The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Pizzly on August 20, 2011, 06:30:44 PM
-
Now, I really dislike Stefen Molyneux because I think he is hurting the liberty movement by moralizing and pushing faulty ethics/psychology. I'm not the smartest guy, but I can't help but feel that way. So I was on Reddit earlier, and I had made a quick argument about how FDR is a cult:
a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
This doesn't quite sound right. I suppose one might argue that Stef's
A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
This would be the Freedomain Radio community.
The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
I suppose one might argue that the way individuals watch his videos or listen to his podcasts might count as worship of Stef, and looking at the comments section you often get nothing but praise and idolizing.
A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
This doesn't quite fit in with FDR. Stef makes some incredible claims in regard to child rearing psychology though.
a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
Reading the comments Stef gets, and Stef's joy at reading those comments, show an incredible amount of veneration for him.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
Obviously this counts, the FDR community is supposedly devoted to philosophical, psychological and other various fringe interests.
I'll admit the definition seems to allow for many things to be called cults, but I'll add that Stef is a bully and he's egotistical. Him, and especially his listeners, will attack dissenters emotionally. They do this by using moralizing arguments based on Stef's UPB (FDR's bible). His egotism shows in the way he lives off of donations (he has mocked individuals who listen to his free shows without donating), his constant promotion of his show and books (I can let this one slide, everyone needs to promote), the way he reacts emotionally to criticism, and his speech from Porcfest was awful in this regard.
It's certainly not the best arguments I've made, I was basically just trying to explain why I feel FDR is at least cult like. Stef's emotional bullying (with things like his "against me" argumentation) and community veneration (the guy is funded via donations, I honestly am bothered by this) seem to suggest cult like tendencies. He has suggested on his radio show that people leave families that have differing beliefs, it's called deFOOing. The response to my post seems to only reinforce my beliefs.
Yeah, sure, you can argue all those things if you (1) make up a definition of "cult" that includes organizations that are NOT CULTS, (2) then pretend that every single point you list in your definition fits FDR against the facts, (3) then you make up false and unsubstantiated accusations about Stefan such as "emotional reactions to criticism" (which are not only false but, as the video linked here demonstrates, the reality is actually the DIAMETRIC OPPOSITE).
That is the essence of slander.
Face it, you'd come across as MUCH MORE HONEST if you just said "You know, I hate Stef, that's it". That would be perfectly fine. But to attempt to rationalize your hate using LIES and FABRICATIONS? That's just fucking disgusting and venal. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Slanderer.
There is an incredibly high chance I am wrong about Stef's philosophy and psychology, but I think it's completely fair to recognize Freedomaing Radio as a cult.
-
We already had this thread once before.
-
We already had this thread once before.
Search feature isn't exactly helping me. I'd resurrect a thread if I found it existed already.
-
I really like Stefen, and think he's an excellent communicator. I enjoy Freedomain--most of the time. But, the guy sometimes gets too caught up in conspiracy theories for my tastes. I don't think everything is actually run via malicious plots by evil-doers bent on screwing everyone over. I think problems generally arise from people with good intentions doing stupid things.
He really lost me when he came out as a 911 Truther.
-
He really lost me when he came out as a 911 Truther.
Doesn't really bother me that people believe that stuff...I'm more bothered when they get all evangelical about it. The "I don't care because the government can be shown to have done all kinds of evil things, and what were you planning to do about it, anyway?" route has been fairly successful for me in making it go away.
-
He really lost me when he came out as a 911 Truther.
Um, link? I've never heard him say any such thing so I'd love to hear this.
What I have seen him do is show up on Alex Jones, (I don't listen to Alex Jones but he's posted the interviews on FDR.) an act that I'm no fan of but can be justified if you're looking for new listenership I guess.
-
He really lost me when he came out as a 911 Truther.
Huh? I know he's said it's kinda possible, given governments (including the US) have done false flag attacks before, but I'm pretty sure he isn't a truther.
-
He really lost me when he came out as a 911 Truther.
Um, link? I've never heard him say any such thing so I'd love to hear this.
What I have seen him do is show up on Alex Jones, (I don't listen to Alex Jones but he's posted the interviews on FDR.) an act that I'm no fan of but can be justified if you're looking for new listenership I guess.
Yeah, I heard him on AJ a few months back. You got the sense that he would just kinda go along with AJ on the 911 thing but in a somewhat joking way, so as to be at least a little respectful, yet still have an out if it were ever brought up by someone later on. I listen to AJ maybe 4-5 times a month because he gets some pretty good guests every now and then.
