Memeverse,

I would like to offer some basic points for your consideration:

1) Do all people who read the U.S. Constitution interpret and apply it in the same manner? If not, then why do we expect all people who read/listen to RTR to interpret and apply it in the same manner? (And yes, I have read, listened to, and studied RTR).

2) Do you have personal knowledge of all cases where people have chosen to defoo family members and friends? Do you have complete certainty in all of these cases that these people were not at the time, or ever before the time "loved ones"?

3) Do you have any emotional concern for the destruction caused by these defoo situations?

Thank you for your consideration of my questions.

Memeverse,

I as well would be interested in knowing if you are interested in a discussion concerning the commonly accepted features of cults and whether or not FDR contains those features.

Thank you.

sorry to come in late...

"in any case i think it is indicative of something that Stefan tries very hard to dehumanize the parents of people, claiming they don't love their children at all, that they use their children to vomit their feelings into, that it is they who defoo the children rather than the other way around, that the parents are monsters, the devil, that the child was created to placate the devil, and so on.
all this serves the purpose of the children no longer seeing their parents as fallible humans who may love them. And as such it makes defooing a whole lot easier"

This is the truth. I know, first hand, what defooing is like.

Here is my question, memeverse, do you have children? People you care about at all? If so, how would you feel if you were dehumanized and left to go on forever, without any contact? I can tell you, that now, having defooed and attempted to un-defoo, it is impossible to put that behind us. If you think(and I know you may not see this now) that you may ever want to undo this defoo, then don't do it in the first place. It is one thing to say "I need a break" and a totally different thing to say "never contact me again". Breaks can be nice, cordial, but no contact can be devastating for both of you.

Memeverse - Perhaps you should consider the possibility that some of the people you are addressing here are not evil attackers of fdr, but people who are attempting to pick up the pieces of lives shattered by fdr.

Thank you

^^^^^fact^^^^^

Conrad, I wont reply paragraph by paragraph because this could easily end up consuming an entire day so I'll focus on what I feel are crucial points.

Conrad wrote:

Also, you've insulted people here repeatedly so just to be sure you're not 'above' it either.

If you see those as insults than we have quite different standards for what an "insult" is which makes it harder not to insult you. No offense (I hope), but that somewhat explains your attitudes towards FDR. I am not making this as a claim of fact, but it's possible that you saw some responses to your FDR critiques as attacks even when they weren't, and responded with more negativity in your tone which resulted in you being seen as a disruptive.

It'd be a classic case of a deep misunderstanding that causes division. I think something like that occurred here which appears to be where you posted prior to your ban. It's quite obvious from this post in particular where you expressed frustration over a perceived contradiction, but contradiction never existed.

The principle you felt was violated is a one statement. The idea that it's important to target the big guys is a statement separate from that principle, and as such an opinion, meaning Stef was quite right that it's just an opinion. But you apparently didn't see that and proceeded with frustrated sarcasm ("Incredible....").

Now.. you can accuse me of "psychologizing". Go right ahead, I wont be insulted one bit since it doesn't really mean a thing.

Conrad wrote:

I don't understand this, people wait to begin by applying theory because the theory might change in the future?

No, what I meant is that more time spent debating and revising theories is usually less time experimenting or applying them. It's as simple as that. More open ended boards tend to have a lot more debating and a lot less discussion on how best to experiment or apply the theory in real life. Boards like FDR, while still having some debating, are a lot more focused on helping people internalize the theories developed and apply them.

Conrad wrote:

open discussion doesn't preclude acting at all

I agree, I wasn't saying it doesn't, just that the expense of time differs. On LiMi for instance I don't quite expect people to do an RTR process with me or have a conversation about my feelings that would help identify causes of some deep rooted issues. I would find FDR far more fitting for that and it's also nice not to be interrupted with constant disagreements on the methodology we're taking in that process because I clearly chose my method and want to go through with it, do my personal experiment. So far it worked, so I am more interested in further internalizing it than in distraction with endless debates as to its imperfections. I'll save that for later, and perhaps even come to LiMi for it.

Btw I also feel more comfortable surrounded by voluntaryists than statist libertarians. I don't justify coercion in ANY case and thus do not want to associate with people who do, even when they call themselves "libertarians" (minarchists, politically acting libertarians etc.). FDR is just about the only forum out there with a prevalent voluntaryist or anarchist attitude and I find that extremely valuable because I'm hugely disillusioned by the internal self-contradiction of minarchists, Ron Paul libertarians etc. and feel that there's a need for voluntaryists to consolidate as a stronger distinct movement.

Conrad wrote:

But when i look at the behavior and lives of people like Greg, nathan, Mr, C., Bockman and so many others, I really don't see how it has helped them.

You don't, but you're irrelevant to that. Only they can say whether it helped or not.

