Stefan's article about LiberatingMinds and me

Stewart · Number of posts: 1186 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-03

I think maybe the person you are most trying to convince about Molyneux's douchebaggery is Molyneux himself. Nearly everyone else already gets it, doesn't care about him anymore, or has no idea who he is.

Conrad

that too is a good point, although I might be trying to convince current FDR'ers more than I'm trying to convince Stef himself.

Anyhoo, apart from the anti-semite thing I have started to find it quite funny.

That's not to say I am going to continue whatever just because it can be funny. it may be best to leave the whole thing (though I'm still very interested in the Globe and Mail article). All the info about Molyneux is there for everybody to find with a Google search and many people have already found it. That's the best that can reasonably be done, I guess.

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

Dylboz wrote:

Yeah, we should turn his argument from priority around on him.

I guess you didn't hear about him taking down the KKK and all the other actually violent hate machines. Or maybe he's finally realized that when someone messes with you, it's okay to make that your top priority, and we're witnessing the death of the prioritization argument. Or maybe he's just a hypocrite. Laughing

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

Ah, I see now why he didn't post this where his board members would see it.

_________________

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

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

Conrad wrote:

dude, Kinsella read your post here and he said he never removed you from the list and that he can still see you in the membership list, so there may be a misunderstanding or technical issue

Hmmm... I was logged into gmail (so, I was also logged into Google groups), and I clicked on the links it sends me about the LF list, and it said I was no longer a member and I could not view the contents. That has never happened, but I'll try and log in again, maybe there was a technical issue, or maybe my paranoia is raging out of control. I'll take a pill and have a cocktail and try to get a grip on myself.

_________________
Please check out my blog!
Dylboznia

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

Dylboz wrote:

I'll take a pill and have a cocktail and try to get a grip on myself.

A red pill? Wink

Static4367

Stewart wrote:

I think maybe the person you are most trying to convince about Molyneux's douchebaggery is Molyneux himself. Nearly everyone else already gets it, doesn't care about him anymore, or has no idea who he is.

Stewart certainly makes some good points and we would all be well served to emotionally detach ourselves from all things FDR.

That being said, I do think having a forum that consistently recognizes and notes the hypocrisy and absurdity of Stef's positions is a good thing. This site has helped a lot of people recognize the problems with Stef's positions and his methods. It has also helped the affected family members understand what is going on with their children. The efficacy of this site is evidenced by the fact that Stef now feels the need to attack this site by outrageously taking statements out of context. If Stef was not having trouble with damage control there would be no need to take such actions now.

So perhaps we need to accept the fact that Stef will now intentionally take statements from this site out of context and convey them to third parties who might not be able to infer the context. That might mean we all have to be consistently more mature and avoid the bitching and name calling. While that might restrict some of the fun and humor, it will also make the positions expressed more respectable, and less easily attacked.

sutible4livestok

The only reason he leaves out our analysis is because of the truth in them, if he were to go with truth, what would he have left? Not much.

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

The reaction to it is cracking me up. He made a huge strategic error by writing and promoting this article. (Especially to these guys).

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=25709.0

_________________
-Q.E.

Static4367

I like how the links he provides in his articles are not actual links to this site with the full conversation and context but are actually just links to screen shots he took of only the specifically referenced post with all potential context cut out.

How blatantly misleading can be?

Conrad

I hadn't even noticed that. That is pretty damn weak.

And yeah, the responses on FTL are quite hilarious.

Xeonious · Number of posts: 197 Registration date: 2008-08-06

Static4367 wrote:

I like how the links he provides in his articles are not actual links to this site with the full conversation and context but are actually just links to screen shots he took of only the specifically referenced post with all potential context cut out.

How blatantly misleading can be?

I'm pretty sure the excuse will be "I don't want to link to their site and give them traffic" or something like that. If Stef fealt so confident of his position he would post the links to the conversation so they can see the whole context.

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

It'd be like posting a screenshot of that thing Greg did where he outlined the levels of membership in the cult, then present it as fact.

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

Stefan Molyneux wrote:

There is no point libertarianism talking about the "big ethics" until it can effectively implement the "little ethics." We cannot take a stand against the state if we are afraid to take a stand against verbal abuse...

I believe the argument from priority has just been reversed.

_________________

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

Static4367

Xeonious wrote:

Static4367 wrote:

I like how the links he provides in his articles are not actual links to this site with the full conversation and context but are actually just links to screen shots he took of only the specifically referenced post with all potential context cut out.

How blatantly misleading can be?

I'm pretty sure the excuse will be "I don't want to link to their site and give them traffic" or something like that. If Stef fealt so confident of his position he would post the links to the conversation so they can see the whole context.

I am sure Stef would make some ridiculous argument like that, but you will also notice that in some cases he screenshots multiple posts while in others he screenshots only individual posts. I can only assume that in the cases where he isolated one specific post, the immediate preceding or proceding posts would have provided context to nullify his implication.