He had Frank Serpico on just last friday and I thought that would be a good one.............. nope. The guy came off as a complete nutcase, going off on all kinds of wild tangents about GMO foods, the feds following him through a snowstorm as he was walking his dog.... and sounded like he was talking into an empty coffee can. Couldn't really make out 7 out of 10 words he was saying. His explanation?........... He hasn't done a phone interview for years, so he doesn't have a phone with a handset to talk into...... just a speaker phone. WTF Frank?? You can get a GE corded phone with decent quality sound for 8 bucks at walmart. Use it for the interview and bring it back the day after if you're gonna be that big a cheap ass.
-
Asking the question that I asked was a little unfair, because I've listened to everything on FDR (Seriously, but I started in 2006, so I didn't have to catch up) and have worked with Stef on several videos and have had fairly long interactions with him.
I know with quite a degree of certainty (I'd say over 99.44%) that the dude isn't promoting the 9/11 truth stuff. I would like to see a link to what led Mike to think that, though, because I know he's a sharp cat and I'm sure there's some sort of misunderstanding.
For the record, my interactions with Stef have been largely positive. There were a couple bumps in regards to creative stuff (Disagreements about how quickly I edit and how many cuts I use) that were hammered out fairly easily the second I mentioned them. Also, getting hold of the dude when you're trying to collaborate on something is difficult. He can send you and email, you can respond within five minutes, and two days later you'd hear back from him.
Not major shit. I'm sure most people who work with me have similar complaints.
Stef's just this dude. He's got some great ideas in regards for the liberty thing and I'd say that his ideas are a good influence on the community of ration freedom lovers. I give him credit for that and I'd call what he's doing a sort of post objectivist revision on Rand's work that has significant value. He's certainly plugged up some of her more egregious holes in ethics as far as I'm concerned.
Personally, knowing of FDR has improved my life and made debate with statists far simpler, which has freed me of months, if not years of my life.
Also, I am not a member of a cult.
-
I would like to see a link to what led Mike to think that, though, because I know he's a sharp cat and I'm sure there's some sort of misunderstanding.
Also, I am not a member of a cult.
http://wp.alexjonespodcasts.com/2011/april-2011/monday-7-11-2011-the-alex-jones-show-with-stefan-molyneux
also last december
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=33524
-
Dude, I thought you were in *two* cults
-
Doesn't denying that a cult leader would actually do something imply that you're in the cult?
-
Doesn't denying that a cult leader would actually do something imply that you're in the cult?
Would me denying that Bonerjoe would initiate force make me a cult follower of Bonerjoe and Bonerjoe a cult leader?
From my experience of the dude, it seems odd.
I'm listening to the nasty Alex Jones to hear what was said. I listened to it before but I don't recall the content.
-
But I am a cult leader.
-
But I am a cult leader.
OH FUCK.
*Slashes wrists to meet his god*
Also, wasn't there some sort of thing at PF where he griped at you or George about not having veggie foods?
-
Also, wasn't there some sort of thing at PF where he griped at you or George about not having veggie foods?
Paraphrasing from the story I heard:
Stephan: "I'd normally never eat this kind of stuff, but it's all they have here."
Other person: "There's a salad bar down that way..."
Stephan" "But you can't have a salad as a meal!"
-
Also, wasn't there some sort of thing at PF where he griped at you or George about not having veggie foods?
Paraphrasing from the story I heard:
Stephan: "I'd normally never eat this kind of stuff, but it's all they have here."
Other person: "There's a salad bar down that way..."
Stephan" "But you can't have a salad as a meal!"
While I agree with him, (I fucking hate most healthy salads tho) it seems a little bitchy.
-
While I agree with him, (I fucking hate most healthy salads tho) it seems a little bitchy.
He is bitchy.
Thats ok though. Everyone has a glitch. Doesn't make him an asshole though.
-
Oh, he also asked for napkin to mop up all the grease.
-
While I agree with him, (I fucking hate most healthy salads tho) it seems a little bitchy.
He is bitchy.
Thats ok though. Everyone has a glitch. Doesn't make him an asshole though.
I agree and I bitch constantly.
Oh, he also asked for napkin to mop up all the grease.
Ohnoes that dirty bastard.
-
I would like to see a link to what led Mike to think that, though, because I know he's a sharp cat and I'm sure there's some sort of misunderstanding.
Also, I am not a member of a cult.
http://wp.alexjonespodcasts.com/2011/april-2011/monday-7-11-2011-the-alex-jones-show-with-stefan-molyneux
also last december
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=33524
Where's the Reader's Digest version? I'm not listening to all that to make a judgment call, and I'm surprised Shaw would.
