David Gordon Layeth the Smackdown

[MMMark]

Fri. 12/07/06 23:59 EDT
.post #206

[url=David Gordon Layeth the Smackdown - #11 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]I did not ignore his “arguments”, as evidenced by the fact that you have more to say about my post.

But why do you deny doing something I didn’t accuse you of?

I didn’t say you ignore his “arguments”; I said you ignore his argument. Singular, not plural. Now, which “argument” do I say you ignore? Why, the very one I make reference to when I write, in my very next sentence, “And what is Molyneux’s argument here?” and then go on to lay out what that argument (singular) is (that you ignored, while focusing instead on Molyneux’s “narcissism”).

@John James

Just because it’s a point Molyneux aims to make doesn’t make it true or accurate.

I agree. But, what makes it a valid point is the fact that he has adduced evidence, as I said, and which I reproduced. After examining the evidence, Block is clearly both incorrect and hypocritical when he insinuates, without substantiation, that Molyneux is “not a man of principle.”

@John James

(Unless of course you’re one of the “Molyneuxbots” who think otherwise).

Wow, I strongly disagree with you here. What you’ve just asserted, essentially, is that an argumentum ad hominem is a non-fallacious argument.

If I were a “Molyneuxbot,” that fact would not, as you suggest, make Molyneux’s point here “true or accurate,” any more than your dislike of Molyneux, or your smearing him as a “narcissist,” would make his point untrue or inaccurate." His personality, or what you or I think of his personality or him personally, has nothing to do with the validity, or the truth or accuracy, of his argument.

@John James

Go back and listen to the video starting at 30:05. … He even states the whole issue right after making those statements: “…so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, violations of the NAP are considered both virtuous and necessary in the public sphere. So, the question is why?”

That is Molyneux’s focus. I don’t believe for a second that you asked Molyneux: “would you say that pretty much everyone accepts the NAP in private relationships?” that he’d say anything opposed to an affirmative…That he would take exception to that and be like “well no…only the sane, rational people believe that, which is actually a pretty small percentage of the human population”…as you seem to want to suggest he would.

Hm. What you’ve said here is reasonable, but your “conclusions”:[url=*** August 2011 low content thread *** - #140 by John_James]

@John James

[/url]This of course means either one of two things. Either Molyneux is narcissistic enough to believe his efforts are the reason every sane person accepts the very principle he promotes in the capacity he promotes it…or he’s narcissistic enough to believe that him spending his time promoting something every sane person already accepts is actually more impactful than everything Ron Paul has done. One can only wonder which it is, but I’m not quite sure it matters.

are absurd. There is nothing “of course” about them, and this thinly-veiled demagoguery won’t past muster. It’s just junk.

I am at least making a serious effort to resolve this question, instead of engaging in character assassination.

@John James

And if one might actually pay attention to the actual point Molyneux was trying to make, instead of pedantically focusing on his wording, …

Physician, heal thyself.

This is hypocritical. Your entire analysis (<— note the link) of Molyneux’s video has nothing to do with “the actual point Molyneux was trying to make,” and everything to do with attempting to smear him as a “narcissist.”

If you reject my first theory, there is another possibility; consider these quotes:

10:48

… with the solutions that I provide, namely, ostracism of statists, and intervention in the realm of child-abuse and so on, and improved parenting, peaceful parenting; that is where the science, the evidence, the experts, the interviews, the data, has led me in terms of how we build a peaceful world. And so that’s my focus.

14:34

But, what we can do is we can effect change in our personal relationships; we can effect change in how we treat our children; we can effect change in how we treat our spouses; we can effect change in who we associate with, in a private, personal relationship situation. That’s where we can effect change.

So, perhaps when Molyneux says “…so violations of the NAP are considered evil in the private sphere, …” he excludes (for example) the use of aggression on children. While “… every sane, reasonable human being in the world accepts the Non-Aggression Principle in personal relationships,” (many of) these people might still spank or otherwise physically aggress against their children.

Here is some evidence to support my theory, from Corporal Punishment, the Nonagression Principle and the Future of Peace:

1:05

…the future freedom of the world is at least to some degree, if not a large degree, rooted in the peaceful parenting, or peaceful protection, of children, which really comes down to the fundamental question for liberty activists or libertarians or anybody, I think, with a moral bent, which is: Does the Non-Aggression Principle apply to children? And, I think that it applies to children more than it applies to anyone else, because of their sort of helpless and dependent relationships, and the unchosen nature of their relationships, with their … parents.

Note Stephanie Murphy’s statement at 3:24:

But, so many people wrote in and said things like “Well, I was spanked and I turned out just fine.”

Murphy then asks Molyneux " I’m sure you’ve heard that a lot, right?" to which Molyneux answers “Yes, I’m afraid so.”

The Non-Aggression Principle is widely accepted in the private or personal sphere, except when it comes to children, according to Molyneux.