Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 27, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:54:32

812 A Listener's Criticisms

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So do you want me to IMU my organization of kind of the topics that I thought might be interesting to discuss and just a few points about them?
	Sure. So the broad topics were initiation versus response, and I meant that in regards, typically used it in regards to aggression, but obviously, you know, board issues are not an issue of aggression.
	It's just an issue of debating ethics or whatever you want to call it.
	And the other name is psychologizing, misquoting, The argument from authority, ad hominem, reputation, And, you know, when these things are a fallacy or when they're not, because, you know, these kind of arguments can, like argument from authority isn't always a fallacy, but I'm not sure you want to call it an argument from authority.
	It just depends on the situation.
	Confidentiality, that was what we were discussing very recently.
	And lastly, universalizability.
	I'm not so sure that we should talk about them in that order.
	This is just kind of a random listing of some of the issues that I thought were coming up on the board.
	So, there you go.
	Yeah, I mean, the only one that I want to talk about first is this issue of confidentiality.
	Okay, great. All right. So, go ahead.
	So, basically, I believe the...
	I don't know if we should use the person's name, but I believe the situation was someone emailed...
	I didn't actually realize the information was confidential, but this relates to the premium podcast.
	We were talking about, you know, when to trust in someone's arguments, and you mentioned that this person had some personal problems in regards to graduate school and their job and happiness in general.
	Well, sorry. I hate to interrupt you right up front, but what I actually said was that I was talking about people who had been having a go or attacking me or having significant issues with me on the board.
	And I didn't mention anyone in particular.
	I certainly did mention...
	We'll just call him Bob. I did mention Bob's handle, right?
	Because it's just his... I don't even think it's his real name.
	It's just his handle. I mentioned Bob as sort of one person, but I did not associate Bob with graduate school issues, nor did I associate Bob with...
	with a prior podcast I just said and I included people like Neil so it was going back a month or two or three in terms of people who had and this was sort of an aggregated podcast to do with people who had had issues with me but I didn't associate Bob with graduate school issues okay I guess I thought that was what was happening When I listen to it, I can't go back and listen to it right now because I thought it would take too long.
	That was the main issue for me.
	When I posted my criticism of that, I wasn't talking specifically about confidentiality because I wasn't aware of any issues in regards to that.
	This kind of gets into the next one.
	I was just kind of criticizing That argument is being ad hominem.
	Wait, wait, wait. Sorry, sorry. Let me just back up for a second because I feel we just kind of skipped over this.
	Publicly on the board, you said that I had violated confidentiality.
	Is that not correct? Yes.
	After you said, if your concern is confidentiality, then why are you posting in regards to a premium podcast?
	And then this poster actually posted and said that there was a confidentiality violation.
	So I assumed, and also because you didn't dispute it, so I assumed that that was true.
	Wait, wait, sorry. Have you listened to the podcast in question?
	Yes, I listened to the premium podcast.
	I listened to the entire podcast.
	Right, so you had said that I had...
	I mean, you were the one who associated with this graduate school issue publicly.
	I didn't even do it privately.
	Actually, I don't think that I... In that the initial response to that podcast, I can look it up right now, that I mentioned his name.
	I'm not sure. I'll have to take a look at it, and it'll be coming up in a moment on FDR. My primary criticism was that our argument is being an ad hominem.
	No, no, no. Hang on.
	Sorry. I want to be really precise about what we're talking about.
	Let's separate the ad hominem, because that's a separate issue.
	The question is one of confidentiality, right?
	Did I... Reveal someone's name with regards to privileged information.
	I didn't. I mean, Christina and I listened to the podcast the other night in great detail, right?
	Because I was obviously troubled by this accusation.
	And at no point did I say that Bob was the person in graduate school who I did the podcast on.
	Yeah. Well, I thought that you did, but I didn't actually mention that in my initial response to it.
	I said, and I'm looking at it right now, and I don't see this person's name anywhere in my response.
	And then your response to my post was, Now I'm really confused.
	If you believe using privileged information in an argument is wrong, why are you posting publicly about a podcast that clearly is for private donor consumption?
	These were the two initial responses, my response, and then your counter to that in regards to that premium podcast.
	And then after that, this person or someone they know or whatever posted saying that there was a confidentiality breach.
	And then from that point afterwards, I thought I assumed that that was the case because they had said so and because you didn't dispute it.
	And that was the impression that I had listening to the podcast, and I can't be sure.
	I would certainly listen to it again.
	You know, if I'm wrong on that, then, you know, a thousand apologies.
	But this, I mean, that, you know, this was just something, this impression developed in me because initially I thought that you were just talking about information that was publicly on the boards.
	And I think I was pretty sure that at some point you mentioned this person's name and then you're talking about all the other stuff with graduate school and whatnot.
	So that was where the link happened in my mind.
	Until, you know, you brought up that point about privileged information and then this person posted about it somewhere else, it didn't occur to me that that was actually privileged or might have been.
	Right, so if it is the case that I did not specifically or explicitly link this person's pseudonym to graduate school issues or with a prior podcast on that issue, then it was, I think, an unjust accusation to say that I was revealing privileged information.
	If that's the case, then yes.
	But if you did mention his name, and then you didn't specifically say it, but then you start talking about that, it might be a reasonable inference for people to think you were talking about him.
	I'd have to look again, and if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize for that, because obviously that would have been kind of a Knowing what we know, we can make connections a little bit better than people who actually would not know the situation from both sides.
	So maybe that's what's going on here.
	Well, and of course, as far as privileged information goes, the podcast as a whole was released outside of the bounds of the people who had a right to listen to it, right?
	Because someone sent it to Bob.
	Which was, you know, something which was not, was explicitly said this is just for, you know, people who have access for it on the boards and this obviously this person doesn't have access to it because he's banned.
	So that's also not good, right?
	I mean, that's not a very good or productive or positive situation when people are taking stuff that people have paid for.
	I'm sorry, are you there?
	Okay, you got cut out again.
	I wonder if this is something with my connection here or not.
	First of all, I think we talked about this.
	I wasn't the one who sent this person, Bob, the podcast.
	Actually, he told me about it, and that's how I got to it.
	I knew about the premium section, but I wasn't looking at it that much.
	So I have no idea who sent it to him.
	In regards to, you know, was it wrong or not that it was sent to him?
	I'm not sure. I mean, I certainly see your point that you did specify that it was for, you know, donors only.
	However, this person was prior to his banning was just a few days before this podcast.
	What do you call it? Platinum donor or whatever.
	I'm sorry, diamond donor.
	Well, but that's not somebody else's decision to make, right?
	I mean, if I have premium content and block someone from gaining access to it, then to send that to someone is clearly against the wishes and intent of what I was doing, right?
	Yes, that would be the case.
	I guess the only question would be, from this person's perspective, if they also thought it was an ad hominem against him, and that it, in some sense, violated confidentiality, then in their mind, that would justify sending it to him, because they might have solved it.
	I don't think, if you feel, not you, but if someone feels that a violation of confidentiality is an issue, I don't see how you solve that by violating the confidentiality of the podcast.
	Right. I mean, that's completely hypocritical, right?
	I mean, they could then call me or talk to me and say, look, I think you have an issue here and talk about it with me privately.
	But to take matters into their own hands and say, well, because of a violation of confidentiality, I'm going to violate the confidentiality of this podcast by sending it to people that Steph explicitly has denied the right for people to have.
	I'm sorry? Yeah.
	Sure. If somebody says that the problem is, you can't violate a principle if you have a problem with a principle, right?
	So if someone has a problem with confidentiality, then taking matters into their own hands and sending around a confidential podcast is violating the very principle that they're criticizing someone for, right?
	This gets into kind of my other point, which was, you know, in which cases do this confidentiality kind of, you know, can you, I don't want to say violate, but, you know, in which cases is it void?
	You know, I mean, like in the difference between initiation of something and response to that.
	I'm not sure I would say it's the best thing to do.
	I'm also not sure I would say that it demonstrates hypocrisy because there is a difference between initiating something and then responding to it.
	The person might have felt, for example, that if they...
	Well, let's just work on the premise here.
	Since I can't listen to the podcast again at this moment, I'm not sure what exactly was said.
	If they felt that confidentiality was violated and in the course of that, if they felt that there was an ad hominem against this person, Bob, then they may have felt that he had a right to know about this consequentially.
	So they can just choose to hand out property that is restricted to people who it's restricted from.
	Then they're not talking to me about it and saying, Steph, I think you did something wrong here.
	I mean, they're not talking to me about it, right?
	Then they're just sort of taking matters into their own hands and sending a podcast around.
	I mean, I don't think it's an essential issue, but I don't think it's a very elevated way to deal with.
	If there was a violation of confidentiality, I don't think then just violating the confidentiality of the podcast, immediately taking it into your own hands without even telling me, right?
	Like without even saying, oh, listen, by the way, I sent this podcast to Bob because I loved it.
	Stephan, I'm sorry. Just a few seconds ago, you got cut out again.
	I don't know what's happening here.
	No problem. We'll struggle through.
	I mean, to just take the matters into your own hands and to take property which is essentially private, which is earned by people who have access to it, right?
	Nobody has access.
	Like, if somebody doesn't have access to this podcast, then sending it to them is a violation of the implicit contract of this is what the premium section is for.
	And to then do that independently of telling me, I just don't think that's real good.
	I mean, I think if somebody has a problem with me, particularly since they're erroneous, right?
	Since it's wrong, since I did not violate confidentiality, it's clearly egregious, right?
	Certainly, somebody could call me up or, you know, I'm available 24-7 pretty much, right?
	I'm online all the time.
	People could call me up and say, I think you violated confidentiality here, Steph, and And what do you think, right?
	And then I could say, well, no, I didn't associate this guy with the podcast or with graduate school.
	I mean, I just talked about a bunch of people.
	I'm sorry, again. A few seconds ago, you got cut out.
	So you might want to start over again from just a few seconds ago.
	Oh, sure. Well, for someone to take matters into their own hands, to send a podcast that was clearly restricted to somebody it was restricted from, especially if they got it wrong, Right?
	It's pretty egregious. I mean, it's not hell or anything, but it's pretty bad.
	Well, yeah, I mean, obviously, I actually do tend to think, yes, that precisely because of that reason, you know, it probably would have been better for this person to, whoever sent it to Bob, to talk to you about it first and maybe listen to it again, you know, before doing that, at least.
	Because, you know, obviously, the justifiability of their action depends entirely on whether or not Confidentiality was, in fact, violated.
	Now, the other question I would have is, even if I did associate Bob with a graduate school issue, nobody knows this person's real name, the country they live in.
	They don't know where they go to school.
	There's no personally identifiable information.
	Even if I had made this association, there's still not a shred of personally identifiable information in what it is that I was talking about.
	No, I mean, yeah, but they, at least this person, Bob, told me that he explained his reasons for requesting confidentiality, and yeah, you know, his handle on the forum doesn't reveal personal information, but, you know, someone interested in that could look it up,
	and then I think his user account, or, you know, by Google Hachet or whatever, and I believe he did have his actual name, and I guess the issue had something to do with it, um, uh, With it affecting people that he knew and being recognized and something like that.
	I don't want to get into too many details, but it's not really that relevant.
	But, I mean, the point is that if someone wanted to, they could, once they know this person's handle name on FDR, they can look that up somehow and get his real name.
	That was kind of the point.
	You know, and even if they, now they may not get an address, but people who happen to, I guess the issue revolves around people who happen to know them.
	And also for some, if you're listening to FDR, You know, then they can kind of backtrack that.
	That's the issue. Right, right.
	No, I can certainly understand that as a concern, for sure.
	I mean, but again, listen to the podcast again.
	I do not explicitly link this guy either with a prior podcast or any person's name with graduate school issues.
	I'll certainly do that.
	And, you know, if that's the case, then I will certainly apologize.
