DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

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 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 Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

 

We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MMX2010

Call-In-Show Feedback.

I very much like the new format, where Mike reads the listener's questions.  I find it much easier to follow the conversation.  :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like what you are about Stefan.  I listen to you as often as I can.  But sometimes you do say things that leave me not understanding your logic. The latest, almost sounds Machiavellian.

 

On the show entitled "Sunlight to the Vampire" you were addressing the issue of peoples being conquered and having their lands taken and at 1:16:32 you say in what comes across very nonchalantly, "What would have happened if my ancestors hadn't taken that land?, Well, Maybe the peasants are better off"  and at 1:17:20  you say "I mean some people are better off being conquered."

 

How can you conclude that in light of UPB and NAP?  Could you explain please?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like what you are about Stefan.  I listen to you as often as I can.  But sometimes you do say things that leave me not understanding your logic. The latest, almost sounds Machiavellian.

 

On the show entitled "Sunlight to the Vampire" you were addressing the issue of peoples being conquered and having their lands taken and at 1:16:32 you say in what comes across very nonchalantly, "What would have happened if my ancestors hadn't taken that land?, Well, Maybe the peasants are better off"  and at 1:17:20  you say "I mean some people are better off being conquered."

 

How can you conclude that in light of UPB and NAP?  Could you explain please?

 

It wasn't a conclusion. How can a question be a conclusion? And in context, he was talking about how you can't undo history. Did you interpret his comments as advocating people being conquered? I'd suggest going back and listening to the context. An analogy he gives starting at about 1:19:00 is that if we were to legalize marijuana everywhere tomorrow, what about the millions of people who's lives were destroyed for possessing it? Do we pay them restitution? How can we without violating the NAP by stealing from others to do so?

 

That whole section was not advocating violence of the past. It was about not committing more violence now in order to try and undo the past.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like what you are about Stefan.  I listen to you as often as I can.  But sometimes you do say things that leave me not understanding your logic. The latest, almost sounds Machiavellian.

 

On the show entitled "Sunlight to the Vampire" you were addressing the issue of peoples being conquered and having their lands taken and at 1:16:32 you say in what comes across very nonchalantly, "What would have happened if my ancestors hadn't taken that land?, Well, Maybe the peasants are better off"  and at 1:17:20  you say "I mean some people are better off being conquered."

 

How can you conclude that in light of UPB and NAP?  Could you explain please?

 

It wasn't a conclusion. How can a question be a conclusion? And in context, he was talking about how you can't undo history. Did you interpret his comments as advocating people being conquered? I'd suggest going back and listening to the context. An analogy he gives starting at about 1:19:00 is that if we were to legalize marijuana everywhere tomorrow, what about the millions of people who's lives were destroyed for possessing it? Do we pay them restitution? How can we without violating the NAP by stealing from others to do so?

 

That whole section was not advocating violence of the past. It was about not committing more violence now in order to try and undo the past.

  Nathan, had the question been posed alone, I would agree it would not have been a conclusion.  But when he later stated, at 1:17:20 "I mean some people are better off being conquered.", this expressed a conclusion.   

Now I certainly uderstand that he was pointing out the fact that we could not correct the wrongs of the past or undo history, and I certainly have trouble believing Stefan was advocating the violation of the NAP by those who stole the property of people in history.  But  the statement "I mean some people are better off being conquered." does reflect a lack of empathy and expresses a conclusion that some people are better off as a result of being conquered. This conclusion is what gives me pause. 

If we saw for example an animal species going extinct, we might engage in the capture of such a species for the purpose of keeping them in a zoo and possibly preventing their extinction.  But with other humans we are not vested with such rightful perogative.

Who are we to conclude that anyone's life is possibly better as the result of being conquered?  Such peoples may have continued to live in their chosen culture for centuries, enjoying the simple lifestyle that such a culture provided.  It appears awefully subjective to suggest that the violent imposition of  one country's ideals on another people could ever be construed to make them "better off".  I hope Stefan's assessment of  some people being "better off" was not meant to justify ex post facto the atrocities of the past.  How could we ever know that?  And most would agree that the generation who were murdered and captured during the invasion were certainly not better off?

I do hope Stefan will take the time to address my concerns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of the important things that has been highlighted by the call-in show is the degree to which people can become desensitized to abuse and continue to blame the victim afterwards. Bringing the typically unspeakable issues people deal with to the forefront of a conversation and helping people to understand each other and themselves is more than good. Thanks for doing the work to make this happen!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the format and I like Michael's contributions to the show, it's like getting a shot from a different angle on a film set.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites