Even the 10 people who expected their health to be improved, but who instead became addicted to cocaine?
That would be where the fraud part comes in but you said regardless of that.
Why is the cereal powder assumed to be health-neutral while the cocaine is assumed to be health-destructive? You could snort cereal powder and suffocate. You could consume small amounts of cocaine to help you in your work out at the gym.
It’s not fraud, because he didn’t say the powder WAS any particular kind of powder. He was offering a service, not a particular material. He’s not even promising any particular effect. Like with Molyneux, he is just offering a likelihood of a positive effect. And also like with Molyneux, he is misleading the customer with regard to his competence to judge the likelihood of a positive effect occurring. Would you find that condemnable?
Or let’s just cut out the analogy. What IF Molyneux KNOWS he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about in his therapeutic interviews, and KNOWS that his deFOO campaign will likely wreck the lives of a large number of young people, but pursues his deFOO campaign anyway in order to earn a lot of money. IF all that were true, would you find his actions condemnable?
zzzzzZZZ
Yeah, along with the incredible masses that supported him and other mass murders. In other words, normal, like the normal people in the Milgram experiments. Not to mention the increasingly high, normal murder rate the father back you go in history and still strong and normal support for widely varying degrees of murder of some group or another. If you want to propose that many highly financially-politically successful people, such as Goebbels, who tend to be abused as children by parents who presumably had their reproductive interests at center, are abnormal, it would make more sense to base it on something actually abnormal.
I’m not going to pursue this useless diverson into the pitch black night in Sherwood Forest. You began talking about this to bait and switch us from condemning deFOO as harmful to the psyche of the deFOOer to some reproductive conception of interest, to define away the very possibility that conflict can exist between parents and children and even between teachers and children.
Hopefully they don’t bring back the 80% popular cane in England too soon. I don’t want to be biologically wiped out by the aided English kids.
I just summarized your position from things you’ve said in this thread.
It’s fraud because he said it was healthy when clearly it isn’t.
Then why are you claiming that he is claiming it is healthy?
I think you have to settle these questions before I answer the rest.
Wow, was that ever a Freudian slip.
Like I said, let’s just drop the analogy. Answer my simple question regarding Molyneux himself.
I hope you are kidding.
[:P]
How tragically correct you are. Being that it seems the person this thread is named after seems willing to discuss some concerns raised by members here, it would probably be a good idea to try to organize a productive dialouge.
One suggestion might be to avoid “the big question” arguments, such as the nature of parenting, religoion, cults, etc, and perhaps focus more on the presentation and the methods of the Freedomain website.
Btw, because I never made this clear, my position on deFOO is that there are real cases when cutting ties is good for someone. Not that any particular instance of deFOO-therapy has been or will be one of those cases or that any particular person or type of person should be doing it.
“Man up.” What does that mean? Does it mean the child should leave or not? As when I was a teenager, during my spouts with my mother, she would tell me to act like an adult and point to the door. Further I’m not sure what you mean by children, according to Stefan the listeners who have actually left were already consulting with therapists so I think they are probably adults (of some kind at least).
While I agree that someone trying to design a family is silly, I’m not sure how poignant it is to say “families have changed yet they endure.” I don’t think anyone here, nor Stefan, wants to remove families entirely. In the last 100 years the family has dramatically changed, with the ease of the dissolution of marriage being the most obvious, this could be viewed simply as more changes in the process.
This is the only post I will make regarding this, as it is not what I want to focus on in this thread. If you want the last word take it.
-
I could not find this book anywhere to read online (as I need to see citations and bibliography before I read any academic work) nor could I find it on Amazon.
-
Lloyd Demause, (as far as I know) has no PhD, is a psychohistorian (which no one will contend is an actual science), and the intellectual validity of psychohistory is contraversial at best.
Here is an online book with citations by him:
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln01_leader.html
If anyone wants to check out his methodology
Molyneux says: Everyone I know of who broke with a family worked with a therapist for months or years first - and tried to work things out with their families.
This starement is willfully untrue.
Molyneux likes to site his sources of authority with tricked up interviews and then uses those interviews as references. Almost every time, the source is as nutty as he is. Here is a commentary on his technique.
It is titled: Where does one Freedomainradio.com podcast lead? It is an interview with John Breeding.
http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2395
One little snippet from the column:
Of the many recommended links on Dr Breeding’s website the man finds at least two linked to the Church of Scientology that in turn endorses Breeding and his ‘anti-psychiatry’ ideas. “Aha!” he thinks, “Now we are getting somewhere. This picture is clearing up—no pun intended.” Looking further into anti-psychiatry, the man finds another site called antipsychiatry.org but that site explicitly states: “No Scientologists, please” or anyone associated with Scientology’s Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights need apply
Why?
Welll, I don’t think that “he has no PhD” and “his work is controversial” is a very good rebuttal to a detailed argument with a plethora of references. (For instance, would we apply those standards to Ayn Rand or Ron Paul on philosophy or economics?)
A PDF of Chapter 9 of the book (with footnotes) is available on my web site at: http://freedomainradio.com/Books/Psychohistory.aspx
But if you want more credentials, you can forget deMause, and refer to the Bomb in the Brain series, in particular my interview with Dr Vincent Felitti.
Dr. Felitti is the director of the Adverse Childhood Experiences project. The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.
If the four part series is not enough, let me know, and I provide more peer-reviewed data.
I was informed after I posted my interview that Dr Breeding might have some relationship with Scientology, so I have removed the video until I can look into the matter further.
I used to listen to Molyneux podcasts quite a lot. For a lot of reasons I stopped. I have personally heard Molynuex advise a member on the verge of a defoo not to bother to have open communications with his parents, The kid was truly sad and confused and did not know how to proceed. He was worried as to how his parents would react. Molyneux comforted him with an analogy of a scuba diver not reaching into a dark area because he was told a moray eel lived in the recess. Molyneux told the kid he did not need to bother talking to his parents because he knew how it would turn out. He went on to suggest that the kids mother only had her children so they could be delivered to the father for abuse. The kid did defoo and never once talked to his parents and he hasn’t talked to them since.
Not kidding. I really heard that. I would gladly wager that the huge majority of the paying members of FDR who have defoo’ed have not had any therapy or discussion prior to a defoo. That is kind of the point of a defoo. No warning. No further contact. It is to be permenant with zero contact.
It is all laid out in the defoo section of FDR. How to do it. It is endlessly discussed on the FDR boards.
Here is a transcript of what Molyneux really believes about open communication with family. Read this and tell me you aren’t creeped out:
This is from an ‘Ask-a-Therapist’ podcast (FDR 724) This podcast was recorded just before Molyneux took on FDR as his full-time, source of income. It was a conversation between Molyneux and his therapist wife Chistina Papadoupolos (his partner on FDR and the source of his anti family beliefs). At several points in the podcast, Molyneux mentions what appears to be one of his own “emotional benefits” in defooing.15:56 …The ultimate vengeance is to not confront people. The ultimate act of revenge for a wise person is to not confront the unwise with their unwisdom.
Christina: Go on.
It’s something that I’ve noticed as a younger brother as well as a son. That the people that I hate are the people that I don’t confront and that’s exactly the opposite of what people experience…
17:50 …And so those I hate, I don’t confront and I leave them to simmer in the living hell of their own false self.
18:43 …And that’s when you know you really hate someone…
Christina: Uh huh. (agreement)
When you really hate someone is when you will not confront them.
Lots of other proof where this came from. Molyneux’'s followers specifically do NOT engage in Months of therapy and such. If they did that, they would resolve the confabulated issues with their parents in the course of life and NOT become donators.