Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Saturday April 12th, 2014: Toronto Bitcoin Expo

Sunday April 13th, 2014: Sunday Call In Show at 10am Eastern

Monday April 14th, 2014: Peter Schiff Radio Show at 10am Eastern

Wednesday April 16th, 2014: Wednesday Call In Show at 8pm Eastern


56 Philosopher King files - 71 Gold files - 39 Silver files - 50 Bronze files


Update: A new silver level file on Peer Influence and Envy has been added! Click here to donate if you'd like access to the various premium sections. If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Photo

A critique of Stefan Molyneux's Discussion with Stephan Kinsella


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#36
Darius

Darius

  • 790 posts

It was very interesting to watch this video discussion. And it was no less interesting to read this thread. For what it's worth, I find Aaron's - and Rose's - critiques valid and humble and S. Kinsella's reactions, seems to me, were defensive, non-curious and full of harsh tones and insults; it's a shame, because S. Kinsella is a very intelligent person.


It would be EXTREMELY rich to hear Stef's discussion with David Friedman about unschooling.


Edit: Oh, and kudos to you, Aaron, and your girlfriend; your dream / plan to open your own school is very praisworthy. It would be great to have more schools of such kind. Best of luck to you, guys.


  • 0

#37
Crystal

Crystal

  • 452 posts

If criticisms of parenting is what you want to focus your energies on... especially regarding violations of the NAP...
you're talking to the wrong parents.


  • 0

"The only knowledge we avoid is self-knowledge" - Molyneux


#38
fromonesource

fromonesource
  • 25 posts

I strongly disagree with this, and thus in my view it's pretty obvious there are some serious errors in the thought that underlies this approach. So, no, I have no interest in learning more about it.

I found this to be a tremendously disappointing response from Stephan. It's like saying "Yes, a KKK member told me about those black people. No, I have no interest in learning more about them, I know all I need, thank you."


  • 0

#39
ChangeOfSeasons

ChangeOfSeasons
  • 38 posts

If criticisms of parenting is what you want to focus your energies on... especially regarding violations of the NAP...
you're talking to the wrong parents.

No doubt they are all star human beings:) But they are also great to get feedback on criticisms since they are very rational and knowledgeable, can't get much better. 


  • 0

#40
fromonesource

fromonesource
  • 25 posts

I saw a breaking of the NAP in a story Stef told on a recent call-in show where he took Izzy home from the playground seeing she was quite tired despite her desire to keep playing on the swings and her crying all the while saying he was so sorry he had to do this. She napped 3 hours after they got home and he will most likely get retroactive consent for what he did, but it appears to me a violation of the NAP occured here.

If there is retroactive consent, there is no NAP violation.

Could someone explain this? I'm having a hard time understanding how retroactive consent changes the nature of an action. Can an action be considered aggression at one point in time and considered to be non-agression at a future point due to the person being acted upon consenting to the past agression?


  • 0

#41
Giedrius

Giedrius
  • 84 posts

Could someone explain this? I'm having a hard time understanding how retroactive consent changes the nature of an action. Can an action be considered aggression at one point in time and considered to be non-agression at a future point due to the person being acted upon consenting to the past agression?

 

If I pushed you without your consent and later you realized, that by doing that I saved your life, because a car was approaching towards you and you did not see it, you would be grateful for my action, i.e. would give me retroactive consent.

But that is not always unambiguous. There are at least some cases where it is not easy to say will you get retroactive consent or not. For example Stef's and tired Izzy's case or forcing a child to go to the school he does not want to go. In those scenarios everyone acts according to his own judgment - for example I would justify Stefan's actions towards tired 2 years old me, but wouldn't justify anyone forcing me to go to any kind of school, but that does not mean that my judgment is necessary the same other people (children) would have.

There is another problem with this approach (nevertheless I don't know any better) - people tend to justify actions of their abusers, so sometimes it's hard to say if person's true self or false self gives retroactive consent. For example (extreme one) I know at least one person, who thinks that his parents made him good by beating him while he was a child, i.e. he says he gives retroactive consent to them to beat him. It seems obvious, that it's his false self talking, but in other, less extreme cases, it's much harder to tell if this is a Stockholm syndrome, or a valid retroactive consent.

