Freedomain Radio

soma:

Idea for a solution

Thanks, Soma, for the great Idea. Thank you to Greg, Candice, and Nathan for agreeing, and adding suggestions and support. I'm glad to see some real useful ideas come out of this thread, which I was afraid was just turning into a rantfest.

Now I just need to learn how to do these things

soma:

actually, that makes sense. As long as the existing sites/blogs have more hits or more links going to them than liberating minds, your sites will appear higher in google. It is important to research search engine optimization techniques so that you know what to do. At least, that's what i've been told.

Well said sir! A fine idea.

 "It is not a matter of looking at things moment by moment, but rather at looking at a general trend over time. If I occasionally play a video game instead of talking to my wife, it is not because I only value video games, and do not at all value my wife - however, if I spend most of my time playing video games and ignoring my wife, then clearly there is a problem."

I mostly agree with you, but this doesn't necessarily translate to other situations well.  i have said several times in the past that this argument can hold some weight in certain contexts, but I find that it is usually used in a very inappropriate manner. 

If I criticise Ayn Rand tomorrow ... it does not innately mean that I have some personal vendetta against her, and I do not care about liberty because I am focused on her at the moment and not George Bush.  In fact, if I was talking to a group of Libertarians and I start bashing George Bush ... it seems like a pretty boring conversation since everyone would probably just say something like "Yeah."  If I made 20 videos criticising Ayn Rand, it doesn't mean that I think she is worse than Gargamel.  I might just think that I have profound and interesting points on Ayn Rand, and that there are a lot of people who can speak out against Gargamel much more effectively (because I make a very weak defense for smurfs). 

So Let's say there is a guy that makes 30 videos against Ron Paul, and one or two against George Bush.  it could mean that he thinks he has profound ideas on Ron Paul, and redundant ideas on George Bush.  It could mean that he is trying to appeal to a crowd consisting of Ron Paul supporters.  I am sure I can think of many more valid reasons that he might do this even if he thinks Ron Paul is about a million times better than George Bush. 

"If I say that religion and statism are very bad things, and then spend most of my time for over 18 months endlessly and viciously attacking a little anarchist/atheist site, and do relatively little to actually oppose religion and statism, then clearly my actions are out of whack with my values."

If they are actually viciously attacking you ... your case might apply.  I think i would have to see the situation.  however, if they are just criticising you a whole lot .. it doesn't mean that they do not care about the other stuff, or even care about it less.  It could mean that he listened to 1200 podcasts and has a whole lot of ideas about the things that you say.  Since his mind has been occupied by your philosophy so much, and not as occupied with Barack Obama ... he might be interested in sharing those ideas with other people.  This person might not be currently in the process of taking anyone down ... he might just be on a philosophical search, and have a great desire to understand the world at the moment.  He thinks that by expressing his ideas and getting other people's opinions he can form his view of the world in a more effective manner. 

"The folks at Liberating Minds have attacked my character, denigrated my wife, used unbelievably abusive language, infiltrated this forum, insulted my listeners, enabled abusive parents -- and fed "information" to largely hostile mainstream reporters. I did not particularly care about this for 18 months, until it truly began to interfere with my time and reputation, largely through their use and contact with the mainstream media. I dealt with this problem in the same way that I would deal with a server problem which was interfering with podcast deliveries. It was the highest priority item that I had to deal with at the time, and now that I have dealt with it, I am happily moving on to other issues."

I have made repeated comments that I do not support LiMi, and that from my perception they have done really shitty things.  Which has made me only make one post there which was defending your position on DeFOOing.  (http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/general-feedback-f15/aaron-youtube-about-lm-t1215.htm)

My huge contention that I have had is that the argument from priority seems to be utilized in most threads (or other source) that contains a complaint (whether rational or irrational) about you or FDR.  I believe this argument should be seldom used, and it does nothing to explain whether the argument is true or not.

Aaron0883:

"The folks at Liberating Minds have attacked my character, denigrated my wife, used unbelievably abusive language, infiltrated this forum, insulted my listeners, enabled abusive parents -- and fed "information" to largely hostile mainstream reporters. I did not particularly care about this for 18 months, until it truly began to interfere with my time and reputation, largely through their use and contact with the mainstream media. I dealt with this problem in the same way that I would deal with a server problem which was interfering with podcast deliveries. It was the highest priority item that I had to deal with at the time, and now that I have dealt with it, I am happily moving on to other issues."

I have made repeated comments that I do not support LiMi, and that from my perception they have done really shitty things.  Which has made me only make one post there which was defending your position on DeFOOing

Help me understand why you said the above straight after you said this:

Aaron0883:

"If I say that religion and statism are very bad things, and then spend most of my time for over 18 months endlessly and viciously attacking a little anarchist/atheist site, and do relatively little to actually oppose religion and statism, then clearly my actions are out of whack with my values."

If they are actually viciously attacking you ... your case might apply.  I think i would have to see the situation.  however, if they are just criticising you a whole lot .. it doesn't mean that they do not care about the other stuff, or even care about it less.  It could mean that he listened to 1200 podcasts and has a whole lot of ideas about the things that you say.  Since his mind has been occupied by your philosophy so much, and not as occupied with Barack Obama ... he might be interested in sharing those ideas with other people.  This person might not be currently in the process of taking anyone down ... he might just be on a philosophical search, and have a great desire to understand the world at the moment.  He thinks that by expressing his ideas and getting other people's opinions he can form his view of the world in a more effective manner. 

They seem to contradict each other, unless of course you are referring to someone else other than LIMI

I attack the argument from intimidation on principal.  While these comments were in a thread discussing LiMi ... I had, and have, no intention of defending them.  I am saying that someone can counteract someone logically and fairly (and even in abundance) without them being the highest priority in their value system innately.  Yet ... I do not think LiMi has been logical and fair.  I know it is all kind of weird and confusing ... if you read the previous posts I made in this thread they might make a little sense.

I am saying that the argument from priority has been a manipulative illogical tactic that has been employed and encouraged by many members of FDR ... It has been directed in many directions, and is utilized most of the time when there has been criticism of FDR or Stefan.  I have not seen it directed at LiMi until recently, because FDR did not address LiMi previously.  I am not even trying to make a general defense for anyone attacking FDR ... I am only showing that this argument is fallacious, and manipulative for the most part.

I would be interested in seeing an example of my hostility ... especially if it is not in response to previous hostility.  I believe I have been very civil, and have employed Stefan's philosophy of treating people how you have been treated philosophy.  Maybe I am way off the mark, but it seems like people want to paint me as the bad guy when it seems to me that since people can be hostile to me around here and I only respond by showing their hypocrisy.  I truly believe that it will be impossible for someone to quote even a hint of meanness that is not in response to someone else's meanness.  If someone can provide me with that quote I would be very interested, and would make a full rebuttal.  I have only made like 30-35 posts, so I believe it wouldn't take to long to find it.

The place I've most heard the "argument from priority" used is, if FDR is a cult or if Stef is a cult leader, then surely there are more dangerous cults out there more worthy of your time than one that consists of a podcast and an Internet forum, is supported by voluntary donations of time and money, and encourages people to talk to their families and seek out therapy.

The "argument from priority" is only applicable if you believe that FDR is a cult.

Is this what you think?  Then please provide the evidence.

I am not trying to make the claim that FDR is a cult.  I perceive that since you are hearing me be critical of something you are thinking that I am trying to show how contradicting Stef and FDR are as a whole ... I am not.  I agree with 95% of what Stefan says, and agree for the most part on all the major basis; Anarchy, Atheism, Consistency, Relationships, Defooing, Morality.  Just because I am criticising something doesn't mean that I want to bring down the whole system.

"The place I've most heard the "argument from priority" used is, if FDR is a cult or if Stef is a cult leader"

That is not the argument from priority.  It is often an ad hominem, and how a person comes to this conclusion might show that it uses a whole lot more fallacies.  However, if you want to see an argument from priority just look at your next line.

"then surely there are more dangerous cults out there more worthy of your time than one that consists of a podcast and an Internet forum"

This is the argument from priority.  This is the fallacy I am speaking of.  I understand that you may not consciously be trying to be intimidating or jerky ... however, I have made many comments attacking this premise in this thread.  I would encourage you to read them, and I would be interested if you do find a flaw in my logic. 

I understand that people are very sensitive and often interpret criticism of FDR or Stefan as a way to try to bring you down, or attack you unfairly.  It makes sense that people would do that considering that frequency that jerky people come on here and do not desire true rational debate.  however, I encourage you to not over generalize criticism in that manner.  There are some people like me just want to speak our ideas, and appreciate the debate that I can have with them.

The argument from priority is like saying a greater wrong can turn a lesser wrong into a right.  But I think it's also sometimes accidentally invoked by folks attempting in good faith to point out a common enemy and avoid in-fighting..

Nathan:

Aaron0883:

I just do not find UPB to be the end all of ethics, which seems commonly stipulated (or at least inferred) around FDR

Really? Where have you seen this?  Who said that?

Aaron0883:

Nathan.  I have seen about 10 comments that you have written in the past ... and they have all been snarky and rude.  You have always been very hostile and nasty to people you disagree with from my perception.  I even find your comment here to be snarky ... but maybe I just can't see you as curious and a genuine person because I have yet to see you handle someone you disagree with respectfully.  So if I ever comment at FDR, I will be choosing to ignore your comments.

fingolfin:

My view is that Xomniverse / Aaron are being pedantic, or simply claiming that UPB should do XYZ - and because it doesn't fill their own ridiculous criteria, engaging in baseless criticism.

Seriously, what are you talking about? What deeper understanding? Are you making some vague analogy between math and ethics?

Fin

Rose:

They are posing genuine arguments that happiness should be the greater and first cause in using UPB- and this makes their criticisms baseless?

 I secondly question whether your use of the world 'ridiculous' is not just an insulting attack in itself, clearly trying to dismiss the two as some kind of absurd ridiculers who want to attack UPB just because they have spare time, when I don't see this as the case at all.

