Cornellius Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 By the by, could you provide examples of Stefan patronizing with younger listeners and whoever else he could have felt superior to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cicero Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 http://youtu.be/OBQU8aaW90o VS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freemankind Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Just a reminder to all that keep misunderstanding my side of the criticism here: the issue is not about Stefan's behavior in the interview, but about his justification of it on this thread (above) and how it contradicts podcast 87. It is not necessary that you understand or take into account Stefan's central argument (the state is in the family) too see this -- but, well, if you don't take it into account I can understand why your replies are the way they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Jay Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 The relevant point is that Stefan in his 'Against Me' argument says you shouldn't even engage with people who want to initiate force against you like Chomsky does (since he supports state programs and rejects natural property rights - in his 'anarchy' there would be no DROs or respect from private property whatsoever. Stefan is clearly aware of this from earlier statements, he did not believe Noam was an anarcho-capitalist...) The question is, is Stefan not being inconsistent by saying in the 'Against Me' argument that we not even engage with those who wish to initiate force against us, but at the same time he will not only engage but praise Chomsky? If not, why not? Has his position changed? These are the questions we need answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasDoubts Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 The relevant point is that Stefan in his 'Against Me' argument says you shouldn't even engage with people who want to initiate force against you like Chomsky does (since he supports state programs and rejects natural property rights - in his 'anarchy' there would be no DROs or respect from private property whatsoever. Stefan is clearly aware of this from earlier statements, he did not believe Noam was an anarcho-capitalist...) Is is not a contradiction to support state programs and identify as Anarchist? Has Chomsky said, in a Stateless Society, he would use force or violence against anyone that doesn't comply with "his" society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted January 4, 2014 Share Posted January 4, 2014 It looks to me like there may be an exception to the position that you don't engage people who do not share your values ('against me' thing) - which seems to be a prominent feature of Stefan's philosophy, which I really find admirable - and the interview mandate for the radio show, which is quite different from the debate format as Stef pointed out. I would be interested to know how he would sort that one out. He appears on the Alex Jones show as well. I am not a fan of AJ and his perspectives and ideals and AJ is a Fundy Christian and a statist, and big supported of Ron Paul - not at all in Stef's camp it would seem, yet there it is. The problem with this 'inconsistency', if it can in fact be termed as such, is that Stef and his philo will be lumped it with those of the people he associates with, esp the high profile ones - I certainly would not want to be lumped in with AJ if I were in his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P. Mason Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 So why is it so hard to understand that Stefan gets a big fish like Chomsky on his show the last thing he wants to do is scare the guy off by mugging him. Pick your battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fleming Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 The problem with this 'inconsistency', if it can in fact be termed as such, is that Stef and his philo will be lumped it with those of the people he associates with, esp the high profile ones - I certainly would not want to be lumped in with AJ if I were in his place. Only by those who struggle to think for themselves. The rational person will understand that you can go on other people's shows and not have to agree with everything that that person agrees with. In fact, if you only did interviews with people who mostly agree with you then you would be doing very few interviews at all. By going on AJ's show, Stef is not saying he agrees with AJ's views any more than if he were to go on CNN that he agrees with their views. It's just about getting ideas out there. With regards to AJ in particular, there is a certain amount of crossover between AJ and Stef and it is a good opportunity to talk to the people who have just started to break out of the matrix, and have come across someone such as AJ, to introduce the real truth and philosophy to them. To give them an opportunity to learn the real truth. It's a good thing that Stef takes every invitation AJ offers in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted January 5, 2014 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Only by those who struggle to think for themselves. The rational person will understand that you can go on other people's shows and not have to agree with everything that that person agrees with. In fact, if you only did interviews with people who mostly agree with you then you would be doing very few interviews at all. By going on AJ's show, Stef is not saying he agrees with AJ's views any more than if he were to go on CNN that he agrees with their views. It's just about getting ideas out there. With regards to AJ in particular, there is a certain amount of crossover between AJ and Stef and it is a good opportunity to talk to the people who have just started to break out of the matrix, and have come across someone such as AJ, to introduce the real truth and philosophy to them. To give them an opportunity to learn the real truth. It's a good thing that Stef takes every invitation AJ offers in my view. Of course I understand all that Mike and it is perfectly reasonable. But it does not address my main question and I am not too clear on the whole 'against me' argument and 'don't hang with people who don't share your values' thing so I really I don't know how this fits, I am just asking. Yeah Stef has a certain amount of crossover in his views with AJ, and Ron Paul, and Peter Joseph, and many others who he would not sit down to dinner with. The interview process is different because?