Watch Stef implode

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:47 am

Gabe wrote:

That thread frustrated me immensely. I have now realized that FDR is a total cult.

that thread was the last straw? or did other stuff happen as well?

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:53 am

Dylboz wrote:

wilheldp wrote:

okay, this was not very subtle...
Here's another one.

At least I was honest that I couldn't provide examples of where my theory has worked in the past. Stef will just keep dodging the questions.

You nailed him on that. Abstract integrity? Voting costs me almost nothing. A little bit of time, I even changed my registration online from LP to GOP so I can vote for Ron Paul. What is the point of being right if you're right in the midst of a brutal and oppressive tyrrany or the irradiated wasteland that exists after they start World War Seven or whichever one they think they're in by now? "Hey I didn't vote for the guy who pushed the button!" Good for you... Rolling Eyes

good point. I think somebody made a similar point on FDR not long ago and then stef wrote 'ah, the Gulag argument Crying or Very sad

'

i dont know, he might not like the argument but that doesnt mean it doesnt make sense

Quote:

Besides, the point dtomboy made was right. Public opinion changes, and so eventually the majority of people hold a point of view, like "slavery is wrong," or "gays should be able to get married." Then, legislators make the laws comport with that public opinion, and take credit for what was already acomplished by non-governmental means. Unfortunatley, the legislative lag time is quite long, far too long if they have vested financial interests or lobbies, like Big Pharma or Law Enforcement. If everyone refused to send their kids to school, even the NEA couldn't keep the system afloat, but I'll bet they'd be screaming for no-knock raids to haul kids off to public indoctrination, er, schools.

yeah, the probolem is to reach critical mass before they try to take such drastic measures. if critical mass is reached, they can no longer get away with it (by definition i guess)
but it's tough

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

I don't know why it's called "the Gulag argument," or why it isn't relevant. But let's go with it. What solace could starving prisoners take in their moral righteousness as they were methodically worked to death? Will Stef honestly choose to tell the prison camp denizens, "see, I told you so! We AnCap's were right all along!" over engaging the system if only to blunt it's force or shift it course away from tyranny? Can that even be defended?

If real, positive changes toward more freedom can be made, or tragicaly destructive outcomes can be averted, or the ongoing nightmare in Iraq can be ended by participating in politics, it seems morally imperative to do so, even if the system itself remains predicated on illegitimate grounds. I maintain my position that the state has no legitimate claim on me, but try as I might, I cannot opt out. I may not wish to deal with the state, but the state will never stop dealing with me. So, it is only rational to try and use whatever means are at my disposal to diminish their negative impact on myself and others.

Lastly, there is absolutely no way in the world it is consistent for Stef or anyone on FDR to claim taking government grants, guaranteed loans, or jobs at defense contractors is somehow morally defensible, even an ethical obligation, while voting is giving sanction to tyranny and a vote for Ron Paul is an action against freedom. It is an absurd Gordian knot of self-justification and sophistry, obvious on it's face, and the defensiveness it engenders when pointed out over there should make it clear just how dishonest a position it is.

OK, we now bring you some animal cuteness to lighten things up...

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:24 pm

Dylboz wrote:

I don't know why it's called "the Gulag argument," or why it isn't relevant. But let's go with it. What solace could starving prisoners take in their moral righteousness as they were methodically worked to death? Will Stef honestly choose to tell the prison camp denizens, "see, I told you so! We AnCap's were right all along!" over engaging the system if only to blunt it's force or shift it course away from tyranny? Can that even be defended?

If real, positive changes toward more freedom can be made, or tragicaly destructive outcomes can be averted, or the ongoing nightmare in Iraq can be ended by participating in politics, it seems morally imperative to do so, even if the system itself remains predicated on illegitimate grounds.

although I dont think it is morally imperative (no positive obligations after all) I think it can be pretty fucking useful and nice to try to do it! also, remember that Stef would have disagreed with the abolitionist movement and would have prefered to wait for the state to collapse (and work on that) than freeing slaves through political means

Quote:

I maintain my position that the state has no legitimate claim on me, but try as I might, I cannot opt out. I may not wish to deal with the state, but the state will never stop dealing with me. So, it is only rational to try and use whatever means are at my disposal to diminish their negative impact on myself and others.

Lastly, there is absolutely no way in the world it is consistent for Stef or anyone on FDR to claim taking government grants, guaranteed loans, or jobs at defense contractors is somehow morally defensible, even an ethical obligation, while voting is giving sanction to tyranny and a vote for Ron Paul is an action against freedom. It is an absurd Gordian knot of self-justification and sophistry, obvious on it's face, and the defensiveness it engenders when pointed out over there should make it clear just how dishonest a position it is.

exactly right on all counts

OK, we now bring you some animal cuteness to lighten things up...

[/quote]

aw... so sweet! do you know them?
Taz, the dog in the hotel where I'm working now just chased two cats into a tree and was afraid to approach another cat who just sat on the street. it's so funny, she will walk up to the biggest toughest dogs in the world, no problem, but once she actually gets close to a cat, she gets scared.

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

Yeah, my dog and my cat, when they were little. They're still friends. But grown up, here's the dog, Fifi...

Oh, and here's two others, one from my avatar and his friend Chelsea...

mike barskey · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 2:42 pm

All three of those pics are exceptionally cute. They make me long to have a dog again.

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

Free Radical wrote:

wilheldp wrote:

Well, I've been pseudo-banned. The last few posts, I wasn't even trying to be critical of Stef. I was just defending my previous posts against attacks from others.

Go here and post your location so I can place your marker.

Done.

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Quote:

but human relationships are a lot more nuanced and variegated than what he makes them out to be. by doing so he overlooks a lot of love that is present...

So when you disagree with someone over a huge topic (religion) your response is to is to agree to disagree and get buddy buddy with them. But when you disagree over something that is realitively minor (the effects of ron paul) your response is to come to another board and disect stefs psychology and motives.

I honestly dont understand your response. Yes stef can be dismissive at times, but you have to understand that these conversations come up over and over again and it must just get tireing having to deal with them in a non-stop manner. Considering all the good things he has done I think you could cut him a little slack

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Quote:

Also, Stef has repeatedly said that the most corrupt people are those who use the mantle of morality to do immoral things, and this is exactly what stef has been doing.

What immoral things is Stef trying to get away with?

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Quote:

Conrad wrote:

i think somebody gave the example of using ecstacy in therapy to make people experience more emotions than they would normally and it worked to a significant extent in the sense that a new world of emotions stayed with them even when not taking the ecstacy whereas before their emotional life had been flat

Is this true? My emotional life is about as flat as can be. I would very interested in taking MDMA if this actually worked. Hell, I'm interested in taking it already, I'm just a bit sketched out by potential long term side effects.

I think that was me that posted that. I used to rave a lot and I was partaking a lot in that conversation. If you are having emotional problems in your life, or its just 'bland' extacy use is a pretty quick way to addiction. Although its possible to be a responsible user, its very unlikely. Doing extacy with other can reduce your inhibitions and move your relationships in a positive manner. But its not something you should expect to rely on for a long time. Eventually you are just doing it for the high and it has no extra benefits for your relationships with other people.

For the most part drugs are bad

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:22 pm

ianlippert wrote:

Quote:

but human relationships are a lot more nuanced and variegated than what he makes them out to be. by doing so he overlooks a lot of love that is present...

So when you disagree with someone over a huge topic (religion) your response is to is to agree to disagree and get buddy buddy with them.

well, I think that in those circumstances religion is simply not a major topic for the atheist person disagreeing with his parents. sure, the atheist would say that his parents are irrational and very defensive about this, but it is not likely that they are going to change and there are a lot of good things in the relationship and they (learn) dont bother the atheist with their beliefs, so then it may very well be a good thing to do to leave that topic alone and focus on the good. but I'd be interested to hear a different take on this

Quote:

But when you disagree over something that is realitively minor (the effects of ron paul) your response is to come to another board and disect stefs psychology and motives.

for me the Ron Paul topic or other topics that I disagreed with Stef on were in and of themselves not terribly important. what i did find important was his behaviour in the debates, especially since he does claim virtue. I didnt get angry over Ron Paul, but over Stef's debating and podcasting behaviour over it.

Quote:

I honestly dont understand your response. Yes stef can be dismissive at times, but you have to understand that these conversations come up over and over again and it must just get tireing having to deal with them in a non-stop manner.

I can see that and think that is very true, but with e.g. the Ron Paul discussion I was quite openly asking some things that I knew he had not heard as arguments before or that in any case he had not answered before. If then he is dismissive, then I start to think that something else is going on.

Quote:

Considering all the good things he has done I think you could cut him a little slack

yeah, i see what you mean, but i think i have cut him a lot of slack (my g/f for example criticised Stef quite severely months before I got critical, and I defended him exactly by cutting him some slack in the way you suggest (I think)), but there is a point where that stops, and on this board you can find a lot of examples of such breaking points.

but again, I am very interested in hearing your take on this so please keep responding. i think my concerns are just but it could also be (partly) tunnel vision or defense mechanisms

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:28 pm

ianlippert wrote:

Quote:

Conrad wrote:

i think somebody gave the example of using ecstacy in therapy to make people experience more emotions than they would normally and it worked to a significant extent in the sense that a new world of emotions stayed with them even when not taking the ecstacy whereas before their emotional life had been flat

Is this true? My emotional life is about as flat as can be. I would very interested in taking MDMA if this actually worked. Hell, I'm interested in taking it already, I'm just a bit sketched out by potential long term side effects.