The overall tone of your message, especially in the quotes I picked, is that of trying to make who you may consider enemies (Aaron and X) look like idiots, and though that tactic can be very charming in philosophical debates, it's not an honest way to win an argument.

Stefan Molyneux:

FinG, I think the critics are right, I think that you were too harsh, and there are better ways of communicating disagreement, in my opinion I think you owe a bit of an apology.

fingolfin:

Just to say that I'm very sorry to Aaron0883 and Xomniverse for my harsh words. I have no issue with admitting when I was out of line. I guess I had a little trouble at understanding the criticisms and vented my frustration on you guys. I do follow both your videos on YouTube and as I said I think you're both highly intelligent individuals and really nice guys, and meant no personal insult - so sorry if it came across like that. I don't have the greatest interpersonal skills - working on it (that's why I'm at FDR mainly in fact)!!!

Stefan Molyneux:

Hey Aaron, you came at me pretty strongly about that whole 'prioritization' thread - when I posted a reply, you vanished. What happened?

Aaron0883:

This has nothing to do with what i said.  I will reply to that now.  However, it seems more like you brought this up at this moment to try to make me look bad rather than because you are interested in a response to the other one.  I don't appreciate that.  I wrote several E-mails to you in the past that were totally ignored ... should I bring those up whenever you talk in a conversation I am in?  Should I show several threads that I asked questions that you and no one else at FDR responded to?  This seems like a pretty rude thing to do.

Stefan Molyneux:

Wow.

Aaron I certainly dont want to get into a fight with you over this. I guess I have to take you back to my previous post that talked about curiosity. Sometimes its better to ask questions as to why someone might think something negative of you rather than launching to a defence. However I am quite aware that you now perhaps feel unfairly picked on. This might be true for now, but I would urge you to consider your reactions as much as others. I am quite sure if you did that we could get this debate on track.

Xelent.  I am not claiming bad intent on your part ... but you are saying I said something and not giving the proper reason that I said that.  If I read what you put and I did not see anything else, I would say ... Damn Aaron, you are irrationally defensive. 

I did not respond to Nathan because I have no desire to debate with someone who has shown to me several times that he has no desire in rational debate with people who disagree with him.  I have no need to prove this to anyone because I am not trying to convince you that you should view Nathan similarly.  Therefore, no evidence should be expected.  If I am wrong ... tell me why and I promise you that I can produce the goods to back up my argument.  However, as of now ... spending a while digging that stuff up doesn't seem worth it when it is irrelevant and unneeded.

In your post you skipped a lot of steps and took a lot of stuff out of context ... sometimes in it's entirety .. which my criticism of Stefan's comment was highly contextual.  I am also getting bothered by the lack of curiosity the members of FDR have shown me, and how they keep telling me to have curiosity.  It ends up seeming just manipulative and hypocritical.  Maybe you should have been a little more curious here Xelent instead of just being defensive and inferring I am making unfair statements.

Aaron0883:

In your post you skipped a lot of steps and took a lot of stuff out of context ... sometimes in it's entirety

You know, I thought you would say that.. I really ummed and ahhed about using this material because I felt I might get this response..

What can I say, I certainly didnt mean to be manipulative and I apologise if you got that impression. I was only trying to guide you through your defences, that was all. I am curious to understand why you feel like that, because I can honestly say that I am trying to engage with you on a positive level.

Aaron0883:

I am saying that the argument from priority has been a manipulative illogical tactic that has been employed and encouraged by many members of FDR ... 

Practicality

People who invest their energy fighting against trivial threats (instead of real dangers) are not the type of person I want to persuade. Just imagine me spending time convincing someone that cults are dangerous, only to see him waste his efforts on mild organisations that aren't even cults. If his subconscious goal is to be ineffectual, then I don't want to have ineffectual people on my side. let him believe what he wants - why spend energy convincing him using logic? The only excuse for engaging with such a person is to help me express and refine my own ideas, for my own benefit.

Aesthetics

It all comes down to one question: Do you want to have a real effect on the world, or not?

a) If you do, then deal with bigger threats. It makes for a better story, and attracts more interest. You will also repel the annoying people mentioned above.

b) If you don't want to have a real effect on the world, but would prefer to spend your time muck-raking, then fine - but you must accept some consequences. For one, you will lose the luxury of enticing proactive people to your side with a dramatic, compelling moral battle, since your battle will be insignificant and trivial. Instead, you will find yourself ignored (if you are lucky), or worse, you will attract a hoard of nit-pickers and so on. And that's really no fun, because they're exactly the types of people who would turn on you and split hairs even further.

These people want to have their cake and eat it too: they want all of the drama of a righteous moral crusade, without taking on a big threat (which is what it takes to earn the dramatic crusade status).

No, no, no. The people who want to do things BIG, those are the ones you want around you. They will have something interesting and worthwhile to get excited about, and when they take action, something actually gets done. Think about the type of person who is like this, the sort of self esteem and energy that they tend to have - that their time is so valuable to them that they would not waste it dealing with trivial threats. I find those types of people far more enjoyable to be around, don't you?