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeEach Posted January 5, 2014 Author Share Posted January 5, 2014 Hello Stefan This is addressed to you here at “your” Forum. Ummm. For Whom? Cui Bono? Anybody home? Homeboy, or? Yes, a bit of taunting as you often do in your Youtubes (tied?)…for as you, I enjoy verbal dicing and dissing, although you seem to enjoy it more and are better at it than me… So, a challenge to you… I have put here before a direct request as well as several gentle rejoinders expecting a response to my first suspicion then final certainty, of what I claim is your lack of moral integrity concerning your interview with Noam Chomsky in light of your podcast denouncing him… So, shall we discuss this issue live online between the two of us…? Before we do, let us define our topics and terms so we can agree to agree or disagree (as I think we have much, so far as I can tell, to agree on and now it seems, surprise to me, we also have something substantial, if not extensive, to disagree on)… My main topic will be ‘INTEGRITY’ – what is it and why Stefan Molyneux does not have it in relation to the recent interview he did with Noam Chomsky relative to his judgment of him in his podcast 87. Cultural Blindness (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/FreedomainRadio/~3/YPuZx1dNU5M/Cultural_Blindness.mp3) Posted: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 08:20:00 GMT OK? I await your response here in front of all your fans and let the merde hit them as required. Cheers from Charming China, FreeEach/Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Fleming Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Of course I understand all that Mike and it is perfectly reasonable. But it does not address my main question and I am not too clear on the whole 'against me' argument and 'don't hang with people who don't share your values' thing so I really I don't know how this fits, I am just asking. Yeah Stef has a certain amount of crossover in his views with AJ, and Ron Paul, and Peter Joseph, and many others who he would not sit down to dinner with. The interview process is different because?... I think you are mixing up business and personal relationships. If I could only do business with people who I was personally comfortable with then I would go hungry. Because that's just the nature of the world at this point in time. FDR is a business. I think it's easy for people to forget that. It is a business with a mission statement, not just a vehicle Stef is using to make friends, although I'm sure he has made many in the process. If Stef only interviewed and was interviewed by people he felt completely comfortable with, the show would be a lot smaller at this point in time. The idea of FDR is to bring philosophy to those who "don't" have it, not just talk to the tiny percentage of the population who do. That's why you interview with the AJ's of this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I have always said that the "against me" argument is optional, and I can't imagine why I would want to deny benefits of exposure to philosophy to almost any audience, anywhere, anytime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I have always said that the "against me" argument is optional, and I can't imagine why I would want to deny benefits of exposure to philosophy to almost any audience, anywhere, anytime... I would like to learn more about the 'against me' argument. Optional eh? (yes, I am in Canada), I would like to know what that looks like exactly. I think you are mixing up business and personal relationships. If I could only do business with people who I was personally comfortable with then I would go hungry. Because that's just the nature of the world at this point in time. FDR is a business. I think it's easy for people to forget that. It is a business with a mission statement, not just a vehicle Stef is using to make friends, although I'm sure he has made many in the process. If Stef only interviewed and was interviewed by people he felt completely comfortable with, the show would be a lot smaller at this point in time. The idea of FDR is to bring philosophy to those who "don't" have it, not just talk to the tiny percentage of the population who do. That's why you interview with the AJ's of this world. OK, I do get that, thanks Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 I would like to learn more about the 'against me' argument. Optional eh? (yes, I am in Canada), I would like to know what that looks like exactly. Did a YouTube search, and that's what came up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lians Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 So, the host of a show about personal freedom shouldn't be free to choose how he acts. Did I get that right? I bet that will be very appealing to people yearning for freedom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 I have always said that the "against me" argument is optional, and I can't imagine why I would want to deny benefits of exposure to philosophy to almost any audience, anywhere, anytime... Ok, I listened to the 'against me' video and I certainly understand that who one chooses to associate with is optional, there is no gun to anyone's head in that way. But I am not sure what 'optional' means in this context. And sure, benefits of exposing more people to philo, I get it. But there is nothing in that video about making exceptions for the purpose of exposing philosophy, or virtuous behavior, to a wider audience. Lots of talk about integrity and courage and so on when it comes to making those kinds of choices though. I also remember you arguing against the Ron Paul campaign after it was explained how it opened so many people's minds to, well, stuff like yours, and you said "yes but..." RP had a very large audience to spread alternative thinking to the masses, what is wrong with that then if the end justifies the means so to speak. I found my way here thru the RP road. Not trying to be contrary, I really just want to learn and understand. I am getting so much out of this site and the shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts