Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 2, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:24:33

998 Surrendering To The Whirlwind...

The first listener convo that ends up exactly where it began...

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So this is an interesting podcast, or at least I hope it's an interesting podcast, between myself and a gentleman named Aaron, who runs a video site on YouTube.
	And Aaron recently put out a video saying that I, Stefan, was only interested in the argument for morality and said that the argument for morality was the only thing that you needed and that there was no such requirement or no need to deploy the argument from a fact and so on.
	And this, of course, is not my perspective or opinion, so we talked about it a little bit, I mean in a friendly way, on the FDR boards.
	And then he came into the chat window and saw some people had called him a little bit shifty and was quite upset with them and called them dishonest and bad and so on that they should say these things directly to him.
	And, of course, I was a little bit confused, because he'd put this video out which had mischaracterized my perspectives without checking with me first, and it's not like I'm the hottest guy in the world to get a hold of.
	And so when he put his opinions out to other people without verifying with me first, that was fine.
	But then when other people in a chat window put out opinions about him, which he didn't agree with, they were bad and dishonest and so on.
	So we began chatting about it in the chat window, and I sort of felt my head starting to spin, and so we had a direct chat about it, which to me was very interesting, and I certainly do appreciate his time and energy and attention in this conversation, which is the first user conversation that I've had where, well, you'll see. Yeah, so sorry.
	Chat sucks for that kind of...
	No, I totally agree.
	I totally agree. Yeah, so just my point is that – and I was not offended by your video, of course.
	I mean I appreciate the interest of people taking what it is that I'm putting out there.
	I guess I was just a – I'm a bit surprised, and perhaps I just misunderstood what it is that you were having a problem with with people in the chat window, because it seems that you had a problem with them talking about things that you believed or things that you thought without talking to you first.
	It's not about actually even talking to me first.
	That's not so much what would bother me.
	But the fact that I found it, you know, if you walk in on people talking to you, I always think that if I ran into them talking about my ideas, totally cool, obviously, you know?
	If they're talking about me personally, I'm not even going to get so offended if they didn't have a problem bringing that up to me.
	So there's other times I've been talking to the other people that were talking about me, and they didn't bring up the stuff necessarily.
	That they were talking about.
	And some of the information, for example, was false that they said.
	I didn't see the whole conversation because, you know, when the chat comes up, you don't see all the previous stuff.
	So, you know, I was kind of bothered.
	But then I wrote the reply to Nathan right afterwards to his comments on my thread.
	And, you know, to me, I didn't want to get all upset about it.
	But then I came back to the room because I was like, maybe someone's here because I'm kind of bothered about this.
	And so, the difference to me is, like, if they would have said this in front of the room, if there's a room full of a thousand people, and they said, well, Aaron, you're polyamorous, right?
	And if I was, and I was, I used to believe in polyamory, then I would say, yeah, I have no problem knowing that, you know, it's no big deal.
	But I'm not, so, you know, I wouldn't say that.
	So if it's in front of a thousand, a million people, and I'm right there, and I could just say, hey, no big deal.
	I'm proud of who I am.
	I have no embarrassments about my character.
	And therefore, yes, I'm polyamorous, or no, I'm not, and I can address it on the spot.
	But when people didn't talk to me or haven't talked to me about things that they are thinking about, about my character, but they're willing to go to a private chatroom and talk to other people that I'm dealing with or that I talk to, you know, then it's kind of offensive to me, and it kind of hurts my feelings that people are willing to talk about me and my character, but they won't bring it up to me.
	And so therefore, yeah, that does bother me.
	If they even made a whole thread called Aaron Psychology on your site, I would have a blast with it.
	I'd be like, I'm a weird guy.
	I really want to be psychoanalyzed.
	I feel like I do it to myself all the time and I have no one around me that I feel like has the intellectual capacity to truly psychoanalyze me.
	My situation and my childhood is a lot different than most people's, for my perception at least.
	And so I'd love outside opinion on my ideas.
	And in fact, several times I went to the chat room and it turned into, let's psychoanalyze Aaron, which I loved.
	And I was like, cool, you know?
	And therefore, like to me, if they made a big threat, if they made a big video, like it's saying Aaron's polyamorous, I'd be like, whatever, I could just correct him real fast and, you know, it's no big deal.
	But when they talk about me and talk about my psychology but won't bring it up to me, it does hurt my feelings.
	Okay, I think I understand.
	The first thing I'll say is, for $50, I can totally set you up with a chat log history, with IP addresses and possibly even home addresses.
	So we'll talk about this after the call.
	I'm just kidding, of course. Okay, $75, because you seem really passionate about it.
	Okay, so if I understand it correctly, it's not that people would say something...
	So we got three people, and one of them is you, and two other people are talking about you.
	If you're not in the room, that's offensive to you.
	If you are in the room, that's enjoyable to you.
	No, no, no. Even though, yeah, it would be enjoyable to me if I was in the room.
	However, the only problem that I have is that they didn't bring it up.
	If they talked about it thoroughly with me and said, this is what I think about Aaron, XXX, or Aaron, this is what my impressions of you are, and they filled in the blanks, no problem, cool.
	And then they brought it up on the side, or if they just thought I was an extremely dishonest person, and therefore I couldn't be trusted, and therefore they were afraid that I would attack them, but they were still interested in the topic of psychoanalyzing me, then I would say, cool, I understand that.
	But please confront me on why you think I'm dishonest, at least, and can't handle the information, or why you feel I will attack you.
	And then if I attack you, then it will justify it.
	But I don't believe I've ever, I mean, intentionally, I know my intentions, I've never been to attack any—I don't want to say I know.
	I don't believe that I've ever attacked any— Sorry to be annoying.
	I've got to just interrupt you for a second, because you have a mouth that makes my motor mouth look like an old Model P, and I have a motor mouth, right?
	But if we could—because you spin up this amazing Tasmanian devil of language, and I don't know what the fuck— Is up halfway through, right?
	And that could just be cold and I'm slow already, right?
	So if we could just – I just need to ask a couple of questions and if you could keep your answers short.
	I'm not trying to corner you across.
	I just want to understand, right?
	Because I feel like I'm not really understanding.
	Go for it. Let's just try and simplify it.
	So there's two people who are saying...
	I actually think there were four people in the room.
	Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.
	I'm just... Break it down like I'm three years old, right?
	Like I've stepped off the boat from Borneo or something, right?
	So let's just say, theoretically, there are two people in a Starbucks who are talking about you and one of them is saying, I think he's a polyamorous or whatever, right?
	Okay, so, that bothers you if you walk in and you hear them talking about that with you.
	Sorry, about you.
	I would say no, and that it would just depend on the inferences in the statement of their saying, just like if they're talking about me and they said, Aaron Strait, obviously they would...
	Oh, I need to keep it short.
	Obviously they would not have a problem saying Aaron Strait, because they'd have no problem saying that to me.
	And therefore, that's kind of the line that I'm talking about, is whether they would say it to me or not.
	So if they're talking to other people, so if person A is talking to person B about you, and you walk in, and here...
	Oh, hi, sorry, we lost a minute or so here of the chat, and then it continues.
	Okay, so, again, we'll try and keep this simple because my old brain is hurting.
	We've got person A and person B in a coffee shop, and you walk in and they're saying, Aaron is a polyamorous, and that bothers you because they haven't talked about it with you directly.
	If they wouldn't talk about it with me directly, or haven't, like if they've had the opportunity to talk about it with me directly, and they choose to not do it even though it's on their mind...
	But they're willing to talk to other people about it, then that would bother me.
	Okay, so if they could talk about it with you, but they don't, they talk about it with other people.
	Now what if they could talk about it with you beforehand, but they don't talk about it with you, but then they let you know afterwards what they were talking about?
	I would respect that.
	Okay, okay. I think I understand it.
	Now, when you came into the chat room and you saw that people had been talking about you, was it confirmed, or were they actually using your name, or did it just seem that way?
	Well, it seemed that way based off of statements that they made, and it was confirmed by at least one or two people in that conversation.
	Okay, now... You like to be psychoanalyzed, and I am no psychologist, but let me just take my amateur swing at it.
	When did it bother you emotionally?
	Was it when you saw that they were talking about you?
	It bothered me, actually, with Nathan.
	I wish I had the comments, and I wish I would have saved him now, because it wasn't just about them talking about me.
	It was that I believe that I interpreted and possibly falsely That there were negative connotations coming from Nathan, in particular, that it, like, I interpreted from the comments, and like I said, I wish I had him, that, yeah, this Aaron guy, I don't know what I think about him, he seems pretty shady to me, kind of comments.
