Freedomain Radio

Mr. C:

Conrad:

But at least right now this situation here does not to me seem like a similar sort of thing, and I have tried to explain in what sense I experienced it as bullying behaviour. it's up to Stef now to respond and I hope he can make it clear that my feelings were irrational and that his behaviour was not bullying.

I think it's great that you're open to that. So, to start off, "bullying" seems a bit fuzzy to me. What specific moral principles do you feel Stef has violated ?

Have you read my analogy post? i think most of it should be clear from that

Stef's actions (and that of other people) do not create an atmosphere wherein open, positive, honest and rational discussion, no taboos, is possible. Instead there is an atmosphere where arguments and questions are not responded to, and there is ridiculing and pathologizing to bully the other into submission

[edit: although Stef of course was right about the temperature and steel thing. but that is just one point]

anyway, I think it's Stef's turn first to respond

Conrad:

Mr. C:

Conrad:

But at least right now this situation here does not to me seem like a similar sort of thing, and I have tried to explain in what sense I experienced it as bullying behaviour. it's up to Stef now to respond and I hope he can make it clear that my feelings were irrational and that his behaviour was not bullying.

I think it's great that you're open to that. So, to start off, "bullying" seems a bit fuzzy to me. What specific moral principles do you feel Stef has violated ?

Have you read my analogy post? i think most of it should be clear from that

Stef's actions (and that of other people) do not create an atmosphere wherein open, positive, honest and rational discussion, no taboos, is possible. Instead there is an atmosphere where arguments and questions are not responded to, and there is ridiculing and pathologizing to bully the other into submission

anyway, I think it's Stef's turn first to respond

Um, that is like, the exact opposite of what Stef (and other people) have created here, I'm really baffled by this one. What do you think "this conversation" is?

What about Andrew's actions? The description above seems quite fitting for Francois, Niels and Andrew so far in my book.

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

Mr. C:

Conrad:

But at least right now this situation here does not to me seem like a similar sort of thing, and I have tried to explain in what sense I experienced it as bullying behaviour. it's up to Stef now to respond and I hope he can make it clear that my feelings were irrational and that his behaviour was not bullying.

I think it's great that you're open to that. So, to start off, "bullying" seems a bit fuzzy to me. What specific moral principles do you feel Stef has violated ?

Have you read my analogy post? i think most of it should be clear from that

Stef's actions (and that of other people) do not create an atmosphere wherein open, positive, honest and rational discussion, no taboos, is possible. Instead there is an atmosphere where arguments and questions are not responded to, and there is ridiculing and pathologizing to bully the other into submission

anyway, I think it's Stef's turn first to respond

Um, that is like, the exact opposite of what Stef (and other people) have created here, I'm really baffled by this one. What do you think "this conversation" is?

What about Andrew's actions? The description above seems quite fitting for Francois, Niels and Andrew so far in my book.

Nathan, I have pointed out so many examples of this behaviour in you (remember your complete mis-representation of David's post?), Greg (I actually did this in 3 or 4 parts in response to one of his posts + in a personal phone call) and Stef so i dont know what it means that you say you are baffled by this.

I have repeatedly felt not scared but at least very uncomfortable posting things cuz i knew there were going to be insults, psychologizations and no responses to arguments and questions

Conrad:

Stef's actions (and that of other people) do not create an atmosphere wherein open, positive, honest and rational discussion, no taboos, is possible. Instead there is an atmosphere where arguments and questions are not responded to, and there is ridiculing and pathologizing to bully the other into submission

Conrad:

Mr. C:

Conrad:

But at least right now this situation here does not to me seem like a similar sort of thing, and I have tried to explain in what sense I experienced it as bullying behaviour. it's up to Stef now to respond and I hope he can make it clear that my feelings were irrational and that his behaviour was not bullying.

I think it's great that you're open to that. So, to start off, "bullying" seems a bit fuzzy to me. What specific moral principles do you feel Stef has violated ?

Have you read my analogy post? i think most of it should be clear from that

Stef's actions (and that of other people) do not create an atmosphere wherein open, positive, honest and rational discussion, no taboos, is possible. Instead there is an atmosphere where arguments and questions are not responded to, and there is ridiculing and pathologizing to bully the other into submission

[edit: although Stef of course was right about the temperature and steel thing. but that is just one point]

anyway, I think it's Stef's turn first to respond

If you're so concerned with manners, why did you not publicly chastise Andrew for his repeated manipulative and negative responses to my questions and corrections?

Conrad:

Nathan, I have pointed out so many examples of this behaviour in you

I've not seen a one that made any sense to me.  The one single Hitler argument is the only thing I can think of where I mistakenly held on to a bad analogy.

(remember your complete mis-representation of David's post?), Greg (I actually did this in 3 or 4 parts in response to one of his posts + in a personal phone call) and Stef so i dont know what it means that you say you are baffled by this.

You posted a supposed "misrepresentation" of David's post but it really was a post of personal attacks and/or assertions by David.

 

I have repeatedly felt not scared but at least very uncomfortable posting things cuz i knew there were going to be insults, psychologizations and no responses to arguments and questions

I've never, to my knowledge, insulted anybody on this board.  I haven't really been responding to you lately until now.  As for your analogy it's kind of an accurate depiction of Andrew and David's arguments considering that it is about a kid who supports a bad idea, can't make any logical arguments for it yet continues to cling to it irrationally and then comes up with another issue wherein some fun is poked at his clinging to irrational ideas.  The one thing missing from that story is the further ad hominems and wild and irrational assertions from the kid about why people are making some pretty well reasoned arguments.

