Well I don’t think that hypothetical is one which is capable of being an actually realized in reality. How can Stefan know that his ‘deFOO’ campaign will ‘wreck’ lives? If Stefan is merely elucidating an opinion that is already instilled in an individual, namely that harmful familial situations are best avoided and if necessary severed, then I don’t find that damnable at all. Presenting individuals with the premise that life contains choices and is not one dimensional is somewhat commendable to me.
That is one heck of an assumption. I certainly haven’t passed judgment on this topic, but I get this “familial hegemony at all costs” vibe from some of the opponents of Stefan.
Yes, I think the accusations that anterior is making are starting to get far-fetched.
Well of course you can’t have a productive and healing conversation with someone you truly hate, that’s sort of axiomatic. And the idea that bad people are punished by their own conscience scarcely originated with me.
It’s rather obvious there is only one reason he is here…
I haven’t either. That was the complete point of my earlier posts in this thread in which I stated things like hashing this out in a community is good. And if somebody feels strong about not listening to him this is a great opportunity to share. But if somebody doesn’t see any harm in it, that’s all good too. I think this is healthy to vet this out here especially since the guy is willing to come here and consider criticisms and support.
Correct. There is one reason I am here. But what is far fetched?
I am taking issue with Molyneux’s false claims and backing it up with Molyneux’s own words as proof. Molyneux does NOT recommend therapy,nor do even a minority of his donators defoo after prolonged therapy. I am offering a possible conclusion that fits with his false comments. I agree it is not conclusive. If someone can come up with another reason why he misrepresents this essential truth, make your case.
I see you are primarily engaged in meta-criticism. you are not interested on what molyneux says in this or that case, but only in generalities, and you are less interested in that than in how accurately Molyneux reports on what he ‘generally’ says.
I find it all a bit lame.
to the comment: “familial hegemony at all costs” vibe from some of the opponents of Stefan.
I see how you get that vibe, so allow me to clarify. Unhealthy relationships are just that. Handle them as you wish in your own way. Indeed, if a person decides to defoo after Molyneux coaches them to do so, that is their choice. Maybe it is a good choice. My issue is that Molyneux specifically goes to great lengths to persuade, cajole, young adults to defoo, whether they should or not. I think on some level he thinks he is doing good, but I also have observed how agressively he seeks donations. Perhaps I am drawing too much of a conclusion on his motivations, but this much is factually true:
He tells them to leave without warning. He advises them on how to do it. Here is a quote from one of many of his defoo podcasts:
“Leave a note telling them you want some space and want some time to sort things out. This will cause your parents to believe it is not permanent. This will give you time to get used to living alone. By the time they come looking for you, you will be fully independent and used to living alone.”
My issue is simple. Molyneux is not honest when he publicly claims he encourages therapy or that all of the defoos occurred after months of therapy etc. He clearly knows it is not true since he has a close personal relationship (i.e. $50 a month relationahip) with those who have followed his advice to defoo. Feel free too allow your own intellect to wonder what the evidence it indicating.
I don’t see how he got that vibe. Could you enlighten me? I am fairly sure I am an opponent of Stefan, and I never suggested any benefits of familial hegemony. Pretty sure I mentioned that I left home at 15 that worked out fine for me.
In March of 1987 I was 16 and I took my neighbor’s CBX 250 for a ride. I hit a little girl and slammed her into a wall. She was in the hospital for two weeks. Her parents hated me. I visited them. We talked. Her father told me how much he hated me. But after a long talk, he didn’t hate me any more.
On October 17, 1987 I killed a girl 19 year old. I am not a psychologist, but when her mother told the court that she hated me and could never forgive me, I found it to be credible. I think I would have hated me,too.
We talked. I expressed my remorse. I changed fundamentally who I was. I told the court to ignore my attorney’s excuses. I admitted that I knew exactly what I was doing, and had no excuses. I asked the court to impose the severest punishment they could. I told the judges (three judges in Japanese courts) that I deserved to die.
The mother did something shocking. She asked the court that I be sentenced to a reasonable term that would allow me to re-enter society soon. The victim’s mother. She told me that hating me was killing her, and since we talked and I took responsibility, she could let the hate go.
