Believe it or not, I really haven't been spending a lot of time on the FDR forum lately. I went over to look at the Tyrtle thread that Nelle had mentioned and I ran across this suggestion to Stef that he "debate or discuss some of your critics of UPB". (Caution FDR Link)

Basically, the post is--"Hey, this list shows that virtually everyone who's heard of UPB but who isn't a member of FDR thinks it's useless. You should debate them all."

Pretty funny watching them dismiss the entire outside universe as irrational, passive-aggressive cynics. I thought it was just me.

Haha! Did he forget the number of UPB critics that he's banned? What happens if those people join the call-in-show?

It continues to amaze me how well these tricks work on FDR'ers, how they accept such evasions.

Well, that is hilarious. Especially when you consider that it is impossible to discuss questions on these topics when members won't even SPEAK to outsiders (like me).

In the last little while I have been exploring the arguments for and against Atheism. My journey eventually took me to a site called "Common Sense Atheism". While I was looking through the site, I came across a review of Stefan Molyneux's UPB. Needless to say I was quite curious; I already knew that the Libertarian / AC communit had pretty much universall rejected UPB, but what about the Athesit community? Once again, most (if not all) Athesists would welcome such a monumental proof of secular ethics. If they had any bias at all, it would be in favour of UPB, not against it.

The reviewer, Luke Muehlhauser, pretty much bitch-slapped Molyneaux with his own words. You can read the review here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75#more-75. I will pull out some of Luke's comments just to give an idea on where he stands on UPB. Some of the most telling are as follows:

In response to Molyneux's comments about "...if I have failed, I have at least failed spectacularly, which itself can be both edifying and entertaining!”, Luke responds "...Molyneaux has failed more spectacularly than I thought possible, and it is neither edifying nor entertaining. It is only confused. Badly confused."

As to the concept of UPB: "So after reading the book, I still have no idea what a Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB) is. "

But the most humorous critique of Molyneux, one that would surely be a blow to the Philosopher King's ego, is (wait for it) when he concludes that "I get the impression that one day Molyneaux was impressed by a book with many sections of numbered statements, the last always beginning with 'Therefore…', then decided to write his own book just like it, without first learning anything about how logic or argument work."

So, even thosee in the Atheist community, with which Molyneux so clearly identifies, have rejected his self-promoted masterpiece. Even with respect to Molyneux's comments about failing spectacularly, he has deluded himself. You see, in order to fail spectaularly, the person or item in question must have had the potential to be *spectacular*. Take the example of a little boy building a snowman in his backyard that topples over. Nobody gives a shit. If one builds something tantamount to the Golden Gate Bridge and it comes crashing down then that is a spectacular failure. I would put UPB closer to the snowman-in-a-backyard-falling-down side of the spectrum.

The Muehlhauser piece is a great find! Of course, too bad that his followers could not possibly hear him debate Muehlhauser. He would not be allowed on the show. I believe many have offered to debate and been refused...over and over.

Geez! Moly won't even speak to his supporter, follower, and member "lowkey" on his own site because lowkey doesn't agree with everything moly spouts. How naive for bockman or any other follower to wonder why these people do not call in to debate.

It's hilarious that Stefbots tell the critics to "call in Sunday and debate him!" Yet, when they try, they are not allowed to speak. All the callers are screened, and he knows who they are and what they're going to ask in advance. One would have to do what's called "spoofing" on talk radio, and lie about who they really are, but most of the time, they have a dump box and a delay, so they can simply eliminate such callers and keep them off the air.

I doubt Holy Moly has such sophisticated technology, but I know he does check out Skype ID's and queue up his guests before he starts the Sunday show. Regardless, as in all things he's deceitful and dishonest, and so are his followers, especially about his openness to debate, his desire for "correction," and his willingness to defend UPB against all its critics if only they would "call in and engage him directly."

I suppose, if they ever did, he'd start in on them about their parents. Reminds me of a certain interview from my favorite movie of all time:

"So. Tell me about your mother" ... "My mother? I'll tell you about my mother!" BOOM!!!

Stef had no need to dump any callers this weekend. They were queueing up to share their defoo stories. As usual, he asked them to "tell me about your mother".