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

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!

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


67 Philosopher King files - 74 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

One new video and podcast on the Caitlyn Jenner story has been added to the Gold donator section.


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

Call-In-Show Feedback.


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic
-282 This post by MMX2010 is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#2
Lastradicaldude1

Lastradicaldude1
  • 141 posts

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

#3
_LiveFree_

_LiveFree_
  • 427 posts

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

#4
Lastradicaldude1

Lastradicaldude1
  • 141 posts

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

#5
JoaoPMatos

JoaoPMatos
  • 36 posts

Yes this new format is definetly saving some sizeable time in the calls. Great work Stef and Mike! Regards Joao


  • 0

#6
SueBee

SueBee
  • 28 posts

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

#7
LovePrevails

LovePrevails
  • 1913 posts

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