Grayson Lilburne: Nielsio:If a child has or had actually loving parents then some guy from the internet has 0 chance of getting him away from them. As someone who has taught kids for about a decade, that's just about the most misinformed comment I've ever read regarding the psychology of children and young people in general.
Nielsio:If a child has or had actually loving parents then some guy from the internet has 0 chance of getting him away from them.
As someone who has taught kids for about a decade, that's just about the most misinformed comment I've ever read regarding the psychology of children and young people in general.
To elaborate just a bit, Nielsio, even the most loving parent in the world may simply be inept at getting through to his or her child.
Grayson Lilburne: To elaborate just a bit, Nielsio, even the most loving parent in the world may simply be inept at getting through to his or her child.
My definition of love excludes ineptitude of communication. Also the notion that you need to 'get through' to a child works under the assumption that children are not naturally interested in learning about life. Again, I do not work under that assumption.
Bull. I have a close friend who went through something similar to these kids. She had never been abused in her life, but she decided she needed counseling and went to a feminist resource center. Her feminist counselor decided that her lack of self esteem was due to sexual abuse. She denied it, but after a while, she finally gave in and said her father had raped her. Then her brothers had raped her. And, responding to suggestive leading, named many other people. By the time it was done, she had accused several people of carrying out a sadistic sexual orgy wherein men subordinated women to all kids of abuse in order to assert male superiority. It tore the family apart. She ended up in a mental hospital, and after a year or so finally learned that the repressed memories were no memories at all.
Her parents, loving. Her brothers, loving. Her descriptions of abuse? Not only were they unlikely, they were impossible.
Nielsio:The example in these last posts was about a married woman of adult age with her own children, and yet she was still having feelings of worthlessness and brokenness. I've asked before and I'll point out again: what was the cause of that? Portraying that as some sort of pubescent rebellion makes no sense in this example.
So you automatically blame somebody else? No. If somebody is abused, they are abused because abuse has occurred. Somebody having low self esteem is usually due to the person's own lack of purpose in life.
Nielsio:And what if the abuse happened in the past?
When else would it have happened? The future? How do you report a rape that happened in the future? Three years from now, my father will rape me?
Nielsio: Should we still hang out with those people, or should we -- of our own insight and volition -- get as far as we can from those people.
Oh, wait, I guess I misunderstood. Up till now, it was leaving at the behest of Stef. Stef's insight. Stef's volition. That's what I oppose. If a kid up and decides, without the suggestion of Stef's so-called "coach", that he should leave home, I'm all for it. I left home at 15 and never the worse for it. Wasn't abused, but left to find my own way and it all turned out okay.
So which is it? Stef's insight? Or the kid's own decision?
Individualism
Nielsio:she was still having feelings of worthlessness and brokenness. I've asked before and I'll point out again: what was the cause of that?
I. Don't. Know.
You. Don't. Know.
Stefan. Doesn't. Know.
Conditions of ignorance call for restraint, not extremity, in action. With such high stakes on the line, you should not tinker with that which you do not understand.
Nielsio: My definition of love excludes ineptitude of communication. Also the notion that you need to 'get through' to a child works under the assumption that children are not naturally interested in learning about life. Again, I do not work under that assumption.
Sounds like a cult's talking points. You don't have kids, do you?
Well, I'm not going to reopen this old topic yet again, but I will say this:
I believe that it is a consistent application of the nonaggression principle to tell adults who claim that they were beaten, terrorized, and physically or sexually abused as children, that what was done to them was immoral.
I am very proud about taking this clear ethical stand, and urging adult victims to get professional help, and to talk with their families about their experiences, thoughts and feelings.
I am the host of Freedomain Radio, the most popular philosophy show on the web, and a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007 Podcast Awards. http://www.freedomainradio.com
Grayson Lilburne: Nielsio:Let's just get down to this: do you think it's good to get away from sexually, physically and/or emotionally abusive people? Or does their genetic status as mother, father, brother or sister absolve them from any such wrongdoing? Of course "yes" for the first question and "no" for the second question. Whether it's okay for an individual to deFOO is not the issue; it's whether it's okay for a third party, who has the moral hazard of having money to gain yet nothing to lose in the matter, to so actively promote such drastic measures, under a state of considerable ignorance regarding the situation. Nielsio:What sort of proof is sufficient for you for someone to legitimately disapprove of abuse? A lot more real proof than Stefan ever gets in his adroitly worded interviews with emotionally-charged and pliable young people, which exclude completely ANY hearing of the family's perspective.
Nielsio:Let's just get down to this: do you think it's good to get away from sexually, physically and/or emotionally abusive people? Or does their genetic status as mother, father, brother or sister absolve them from any such wrongdoing?
