Therein lies the rub. Molyneux doesn’t just convince his listeners to avoid family members IF they aggress. He convinces them that they DO in fact aggress, when he has no way of knowing that for sure (even with his rather broad definition of “aggress”, which apparently encompasses such things as hushing them in public and taking them to church).
It could definitely be. But I don’t see this as a problem.
I do not think it is important that relationships should be handled in a manner that causes happiness in both parties, because this denies the voluntary aspect. How can we have this principle and also be able to quit dating someone, fire someone, get a divorce, etc. I’m sure you think deFOO is okay in some “extreme” case or other like attempted murder or molestation. In which case, this same “disaster” may occur to one their self-esteems. So even you must admit that deFOO cannot be argued against on this principle itself.
Furthermore, his book Real-Time Relationships is in regards to talking these things over; over a matter of months or however long it takes. With the likely goal of strengthening relationships (whatever shape they take), rather than ending them. Upon reading this book, it is difficult to understand how anyone could break off rather than make their relationships better and more honest. Which is the stated goal, rather than pointing your finger at someone and being all Libertarian on them. It is a book that has more maturity than I’ve seen in many books. All but the most resistant to valuing relationships would affirm rather than deny their ability to be around each other any longer. It makes some people uncomfortable (and I don’t mean you here), but that is because the book can be pretty frank with dishonesty and calling people to task (even and especially the reader). Not as a means of beating people over the head, but as a means of understanding where things go wrong and getting back on track.
"No scientist is entitled to assume beforehand that a disapprobation of his theories must be unfounded because his critics are imbued by passion and party bias. He is bound to reply to every censure without any regard to its underlying motives or its background. "
-Mises, Human Action
I would urge you not to make up your own definitions. Or attribute things you don’t even know were said.
This is helps you, but it is not a weapon in an argument against people who know facts rather than guesses.
I don’t think voluntarism needs the NAP, even. You can leave a girlfriend, job, an employee, an organization, boycott something, etc. without it having to do with aggression. NAP is irrelevant. Voluntarism is not merely fleeing from or deflecting violence.
I’ll take that to mean that you and the others are all Christians that are just mad because he considers forcing your kids to attend church abuse. But, hey, it isn’t an unfounded objection to him. It’s just totally the basis for the objection packaged up to look like something else.
I’ll admit that Molyneux does have a interesting defenition of aggress, although I don’t know that its an incorrect defenition. One of the ideas I’ve heard is that parents abuse the agrument from morality to get their children to follow their wishes. My impression of Molyneux’s agrument was that parents abuse truth/rationality more so than abusing children. The more I’ve thought about this the more I’ve come to agree with it. Over time, in my mind, this looks more and more like emotional abuse. Does that mean I’m going to ditch my FOO? Nope. Does it mean I think it a valid idea worth exploring? Absolutely.
Make sense?
Yes, quoting an agnostic Jew on scientific method makes me an irate Christian.
You really are something else.
Out of curiosity, does Molyneux have any specific criteria for what constitutes abuse? I’m curious to know, because with the amount of intellectual bullying that goes on over on his forum I daresay he’d meet a fair few of the criteria.
Your quote is irrelevant. Your continuous dodge is relevant.
I think he means you are using it as shield in order to deflect his question.
Still, while it is silly to think Mises is infallible, he is correct on this. It just isn’t a deflection Christians can use. The biases of the scientists are not a problem per se, but their epistemology certainly is. Meaning if their bias is their epistemology rather a conclusion of it, their bias remains unfounded and a reason for their being dismissed out of hand. Since, you must have an epistemology in order to accept the scientific method and gain shelter from its neutrality.
I was just stringing you along to give you chance to fully exhibit your coarse prejudice.
But that’s accomplished now, so, since you “asked”, I’m an atheist.
I’m simply trying to work out what the real feelings are behind all of this hostility, lest readers of this thread be manipulated.
I am still under the impression the site is a bit off (admittedly more on intuition than anything). My first experience with the site was viewing the Donny with an A debate (I think it was about a moral system), and it certainly left a bad and uneasy taste in my mouth and led me to view the site somewhat suspiciously.
That, followed by people cursing his name or praising it to uncomfortable levels* (the Rothbard x 3 comparison is a good way to state how my impressions of the site are), mixed with what I hear are emotional and highly personal call-in type of podcasts (which I just won’t watch) brought to my attention semi regularly has contributed to my tertiary interest as the nature of the site and the opponents.
As far as assuming the best on the man, I think it is a reasonable thing to do. If the site kind of spontaneously and naturally evolved into a site with a strong personality figure (as in he wasn’t trying to manipulate it in that direction) and turned into more of a personal relationship site for teenagers due to demand, I can easily see how Freedomain morphed into something that it did not intend to (and perhaps not realize the transformation). Mix that with him trying to dodge vicious slings and arrows and what appears to be (multiple?) websites analyzing and critiquing him at any angle they can, I can sympathize and I can see how the circumstance and environment can be a major culprit of blame. If the accusations made are even somewhat true and I was put in his situation (and I really can see this situation as almost accidental), I honestly can’t say I would fare any better.
Good point, weasel words are a major issue when weighing on anything. I think it is common for people do use such words with naiveté though. Also, I don’t know off hand the extent to which they are used (if at all) by him. As for donations I have no comment on, as I know nothing about it or the nature of it.
As he seems to be responding on this thread, hopefully this is a good place to clear up any obfuscation between the concerned parties. This is probably as good of a “neutral” site as one can hope for to clear anything up. I think though all previous posts would have to be scrapped and the party concerned about Freedomain’s practice and method would have to bullet point the list of major grievances as succinctly as possible, and list what it would take to satisfy such concerns.
*edit: I want to make clear from my experience, that not everyone (the majority even) that likes Freedomain is “overly enthusiastic” , or that he doesn’t have opponents who seem “overly critical”.
I suppose if his forum members feel abused they should end their relationship with him, call it… well I’m not very good at acronyms.
So a Christian could not have a non-religious objection to Molyneux’s deFOO campaign? What if one of the several Austrian scholars, who also happen to be Christian, came to the same conclusions I have?
DeFRDing?
It sounds like you are ridding yourself of a fellow named Fred when you say it.
I don’t think they have any right to say that people should accept forcing children to attend church. Even if they definitely would, since they are Christian themselves. And perhaps because they are. They also cannot call what other people do dogmatic or targeted at children or personal “therapy” or money-driven, since that is their MO in running and attending their local church.
And if dogma, personal “therapy” and advice, money-drives, and the involvement of young people in ideas are negatives and you are an atheist… you have many more people here to direct your criticism towards. Like all of the Roman Catholics who run the same business times a million. I’m not saying that they are good or bad qualities; you decide. But don’t decide and un-decide simultaneously.
All I see here:
mind control
profit conspiracy
irresponsible
unlicensed
The standard airy spooks used against pretty much everything by someone or other.
I don’t get it.
I caught that too. Interesting choice of word for a forum with a Libertarian leaning population.