"In the podcast, he evaded and turned the laser beam on others' errors but was very lax about his own errors."
No Greg, they were speaking from two very different contexts. Doesn't anyone realize that both parties were trying to get visibility on two completely seperate arguments in that podcast? Stefan was trying to get Aaron to see a point he was making, Aaron was trying to do the same, and when you have two people trying to get visibility from each other at the same time you end up with an emotional collision.
I remember reading a forum about that podcast some time ago where I read a comment that said "I can't believe he really didn't get it... he's a smart guy, how could he [Aaron] not see Stef's point??"
I could say the exact same thing about Stef not understanding Aaron's point if I assumed he should have seen it to begin with, but that couldn't have happened based on the circumstances of the conversation: both people wanted visibility and were arguing for two seperate points. I'm not even sure anyone can logically argue that it should have been Aaron to give Stefan visibility first, as opposed to the other way around. Aaron was upset that people were gossiping about him in the chat room (which is what inspired the conversation they had), and Stefan was upset that Aaron had made a video critiquing him without talking to him first about it. Both came into the conversation with concerns and disagreements, yet most of the responses on FDR I have seen towards that podcast have been under the assumption that it was Aaron's job to understand where Stef was coming from, before getting visibility for his own arguments and feelings. Why? Someone logically argue that it was his owness to do that and then maybe your criticisms will have some basis. Obviously if no one does that, then your only other options are to retreat into a little more of an objective understanding that both sides had feelings worthy of acknowledging, or to assume that anyone who disagrees with Stefan is an "evader". So far it seems like the stance at FDR is more focused on the latter explanation.
Don't you think that Stef seemed like just as much of an "evader" to people like Aaron (and others who understood where he was coming from) as Aaron appeared to FDR'rs? Obviously from Aaron's perspective, Stef was completely missing his point, even though he usually proves himself to be a pretty intelligent guy. And yes, that also affected Aaron's view of his "credibility" after that conversation, despite Stef's many great ideas and psychological help to people (including myself).
Furthermore, credibility doesn't have to be high to discuss points that were made in an intellectual article; the points are still valid. If someone wrote an article about libertarianism who looks at child pornography from time to time, you might question his psychology in terms of health, but the points in his article still remain and should still be addressed as long as people are responding to the article. That's not to say that people's psychology should be disregarded by any means, but if you don't even understand the context of the one piece of information you have to lean on as far as this guy's psychology (maybe someone caught him looking at porn with grown women with tiny boobs, assumed it was children, and went and told everybody), then you don't have a solid understanding of that person's 'credibility'.
Lastly, to Jimmy, there's nothing wrong what you said. All you were doing is giving your perceptions of Greg's comment, which there is nothing wrong with. It seemed to me like you were putting your perception cards on the table for Greg to read, and he didn't like what you had to say. He doesn't have to like it, but don't let someone shoot you down just because they don't like your perception. After all, our perception is our perception, and there's not much else we can do about that. Also, here's a great real-time example of what I was talking about earlier as far as seeing it from people's contexts: why should you (Jimmy) be the one to give empathy to Greg first? You didn't attack him or anything, you just gave your perception of his comment. He felt attacked by your perception and responded attacking you instead of having empathy, yet rags out on you for not having empathy for him. Which one's first? (I have an opinion, but it's irrelevant in terms of my point)
"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..". " Perceptions of external reality are really all we have when it comes to these arguments.... but, if you're saying there is a scientific equation that can show how someone was unjust, then point me in the right direction and I'll show you what I come up with.