	Not that it was just like, oh, Aaron's XXXX, and having a logical discourse, but rather, the inferences were negative about me, just kind of saying, this guy seems like a pretty shady guy.
	Okay, and so you felt emotionally upset when you read that, right?
	Correct. But before you confirmed whether they would talk about it with you directly or not, right?
	Correct. Wait, wait, wait.
	No, no. Don't raise the whirlwind.
	Absolutely. Save my poor brain.
	Okay. Sorry, if you're not talking, if you could mute, please.
	There are other people on the call. But that doesn't support your thesis, just logically, right?
	And again, I'm not saying you're lying or anything.
	I mean, I know that you genuinely believe it, but that doesn't support your thesis, right?
	Can you elaborate on what you mean?
	Sure. Well, if you say that you're not bothered, if you overhear people talking about you, Then it doesn't bother you unless, or you're fine with it, unless they then don't talk about it with you directly.
	Correct. Wait, sorry.
	I'm not trying to cut you off because I don't want to hear.
	I just want to make sure that I understand what I'm saying, right?
	But if you're bothered before you can confirm whether they can talk about it or will talk about it with you directly, right?
	Then it's not true.
	I mean, just logically, right?
	Again, I know you believe it, and maybe it is true.
	This is just my crazy opinion or whatever, right?
	But it wouldn't seem to me to logically follow.
	If you were bothered the moment that you saw other people talking about you, if you were bothered by that...
	Right away, without confirming whether they wanted to talk about it with you or not, then it would seem that that criteria wouldn't really matter, if that makes sense.
	Correct. You know, it wasn't just about them talking to me about me.
	In fact, there were several people, in fact, I want to say Greg or something, that he might have said something just to the effect of, you know, I don't know, Aaron seems like a nice guy or something, or just something like that.
	And obviously, I don't... I don't know exactly what he said, but I was just like, oh wow, that seems friendly.
	I wouldn't have problems, like I said, if it was just psychoanalyzing me, even if they didn't bring it up to me.
	If a girl was talking about me and said, Aaron has pretty eyes, but didn't say that to me, I would not be offended.
	But if a girl that was supposedly, you know, I dealt with honestly and I thought I had affection for that person, And they said something negative to me, about me, to several other people.
	Now, if you believe that negative action, please bring it up to me.
	I would like to hear it.
	I would like to hear your criticism.
	But if you have something negative to say about me and you bring it up to other people without bringing it up to me, then I am likely going to be hurt.
	Okay, so if you have something negative to say, if someone has something negative to say about you, and brings it up to other people before bringing it up to you, that's bad, right?
	It might be a time issue, just that they wouldn't bring it up to me, because maybe Nathan got the idea that I was a negative, shady person by reading my post, and he did not talk to me about it.
	However, Sorry, sorry.
	I'm feeling a bit of a whirlwind again.
	And again, this may be just an old brain at 2 o'clock in the morning.
	But if I understood it correctly, what you said was, if someone says something negative about me to other people before bringing it up with me, that would bother me.
	I believe so, yes.
	Okay. Now, can you understand why I would be a little confused that that would be a rule of offense and bad behavior and, as you said, dishonesty on the part of other people?
	The reason I believe...
	Sorry, sorry, sorry. Just based on that statement that you made, not all of the other six million considerations that we've been talking about.
	I do see why that conclusion that you make, I do confirm, yes.
	Okay, so, I mean, I think I have an idea how this all came about.
	Rightly or wrongly, I sit in my lair and I spin my theories.
	You know me, right? So, rightly or wrongly, I may have a thought that might be useful about how this all came about.
	But I think the important thing is just to sort of understand that if you have a rule – and you know me, Mr.
	UPB, right – I'll ride the UPB horse right off a cliff if I have to, because that's where I've staked my claim, right?
	But if you have a rule which says, if you talk negatively about someone to other people before talking to that person directly, that I would be a little confused by that rule of yours, right?
	Okay. Why?
	Because of the video that you made.
	Oh, because therefore you're saying based off of my video that it is contradicting that statement, correct?
	It seems to me that that's my understanding of it.
	Again, that's just a theory, right?
	I haven't clinched anything because, you know, we're just discussing, right?
	But it would be a confusing rule for me to see you inflict upon other people, if that makes sense.
	Well, to me, for example, if I felt there was a disparaging comment made to me No, no, but after you published it, right?
	So you recorded it, well, you came up with the thoughts, you wrote down the notes, you recorded it, and you published it, and then you told me about it, right?
	I never told you about it.
	You saw it on your own.
	So you didn't tell me about it?
	What I'm trying to say is that since the video was public and I knew you would watch it because I made sure...
	In fact, the whole goal was to put it on a thread.
	It wasn't... I did not even feel it was, like, negative to you.
	I wasn't talking about your character.
	Oh, it is negative to me.
	Look, I mean, with no prejudice and with no offense, it is completely, not completely, like, damningly, but it is negative towards me, for sure.
	Absolutely, because I'm saying that you're contradicting yourself in some way.
	Well, no, no, not in some way.
	In a very, very fundamental way.
	Right, because you're saying that right at the core of my philosophy is A, an outlandish statement, which is that there's no point doing any arguments from effect, and B, a massive inconsistency between my ideals and my practice, because you're well aware that a massive inconsistency between my ideals and my practice, because you're well aware that I make In fact, a third of the UPB book is tracing the arguments from effect that come from the argument for morality that UPB is based on, right?
	Yes, correct.
	So not only are you saying that he's saying these outlandish things, but also what he does with his intellectual time and energy is completely at variance in massive ways to what he preaches in the abstract, right? Man, you're making me sound brutal.
	I'm not saying that you were a bad guy trying to get me.
	Honestly, I have no offense with what you're saying.
	If I got offended with everybody who said I was wrong, I'd never get out of bed in the morning.
	But what I'm saying is that that's what you put out there without talking to me first.
	So it's just kind of confusing to me when you then get mad at other people for saying something about you without checking with you first.
	It's not so much about checking it with me first.
	For example, if Nathan, and I guess I didn't give him the opportunity to do this, but if Nathan, right after the conversation, came up to me and said, Aaron, I said these things, it's not that he's trying to keep the comments away from me.
	It's not that he's being dishonest with me in any way.
	Aaron, sorry to interrupt. But you posted the video without telling me, right?
	Correct. Wait, wait.
	Before the whirlwind starts, again, I'm sorry, I'm really going to have to beg.
	And I know it's tempting, right?
	And again, I'm not trying to get you or anything.
	I'm just genuinely trying to work on a theory here, which may or may not make sense, right?
	But if you say, well, if he'd come up to me right afterwards and said, well, I said this kind of stuff and so on, but that's not what you did, right?
	With me. Well, I don't know if I'm interpreting it wrong because I had no problem...
	I, in fact, wanted you to watch my video and criticize my idea.
	While I did not get that impression from Nathan's comments that he would feel free talking to me, while maybe my impressions are incorrect, I did get that impression.
	That's the difference. Okay, well, obviously I can't do much to debate impressions, right?
	I can sort of only go on the stuff that's factual.
	But did you want me to watch your video or did you want me to critique your view or give you my feedback on your view?
	When you saw my video, I was hoping that you would point out my intellectual inconsistencies or tell me that what you did is that I had the wrong impression.
	And that you did not say those things.
	Well, but sorry, if you wanted me to give you my feedback on your thoughts, why publish a video rather than ask me to give you feedback on your thoughts?
	Because, as I actually said in the beginning of my video, which I'm not just saying, oh, as I said this, no.
	But as I said in the beginning of my video, I'm talking about the ideas that you inspired me to think about.
	Even if I misinterpreted your ideas, I still wanted to talk about the ideas that we need to have a good understanding of human nature to be able to live off of morality.
	And I thought that was an important point to make whether or not it was in reference to your ideas, but your ideas inspired me.
	And I wanted to post it on the thread.
	In fact, that's the whole reason I made the video.
	And therefore, I made reference to you in what inspired me to think of these ideas.
	Well, I certainly appreciate being an inspiration, and Lord knows there's lots of people around who inspire me as well.
	But you did say that I said that only the argument for morality is valid or valuable or whatever, right?
	I'm sorry? My understanding of the video was that you had said that I had said that only the argument for morality was valid or effective.
	Essentially, yes. I could elaborate on that, but I don't want to ramble on.
	Right. I mean, you can look at both my actions and the books that you have very kindly and I think very intelligently reviewed to see that that's not the case, right?
	I mean, that there's something that would put you on that path of going down that road and Which is counter to the stuff that you've read directly, right?
	Because I basically say that moral systems are validated like scientific theories in practice, right?
	And I threw the whole third of – the sort of last third of – Of the UPB book, I talk about that you need to put these things into practice and we can look at things in the effect that these ideas have in the world.
	And of course, Untruth says, well, I have this theory about the ethical corruption at the root of family life, but the important thing is to test it by taking your parents for a spin through the magical land of what is morality and so on.
	So, I mean, the stuff that you have read, right?
	I mean, this is not...
	Correct. Right, so it would seem like an odd perspective to get from that.
	But anyway, sorry, go ahead.
	I essentially pretty much believe that you're making contradictory statements from your Rhodes video, your public education video, and not large ones.
	I love the videos for the most part.
	And even some other videos that I thought you were saying, maybe incorrectly, obviously...
	You said something like, people learn all of this stuff on market, but once you have the argument for morality, that I interpreted that you don't need to know any of that other stuff.
	Now, maybe I interpreted it incorrectly, but therefore, when you said that, I was arguing against those statements.
	Also, in a recent video, you pretty much said that you would go to someone, pretty much after a little discussion from the argument morality, Say, well, you believe in holding a gun up to my head and therefore I'm not going to associate with you.
	And therefore the whole argument with that person was based around morality, at least with my perception of your comments in that video.
	And so therefore, of course, we look at other sources and it looks like you're validating it through other means other than just morality.
	And obviously the whole VRO thing is exactly doing that.
	But it seemed like you were possibly contradicting those Well, let me just clear this one up because, I mean, let's just give you my perspective on what it is that I mean by that and maybe that will clear something up and maybe I'll be raising my own whirling dervish,
	who knows, right? But my perspective is this, that If you want to be in love with somebody, romantically, let's say, then it's sort of important that they don't punch you on the first date, right? I mean, that would be pretty important.
	There may be a long checklist after that, but that would be a pretty core one for me.
	Like, if somebody just keel-hauled me on the first date, then I'd be pretty much backing away towards the door and calling security, right?
	So... So, when I say that there is a necessary but not sufficient cause of something, right?
	Like, you need a lighter to start a fire, but, you know, it doesn't mean if you have a lighter, you'll get a fire, because you might not have wood, right?
	So when I say that not hitting someone on the first date is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being in love, then that's sort of what I'm talking about with the argument for morality.
	Now, if somebody has the wonderful maturity to not punch you on the first date and furthermore is delightful and good-humored and smart and whatever things that you find attractive...
	Then that's great, right?
	So what I'm sort of trying to point out with the argument for morality is saying that if somebody wants to debate with you, if somebody wants to present themselves as a civilized person who is going to ask you about how roads will be provided in the absence of a state, the first thing that you need to establish with them is, are they willing to not advocate the use of violence against you?
	Because if they're not willing to drop the gun, then there's no value.
	In fact, there's an enormous anti-value in pretending that it's any sort of debate.
	Now, if somebody's willing to say, yes, I do support the fact that you should live life without somebody sticking a gun in your face, then it's like, well, hey, we're brothers.
	Let's explore the magical land of anarcho-capitalism and so on.
	But what people want to do, in my experience, and I've done this for years too, so this is not me in any high tower throwing aspersions down, But what people desperately want to do is they want to bypass the whole argument for morality and start arguing about roads and education, right? And that just doesn't work because libertarians have been doing that for 300 years and it's gotten us precisely nowhere.
	In fact, we're further – we have a bigger state now than we ever did back then, right?
	So, that's all I'm trying to say is that, look, I mean, you've at least got to both agree that violence should not be used to solve problems before you start talking about how pacifism can solve problems, right?
	I mean, and if you can't, that's why I say, look, if you can't get someone to agree that violence should not be used against you, the initiation of the use of force, then don't, don't, that's a good way of putting it, don't dress up their violence by pretending to debate, right? Right. Now, I do understand what you're saying, but in a way, I still interpreted the same remark.
	Now, in my thread, I made an argument of me debating a guy named Snuffleupagus.
	And in that, I said to the guy, hey, are you willing to pretty much put a gun against my head to have this war?
	And he said, I don't have the desire to put a gun against your head, but if we don't follow the laws, then we will have...
	Then our government will crumble.
	Then I said, well, what's wrong with that?
	And they said, pretty much everyone will eat babies and punch kittens and everyone will die to death.
	So they have a false dilemma, a false dichotomy, believing that their choices were, they could be, if they follow the moral laws that I was suggesting, then they would be advocating their own destruction.
	And that's why when you say, for example, if I go to Snuffleupagus and say, hey, Snuffleupagus, Do you want to shoot me in the head?
	He says, no, but I mean, if my other choice is to encourage my own condemnation and death, then I'll put a gun up against your head, but I don't want to put a gun up against your head.
	And therefore, he is advocating pretty much to use force against me, but it's not that he wants to use force against me.
	It's that he does not know another way.
	Well, that's an interesting objection, of course, right?
	I mean, you're a very smart fellow, and this is the argument like, I don't want to torture you, but I think you have information that I need, so let's jack up the thumbscrews and go to town, right?
	And if that torturer knew that there was...
	This is a stupid argument.
	Knew there was another way to get the information or do what he has to do, and did not want to torture the guy...
	Then maybe he would be willing to listen to those ideas and then realize that it's not a false dichotomy, you know what I mean?
	That it's not just the choice of, you know, abolition of the, you know, government and everyone dies to death or, you know, the other choice of, you know.
	Well, I mean, but the way that I would approach this, and if you want to roleplay, we can roleplay, we can just pretend, right?
	But the way that I would approach someone like this, if somebody makes to me a knowledge claim which says, I have exhausted all other possible options, and putting a gun to your head is the only way to ensure world peace, then I would say, okay, step me through this enormous amount of time and learning and investment that you've put into exploring the alternatives.
	Absolutely. Because, you know, he knows where the ticking bomb is under the Statue of Liberty, right?
	And then you say, okay, well, how many other people have you tortured and not gotten good information from?
	And they say, oh, the last 5,000 guys we tortured, we got nothing from, right?
	Then they say, okay, well, why is this guy going to be any different, right?
	So, if there's a pattern that people, like, if people haven't invested the energy into looking into the alternatives, but they claim that those alternatives are incredibly dire, Then they're not interested in the alternatives.
	They're just using the alternatives to justify violence, if that makes sense.
	Usually I use my own self as a testing ground.
	When I was 19 and I first read a book called Libertarianism, a Primer by David Bowes.
	When I first heard about libertarianism, I was like, whoa, that seems cool, the idea of freedom, but it just doesn't seem like it could work because I went through public schools and my parents are Democrats and Republicans.
	Now my dad's an anarcho-capitalist.
	But at the time, you know, all I heard was government propaganda, and it didn't seem like it would work, you know?
	So I was like, okay, yeah, I want to advocate for you.
	Obviously, then I read books, but I imagine someone like you coming up to me when I was 19, and I was like, well, how could this work?
	And then you... What I was imagining is you saying, it doesn't matter how it can work.
	Are you willing to put up a gun against my head?
	I don't want to put up a gun against your head.
	I really don't. But see, once you say...
	As you know, I've put out over 1,100 podcasts, right?
	So I'm not just about...
	And they're not all just saying, no guns, no guns, no guns.
	It's not all work and no play makes daffodil boy written over and over again in the mad hotel on the kill, right?
	But if you say to me, well, of course I don't want to put a gun against your head, but I don't know how else things could conceivably work, that's one.
	Then, of course, hey, we're brothers.
	Let's explore this wonderful land together, right?
	But that's not what Snuffleupagus was saying, right?
	What he was saying is, regretfully, I must put a gun to your head because it's the only way to secure world peace.
	Yeah, I understand what you're saying, but even Snuffleupagus...
	I like to think I'm a pretty convincing guy, and I've convinced pretty much all of my friends to at least be libertarians.
	I ran into the situation where they were like, I don't see how it's possible.
	I have to put a gun against your head.
	Then I gave them books such as Atlas Shrugs or Economics in One Lesson or whatever.
	Then they read it and they were like, wow, I see the difference.
	They just had to be shown that guns don't have to be the way to force people to do things.
	We can do things voluntarily.
	And so even with Nephalophagus, I would ask more probing questions to see if he was actually willing to live in freedom.
	Because he doesn't believe me.
