Possible new LiMi member

Conrad · Subject: Re: Possible new LiMi member Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:16 pm

Dylboz wrote:

The silence in that thread is deafening...

and why for fuck's sake doesnt nobody call Stef or other FDR'ers on that? why are they not responding to such a simple and important question. wtf do they have to hide? they truly are like parents confronted with their child asking 'Daddy, what is 'good'?'

Conrad · Subject: Re: Possible new LiMi member Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:20 pm

Dylboz wrote:

Stefan seems incapable of admiting being wrong, and in the case of the 920, USING MORALITY AS A WEAPON. The FDRers so want to be good in Stef's eyes, and he knows it, so if he can twist UPB to make them HAVE to but t-shirts, the guilt will do the rest. Anybody ever hear about something like that? Has anybody ever suggested that that might be immoral? Just wondering...

and he is helped, just like parents are, by the 'null zone' that UPB is in in this regard: the theory and especially the book is just confusing and confused which of course is excellent because then you can use the 'principles' at will, especially if you can add some authority and intimidation to the mix.

seriously, how on earth can he (and they) get away with this?

I betcha that if Stef slaughters and eats an innocent puppy right before the FDR'ers eyes, they will probably say something like 'Ah, the puppy had it coming' or just pretend not to notice...

NonEntity · Number of posts: 2598 Registration date: 2007-11-08

Well, he WAS a puppy, after all! Now, if it had been a KITTEN, NOW you're talkin' some serious whoopass! ;-)

- NonE

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

Conrad wrote:

Dylboz wrote:

It's pretty pathetic how self-effacing you have to be to say anything to Stef...

"I'm so wrong!"
"Tell me where I'm wrong..."
"I'm no expert."
"Crazy and wild guess..."

Bullshit, that's exactly what he sees. Why all that mess? Intimidation from the most moral of philosophers? NO!

yeah, it's hard to think of anybody who gets approached with more praise, modety, self-criticism, pre-emptive guilt, apologizing etc. than Stef is (because everybody knows that if you dont go through these motions chances of Stef responding to your point rather than to your tone are about zero) but still, it somehow is not enough yet...

WOW! Just look at the irony at the start of the call in show. Stef reads a "very nice" & "good" review of On Truth.

It is rare to encounter an argument without an apology. Most people when espousing their beliefs, especially if they are controversial, will qualify their points with a haze of "in my opinion's," "though you may all disagree's," and "this doesn't apply to everyone but." Any unique or useful principle that they come close to sharing is dashed on the rocks of uncertainty and self-effacement. But when a speaker or writer ignores these frivolities his audience is left with no way out; no choice but to listen and reason for themselves, because for once the author has refused to nail his own coffin. It is mainly for this reason that On Truth is both so refreshing, and so difficult to read. At the beginning of his book SM warns the reader of what awaits him; that this book will mess up your life as you know it. And though this may first seem a dramatic or arrogant statement, he is right to warn us, and we are right to be afraid.

I wonder whether if, deep down, these self-effacing posters basically know that cultishstew is afraid of them?

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

fourvoicechord · Number of posts: 51 Registration date: 2007-09-22

Conrad wrote:

forgive me an inappropriate and awful joke.

Suppose somebody who knows nothing about FDR sees Greg or James walking by wearing the FDR T-shirts. Both Greg and James are in the 300 pounds category (nothing necessarily wrong with that) and their T-shirt says: 'I took the red pill'. A natural response would be: 'I think you took more than just one...'

According to Stef farao

you can't be a philosopher if you are fat. Maybe buying the t-shirt and/or cap exempts you from this rule???

Scott flower

fourvoicechord · Number of posts: 51 Registration date: 2007-09-22

[quote="Free Radical]

I wonder whether if, deep down, these self-effacing posters basically know that cultishstew is afraid of them?[/quote]

That could be.... Another question is if deep down these self-effacing posters know that they are afraid of stef farao

?

Scott

mike barskey · Subject: Re: Possible new LiMi member Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:58 am

Dylboz wrote:

Stefan seems incapable of admiting being wrong, and in the case of the 920, USING MORALITY AS A WEAPON. The FDRers so want to be good in Stef's eyes, and he knows it, so if he can twist UPB to make them HAVE to but t-shirts, the guilt will do the rest. Anybody ever hear about something like that? Has anybody ever suggested that that might be immoral? Just wondering...

I could think of only one example of Stef admitting being wrong, and it was of a trivial matter - nothing of principle. Conrad also thought of one trivial example. No one else responded, which doesn't mean that no one else could think of an example, but it's a good hint. Smile

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

fourvoicechord wrote:

Conrad wrote:

forgive me an inappropriate and awful joke.

Suppose somebody who knows nothing about FDR sees Greg or James walking by wearing the FDR T-shirts. Both Greg and James are in the 300 pounds category (nothing necessarily wrong with that) and their T-shirt says: 'I took the red pill'. A natural response would be: 'I think you took more than just one...'

According to Stef farao

you can't be a philosopher if you are fat. Maybe buying the t-shirt and/or cap exempts you from this rule???

Scott flower

Dude, those were M&M's, not "pills."