-
Where's the Reader's Digest version? I'm not listening to all that to make a judgment call, and I'm surprised Shaw would.
I am listening and summarizing. Will post.
-
Also, him and his wife seemed to be mentally abusing their child.
From what I've heard.
-
Stephan: "I'd normally never eat this kind of stuff, but it's all they have here."
Other person: "There's a salad bar down that way..."
Stephan" "But you can't have a salad as a meal!"
You left out the best part-- Osborne's response.
"Exactly. That's why we have MEAT."
-
Also, him and his wife seemed to be mentally abusing their child.
From what I've heard.
I know Stef loves to emotionally bully and shame listeners or individuals he debates, so I hate to think how he treats his kid.
I've wondered, how will Stef react if his parenting methods fail?
-
http://wp.alexjonespodcasts.com/2011/april-2011/monday-7-11-2011-the-alex-jones-show-with-stefan-molyneux
Listened. (Skipped through the rest of the show. Can't handle Alex Jones)
Play by play:
1. Alex called him a conspiracy theorist for thinking that economic recovery wasn't possible and he agreed.
2. Molyneux said that economic cycles have happened before.
3. Alex mentions Bin Laden corpse, Molyneux grumbles dismissively.
4. They speculate on G/Kadaffi having gold as a reason USG attacked Libya.
5. Molyneux talks about control of fiat currency.
6. They talk about TSA patdowns continuing.
7. Talk about politicians being sociopaths.
8. Calls government programs excuses for raising taxes.
9. AJ quotes Darth Vader verbatim multiple times.
10. Talk about European financial troubles.
11. Talk about end of world and 2012. Molyneux ignores it and talks about violence of the system.
12. Teachers cheating tests for rewards.
13. Talking about drug wars and legalization and government arming dealers.
14. AJ calls him an extremest.
15. YOU FUCKING OWE ME FOR GETTING ME TO LISTEN TO ALEX JONES WHARGARBL.
16. Molyneux plugs site.
17. Talk about governments as tax farms.
18. AJ mentions Bilderbergers and "Austerity"
19. Molyneux sez "You know the system is about to crash when Libertarians are invited to run the show." and suggests against being at the helm of the ship when it goes down.
20. AJ sez RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
21. Long who gives a shit clip of Geitner.
22. Molyneux comments on bailouts. Talks about gooberment mentioning "Sacrifice"
23. AJ talks about some crap with additional "voluntary" money theft crap. Molyneux agrees that they are "Out of control" and sidesteps conspiracy comments.
24. Molyneux sidesteps AJ talking about not having heat in the winter. Mentions people eating Tang because they have no money.
25. Molyneux mentions West built on economic growth.
26. Privatization of gooberment as additional taxation.
27. Mortgage fraud bank shakedown. AJ talks a bunch of crap about quadrillions of dollars.
28. Taking calls.
29. Precious metals and stocking up talk with first caller.
30. AJ mentions government staging crises - Molyneux mentions Golf of Tonkin, WMDs, war in Iraq.
31. Some sarcasm and joking.
32. Lady talking about false flag shit. AJ talking about gun shipments. Lady goes on about false flags against christian protests in DC. AJ rants a bit. Molyneux talks about military funding and tyranny and sidesteps all the false flag shit.
33. AJ mentions CIA giving nuke info crap to Iran? Blowing up Chicago? Molyneux sez nothing.
34. Caller with RON PAUL campaign slogans. Very dumb. Talks about Rockefellers and Rothschilds.
35. Show ends, short extra bit follows.
36. LAST FIVE MINUTES
37. Caller is SICK OF IT. Molyneux sez "TESTIFY BROTHER" No good food because of GMO. GRASS FED BEEF.
38. Call about people adopting AJ crazy it their shows.
39. Molyneux makes weird metaphor about corn syrup and fatties. Applies it to reason and evidence.
40. Caller hung up on.
41. Caller calls Molyneux "Steven" and starts talking about 14th amendment bullshit. Molyneux asks WTF he's talking about and agrees that the President is a dictator but sidesteps the other stuff.
42. They yell. End of show.
Conclusion, that show had nothing with Molyneux addressing conspiracies or promoting them beyond things that have already been proven to be true in the real world.
Don't have time to listen to the second one, but if you can point out specific times I'll listen.
Alex Jones tries several times to drag him down the kook well and I'd say he dodged every time.
-
Stephan: "I'd normally never eat this kind of stuff, but it's all they have here."
Other person: "There's a salad bar down that way..."
Stephan" "But you can't have a salad as a meal!"
You left out the best part-- Osborne's response.
"Exactly. That's why we have MEAT."