	Everything he's heard from every single person his whole life has been anti-freedom.
	And now this one loony anarcho-capitalist comes up and says something and he just goes, How could you, out of everyone else, this little 24-year-old guy, have the truth?
	And so he's going to doubt me at first, but as I show him, he might be able to, and Snuffleupagus, even after what Snuffleupagus said, he might be willing to say, okay, I see what you mean.
	Well, sure. But you can still use the argument for morality with him, though, right?
	Absolutely. Sorry, let me just explain what I mean by that, and I'll do it briefly.
	I want to keep you up all night. But the thing I'm concerned about is that libertarians have just run themselves completely ragged, learning every conceivable goddamn non-state solution to every conceivable problem.
	How will milk get pasteurized in the absence of a government and so on, right?
	I mean, it all gets very silly.
	And so, you know, my concern is that we sort of get our questions and we go to the library and we research and then we come back and people give us more questions and we go to the library and meanwhile, you know, we slide into fascism, right?
	Absolutely.
	So the way that I would also work with this guy, and I won't go into the whole argument, but it's just something – it goes a little something like, okay, so your premise is that violence must be used in order to stop violence, right?
	And that the ending of violence is a very good thing, right?
	And then you'd say, okay, well, 300 million people murdered over the past century and a half.
	We've got World War I.
	We've got World War II.
	You could just chisel at him without having to go into any libertarian theory about whether violence is in fact being minimized as a whole.
	And also what you can say is what is it that – You can get him with the democratic conundrum, right?
	So you say, well, what is it that allows some people to use guns and other people not to use guns?
	And he's going to get stuck because he's going to say, well, it's consent, right?
	Because if it's not consent, then we just live in a prison, right?
	And whatever theories we come up with are nonsense, right?
	But he's going to have to say, it's consent, right?
	And so he says, well, you consent to the government.
	Yes, I consent to the government.
	Well... You're then saying that some people can use guns because other people consent that they use those guns, but if other people consent that they use those guns, why do they need the guns?
	If you think that the woman is making love with you voluntarily, and that's what your claim is, but the video shows you holding a knife to her throat, then it's rape, whether you like it or not.
	I'm just saying that the argument from effect is great.
	Once you get over the hump of It's a desirable goal, right?
	And the worst case scenario is where you say, okay, so you genuinely believe that the state is necessary.
	If I convince you that the state is not necessary, will you drop your advocacy of it, right?
	And if people say, well, yes, I just can't for the life of me imagine blah blah blah, then sure, we can go into some argument from effects, but only if they judge it a worthwhile goal in the beginning, if that makes sense.
	I concur with that.
	I agree. So, would you like me to give you my spinny little nonsense theory about what may have happened for you in the chatroom?
	Absolutely. Well, I think, this is my perspective, because I had talked to you earlier about credibility, just on that thread, right?
	That intellectual credibility, and look, I'm not saying I have a huge stack of it sitting in my garage or anything, right?
	But let's just say I've worked pretty hard.
	And of course, what I'm doing at the ripe old age of 41, and what I started, I guess, about two and a half years ago, was the fruit of like 25 years almost of thinking about this stuff, right?
	So I had some chances to work stuff out.
	Doesn't mean that everything I've said is true.
	By God, no, right? Doesn't mean that everything I've said is perfectly consistent.
	But... I don't think I've missed any of the basics.
	That's my perspective.
	That's my opinion, right? Maybe I have, but I've tried to work from first principles and, you know, keep them consistent.
	And people will find quotes that don't make sense, but then you look in the larger context and it does and so on, right?
	So intellectual consistency is a really, really hard-won virtue, right?
	Yeah. Now, if you put...
	This is just my perspective.
	Again, whatever videos make you happy, go to town.
	But if you put a video out that to people who have steeped themselves fairly deeply in this conversation, let's just say...
	I don't even know what to call it.
	The Freedom Radio conversation or whatever, right?
	If you put a video out that...
	It criticizes a very core thing and accuses me of some fairly shoddy intellectual practices.
	And again, I'm not saying that you're doing any of that consciously or maybe you don't mean that intentionally, but that's what I and some other people got from the video.
	Rightly or wrongly, who knows, right?
	But if you put something out there saying, I found a core contradiction or a core weakness in Steph's philosophy...
	Then, of course, people who have invested a lot of time and energy and money in what it is that I'm generating will look upon you as a challenger, right?
	I mean, that's great.
	I mean, Lord knows I'm trying to take the crown from Ayn Rand, so whoever gets it next will probably poke me in the eye, right?
	But... So they're going to look and say, okay, well, this guy's calling staff out, right?
	And that's fine. I mean, that's great.
	That's good stuff, right?
	Lord knows I've called out Ron Paul and every libertarian on the planet, so I can't complain if someone does it to me, right?
	But if you call me out and you don't have evidence and proof, then you're going to lose credibility Just here, right? And let's just talk about the FDR thing, right?
	Just here, right? And this is just about sort of figuring out how you land for other people.
	And I mean, you may have great and deep understanding of how you land with people as a whole, but we're a kind of pretty intense philosophical community, as I'm sure you're aware, right?
	And that doesn't mean that people act maturely.
	God knows it doesn't even mean that I act maturely sometimes.
	But But, you know, we are on a mission, right?
	You know, for better or for worse, this is what we've thrown a lot into trying to do is to raise the logic and awareness of people's thinking and so on.
	So if you're going to, you know, walk up to me and smack me with a big iron gauntlet, people are going to be like, ooh, great, you know?
	You know, this is going to be great.
	I want frontside seats, right?
	But if you don't land a punch, right?
	And look, maybe you're right, but I think in that video, right?
	I don't think you made a strong enough case, right?
	Not compared to some of the work that I've put into UPB and stuff like that.
	It's just my opinion, right? Maybe you have.
	But what happens then is that if you take me on or take on the ideas that I put forward and you don't land a good punch...
	Then either you say, oh, crap, you know?
	You sort of stop and you say, okay, well, if I'm wrong about what Steph's put out, then I should take this video down, and instead I should have a debate with Steph, because I know, God knows, he debates with everybody and everybody, right?
	So I'm sure we can work that out, right?
	Did you need the response?
	So anyway, but if you come by to the board, right, where people are heavily invested in this conversation, and you don't notice that you haven't made a strong enough case to call me out in terms of core contradiction, inconsistency, and so on, and you don't notice that, and you've also published it without...
	Talking to me, again, I'm not hard to get a hold of, right?
	This is what I do full-time.
	And certainly, if people are putting videos out, I'd like to talk to them, right?
	Not to condition, it's just, you know, get my side in or whatever, right?
	So, I mean, not in terms of reviewing the books, because there's no point, I mean, they're about the books, not about me, right?
	Or about my ideas, right?
	It's frozen in time, so your opinion would never interfere with that.
	But if you sort of wanted to get a perspective, and I'm not justifying, I don't know what people said in the chat room, and I'm not justifying any of that, but...
	I think that what happened was that I think you went fairly far in terms of putting the video out.
	And again, I don't care.
	It's fine with me, right? Do what you like.
	But in terms of coming over and having credibility with people, that's not going to serve you well.
	And I say this, you know, friend to friend.
	I don't say this because...
	I understand. And I don't take it as an insult.
	However, I actually disagree with a lot of what you're saying now.
	Have you ever read any books by John Holt?
	I have not. Absolutely amazing books.
	I've read Instead of Education, How Children Learn.
	I can't...
	Amazing. And in How Children Learn, he talks about how children learn.
	And the way that children learn with language, which you probably won't agree, is just by testing it.
	Going out and hearing a word, thinking, it means a certain thing in testing that idea.
	And so I truly believe in the work philosophically.
	In fact, if I've made a thread about two hours ago pretty much saying exactly why I disagree with what you and Nathan were saying about credibility pretty much and that I still somewhat disagree with you on this and that is that I believe people should go out and test their ideas and challenge them and put out videos,
	put out things doing that and I try to make a point you know I'm not publishing something and in fact If I had to fact check everything that I said in every one of my videos, I would like and know that every single word meant a certain thing.
	I would likely lose total interest in making videos.
	What I want to do is put out the perceptions in my mind, the thoughts that I have, and if they are wrong, I want to hear them and I will submit in a second to the person that shows me that they are wrong.
	But if they can't show me they're wrong, cool, and I will admit to it.
	This is just a random guy talking like in a logical conversation.
	If someone comes into the chat room and says, Steph, I believe I see this contradiction.
	Please tell me where it's at.
	Now, if he, you know, in front of, you know, a bunch of people says, hey, Steph, I believe I see this contradiction.
	Now, tell me where it's at. Now, I don't consider myself a journalist.
	I'm some guy putting up ideas on a video, and this is what I tried to emphasize.
	It's not me publishing something.
	It's me saying...
	My interpretation of something is this.
	I so welcome you because all I'm trying to do is, I don't live by objective, by no one around me, like, I don't feel like has the intellectual power to really challenge my ideas.
	And so, like, going on YouTube is so ideal because people have the intellectual abilities to challenge me and even the same premises.
	And therefore, if I say, oh, this is a new idea I have, Which I like to think pretty much every one of my videos isn't just viewing something I read, but a brand new idea that I bring to the table.
	Then people can go through my ideas and criticize them.
	I don't even try to get viewers.
	I don't care who watches me.
	If I have, you know, 20 viewers, but they're contributing to me and saying, this is what I think you're wrong here, and I'd be like, great!
	And so therefore, to me, I'm going to post what I believe my impressions are.
	And if someone says, Aaron, that's wrong.
	I didn't say that. Or if someone says, you straw manned Ayn Rand, you know, which there's someone now saying that I did straw man Ayn Rand in one of my videos criticizing Ayn Rand, then wonderful.
	And I will absolutely say I'm wrong.
	And I've known in past videos, there's things that I disagree with now that what I believe.
	But the thing is, it's where I'm able to grow.
	It's where I'm able to put out my ideas and have people criticize them.
	I mean, now I can actually go to the forums.
	Now I can go to the chat room and actually have some of my ideas criticized.
	But previously, all I had was YouTube.
	There's nowhere else I could go in the world to just have someone challenge my ideas, have someone show me how my ideas are straw man because I misinterpreted something.
	And therefore, to me, my YouTube videos aren't about publishing Something that's like, you're wrong, Steph, and everyone in the world see.
	No, it's just like, this is my interpretation of reading it.
	Please tell me what you think.
	And as I said in the threads and two of my posts, it's really my, all of my videos are just question marks.
	It's saying, this is my ideas.
	What do you think? And in the description on my profile, it says, I'm throwing out a bunch of ideas, just whatever comes to mind on, you know, things.
	And so tell me what you think.
	I'm interested in your ideas.
	And therefore, to me, To have to build up some strong case and get some research, to me, the research is the video.
	That is the research.
	Just like if I talk to you and ask you a question, that's the research, and my videos are the question.
	My videos are me saying, where am I wrong?
	That's why, to me, if someone says, hey, you should talk to people before publishing it, first of all, everyone's subscribed to me.
	I'm sure most of them are subscribed to you anyways.
	And, you know, several on my site criticized me in the thread they criticized me.
	Wonderful. You were actually the only one that criticized me and said that I just misinterpreted you.
	And so I'm so willing to hear that I'm wrong.
	But the thing is, is if I can't, if I have to research thoroughly everything that I say to make sure it's scrupulous, then I'm just going to become disinterested in talking on YouTube because I like just like, oh, here's a new idea.
	Work it out a little, spend a day or two thinking about it, put it up there, and people criticizing my idea.
	And that's what I consider it to be.
	And therefore, if someone says, Aaron, for asking questions, for challenging your perceptions of something that you don't have credibility, then I'd say, I'm sorry, I don't have respect for that idea, which is exactly my last post on that thread, saying when Nathan said, hey, Aaron, you said this, Because I replied to you after you said, you know, Aaron, you need to build your credibility.
	I responded to you saying, actually, you know, the only thing I claim to have is intellectual honesty.
	I don't claim that I'm right.
	All I claim is that I'm intellectually honest, and if someone shows me I'm wrong, I will say I'm wrong.
	That is the only credibility I desire.
	I do not desire to be right.
	I do desire to be right, but it's not like, you know, I need to be right.
	And therefore, to take that away from me, to start thinking of YouTube as a place where I'm publishing things, it makes me not that interested in YouTube anymore.
	Well, I appreciate your perspective.
	I really do. And, I mean, obviously, the last thing that I want to do is to interfere with your self-expression, which is why, obviously, I had no problem with you putting the video out.
	What I am saying, though, is that that won't work at FDR. It won't.
	I mean, and you know that because you've read UPB, which is where, like, painfully raised the Titanic of morality with, like, one bubble and Nemo from Finding Nemo.
	I disagree. That's what people do every day in the chat room.
	You were having a conversation with a guy about Christianity.
	He was putting his ideas out there, and you were criticizing.
	That's exactly what it was.
	And if someone has a question about something, they post it on the border.
	Someone says, I believe this.
	Oh, but those people, if their perspective is, my opinions count, not the facts, then they're free to post.
	But what I want to give you, at least in my opinion, is the possibility of real credibility, of real traction with people.
	I think you're a great communicator.
	I think you're a great speaker.
	I think that you're a very, very smart fellow.
	And if I go to a physics conference, to take a ridiculous example, if I go to a physics conference and talk about a dream I had last night, I may be very entertaining and they may laugh, but they won't take me seriously as a physicist, right?
	Okay. And again, I'm not saying that this is a direct parallel or whatever, but if you're going to talk about your opinions, then a philosophy site is not going to grant you the credibility that I think you could relatively easily get.
	Okay. And which would be much more satisfying for you.
	Would be much more satisfying for you.
	I'm just putting it out there.
	Yes. I teach a class.
	I was a music major in college.
	I teach a musical theater class.
	I own a business too. And in that musical theater class, obviously, most of them are middle school-aged, and I encourage them to challenge everything I say.
	And if they have an opinion that contradicts mine, bring it up in class.
	I would love to answer your criticism.
	Please do not believe anything I say, but if I say, hey, try it this way, and you like it better another way, tell me.
	I like it better this way and justify your ideas.
	And we'll have a logical discourse on the better way.
	Now, therefore, that's what I believe a proper classroom should be.
	Sorry to interrupt you, though, because that is entirely appropriate for musical theatre.
	Of course. I mean, I went to theater school, and I know that the improv, and it's great fun, right?
	That is entirely...
	Because there's no right way to write a poem.
	There's good poems, there's bad poems.
	There's no right way to write. It's not objective, right?
	There are right ways to do things in theater.
	If someone's not facing the audience...
	That is wrong for a certain perspective.
	It's wrong theater etiquette.
	No, no, it can be great theater etiquette.
	It can be great theater etiquette if you're trying to achieve a particular effect to alienate the audience for a short monologue or something.
	I've seen Hamlet, where Hamlet delivers to be or not to be, staring straight at the back of the stage.
	It gives you goosebumps because it's just a weird choice, right?
	Yeah. So there's lots and lots of possibilities.
	I've been in a play where the audience sat on the stage and the play took place in the seats, right?
	So there's so many things that you can do that are just wildly creative and imaginative, but that's not philosophy.
	If I was in a physics class and someone says, and I'm teaching a physics class and I really like physics, and someone stood up and said something, well, using my, you know, I think...
	I believe that acceleration is not meters per second per second, but rather meters per whatever, whatever.
	I'll say, okay, what's your justification for saying that?
	And I'll say, okay, well, this is why I disagree with you and I go through the conceptual exercises.
	Now, physics... Now, if he went up there and said, oh, you're a bullcrap and everything else, but if he just said, this is what I believe based off of this evidence...
	Then I would say that's an absolutely appropriate thing to do in a physics class or a math class or any sort of class.
	Do you want to be a student or do you want to be a teacher?
	That's my question. I'm not even kidding.
	I only want to be a student.
	Okay, well then there's no problem, right?
	But then you won't get the credibility, right?
	Because if I stand up in a physics class and say, I don't think that acceleration is meters per second per second, but I think it's a blonde tangerine, and again, this is an exaggeration, right?
	Then people may laugh and they may find me entertaining, and the teacher may be nice, but I'm just wrong, right?
	Correct. And I haven't done my homework.
	Like, if I show up at physics and state my opinions without having done my homework, then the teacher may be nice about it and everyone else may be nice about it, but nobody's going to respect me as a physicist, right?
	It depends on what level you're doing it at.
	If the teacher stands up and say you're in that class in physics and the teacher stands up and says...
	Okay, this acceleration is meters per second per second.
	And right then you think about it and you're like, you stand up and say, I don't see that.
	I see this and say that's your opinion.
	Now, I have no desire to write books in my life.
	I think I'm a smart lad.
	My philosophy is for me.
	I do desire to teach other people.
	I do desire to share my ideas and have people around me with similar ideas.