My personal approach is that ANY coercive action leaves negative imprint in humans minds, just sometimes this negative impact is less damaging than any other alternative (approaching car example). So one should avoid any coercive action as much as possible and use it only when, by your true self judgment, there are no other options left and damage in case of not coercing is very obvious.


  • 0

#42
Agalloch

Agalloch
  • 787 posts

Retroactive consent is not always related to life-saving situations, could we have an example with less of a life-boat situation.

The situation is only unique because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the aggressed. When it comes to a parent dictating that one is tired however, there is no lack of information on the part of the child about whether they are tired, and would rather take the risk of tiring themselves into mad exhaustion rather than submit to the rationale of sleeping and returnng at another time. If the childs choice is exhaustion, then preventing it is violation of the NAP at that time, whether they comprehend and forgive "best interests" at a later date is irrelevant. Claiming otherwise, especially in the case of a child who suffers from a relatively short attention span and a great likelihood to forgive parents, is akin to justifying abuse to a human being if you have the ability to wipe their minds clean of the event afterwards - or worse, similar to the justification of childhood circumcision which claims the children will not remember the pain.

Note, I have not heard the Podcast that this concept was originally brought up about, and my comments are not about Stef, only responding directly to the post above and the idea that retroactive consent somehow reshapes aggression.

I also found this comment by Stephan disapointing.

No, that's not aggression. I frankly think it's silly and ridiculous to characterize it this way."

While Stephan is a far above average parent, this comment still seems to mimic the psychology of the average parent. It offers no justification for shooting down a valid NAP criticism, seemingly because the concept left his comfort zone. Parents who do not believe spanking is abuse or aggression often word their responses in the same manner, in the belief that the new concept is so outrageous it is not worthy of discussion. While he may be completely 100% right that the stated interaction was not aggression, the response itself is unhelpful.

We cannot draw a line in the sand when it comes to our children and their wellbeing. To rule out a single criticism or piece of advise without a full understanding of it and its errors, because they question our Status Quo - however positive that status quo already is - is far from productive.

For what it's worth, I have taken alot away from the discussion between Stef and Stephan that I am sure will be useful for my parenting, but that doesn't mean we don't all have a lot to learn. To paraphrase Stef, expecting a good parent in the here and now - one who could possibly have a valid reason to not show exactly why a particular criticism is wrong - is like expeting to find a good doctor in the 13th century.


  • 0

#43
nick

nick
  • 58 posts

2


 


  • 0

#44
Russell Pellow

Russell Pellow
  • 1131 posts

The parent child relationship isn't the same relationship as two adults, the parent has a positive moral obligation for the wellbeing of the child, including, education etc.


Stef taking Izzy home when she didn't want to, was him doing his job as a parent, he had the insight as an intelligent adult that she was tired, and needed to sleep. So he acted as he is obligated to do. Of course we would argue it is good to explain these things to the child, so they learn to understand why the parent is doing these things. It sounds like stef did just this, he talked to her about it, she realized it was the right thing, and forgave him. I think that event is the perfect example of parenting. . . Stepping in and doing what is right, and explaining the actions to the child so they understand. 


Unschooling  / homeschooling is great . . but if you as a parent can find and investigate a private school that you believe will be the most beneficial to you're child, and your child enjoys it. . . then there is no problem with that either.


  • 0

#45
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19730 posts

I did respond to Aaron's piece on the last Sunday show, at about 90 minutes in...


[View:http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_1698_Sunday_Call_In_Show_18_Jul_2010.mp3]


FDR1698


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#46
Greg Minton

Greg Minton
  • 1319 posts

For those who are newer to the boards, it's worth pointing out that the guy who wrote this article (Aaron) had a conversation with Stef a few years ago. 


It's worth listening to this so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection.





  • 0

#47
ash

ash
  • 1787 posts

I haven't yet had time to watch the video or read this thread, but I wanted to say that I think its great that such an important topic (parenting and schooling) is being passionately debated. 


  • 0

www.ThinkCritically.net - Critical Thinking Articles+Videos.