I'm not good at remembering this kind of thing.
-
Also, him and his wife seemed to be mentally abusing their child.
From what I've heard.
Any specific examples? I dunno about his relationship to his child* beyond knowing that sorta the entire schtick of his site and shows and videos is all about raising children without violence and abuse.
*Also what he says about it, obviously.
-
Like I said, I'm bad at recalling exactly what happened. Something involving candy.
-
All I remember is that it came off as weird from a guy who touts the stuff he does.
-
Like I said, I'm bad at recalling exactly what happened. Something involving candy.
I heard hat he was trying to get her to try eating s'mores and his wife told him to knock it off.
Of course, I also heard the exact same story being told as him trying to force feed his kid poison and the wife screaming at him. That person considers carbs to be poison.
-
What we need here to clear up this confusion is some more 2nd-hand hearsay, and WHAT I HEARD was that Stef was giving his girl some chocolate and the mom came up angrily shouting "Don't give her chocolate! She has to go poo for chocolate!" Apparently they're using a reward system to encourage potty training.
-
Poo For Chocolate is my R. Kelly cover band.
-
How old is his kid?
Under three.
-
What we need here to clear up this confusion is some more 2nd-hand hearsay, and WHAT I HEARD was that Stef was giving his girl some chocolate and the mom came up angrily shouting "Don't give her chocolate! She has to go poo for chocolate!" Apparently they're using a reward system to encourage potty training.
I'd forgotten the poo thingy because now that you mention it I recall that.
Either way, I can't imagine that event being called "Emotional abuse" either way.
This is basically the sort of backlash that anyone interested in terms like Ethics and Morality are going to have to put up with, anyhow. Scrutiny goes through the roof for every tiny lapse.
As if people claiming that being moral is preferable are automatically expected to have attained moral perfection or they are total hypocrites.
People who want to play professional baseball should always bat 1000.
People who teach other people to drive should never get into accidents.
People who value peaceful interactions should never get angry and express it.
Buncha crap. People are people. We occasionally fuck up. All of us. It's how we ultimately react when it's pointed out and proven to us that shows who we really are.
-
How do you go poo if you don't want to? Abuse!
Signs you're following a cult...abatement of common sense...
-
http://wp.alexjonespodcasts.com/2011/april-2011/monday-7-11-2011-the-alex-jones-show-with-stefan-molyneux
Listened. (Skipped through the rest of the show. Can't handle Alex Jones)
Play by play:
15. YOU FUCKING OWE ME FOR GETTING ME TO LISTEN TO ALEX JONES WHARGARBL. [SUCKER!] :lol:
19. Molyneux sez "You know the system is about to crash when Libertarians are invited to run the show." and suggests against being at the helm of the ship when it goes down. [The thought had crossed my mind.
Don't have time to listen to the second one, but if you can point out specific times I'll listen. Fool me once...
As I imagined....
-
This is basically the sort of backlash that anyone interested in terms like Ethics and Morality are going to have to put up with, anyhow. Scrutiny goes through the roof for every tiny lapse.
As if people claiming that being moral is preferable are automatically expected to have attained moral perfection or they are total hypocrites.
People who want to play professional baseball should always bat 1000.
People who teach other people to drive should never get into accidents.
People who value peaceful interactions should never get angry and express it.
Buncha crap. People are people. We occasionally fuck up. All of us. It's how we ultimately react when it's pointed out and proven to us that shows who we really are.
...People who want to live in a world without a state should provide every imaginable market solution immediately, when doubters call a world without a state impossible because you couldn't have _______ .
...People should not drive on the roads, accept unemployment benefits, defend themselves in the court system, ad nauseam, because the state "provided" them, and they're for living without the state. (The idea that the market will provide them once the state stops shoving them down our throats makes absolutely no sense to them.)
-
This is basically the sort of backlash that anyone interested in terms like Ethics and Morality are going to have to put up with, anyhow. Scrutiny goes through the roof for every tiny lapse.
As if people claiming that being moral is preferable are automatically expected to have attained moral perfection or they are total hypocrites.
I've thought on a few occasions that I'd be uncomfortable in Stef's shoes for precisely that reason. Trying to be a good parent is draining enough; I can only image how hard it must be to fight off the feeling that perfection is required.
And the more one tries to achieve, the more people plumb for failures.
-
"Don't give her chocolate! She has to go poo for chocolate!"
As a parent, I give other parents a lot of leeway about their parenting. Lord knows, there's more than one way to do it. But poo for chocolate.... that's just weird, dude.
-
I always hope they had used chocolate as as prop for poo when I accidentally click on a "2 girls one cup" type clip.