	Where they can challenge my ideas and I can challenge their ideas.
	Do I desire to teach, per se?
	Not so much. I made a video a while ago criticizing your idea from the Harry Brown approach, from how I found freedom in an unfree world, about changing the world.
	I just listened to your podcast on that recently.
	To me, I have philosophy for me And if we change the world, then that's wonderful because my life will be so much better for that.
	But my true goal is for my own personal freedom.
	And I think you do a beautiful job with that.
	And I respect, psychologically, you've inspired so many ideas of mine.
	However, to me, I'm not trying to change the world, per se.
	If I can change the world, if I become rich and I can give you a million dollars because I'm a billionaire, I'd say, sure, because maybe we can change We can change the world.
	Maybe it's possible. But right now in my life, it just doesn't seem worth it.
	I've made a lot of videos on activism talking about this and everything else.
	And so therefore, I desire to learn philosophy to challenge my ideas.
	So if everyone...
	I don't care if everyone at Free Domain Radio thinks I have no intellectual credibility except one thing, intellectual honesty.
	That is the only credibility I desire.
	I don't think if they... If I say, I interpreted, Steph said this, what do you guys think?
	And they say I'm wrong, great, wonderful, I want that.
	But if I say something, I'm not going to research something that you said for 18 hours before going to the chat room, Just to make sure, no, part of the research is going to the chat room and seeing what other people say about my ideas.
	Part of the research is posting my video on YouTube and seeing where people have criticized my ideas.
	And later, if I'm so solid in my ideas, I'm 24, if I'm so solid in my ideas, then I can be a teacher.
	I am not a teacher because while I think I have great ideas and I can show so many things, I haven't solved it all yet.
	And once I've solved it all, then I will become a teacher, but I haven't yet.
	Okay, you've got to stop. You've got to stop.
	Look, I'm serious. You've got to stop because you're just whirling dervish me, right?
	And you're giving me, frankly, with all due respect to your intelligence, you're giving me a bunch of nonsense, right?
	Of course nobody's got it all figured out and nobody's asking you to do 18 hours of research, right?
	Like you're building a case here against an imaginary enemy, right?
	And the reason that I'm skeptical about this live and let live philosophy and it doesn't matter if you're incorrect and it doesn't matter if you make mistakes is that's not how you came into the chat room tonight, is it?
	What do you mean? Well, you came in calling people into dishonest.
	No, I understand what you're saying.
	I've got it right here. I've got it right here on the screen.
	Absolutely. I did say that.
	So you weren't Mr.
	Live and Let Live and be curious about people making mistakes and you can call Acceleration other things and, you know, because they're just putting their ideas out.
	So what if they're wrong, right?
	You came in and said it's bad what they're doing, it's dishonest and blah, blah, blah, right?
	The dishonest... I told you the only thing I care about...
	It's intellectual honesty.
	But I don't know what intellectual honesty means.
	Okay. Because they were being honest.
	I'm not saying they're right, but these people in the chat room, if they had negative thoughts or opinions about you, they were being honest about that with each other.
	True. So who are you to tell them that they're wrong and they're bad?
	I believe that I have a moral system that is more objective.
	And not more objective than them.
	I'm not trying to claim more objective than them, but I have a moral system, as you do, that is based off of objective reality and that we can...
	No, no, no, no, no. You can't bring in objective reality after telling me that this theater school thing where you can just, you know, be an explorer and children learn by experimenting and this and that, right?
	Absolutely. I think experimenting is important to learn.
	This is like what I was talking about with John Holt's experimentation.
	I understand that, but when you come in with very rigid, moralizing judgments about other people, right, and then when I try to apply standards of intellectual honesty, which is maybe have a 10-minute conversation with Steph before putting a video out, and you're like, no, I've got to be free, I've got to breathe, I've got to communicate, I've got to be who I am, I don't want too many facts, I don't want to do research, and so on, right?
	But when other people then say something that you don't like about you, you get kind of puritanical on their ass, right?
	No, no. I think that...
	You do. You do.
	Look, you can either take this feedback or you...
	I'm not going to fight with you about this because I saw it on the screen.
	You can either listen to it or not.
	I'm not going to fight you about it, right?
	I'm giving you this feedback.
	Maybe I'm completely full of nonsense.
	I'm perfectly, perfectly willing to accept that.
	Maybe I'm calling up, down, and black, white.
	Right? But what I saw and what I experienced doesn't mean it's right.
	It's just my opinion, my thoughts, and my experience.
	Is that when you came in, you were kind of mad.
	Well, you were mad. And you were putting some pretty heavy terms around, like people were being dishonest, right?
	And bad, right?
	I said I believe, even though, yes.
	Yeah, come on. I mean, you and I both know that you were mad and you were using the moral swing, right?
	Yes. Right.
	So, you know, it's kind of hard for me to, you can either, like, it seems to me that when other people do things that you consider bad, you can call them bad.
	Right? But then when you make mistakes, so you get things wrong, and if they're wrong about you, they're wrong about you, and I'm sure they are.
	But if you then make mistakes and get things wrong, it's like, no, no, no, I'm just, you know?
	And I don't think it's because you're a bad guy or anything, and I could be totally wrong about all of it.
	But this is why a number of people in the chat, and also what I experience, is their heads start spinning, right?
	Because you have these two poles, and maybe more than two.
	Lord knows we all do, right?
	But you have these two poles, right?
	Like on the one hand, you're like, well, it's bad to do this, and these people should not be doing this, and it's dishonest, and this and that, right?
	But then when people point out inconsistencies in you, you're like, no, no, no, I'm totally free, and I'm just exploring, and this and that.
	I think you're... If you see those two poles, that's all I'm asking.
	Okay. I see what you're saying, but you're getting my...
	What I was upset about them was not that they got incorrect information.
	I'm not upset that they got incorrect information.
	No, no, no. You're splitting hairs.
	You called them dishonest and bad.
	But it's not because they said...
	It doesn't matter why.
	It doesn't matter why.
	The fact is that you have rigid moral standards when you're upset, but then when other people get upset with you or try to apply those same standards back, you get kind of loosey-goosey, right?
	I'm just pointing this out.
	It doesn't mean anything. It may not even be true.
	I understand. Honestly, I hear what you're saying, but I do not see the connection.
	I really desire to objectively be, and I'm so willing to say I'm wrong.
	I'm so willing to say it.
	I don't make the connection and I can show you what I believe the difference is.
	No, it doesn't matter, right?
	Because I've seen, right, so when I say there are standards of accuracy that are very easy to attain with a few minutes conversation with me or just looking at the body of the work that I've done, stuff that you've read, right?
	There's a very, nobody's saying 18 hours, it's just a moment's reflection about the stuff that you've already read, about the stuff that you posted about me, right?
	So, that standard, you say, well, I don't want that standard, right?
	That standard is like, that would make YouTube no fun for me, and I'm exploring, and I'm playing around, and this and that, right?
	And that's fine. I mean, I've got no problem with that.
	But then when other people do something you don't like, you come down like, that's bad, that's dishonest, that's wrong, right?
	I'm not claiming moral relativism.
	You didn't come into this chat with any curiosity about why people were doing what they were doing.
	I absolutely did. Dang it, I closed it.
	I came into the room and I said, I feel bothered.
	That's the first thing I said, was I feel bothered.
	And the second thing I said was, if someone would scroll up to the top of the screen, I believe that...
	because I even tried to use your RTR system.
	I saw all of that. I saw all of that.
	I really did. And then stuff went on in another chat window.
	I just opened that chat window and you were calling people dishonest or saying what they were doing was dishonest and bad and so on, right?
	They asked me what my...
	pretty much asked me what my interpretation of the system was and why I believed that I was upset.
	And I said, I believe that I am upset because I feel...
	Like people were talking negative about me in a dishonest way.
	Yes, but Aaron, I asked you, and again, I'm pointing this out, just feedback, right?
	Whether it works or not, right?
	But I asked you what the rules were, and you said, remember person A, person B in the Starbucks, right?
	And you were over here, and you gave some very clear rules about what was acceptable and what was not acceptable, what was right and what was wrong, what was offensive and what was not, right?
	Correct. So this is a belief structure that you have that people have to meet certain standards in order to be good people, right?
	I believe everyone has this structure that I am condoning that I was upset about what I perceive to be going on in that chat room, which I may be wrong in my perception.
	Right, but you have objective standards about right behavior, right?
	Correct. Which people have to meet or they're not good people, right?
	Right. They can make mistakes.