Latest Articles/Videos: Truth and Acceptability and Soundness and Cogency (FDR Links) Try the questions!


#48
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

For those who are newer to the boards, it's worth pointing out that the guy who wrote this article (Aaron) had a conversation with Stef a few years ago. 

It's worth listening to this so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection.



 

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.


  • 0

#49
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

I think the next logical step would be a conversation between Stef and David Friedman. Anyone? That would be fantastic!


  • 0

#50
Greg Minton

Greg Minton
  • 1319 posts

For those who are newer to the boards, it's worth pointing out that the guy who wrote this article (Aaron) had a conversation with Stef a few years ago. 

It's worth listening to this so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection.



 

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

It's an issue of credibility, and it's absolutely relevant to the thread.

In the podcast, he evaded and turned the laser beam on others' errors but was very lax about his own errors.

As Stef pointed out in the recent Sunday show, that's exactly what's going on in this article, too.

It's the same old hat.  The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior.


  • 0

#51
Agalloch

Agalloch
  • 787 posts

It's an issue of credibility, and it's absolutely relevant to the thread.

In the podcast, he evaded and turned the laser beam on others' errors but was very lax about his own errors.

As Stef pointed out in the recent Sunday show, that's exactly what's going on in this article, too.

It's the same old hat.  The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior.

But we aren't trying to predict his behaviour, or decide whether or not to associate with him. His action is already here and considerable on it's own merit. Attack the thought, not the thinker.

The article has some relevant points to consider, and they can be considered without reference to the author. The article equally considers some disagreeable statements, which can be criticised without attacking the author, or brushing them off as Stephan unfortunately has.


  • 0

#52
Blank

Blank


  • 14136 posts

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

As Greg pointed out, it's not a question of Aaron's intelligence, but his credibility.

Before lobbing baseless judgments at Greg, grounded in nothing but interpretations and assumptions, perhaps it would help to be curious about your own emotional experience of Aaron's article, and the subsequent reactions to it.

 


  • 0

#53
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

As Greg pointed out, it's not a question of Aaron's intelligence, but his credibility.

Before lobbing baseless judgments at Greg, grounded in nothing but interpretations and assumptions, perhaps it would help to be curious about your own emotional experience of Aaron's article, and the subsequent reactions to it.

 

Wow, well that stung Greg. [:S]

I stated my disapproval of Aaron's tact in my initial post to this thread. Some of the ideas he was trying to convey are valid, at least in his support of unschooling, but I had problems with his delivery. 

I find it curious that you are accusing me of baseless judgements that are grounded in nothing by simply conveying my reaction to Greg's post. I found his statement "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection" to be an obvious dig at his intelligence. To me that sounds like he's calling him stupid and it took me back when I read it; and I responded as such. That's from the bottom of my heart Greg. You have reason to believe that I have some hidden motive that is more related to Aaron's original article than what I perceived to be a dig at his intelligence? Perhaps I should have just kept it to myself?


  • 0

#54
Blank

Blank


  • 14136 posts

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

As Greg pointed out, it's not a question of Aaron's intelligence, but his credibility.

Before lobbing baseless judgments at Greg, grounded in nothing but interpretations and assumptions, perhaps it would help to be curious about your own emotional experience of Aaron's article, and the subsequent reactions to it.

 

Wow, well that stung Greg. Tongue Tied

I stated my disapproval of Aaron's tact in my initial post to this thread. Some of the ideas he was trying to convey are valid, at least in his support of unschooling, but I had problems with his delivery. 

I find it curious that you are accusing me of baseless judgements that are grounded in nothing by simply conveying my reaction to Greg's post. I found his statement "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection" to be an obvious dig at his intelligence. To me that sounds like he's calling him stupid and it took me back when I read it; and I responded as such. That's from the bottom of my heart Greg. You have reason to believe that I have some hidden motive that is more related to Aaron's original article than what I perceived to be a dig at his intelligence? Perhaps I should have just kept it to myself?

 


  • 0

#55
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

For those who are newer to the boards, it's worth pointing out that the guy who wrote this article (Aaron) had a conversation with Stef a few years ago. 

It's worth listening to this so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection.



 

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

It's an issue of credibility, and it's absolutely relevant to the thread.