Makes me feel better about the second viewing.
-
I always hope they had used chocolate as as prop for poo when I accidentally click on a "2 girls one cup" type clip.
Makes me feel better about the second viewing.
The third viewing and the masturbation in the consecutive fourth through thirty seventh viewings may in fact be questionable, however.
-
Yes.... :shock: Help is being sought.
-
"Don't give her chocolate! She has to go poo for chocolate!"
As a parent, I give other parents a lot of leeway about their parenting. Lord knows, there's more than one way to do it. But poo for chocolate.... that's just weird, dude.
No, the weird part is the exclusivity, leading to a bizarre pavlovian training that Halloween is the shittiest of holidays.
Seriously, if you only get to eat chocolate when you take a dump, you're going to have some messed up behaviors as an adult. Weird aversions or affinities, noam sain?
(http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk163/MayhemOfTheBlackUnderclass/LPFC.jpg)
-
(http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp71/quickmike1969_photo/LPFC.jpg)
-
(http://www.freewebs.com/innovationalist/Its%20stuff%20/ngbbs47b3df5ff2d09.jpg)
I feel horrible now.
-
Stef's kid isn't vegetarian, right?
-
Stef's kid isn't vegetarian, right?
Well, Stef is vegetarian, at least until it's inconvenient, so I would assume the daughter is as well since they're feeding her.
-
Sweet lord Jesus reddit is killing me. I'm a regular poster to r/anarcho_capitalism but recently I've been getting hammered by the other posters. I have become far more conservative and realist than my earlier pacifist days, and the Steftards are murdering me. There's this holier than thou mentality, according to Steftards you can't be an propertarian anti-statist and ever disagree with Stef. I am an advocate of spanking and executions for example (yeah, I went really far from my earlier pacifism) but these Steftards are trying to claim that I'm actually a secret minarchist. I also try to point out that while I agree with them on many ethical points, there is in fact no objective morality. This just makes them crazier. These people are worse than the holier than thou Rothbardians, at least the Rothbardians haven't been subjected to pseudoscientific psychohistory and psychoanalysis.
-
the Steftards are murdering me. There's this holier than thou mentality
Oh, piffle.
You should hang out on NH Underground for awhile... it will make you grateful for what you have!
-
Sweet lord Jesus reddit is killing me. I'm a regular poster to r/anarcho_capitalism but recently I've been getting hammered by the other posters. I have become far more conservative and realist than my earlier pacifist days, and the Steftards are murdering me. There's this holier than thou mentality, according to Steftards you can't be an propertarian anti-statist and ever disagree with Stef. I am an advocate of spanking and executions for example (yeah, I went really far from my earlier pacifism) but these Steftards are trying to claim that I'm actually a secret minarchist. I also try to point out that while I agree with them on many ethical points, there is in fact no objective morality. This just makes them crazier. These people are worse than the holier than thou Rothbardians, at least the Rothbardians haven't been subjected to pseudoscientific psychohistory and psychoanalysis.
I don't understand why you would continue to interact with people you dislike so much.
-
I don't understand why you would continue to interact with people you dislike so much.
He's already admitted to being a troll. He probably doesn't dislike them as much as he pretends.
-
I don't understand why you would continue to interact with people you dislike so much.
He's already admitted to being a troll. He probably doesn't dislike them as much as he pretends.
Oh, I didn't realize that.
-
I don't understand why you would continue to interact with people you dislike so much.
Not many other people to associate with who share a common political agenda. I've tried talking to conservatives and other right wingers, but the moment you argue in favor of anti-statism you get thrown out as naive or Utopian. It's easier to discuss anti-statism and simply mention that my private police will enforce some policies many of them disagree with.
He's already admitted to being a troll. He probably doesn't dislike them as much as he pretends.
Obviously there may be some hyperbole (especially given I wrote that statement when I was having an argument over child spanking and it got heated), I'm at least an honest troll. While I do provoke others, I've never been dishonest in doing so.
-
It looks like the troll reference guide must be updated to include the new "honest troll."
-
I don't understand why you would continue to interact with people you dislike so much.
Not many other people to associate with who share a common political agenda. I've tried talking to conservatives and other right wingers, but the moment you argue in favor of anti-statism you get thrown out as naive or Utopian. It's easier to discuss anti-statism and simply mention that my private police will enforce some policies many of them disagree with.
He's already admitted to being a troll. He probably doesn't dislike them as much as he pretends.
Obviously there may be some hyperbole (especially given I wrote that statement when I was having an argument over child spanking and it got heated), I'm at least an honest troll. While I do provoke others, I've never been dishonest in doing so.