I think that was me that posted that. I used to rave a lot and I was partaking a lot in that conversation. If you are having emotional problems in your life, or its just 'bland' extacy use is a pretty quick way to addiction.

agreed

Quote:

Although its possible to be a responsible user, its very unlikely.

yeah, though not extremely unlikely. may also have to do (but am not sure) with criminalization and thus stronger doses

Quote:

Doing extacy with other can reduce your inhibitions and move your relationships in a positive manner. But its not something you should expect to rely on for a long time. Eventually you are just doing it for the high and it has no extra benefits for your relationships with other people.

agreed

Quote:

For the most part drugs are bad

hmmm, I would change this to 'For a lot of drugs it is the case that the way users use those drugs is often bad' not very grammatical, but you get the idea

Conrad · Subject: Re: Watch Stef implode Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:30 pm

ianlippert wrote:

Quote:

Also, Stef has repeatedly said that the most corrupt people are those who use the mantle of morality to do immoral things, and this is exactly what stef has been doing.

What immoral things is Stef trying to get away with?

below are some threads with examples. (there are more though) the threads about Stef's debating techniques are in a sense the most important ones

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/stef-the-bully-t126.htm
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/stef-s-debating-techniques-part-2-t35.htm
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/stef-s-debating-techniques-part-3-t48.htm
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/what-s-going-on-with-stef-t46.htm
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/double-standards-t45.htm

ianlippert · Number of posts: 7 Registration date: 2007-10-17

Quote:

well, I think that in those circumstances religion is simply not a major topic for the atheist person disagreeing with his parents. sure, the atheist would say that his parents are irrational and very defensive about this, but it is not likely that they are going to change and there are a lot of good things in the relationship and they (learn) dont bother the atheist with their beliefs, so then it may very well be a good thing to do to leave that topic alone and focus on the good. but I'd be interested to hear a different take on this

If you get value out of your relationship with your parents then you should stay with them. Even if they have crazy beliefs. Nobody can tell you what value is to you, not even stef. So If your parents believe in the easter bunny you can still have a meaningful relationship in other areas.

However, you should confront them with your ideas (not saying you havent) because otherwise you are maintaining a fake relationship. And if they get aggressive ior manipulative then it might be time to leave them. If you cant talk to them about your core values and you have to constantly walk around on eggshells, whats left of your relationship? How many people feel obligated to go to family gatherings and then just end up spending the day talking about useless nonsense?

Quote:

I can see that and think that is very true, but with e.g. the Ron Paul discussion I was quite openly asking some things that I knew he had not heard as arguments before or that in any case he had not answered before. If then he is dismissive, then I start to think that something else is going on.

I think you admitted to posting in an agressive manner. That style of debating is almost instantly dismissed on FDR because it is seen as unproductive. Especially on the internet where flamewars are common. Its usually good to save yourself the time before you get dragged into one. Being a new user I'm sure you werent aware at all about this and it probably made a bad first impression.

Another big thing is if you fail to provide evidence but keep making the same assertions. Many former posters were banned for continually making claims that they couldnt back up. Admittedly there is a sort of rah-rah anti ron paul attitude over at FDR and I agree the video of random nazi supporting ron paul was complete garbage. But since I have no personal stake in the Ron Paul stuff (im canadian) I dont get as up in arms about it. Theres a lot of crap on the internet and I can cut stef some slack once in a while.

Quote:

yeah, i see what you mean, but i think i have cut him a lot of slack (my g/f for example criticised Stef quite severely months before I got critical, and I defended him exactly by cutting him some slack in the way you suggest (I think)), but there is a point where that stops, and on this board you can find a lot of examples of such breaking points.

I think what I'm having a hard time understanding is why you guys would come to this board and continue the debate. Its like you guys are still debating with Stef but he's not here to defend himself. The whole point of his principle of getting bad people out of your life is so that you dont have to waste time with them. All this time you have spent reading and writing about a guy you dont respect. Now I can see the importance if you are trying to clarify your position, but some of the stuff I've seen posted in this thread is not about the FDR that I've been listening to and reading about for the past 2 years.

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

ianlippert wrote:

Another big thing is if you fail to provide evidence but keep making the same assertions. Many former posters were banned for continually making claims that they couldnt back up. Admittedly there is a sort of rah-rah anti ron paul attitude over at FDR and I agree the video of random nazi supporting ron paul was complete garbage. But since I have no personal stake in the Ron Paul stuff (im canadian) I dont get as up in arms about it. Theres a lot of crap on the internet and I can cut stef some slack once in a while.

Ah, but the infuriating thing is that these are the rules for asking questions on FDR, but they are not applied to responses from Stef and his close followers. If we cannot provide evidence, our argument is fruitless. If Stef doesn't provide evidence, he is noble. That is not a very productive way to debate.

ianlippert wrote:

The whole point of his principle of getting bad people out of your life is so that you dont have to waste time with them. All this time you have spent reading and writing about a guy you dont respect.

Are you not doing the same thing that you are criticizing here? We were "out of your life" and we are considered "bad people", yet here you are continuing the debate.