In the podcast, he evaded and turned the laser beam on others' errors but was very lax about his own errors.

As Stef pointed out in the recent Sunday show, that's exactly what's going on in this article, too.

It's the same old hat.  The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior.

Greg, this is the particular part of your post that seemed more like a jab than an honest critique to me: "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection." I was taken back when I read it because I know it would hurt/offend me if someone said that to me. I was not trying to lob baseless accusations against you. It's not that deep. I read your remark, it stung, and I said so. I didn't intend to offend you, and my apologies if I did. 

Do you feel that your remark was unkind in any way? Or do you feel that based on past experiences it was warranted? I'm really just curious as to if I am that off the mark.


  • 0

#56
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

As Greg pointed out, it's not a question of Aaron's intelligence, but his credibility.

Before lobbing baseless judgments at Greg, grounded in nothing but interpretations and assumptions, perhaps it would help to be curious about your own emotional experience of Aaron's article, and the subsequent reactions to it.

 

Wow, well that stung Greg. Tongue Tied

I stated my disapproval of Aaron's tact in my initial post to this thread. Some of the ideas he was trying to convey are valid, at least in his support of unschooling, but I had problems with his delivery. 

I find it curious that you are accusing me of baseless judgements that are grounded in nothing by simply conveying my reaction to Greg's post. I found his statement "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection" to be an obvious dig at his intelligence. To me that sounds like he's calling him stupid and it took me back when I read it; and I responded as such. That's from the bottom of my heart Greg. You have reason to believe that I have some hidden motive that is more related to Aaron's original article than what I perceived to be a dig at his intelligence? Perhaps I should have just kept it to myself?

 

Greg what are you intending to get out of this interaction with me? I do not understand what you are trying to convey by highlighting words of mine without context or statement. I chose those words to convey to you the fact that I posted my comment based on those perceptions. Is there a problem in my using those terms from your vantage point? 


  • 0

#57
nick

nick
  • 58 posts

2


  • 0

#58
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

I think the next logical step would be a conversation between Stef and David Friedman. Anyone? That would be fantastic!

+1. That would be fantastic. Cool I am quite blown away after reading the blog posts and his replies in the comment section.

David Friedman is awesome...one of the original ancap heavy waits. A conversation between him and Stef would be colossal. 


  • 0

#59
ChangeOfSeasons

ChangeOfSeasons
  • 38 posts

...It would be EXTREMELY rich to hear Stef's discussion with David Friedman about unschooling...

+1

 

+4


  • 0

#60
Blank

Blank


  • 14136 posts

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

As Greg pointed out, it's not a question of Aaron's intelligence, but his credibility.

Before lobbing baseless judgments at Greg, grounded in nothing but interpretations and assumptions, perhaps it would help to be curious about your own emotional experience of Aaron's article, and the subsequent reactions to it.

 

Wow, well that stung Greg. Tongue Tied

I stated my disapproval of Aaron's tact in my initial post to this thread. Some of the ideas he was trying to convey are valid, at least in his support of unschooling, but I had problems with his delivery. 

I find it curious that you are accusing me of baseless judgements that are grounded in nothing by simply conveying my reaction to Greg's post. I found his statement "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection" to be an obvious dig at his intelligence. To me that sounds like he's calling him stupid and it took me back when I read it; and I responded as such. That's from the bottom of my heart Greg. You have reason to believe that I have some hidden motive that is more related to Aaron's original article than what I perceived to be a dig at his intelligence? Perhaps I should have just kept it to myself?

 

Greg what are you intending to get out of this interaction with me? I do not understand what you are trying to convey by highlighting words of mine without context or statement. I chose those words to convey to you the fact that I posted my comment based on those perceptions. Is there a problem in my using those terms from your vantage point? 

You're perfectly free to use whatever terms you like, of course, but if you're going to accuse someone of being unjust on a philosophy forum, it might be a good idea to have a better argument than "it sounds to me like..".

The fact that you've decided to call Greg unjust (in "obviously digging" at Aaron's intelligence), dismissive, and verbally abusive (for "calling him stupid"), does not make it necessarily true. Hurling those bombs at him, with the only evidence being what you "find" his statements to be, is an attempt at getting him to self-attack (i.e., to accept the accusations as true, simply because you've leveled them).