Okey dokey.
Seems like using violence against people is sorta breaking the non aggression principal.
Especially people who are in a position that they can in no way protect themselves. Like when their opponent is 20 times their size. Or 5 times their size. Or twice their size.
-
Seems like suing violence against people is sorta breaking the non aggression principal.
If those people are the aggressors using violence against them is A-OK according to the non aggression principal.
I was referring to spanking children.
-
wtf? I guess this is way off topic!
I agree with Stephanie - don't hit people - even kids.
Use the golden rule.....treat folks the way you would like them to treat you...
-
Use the golden rule.....treat folks the way you would like them to treat you...
What if I like getting the crap beat out of me........ like some sick fettish I have?
I dont, but what if?
-
anyone who likes that is of a unique click and probably don't like it that much unless they can control the intensity.
there's always an exception to every rule.
-
Seems like suing violence against people is sorta breaking the non aggression principal.
If those people are the aggressors using violence against them is A-OK according to the non aggression principal.
I was referring to spanking children.
Me too.
I would imagine that if you don't initiate violence against a child that said child wouldn't be prone to initiating violence in the first place.
Having said that, spanking in the vast majority of cases is not a response against initiated force.
The vast, vast majority of spankings are considered by the child beater as "corrective", you know?
-
I would imagine that if you don't initiate violence against a child that said child wouldn't be prone to initiating violence in the first place.
Don't take this the wrong way, but... ever raised a kid?
At a certain point, they will indeed initiate violence, purely out of curiosity. How the parent reacts (or fails to react) at that point determines a lot.
-
I would imagine that if you don't initiate violence against a child that said child wouldn't be prone to initiating violence in the first place.
Don't take this the wrong way, but... ever raised a kid?
At a certain point, they will indeed initiate violence, purely out of curiosity. How the parent reacts (or fails to react) at that point determines a lot.
No, and please read again. :P
I/we wouldn't be a good parent/s, so we're not having kids.
Making an honest assessment of one's limitations is very helpful. There will be no children who have an unsatisfactory childhood because of me.
-
I/we wouldn't be a good parent/s, so we're not having kids.
Thats about as honest a statement as I've ever heard.
I'm the same way when it comes to kids. They're cool and all. Just not for me, cuz I'd be a terrible parent, unless of course I was forced into the situation, by way of unplanned pregnancy or my sperm stolen from me in the night by some crazed woman. Then I'd probably be a good parent, but only after I changed a whole shitload of stuff about myself that parenting would require, and that would suck.
I'm a really good uncle tho. Easy to do when youre not really responsible.
-
Its your business, but you're missing out on probably the most fulfilling thing there is in this life!
-
Its your business, but you're missing out on probably the most fulfilling thing there is in this life!
Even better than snorting a line off of a hookers ass?
-
not better, but longer lasting - plus, you can still do that and have kids too!
-
Its your business, but you're missing out on probably the most fulfilling thing there is in this life!
Having children is not in the cards for us. It's not a matter of disliking kids.
I'd rather not be a parent at all than be the sort of parent that raised me, and I don't want to be dealing with an 18 year old kid at the age of 55.
Also, if I raised a kid who ended up damaged because I was a bad parent, I would have two choices:
1. Lie to myself like most parents who are bad.
2. Not be fulfilled in the way you're talking about.
We like quiet, we like our money, we like our stuff, and we like our cats. Kids would make all of that harder to have.
-
I don't know why people spank their kids. All I am saying is that it is possible for someone to spank a kid, and not violate the NAP.
I agree. Yes. It is possible to hit a child in self defense.
I've never spanked my kids. I don't even like when people scream and yell at kids, and think a lot of that seems abusive.
I agree.
But I think there can be times when yelling, and even spanking may be appropriate. I'm not willing to put the "never acceptable" label on spanking.
I wouldn't say "Never acceptable" either. I would however, say "Rare enough as to be almost inconsiderable in the vast majority of cases."
-
I don't feel I have the authority to label something "acceptable" or not. I have my notions and will talk about them but I feel kind of silly speaking about morality in absolutes. This is not because I don't believe in objective morality, but because I know I'm a finite and fallible human being who doesn't have a monopoly on truth.
The way I think of spanking is that it carries a heavy price. It's a choice that seems expedient in the moment but the long-term consequences are difficult to conceive of and are likely vast. I think if you hit your child, you destroy some trust, confuse them about when violence is called for, and possibly much more. It takes an exponential amount of work to regain trust compared to what it takes to avoid losing it in the first place. I hear a lot of justifications to the tune of "I had to or my kid could die." and "(S)he's too young to understand an explanation so I just have to classically condition against the might-die scenario." And if they're too young to understand an explanation, e.g. "Cars will run you over dead if you go in the street!" then they're too young to understand why you're hitting them, and that will leave a mark for a long time.