	I'm not saying these things are evil.
	Right.
	But then, and this is all I'm pointing out, right?
	I'm not going to beat my head against the wall.
	You're either going to accept it or not.
	And by accept it, I don't mean that you believe it, right?
	But you're either going to hear what I'm saying or not, right?
	But then when I pointed out ways in which you didn't meet some basic standards of, I would call it intellectual honesty when making claims about another person's belief system, which could be very, very easily figured out by you.
	I mean, you're easily, easily smart enough, right?
	Then it was like, well, no, no, I just explore.
	Then the standards don't apply to you, right?
	No. But that's all I'm saying.
	That's why people's heads spin that I've seen talking with you, that my head spins, right?
	Because it just seems to me that you have some pretty rigid standards for other people, but then when standards are applied to you, you're like, well, no, I'm loosey-goosey and I'm whatever, right?
	Absolutely not. I understand that people might perceive that.
	I'm not trying to distract from that.
	But I would love to know why I'm wrong and I don't know what I missed.
	I feel like we skipped something because I'm confused because I don't know how I'm contradicting myself and I feel maybe you misinterpreted something I said but I'm feeling really confused and kind of some anxiety right now because I don't know.
	I really tried.
	I believe I'm handling this as objectively as I know how to.
	And just saying that I don't know how to handle this any better, but I want a conclusion.
	I don't want to just say let's agree to disagree.
	I would like to know why I'm wrong if I'm wrong.
	I really do. But to me, if I have a perception of something, To have to look that up everywhere before I present my ideas to someone instead of really just presenting, say, this is my perception to other people and let them criticize my ideas.
	No, but they were just saying, this is my perception of Aaron, and it was bad.
	No, no, no, no. That's not what I was upset about.
	Absolutely not upset about it, okay?
	Yes, you are, because I asked you, sorry, this is where you're not following the conversation, right?
	And this I understand. This is an area, I believe, where you're very defensive, right?
	Again, maybe you feel anxiety because I'm being horribly manipulative and the evil cult leader that some people think I am, and that's fine.
	I mean, obviously, it's totally possible.
	But I asked you when you felt upset, and you said when I saw them saying negative things about me.
	Correct, but it wasn't because they were saying negative things about me per se.
	Oh, Lord, you are a hair splitter.
	Of course it was because... Come on.
	Of course it was because they were saying negative things about you.
	If they were calling you a great guy, you wouldn't have felt bad.
	Absolutely, absolutely. But that's still only partially.
	If your wife's name is Christina, if she was talking about you, I'd say, yeah, Steph doesn't always clean the bathroom to someone, and you don't always clean the bathroom, and, you know, you...
	You aren't offended or anything, you know, because you know you don't clean the bathroom.
	She has no problem saying that to you.
	It's not some big private issue or something like that.
	No big deal. Okay?
	You totally understand it.
	You empathize with it. If she said, Stefan isn't a very good lover to someone, you would be hurt.
	Maybe it's true, and even if she said that to her psychologist or she said something, even if it was okay, you would be hurt.
	Why? Because why didn't she come to you?
	Why didn't she say it to you?
	That's why you would be hurt.
	These are anonymous people on the internet.
	You can't equate these two relationships in any way, shape, or form.
	They're not even close, right?
	That's like saying, well, what if the guy at the grocery store thinks I have a bad haircut?
	Absolutely, but that's how you establish a rapport with people is by being honest with them in their perceptions and trusting me to handle the advice until I prove that That I'm not worthy of hearing the truth because I'm manipulative, I'm evil, and I'm everything else. And so yes, these are anonymous people.
	They don't necessarily have a certain sort of allegiance to me.
	However, I was hoping to start becoming possibly friends with people in the In the boards and in the chatroom because I started enjoying some of the conversations.
	And I'm telling you how to do that.
	If you want it. If you want it.
	I'm telling you. Look, I mean, I'm at the core of this community.
	God help me, right? So I'm telling you, if you want to make friends with people at FDR, if you want to do it, you don't have to.
	If you want to do it, then you have to raise your standards.
	In terms of, like, not have this loosey-goosey, just opinion thing.
	That's great for 99% of your life and so on, but when it comes to making truth statements about philosophical realities, it's just not going to work, right?
	And you have to do it, right?
	But you don't want that. I understand, but now I feel like we just changed.
	No, it's the same issue.
	The reason that they were saying he seems a bit dodgy is exactly what we're talking about.
	Why has no one said that to me until you did just now?
	Because they know exactly what's going to happen, which is exactly what's been happening for the last hour, which is you're going to explain, and you're going to change the topic, and you're going to change the story, and you're going to do this, and you're going to...
	Yes, I'm telling you. I'm telling you that they know, if you want to know why people are doing what they're doing, the first person you have to look at is yourself.
	Not them and how bad they are.
	I'm so willing to look at myself.
	No, you're not willing to look at yourself.
	Then tell me, I don't see it.
	This is why they don't want to talk to you about this.
	The reason they don't want to say you're dodgy is because you make their head spin.
	Because you're incredibly verbal, you're incredibly gifted verbally, and you're an amazing speaker.
	That's why I'm putting the time in here, right?
	I don't call everybody I have a problem with, right?
	Because you have these incredible gifts of language and you are a very rapid speaker and your language gifts are extraordinary.
	And you can make people's heads spin like that demon in the poltergeist movie, right?
	I understand. Right?
	So the reason that people don't want to say you seem kind of dodgy is because you're going to take them on this carousel, right?
	And they're going to get nauseous and they're going to want to get off and they don't feel like they're going to get anywhere.
	I always believed that when people...
	Have discourse in something, that you share your ideas on it, you criticize each other's ideas on it, and one of you or both of you come to a better understanding of the world when the conversation is finished.
	That is my approach to talking in the chat rooms, or making a thread, or even making a video on YouTube.
	I want to put my ideas out there, listen to other people's ideas, have people refine my ideas, Tell me why I'm wrong.
	I'm always willing to listen to why I'm wrong.
	You've already proved me wrong in many of your podcasts and videos.
	I had different perceptions of different things.
	Yes, but about this issue, you've given nothing.
	But that's the thing.
	I would give something if I knew what to give and if I knew why to give it.
	To me, I see so much evidence that maybe I'm psychologically dodging it and I can't see it because I have defense mechanisms.
	I'm absolutely willing to see that, but then to me, I want to know my defense mechanisms, because right now you're saying I'm dodgy, but if I was to agree with you, the only way I could agree with you is by saying, well, Stefan's smarter than me, and not understand why, because I don't understand why.
	And therefore, to me, for me to agree with you right now, I would be neglecting my own intelligence, and I can't do that.
	I so want to know.
	We can psychoanalyze me, tell me how...
	Anything happened. Why?
	I can't see it. Why? And I would love to go in that conversation.
	But right now, I can't see.
	Because to me, I can tell you why the situations are different.
	And I can say exactly why.
	And I believe I've actually been totally consistent, just partly misunderstood during this conversation.
	And therefore, to me, I'm feeling like kind of...
	I feel attacked.
	I'm not saying that you're attacking. Maybe it's this false self saying, you're getting close to me, you know, or something.
	I don't know. That's my hand on your leg, right?
	Look, the thing I think to do is, look, I mean, this is the beauty is, you know, I obsessively record everything, which doesn't mean anything other than you have access to this conversation, right?
	So my suggestion would be, have a listen, and you may say, well, Steph's totally full of shit, right?
	It must have been late, and maybe he'd been drinking.
	Who knows, right? In which case, no harm, no foul.
	We had a conversation where we had an interesting exchange of ideas, and I certainly have appreciated it.
	And you found out that I have a blindness or weak spot when it comes to looking at you, right?
	Or you may listen to this conversation and say, you know, my head's spinning a little bit too, and I can sort of see why he, you know, and when it comes to listening to these kinds of conversations, in my experience, right, having gone through like years of therapy and having a wife who practices psychology very well, my sort of experience has been that it's almost like a logic tree, like the way that I break down conversations which don't go well, if I've got them recorded, right, is I sort of go, okay, well...
	This point was made, right?
	So, you know, A is A, right?
	And then if five minutes later, the opposite point is made without reflection, okay, well, there's where it kind of went awry.
	Like, there's a way of breaking down these conversations so that you can look at the premises that are put forward and look at the positions that are taken.
	And, of course, the other thing is whether or not you get into frustrating conversations with other people in your life, right?
	I mean... I don't, generally.
	It does happen sometimes.
	I have found this to be a little frustrating, as I'm sure you have as well.