	Actually, I'll apologize in advance if that's the case.
	Actually, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because, you know, you and me and other people who listen to it kind of, you know, know the inside scoop here.
	And thus, you know, if you mentioned, I believe you did actually mention the person's handle.
	And then, you know, if you talk about things that were, you know, related to that person, then, you know, in our mind, it's kind of, you know, That connection is very easy to make, but maybe not so in the case for people who actually hadn't been listening to this entire thing.
	So I'll go back and take a look at it.
	If that's the case, then I apologize.
	But initially, that wasn't my objection.
	And also, if somebody did want to find this person's handle through some, I don't know, Google reverse engineering that I don't even know what it is or how to do it, they could do that anyway, right?
	I mean, if somebody wanted to look up this person's email and do a Google search, they could find them whether or not I had said anything.
	Oh yes, yes. The issue is that they wouldn't have known.
	If someone listens to this podcast and then they can link that to this particular handle name and then correspondingly to But it's pretty tenuous, right? I mean, it's pretty tenuous.
	I mean, if somebody wanted to find this person's information, they could do it anyway, right?
	That's just what you do when you go on the internet, regardless of anything that I say or don't say.
	If somebody wanted to find out more about this person, they could just do that search.
	And that's... That's not, I mean, it's pretty tenuous then to say, well, I included it in a set of people who'd had problems with me over the last couple of months, right?
	That's a pretty long way from, this is this guy's address.
	Here's where, you know, here's where he goes to school.
	Here's his grade point average.
	Here's his name and here's his social insurance number.
	I mean, it's a pretty long way to, I think, blanket something as fairly volatile as, you know, violation of confidentiality.
	I mean, I'm just saying it's a pretty long way to go, I think.
	Yeah, I certainly understand what you're saying.
	I mean, also partly because this is a premium, you know, there's a select number of people who can listen to this podcast.
	You know, I would just say that, you know, yeah, there's a long way to go.
	True. But I mean, if that in fact happened, the principle is still the same.
	But I'll take a look at that.
	Again, you know, because that wasn't my initial impression.
	It was just an impression that developed because of your response and then the writings of a bunch of other people on this issue.
	So, you know, I mean, now certainly, you know, because initially you didn't deny it.
	So that was, you know, that was kind of, you know, my thinking.
	Now that you have denied it, of course, I have no reason a priori to leave one over the other in particular and certainly not to assume that you're lying about it.
	Except you had the podcast, though.
	Except you had the podcast, right?
	So this is not a hearsay situation, right?
	You actually had the podcast. Yes, exactly.
	I mean, what I'm saying is, given that I don't remember, you know, the exact sequence of what was said, you know, obviously I'll go back and look at that.
	I'm just saying right now, you know, right now, I'm not going to, you know, given that you're telling me that, no, you didn't violate Comfie Hill, I'm not going to say, no, I believe, you know, I believe it were you, you know, even though I don't remember precisely what was said.
	You know, so I'll go back and take a look at that and, you know, I certainly can understand how a mix-up like this could happen.
	I understand why this person might feel a little bit sensitive about this.
	And I also understand, obviously, from your perspective, that this is a very severe thing.
	And this is obviously why you wanted to talk about it first.
	Well, and the other question, which I would sort of have, and this, I think, ties into the question around initiation versus response.
	I sort of have a principle, which I've talked about before, right?
	Which is, you know, you treat people as well as you can, and after that, you treat them as they treat you.
	Now, I don't want to get buried into the murk of this post and that post, but my impression was that this person was attacking me on principle, and then when it was pointed out that he was applying those principles inconsistently...
	I presume you're saying that he was applying this principle inconsistently?
	Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, that to me is, you know, pretty bad, right?
	I mean, that's my definition of corruption, right?
	Which is to use ethics, to use the argument for morality as a personal attack, right?
	That's pretty bad in my book.
	It's not the end of the world. It's not evil or anything, but it's pretty bad, right?
	And so my sort of perspective is something like this.
	Like if I say to you, hey, David, I'm going to give you a call at 2 o'clock tomorrow, right?
	And then you leave an answering machine message on my phone saying, Steph, you're a total asshole and a jerk and corrupt and dictatorial and mean and whatever, whatever, right?
	I'm not sure that I'm really obligated to call you tomorrow, even though I said I was going to.
	Like I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't call you tomorrow.
	Right? Because for me, the social graces must be reciprocated, right?
	There must be a reciprocal relationship.
	Just as I don't have the right to come up and pop you in the nose, but if you come up and pop me in the nose, then I can use force, right?
	I mean, that's sort of the principle of self-defense, which is fundamentally around reciprocity in the non-initiation.
	Sorry? You got cut out after, I presume you're going to say, fundamental to libertarianism or something of that nature.
	No, it's just basically that if I make a sort of implicit commitment to you, like I'll call you at two o'clock tomorrow or I'll never reveal anything about you or anything like that, and then you verbally abuse me, then I don't feel that I'm bound by any particular rule around politeness from that standpoint.
	You know what I mean? So if I say I'm going to I would agree there.
	I would just draw a distinction between that and, um, and, uh, A pledge or whatever you want to call confidentiality.
	I mean, like, okay, if you say, you know, if Bob calls you up or whoever, let's just say, you know, X, they call you and they say, you know, I want to talk to you about something confidential.
	And then, you know, you say, sure, you know, confidential.
	And they start, they proceed to, you know, in that confidential conversation to start cursing you out and, you know, whatnot.
	And, you know, Obviously, that's, you know, very frightening, and you might want to talk to the cops about that or something, you know, or tell it to someone because, you know, that's kind of like an abuse of the confidentiality.
	But my impression is that in this individual's case, the confidentiality itself wasn't abused.
	I mean, if, you know, let's just, you know, go with what you're saying for now about this issue.
	The accusing you on something of principle and then not adhering to that universally.
	I'd like to come back to that later, but let's just go with that assumption for now.
	That doesn't relate to the confidentiality.
	So I don't see how, you know, that in particular, you know, means that the confidentiality, I mean, if, you know, if they, you know, in a prior, separate instances, they request confidentiality about, you know, various issues relating to graduate school and job and whatnot, And then, you know, you talk about that in a podcast.
	And, you know, in the podcast, I believe this was talked about in some podcasts a while back, these issues.
	And then, you know, you obviously don't mention the name.
	And then, you know, later on, there's some issue where they, you know, they accuse you of not adhering to a specific principle.
	And then you attempt to point out a conflict.
	You know, what you're saying there is that that's kind of using the argument from morality against someone.
	I mean, in a non-consistent, kind of, you know, unethical way.
	Well, if somebody violates ethics towards me, I'm not sure exactly.
	I mean, this is just, this is not core, right?
	Because I didn't make this association, but even if I had, I mean, I'd just sort of tell you, and, you know, this is something that's important for people to know, because it's very much...
	In keeping with what I've talked about, right?
	I mean, people say that they find me confusing, but I do have 800 podcasts about what I think is sort of reasonable in relationships.
	But if somebody acts in an unethical manner towards me...
	I'm sorry, right after if somebody...
	Sure. If somebody acts in an unethical manner towards me, I don't feel bound to act in a superior ethical manner in return.
	I mean, that's a principle that I have that I've talked about from the very beginning, right?
	And certainly that's the non-aggression principle, right?
	So yeah, if somebody violates ethics with regards to me, I don't think that it's necessarily fair to, and certainly nothing that I would particularly feel bound by, to act in a, you know, stainlessly ethical manner in return.
	I would tend to agree.
	I would think that it wouldn't mean that it would be good to act in an unethical manner back.
	Just the example I would use is, let's take Christina.
	Obviously, she's totally unrelated to all of this because she has her own...
	Let's just take a hypothetical example of her and one of her clients.
	And, you know, presumably all of her clients are somewhat, you know, reasonable people and they don't yell at her or anything.
	But, you know, let's just say that, you know, because she's a psychologist, right?
	She's a professional. And they always have this agreement of confidentiality.
	And, you know, so she has therapy with this person or whatever.
	And, you know, so they've been having therapy and talking about various issues and going along productively.
	And all of that would have been confidentiality.
	And then all of a sudden, in one meeting, this person just goes schizo on her or something, you know, and starts, you know, calling her names and, you know, making threats or whatnot.
	I mean, that certainly would justify, you know, her telling someone else or, you know, if she thought that was practical about this to kind of take preventative action.
	Yeah, she could report it to the college.
	And, of course, there are situations if a patient is acting unethically, right?
	If they confess to a crime or something, then, I mean, in Christina's case, and, of course, this is subject to her checking.
	It's just my understanding. She's actually bound to reveal the information.
	Yeah, exactly. But I believe that it wouldn't, that wouldn't mean that you would reveal other unrelated information to that, I mean, or that you wouldn't reveal the unrelated information to that threat or whatever it may be, but only the information that was, you know, surrounding the threat and relevant to the threat.
	You know, like if this person, someone's talking to her about their family and their various dysfunctions or whatnot, and then all this, you know, that's been going on for weeks, and then all of a sudden one day they come in and, you know, Christina, I mean, says something to them and it kind of touches some nerve and then they, you know, they explode at her and, you know, maybe they start to become, you know, it looks like they're going to be violent.
	Certainly she, you know, the confidentiality there is, in that particular case, for that session is invalid, you know, for anything surrounding that violence or threat of violence.
	But I don't think that affects any of the prior sessions.
	Right, of course, but the case that I was making in the premium podcast was entirely, like, required information.
	I'm sorry, you got right after entirely.
	The case that I made in the premium podcast required information that was to do with personal history.
	I mean there was simply no way to make that case because if I had said – I mean as you know, the basic argument is that if you are a marriage counselor, it's relevant that you've had three failed marriages in the past.
	If you were a dietician, it's relevant if you're overweight.
	So if you're a financial advisor but you're currently going through bankruptcy, that's relevant.
	So when you put yourself forward as an expert in a particular area, your own personal competence is not irrelevant to the situation.
	It doesn't prove anything, but it is a way of all of us being able to be more efficient in terms of how we evaluate conflicts.
	Because one of the things that I want to do...
	Is to reduce the amount of board clutter to do with all of this, you know, this person said this and that thread and the other.
	And the way to do that is when somebody makes a knowledge claim about expertise, then we can look at their own success.
	I'm sorry, right after a knowledge claim about expertise.
	We'll obviously have to edit this a lot before we publish it.
	We can, I mean, their own personal history.
	If somebody claims expertise in an area, their own personal history of success or failure in that area is relevant, right?
	Yeah. Yeah, and in the particular area that they're talking about, yes, I would agree.
	Yeah, I would definitely agree with that.
	I mean, but it's just my understanding that, you know, what you said is that there was no confidentiality breach.
	And the appearance of a breach is because, you know, or this is my interpretation, the appearance of a breach is because, you know, we board members who have been listening can kind of jump to that connection because, you know, we kind of know who you're talking about, even if you don't mention their names specifically, but you mention them in that podcast, and then later on you talk about this and that, and we can make the connection because we already know about it.
	But, you know, other people can't.
	I mean, you know, someone without the same knowledge as, you know, those of us on the inside, so to speak, couldn't make that connection.
	Right, and my issue was that people published on the public board, right, a conclusion about me without ever asking me, right, without ever asking me.
	Are you referring to me?
	I can't remember because there's a whole big long thread about how bad I was in breaking confidentiality and this and that.
	And the reason I didn't respond is nobody ever asked.
	Nobody IM'd me.
	Nobody sent me an email. Nobody asked me.
	I mean, I'm online all the time and nobody ever asked.
	It was just a, it was a stampede.
	It was a, you know, like this is the mob, a mob thing, right?
	Everybody just, you know, even without hearing the podcast, oh yeah, confidentiality violation, blah, blah, blah, right?
	And nobody ever asked.
