Freedomain Radio

Derrick:

And, no, you do not need to whip our your banning gun on my behalf. I don't plan on coming back. Reading through this thread, and seeing your renewed inability to take responsibility for your own mistakes and biases is, I think, reason enough to abandon this environment. 

I think I understand your argument.

You feel that I treated Tyler with rude hosility, which is bad.

So you treat me with rude hosility, which is good.

Well.

Certainly if you believe that you are reasonable and kind, and I am hostile and unreasonable, you should find greener pastures for sure!

Edit

davidngo:

"if you go in and start thumping in on their reason, they will just get defensive and you won't get anywhere"  --- stef

"the point is to get THEM to think, it's not for you to be right, and it's not for you to correct them.  the point is to get them to think, cause that's a self-sustaining thing.  don't give him answers, you teach him to think, cause then he can do it on his own, and then he can become a force for truth"  -- stef

not exactly sure you were taking your own advice here, stef.

i don't think anyone is arguing that what you said wasn't true.  or that speaking the truth is inherently a bad thing.  in many situations, saying the emperor has no clothes is good.  but i definitely with this kid, there was a better way to get him to take the "pill of rationality and reason".

just something to think about. 

 
i know i've seen you act with much more level-headedness and with more ninja-like elegance than this.  you've gotten much more aggressive and disagreeable people to see your way, with a lot more tact and curiosity.  i don't think there's any reason why this kid couldn't have been dealt with in the same manner.

here's to better times ahead!
 

Home Run! 

I'm discouraged by this thread.  The Stef I began to like and trust was the one who said things like: 

"where we're coming from for most people is a place of near-freaky-ass insanity
right?  you just have to realize that you can't turn a fat chain smoking
slob to an olympic gold-medalist athlete in a span of two afternoons. and
you have to build credibility before people will listen to you.  and the problem
with us is, we get angry.  and then people say, okay this guys sounds crazy
and he appear angry....hmmmmm...i wonder if i should go with his ideas or not." -- Stef

I myself had problems getting others to see my point of view in a calm and rational way.  In a curious way.  And I was encouraged to see that someone else had a better way..and really good techniques to cure me of this problem. 

I think this kid was like that "fat-chain smoking slob" in terms of philosophy.  But he was also a curious one coming to us for help.  Yet I think Stef, by using the "hammer of logic" and plain truth, you wanted him to immediately turn into that gold-medalist.  You wanted him to immediately recognize, "My parents are evil!  I must not associate with them or even hold onto the possibility that we continue a relationship.  I defoo them and will listen to you."

That might have been the correct realization eventually, but expecting him to come to that immediately off the bat was a poor assumption.  And I also believe assuming that was the cure, based on very little information wasn't a good way to go.  Not to mention the general idea that "you have to defoo to join us", isn't going to convince anyone FDR isn't a cult.  I'm sure that's not your intention Stef.  But we already look like crazies as you mentioned before.  This doesn't help our cause.  The truth is the truth.  No one rational can deny that.  But there's a correct way of revealing the truth, so that they see it as well.

I think a lot of us just want that old Stef back. 

And FDR will once again be an inviting place where we can turn people into "forces for truth" and we all feel that we are partners in the search for the truth.  As opposed to "yes-men" for the shrine of FDR.
 

Stefan Molyneux:

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/tyler-s-run-t659.htm

My goodness, what a stalking hell hole of human misery. 

davidngo:

I'm discouraged by this thread.  The Stef I began to like and trust was the one who said things like: 

"where we're coming from for most people is a place of near-freaky-ass insanity
right?  you just have to realize that you can't turn a fat chain smoking
slob to an olympic gold-medalist athlete in a span of two afternoons. and
you have to build credibility before people will listen to you.  and the problem
with us is, we get angry.  and then people say, okay this guys sounds crazy
and he appear angry....hmmmmm...i wonder if i should go with his ideas or not." -- Stef

I myself had problems getting others to see my point of view in a calm and rational way.  In a curious way.  And I was encouraged to see that someone else had a better way..and really good techniques to cure me of this problem. 

I think this kid was like that "fat-chain smoking slob" in terms of philosophy.  But he was also a curious one coming to us for help.  Yet I think Stef, by using the "hammer of logic" and plain truth, you wanted him to immediately turn into that gold-medalist.  You wanted him to immediately recognize, "My parents are evil!  I must not associate with them or even hold onto the possibility that we continue a relationship.  I defoo them and will listen to you."

That might have been the correct realization eventually, but expecting him to come to that immediately off the bat was a poor assumption.  And I also believe assuming that was the cure, based on very little information wasn't a good way to go.  Not to mention the general idea that "you have to defoo to join us", isn't going to convince anyone FDR isn't a cult.  I'm sure that's not your intention Stef.  But we already look like crazies as you mentioned before.  This doesn't help our cause.  The truth is the truth.  No one rational can deny that.  But there's a correct way of revealing the truth, so that they see it as well.

I think a lot of us just want that old Stef back. 

And FDR will once again be an inviting place where we can turn people into "forces for truth" and we all feel that we are partners in the search for the truth.  As opposed to "yes-men" for the shrine of FDR.
 

I did not respond to this man after he posted his praise of his parents and this crazy LDS cult - but he directly asked why he was being ignored.

I did not think it was right to not respond at all - and no one else responded either - so I told him the truth about why I did not respond to him, because I do not think that lying to people is a good thing.