Of course "yes" for the first question and "no" for the second question. Whether it's okay for an individual to deFOO is not the issue; it's whether it's okay for a third party, who has the moral hazard of having money to gain yet nothing to lose in the matter, to so actively promote such drastic measures, under a state of considerable ignorance regarding the situation.
Nielsio:What sort of proof is sufficient for you for someone to legitimately disapprove of abuse?
A lot more real proof than Stefan ever gets in his adroitly worded interviews with emotionally-charged and pliable young people, which exclude completely ANY hearing of the family's perspective.
He doesn't 'actively promote' those measures, any more than you just did, when you agreed that it is good to get away from abusive people. What he actively promotes is a happy life, and the ways towards that. If you search his 1600+ podcast feed for 'defoo', then you get less than a dozen hits.
Again, I would urge you listen to some of the stories (the entire story, not just the postcard-stuff). This will show you that hearing the "other side" of the story is wholly unnecessary and -frankly- absurd.
EDIT: After seeing Stef's last post I think that's a good summary to close on for me too. If you don't agree with those principles, then we won't come to an agreement either way.
Nielsio:My definition of love excludes ineptitude of communication.
In adopting your own ad hoc, arbitrary definition of the common word "love", which can only have the effect of hampering effective communication, you thereby exhibit a lack of love for your fellow man, according to very same ad hoc, arbitrary definition of the common word "love".
Nielsio:He doesn't 'actively promote' those measures, any more than you just did, when you agreed that it is good to get away from abusive people.
My statement referred to the class "people who are abused". Stefan tells specific people they should deFOO in a profound state of ignorance with regard to their lives and their true situation.
FreedomainRadio:Well, I'm not going to reopen this old topic yet again
It's not an "old" topic. For a great many, it will ever be a current topic so long as you continue your deFOO campaign.
Grayson Lilburne: Grayson Lilburne: Nielsio:If a child has or had actually loving parents then some guy from the internet has 0 chance of getting him away from them. As someone who has taught kids for about a decade, that's just about the most misinformed comment I've ever read regarding the psychology of children and young people in general. To elaborate just a bit, Nielsio, even the most loving parent in the world may simply be inept at getting through to his or her child.
Furthermore, a child, whether through accidental events in his life, or through his own neurological make-up, can still come to resent even a loving AND communicatively competent parent.
John Scott:We're talking about children going through regular stage of development wherein they feel the need to assert their own independence. And somebody comes along and manipulates them into demonizing their loving parents and turning against them.
Preference through action. Freedom of association and ideas.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew Cain: Preference through action. Freedom of association and ideas.
Care to make a point? Slogans are nice and all, but they do not serve as a likely substitute for premises followed by conclusions.
John Scott:Care to make a point? Slogans are nice and all, but they do not serve as a likely substitute for premises followed by conclusions.
An individual should be free to associate with whomever they wish and not be coerce into associations in which they do not prefer. What exactly they prefer is shown by their actions.
Andrew Cain: John Scott:Care to make a point? Slogans are nice and all, but they do not serve as a likely substitute for premises followed by conclusions. An individual should be free to associate with whomever they wish and not be coerce into associations in which they do not prefer. What exactly they prefer is shown by their actions.
Do you think that anybody here is suggesting otherwise? If somebody has suggested that people should not be free to act as they wish, or free to associate with who they wish, I'd love to see that suggestion.
John Scott: If somebody has suggested that people should not be free to act as they wish, or free to associate with who they wish, I'd love to see that suggestion.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
John Scott:Do you think that anybody here is suggesting otherwise? If somebody has suggested that people should not be free to act as they wish, or free to associate with who they wish, I'd love to see that suggestion
There seems to be a bubbling animosity towards Stefan concerning what he is promoting and to some degree Nielsio. I see it as nothing more then basic tenets of libertarian theory. If an individual wishes to sever ties with familial contacts and it is voluntary, what is the issue at hand? Or it is simple preference to advocate strong family values through a non-forceful banter?
nirgrahamUK: John Scott: If somebody has suggested that people should not be free to act as they wish, or free to associate with who they wish, I'd love to see that suggestion. So we are all agreed, stefan may act as he wish, and any of us that do not like it have that right.
Yes, we are all agreed that people can act as they wish. Which is an entirely different issue from whether he should act in that manner. I can stand on the street and denounce Jews and homosexuals, but should I?
That aside, I'm curious about your intellectual honesty. Either you knew that was the issue being discussed, or you honestly thought that we were discussing what Stefan should be allowed to do. Which is it? Were you feigning stupidity, or was it sincere?