	Nobody said, well, Steph, you know, perhaps you can help us understand this.
	What was your, you know, your experience, your situation?
	What was your decision? Clearly, you've been running this podcast for a year and a half.
	You've dealt with, you know, hundreds of confidentiality things without any problem, with highly sensitive issues.
	What's the difference here? I'm sorry.
	Nobody asked. It's just a rush to judgment and blanket condemnation.
	And the reason I didn't respond was nobody asked.
	I certainly understand your frustration and being upset with that.
	And actually, I would myself kind of apologize for that because I also didn't ask.
	But I just kind of assumed, based on your response, that you were conceding it.
	So you don't think innocent until proven guilty, right?
	Oh, no. I'm incumbent.
	Like, we have to prove our innocence now?
	Isn't that sort of a violation of pretty fundamental legal norms?
	It just seemed to me like you were conceding the point in your response to me, or actually, you brought it up.
	So, I mean, it seemed to me like you were, you know, because I wasn't initially talking about that, and you brought that up.
	Broke what up? Oh, you brought up the confidentiality.
	My post wasn't, you know, my initial response to this podcast didn't mention anything about confidentiality.
	And then you brought it up, so...
	No, you posted, you posted, remember I said, you posted publicly on the board about how I had violated confidentiality in a private podcast.
	You didn't email me about it, right?
	This was, this was, yes, I did eventually, but this was after my initial response was just talking about how I thought that your argument was invalid and then it was an ad hominem.
	And then you responded saying that if I was so concerned about confidentiality, why was I posting about...
	Wait, wait, wait, wait. Why would I respond to confidentiality if you hadn't mentioned confidentiality?
	Well, I don't know, but you did.
	No, no, no. What happened, David, was that you posted that there'd been an ad hominem and a violation of confidentiality.
	I deleted the post. I can go and check it later.
	But there's just no...
	Why on earth would I respond to an accusation that was never made?
	I mean, why would I make...
	I didn't even think about the confidentiality issue.
	Well, I'm not sure, but I can read off what I wrote.
	Let's see. It's this right here.
	It's under deleted threads, response to podcasts, my final thoughts on recent board conflicts.
	I listened to the donor-only podcast on the board conflict, and I thought it was largely a giant ad hominem.
	Calling it to question someone's argument because of their relative success in life is not a valid argument against their argument.
	Particularly when they aren't successful in isn't the particular topic of their argument.
	In this case, you said that some of the people arguing for voting weren't successful in grad school with their careers or happiness.
	However, they weren't advising people about how to get through grad school, have successful careers, or live a happy life.
	They were making an argument about the ethicality and practicality of voting.
	The other problem I had with this is that even if only amongst-- Ah, you publicly humiliated-- Okay, you publicly humiliated individuals using information they provided you.
	I see where you're thinking that.
	What do you mean where I'm thinking that?
	That's what you wrote. David, I'm not thinking that.
	That's what you wrote. Yes, this is what I wrote, but I was not referring to confidential information because it was my impression that all of the information that you mentioned was publicly available on the boards.
	You said the information they'd provided to you.
	Yes. It was not provided with you, the idea that it might be turned around and used against the individual's arguments, right?
	I mean, that is a complaint about confidentiality, right?
	Not provided to the board, right?
	Provided to me. Actually, yes, I see how you might interpret that, but that isn't what I meant.
	I simply meant they were providing it to you in the sense that you were the person they were asking about, but it was my impression this information was on the board.
	And in a later post somewhere, I said that actually it was my impression this information was all public.
	So that was...
	And this is why it's important, rather than posting in a public forum when you have a moral criticism of someone...
	I'm sorry, right after public forum.
	Well, this is why it's important when you have a moral criticism of someone, rather than posting confusing texts like this, which to me clearly indicates that you felt there was a violation of confidentiality, is to call someone, right?
	To just call me up. Yeah, I mean, I guess I would say that that probably would have been a better way to deal with it because then we could have, you know, figured out what exactly it meant without so much difficulty.
	Well, we could bypass the whole problem with confidentiality anyway.
	We could have cleaned that all up, right?
	Because the issue that I have, like, fundamentally is that I'm not sure how you get to say that I'm publicly humiliating people when you accuse me of bad things with no proof.
	Isn't that kind of publicly humiliating me?
	I mean, that's the fundamental thing I can't quite get.
	Okay, actually, see, this is, you know, in my response to that, to your response to, this is a little kind of weird here, but, you know, you responded talking about, you know, the confidentiality of the premium content, and then in my response to that, one of the things I said, in any event, what I was objecting to wasn't the use of privileged information, as the information wasn't privileged.
	I believe it was provided to the entire board by posters.
	So I did come back and clarify what I meant by that.
	Okay. So, I mean, it was not my initial impression that this information was privileged.
	Then I said it sensitive, which I didn't mean privileged, but, you know, kind of like personal, you know, that kind of information.
	I wasn't actually aware that it was privileged, or that there wasn't any privileged information in regards to this entire topic, as of this post.
	Your response to that made me believe that it was privileged and that, you know, you didn't dispute it, so I thought that you did disclose privileged information.
	No, no, I was simply talking about the principle, right?
	Okay, yeah. I mean, if somebody attacks me on principle, right, then I... I'm sorry, right after somebody attacked...
	Well, if somebody criticizes me on principle, right, then I think I have the right to ask them if I believe that they're very...
	Because this is the issue around me, right, with sort of how I think of things.
	And I'm not putting you in this category.
	That's just my thinking, right?
	That if somebody uses a principle and violates a principle in the attack, that's kind of hypocritical.
	And I'm not putting you into this category.
	That's why... We're good to go.
	And then he says, well, yeah, duh, you know, right?
	So that's what I sort of try and figure out when somebody comes at me with a sort of fundamental criticism about my ethics or my character, then I try and figure out what principle are they using, right?
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I understand what you're saying there.
	This was obviously misinterpretation.
	After this thread here, which we moved to the elitist section, and then I posted only in response to the premium area where only premium people can view it or whoever has access to it.
	After that, then whoever else, Serena or some other person, I forget, posted saying that the information was confidential.
	Only then did I presume actually and go on the assumption that it was.
	Because then looking back at what you wrote, it seemed to me like you were conceding that point.
	That was just the situation.
	And yeah, I apologize for that because I see your point.
	You weren't conceding that.
	You just simply weren't responding to it because you wanted to get the issue of the principle of confidentiality.
	This kind of gets to another issue, which is universalization.
	But before we move on to that, is there anything else you want to mention about the confidentiality thing?
	No, I mean, I just – my issue is basically that – yes, it's one sort of thing.
	Like, if I borrow $10 from you, then I'm honor-bound, you know, morally bound to pay it back.
	But if you then steal – I mean, this is a ridiculous example, but, you know, just for the sake of principle.
	If you then steal $1,000 from me, I don't think that you can then phone me up and say – By the way, you also owe me $10, right?
	I mean, to me, there is a cessation of reciprocal responsibility when there is egregious or abusive action on the part of one person.
	That's the principle that I work with because I don't believe in turning the other cheek and I don't believe in taking the high road because I believe in the non-aggression principle and I believe in self-defense.
	So that's, I mean, whether we agree whether that was justified or not in this situation, I just wanted to be clear that that's the way I'm sorry, right after this situation.
	That's the way that I approach these issues.
	Okay, well then, you know, closing out the confidentiality section, I would like to apologize to you for that, because you're right, I didn't IM you and ask you about it.
	I was, you know, to me it seemed, you know, just to be quite frank, I got the impression that you were being a little bit volatile, and I didn't kind of I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking, but I will apologize to you for not asking you personally about this.
	And then obviously the other person was claiming that there was confidentiality breach and whatnot, but I did not actually ask you about it.
	So I apologize for that and I hope you accept my apology.
	I appreciate that. I mean, we've known each other a long time, right, off and on.
	So certainly, I mean, if I have done something wrong, then I certainly think that I'm, you know, usually pretty okay with apologizing and changing my behavior and so on.
	So right after apologizing.
	I'm changing my behavior. It's not about you and I. The important thing here is not the board and it's not you and it's not me.
	The important thing is how to avoid escalation in personal relationships.
	To keep the channels of communication open.
	And of course, after, you know, when I did the premium podcast on Bob, this was after, you know, many posts and conversations and a long debate, right?
	So we'd had a lot of conversations, right?
	So I'm not sort of saying, you know, call me, but I'm just going to release podcasts.
	I mean, this was after a long series of interactions.
	So generally, I think it's better to try and get as much conversing directly before going to public accusations.
	But anyway, so we can move on to universalization if you like.
	Okay, yeah, certainly I agree with that, and I'm glad that you accept my apology for that.
	Now, okay, so universalization.
	This kind of gets to the other thing surrounding the whole Bob conflict or Can you just briefly say again that the issue around which you thought Bob wasn't applying a principle universally when he was criticizing you?
	I believe it had something to do with...
	Actually, I'm not quite sure.
	I remember this issue.
	This was one of the points of conflict that arose.
	Could you just, if you remember, mention that?
	Well, I can't particularly...
	I don't want to get into too much detail because it's dragging other names in and I'm going to complicate this, but basically I was involved in a debate with someone where that person was acting very badly and then Bob criticized me on principle and I said, well, but why aren't you mentioning anything about this other person, right? Again, because I'm trying to understand, is this person using ethics to attack me, which is really bad?
	Or are they genuinely applying objective principles, in which case they're a friend and a brother and they're there to help, right?
	Because people can use ethics.
	Okay, I remember this.
	Yes, this was the issue.
	I believe it had something to do with this whole thing about, like, it might have revolved around this 9-11 building.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then he mentioned his analogy, and I guess you had said...
	Okay, hang on. Let me just make a note there.
	You just mentioned the name. Oh, I'm sorry.
	No problem. I'll edit it, yeah.
	Yeah, that's quite easy to do.
	Now I know what you mean. Go ahead.
	Okay, so Bob.
	Yeah, I believe Bob's analogy was just that, you know, because this other poster, I forget his name, you know, he thought that the 9-11 thing was a scam and that the buildings hadn't actually been crashed into it.
	Blah, blah, blah. We don't need to talk.
	That's not really an important issue on whether or not it was, you know, whatever.
	But, and then, you know, later on he said something about, you know, I don't know, there's some strange thing where he was talking to someone and he thought his house was burning down and then he realized, oh no, it wasn't, and you said, was it about to collapse?
	Yeah, I made a joke, right, saying that if you can't even figure out what's happening in real time, doesn't that give you any doubt about what happened seven years ago when you weren't there?
	Yeah, yeah, absolutely, for sure.
	I just thought it was kind of funny and definitely it was a little bit snarky, but, you know, we're all big people, we can handle that, right?
	Yeah. Yeah, and then that was where I believe the person said what was so funny about that and blah, blah, blah, and you explained it.
	And certainly this kind of gets to a side issue of sarcasm and when is it appropriate and when is it not.
	This is kind of things where people take things differently depending on...
	Sorry to interrupt.
	The really irritating thing about that for me was that everybody started jumping down my throat for making one joke when this guy had been contradicting himself and pulling up bogus stuff and then lying about responses and twisting things like, oh, I thought you meant Celsius when it turned out that Celsius would have melted things even faster.
	Just really acting in a non...
	without integrity.
	Yeah, and then I believe that Bob, you know, his analogy, I mean, you know, and then, you know, everyone, everyone, most people thought that was funny as well.
	And then I believe, you know, Bob posted, responded, trying to, you know, explaining something like with a classroom analogy where, you know, if someone was, one kid in the class had this opinion, I think it was a death penalty, you know, you support the death penalty.
	And then everyone else disagreed with them, you know, and then later on the teacher said, you know, after someone mentioned that someone was caught for, I don't know, stealing a penny or whatever, and the teacher turned to that kid and said, do you think we should execute him too?