	But if you find that you get into these kinds of conflicts, or not conflicts exactly, but where you feel like you've been talking for a long time but haven't really gotten anywhere, does that happen anywhere else in your life, or is it...
	Not in my life.
	It did like when I was in public school.
	I never had teachers that liked me.
	I had some, but I have all my friends.
	I never get in frustrating conversations.
	Everyone I surround myself with, I don't.
	And they're not weak people.
	They're kind of pretty strong, opinionated people.
	I don't get in conversations like this.
	But like I said, with teachers, I used to because I think I did exactly what you're claiming I did with my teachers growing up in school.
	Even in third, second, first grade, In fact, this is what I was even thinking during our conversation, because I was thinking about making a video about this in particular, is that, to me, challenging everyone's ideas is very important, and therefore, stating your opinion,
	so when I was in, you know, third grade and all through school, and if I said, well, I believe this, the teacher would get offended that I'm contradicting what they believe, but then I had some good teachers that always appreciated me chiming in with my ideas, or if I disagreed with them, they'd go through it, And say why I was wrong.
	And I like to believe I encourage that sort of discourse in my classes and everything else.
	And so what I feel is that I'm obviously, in fact, probably the most logical person I've ever met in life that I've had the most respect for is you.
	However, to me, I feel like the same circle as with the bad teachers is happening.
	I say my own ideas and then they get offended for whatever reason.
	I'm not trying to say anything, but I'm trying to defend the method of debate that I believe in and trying to figure out if I'm wrong in my method of debate, then I'm willing to hear that I'm wrong.
	But I feel my method's a pretty solid method and therefore I want to know how it's wrong.
	And I don't feel like you've shown me why it's wrong.
	All I feel is like you've said, well, you're wrong.
	And while I believe I understood what you said, it didn't make the logical conclusion.
	And it didn't click anywhere.
	It wasn't like, well, this is why you're wrong, Aaron, x, x, x, x, x, x.
	When, to me, I believe the system I'm using is exactly the same system used by people naturally, epistemologically, From childhood onwards, and that's why I talked about the book, How Children Learn by John Holt, is because that's the same system children used growing up as the one that I'm advocating.
	And so, you know, I feel kind of like, gosh, you know, I really, I respect this guy.
	I'd love to have kind of a logical discourse and relationship with him, but obviously we can't if he doesn't respect the way I debate, but maybe I'm wrong, you know, because I'm so willing to listen to the way I discuss things is wrong.
	But in a way, I feel like the way I discuss things is exactly the way you discuss things, and almost everyone in this world discusses things.
	I just am always willing to say I trust my mind to figure out the information, and most people, I guess, aren't?
	I don't know. Or maybe you believe that a conversation that we're having, we're allowed to just throw out our ideas, but since I posted it on YouTube, that's like a publication, so I need to be more like a newspaper in that case.
	When I viewed it, More like it's just a conversation, just like we're having now, that I could just throw out my perceptions and people can criticize me and I could say I'm wrong.
	And so therefore, I don't see how I'm contradicting myself, but, you know, I don't want to, you know, I don't think I'm irrational, but I'm so willing to say I am if I can see it.
	Well, I mean, if your relationships are working for you and so on, then we can just look at this as a late-night misunderstanding and that's fine, right?
	I mean, certainly you shouldn't agree with me because I'm saying anything.
	I mean, that would not be possible at all.
	It's not just this conversation because you very well might be right.
	And I have had this problem in my life.
	I don't in any of my relationships, but I have had this problem in my life before.
	But to me, I always affiliated it that people don't like to be challenged.
	I'm not saying you.
	But when people are questioned, they get very defensive.
	And I've always been a person to kind of accept reality and push along no matter what.
	And therefore, I affiliated it to that.
	Maybe I was wrong for affiliating it to that.
	And I don't take the people in my life or doormats and willing to put up with it, but I think they understand my debate style.
	and respected and I've always been empathetic and understanding of other people's ideas and so they've respected that and so therefore you know when I you know made that video it's not that I'm trying to it's me saying hey this is my idea what do you guys think and if people think differently great tell me I want to hear this is what I did it for that's why I made the video is to hear why I'm wrong or to hear why I'm right and have approval and so I can expand on that idea and make it further But that's part of the research to me,
	is making these videos and putting up threads and talking to you now.
	That is the research to grow.
	If I need to research before I do the research to grow, that seems like an inefficient use of time.
	That's like a little kid going to the dictionary every time he needs to learn a new word.
	Instead of experimenting with the word, seeing how people react to the word, and then changing his vocabulary based off of how other people are treating his word, you know?
	And therefore, when I use these ideas, and now I'm kind of said that I'm a relativist, because the ideas that I'm saying are contradicting, I don't see that as a real...
	I don't see the moral contradiction.
	Because to me, if they would have said it to me, I would have had no problems.
	Or if they would have said it behind my back, but had no problem saying it to me.
	But my moral problem was that I felt that they would have had a problem saying it to me.
	That is the problem that I feel, and therefore I consider it gossip rather than intellectual debate.
	Right, and so...
	Sorry to interrupt you.
	Hang on, hang on. Okay, come on.
	You can't have more than five minutes.
	I'm sorry, I'm sorry. But basically what you've got is you've got exactly the same as when we started, right?
	Your perspectives and your opinions are exactly the same as when we started, and that's totally fine.
	That just means that this is what you believe, and that...
	Either you don't need to make a change in terms of this feedback that I'm giving you, which is totally fine, or you do need to make a change, but I'm the person who's never going to be able to convince you, right?
	And that's fine too, right? Because, I mean, if after sort of an hour and a half you have exactly the same opinions as when we first started talking, then clearly whatever I'm doing is not working.
	So that's totally fine. I mean, because maybe I'm doing the wrong thing, and that's totally fine.
	I want... I truly...
	In fact... Like, I so want to understand why I'm wrong in such a deep, profound way.
	No, you're not wrong, because you have the same opinions that you started with, right?
	So, for you, at least, right?
	I mean, you're not wrong, and you feel the same as, or feel and think the same as when we started talking.
	And that's fine, right? I mean, I have a different opinion, but whatever my opinion is, I can't convince you of, or make the whatever...
	Do you believe your opinion's right? I'm sorry?
	Do you believe your opinion is correct?
	Oh, yes.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, of course I do, but that doesn't...
	In fact, the conversation as it has gone has only confirmed my initial opinion, but that doesn't mean that I'm right.
	Do you believe I have a psychological block and I'm not willing to address my own problems?
	No, no, no. I don't believe that you're not willing to address your own problems.
	I think that if you could snap your fingers and address your own problems, you would.
	And I don't think that your problems are terrible or, you know, we all have them, right?
	And we all need feedback from other people, right?
	This is why this conversation in this community is so important because we're all giving each other a feedback that is, I think, essential.
	It's very hard to step out of ourselves and see ourselves.
	I will encourage for people, because I don't believe my opinion or why I believe I'm right has been told why it was wrong.
	And so I'd love anyone in the world to To tell me why I'm wrong.
	And therefore, like, Nathan, if he thinks I'm a shady guy, please tell me.
	I think you're a shady guy because of XXX. I'll put out my theories of why I did that.
	Oh, I guarantee you that's not going to happen.
	I can absolutely guarantee you that...
	I mean, I would really like to release this as a podcast because I think that our conversation has been really fascinating and it may be with people saying, that Aaron guy is totally spot on and I don't know what the hell Steph is talking about or there might be somebody saying, well, Steph has some good points and maybe he's defensive about it.
	Who knows, right? Yeah.
	Go for it. But anybody who hears this for sure is not going to bring this stuff up with you, right?
	I'd love to. If you do put this out as a podcast, everyone, my email address is Aaron0883 at AOL.com.
	And what's your YouTube site?
	So you might as well put that out as well.
	Same thing. Aaron0883.
	Same as my free domain radio name.
	I so want to know why I'm wrong.
	Maybe I look delusional with people looking at this podcast.
	I would so love to hear why I'm wrong.
	I just don't see it. No problem.
	Well, listen, have yourself a great night.
	I really do appreciate the chat.
	It was a lot of fun for me. I hope it was enjoyable for you.
	And the fact that I'm certain doesn't mean anything, right?
	It's just my certainty.
	I'm no force of nature.
	So thanks again for the chat.
	I will send you a copy of this.
	And if you're okay with me putting it out, I would appreciate that.
	Wonderful. Feel free. Thanks, man.
	Bye. Thank you. Bye.

▲