Yet, an even more interesting question, is why you decided to do that. "Disapproval", "problems", and "wow" are not observations of your emotions, they're judgments and reactions. I don't know how you were feeling (because you haven't actually said so), but if i were to take an educated guess, I would suggest probably a lot of shame, anger, and fear - which is what anyone receiving a judgment of "low" and "unhelpful", and "dismissive" might be expected to feel, upon hearing it. In otherwords, an attempted projection.

I'm not suggesting any of that was neceessarily conscious or intentionally meant to hurt anyone. I'm just saying you might want to take a step back and be a little curious about yourself.


  • 0

#61
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

Greg this post doesn't seem very helpful to me. Maybe it's just me, but Aaron is clearly intelligent and obviously has a large capacity for critical thinking. He rubs me the wrong way at times as well, but this post seemed like a low, dismissive blow.

As Greg pointed out, it's not a question of Aaron's intelligence, but his credibility.

Before lobbing baseless judgments at Greg, grounded in nothing but interpretations and assumptions, perhaps it would help to be curious about your own emotional experience of Aaron's article, and the subsequent reactions to it.

 

Wow, well that stung Greg. Tongue Tied

I stated my disapproval of Aaron's tact in my initial post to this thread. Some of the ideas he was trying to convey are valid, at least in his support of unschooling, but I had problems with his delivery. 

I find it curious that you are accusing me of baseless judgements that are grounded in nothing by simply conveying my reaction to Greg's post. I found his statement "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection" to be an obvious dig at his intelligence. To me that sounds like he's calling him stupid and it took me back when I read it; and I responded as such. That's from the bottom of my heart Greg. You have reason to believe that I have some hidden motive that is more related to Aaron's original article than what I perceived to be a dig at his intelligence? Perhaps I should have just kept it to myself?

 

Greg what are you intending to get out of this interaction with me? I do not understand what you are trying to convey by highlighting words of mine without context or statement. I chose those words to convey to you the fact that I posted my comment based on those perceptions. Is there a problem in my using those terms from your vantage point? 

You're perfectly free to use whatever terms you like, of course, but if you're going to accuse someone of being unjust on a philosophy forum, it might be a good idea to have a better argument than "it sounds to me like..".

The fact that you've decided to call Greg unjust (in "obviously digging" at Aaron's intelligence), dismissive, and verbally abusive (for "calling him stupid"), does not make it necessarily true. Hurling those bombs at him, with the only evidence being what you "find" his statements to be, is an attempt at getting him to self-attack (i.e., to accept the accusations as true, simply because you've leveled them).

Yet, an even more interesting question, is why you decided to do that. "Disapproval", "problems", and "wow" are not observations of your emotions, they're judgments and reactions. I don't know how you were feeling (because you haven't actually said so), but if i were to take an educated guess, I would suggest probably a lot of shame, anger, and fear - which is what anyone receiving a judgment of "low" and "unhelpful", and "dismissive" might be expected to feel, upon hearing it. In otherwords, an attempted projection.

I'm not suggesting any of that was neceessarily conscious or intentionally meant to hurt anyone. I'm just saying you might want to take a step back and be a little curious about yourself.

I'm actually pretty confused. Something that seemed straightforward to me is turning out to be perceived 180 degrees different by you - imagine that! If I'm in the wrong I would like to realize it and will admit it. To be honest, I'm having the most negative emotions in connection with your posts. Maybe you can help me figure it out. 

Are you suggesting that I felt those negative emotions upon reading Greg's statements to Aaron and my response was an attempt at projecting on to Greg? 

Side question - do you think the statement "so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking" is an intellectual insult?

 


  • 0

#62
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19730 posts

In my opinion, saying "review this debate and to evaluate for yourself X's capacity for rational argument" is not an insult at all, rather it is an invitation to review empirical evidence and come to an objective conclusion.


"Here is the evidence, come to your own conclusion" can't ever be an insult I think, unless the evidence is manipulated in some manner.


