There's an old crappy movie called Logan's Run (I think they're starting a re-make of it, though). In the movie, people in the future have cured overpopulation by getting exterminated when they become adults (turn 21). Mostly of them submit willingly but a few make a run for it. The movie is the story of a victim named Logan, hence "Logan's Run."

I thought of that tonight. I've been reading a thread on freedomainradio where a member named Tyler (who actually likes his parents) is taking a run at having a well-reasoned adult argument with Stef. He is being perfectly respectful and making his arguments well.

I wonder. Is this how all adults eventually get exterminated from FDR? Anyway, he's making a noble attempt. Should see a banning or refusal to continue from Stef soon.

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/1/123289/ShowThread.aspx

Oops. That didn't take long!

Stef says: 'If you truly feel that I owe you or your parents an apology for pointing out the simple reality that the Bible commands Christians to put atheists to death, you are completely and tragically mistaken.'

Good thing Tyler didn't actually feel that. And I am not sure how Stef logically arrived at that interpretation. It seems to me that Tyler was exactly trying to point out 'As I've said before, if my parents are guilty of anything, it's of not carefully examining their religious beliefs. '

very well and carefully argued posts by that Tyler guy btw, but I must say I also appreciated some of Stef's points that were at least put forward in a very clear, argumentative manner (see here and here)

I think Stef is wrong though in not allowing for what e.g. Jimmy describes here in this simple post

I do have my doubts about whether Tyler truly is new to the board and not an ex-bannee. His posts seem almost too much to the point (directly to his goal) and 'calm' (giving the impression that he is aware that the most powerful way to criticise Stef is to stay as calm and clear and reasonable as possible) That said, if Tyler is an ex-bannee I have no idea who he truly is

I'm not an ex-bannee. But I did have an idea of what was going to happen when I posted my last comment. When he banned me, I thought I would come over here and mention my story (I've been reading this site for a week or so). But I got a good laugh out of the fact that you'd already started talking about it

FDR seems to have no tolerance for people who refuse to repudiate their families. The only "fact" he holds is that my family is religious. He doesn't know anything specific about their beliefs, except that they do believe in God. That alone is enough for him to know that my parents and my younger siblings are monsters who advocate the death of him and his friends.

Does he really believe this nonsense? I can't tell if he has a delusional belief about what religious folks truly believe, or if he just refuses to give any ground in his arguments against faith. If it's the former, then I guess I feel bad for him and those who follow him. If it's the latter, then he's being quite clever by equivocating between what a person believes and advocates, and what is contained within a doctrine which they claim to adhere to. Even a brief conversation with a superstitious person will reveal that their beliefs are simply not consistent. And as you pointed out, Conrad, I never argued that my parents were being rational, just that they weren't monsters!

Welcome to LiMi, Tyler. As you posted here after checking out the forum for a week, it seems like you found at least some potential for enjoyable conversations. I hope you find that here.

What a tremendous ass Stef is, and childish too (does that help? ). Where's his much vaunted curiosity and gentleness? Where is is patience and virtue? He's just a lousy bully who can't handle honesty. That was indeed a grotesque travesty, a satire of assistance. Wait, didn't he say something about calling his wife a whore? He just called Tyler's parents a whole lot worse! Well, at least there's one more who sees right through the FDR cult of personality.

Hey! Welcome aboard!

When I pointed out that I found that anger did not add any value to my life, he and Christina went ape praising the value of anger.

- NonE

By the way, thanks for all the welcomes. They actually seem genuine around here

One of the thoughts I had while reading Tyler's Run is the critically important role of the teacher in the Socratic method.

Stef seems to use a curious hybrid of Socratic examination and psychological analysis, falling back on one when he hits a brick wall on the other. But focusing just on the Socratic method for a minute, what happens when the teacher is dishonest, or unable to accept that the answers may lead somewhere he doesn't want to go, or is just simply unskilled?

That's the biggest thing Tyler exposes. The conclusions Stef draws are preposterous and therefore his follow-up questions are nonsensical. How come no one has ever pointed out that however brilliant he may be, Stef just isn't very good at the Socratic method?

How come #2:

By the way, while Stef was knocking Christians who blindly believe in a flawed bible, how come no one is asking him why his followers blindly believe in a book (UPB) that's just been knocked in the dumpster by a third-year philosophy major?