Author Topic: subjective  (Read 1327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: subjective
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2018, 12:45:54 AM »
0
Can you prove that??

No. Here your comments are left standing, whereas on his site and on youtube, Stefan "Champion of Free Speech and Liberty" Molyneux deletes anything critical of him.

summa logicae

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Respect: +47
Re: subjective
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2018, 02:04:13 AM »
0
Can you prove that??

No. Here your comments are left standing, whereas on his site and on youtube, Stefan "Champion of Free Speech and Liberty" Molyneux deletes anything critical of him.

I can personally attest to Molyneux's practice of removing comments dissecting his rhetoric. Usually, comments just calling him stupid are allowed to stay, but if you demonstrate the many fallacies-both formal and informal-he commits, the hypocrisy of his ever shifting positions, and the endless contradictions he makes (sometimes in the space of 2 consecutive sentences), your comment won't last long.

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
Re: subjective
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2018, 07:27:57 AM »
+2
Can you prove that??


Answer this question as honestly as you can . . . what evidence would you be willing to accept ?

It's fairly obvious that personal testimony is going to be ignored, the same with anecdotal evidence, a hundred people all telling you the same thing is likely to fall on deaf ears when dealing with someone ideologically invested in an idea or personality.

I'm banned from commenting on Molyneux's Youtube videos, I'm banned from his Facebook group, and blocked from his Twitter feed, his FDR forum is heavily policed and I was not even able to register, I could post screenshots showing the 'blocked' or 'banned' screen that pops up - for example on Twitter - for people who've questioned Molyneux's ideas . . . . but would you be willing to accept that ?

I've always found that no amount of evidence is enough for someone ideologically invested in something or someone.

So when you ask people to 'prove it', what is it exactly that you are asking for, what evidence are you asking people to provide ?

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: subjective
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2018, 11:40:12 PM »
0
Thats not truth proof and just because you dont understand what hes saying doesnt mean its a fallacy  or a contradiction  etc.  You disagree with him and dont like him and thats fine but dont make stuff up to suit your bias.


Can you prove that??

No. Here your comments are left standing, whereas on his site and on youtube, Stefan "Champion of Free Speech and Liberty" Molyneux deletes anything critical of him.

I can personally attest to Molyneux's practice of removing comments dissecting his rhetoric. Usually, comments just calling him stupid are allowed to stay, but if you demonstrate the many fallacies-both formal and informal-he commits, the hypocrisy of his ever shifting positions, and the endless contradictions he makes (sometimes in the space of 2 consecutive sentences), your comment won't last long.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: subjective
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2018, 11:49:15 PM »
0
People make up shit all the time or mistakenly believe something.  Even if I didnt like Stef I wouldnt  beleive   just some random people who dont like him.  Believing people without evidence is called being an idiot.

Sure if you can show screen shots of you being banned Ill believe that.


Can you prove that??


Answer this question as honestly as you can . . . what evidence would you be willing to accept ?

It's fairly obvious that personal testimony is going to be ignored, the same with anecdotal evidence, a hundred people all telling you the same thing is likely to fall on deaf ears when dealing with someone ideologically invested in an idea or personality.

I'm banned from commenting on Molyneux's Youtube videos, I'm banned from his Facebook group, and blocked from his Twitter feed, his FDR forum is heavily policed and I was not even able to register, I could post screenshots showing the 'blocked' or 'banned' screen that pops up - for example on Twitter - for people who've questioned Molyneux's ideas . . . . but would you be willing to accept that ?

I've always found that no amount of evidence is enough for someone ideologically invested in something or someone.

So when you ask people to 'prove it', what is it exactly that you are asking for, what evidence are you asking people to provide ?

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
Re: subjective
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2018, 08:56:37 PM »
0
Sure if you can show screen shots of you being banned Ill believe that.



« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 09:53:44 PM by Lupus »

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
Re: subjective
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2018, 09:00:26 PM »
+1
So . . . . like Marc Moïni says, your posts here on this forum are left intact, nothing edited, redacted, censored . . . and yet Molyneux, who claims to be an advocate for free speech, bars people from Twitter, bans and blocks people on Youtube, censors posts and polices comments and vets members on his own FDR forum, and has even gone as far as using 'the gun in the room' (state force) - and breaking the NAP - to silence online criticism.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 09:49:54 PM by Lupus »

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: subjective
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2018, 09:25:14 PM »
0
Well if those are real, that's a shame, I definitely have a policy of never blocking people.  Im certainly disappointed to see he doesnt feel the same way.  Just curious though what specifically did you say last before he blocked you??  Doesnt matter really but just curious.

Sure if you can show screen shots of you being banned Ill believe that.





Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: subjective
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2018, 09:29:45 PM »
0
Well technically free speech means the government doesnt have the right to censor or punish people.  Blocking someone doesnt violate free speech.  Although like I said its still unfortunate he felt the need to do so.

The last comment however is untrue.  He has not said anything that violates the NAP and that includes for people who criticize him.

So . . . . like Marc Moïni says, your posts here on this forum are left intact, nothing edited, redacted, censored . . . and yet Molyneux, who claims to be an advocate for free speech, bars people from Twitter, bans and blocks people on Youtube, censors posts and polices comments and vets members on his own FDR forum, and has even gone as far as using 'the gun in the room' (state force) - and breaking the NAP - to silence online criticism.

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
Re: subjective
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2018, 06:42:20 AM »
0
Well if those are real, that's a shame, I definitely have a policy of never blocking people.  Im certainly disappointed to see he doesnt feel the same way.

Like I say he's welcome to block whoever he likes, he's free to ban and censor on Youtube and Facebook, block people on Twitter and prevent certain opinions and views on his forum and his call-in shows . . . . but he can't honestly then lay any claim to being any sort of advocate for free speech, certainly not a free speech absolutist.

Just curious though what specifically did you say last before he blocked you??  Doesnt matter really but just curious.

I can't remember, I was banned years ago, but it was almost certainly a challenge to or questioning of one of his claims / ideas.

"before he blocked you"

I think it's always useful to point out where this kind of censorship is aimed, he might have blocked me, and many others who have attempted to criticise or challenge his thinking, but the censorship is not aimed at me, it's aimed at you, his audience.

There are three parties involved in censorship, the person putting forward their views, the person who those views are aimed at, and the wider audience. The person putting forward their views will - of course - know the content of their post. The person who those views are aimed at - of course - knows the content of the post, how else would they know which opinions to allow and which should be censored.

The only party left in the dark - unaware of what has been censored - is the wider audience . . . Molyneux's censorship is aimed squarely at his audience, he is managing which views and opinions, criticisms and questions his audience should be allowed to see. Whether he bans people expressing ideas he disagrees with, or blocks people who challenge his ideas or even when he uses the 'gun in the room' (state force) to take down Youtube channels . . . the goal is always the same, to prevent the wider audience from seeing the censored content, like I say this often needs to be pointed out, at first glance it appears that the person putting forward their views is the target of censorship, but the real target is the wider audience.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2018, 02:45:23 PM by Lupus »

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
  • Respect: +54
Re: subjective
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2018, 07:10:26 AM »
0
Well technically free speech means the government doesnt have the right to censor or punish people.

Has to be the government ? So colleges can't prevent free speech on campus ? Student unions can't stymie the free speech of speakers by no-platforming them ? Google can't be said to stymie free speech by the ostracising or even sacking of staff members who express ideas outside of the proscribed norm, Twitter banning users expressing views they disagree with is not a free speech issue ? YouTube demonitizing videos they feel contain opinions and ideas counter to their 'values', not a free speech issue ?  . . . etc etc . . . none of these things are free speech issues ?.

Blocking someone doesnt violate free speech.

It does, it prevents someone from expressing opinions without censorship, by definition it 'violates' free speech. You've offered no argument as to why this wouldn't violate free speech, you've simply typed out that blocking someone doesn't violate free speech, this is not an argument.

The last comment however is untrue.  He has not said anything that violates the NAP and that includes for people who criticize him.

Would you agree that the use of state force, state coercion (the 'gun in the room' as Molyneux calls it) to silence criticism (online or otherwise) breaks the NAP ?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2018, 11:36:02 AM by Lupus »