-
I know I'm a finite and fallible human being who doesn't have a monopoly on truth.
This. Why do non parents give so much advice to parents? What do you have to gain? Parents at best just nod politely to your clueless advice and at worst make fun of you.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Lec3m1pLY[/youtube]
-
I know I'm a finite and fallible human being who doesn't have a monopoly on truth.
This. Why do non parents give so much advice to parents? What do you have to gain? Parents at best just nod politely to your clueless advice and at worst make fun of you.
Even when people think they are right and have the soundness of the NAP backing up their positions, it helps to understand that even the libertarian ideology serves a limited purpose, mainly that of providing an individual with an ethical code. In an imperfect world of fallible people, there will be 'imperfect' actions, and people should be free to find (market) solutions in their lives with as much accordance towards the philosophy of liberty as possible. In not advocating a specific form of active governance of human action, temperance is the implied virtue of a wise individual seeking harmony.
Just because someone does not have any children doesn't mean they would be a bad parent, or a poor advice giver. BTW, why would someone with a genuine concern for the welfare of a child be dissuaded by ridicule from parents? Granted, it could be an ineffective communication exchange, but it does not imply fault one way or the other.
To simplify the argument: Some people are over-zealous in spreading their opinions. Temperance is a virtue, but only one virtue. Parents do not have absolute control of their children as they grow into individuals, ethically or realistically.
-
This. Why do non parents give so much advice to parents? What do you have to gain? Parents at best just nod politely to your clueless advice and at worst make fun of you.
Here we go again. We've been through this... recently.
I realize lots of parents hit their kids. I'm also aware that lots of people believe in democracy. It's broadly accepted that abuse is cyclical so it doesn't surprise me that lots of parents feel that this is completely normal since that's how most of them were raised.
I'm gonna express my opinion sometimes. Deal with it. I'm pretty used to lots of people laughing at me for holding opinions that differ dramatically from majority opinions of our society, a society that's got some serious... issues. So saying lots of parents agree with you and that you're just laughing at me for being so "obviously" wrong is still a pathetic cop-out argument IMHO.
Grow an argument.
-
Flatly equating spanking with abuse is simply absurd. I don't/won't have children, so it will not be a practical question for my personal behavior. I was spanked, probably about a half dozen times, as a child (that is, when I was old enough to remember.) It was done in what I would call a "respectful" way by people who believed it was the right course of action (parents, teachers.)
This extremism is what loses a lot of "fellow travelers" who would probably be more open to principled libertarian ideas if they didn't have this pompous crap shoved down their throats. We all know that the difficult and often unsettled liberty issues involve children, so I'd like to suggest that people back off the self-righteousness in the area of these issues. I think refraining from the judgmental attitude in areas like this makes it easier to persuade people on issues that are more settled.
-
you go Ken!
-
I know I'm a finite and fallible human being who doesn't have a monopoly on truth.
This. Why do non parents give so much advice to parents? What do you have to gain? Parents at best just nod politely to your clueless advice and at worst make fun of you.
Even when people think they are right and have the soundness of the NAP backing up their positions, it helps to understand that even the libertarian ideology serves a limited purpose, mainly that of providing an individual with an ethical code. In an imperfect world of fallible people, there will be 'imperfect' actions, and people should be free to find (market) solutions in their lives with as much accordance towards the philosophy of liberty as possible. In not advocating a specific form of active governance of human action, temperance is the implied virtue of a wise individual seeking harmony.
Just because someone does not have any children doesn't mean they would be a bad parent, or a poor advice giver. BTW, why would someone with a genuine concern for the welfare of a child be dissuaded by ridicule from parents? Granted, it could be an ineffective communication exchange, but it does not imply fault one way or the other.
To simplify the argument: Some people are over-zealous in spreading their opinions. Temperance is a virtue, but only one virtue. Parents do not have absolute control of their children as they grow into individuals, ethically or realistically.
I have, in fact, never said what my policy is to spanking. I was just as full of advice 18 years ago when I wasn't a parent as any non- parent here. Raising kids is very difficult and it is not made any easier when clueless judgemental twits give unsolicited advice.
Using a chocolate reward system for potty training might work, I don't know. I sure as hell am not going to tell him he is wrong, or weird, he is not violating the NAP by trying it. I don't remember how I was potty trained. I believe I was forced to sit on the little bucket thingy for as long as it took for me to produce some product and Mumsy and Dadsy acted like I created cold fusion in celebration when they got some brownish prize.
