response would not be entirely unfair. However, I've written a more poignant critique which he has now seen, and he has not yet responded to it in any way I've been made aware of.

that's because you're a young whippersnapper who was only nitpicking and criticising metaphors Stef used which is akin to criticizing Einstein for the font he used in his revolutionary papers (yes, Stef said this), and you're condescending and Stef thinks only people like Aristotle or Rand have the right to be condescending to him.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

*sigh* I suppose...

(ouch! those are scabs! Razz

)

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

reddeerrick wrote:

I mean... "Caribou technologies is a very Canadian name" , "FDR is a Canadian success story" , " U of T is a pretty mainstream school"?? WTF?!

I believe Stef thought he could coach Mr. Ha by planting Canadian seeds and slant the article as a Canadian success story.
(kinda like he does on his defoo podcasts etc.)
I thought it was funny how they critiqued Mr. Ha for being pleasant. As if to say his tone or demeanor would reflect his investigative abilities.

reddeerrick · Number of posts: 431 Location: Red Deer, Alberta Registration date: 2007-10-17

They seem pissed off that Ha didn't just repeat what Stefan told him.

_________________

http://tails-dx.deviantart.com/gallery/
My daughters art. =3

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

reddeerrick wrote:

They seem pissed off that Ha didn't just repeat what Stefan told him.

My respek to Mr. Ha!

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

Danny Shahar wrote:

Well the thing is, Stefan said that he had only read the early parts of my project, and if that had been the critique I was talking about, that response would not be entirely unfair. However, I've written a more poignant critique which he has now seen, and he has not yet responded to it in any way I've been made aware of.

What could he possibly say? I'm going out on an intellectual limb (or flagpole, I guess) where I have no right to be but I don't know how he could respond to your final critique.

The last point you make in your critique--that Molyneux never gives (and cannot give in the context of UPB) a reason why one would want to be moral, collapses his entire treatise into nothing more than web-spinning around his "there are no unchosen positive obligations" line. He should have left it at that. I've made it through the book a couple of times now and while I (or perhaps because I) lack your depth of insight, I'm not coming away with anything more than that.

I don't know what was in his head when he started his first draft for UPB, although the idea had clearly been bubbling around for some time. I personally believe that a major goal for Molyneuxism in general and UPB in particular is to be "top-to-bottom" a counterpoint for a religious world-view. He says he is in a philosophic pursuit of truth. But I believe he is simply competing with religiosity. In the end, UPB is nothing like a grandiose vision. It's simply yet another test for moral statements and a broken one at that.

My theory that he is driven primarily by a competition with religiosity is why I often make associations between elements such as his definition of forgiveness compared to the Christian one, the bible compared to UPB, etc. But despite the grandiose claims for UPB, all I see in it is "Here's why you can't tell me to do this" and "here's why you can't tell me to do that" all couched in whatever philosophical rhetoric he's managed to cobble together over the years.

I'd love to see his response, if he ever manages one. But I'm not holding my breath.

_________________
-Q.E.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

I guess I'd like to see him try to develop his ideas in a way that responded to my objections, even if that meant changing some elements in his account. I've been really wrong about a whole lot of things I've believed in the past, and I'm sure I'm still wrong about a lot of stuff. The point is not to insist that your ideas are right in the face of all objections; the point is to take criticism in stride and to adjust your views when you find them to be untenable. For better or worse, Stefan's voice is one that a lot of people listen to; he has like a million times more influence than me, for example. So it would be great to see him engaging with the rest of the philosophical community and participating in an honest and open discussion about libertarian ethics and ideas. I guess that's all the response I would want.