	You know, and then the analogy was about how, you know, isolated that kid would feel in the class and, you know, whatnot.
	Even though it wasn't, you know, that was the analogy.
	And then, you know, and, you know, you just said it was a little bit snorky, but it was also funny.
	And your objection to that he was...
	Sorry, can you just... I'm sorry.
	I'll make a note. Yeah, I'm glad that this isn't live because it's very difficult to, you know...
	You know, I'm going to leave this in and then really talk to you about it.
	I'm sorry, go ahead. I'm just kidding.
	Go on. Never mind. Yeah, it's just, you know, difficult to continue talking and, you know, made up names all the time.
	But yeah, anyways, you know, what was said was that, you know, yeah, that was what he said.
	And then your objection to that was, you know, well, this guy, you know, was in the other thread with me.
	I mean, it was clear to everyone that this guy was arguing without integrity, right?
	So I asked him a question about 9-11.
	He said, that's absolutely false.
	And then I posted it from a 9-11 site that he'd quoted where they say this is true.
	And then he said, no, it's true, but I thought you meant this.
	Like, it was just nonsense, right?
	This guy was just not arguing with integrity.
	And nobody touched him at all, right?
	Nobody said, you know, gee, I think this guy also posted polls about, Ron Paul.
	And I said, but they're not valid Pauls because they're just web Pauls, right?
	They don't have, you know, control tests.
	They don't have, like, they're not going through rigorous analysis.
	People can write JavaScripts to pump those things up.
	It's just not a valid Paul, right?
	Right after JavaScripts.
	Right. So, I mean, this guy was just obviously dancing around, twisting things, lying, backsliding.
	This is just not a good situation, right?
	And so if somebody then comes down hard on me for my interaction with this person, then I want to know Are they attacking me and using principles, which is really bad, or are they applying principles consistently and finding me to be the problem, right? And that's a reasonable question to ask when somebody criticizes you at a moral level.
	Okay, I can certainly understand that.
	And I didn't, you know, I didn't follow that thread, so I don't know what went on, but I'll just take your word for it.
	And then he said, sorry, then he said, well, I'm only going for you because you're the big guy, you're the bored guy, you're the this, you're the that.
	And it's like, okay, so it's not a principle.
	Yeah, I heard that. Right?
	So, and then he didn't say, well, I'm sorry for calling you a bully on principle when it is not in fact a principle.
	He just didn't apologize and then continued to escalate, right?
	So, that's just, I mean, that can't work, right?
	I'm sorry. I don't know why this keeps on happening, but...
	Yeah, okay. I know what you're talking about.
	I remember this issue more clearly now.
	Let me just boil it down, if you don't mind, just so we don't have to keep referring to a fairly lengthy, right?
	So if I say to you, you're really a bad person because you're sneezing once a day, and you're standing next to someone who's sneezing 10 times a day, right?
	Then I think it's reasonable to say, well, if that's the standard, why are you going for me, right?
	Yeah, I mean, you know, I certainly understand where you're coming from there.
	Now, I believe now his position was that, or his argument was that, you know, he was kind of criticizing you because you are the board owner.
	Now, your response to that was, you know, you don't believe in a separate moral category.
	I guess, you know, his position was that, you know, it has more of an influence if...
	Anything that the most visible person does has more of an influence on the rest of the board culture, so to speak.
	And I just add to that, the only thing I added was that people have limited resources and they can't attack everything that they see is wrong.
	So I don't know if Bob was responding in that thread Well, but look, there's no question that the foundation of free domain radio is universally preferable behavior.
	And there's no question that I have about a million times said that moral principles must be universal, right?
	And that you can't just invent different categories for people, right?
	So there could be no doubt that that was not going to be a valid argument, right?
	I think it was, whether you agree or not, I don't think he was violating universality.
	He wasn't saying that this person was right.
	I mean, that it was more wrong for you than it was for this person.
	No, no, he was absolutely saying that it was more wrong for me.
	Because when you criticize someone and you ignore someone else, by the default position, You are saying that the person that you're spending the time criticizing is worse than the person you're not spending time criticizing.
	I mean, that's just implicit in the action, right?
	Or just that it's, you know, I think what he was saying is that, you know, it's more public.
	I mean, not more public, but it has more of an effect because...
	Right, so my bad behavior is magnified according to his argument because I'm a board owner, right?
	Yeah, I believe that was essentially his argument.
	Right, which of course is completely contrary to the principle of universality.
	Which is, you don't get to put a uniform on and shoot people, right?
	You don't get to call someone a cop and give them completely different moral categories, right?
	And you don't get to exaggerate someone's behavior because they happen to be a board owner, right?
	Right is right, wrong is wrong.
	That's the foundation of what we talk about.
	Yeah, certainly, but...
	Yeah, okay. I mean, when I came into this argument, I had no knowledge of the 9-11 debate.
	So, you know, I understand what you're saying.
	Certainly, it's no more, you know, if this other post, the 9-11 poster says something...
	I don't know who it was, but it doesn't really matter.
	You know, if he is engaging in debate in this kind of felicious way where he's misrepresenting facts and then you quote the fact and then, you know...
	Just makes up something else. Yeah, that's not right.
	And it's no better for him just because he's a member than it is for you.
	But I wasn't doing that, right?
	See, that's the issue. I wasn't just making up stuff and misrepresenting stuff and changing my story and backtracking.
	Like, I wasn't doing any of that.
	Yeah, I know what Bob was criticizing, was critical of was this snarky comment.
	Having more of a background understanding of what went on in this debate, I understand what you're saying.
	I also understand what I don't know if he was in...
	I'm sorry.
	I obviously would not make a very good psychologist because these kind of things just happened for me.
	If we could please edit this out.
	Bob, it's very fortunate this isn't live.
	I actually just totally forgot what I was talking about.
	Well, I can mention this as well, though.
	But you see, if me making a snarky comment is, if it is a principle, right?
	If it is a principle that making a snarky comment is bad, then I don't get a lot of complaints about the Jennyism podcast where I was openly mocking a subjectivist or where I openly mock the irrationality of statists or religious people, right?
	I don't, like, where I make a minor snarky comment.
	I'm sorry. Right after I don't.
	You got cut out.
	Where I make a minor snarky comment, if I got a significant amount of complaints every single time that I made a minor snarky comment about intellectual lack of integrity, then my inbox would be full of 5,000 emails a day.
	So again, it's the principle.
	If you're going to say, well, I haven't bothered you about all the other snarky comments, But this snarky comment, I'm now going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.
	I have every right to be confused.
	Yeah, I certainly understand what you're saying.
	This is kind of something that I was thinking about before.
	Snarky comments, sarcasm, when is it...
	I mean, you know, it can be kind of instructive or humorous, and it can also be kind of abusive, depending on the situation.
	So for me, there's kind of a murkiness there.
	Oh, come on. You can't tell me...
	That's what you're saying. People do not get...
	At least FDR members don't get particularly annoyed when you make a snarky comment about socialists or whatever.
	Some kind of funny thing there. I believe the reason for that is because they're socialists and they're over there in the sense that we're not interacting with them.
	When it's more personal, it just strikes closer to home, if that's what I want to say.
	I mean, the whole point of scientific morality is to take the personal stuff out of it, right?
	I mean, if personal relationships was the dominant factor, why on earth would defooing be a core thing if you've got bad family, right?
	I mean, none of this is at all inconsistency with any of the stuff that we talk about, right?
	People can't say, well, I'm going to apply different moral rules here because it's personal, right?
	Because then defooing would never be an option.
	Yeah. Yeah, I see what you're saying.
	For me, this just boils down to...
	For me, it's kind of subjective, because I'm not quite sure what the answer is.
	When is snarkiness just funny and good fun?
	For example, you're also on the Libertarian Forum, and over there you'll at least I don't find that stuff too helpful, but there was no possibility that I was going to let that juice go.
	I mean, this could be weakness on my part, who knows, right?
	There's no chance that somebody who claimed he had absolute knowledge of what happened on 9-11, who then got something wrong about a burning building in real time, there's just no way.
	I mean, maybe that's too great a temptation for me, but it's just no way.
	That I could have let that go, right?
	And it is instructive, right?
	Because when we look at the confusion that goes on in history in the present, it gives us some sense of humility about the things we know about the past.
	Yeah, I certainly understand where you're coming from there.
	And, you know, I also found it somewhat funny.
	I mean, I would say, I wouldn't say it was just as a...
	I don't want to really talk too much about the particulars of that debate because, you know...
	It's not too relevant here and I'm not too interested in, you know, what really happened on 9-11 or whatnot.
	I mean, I am, it's just, you know, it's not particularly relevant here.
	Yeah, we'll never know. And, you know, but, I mean, I guess, you know, the only thing I'd say about that is, you know, just, you know, not knowing something about the particulars of, you know, your own house burning down.
	It doesn't mean that, you know, on reflection, it's impossible for you to know something about a building burning down two years ago.
	I mean, I have a master's in history.
	I do know something about historiography.
	So, yeah, I mean, I'm aware of that.
	I just thought that was a pretty funny coincidence, that's all.
	Yeah, yeah. I certainly understand what you're saying.
	You know, so that this is, you know, for me, you know, in that light, I kind of can, you know, understand a little bit further what you're saying about, you know, Being more critical of you, like the 15th time, you know, but Bob...
	Well, no, I mean, then if somebody's going to criticize me on principle, then I have the right to ask what that principle is and how they're applying it consistently, because otherwise it's just abusive, right?
	Yeah, I mean, yeah, but, you know, I mean, just, you know, I can understand what you're saying about that, and, you know, Maybe you're right.
	But for me, his response to that was kind of that He had a somewhat sarcastic response to that.
	I forget exactly what it was, but it was something along the lines of that there was a difference in the situation and he thought that it would be more useful or productive criticizing you as opposed to some random board member because it's going to have more of an impact.
	That was his thinking. Your argument is that who you criticize and who you don't is kind of by default says who you think is more wrong or less wrong.
	Well, sure. In economics, what you actually pay money for is what you value.
	What you say is what you say.
	But what you actually pay money for is the objective measure of value.
	Who you criticize is obviously the highest person on your list of wrongdoers at that time.
	Yeah, I would agree.
	I just don't think that necessarily means that you think that they are the, you know, their actions were the worst.
	You know, I mean, it's sort of like, you know, with, I don't know if you've heard about this whole, who's this woman, Paris Hilton or whatever, with the, you know, the alcohol, the driving DWI. Whatever.
	And that wasn't a DVD of driving. Let's spend a license and blah, blah, blah.
	And, you know, she's a famous star and whatnot.
	And she gets, you know, she got, I believe it was a more harsh sentence than most people get in that case.
	You know, and the reason being because, you know, it was just a very widely followed, you know, case.
	And they thought that it would have more of a preventative impact.
	I believe that was the rationale.
	Yeah, but that's not... That wouldn't be just, right?
	She may have also pissed off the judge or something like that.
	Yeah, maybe. I mean, I think that there's more to that story than we may know, and apparently her behavior in the courtroom was pretty bad, no repentance and swearing at the judge and stuff.
	But nonetheless, you know, it's not just...
	I mean, it's not just to make a spectacle, to make an example of someone...
	I mean, justice is relative to the individual's actions, not to unrelated things like do they have money or, you know, are cameras trained on them or whatever, right?
	So... Yeah, I guess, you know, the only other thing I would, you know, because obviously I didn't participate in that 9-11 threat, so I don't know the precise, I don't know if Delete that again.
	You're going to have a lot of editing work to do on this one.
	I'll actually try to do it as well.
	Bob, if he was also in that thread.
	Oh yeah, no, he was in there. He was in there and he had nothing bad to say about the 9-11 poster, right?
	And the only person that he criticized in that was me, right?
	And so I have the right to ask, by what principle am I the worst person in this thread, right?
	And if then the person says, well, there is no principle other than...