What I still don't get is why you haven't made any complaints about the way Andrew has been attacking everyone's opinion, intimidating and attacking people for criticizing anyone for their irrational ideas (Ed Brown) or actions (Ron Paul/Ronald Reagan).  Why aren't you talking about Andrew first and then Stef because A: Stef began this fantastic conversation about liberty and opened up the discussion to everyone, shows us how we can have great discussions even with socialists or conservatives and B: Stef is far, far less antagonizing than anybody especially Andrew.  Stef is not in control of Andrew's behavior - see "The Blame Throwers" podcast or even my "Up is Down" post.

Stefan Molyneux:

If you're so concerned with manners, why did you not publicly chastise Andrew for his repeated manipulative and negative responses to my questions and corrections?

Because I dont see how Andrew is unique in this respect (I have criticised Niels in personal conversations about his behaviour though) and it seems more important to go after 'the big guys on the board'.

Conrad:

it seems more important to go after 'the big guys on the board'.

Why? So, ignore the guys who are actually doing what you are accusing us of doing right? And just go for us because we're "big"? 

Nathan McKaskle:

Conrad:

it seems more important to go after 'the big guys on the board'.

Why? So, ignore the guys who are actually doing what you are accusing us of doing right? And just go for us because we're "big"? 

 

going for you because you are doing at least exactly the same thing and yes because you're "big".

i cannot believe that you can say that you dont remember or whatever having ever insulted somebody on the board. the problem is that your insults mostly come in the form of psychologizations, they're a very sophisticated form of insults, and this has been pointed out to you time and time again. the fact that you dont even accept that you completely misrepresented David's post and even try to attack him for doing that is just laughable

[edit: if I cannot show what you are doing wrong with that example, then I cant do it with any example. Would you like me to re-post the example so that we can go over it together?]

Conrad:

i cannot believe that you can say that you dont remember or whatever having ever insulted somebody on the board. the problem is that your insults mostly come in the form of psychologizations, they're a very sophisticated form of insults, and this has been pointed out to you time and time again. the fact that you dont even accept that you completely misrepresented David's post and even try to attack him for doing that is just laughable

Conrad:

the problem is that your insults mostly come in the form of psychologizations, they're a very sophisticated form of insults, and this has been pointed out to you time and time again. 

So making a well reasoned psychological observation is insulting? I'm guessing you aren't in therapy?

I'm saying that it is well reasoned because it has been very well reasoned out in about 787 podcasts and countless board discussions as well as my own blog post and even a book by Alice Miller.  Neither David nor you have refuted that reasoning and instead claim to be "offended" by it.  Well, becoming "offended" doesn't exactly give a person moral credibility or make their argument valid.
 

Mr. C:

Conrad:

i cannot believe that you can say that you dont remember or whatever having ever insulted somebody on the board. the problem is that your insults mostly come in the form of psychologizations, they're a very sophisticated form of insults, and this has been pointed out to you time and time again. the fact that you dont even accept that you completely misrepresented David's post and even try to attack him for doing that is just laughable

You're against taboos, but you seem to have a taboo against talking about other people's psychology at all. What am I misunderstanding ?

i have said repeatedly that for me the criterion to be justified in psychologizing rather than putting forward arguments is the following:

- you have repeatedly and demonstrably pointed out to a person that his arguments are flawed

- the person doesnt accept this and instead ignores the criticism, tries to steer the conversation in another direction, becomes abusive and so on. and he continues to do this instead of arguing

then you know that there is a deeper most likely psychological issue going on

This was not the case with David's arguments. I have seldom seen somebody who has written such careful argumented posts, responding point-by-point and so on.

Conrad:

i have said repeatedly that for me the criterion to be justified in psychologizing rather than putting forward arguments is the following:

- you have repeatedly and demonstrably pointed out to a person that his arguments are flawed

- the person doesnt accept this and instead ignores the criticism, tries to steer the conversation in another direction, becomes abusive and so on. and he continues to do this instead of arguing

then you know that there is a deeper most likely psychological issue going on

This was not the case with David's arguments. I have seldom seen somebody who has written such careful argumented posts, responding point-by-point and so on.

Mr. C:

Conrad:

i have said repeatedly that for me the criterion to be justified in psychologizing rather than putting forward arguments is the following:

- you have repeatedly and demonstrably pointed out to a person that his arguments are flawed

- the person doesnt accept this and instead ignores the criticism, tries to steer the conversation in another direction, becomes abusive and so on. and he continues to do this instead of arguing

then you know that there is a deeper most likely psychological issue going on

This was not the case with David's arguments. I have seldom seen somebody who has written such careful argumented posts, responding point-by-point and so on.

Alright, so the taboo is a bit different: you have a taboo against wondering why rational people are arguing something and then openly discussing it. No one may do that ?

that's perfectly okay with me. In fact I have answered this exact same question that was repeatedly posed to me by Greg 3 (three! Drei! trois) times. And I think David has also already answered this question in the thread I am talking about (not completely sure though). When then the opponents continue to psychologize and not put forward or respond to actual factual and logical arguments, then there is something fishy going on and it is obviously not intended as an honest interest in the other's psyche or an honest interest in the debate itself. It is purely meant to ridicule and insult the other and to make him shut up or agree

Conrad:

that's perfectly okay with me. In fact I have answered this exact same question that was repeatedly posed to me by Greg 3 (three! Drei! trois) times. And I think David has also already answered this question in the thread I am talking about (not completely sure though). When then the opponents continue to psychologize and not put forward or respond to actual factual and logical arguments, then there is something fishy going on and it is obviously not intended as an honest interest in the other's psyche or an honest interest in the debate itself. It is purely meant to ridicule and insult the other and to make him shut up or agree