I do know I learned relatively early and my parents were glad when I did, because they were dirt poor and needed to save money by not buying (or washing) diapers. My own parents had no qualms about using force, they enjoyed, you know, eating.
They finally moved out of poverty when I was around five or so. But they still believed in force and discipline and earning freedom (going hand in hand with responsibility). If I crossed a line I got the kind of whipping you read about in American history books. My parents had to teach me some sort of responsibility and stop me from doing stupid things. I was spoiled rotten. I got my first motorcycle when I was 8, my first rifle at 10, and my first handgun at 12. ( the first time I drove solo: a tractor- 6, a motorcycle- 7, a car- 11) If I didn't instinctively follow my Dads rules, I probably would have died trying to shoot jackrabbits on a moving vehicle cross country right after I shot my dick off with the revolver stuck in my jeans. In other words my Dad was a hardass because he felt it was the price to pay for giving me so much responsibility (and the freedom that goes with it) at a early age. I guess he could have patiently waited "til I was ready" but life is precious and procrastination was never his thing.
-
Also this:
(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=family_decals_1z0g8d059r.png)
-
Also this:
(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=family_decals_1z0g8d059r.png)
Thats my plan. Fuck having kids, I want the $$$$$.
-
Thats my plan. Fuck having kids, I want the $$$$$.
You can always have the kids, then sell them on the black market to the highest bidder.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/SP38AyoEcSI/AAAAAAAAIEI/wFIu5Bz-S-8/s400/robin_hayes_dollar_sign_eyes.jpg)
-
You can always have the kids, then sell them on the black market to the highest bidder.
With all the overhead involved in that kind of business, it's really hard to stay in the black.
... Uhm... so I hear.
-
Also this:
(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=family_decals_1z0g8d059r.png)
Well...... FUCK!
At least I don't have to mow my own lawn!
-
Well...... FUCK!
At least I don't have to mow my own lawn!
Don't even get me started...
Just got done putting the deck back onto my rider on a gravel driveway.
Fucking thing wants to burn through a belt every forth or fifth mow. At 35 bucks a belt + gas it's almost cheaper getting a yard service.
Hopefully it's fixed now.
-
Well...... FUCK!
At least I don't have to mow my own lawn!
Don't even get me started...
Just got done putting the deck back onto my rider on a gravel driveway.
Fucking thing wants to burn through a belt every forth or fifth mow. At 35 bucks a belt + gas it's almost cheaper getting a yard service.
Hopefully it's fixed now.
Sounds like its on too tight. Happened with my brand new Troy Bilt....3 belts last summer within 3 months. Took it to a guy down the street who put a slightly bigger belt on it and it lasted the last part of last year, and all of this year so far with no probs.
-
Also this:
(http://chattypics.com/download.php?file=family_decals_1z0g8d059r.png)
Thats my plan. Fuck having kids, I want the $$$$$.
That worked for my daughter and her husband. Together, they pull down $100K, and spend all their free time traveling and playing WoW.
-
I have to agree about considering that FDR should be considered as a cult.
The problem is that Stefan claims philosophy and states that he is open for debate. The problem is that after some people started trying to complain personally to Stefan about what is going wrong on his forums, topics being locked before conclusion, people being banned without any reason) his tone has changed lately and now anyone criticising or trying to negotiate or at least, even merely asking what the hell is going on is merely considered a "hater". That is pretty bad.
To the point that any complaint to moderation is considered "leashing at the moderation emulating their childhood traumas". Unless those people are trained psychologists, that is a very bold (and incorrect) statement to make.
At least if you are banned and no reason is given. I know of cases of people who actually called the moderation because they were being harassed by some "philosopher king" for not being atheists (that you can buy, what takes a huge dump in the meaning it truly has in philosophy) that got banned for doing exacly that.
Then at their forums they try to squeeze money from people, I have even read "pay up or shut up being brought about". The problem however is moderation I so believe, at least at FDRF. I think the guy who goes by the name Michael is sitting and deciding too much based on his personal bias (theists are the usual victims of abuse at their forums, and yet, usually the ones kicked out, regardless if they are discussing anything related to that, but because they happen to be theists, so bite me and call me a dodo if the guy is not doing that because he is an atheist)
It really agravates me that Stefan is managing to get away with deFOOing, and Michael DeMarco is getting away with banning people for not being atheists while probably convincing Stefan that those people are just "haters" it is a disgrace for philosophy what is going on in there when I thought that finally philosophy would have a chance again. Just another cult.