	I'm sorry.
	If the person then says there's no principle, right, then they can't use principled language like bullying or whatever, right?
	Because as soon as you say that, you're using ethical terms, right?
	If you say, I think you made a mistake here, that's not an ethical thing, right?
	If you say, you acted immorally here, that's an ethical thing, which means you're applying principles.
	And I feel a lot worse when someone says, Steph, you're acting immorally than when somebody says, Steph, I think you made a mistake.
	So everybody knows the emotional power of the argument for morality, and that's why when people use it against me, I have the right, just as everyone has the right to ask me, by what principle are you making this accusation?
	And if the principle can't be found, then it's abusive, which I've said a million times in various situations right now.
	Yeah, but I mean, you know, I guess I would just say that, you know, from his perspective, you know, obviously I don't know, you know, precisely what's going on in anyone's head, but his argument to me about why he was, you know, specifically criticizing you did seem to hold some, you know, it didn't seem like totally like, you know, nonsense.
	Yeah. I mean, on the other hand, if I was in that thread and this person was misquoting facts, I probably would have mentioned something, because that's another issue that I want to talk about, which kind of annoyed me.
	Yeah, I mean, I can certainly understand your frustration there, you know, with that.
	I just don't think that Bob was trying to be abusive.
	But intention doesn't matter, right?
	I mean, you could say that about anyone, right?
	Intention doesn't matter, right?
	And I didn't immediately just say, well, that's it to hell with you.
	You're banished to everywhere on the internet.
	But here, right, that wasn't the situation, right?
	I mean, this was a culmination of a lot of things, right?
	And I think if I attack someone on principle, And then I obviously reveal that I'm not using a principle, but I'm talking about something that's situational, I owe that person an apology, right?
	Oh yeah, I just, you know, he seems to think that there is a principle there.
	And just in terms of, you know, the efficiency of allocating his criticism.
	You know, I'm not entirely sure what I want to say about...
	Well, but then he needs to, I mean, the foundation of what we talk about here is UPB, and it will remain so until somebody comes up with a better theory, right?
	I mean, just the same way scientists don't keep revisiting the theory of relativity, right?
	I mean, until someone comes up with a better theory, that's the default position, right?
	And so UPB, which is non-situational, UPB is the default position.
	And so if he wants to go outside the bounds of UPB, then he needs to come up with a better theory, right?
	Which is fine with me. Great.
	I mean, I think that's all wonderful.
	It's not my theory that matters.
	It's the truth that matters, right?
	So if he then goes against UPB, Right?
	Especially, you know, using the argument for morality in a destructive manner, because he's using the...
	I'm sorry, using the argument for morality...
	In a destructive manner. So he's using the argument for morality, but it's not principled.
	It's not universal, right? So he's using an ethical argument in a non-principled manner, which is abusive, which has been talked about before.
	If he has a better theory about ethics, then he can talk about that better theory of ethics.
	But you don't just get to go into a scientific conference and say, Einstein is wrong, and then act on that.
	You have to come up with a better theory.
	Yeah, I don't think he was trying to overturn UPB. I think he just didn't think that his focus on you versus whoever this other guy was was a violation of UPB. But that's why I asked him.
	That's why I said, so it's not a principle then, right?
	I mean, I don't just write randomly, right?
	That's why I said, so your attack on me is not principled.
	Right? Because he clearly said that he was not applying the...
	You mean the actually focusing on you in particular?
	Well, no. That it was not a principled attack on me because he wasn't applying the principle consistently.
	Well, I mean, I guess I wouldn't say that because, I mean, if he said, if he turned around and he said, well, you know, no, that behavior was fine from whoever this other person was, then yes, I would absolutely agree with you that that's, you know, you know, that's just a hypocritical attempt to, you know, to say, if you do A, it's wrong, and then if B does A, it's right.
	I mean, the exact same action from both people in the same situation, it's right, you know, I mean, one's wrong and the other's right, then that's, you know, nonsense.
	But I don't think he said that it was right for whoever this other, you know, this other poster's misrepresentation of facts or whatever.
	I don't think he ever said that that was okay.
	He just didn't, you know, specifically criticize that.
	So I think, you know, the principle here then becomes, the issue of discussion becomes like, you know, the principle of criticizing what you believe to be unprincipled arguments between, you know, when multiple people are doing it.
	He responded, right? This was the final thread.
	He responded and said, it's not principled.
	This is not me guessing.
	I didn't tell him it wasn't principled.
	I said, so by this, then it wouldn't be principled, right?
	And he came back and said, yes, it's not a principled argument.
	No, but yeah, he wasn't being serious there.
	That was the sarcastic comment that...
	That I was referring to because he thought that the differences in the situation that he was talking about with the board owner versus just the board poster did make a difference in terms of who He was criticizing.
	He was being sarcastic there.
	We can get into this.
	Whether or not that was very productive, I don't think it was.
	When you're violating the ethics that somebody's putting forward as a foundational moral theory and acting out corruption, that's just saying, look, I'm attacking you not on principle, which you've defined as abusive.
	All I can do is go by what people tell me, right?
	I can't place abuse in the category of sarcasm and then say, well, I have to take everything, right?
	I just can go with what people tell me.
	Well, yeah, but I don't know if you actually thought he was being serious there, but it was pretty clear to me that that was a snarky, sarcastic comment.
	You know, which I would, you know, take some issue with that in particular, but he was not, you know, actually conceding that, you know, that his focus on you was unprincipled versus not focusing so much on or at all on this other poster.
	Well, but if you have used the principle to attack someone and then it's clear that you have applied that wildly inconsistently, right, then a snarky and sarcastic response is Is not the way to go, right?
	I mean, if you've offended someone, and they pointed out that you have offended them, and it's clear...
	I'm sorry, right after offended...
	If you've offended someone, and then they point out that you've offended them, coming back with a sarcastic and unpleasant comment is not taking ownership of offending someone, right?
	No, I mean, I guess, yeah, I would certainly...
	I mean, you wouldn't take that from someone, right?
	I mean, please, you wouldn't, right?
	Well, I mean, this gets to the points of view here, but no, yeah, certainly being sarcastic after you've offended someone isn't the way to be able to productively proceed from there.
	And there's no way to go, right?
	If I say to you... You've offended me.
	And then you say, well, you're just ridiculously oversensitive and it's ridiculous that you should be offended and blah, blah, blah.
	And I've sort of given you the case.
	Well, then there's nothing more to say, right?
	Then clearly, any engagement that I'm going to have with you in the future, we have such opposing values.
	And I think that that's not completely subjective that I'm going to continually be offended.
	I'm sorry, right after that.
	Then I'm going to be continually offended and you're going to continually justify your offending me, right?
	Well, that's not fun for anyone.
	Yeah, I mean, I guess all I would say is that there is that he was not conceding or he was arguing against.
	No, he wasn't. If it was a sarcastic comment, it's not an argument, right?
	I can only go with what people write.
	If I say to someone, you're applying this principle completely inconsistently, which seems hypocritical, and then they just come back with a sarcastic and aggressive comment, I mean, Clearly, they're not disputing it, right?
	I mean, and this is not productive, right?
	It doesn't go anywhere. So where are we going to go from there?
	Well, no, the sarcastic response was essentially to the effect of he had already made his argument before.
	And then, you know, he said, well, you know, kind of something that if I could put a tonality on it, you know, yeah, yeah, yes, of course, I'm not.
	I'm not. I'm not psychic, right? I'm not psychic. And the board is a very dangerous area for conflict.
	Right? Because the words just sit there and burn into your brain, right?
	And it's not a good place for sarcasm.
	I've certainly reined back on my sarcasm there because it's too easy to be misinterpreted, right?
	So, you know, clearly, coming back with a bitter admission of inconsistency and pretty negative ways of dealing with someone without an apology...
	Just, it's there.
	I mean, there's nowhere that I could go from there.
	Where could I go from there? Could I say, are you being sarcastic?
	Or, you know, I can only go with what people say to me.
	And I, you know, life is short, and you got to pick your battles and pick who you're going to associate with, right?
	And I don't particularly appreciate that kind of interaction.
	And of course, people may say that, Steph, well, I don't appreciate that kind of interaction with you.
	I'm sorry, right after I've I don't particularly appreciate that.
	People might say to me, well, Steph, I don't particularly appreciate that interaction with you.
	And that's fine. Then they cannot interact with me, right?
	That's totally fine. Yeah, I mean, I certainly understand, you know, where you're coming from here.
	You know, I didn't think that was the best response either.
	Obviously not too productive, given what's happened.
	Can we go a little bit further? And I don't mean to offend you, but when I hear Weasel stuff like that wasn't the best response, that was a bad response.
	Well, no. That was a bad response.
	No, yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm sorry.
	That was a bad response.
	You know, the only thing I would say is that he was not actually, you know, he's, you know, from what he was arguing, he was saying that, you know, there was a principle there in terms of, about who he was criticizing.
	You know, we're not going to get any resolution on this, but that's all I would say there.
	And yeah, certainly, you know, when you have a conflict with someone about, you know, offending them and ethics and whatnot, to kind of, you Even if he felt that you were misrepresenting what he said, that was where that response was coming from.
	But even in that case, it's not a good response to be sarcastic, particularly because there's already a conflict and it's not going to be productive in terms of proceeding from there.
	Sorry, go ahead. I think we've kind of exhausted this area.
	I certainly understand where you're coming from a lot better than I did before because obviously I hadn't paid much attention to this other thread and whatnot.
	Initially why I kind of took up this was because I thought this person had contributed a number of valuable things and I thought there was kind of a A back and forth between you and him were, you know, kind of both of you were being a little bit hostile and sarcastic in some ways, or misrepresentative or whatnot.
	And that was kind of why I took, I objected, I don't know if I ever specifically objected to him being banned.
	Yeah, actually I did. You know, so that was kind of, you know, where I was coming into it from.
	But I think we've kind of exhausted this topic.
	So, you know, that...
	And it actually leads into another one, which...
	I was just drawing a little bit of a blank here.
	Oh, yes, yeah. I'm sorry, is there anything else you want to say about that before we kind of move on?
	No, no. He said that Christina should be the judge and she read it over and said, this guy's just not going to go anywhere productive.
	So yeah, I mean, we sort of had a third party that he suggested, right?
	So anyway, that doesn't really matter.
	So you can go on with the next topic.
	Okay, yeah. That actually was one minor thing I did remember.
	And, I mean, you know, actually there was another sarcastic comment where he actually was saying that, you know, you were being passive-aggressive, but he said it in kind of a...
	He didn't just all right say that.
	He said, you know, precisely what you said, the kind of snarky response to what he thought was a snarky comment by you.
	And then he referred to Christina, and then that's when the ban happened.
	So, I mean, you know, obviously that's not the...
	You know, he wanted to point out that you were making a snarky comment.
	I don't remember exactly what it was that you said.
	Yeah, and he suggested that Christina should be the judge of that.
	Yeah, yeah. You know, I actually, I did think, you know, I did understand where he was coming from, but I did think it was a snarky comment on your part.
	I don't remember exactly what it was.
	Yeah. I can look it up, but I don't think it's that important.
	Let's say that we were both equally snarky.
	I have no problem with that.
	I don't think that's the case, but let's say that we were.
	It doesn't really matter.
	It doesn't really matter.
	I have to enjoy what I'm doing.
	If I'm going to have dinner parties in my house every day, I have to enjoy them.
	Because if I don't enjoy them, there won't be any dinner parties.
	Right? So, I mean, if people want to come and use the board, which the vast majority of people do, and a lot of them don't pay, and that's fine, right?
	But if people want me to want to have dinner parties, they have to respect that I have to enjoy those dinner parties.
	And if I find that dealing with someone gets progressively more and more unpleasant, then since it's my house and my dinner party, right?