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#63
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

In my opinion, saying "review this debate and to evaluate for yourself X's capacity for rational argument" is not an insult at all, rather it is an invitation to review empirical evidence and come to an objective conclusion.

"Here is the evidence, come to your own conclusion" can't ever be an insult I think, unless the evidence is manipulated in some manner.

I agree with the way you put it Stef, and I would not consider that an insult. 

GregM's statement sounded much more loaded than that to me, especially in context. I heard it as a direct insinuation that Aaron's critical thinking capacities were reduced. But as GregG was swift to point out, the problem very well could be (and probably is if GregM was being neutral) grounded in my perception and not Greg's statement. In that case, I'm truly sorry Greg. 

But I can't shake this feeling, the same one I felt when I first read his statement, that GregM was directly implying Aaron's critical thinking capacities were reduced. I would really like to hear what Greg was feeling/intending when he wrote the comment. I was not trying to attack anyone, rather I thought I was identifying an attack which sparked negative emotions in me.


  • 0

#64
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19730 posts

I don't want to speak for GregM of course, but that certainly was my experience as well Jimmy, but nonetheless Greg was still not saying anything directly negative about Aaron, but rather providing neutral evidence. It seems likely that he was providing evidence because he thought it did not reflect very well on Aaron, but that was for you to decide on, based on the facts.


If I say to my wife: "What do you think of the taste of this milk?" it implies that I think it tastes bad, but I'll still probably drink it if it tastes fine to her.[:)]


Does that make any sense?


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#65
fromonesource

fromonesource
  • 25 posts

I don't want to speak for GregM of course, but that certainly was my experience as well Jimmy, but nonetheless Greg was still not saying anything directly negative about Aaron, but rather providing neutral evidence. It seems likely that he was providing evidence because he thought it did not reflect very well on Aaron, but that was for you to decide on, based on the facts.

If I say to my wife: "What do you think of the taste of this milk?" it implies that I think it tastes bad, but I'll still probably drink it if it tastes fine to her.Smile

Does that make any sense?

This makes a lot of sense to me. I had a similar reaction to Greg's comment, although I know little about Aaron. 


  • 0

#66
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

I don't want to speak for GregM of course, but that certainly was my experience as well Jimmy, but nonetheless Greg was still not saying anything directly negative about Aaron, but rather providing neutral evidence. It seems likely that he was providing evidence because he thought it did not reflect very well on Aaron, but that was for you to decide on, based on the facts.

If I say to my wife: "What do you think of the taste of this milk?" it implies that I think it tastes bad, but I'll still probably drink it if it tastes fine to her.Smile

Does that make any sense?

Makes a lot of sense.  

[:$]


  • 0

#67
MrCapitalism

MrCapitalism

  • 1375 posts

You're perfectly free to use whatever terms you like, of course, but if you're going to accuse someone of being unjust on a philosophy forum, it might be a good idea to have a better argument than "it sounds to me like..".

The fact that you've decided to call Greg unjust (in "obviously digging" at Aaron's intelligence), dismissive, and verbally abusive (for "calling him stupid"), does not make it necessarily true. Hurling those bombs at him, with the only evidence being what you "find" his statements to be, is an attempt at getting him to self-attack (i.e., to accept the accusations as true, simply because you've leveled them).

Yet, an even more interesting question, is why you decided to do that. "Disapproval", "problems", and "wow" are not observations of your emotions, they're judgments and reactions. I don't know how you were feeling (because you haven't actually said so), but if i were to take an educated guess, I would suggest probably a lot of shame, anger, and fear - which is what anyone receiving a judgment of "low" and "unhelpful", and "dismissive" might be expected to feel, upon hearing it. In otherwords, an attempted projection.

I'm not suggesting any of that was neceessarily conscious or intentionally meant to hurt anyone. I'm just saying you might want to take a step back and be a little curious about yourself.

Greg, this post was amazing!!! What a perfect (imo, and emotional experience) analysis of the previous posts... seriously guys, I've been here awhile and am still at awe at the insight you guys are able to bring on a dialy basis!