Andrew Cain: John Scott:Do you think that anybody here is suggesting otherwise? If somebody has suggested that people should not be free to act as they wish, or free to associate with who they wish, I'd love to see that suggestion There seems to be a bubbling animosity towards Stefan concerning what he is promoting and to some degree Nielsio. I see it as nothing more then basic tenets of libertarian theory. If an individual wishes to sever ties with familial contacts and it is voluntary, what is the issue at hand? Or it is simple preference to advocate strong family values through a non-forceful banter?
I don't care if you're Stefan or Scientology or whoever. Sticking your nose into other peoples' family lives is ill advised. If people want to leave their families, do so. I did. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I stick my nose into somebody else's family life.
John Scott:Sticking your nose into other peoples' family lives is ill advised. If people want to leave their families, do so. I did. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I stick my nose into somebody else's family life.
Viewers come to his website. I fail to see how he is sticking his nose in their business.
Andrew Cain: John Scott:Sticking your nose into other peoples' family lives is ill advised. If people want to leave their families, do so. I did. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I stick my nose into somebody else's family life. Viewers come to his website. I fail to see how he is sticking his nose in their business.
If somebody came to me and... wait, I had somebody come to me and ask for advise. He said his family was oppressive. They were religious, and he is an atheist. He asked for advise. I told him what responsible people tell others: It's your decision. No, I'm not going to be a coach or a mentor, and I'm not going to be responsible for your decisions. You be your own coach, be your own mentor, and make your own decisions.
He is still with his family and he still doesn't like their religiosity, but now he defends his views and he didn't tuck tail and run. So I feel he made a good decision. If he had left, it might have worked out well. Who knows? What I do know is that individuals ought to be in charge or themselves and assigning somebody else to be coach or mentor is damn perversion of individual intellectual integrity.
John Scott: I can stand on the street and denounce Jews and homosexuals, but should I?
you can eat pancakes for breakfast, but should you?
John Scott:That aside, I'm curious about your intellectual honesty.
John Scott:Were you feigning stupidity, or was it sincere?
John Scott:If somebody came to me and... wait, I had somebody come to me and ask for advise. He said his family was oppressive. They were religious, and he is an atheist. He asked for advise. I told him what responsible people tell others: It's your decision. No, I'm not going to be a coach or a mentor, and I'm not going to be responsible for your decisions. You be your own coach, be your own mentor, and make your own decisions
Helping someone deliberate doesn't then confer their actions onto you. The individual still acts/chooses and through those choices show what they prefer.
John Scott:What I do know is that individuals ought to be in charge or themselves and assigning somebody else to be coach or mentor is damn perversion of individual intellectual integrity.
Well I think it is wonderful that you've never had to seek counsel concerning a difficult decision and so imbued with individuality that you've never required a mentor to guide you through the road of life.
Coaches and mentors are not 'in charge' of their students. having a coach or a mentor perverts individual intellectual integrity not a whit. it merely provides data. data which the student can use or lose.
Andrew Cain: The individual still acts/chooses and through those choices show what they prefer.
The individual still acts/chooses and through those choices show what they prefer.
Allow me to allow you to reduce your own statement to the absurd. When a religion junkie rejects his own reason and surrenders his volition to the cult leader, is this the same as an individual reaching his own conclusions?
When a mother sends her daughter to sleep with the cult leader, would she have done that if she had kept the helm to herself instead of handing it over to her "coach" or "mentor" or "leader" or whatever you want to call it?
And then, is it the same thing, as you appear to think? Ultimately, all decisions of the individual are made by the individual. Really? Really? I would think that at some point, in these group situations, when a kid resigns his sovereignty over to the coach, the coach is then making the decisions for him. The kid is only implementing those decisions.
If you want to deny that there is a meaningful distinction between being self-led and being cult-led, then go ahead and do so, but the place you have then reached is called Absurdity.
nirgrahamUK: Coaches and mentors are not 'in charge' of their students. having a coach or a mentor perverts individual intellectual integrity not a whit. it merely provides data. data which the student can use or lose.
i am sure Jim Jones would have agreed with you 100%. I, on the other hand, have my doubts.
what are your doubts? Would you disagree that the 'sway' any mentor would have would be depended on the 'weight' the student attached to the mentor?
does this not put the student at the root of it all?
John Scott:Allow me to allow you to reduce your own statement to the absurd. When a religion junkie rejects his own reason and surrenders his volition to the cult leader, is this the same as an individual reaching his own conclusions?
Yes. He willingly choices such a state and unless you can show that he does not prefer to do that yet does it anyways in a voluntary manner, then you are going to have a tough time proving my arguments 'absurd.'
John Scott:When a mother sends her daughter to sleep with the cult leader, would she have done that if she had kept the helm to herself instead of handing it over to her "coach" or "mentor" or "leader" or whatever you want to call it?
It would depend on the state of being plus other items. Is the daughter willing? Is the daughter capable of rational thought? Does the mother prefer the state of sending the daughter, who let's assume is willing since if she was unwilling then this whole exercise would be rejected because it violates the NAP, to not sending the daughter?