	I mean, people can, you know, get mad at me for saying, you're not welcome at my dinner party because every time you come over, there's a problem.
	Or every time we interact, even if it's equal, it doesn't really matter.
	It's my dinner party, right?
	And it's my house.
	And if I'm in your house, then you have the right to say to me, look, every time you come to this party, we end up yelling at each other.
	So I'd really prefer it if you don't come to this party.
	Because I kind of shut down the party, right?
	Because there's lots of other people who are having a great time, myself included, right?
	I'm sorry.
	Right after I can't shut down.
	I can't shut down the party because lots of other people having a great time.
	So it doesn't really matter, right?
	I mean, if people like coming to my dinner parties and I've tried having a conversation with someone to make it more enjoyable for me, because fundamentally it's my pleasure that I'm responsible for, right?
	I have to be happy doing this or it's not going to be there.
	Right? And so if somebody keeps making me unhappy, in a sense, it doesn't really matter who's right or wrong.
	The important thing is that I want to keep having this dinner party and keep this conversation alive, which means that if somebody is causing me a lot of trouble, then I'm perfectly within my right, as everyone is in terms of freedom of association, to say to that person, you can't come to my dinner party anymore because we're always having problems.
	Yeah, I certainly understand that, and I absolutely...
	Now that the confidentiality thing is out of the way, I absolutely agree.
	It is your board, and you have the absolute property right to decide who can and cannot come on it, obviously.
	And now, actually, that kind of gets to some bizarro comments by, I believe, Bob or someone who...
	Is this my wife's website?
	Someone... Yeah, there is some bizarro...
	What is that all about?
	I don't even know what that's got to do with anything.
	There is... There was some bizarro stuff there, which I really didn't understand what was going on or what the point of it was.
	And then there was also some bizarro psychoanalysis of you, and I think the same thread.
	And there was...
	Oh, yeah. The other really bizarro thing was just this attempt to say that you banning someone on this board was violent.
	I don't know if you read that.
	Oh, I read that every single time this happens.
	Absolutely. I read this every single time.
	I mean, this is Steph the bully, Steph the dictator.
	Anarchy is supposed to work, but look, anarchy in a free society.
	I'm sorry, right after Steph the dictator.
	Anarchy can't even work on a board, so how can it work in society?
	And oh yeah, no, I mean, Tuttle did a very funny parody of that some months ago, which I've been meaning to look up.
	But yeah, no, absolutely.
	Whenever I actually act on my values, people think that I'm like a really bad guy.
	I thought that was all rather bizarre and I didn't bother to respond to it because I couldn't make much sense out of it and I thought it was kind of silly.
	Actually, I will say that I should have criticized that because I believe this was from Bob or someone Bob knew or someone on the board sympathetic to him and I thought it was nonsense.
	Even though I do think it's unfortunate that this situation between you and him couldn't I do think he has a lot of valuable stuff to contribute, which is why I kind of took up the cause.
	I saw a difference between Bob and, you know, this putty-tat guy and the mother de-fooing had decapitation.
	No, I agree. I agree, too.
	I don't think he's a bad guy.
	I mean, yeah, the other people are definitely freaks of nature.
	This guy, no, absolutely, for sure, right?
	I mean, this is not a bad guy, right?
	Not a weird or creepy guy, right?
	Just, in my particular humble opinion, not ready for this part of the conversation, right?
	Because you have to subject yourself to principle, right?
	To be in a philosophical conversation, you have to subject yourself to principle, right?
	Which is also the question as to why...
	You don't respond to that, right?
	You've put a lot of energy into criticizing me, but when people are talking about me being violent, you don't respond to them, right?
	So it's a similar kind of question around where it is that you're putting your values, and why is it that I become sort of the lightning rod for every minor potential transgression that major transgressions go uncommented on?
	I mean, I'm not trying to attack you.
	I'm genuinely curious about that because I don't quite understand that.
	Well, yeah, actually, you know, before this debate, I wanted to bring that up because it was a point of, you know, inconsistency on my part.
	It wasn't so much that, you know, I thought that, you know, this was kind of precisely some of what I was objecting to.
	And there was this kind of, you know, leftist anarcho-socialist mindset.
	It's in a somewhat anarcho-socialist position to say that, you know, banning someone from your private property is violence and whatnot.
	You know, I just thought it was, you know, it was too baffling to respond to.
	And it was a little bit, you know, kind of...
	I just thought it was, you know, humbug, basically.
	And I am responding to it now, so, you know, I kind of wanted to bring that up right in this debate.
	Because, yeah, that was a point where I certainly know that...
	I mean, I knew that once I brought this up, you had mentioned that, because it's true that I didn't respond to that, and that was a bunch of nonsense.
	Well, it's more than nonsense, right?
	It's pretty malevolent, right?
	To say to me, Steph, you're acting in a violent, abusive manner, it's a deep insult.
	Now, it's only an insult if it's false.
	Yeah, insult. It's only an insult if it's false.
	I mean, if it's true, then obviously run from me.
	I'm a dangerous guy who's out to do harm to everyone.
	But if it's false, then it's a deep insult.
	So it's not just nonsense and so on.
	It's deeply insulting to accuse someone of a significant moral crime.
	I mean, that's not something that I take particularly lightly.
	And, again, the fact that I think it's very serious doesn't mean anything other than the fact that I think it's very serious, right?
	So when people start throwing around moral crimes, it's...
	It's a pretty big sword to pull out, I guess, is sort of what I'm saying.
	And that's the general thing that I say.
	And I don't mind people who want to correct me.
	I think that's great. But I certainly, because there's lots of people who will try and attack me because I'm the sort of authority guy or whatever, right?
	And they've got their own issues. Or maybe there's a valid point that they have.
	But I certainly, I'm fully, fully aware that I'm fully aware of power of the argument for morality and that it can be used for extraordinary destructive abuse, right?
	So that's why when people have a go for me or criticize me at a moral level, I have, I mean, my first defense is always, I'll be completely open about this, there's nothing secret about it, right, is to say, well, what's the principle?
	Because this is a show about philosophy and ethics, which means you don't just get to say you're a bad guy.
	I'm not saying you, but anyone.
	If you're going to pull out the big sword of saying you're acting in an immoral manner, Then you're the prosecution, right?
	And the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
	And I think that I've acted pretty morally in this whole course of things.
	And I think if someone's then going to say, well, you're just a bad guy and acting immorally or being violent or violating this or that, a confidentiality, then that's a pretty big thing to pull out, right?
	And that happens a lot, right?
	And some people are honest about it.
	I'm sorry. Some people are honest about it.
	Like they say, I have this weird urge to find fault with you.
	Because, I mean, that's natural, right?
	When someone puts themselves forward as someone who knows something about ethics or beliefs that they do, then for sure, I mean, people are going to be threatened by that, right?
	Because if I'm right, if I'm right, right, about the way that I deal with people and about the way that things work, then that kind of puts...
	Right in front of someone, right?
	So it's one thing to say, gee, it'd be great if we didn't have a government.
	It's quite another thing to say, I need to sit down with my family tomorrow and talk about X, Y, and Z, right?
	So people want to not believe that it's...
	They want it to be true, but they also want it to not be true because then there's an implicit requirement for action on them.
	And I know why that is, because the argument for morality is so powerful.
	So if you accept that something is moral, immediately you're going to kick into...
	Okay, now what? And that's where a lot of people don't want to go.
	Yeah, I agree.
	And yeah, I actually agree that it is a pretty egregious accusation to say you're acting violently by banning someone from the board, not just nonsense.
	I don't know if whoever made this argument sincerely believed it, but I guess I didn't read it too closely, but it was my impression that their argument had something to do with the power imbalance between you being the board owner and blah, blah, blah.
	But, you know, that's certainly a leftist, you know...
	Well, and that's the argument that says that there's no such thing as rape, right?
	Because the woman can say no to the man, close her legs, and that's an imbalance of power, and therefore, right, any woman who says no is effectively raping someone.
	Like, it's just ridiculous, right?
	I mean, anybody, personal property and all that.
	I mean, there's no crimes then if you can't protect your personal property.
	Yeah, I'm not so sure.
	I just say I think it's kind of like the...
	The Proudhonian position, though he was kind of, this is kind of a torture of Proudhon because he was referring to state property, but he said, you know, property is theft.
	And he didn't actually mean private property by individuals like you and me, but he meant state-granted property, but a lot of leftists have taken that to mean all private property is theft.
	And so the argument that, you know, you banning someone is violence is basically the argument that private property is theft.
	Right, but then they're using someone's private property to attack private property, right?
	So they're posting on my board that private property is theft.
	I mean, it's just so ridiculous, right?
	I'm not so sure that's what this proves.
	It just seems to me, you know, ridiculous in and of itself to say, you know, you made the board and, you know, you put all the work into it.
	You pay the cost. So, you know, it's pretty ridiculous to say that, you know, you saying who can and cannot come on the board is an act of violence.
	I mean, you can criticize it for, you know, the...
	Yeah, and if you're one of the people who likes Bob being at the dinner party, when I say Bob can't come...
	Now, of course, you can go and be Bob's friend and you can have all the dinner parties you want with Bob, right?
	I mean, that's... All I'm saying is come to my house, right?
	He can go anywhere else and do anything.
	I mean, I have no control over anything other than my own property, right?
	So I'm not certainly...
	And anybody who says, where is so-and-so?
	I don't like that they're gone.
	I always offer, you know, because they may not be able to come on and get a PM. I'm happy to send you their email if that's what you want to be in contact with them and so on.
	I mean, it's just not here, right?
	Yeah, I absolutely understand that.
	Obviously, being a private property guy, I would never dispute your right to decide when people just can't come on the board either because you and them can't seem to get along or because they're just real jerks like this beheading guy or whatever.
	And again, I certainly understand.
	Obviously, I have no objections whatsoever to these people being booted off the boards.
	Actually, I thought your podcast on the board conflicts, the ones we were talking, we got kind of upset about the Pisanti stuff and whatnot.
	I actually thought that was quite great.
	The reason why this kind of prompted me was because I saw a difference between those two cases.
	Talking with you, I certainly understand where you're coming from.
	Even if there's some things on your part, and I will say there are some things on his part as well, if you two just can't seem to interact in a joyful and productive manner, You know, whenever you interact, then, you know, it's not, you know, there's no point.
	I mean, yeah, like you said, you have, this is something you're doing as you're kind of full-time now, and, you know, you have to be happy doing it.
	So, whether, you know, whoever's right or wrong, or whoever started or whatnot, you know, you have to be happy doing it.
	Yeah, some couples could break up even if both people are acting badly, right?
	Then everybody breathes a sigh of relief when they stop dating, right?
	Because it's, you know, it doesn't matter if the relationship's not working, the relationship's not working, right?
	Okay, so, you know, I did want to criticize that, and that gets, I guess, kind of leads into the psychologizing thing.
	So, you know, before we move on a little bit, you know, I would like to say I certainly criticized that, and I thought that was, you know, just nonsense and egregious.
	And then, you know, the other thing that was brought up was, you know, the person was...
	Talking about, you know, your happiness and your psychology with your, you know, the isolation of doing FDR full-time and so on and so forth.
	I love that when they said that I miss the beauty of my office and maybe they haven't heard the podcast where I see deer and listen to birds.
	I mean, it was pretty funny, but anyway.
	Yeah, and I mean, you know, that was, from my point of view, that was kind of, you know, certainly, you know, this person was kind of responding to earlier psychologization.
	Psychologizing. I'm not sure how Psychologizing of them.
	But, you know, I don't see that as being a particularly productive way to go about things.
	I thought it was actually kind of humiliating, you know, an attempt at humiliation, which is, you know, where I kind of get into the psychologizing thing, depending on when you do it, right?
	Because, you know, if you don't agree with this person, In general, if someone doesn't agree with you, then bringing up their psychology about why they don't agree with you is just going to kind of make them angrier and retrench them.
