A thought: Could it be that there are not two, but THREE types of FDRers/ex-FDRers? Those that stay, those that leave quietly, and those that leave with noise? A lot of the people on LiMi are the third... I wonder what makes us like that?

People who don't take shit from anyone without a fight? Folks who stand up and at the very least point out hypocrisy and dishonesty when the see it? I dunno...

By the way, I got the connection to Logan's Run right away. Though I've not seen it in ages, I remember it fondly as somewhat avant garde, especially for sci fi.

Tyler wrote:

My impression is that his problem, and maybe the biggest problem with the Socratic method in general, is that it's vulnerable to immodesty. When Stef goes through his "curious" routine, he's pretty obviously not honest about it. Nowhere do I get the impression that Stef actually wants to know the answer to the questions that he's asking. It's clear that he's asking them in order to expose some vulnerability in someone else's thinking. And the method is so well-understood that it amounts to little more than argumentative paternalism. Since it's not genuine curiosity, it's plainly dishonest.

I can't help but agree with you, but I'll offer a caveat of sorts. I think that true attentive curiosity looks very similar to its counterfeit (to steal one of Stef's observation about ideas, which he stole from ????).

I think the Socratic method encompasses both the truly open form, wherein the confidence is placed in the method and often cooperative spirit of uncovering the truth. Psychological counseling can be like this at the best of times. And the socratic method also encompasses the subtly dishonest (or obviously dishonest in the hands of a true amateur) method of leading an argument into a trap or two, then shutting the door.

Because of the nature of human rationalization, the latter counterfeit form is often brilliant and non-obvious to all parties. The dishonesty of rationalization permeates thought like a grey fog, and no thinker is immune at all times. But cherished moments of true rational pursuit and fog-cutting insight do help one to stop following the fog at times.

I think Tyler's Run helps point out once again that serious analyses of rationalized arguments (IE defenses of the preconceived world view) will often uncover the lie. Rationalizations are tools meant to snow the conversation in its present moment, and not to bear long scrutiny. Hence they tend to fall apart like so many cards when pushed or turned sideways.

My 2 p.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

new developments

even the people who are rightly protesting against the behavior of the FDR'ers in this thread seem to miss that Tyler was not at all being illogical, he was merely saying that there is a third possiblity:

Quote:

The most obvious "third" option (although there are surely many more) is one where my parents believe that God is perfect, etc, but where they also believe that they don't fully understand the teachings he's left them. Whether you think that's a reasonable belief or not is largely beside the point. It's plainly the case that my parents' actual beliefs, or any other religious person's that I'm aware of, cannot be accurately described by either of the possibilities you've offered. It's either a weak argument, or an unimaginative work of fiction. As I've said before, if my parents are guilty of anything, it's of not carefully examining their religious beliefs. And if it's blameworthy just to be wrong, then the best of us is surely as immoral as the least.

sorry, that was Conrad, not Zeb

and notice here how he manages to both once again for the umpteenth time manages to circumvent of Tyler's actual point (see 2 posts above) and take the moral highground. I wonder whether the sarcasm point he makes also applies to himself every time he employed sarcasm.

That point will never be addressed.
How often are questions answered there? That would be an interesting study.

well, Derrick now has Stef on his knees in a way, because when now asked 'well, wasn't that what Tyler said all along and what he got attacked for?' Stef has no recourse

I mean, this in fact is a huge concession on Stef's part: you can be a Christian without wanting unbelievers dead. I wonder how his followers will take it. Well, I don't of course, since they will just ignore it and at most briefly wonder about it in private

Quote of Stef,,,"Well, you say love your parents, and they are your best friends, but they subscribe to a belief system that wants me, my wife, my friends and most people here dead - how would you feel if we openly discussed and advocated killing the children of Christian parents here?"

OK so as pointed out they are not Christians by Stef's definition.. They do not subscribe to a belief system that wants people dead. Thus he is plainly wrong. Then goes onto a non-sequetor. Tylers parents obviously don't openly discuss and advocate killing of anyone.
There will be no apology and no banning of himself. He will not admit he attacked first, unprovoked. He will not admit he didn't just say the bible advocated killing but that Tylers parents did too by claiming to be christian.

Where is the bible in this again?

As wiki tells us.
The definition of who is a "Christian" varies among people and christian groups. Some believe that, to be a Christian, an individual must go to a church and participate in baptism. Others teach that instead a belief and acceptance in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is necessary. Some consider a Christian to be simply one who tries to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Some theologians consider a Christian to be anyone who accepts the Nicene Creed. This ancient text is accepted by Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all the remaining mainline Protestant Churches.

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants define a Christian as one who has become a member of the church through the sacrament of baptism. In these denominations, infants who are baptized may be considered Christians, although they are expected to make a personal affirmation of faith when old enough to decide for themselves.

haha! a now classic response by Stef: trying to throw sand in everybody's eyes and then bowing out by complaining about a lack of curiosity. How very very sad. Here's to double standards

ah, what must go on in that big shiny head of his...

So Stef then does say that Tyler's parents accept that unbelievers must be killed etc.? No, of course they don't, but because Stef has just bowed out of the conversation he will not respond to that point anymore. Stef was desperately seeking a small point of ambiguity/unclarity in Derrick's point, found it and then seized upon it to absolve himself. If he weren't such a happy man, I'd think he has something to hide...

I'm also pretty damn sure that i could dig up quotes of Stef using the word 'advocate' rather than 'subscirbe to' in this context. Might be a good thing for Derrick to say that 'If I can find quotes like that, what would you do?' and then Stef is, as we say in Dutch, de lul...

I wonder hoe much time Stef spent in trying to come up with his response, and what his thought and emotional processes were like during that time. Did he explicitly realize he was in trouble and started scanning the thread for ways out and relieved when he found a way? at what point did he decide he wasa gonna use the 'lack of curiosity' card (which is sort of like a trump card)? ..was he scared that somebody would call him on it? at what point did he justify his response to himself? has he made a 'flip' and now fully believes his response is definitively true and just? or is he still scared that it will land him in more trouble?

So how is that for curiosity about why you did Stef?

now have to get back to work...

Someone did call him on it, and his reaction was typically slimy. He turns it around and addresses absolutely NONE of the issues brought up by the poster, by basically calling him a hypocrite, but not refuting any of the claims nor displaying any of that vaunted curiosity about why the poster was behaving that way. AAAARGH! He's so infuriating.

And then, when someone gets so angry they just can't stand it anymore, and they have to say something, he bans them or belittles them for being "rude" and "hostile" or "sarcastic," (with a fucking smiley no less) all of which he gives himself full license to use, even making a whole podcast on the value of personal attacks. Hypocrisy elevated to high art! Do as Stef says, not as Stef does, or get the boot from the "dinner party."

I am beginning to think he is a sociopath, or at least pathologically incapable of real empathy. He does not seem to care how his listeners really feel, but rather he uses their feelings to play out this drama, to manipulate them into a position of victimhood and dependence. It is always, always about him and his enmity toward parents, as a concept really (which belies his "methodology" as well as displaying collectivist thinking, Stef is to parents what Hitler was to Jews, though he fancies himself a Rev. Dr. King to children-with whom he has almost no experience-), since he never cares to find out much about them as individuals. He will never, ever admit he's wrong or that he has made a mistake. That is the mark of a truly fragile ego... I remember being that way, when I was 19. Thankfully, I eventually grew up.