He wont do that, Conrad, because he knows as well as you do that it can't be done. He's very clearly a binary thinker, in stark terms of black and white. Like a pendulum, he's swung all the way over to the FDR side, and he'll have to expend all that momentum before he can even start to come back to the middle.

I think that mmvrs will convince people that we're biased against FDR because, get this, we are. I think it's no secret to anyone that knows about us that we aren't fans of FDR and we disagree with him quite a bit. Of course we don't like him, sheesh.

But in general, most people don't give a damn about FDR or us at LiMi. And if they do, I highly doubt that most people agree with this whole emotional restitution = forgiveness jazz.

M.V.--

Like I said earlier, our entire disagreement traces back to the definition of "forgiveness." Nothing said after that matters, because your subsequent arguments are based on a mis-definition of the term. You can insult my motives, declare my argument weak, and take your stand as often and as loudly as you like, but every English dictionary is on my side. The idea that the definition differs based on emotional or material forgiveness is stuff and nonsense.

Guest wrote:

Your consistent attempts to discredit this source of information in such extreme ways as calling it a cult and his theories sick etc. (especially on the basis of such weak evidence and analysis)...

I know you'll never believe this, but I spend a great deal of time working with that site to ensure that it is respectful to Molyneux and free of unfounded claims.

You may not like what I write about him, but you are just as likely to encounter lines such as "Make no mistake, Molyneux is a brilliant man and an extraordinary teacher. He is very engaging and many people tend to connect with him on a personal and emotional level" as you are critical ones. The site exists because he is a brilliant, sophisticated thinker.

While the site often points out disconnects and logical non-sequiters in Molyneux's philosophy, I try to be very careful to make sure the reader knows when I'm expressing my opinion vs. fact or reason supported by evidence.

In fact, a week go--in the article in question--I still had a line that was in the earliest draft about a psychologist being able to "crack open Molyneux's head like ripe melon." Over time, I came to believe it was disrepectful and I changed it at that time.

Coincidentally, I felt the same thing about the "sickness" word you mention above and changed that during the editing session. Later on in the article, I also discovered I had used the word "cult" in a way that seemed like an unfounded accusation and I removed it as well.

I consistently re-read my little articles for language I think is outrageous or unfounded. Although the original article still exists here, I'm thinking about deleting it and replacing it with a link to the newer version on the web site.

I sense your emotional reaction to me at this point is so negative that you won't buy any of that. I'm not really trying to apologize or gain your favor now. I am, however, very proud of the conscientous approach I take with fdrliberated. I hope you will do the same with your work.

Thought I would help out here...in the "01:25 -- 02:40: There are no accidents, only malevolent actions" analysis, Stefan is drawing a distinction between a willed action and an accident at the start of that portion. ("a bad action requires a willed action on the part of another".) IE, somebody driving on your lawn and you getting upset until you found out the guy had a seizure. He then said "in the same way" if I cut down a tree that damages your house I should restore the situation. His language is pretty sloppy, but the interpretation is rather strained to suggest he is saying all accidents are malevolent (particularly in light of example of the guy having a seizure while damaging your property).

Do you agree with this?

(edit) Oh dear, and then the next section "02:41 -- 04:13: People who apologize are aggressive"...would you draw a distinction between sincere apologies and aggressive apologies ("I said I was sorry! let it go.")? Because the example by Stefan was given as being aggressive, which does not follow that all apologies would be done that way. Just that example.

(edit 2) "04:14 -- 04:39: You can’t grant forgiveness"...dictionary.com. forgive - "to give up resentment of or claim to requital for". Resentment - "a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury" Giving up an emotion/feeling, right?

(edit 3) "04:40 -- 08:49: If you grant forgiveness, it is an act of self-loathing" The thrust of opinion put forth here seems to be if you feel wronged, express your feelings and see how you feel about the response. If you don't feel better, don't attack yourself based on what the other person says. So, to self attack and then forgive would be bad, rather than forgiving is always a form of self attack.

(edit 4) "08:50 -- 12:09: The Empathy Catch-22" The commentary has nothing to do with this particular podcast. I would go back to the last section...if you express your feelings, people should empathize if possible (understand thoughts and feelings). So you act on the basis of that empathy, ie put yourself in their shoes. I would disagree with Stefan in that you wouldn't necessarily know what to do, but that if you empathize rather than ask for directions, you will have a good understanding on how to act.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about this QuestEon (and I should probably re-listen to that podcast)

Coming soon...been kinda busy with work...

cool. no rush.

2defoo, how would you say the issue of forgiveness impacts your relation with your parents as you laid out in your initial posts

Adults are responsible for children..if they live up to that responsibility, why would a child defoo, once it got old enough to do so? Children are always being told to "act responsibly." Time for adults to catch up to the incredible creatures they themselves have spawned..and take responsibility. Mutual, adult, real love, not just based upon a childs natural biological needs, must be earned, if you really love your grown child, do the work..earn a chance to re-establish at least true relations. I'm afraid that if you try to exploit an unjust regime- based upon their vulnerability as young children- somehow carrying on into adulthood, then you will devalue yourself and them..and any care you imagine they and you share together as you, the elder, age, will be done under sufferance.

DO THE WORK, understand how your relationship is so weak, that a relatively powerless Internet philosopher, could have possibly come between you and your beloved. if you truly love them..if you don't rack your brains and look within, get help, that shows a deathly narcissism...

Hi JD,
I would just like to point out that the act of defoo not only relates to parents, it extends to friends also.
You should also be aware that Adults of a fair age have fallen to fdr's ways and have also cut ties with family and friends.
For your information there is one particular podcast on fdr in which a person can be heard to say 'I could not live without my Mother' or words to that effect. Yet that person no longer relates to the Mother in as far as I am aware.
Perhaps Mr Molyneux can explain that one away because to me that seems like a fairly soild relationship was in place before fdr darkened that household's doorstep.
Time for you to do some research before asking questons as to why a child would carry out such an act don't you think?

Well, that's fitting, since Holy Moly has totally dehumanized parents in the minds of his followers, why would they think such beings bear human offspring?

to be sure, "creature" is a neutral term as well, e.g. "wonderful creature"