	It's not going to do anything productive.
	So I guess this kind of segues into psychologizing.
	This came up with me and some other posters as well.
	I posted that kind of long introspective post about the FDR, I mean, about the Ron Paul debate.
	Actually, it was also the post that I emailed to you as well.
	I don't know if you remember that one.
	I don't off the top of my head, but I think I do remember reading it, but go on.
	Yeah, but I did mention some stuff about talking about the Ron Paul debate, and then someone out of the blue brings up, well, you're pro-Ron Paul because of unresolved parental issues or the desire to see that authority can be used productively and whatnot.
	And in the middle of a debate like that, to me, bringing up these kind of psychological points, for one thing, doesn't really address the truth or falsehood of a person's argument, but it's also kind of a way to dress down someone.
	If you're just in the middle of a debate, you say, well, I'm making these obvious points and you're not getting them You know, which is kind of what they were saying to me.
	And then, you know, they say, well, you know, so it must be because of your parental issues or, you know, whatever.
	That's kind of, you know, it's like an ad hominem, kind of.
	And then it doesn't address the argument.
	This is kind of where, you know...
	We'll have a lot of editing to do with this.
	Maybe we can hire someone.
	I'll have to send you some extra money for all the extra work I'm causing you here.
	Bob also mentioned this.
	When is it appropriate to psychologize and when not?
	What I tend to think is that in the middle of an argument, it's not going to do anything productive because it can also be an ad hominem, right?
	You say, well, it's just your daddy issues.
	It's kind of an ad hominem or whatever.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	around in circles and not getting anywhere, then there must be some other reason as to why.
	I mean, this is my particular approach.
	It's just people who haven't studied a lot of economics.
	I'm sorry.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, you got cut off there, but I have noticed that.
	You do tend to do that when you think the debate's running around in circles.
	The only issue there is just that the other person at times might think that there really are issues that haven't been responded to, and that's why they keep on bringing this up.
	So that's why, I mean, certainly at some point, Right, you know, because like, you know, Mises psychologized Fourier, you know, using Freudian analysis, and you know, you can't, you know, at some point, you know, if you want to talk about, you know, why the person holding these kind of views, you know, at some point you have to kind of do that, or, you know, you can do that.
	But, you know, just from the other person's, if you're actually in a debate from the other person's point of view, that might be seen as kind of insulting or an ad hom or non sequitur, You know, and it's just going to kind of retrench them further.
	You know, it's like, you know, they're not agreeing with you.
	It's a last-ditch thing. It's a last-ditch thing for me.
	I mean, it's the only way to keep the conversation alive, right?
	The conversation either ends or we get to the real root of the issue.
	And the real root of the issue might be that, you know, we just totally disagree and we don't even have the same frame of reference or whatever, in which case, you know, like it's a A faith versus reason argument where there's nothing to say.
	But for me, at least, the psychologizing occurs when there's no further intellectual content that I can provide or extract from the debate.
	And for me, it's an attempt to continue the conversation in a productive vein because the alternative is simply to end the conversation because we're not getting anywhere.
	Yeah, I mean, and that's kind of the, you know, the subjective area.
	Because, okay, it's objective if, you know, say if, you know, you're debating about something and then You know, you and your debating partner actually arrive at an agreement, you know, and either you concede their point or they concede yours, you know, one of you agrees with the other person and abandons the original position, then you can ask, you know, why did it take, you know, five hours or, you know, why did I have this view?
	And then it might be because, oh, it's a very difficult issue and it's really complicated, or it might be because, you know, they have some psychological issues.
	In that case, it's very objective and it's a pretty easy call, right, because the other person is kind of, you know, I mean, it's not easy if it is about psychology, because even if they admit that, you know, they were wrong, it still can be difficult to say.
	I mean, say if it was a really simple thing, like, you know, me smashing you over the head, or say if it's, you know, the issue is you're debating with, you know, someone who thinks it's okay to, you know, to just, you know, People living, you know, snot out of their kids whenever they, you know, step out of line, right?
	And, you know, and this is just a really obvious thing where it's just, you know, it's wrong.
	And, you know, it takes you several back and forths, maybe an hour to get them to agree that, yes, this is wrong.
	And, you know, this is a really obvious point, so you can't take the difficult question, you know, and, you know, that's why they didn't get it.
	It's, you know, obviously it's psychology, but even there, you know, It might be difficult for them to say, yes, it is because of my psychology.
	But at least in that case, you agree the debate's concluded, and it makes a little more objective about when that's appropriate.
	But then when the other person thinks there's still things that you haven't responded to, and I think this was the case, and I'm not sure if with you, but certainly with some of the other members on FDR, then to bring up the psychologizing thing, just kind of It's frustrating for the other person because they're seeing it as you're not responding to this particular argument.
	The debate hasn't been going in circles.
	It's just that there's been some arguments that haven't been responded to or issues that haven't been accounted for.
	But it's tough, though, because, of course, and you could be right, of course, right?
	But it's tough because if I do have a psychological problem that is causing me to avoid something, I'm not going to feel I have to avoid something.
	If I do have a psychological issue, then it's not going to feel like the debate is going in circles because I'm not conscious of the fact that it is.
	So somebody who may be freer in this area, maybe not having issues in other areas, but maybe they don't have issues in this area, they're going to pick up on the circularity of the debate before the person who's psychologically defended.
	I mean, this is just a fact, right?
	When you're aware of somebody's defenses, you're aware of them, but the other person isn't, right?
	And again, this is not proof.
	This is just psychological fact, right?
	That if you're not defended in an area, you identify when somebody is much more quickly than they will, right?
	So it's always going to feel like it's interrupting a productive debate when somebody comes up with psychologizing.
	One possibility, it's not a proof, but one possibility is that it is accurate, and that's why it feels to the person who's debating, That it's an interruption.
	Yeah, absolutely. I absolutely agree.
	But, you know, the other possibility is that it's, you know, kind of what my criticism of this is, I thought some people were kind of using this as kind of like a, this is kind of dramatic, but like a rhetorical weapon.
	Yeah, no, it can, yeah. People can use it unjustly, for sure.
	Yeah, I mean, you can use anything, like there's a lot that we've, you know, learned on FDR, and you can use anything in a kind of, you know, to club someone over the head.
	Right, I feel like I'm losing the argument, so it's really about your mom.
	Right, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, exactly.
	And that's kind of what I thought it was in a couple, not necessarily they felt like they were losing the argument, but just, you know, I mean, I don't know, just, you know, bring this up and, you know, there were clearly some points that were, you know, not responding to.
	I believe in the case that I was, you know, uh, I remember there was a lot of misquoting.
	I was being misquoted constantly, which to me is really kind of funny, right?
	Because how do you misquote someone in a board where they can just go back a few posts and say, you know, no, no.
	Or even the funniest one was really where I was quoted.
	They quoted actually the entire context, and then they highlighted one part of it and responded to that in isolation from the rest of what was quoted, where the rest of what was quoted kind of answered their response.
	Well, but that's like me saying, how is it that someone could get my confidentiality issue wrong when it's right there in a podcast?
	But, you know, I mean, these kinds of mistakes can happen.
	But I agree with you that it's harder for it to happen on a board.
	Like, somebody's got to really want to misquote someone.
	Yeah, yeah. And, you know, it's kind of, you know, funny.
	You know, and I certainly understand what you're saying.
	saying, like, you know, yeah, how can they get the, you know, the confidentiality thing wrong?
	Um, from, you know, my explanation of that is just that, you know, what I saw is it was being conceded and, uh, but, but, you know, the point here isn't to justify that.
	I apologize for that.
	No, I'm just sort of saying that these kinds of mistakes, they certainly happen to me and I think that I can't speak to other people and certainly people do In the same way that people abuse economics and they abuse history and they abuse anything.
	They abuse science.
	Creationists abuse science all the time.
	So people can abuse a legitimate form of knowledge acquisition.
	A legitimate, yeah, I certainly absolutely see what you were saying.
	You got cut out there. And the thing that's always a challenge for me, and this is where I do wrestle with the confidentiality issue, I have a pretty unique perspective because I get a lot of personal information from people that I never share, right?
	And so when I try and formulate an idea about why it is that certain debates may not be particularly productive, Then I am dealing with not a C, but a pretty vast array of personal information that people have shared with me privately.
	But of course, I can't really come up with that.
	I can't really sort of spew all of that out with individual references.
	And I also can't expect people to take it on faith.
	So, I mean, that's nothing that proves anything because there's no reason for anyone to believe that I'm processing that information accurately.
	But I certainly have noticed, for instance, that people who've defood are not pro-Ron Paul.
	I mean, that's a universal fact that I've seen so far.
	People who defood are not pro-Ron Paul.
	And that doesn't mean it. I'm sorry.
	People who defood are not pro-Ron Paul.
	They're not pro-voting.
	Now, that doesn't mean...
	I mean, that's not causality, but that is a correlation that so far has been 100% that I've seen.
	People who have had bad family situations and have dealt with those after trying to talk to their family and have recognized that the family can't be saved seem to have less faith in a political solution.
	If they've given up on their family, they've also given up on the state.
	Now, that doesn't mean that it's causal, but it means that the possibility may be there that people who believe in the state do so because they secretly want to preserve the illusion that their family can be saved.
	It's a possibility, and it's not just totally out of thin air.
	There's factual information behind it.
	Again, I can't prove it, but it's definitely a correlation that demands some sort of explanation.
	Yeah. I mean, if that's what you've noticed, then obviously I don't have the information that you have, so I can't dispute that.
	And we'll just – because I basically think you're an honest guy, I'll take it on faith, so to speak, or I'll trust you.
	Well, it's just – I'm not proving anything, right?
	But it is a correlation.
	I'm talking about the correlation that most people – the people so far you've noticed who defude are not for Ron Paul.
	I'm not going to try to dispute that because I'm just going to work on this pretty justified assumption that you're being honest.
	Well, but there's also stuff that, I mean, there's people on the board who you know who have defuud, right?
	And you can ask them their opinion.
	You don't have to take my opinion for it, right?
	I mean, this is not anything that's secret, right?
	I just don't see the value in that because I believe I don't, there's not really doubt in my mind that what you're telling me is the truth in regards to that fact.
	So I don't need to check that data.
	I'm just going to, I don't see why you would, I just don't see the need to verify that.
	Right.
	So what I'm saying is that it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
	It doesn't prove or disprove anything, but...
	If it is the case that if, right, if, right, if it is that we have two facts that are going on.
	One is that people who defood are not pro-Ron Paul.
	The second is that these debates go in circles, right, that they do not achieve any satisfying results after countless hours and countless posts, right?
	So those two facts in combination don't prove anything, but they certainly do open up a very strong possibility that the Ron Paul issue, which is very heated, Which there's a lot of emotional and factual and intent distortion in, which is usually a sign of defense mechanisms, right? On both sides, on both sides.
	But it certainly does open up the possibility that there is a psychological motivation underneath the pro-Ron Paul position.
	And if that is the case, then debating the merits of the case is totally pointless.
	I'm sorry, right after debating the merits.
	If it is the case, then debating the merits of the position, if it is psychologically motivated, then debating the merits of the position is totally pointless.
	Yeah, but I mean, I guess, you know, I would just say that, I mean, yeah, you know, to the extent that you...
	It's difficult to get to the truth because people don't want to get to the truth.
	You said from both sides, that implies that there could be some psychological issues on the anti-Ron Paul side as well.
	And actually for quite some time I was pretty anti-voting, but I changed my mind on that somewhat recently, I think.
	And all that's required, though, I mean, I've certainly put forward a theory, which, you know, we can bat around at some point, but then, I mean, it's like any other thing, right?
	You have particular facts, and you might...
	You have to just come up with a theory that might explain them and then work to find more evidence, right?