No. sorry, but no. Real, trained psychologists do enough damage without any assistance from amateurs.
The real tragedy here, in my opinion, this even if everyone accepts that I am some really bad guy who for some reason wants to break up families – for fun or profit, take your pick – for parents whose children have separated to take zero responsibility for their family problems, and spend months or years following me around the Internet and attacking me wherever I show up, and setting up websites where they rage against everything that I do – all of this is truly tragic, because their children are doubtless fully aware of their actions on the Web, and when they witness continual displays of extreme anger and blame throwing, it scarcely is going to entice them to return back to their parents.
Even if these parents think that I am running some sort of cult, the literature is very, very careful to subject – that parents should never attack the cult.
In other words, these parents are indulging their own destructive anger at the expense of their future possible relationship with their children - even if we accept that I’m some bad guy who is running a cult.
If these parents were to swallow their anger and pride, and go and get some counseling, and try to truly understand, with humility and taking at least some responsibility, what went wrong in their families, then there could be some real chance for reconciliation, which I think would be wonderful.
If they continue to take no responsibility, blame my podcast for everything, and act out their anger in such a public way, there is very likely no chance whatsoever that their children will view this behavior with admiration and respect, and wish to start up relationships again, because I imagine that their sons and daughters will simply find their decision to take a break from such relationships to be continually reinforced.
It’s time to get some real help and break the cycle.
Why the red herring? Why the evil ulterior motives? Maybe you think you’re doing kids a favor. Maybe you are not evil, just well-intentioned and ill-advised?
It would seem you have a bias against any type of psychology then. And should bow out of a conversation about this then.
Of course, when you don’t believe 2 + 2 = 4… and argue against this just for the hell of it, it becomes hard to say how you approach the differentiation of truth from falsehood. Is it merely by tangentially related anecdotes? But then those are only true in the past…
Gosh I am so sorry John, that is a very sad tale, you really do have my sympathies.[{]
I think that this is a little different from the issues of child abuse being discussed here, and I think furthers my last point. First of all, it was an accident, and second of all, you took full responsibility and expressed your deep and sincere remorse.
That has amazing healing power, as your story shows…
Nope, I don’t have a bias against any type of psychology. Several psychology texts open on my desk at this very moment.
I do recall saying that 2+2=4 is correct. How does that constitute arguing against it?
Correspondence theory ring a bell?
See my words above this last quoted sentence of yours.
See, no, sympathies. Hitting the kid was an accident. Killing the girl wasn’t. I don’t need or deserve sympathy.
If you make an argument about a class, then it must be true of everyone in the class. For instance, “Muslims are terrorists” is untrue of one Muslim is not a terrorist. Of course, both of these classes have far more than one exception, of course.
At best you can say some parents and some children have a harmony of interests. Which is in agreement with Stefan Molyneux.
We can test the hypothesis about nature by looking at other species. Some of whom eat their own young. And yet have continued to survive (not the individual, but the species). Meaning the class analysis does not work in their case, either. It is also a fact that primitive humans cannibalized and buried children alive; and do to this day.
I misunderstood you on 2+2=4 and psychology, then. (It appeared you claimed 2+2=4 was true and untrue simultaneously due to your hypothetical about particular people equaling 4 and later some other number).
But this is what I gleamed from your assertion that psychologists do damage. I do not think this is an appropriate or empirical class assertion. As per your own admission that some write books like the ones on your desk.
I do know correspondence theory of truth, though it is not the best time to discuss it in this thread.
I think that philosophers ought to spend more time studying psychology. Psychology =good. Psychologists=bad. I say that because, in my experience, they infantilize the “patient.” Actually, it’s a two way street. The patient becomes excessively passive in the hands of the psychologist.
As I mentioned in this thread, I was convicted of killing a girl in 1987. How many psychologists told me that I needed to forgive myself, that I wasn’t at fault, that my environment caused me do do what I did? 100%. That’s sick. I, the criminal, am treated like a victim. No. That doesn’t work. Taking responsibility for my actions works.