UPB: The slayer slain?

Guest

Conrad wrote:

yeah, that video by Aaron, saying that basically no market anarchist on YouTube still likes Stef or FDR while they used to do so a lot, was good to hear. Perhaps even LibertyIsNotGiven has now seen the ugly side

Many people have a hard time accepting that stef knows he's wrong (that he's manipulative and flagrantly intellectually dishonest). At first, nobody would believe me when I would make such accusations, but it's becoming more and more obvious to people.

I figured it out when I read through the determinism threads. Before that, I'd never really spent any time on the boards. I thought that many of his arguments were flawed or confusing, but I had no idea that HE knew it, and was being deliberately dishonest.

Guest

Conrad wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

I do feel though, that my "work" (i.e. my silly videos making fun of and debunking stef) are having an impact. People are starting threads about this stuff, and asking stef real questions. I know this forum has had the same effect. Everything is catching up to him. It also seems that the more full of crap people realize he is, the more full of crap he becomes.

yeah, e.g. the thing about 'rights don't exist' and 'proving property rights' seemed quite bizarre and his recent debates... any neutral person watching those realizes Stef is full of feces. He's not even subtle in his debating techniques anymore and it becomes quite impossible to understand what he actually is saying still.

We know that stef is full of crap, and we know that he knows he's full of crap. Has anybody developed any theories about what that's all about? What is he trying to accomplish? Is he TRYING to make people emotionally and intellectually incompetent? Why for? Is he just trying to scam people (make money by lying to people)? Does anybody have a good theory about what the frak his problem is?

Subject: Re: UPB: The slayer slain? Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:05 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Conrad wrote:

yeah, that video by Aaron, saying that basically no market anarchist on YouTube still likes Stef or FDR while they used to do so a lot, was good to hear. Perhaps even LibertyIsNotGiven has now seen the ugly side

Many people have a hard time accepting that stef knows he's wrong (that he's manipulative and flagrantly intellectually dishonest). At first, nobody would believe me when I would make such accusations, but it's becoming more and more obvious to people.

I figured it out when I read through the determinism threads. Before that, I'd never really spent any time on the boards. I thought that many of his arguments were flawed or confusing, but I had no idea that HE knew it, and was being deliberately dishonest.

Yeah, I mean, it is a hard thing to wrap your mind around: that somebody could be so flagrantly, unashamedly and blatantly dishonest (and get away with it among his followers.)

the normal thought is: 'Okay, for some reason he is not seeing this point right now, but if I discuss it with him, then he will understand (or I will find out I was wrong)', but that's just not how Stef works

_________________
My Blog

Subject: Re: UPB: The slayer slain? Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:07 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Conrad wrote:

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

I do feel though, that my "work" (i.e. my silly videos making fun of and debunking stef) are having an impact. People are starting threads about this stuff, and asking stef real questions. I know this forum has had the same effect. Everything is catching up to him. It also seems that the more full of crap people realize he is, the more full of crap he becomes.

yeah, e.g. the thing about 'rights don't exist' and 'proving property rights' seemed quite bizarre and his recent debates... any neutral person watching those realizes Stef is full of feces. He's not even subtle in his debating techniques anymore and it becomes quite impossible to understand what he actually is saying still.

We know that stef is full of crap, and we know that he knows he's full of crap. Has anybody developed any theories about what that's all about? What is he trying to accomplish? Is he TRYING to make people emotionally and intellectually incompetent? Why for? Is he just trying to scam people (make money by lying to people)? Does anybody have a good theory about what the frak his problem is?

it's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Quote:

DSM IV-TR criteria

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:[1]

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special".
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

I mean, that's the simplest theory I guess, but quite apt, it seems. As to the question how he ended up that way, there probably are quite a few theories about that

_________________
My Blog

Guest

Conrad wrote:

it's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

That (the fact that he has an official "disorder") doesn't mean I should feel bad about haranguing him, does it?

You have to love the irony of his wife's profession.

Seriously though, I think that debunking his crappy arguments is actually a good way to explore and teach critical thinking and philosophy. I know it's helped me grow in that regard.

Number of posts: 281 Registration date: 2008-12-04

You know, Conrad, you might need to update the "Stef's 10 debating tactics," to 20 or 30 tactics. He's developed some new ones in the recent threads on the board and debates with BP &c.

Subject: Re: UPB: The slayer slain? Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:04 am

T.E.M. wrote:

You know, Conrad, you might need to update the "Stef's 10 debating tactics," to 20 or 30 tactics. He's developed some new ones in the recent threads on the board and debates with BP &c.

Yeah, 'obfuscating', 'playing dumb', 'setting traps'. ah well...