	So, I mean, that's all, right?
	I mean, I certainly reached the end of my rope with the Ron Paul debate just because it was not getting anywhere.
	And of course, you don't want to keep beating your head against the wall, right?
	I mean, if you've made your case six million different ways from Sundays and had tons of debates and so on and no one changes their mind, then, you know, I've got better things to do, right?
	Because, you know, it's not getting anywhere.
	Yeah. That's also kind of my opinion.
	I think there were some points that I made that I just want to respond to, but it's not going to be too productive to keep on rehashing that.
	Especially if there is psychological stuff at the bottom, then, you know, it just has to wait until either that psychology is revealed and understood or some other new information comes about.
	Like, I mean, if Ron Paul is voted in and becomes Darth Vader, then, you know, the pro-Ron Paul people might be less whatever, right?
	Or if he comes in and gets rid of the government in three days, then, of course, I'll be the first one to line up and say, whoa, was I ever wrong, right?
	I'm so right after a lineup.
	Then I would say that, oh, my God, I was totally wrong how bad and figure out why I came to that erroneous conclusion.
	Yeah, certainly. I don't think anyone who thinks Ron Paul would be the best option thinks he's going to get rid of the government ever at all.
	I mean, you know, all my position has just been as if, you know, they're, you know, between the candidates, at least, you know, right now, there is better and, you know, there's some are better and some are worse, you know.
	But, I mean, look, likely situation is probably that you get Rudy Giuliani or John McCain as the Republican and Hillary Clinton as a Democrat.
	And, you know, when it's that case, then I don't really care anymore because there's no real clear difference, so I'm not going to bother spending any energy at all saying who would be the worst one or who would be more fascist than the other.
	But in my mind, I mean, just, you know, I don't think there's any real, you know, difference there.
	But, you know, so my, you know, my...
	My position on voting isn't, you know, that isn't a really strong one in the sense that I don't think it's, I think most of the time it's going to be pretty, you know, there's not really a substantial difference in between who you're voting for in terms of initiation of aggression, so I don't get too interested in it.
	Certainly that was the case in the last election between George Bush and John Kerry.
	So, I mean, though we don't really know how bad John Kerry would be, but I just get the, you know, from what I saw, I get the impression he'd be just about as bad as George Bush on more and probably a little bit worse on him on social issues.
	But, you know...
	But anyway, I don't want to get bogged down on the Ron Paul thing because we're probably not going to get anywhere there either.
	I just wanted to put forward the rationale, the information that was attempting to be collated, at least by me, to sort of try and understand why there was this sort of one side of the fence and the other based on the food situation and also the fact that everybody was frustrated and no one was getting anywhere.
	I'm sorry, right up to the fact that everybody was frustrated and nobody was getting anywhere.
	That's all that I was trying to sort of figure out.
	And, you know, it's just a theory and it'll continue to be refined and talked about.
	And it may be correct, it may be incorrect.
	But I'm just trying to work with the facts as I see them.
	Yeah, I certainly understand, you know, where you're coming from, given the facts that you have.
	You know, I think at the time I kind of...
	I objected to that somewhat more strong than I do now.
	But in regards to psychologists, my real objection has just been to the kind of situations where I've pointed out where it's been kind of misused in the middle of a debate.
	Well, and I think that it's sort of similar, which you can say if somebody, as you know, you study economics, right?
	If somebody starts misusing economics, then one of the things that you can say is, well, perhaps you can tell me where it is that you learned economics from.
	And if they say, well, I have a PhD in economics from Harvard, then you can say, oh, well, that's why you're a socialist, or whatever.
	Or, you know, I've never studied any economics in my life, but whatever.
	And so if somebody starts psychologizing, then you can say, well, perhaps you can tell me your experience in making psychological judgments.
	And if they say, well, I don't know, I've never read any psychology books and I've never been to therapy, then it'd be like, well, you might be stepping outside what you could reasonably be expected to be skilled at, right?
	And so, you know, I mean, that doesn't, I've got no PhD in psychology, but I've gone through years of therapy.
	I have a wife who's a psychologist and, you know, studied it for years.
	So that doesn't mean that I'm right.
	But I think that's a reasonable thing to ask someone who starts psychologizing is to say, well, what is your, you know, what is your experience in this area?
	Yeah, yeah. You know, so that, I guess, you know, I think we kind of agree that, you know, psychologizing can be used inappropriately, just like almost everything else, you know, in the middle of a debate.
	I mean, you know, in the Ron Paul debate, I kind of wanted to, that's why I posted the kind of meta thread about it.
	I wanted to separate out the, you know, the discussions about the psychology and the, you know, the debate itself from the debate.
	But no one really responded to the meta-debate, you know, to the meta-thread that I posted.
	So, which is fine, you know.
	I think you're just a bit wary of the topic at this point, so yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, I thought there was some interesting stuff, you know, that went on there.
	But, you know, and what I was trying to do there was to, you know, be self-critical as well, and I had to have a few criticisms of myself.
	You know, but... Yeah, so I guess that kind of covers the psychologizing issue.
	And, you know, I guess, you know, some of the other things I had to talk about were kind of just the misquoting, which, you know, I mentioned.
	And this happened in, you know, the part of several, you know, anti-Ron Paul posters in debating me and maybe a few other people, you know.
	And, you know, one of the things that, you know, that some people brought up was, you know, that this was going on and, you know, you, you know, you banned, you know, I don't know if you banned the 9-11 guy, but, you know, you banned Bob and, you know, and whatnot.
	You know, but these guys were, you know, rampantly misquoting and, you know, he didn't, he didn't say anything to them about, about that, though.
	I mean, I don't know how much you were following the issues there.
	Oh, I wasn't. I can only judge the stuff that I see.
	I mean, certainly with the Niels and Greg thing, I jumped in.
	But, you know, that's just people got to tell me if something's going on.
	You guys have a little bit more flexibility than I do because I have to sort of do the whole board thing.
	But if somebody's just not, you just don't respond to them.
	I mean, if somebody's just really annoying in their debating style, then there's just no point debating them.
	I mean, I don't have as much flexibility because I got to keep the order a little bit more.
	But that's one possibility.
	The other thing, of course, is just email me and say, look, this person is being really difficult and misquoting and I'll do what I can.
	I mean, obviously, I want people to enjoy the dinner party too.
	So just let me know. Yeah, and I guess, you know, that seems, you know, where I was kind of coming from is, you know, I'll be honest, it was, you know, it seemed like, you know, once you banned Bob, and then I don't know if there's anyone else around, maybe some other person.
	Yeah, no, the 9-11 guy, I asked him to stop posting.
	I know when people can't come back from a conversation in the moment, right, then it's just, you know, go cool off and, you know, whatever, right?
	But, you know, when it was, you know, obviously I completely agreed with the, I don't know anything about the 9-11 thing, so I have nothing to say there, but I completely agreed with the de-heading guy and the terminus guy who got really, you know, pissed off.
	They assumed to be called the troll guy who was pretty honest, right?
	Yeah, you know, and I understood all of that.
	But then it was just, you know, this, you know, and I'll take some slack there because it was kind of a quick jumping to a conclusion.
	But, you know, when you, you know, you banned Bob and then, you know, there were these other guys who were, you know, because he was the pro Ron Paul guy or one of the pro Ron Paul guys.
	And then there were, you know, these other posters who were anti-Ron Paul and engaging in similar kind of behavior.
	You know, it just kind of seemed like, you know, there was a selection bias, you know, in who we were banning.
	But, you know, I mean, certainly I understand that, you know...
	I was out of the Ron Paul debate, like I was engaging in those threads.
	And look, I mean, it could be.
	Obviously, I'm going to be as risky.
	It's going to be as risky for me to have that kind of bias as anyone.
	So that's just a matter of letting me know, right?
	And if I tell you to screw off because I'm only for the anti-Ron Paul people, then you can whatever, right?
	Yeah, and I guess it was kind of the context surrounding that where a couple of...
	It just seemed to me like...
	I'm not quite sure exactly what it seemed like, but it seemed like if I brought this up, maybe I would have been banned as well.
	Right, right. I don't think people understand the negative consequences to imposing a ban.
	I think people think that it's just, well, Steph gets upset and he bans people.
	I'm fully aware of the chilling effect that it has on people.
	I'm fully aware of the volatility that comes out of it.
	I'm fully aware that there are going to be certain people who are going to come in and cause trouble and polarize.
	It's not a small thing to do.
	It's not something that I take lightly and it's not something I do without Going over with Christina, thinking about it, podcasting about it, having conversations with people.
	I mean, it's not something that I do lightly because I'm aware.
	You know, if I keep kicking people out of my dinner party, I'm not going to have much of a dinner party, right?
	So it is a complex thing.
	And this is how I understand the DRO thing, right?
	Sort of in a bit more of a real-world way than some of other people.
	But it's definitely not something that I take lightly.
	So for sure, it's not something that's like, oh, an email I don't like.
	Right. I guess, you know, my thinking was that, you know, the people who I was thinking of had done kind of the same thing as Bob or, you know, misquoting and kind of using these, you know, ad hominem arguments and the, you know, I mean, they've acted at least as, you know, as to the same extent that he had, you know, and they weren't banned.
	And my thinking, you know, my actually, you know, it's not that I wanted them to be banned.
	I just wanted him not to be banned as well.
	You know, so I certainly would not, you know, point to these people and say, you know, I think these people ought to be banned, you know, along with Bob.
	But no, but I mean, you certainly, since I'm the one who's saying, if somebody does something, they need to justify it on principle.
	Well, absolutely, the same rule applies to me.
	I mean, if you feel that I'm acting inconsistently as the admin, then for sure, I mean, this is the argument that I make with other people, which I'm completely subjected to myself.
	So that's just a matter of making me aware of it.
	Yeah, I mean, I could tell you these individual names, but it actually was in the email that I sent.
	Oh, no, I used pseudonyms for their handles.
	But, you know, but I mean, it wasn't, you know, I certainly did not, you know, want any, you know, that action taken against them, because I thought, you know, There are many other threads where they're very productive and, you know, it's interesting interacting with them.
	All right. Now, listen, I do have some place to get to tonight and we've been almost two hours.
	So is there anything else that you wanted to end up with or should we save some for another time or maybe you want to call back in on Sunday or what's your pleasure?
	I guess, you know, now the only other thing that I would, you know, I guess this kind of gets, we talked about all of the board issues that I had to talk about, I believe.
	And then the only other thing was just kind of the details of your argument in your premium board.
	Yeah, what you feel was the ad hominem stuff.
	Yeah, and I don't know if we want to talk about that sometime.
	That's kind of a separate issue.
	Yeah, well maybe we can talk about that another time, because I don't think that would be a very quick discussion.
	Yeah, so certainly, you know, we can save that for later.
	Actually, I'm not going to be here this weekend, but, you know, we can talk about that elsewhere.
	So, you know, I think we've kind of got to some, you know, made some, I hope you think we've made some progress on this board issues thing.
	And, you know, there were a few things that were kind of, you know, bothering me.
	And like you said, there was kind of a, I did kind of, you know, there was just, you know, there were just kind of bothering me, like I mentioned to you.
	And, you know, I think we've kind of, you know, talked about them and kind of, you know, fleshed it out.
	So, you know, I'm feeling better about it.
	You know, I still think it's, you know, this whole thing is unfortunate, but, you know, relevant in my opinion, I certainly understand, you know, that you have to, you know, you can't...
	You just have to enjoy interacting with people for them to be on the board.
	Otherwise, you're not going to be able to do this on a full-time basis or any basis at all.
	Right, right. Okay, well, thanks for the conversation.
	I'll try and give it a clean-up, and I'll give it to you.
	I'm sorry, right after I'll try?
	I'll try and give it a clean-up, and I'll have you a chance to listen to it before I post.
	Okay, all right. Thanks, man.

▲