John Scott:And then, is it the same thing, as you appear to think? Ultimately, all decisions of the individual are made by the individual. Really? Really? I would think that at some point, in these group situations, when a kid resigns his sovereignty over to the coach, the coach is then making the decisions for him. The kid is only implementing those decisions.
Yes. Really. What is the first sentence of the opening chapter of Human Action? 'All action is purposeful behavior.' Was this action purposeful? If yes, then it was made completely by the individual. Of course this is true only if you've discovered a new way of showing that our actions are not our own but the result of society or a select mass of individuals. I'm reading Robert Owen right now so maybe if you push the issue hard enough I will agree and start blaming society for my character development.
John Scott:If you want to deny that there is a meaningful distinction between being self-led and being cult-led, then go ahead and do so, but the place you have then reached is called Absurdity
It's purposeful behavior. There is no difference. If people prefer to be 'cult-led' then that is their preference. Such a preference is no different then the preference to be self-led.
what is keeping the helm and how do I know if I keep it or if I don't? Am i not always me? bodybrainmindhaver-helmkeeper ?
John Scott:i am sure Jim Jones would have agreed with you 100%. I, on the other hand, have my doubts
Jim Jones had armed individuals ready to shoot those who didn't drink the spiked punch. We aren't talking about coerced behavior but voluntary.
nirgrahamUK: what are your doubts? Would you disagree that the 'sway' any mentor would have would be depended on the 'weight' the student attached to the mentor? does this not put the student at the root of it all?
Root of what? The insane trust and hero worship that these kids show to Stefan? Yes, the kids are the root of that.
But that's not where it ends, does it? Having accepted that hero worship and cult-leader status, His Holiness then abuses that trust by advising his followers to do X, Y and Z, when he ought to tell the kids not to worship him and to develop critical thinking skills.
Andrew Cain: John Scott:i am sure Jim Jones would have agreed with you 100%. I, on the other hand, have my doubts Jim Jones had armed individuals ready to shoot those who didn't drink the spiked punch. We aren't talking about coerced behavior but voluntary.
I'm not talking about the ones who were forced to drink. I'm talking about the ones who drank it willingly because their leader who they trusted told them to do so.
John Scott:I'm not talking about the ones who were forced to drink. I'm talking about the ones who drank it willingly because their leader who they trusted told them to do so
So voluntary behavior isn't really voluntary?
John Scott:Root of what?
John Scott:The insane trust and hero worship that these kids show to Stefan?
John Scott:he ought to tell the kids not to worship him and to develop critical thinking skills.
nirgrahamUK: what is keeping the helm and how do I know if I keep it or if I don't? Am i not always me? bodybrainmindhaver-helmkeeper ?
Answer your own question, okay? I'm not here to think for you. Just ask yourself this: Is there a meaningful difference between a man who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions, and a man who has entrusted somebody else to think for him and tell him what to do?
nirgrahamUK:the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy !
It's about to get PG-13 in here.
This has turned into opinions. Maybe you're right, maybe not.
I mean when everybody is partaking with the world voluntarily all kinds of boogie-monsters and virtuous people exist in this world.
If you find something wrong about what Stefen is doing, then this was a great opportunity for you to share that with him.
If you find something right about what Stefen is doing, then this was a great opportunity for you to share that with him.
There are the occasional jim jones but then there's the the old man at the local church or community club that most if not all trust to teach their children how to be wise. Who are the jim jones' and who are the virtuous people? I don't know, but sometimes I get a hunch and sometimes my hunches are wrong. Maybe the ill-feeling about Stefen is due to a real Stefen contextual problem or maybe the ill-feeling is completely on the part of the nay-sayers of Stefen own anxiety and isn't real concerning Stefen.
It's a real community that goes through these experiences of decision.
Andrew Cain: So voluntary behavior isn't really voluntary?
Who said that? Again, try to keep the discussion honest. If Jim Jones tells me to drink and I drink because I trust him, it's still my voluntary act. But the process by which I have arrived at that voluntary act is vastly different from the process by which a critical thinker thinking for himself reaches decisions.
John Scott:and a man who has entrusted somebody else to think for him and tell him what to do?
How did such a state come into being if not by the man's own decision?
wilderness: There are the occasional jim jones but then there's the the old man at the local church or community club that most if not all trust to teach their children how to be wise. Who are the jim jones' and who are the virtuous people?
There are the occasional jim jones but then there's the the old man at the local church or community club that most if not all trust to teach their children how to be wise. Who are the jim jones' and who are the virtuous people?
You're missing the point. Jim Jones or trustworthy old man makes no difference. People ought to think for themselves instead of trusting others to make their decisions for them.