Jimmy, if I can give some advice.. I don't think "Wow, well that stung Greg" wasn't the best way that you could have conveyed the emotion you were experiencing at the moment... \

And Stef, I was trying to make sense of his objection to your comment about "how do we manage the behavior of irrational creatures?" I was troubled because I felt unease at that question even though I surely know your intentions.. but then you stated it so clearly when you mentioned the sudden shift from the word "behavior" to the word "emotion"....

Man... you guys are really smart [:S] <-- Was feeling a lot of envy when typing this, especially since you guys make it look so obvious.

 


  • 0

#68
hkw

hkw

    '; DROP DATABASE PRISM;--


  • 629 posts

It's worth listening to this so you can hear firsthand this guy's capacity for critical thinking and introspection.


When I first read this, I also experienced it as a "dig" at Aaron's intelligence. I had not heard the referenced podcast, which was eye-opening concerning the author of the essay.

However, I have to admit that I am not quite sure what I can do with this information, and thus how it is genuinely germane to the discussion. Aaron was confused and defensive in the podcast when his emotional motivation came into question, so this would certainly mean that he is not in a firm position to question Stephan's defensiveness. (Perhaps it was Greg Minton's intention to point this out? Since he did not specify, I inferred that he meant that the podcast would cast Aaron's essay into question, since critical thinking would be crucial for putting together a cogent essay.) However, I was not under the impression from the previous posters in the thread that Aaron's position to criticize defensiveness was in question, so much as Stephan Consella's remarks in the Parenting podcast, the validity of Aaron's essay, and Stephan's defensiveness about the essay.

Moreover, if the podcast of Aaron is supposed to demonstrate the principle that an inability to cope with one's own defensiveness should cause an outsider to question that person's critical thinking and introspection, surely this would discredit anything that Stephan Consella said in the parenting podcast as much as it would discredit Aaron's essay about the parenting podcast. I would disagree with this principle in both cases, since I agree with much of what both gentlemen said in their respective original contributions to the topic.


  • 0

#69
MrCapitalism

MrCapitalism

  • 1375 posts

I also experienced the podcast as an ad hominem... I didn't see at which point, in his essay, the author based an argument on his personal integrity where the podcast would be applicable. If a crazy man gives us a mathematic equation while wearing a straight jacket in a padded room, his argument is not then automatically wrong. Although I'm sure we get to be very skeptical...


  • 0

#70
Dtomboy

Dtomboy
  • 315 posts

Here's a good intro thread on unschooling we had back in 2008: http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/t/18377.aspx

That was the first time I ever called the show. :) I don't even really remember what I said about unschooling. As a matter of fact, in the past few months I tried to get that roundtable podcast but it was unavailable. Not sure if that's still the case.

I understand much of what the original poster was trying to say and I also understand his difficulty in trying to explain it. I've been learning about and discussing unschooling for at least 15 years now and though it's easier now, it can still be hard to discuss it with those who have never even heard of the idea before.

I particularly liked his analogy to unschooling as anarchy. As a matter of fact, I posted a bit about that on one of my blogs last year, Unschooling Is Educational Anarchy.  I also have a blog where I am compiling short interviews with homeschooling parents and it has evolved into one that mostly contains parents who self-describe as unschoolers. Reading the answers to my 4 questions from many different unschooling families might help others to get an idea of what this is all about. I think I have about 90 interviews in total so far, but not all of them are unschoolers.

One comment as to Mr. Kinsella's view that unschooling is not related to libertarianism. That has not been my experience at all. Homeschooling led me to unschooling which led me to libertarianism. Unschooling is a very natural extension of the libertarian/voluntaryist philosophy for parents who are interested in bringing freedom into their child's education. As a matter of fact, at least one other poster here, cherapple and I have discussed this a time or two on this board.

I am very enthused to see this discussion, even if it's not going quite as positively as I would hope it would because it at least means the path FDR is trying to clear is now moving to the next level and everyone is seeing that parenting, even when done with lots of prior knowledge about the ideas discussed in the podcasts here is still never quite as clear and black and white as we would like. Parents have to make lots of decisions, on an almost daily basis and we may find we disagree with each other on certain issues because there are many, many individual circumstances in every family that might mean those decisions will not be identical to what another family does.

Finally let me just say, unschooling rocks! [Y]

 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users