Conrad wrote:

Perhaps regular therapy would have been more helpful for them.

Glad you mentioned it, because I don't feel it would to me. I can bet all local therapists are statists and I don't trust statists mental paradigms which so far continue to be either ignorant towards or in denial of state coercion. If they have this kind of corruption in their minds I'm more likely to be disappointed than to grow significantly as a person. When their idea of being a "good person" probably includes some extent of conformity to the laws and regulations... No, just no.

Because of that I find a community such as FDR incredibly valuable. It actually allows me to explore the deepest facets of my self with others without feeling like an outsider because they believe I should be forced to obey certain opinions turned into state laws and I don't. It's so incredibly rare to find that sort of thing nowadays.

Conrad wrote:

and that doesn't worry you? if the ideas are invalid wouoldn't that be essential to be able to discuss?

Well first of all I remain doubtful about the extent to which it is true that dissent is not tolerated at all. I mean, yes you guys point to some cases (which I'm yet to investigate further), but nothing speaks better than personal investigation and experience. Given the value I found in FDR I'm not gonna jump to conclusions before being absolutely sure of them.

Second, if FDR isn't a place to express disagreements in some sort of a free flowing unregulated manner, yes it's a somewhat unpleasant thing, but then I have to think about what the FDR board would be if it was, see above for example. I want to stay on FDR and keep gaining the value they're generous enough to provide me with. I can keep my awareness at a level so as not to be easily manipulated even if anyone tries that and just accept the fact that for greater disagreements or at least a certain way of expressing them, I'll just have to go elsewhere to bandy them about.

This way I keep a mutually beneficial relationship with Stef, FDR crowd AND keep my questioning and reasoning ability. I don't make enemies, while gaining value, growing as a person and possibly even building a good diplomatic foundation for my future voluntaryism related projects. I'm not a person for warfare, but consolidation (through cooperation and coopetition to an extent that they're possible).

Conrad wrote:

in general, the stuff Stefan talks about in all areas (ethics, economics, psychology, philosophy of science, free will, epistemology, etc. etc.): the most brilliant minds in the world have also thought and written about these topics, have entertained, rejected, improved upon arguments that Stefan makes and given tons of other perspectives and other arguments.

Maybe so, but how many of them were voluntaryists? How many of them took their philosophies and consistently integrated them with an (a)political view? I'm certainly open to the possibility that they disproved some Molyneux theories, but let me get to that myself. I wont take your word for it because I am capable of thinking for myself and testing things in my own experience.

You have to understand I wont settle for vagueness, abstractions and big words. I also don't care how many degrees a certain philosopher has or doesn't have. They're close to meaningless to me, all they say is that they went through some sort of a structured education system that gave them certain "labels". It's ideas that matter. Nothing more. If a 16 year old kid with a barely finished high school comes up with an idea that is the most brilliant and helpful to me that I've heard I wont think less of it simply because he is 16 years old and having no degrees.

That's another thing that's so annoying.. this insistence on platitudes and labels.. meh people.. I feel I need to write you a book before you could completely understand where I'm coming from here. There is clearly a significant difference in paradigms between us.

Conrad wrote:

I get your point, though i would say there is room for control of these. E.g. the whole idea of tacit knowledge is that you getv trained to become attuned to some and not other input.

That's not direct control. I think this is just focus management. Also it can often be a result of what you feel naturally rather than a result of what you made yourself feel. If you desire a red Volkswagen Beatle you'll likely notice Volkswagen Beatles on the road far more than any other car.

Conrad wrote:

I think I agree to a significant extent, though an alternative viable approach is to say that emotions are the result of thoughts and thoughts can be controled and hence emotions can be as well

Yeah, but that's not direct control. You control your thoughts, not emotions.. emotions merely respond. However often thoughts can contradict emotions causing disorders and deterioration of integrity.

Conrad wrote:

Obviously, FDR is not anywehere near as culty as Scientology, Jonestown and other such things, but when looking at the features most often given of cults I think a lot of those apply to some extent to FDR whereas they wouldn't apply to say the Mises Institute. Same thing with saying that Stefan has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I wouldn't say that if I didnt think Stefan really fits that description to a significant extent.

Considering how serious of an accusation those are, "apply to some extent" just isn't good enough. You better be extremely sure and have some damn good and compelling proof. Otherwise I simply don't buy it.

The fact is that those who went with the accusations spouted the accusation first and much of the reasoning behind it later, trying to prove the assertion when it has already been pushed as fact.

I'm gonna at some point read more of the stuff you posted so far, but given the amount disagreement already present I doubt I'll be as easily convinced as some people. Some of the arguments I've read so far already demonstrated capacity for exaggeration, conjecture, imprecise thinking etc.

Regards