It looks like this poor guy has been trying to make the following post on FDR all day, but someone (Greg?) keeps deleting it--maybe even before Stef gets a chance to read it. I know Stef regularly reads this site, so I'll just help a brother out and put a copy of it here for him to see. I'm just thoughtful like that. -Q.E.

-------------------------------------------

Dear Stef,

This is the owner of the former account 'doughnut'. I have had to create an alternate doughy account after finding out from another member that all of my posts have been surpressed and deleted. At least a member told me unlike the moderators of this site or yourself eh? I would like to know what I have supposedly done which is so heretical.

I wonder what sort of real 'freedom' it is you're after? One where certain people are not allowed to speak it seems. I wonder if most of your disciples realize that you look so good on this site [although not to genuine philosophers of course since we can see the infinite flaws] precisely because you are involved in extremely heavy censorship of it? If anyone joins who happens to have a different perspective you put controls on them. An interesting and extremely revealing practice which rather seems to directly contradict some of the key principles you supposedly espouse. Since you know your political philosophy then maybe you could name some political systems which do such things?

Frankly I think you are a sad little man. I've never come across a real philosopher who censors others ideas and for that reason [along with many others such as the fact that I teach teenagers who employ better arguments than you do] I do not believe you are one. No wonder this website is getting a reputation for being cultish! You see - that is their trademark. Cults think they are the ones being rational and anyone who comes to a different conclusion must be using faulty reasoning and therefore cannot and will not be listened to. This site is the secular equivalent of the JW's! Although they may feel that's unfair since I’m informed they don't ask for money as much as you do!

I'm quite sure you will not have the balls to answer this letter but will instead, as always, delete it [unless your mods get to it first in which case you won't even get to see it] since it dares to question the omniscient Stef!

Here's to, so called, 'Free'domain Radio. Maybe a renaming is in order? Something like StefanitesDomain or FacistDomain or DictatorshipDomain or TotalitarianDomain? That would at least be more honest instead of this silly pretense about freedom!

P.S. Until I get some indication that you have read this letter and you respond to me in person I will continue posting it [although it's good to see your mods are on the case already! I think this post lasted about half an hour first time up and subsequent posts for not long at all which just goes to prove how immune to criticism you are].

In anticipation of some response, however illogical it might be.

Thank you QuestEon. FDR certainly does not do a service to anyone by censoring with such an iron fist.

Don't get me wrong, but I get the impression that the person who wrote that is kind of retard, and would probably not be able to rebut the "dinner party" analogy.

He makes some good points. The point that cults believe that everyone who comes to a different conclusion is guilty of faulty reasoning is one that deserves highlighting.

But I think calling Stef a dictator is a gross mischaracterization. Yes, I agree he is being hypocritical and somewhat snobbish for banning people for the simple act of disagreeing while saying that he is trying to start a philosophical conversation. But being fascist? Naw, I don't think so. No one would call someone a dictator for locking their door and refusing to let certain people in.

As for this doughnut guy, he is the person who posted a video of Michael Ruse, an atheist or agnostic philosopher who criticizes Richard Dawkins and the "new atheists" for misinterpreting religious beliefs. Of course, many of the FDR people piled on doughnut and this philosopher, calling them "religious apologists" and acting like they actually believed in a religion. They acted like taking the actual intelligent arguments that some religious people make and debating them instead of acting like they have to take all the metaphors in the Bible literally is being irrational and/or implying that you believe these religious arguments are true.

I'll repeat what I've said before. You can't take the entire Bible literally because if you do it contradicts itself. If you do that, it would tell you to murder nonbelivers and not to murder, for example. Instead of saying what a rational critic would say: "Hey, this contradicts so you can't take the entire thing literally," all too many critics say "ZOMG IT TELLS YOU TO MURDER US!!11" effectively ignoring that it tells Christians not to murder. No one explains why the parts that tell you not to murder don't count and the parts that tell you to murder do.

Could someone please tell me where in the Bible it tells you to kill non-believers? There is of course a lot of odd stuff in the Old Testament, but I've never come across that one, but have heard it referred to a few times on this site. S.M. seems to assume all Christians are fundamentalists which is annoying because it makes the arguments he makes so uninteresting. Anyway, a good point, Laird.

It says so in Deuteronomy, Chapter 13 (I looked it up) and maybe elsewhere. But it also says in Deuteronomy, Chapter 14 that you shouldn't eat cows or rabbit or shellfish or eagles, or pluck your eyebrows. Chapter 15 requires Christians to be charitable. I don't know how seriously Christians take these chapters.

Making the argument that all Christians are fundamentalists is just wrong, plain and simple. It may also be annoying and uninteresting, but it's a flawed foundation on which to base any argument, and it's one of the most obnoxious strawmen ever.

Recently I had the oportunity to circulate QuestEon's multipart piece on UPB and Danny to about 30 members of FDR - with the comment being that as Moly has descended into intolerance and bullyism, they would be unlikely to see a dissenting but polite view on a cherished principle. Of the total, about half came back and were generally friendly and interested.

Of that total, all but two agreed that FDR had lost any semblance of tolerance. However the general comment was that it was Moly's site and he could censor whatever he wanted. Most confessed that they generally thought Moly had lost the plot and vented excessively. As to UPB, about 3/4s said they had not read it or had any interest in it. Only one person said he read it and thought it was great. When he finally read Danny's assessment his only comment was, My observation of Danny was that he simply didn't grasp the core point/s Stef was making, and refused to accept fundamental contradictions inherent in arguing against UPB (though he seemed like a brilliant academic/scholar otherwise, and all the best of luck to him) Well Danny, there you have it!

In anycase, judging by my very random and unscientific straw poll, most FDRs have little respect for Moly as an intellect and even more so recognise that he has been taken over by a massive ego.

KarenX, I agree entirely that it is just wrong. I was being a bit flippant. But I do think that it is a cop-out assuming they are all fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are easy to argue against (or rather, they're not, because they don't listen, but it's easy to make arguments against fundamentalism), but it's much harder to argue against intelligent knowledgeable non-fundamentalist Christians.

Thanks very much for finding the reference for me.

QuestEon , I think you're right about how many believers view the Bible. Btw, I've found your blog very interesting. Thanks.

Niall - Your post astounds me. I would like to hear more! If there are at least that many FDR members who are seeing the true nature of Molyneux, it makes one wonder about the others. Obviously there are some who will never falter in their loyalty to Moly. It is exciting to get news of many who are able to see clearly though. I wonder what the attraction is that keeps them a part of the group once the reality of the situation begins to set in.

It amazes me that anyone still watches this pathetic soap opera!

Of course, for those intimately involved in a DeFoo, I can understand. But otherwise... does the phrase "get a life" ring a bell?

- NonE

P.S. this is meant in humor and love, not as a nasty put-down.