Anyway, you know how to get in touch with him. If you think Tyler is a reasonable fellow, who will flower into a rational philosopher, please feel free to demonstrate your skills of persuasion, I will be more than happy to be schooled...

Now I'm a bit confused as to what the best way to approach a "debate" is.  Cause there still seems to be a conflict between the two approaches.  Here's my interpretation of the two methods.  (you can correct me if i'm wrong)

1)  Be very curious, Socratic, and let them make the argument to you.  The goal is to get them to take the pill of reason and rationality.  To get THEM to think.  Not for you to be right and just spout out the answers.  Then they can become a force for truth.

2)  Tell them the truth outright and plainly.  If they understand it immediately and discount their previous beliefs/associations, then they are "hardy" enough to handle the journey of philosophy.  If not, they are not worth your time and you shouldn't waste your energy on them.

So which are you suggesting Stef?  Does it depend on the person?  And if so, what is the criteria for choosing which method?  I'm not too concerned with the Tyler issue, as much as what I should take out of it, in terms of reaching the goal of "spreading philosophy and truth".

Thanks Stef.

 

Well if someone asks me a direct question, I will do my best to answer it honestly and directly.

If I am trying to prove anarchism to someone, I will try to take it step by step.

If someone asks me: "Are you an anarchist?" I will say: "Yes."

If I am trying to disprove God, I will try to take it step by step.

If someone asks "Why aren't you responding to my posts" I will tell them why.

Does that help? 

I'll opt for number 2 (oh the irony) here, Davidngo, and tell you that when you wrote this:

you wanted him to immediately turn into that gold-medalist.  You wanted him to immediately recognize, "My parents are evil!  I must not associate with them or even hold onto the possibility that we continue a relationship.  I defoo them and will listen to you.

How on EARTH can you expect anyone to reply to you civilly when you ascribe motivations to their actions you could not possibly know anything about? Indeed, Stef has said quite plainly on this thread that his motivations were 100% in direct opposition to those you just accused him of.

I feel as if you owe Stef an apology.

I agree that I was exaggerating and assuming what Stef's intent was.  I'm sure he didn't intend the kid to see the error of his ways and defoo immediately.  That's just an impossibility.

I'm actually not emotional about any of this.  I was just confused because there seemed to be a contradiction with the great debating tips Stef gave me, and the way this kid was dealt with.

But I think I understand a bit more about where Stef was coming from.  I think in the beginning Stef was simply answering to why he was being ignored.  (which I have not enough information on, whether ignoring was valid)  And when he was told why, the kid responded understandably defensively.  Any bad interaction after that was inevitable.  Because it wasn't Stef's goal to get him to see the truth himself.  It was the second method alone.  Had Stef actually thought it was worth it to convince him and "make him a force for truth", I hope the interaction would have been different.

And I guess for every person whether to take the effort to do that is up to them.  It's sort of a subjective judgment of one's own values.  Do I think effort will produce good results?  It's just that with most of us, we don't own an entire website community.  So it only has an effect on our lives/effort.  Stef's decisions are just more high-profile (at least in this really niche community..haha) and thus are questioned with more scrutiny.

But I guess everyone has the right to direct their energy as they see fit.

Hope there weren't any hard feelings from this interaction.  If there were, I'm happy to discuss it further.  And I really do enjoy our interactions Stef on the Sunday shows.  You have been enormously helpful and open.  I would just be remiss to ignore the confusion I had and not say something.

Thanks Stef.
 

Stefan Molyneux:

I am not going to continue with this thread, since no one who is criticizing me has bothered to ask me why I did what I did, or shown any curiosity, and I believe that I have earned that consideration.

I'm not clear I understand what you are saying here.  You need a specific question in order to explain your actions?  I for one, did ask some questions in this thread.  Some were in response to your posts and some weren't. Here's one in particular that I don't think you answered that I think may be at least related to the question you were apparently waiting for: But why not trust him to learn and grow on his own, in his own time? 

Stefan Molyneux:

However, for those who feel concerned about Tyler, he is very easy to contact - someone mentioned that he is posting on another forum, so you can go and talk to him there: http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/freedomainradio-f26/tyler-s-run-t659.htm  If you are concerned about him, it is far better to talk to him directly of course.

Oh, that's interesting, thanks for finding him. 

bockman:

I think Stefan handled it the best way possible. Isn't that interesting?

Yes it is interesting!  It confirms for me that there are many preferences in relation to various communication techniques and we all respond in different ways.  And those responses can vary due to our personality traits, our learning modes/styles, and the direct personal experiences we have throughout our lives as we interact with others.

But to me, the best place to start with someone is to simply answer the question they ask, without trying to make guesses, assumptions and judgements about their life and their personal experiences.  I like to trust people to learn and grow and go deeper on their own, when they are ready.

blackacidlizzard:

Dtomboy:

Can you help me find where anyone helped him learn how to go about making friends and developing new relationships in college?

Well, I wonder if it is better to help a person with the problems they perceive they have or their real problems. (With due understanding that "I know what you need to face better than you do" sounds vastly over-egotistical )

I do not see how to proceed to the goal of good future relationships while remaining (honestly or willfully) ignorant the problems within existing relationships. If we do not know our current situation is not good, how can we avoid re-creating the same problems? I think it is essential to understand one's current attachments in order to form good relationships in the future.

I think you make good points Blackacidlizzard but you are right that I think it does sound vastly over-egotisical.  That's probably why I simply think that answering someone's direct question or request for advice is the best way to start.