_________________
My Blog

Subject: Re: UPB: The slayer slain? Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:06 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Conrad wrote:

it's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

That (the fact that he has an official "disorder") doesn't mean I should feel bad about haranguing him, does it?

nah

Quote:

You have to love the irony of his wife's profession.

yeah, it's odd

Quote:

Seriously though, I think that debunking his crappy arguments is actually a good way to explore and teach critical thinking and philosophy. I know it's helped me grow in that regard.

opportunity costs though

_________________
My Blog

Guest

Danny Shahar wrote:

Well here's one way Stefan could dodge it: Point out that the theory being proposed is not technically an ethical theory according to his definition.

I agree with your overall assessment of UPB. Nobody knows what it is, what it does, or how to do it. This is due in part to the fact that stef defines it (implicit) several different ways within the UPB book itself. This allows him to equivocate (prove one thing, and make it look like he proved a bunch of unrelated and unprovable things).

NOBODY has been able to give me any sort of coherent definition of "ethical proposition" ("UPB is a methodology for validating ethical propositions").

Every time someone tries, it becomes obvious that they have no idea what UPB considers an "ethical proposition" to be. When they attempt to define it, I am always able to provide them with some absurd proposition that meets their definition, but is clearly not something UPB can compute.

Further more, nobody knows how the "validation process" is supposed to work (with any of the propositions I've offered). Everybody always just refers to the book, and the proposition examples used therein. Nobody seems to be able to explain or demonstrate the validation process.

If I was to offer a UPB challenge, it would be simple:

a) Provide me with a definition of "ethical proposition" so I can provide examples that meet your definition, in order to test the logical validity of the validation process.

b) Once I provide some examples, explain/demonstrate the validation process.

I know for a fact that nobody would even attempt my challenge. I doubt stef himself could even do it.

Number of posts: 628 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Conrad wrote:

Yeah, I mean, it is a hard thing to wrap your mind around: that somebody could be so flagrantly, unashamedly and blatantly dishonest (and get away with it among his followers.)

Are FDR members in denial? Are they under a spell? Surely they would get the picture by now if they would look at the facts in a logical manner. It's hard to watch......like a bystander watching a train wreck.

Number of posts: 234 Registration date: 2008-05-21

Danny Shahar wrote:

Well I mean can you think of any imposed behavior that you would be morally obligated to do all the time? Stefan's rape example relies on the idea that if an imposed behavior is moral, then you are obliged to do it all the time. But that's just dumb, and obviously so.

It seesms Stef's main basis for this stuff ( non-consentual actions being wrong ) is the idea that to resist would be "resisting a virtuous act" and that to not resist would be to "deny the agressor the virtue of their act." (he uses what you describe, a seeming modification of Kant's categorical imperitive, as a sort of back-up supporting arguement: like, "see using this method agrees with the main method")

One could spin this to say that the conclusion is reached because the proper course of action becomes impossible: both A and notA simutaniously.

The real problem comes in with the mostly unstated assumption that non-consentual activity must be immoral (murder) or moral (self-defense); never amoral. However, I suppose he does indirectly state this assumption outright when he defines moral issues as "those things which it is acceptable to use violence over"

Number of posts: 234 Registration date: 2008-05-21

Conrad wrote:

dude, even if you do kiss their ass, are super-polite or whatever they won't respond to tough arguments in any serious way. They will either be so evasive and passive-aggressive that eventually you get pissed and show it and then they ban you on the basis of that, or if you remain polite they will just ask you to stop posting.

there is no way to do it right

Yep.

Subject: Re: UPB: The slayer slain? Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:48 pm

new discussion of RoR's theory

I think they misunderstand what a conjunction is btw

_________________
My Blog

Guest

Conrad wrote:

new discussion of RoR's theory

I think they misunderstand what a conjunction is btw

Since CoR said:

"Who said moral propositions in UPB were allowed to have conjunctions?"

I asked him if he could define "moral proposition".

I've been trying to get a definition for months. If my "desire and power" proposition doesn't fit the definition, then I'll come up with another one that does.

It's not possible to validate the UPB validation process if we don't even know what it validates.

Subject: Re: UPB: The slayer slain? Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:00 am

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:

Conrad wrote:

new discussion of RoR's theory

I think they misunderstand what a conjunction is btw

Since CoR said:

"Who said moral propositions in UPB were allowed to have conjunctions?"

I asked him if he could define "moral proposition".

I've been trying to get a definition for months. If my "desire and power" proposition doesn't fit the definition, then I'll come up with another one that does.

It's not possible to validate the UPB validation process if we don't even know what it validates.

UPB validates whatever Stef wants it to validate, dammit

_________________
My Blog

» Got slain in the Spirit in my dream...then dragged.
» Being Slain In The Spirit
» Slain in the spirit
» Mother of Slain Benghazi SEAL Tells Willard to STFU
» Kali the goddess

UPB: The slayer slain?

UPB: The slayer slain?

Similar topics

Similar topics