I don't get it. Is neutrinoide Aaron? What video are they referring to? What is the context? How do you know that he's pissed off, and what it's about? Are we supposed to go search out recent stefbot vids to find out what's going on here? If so, no thanks.

I have uncovered a secret message from Aaron....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiqDYJa6vFs

I was so hoping that would end in vomit!

Boooooo "Molyneuxvian" yaaaaay "Molynite"!!

P.S. Who is this guy? He's so wonderfully angry and lively!

P.P.S. It's funny because I was asked to stop posting on Stefan's message board right after pointing out the same problem:

Quote:

It's just that you presented your theory as a true account of ethics, and if it's true, then it must be able to withstand rigorous analysis. As far as I've understood what I've heard from you on this board and in your book (which may not be very far at all), there are at least some real questions that are not easily answered with the framework you provide. If you're not interested in working through the nuts and bolts of the theory to ensure that it's water-tight, I completely understand. For most practical purposes, it isn't going to matter that your theory doesn't account for certain tensions in our conceptions of rights, justice and ethics. But I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss those kinds of questions as unimportant while simultaneously making the sorts of claims which you've made about your theory and your interest in truth in moral philosophy. If your goal is to promote a way of thinking and living that will bring about a better world, will make people live happier lives, and will provide a simple and effective way to evaluate moral issues, then for goodness sake, be proud of that! To be perfectly honest, that seems a lot more admirable and important to me than the project you claim to be working on, which is producing a true theory of morality which provides a solution to the philosophical questions with which schmoes like me have been wrangling. By your own repeated assertion, the problems which would distinguish a completely true theory from one which is "good enough" aren't important, and you aren't interested in dealing with them. And to be honest, as far as most non-academics are concerned, you're probably right (though of course I'm biased by the fact that I'm a libertarian, so I think your theory is reasonably close to the truth; my non-libertarian friends in academia would be infuriated by that suggestion). I'd only say that perhaps it isn't fair to tell people that your theory is true, given that you simply don't seem to want to deal with the question of whether or not it really is.

I don't want to say that it actually was part of the reason why I was asked to stop posting, but it still seems worth noting.

The argument that Stef throws at you when you call into question some hypocrisy, lie, evasion or flaw in his "philosophy" or "methodology," is that you ought to go off and tilt at windmills until they all fall down before you criticize him again. Which, of course, leaves the question that you brought up unanswered, but if you point that out, you're liable to be banned from his message board, your voice in his "conversation" silenced.

I wonder... you know, it would be funny if a guy went off and brought down, say, $cientology, scoring some major victory in the public arena that so thoroughly discredited it that Tom Cruise and Kirstie Ally and Jenna Elfman and John Travolta all walked away, and huge sums of money were awarded to victims of its abuse and ex-clams and their family members in some civil court case, and then that person came back and said to Stef, "well, I took down a way bigger cult, so now that I've done that, let's get back to that question I had..." What would he do?

A guy can dream.

Its a multi-generational project by his own reckoning so there can be no critique in our lifetime. Theres still time to talk about even more trivial things such as the best Queen songs or youtube comment of the week.

Can't we leave that stuff for a generation or two? How can you talk of youtube comments when there is still government?

Ok I have wasted enough time writing this. Back to tilting at windmills and nothing else for the rest of my life.

JHCxst!...Kristey Ally?... tell me it isn't true!

Look at this delightful little comment:

neutrinoide wrote:

Because I don`t comment for FDR but me, I feel like he deserves only insults. I do it with full awareness of my actions. The FDR way is to threat the world as a broken baby. I don`t accept this methaphore. People like Aaron know exactly what he does when calling the poeple " Molineuvians" and similar cult reference.

It's sad how he assumes Aaron has ill-intent when making these videos. It's just another example of the deep cynicism that is fostered at FDR.

The fact is that the argument Stef put forward is interchangeable. Rand could have used this same shitty argument when she was accused of running a cult, so could Mormons, so could scientologists. "Oh your worried about my group of people who love L Ron Hubbard, oh I see you must be really worried about cults then right? If your so worried about cults, why aren’t you working on Catholicism or Mormonism, those have way more members and cause more problems.".... Did anyone notice that Stef's response to these questions is almost always passive aggressive like the statement above?

So why do I choose to criticize FDR as opposed to spending my time on scientology? For the exact same reasons they decide to focus on their own lives as opposed to fighting the federal government. FDR has affected my life and the life of those that I care about. FDR is part of the secular and freedom movement, both of which I DO NOT want associated with cult like behavior.

Also, and this just speculation, I believe this is all part of the belief that when people accuse them of cult like behavior that they are only doing it because they are "corrupt", "vindictive", "mentally sick", or "afraid of the truth". Never is the assumption that the person is concerned about themselves(which I was) and the people around them which they respect. Further, why else would you respond with this bullshit argument if you were not concerned with your movement being a cult? Wouldn’t you be more apt to ask "how do you define a cult", "what are some examples of the behavior you claim is happening?", etc, etc. Does that happen? If it has, I'd like to see the thread.

Like EXY said, if they were so confident that their movement had no cult-like qualities they would post their numbers and proof out in the open. If they weren’t concerned about the question "is this a cult" they would address the question like any other. If they are concerned that everyone who asks the cult question is just name calling, what about creating a sticky thread addressing the common questions. Instead they automatically make the assumption that this person is just name-calling or trying to undermine their movement.

The pack of clones who pick apart every new poster they don't like: Multineux

What he plans to do the UK Guardian: Molyseux

What XTina calls "little Stef": Molyneuxdle

The baby, if it had been secretly fathered by Stewart: Molysteux

FDR cult members over the age of 30: Moldyneux

The first time he mentions your mother during Skype therapy: Molycluex

Caffeinated beverage to keep you up all night listening to rambling, unfocused podcasts: Moly Duex

Why he didn't need to talk to you before deciding your parents were "monsters": Molykneux

Psychologizing someone until they cry: Maulyneux

The family he refuses to speak to: Molyfeux

Official reggae artist of FDR: Marleyneux

Official rock band of FDR: Motlycreux

Conrad: Molyjeuxdas

haha! well done. it's all gold baby

Man, you guys still post this much about FDR? What ever happened to doing some more of your own stuff? (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been here in a long time).