This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[PRB]

Ask him what? I said he's liberty minded and you are a lib.

Just trolling the troll. What's the matter--can't take it?

Already been done countless times. Neg rep.

1. Cite where you've proven I'm not a liberty minded person, or a liberal, as you seem to keep saying
2. Ask Julieswin if he/she agrees with me, and/or if "we" meaning at least me and another person, have established Molyneux is a hypocrite.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yes, I agree nobody is perfect, but there's a difference between being a liar and an imperfect person,

I don't know this Stefan, know his deal, nor do I care. He might or might not be inconsistent. You however, are a pathological liar.

and another thing to claim to be better and make a living off criticizing others for being wrong or inconsistent.

Pretty much how you make your living here. Neg rep.

 

[jmdrake]

Incorrect....:

Nope. I'm 100% correct. Stefan's wife got suspended for going along with Stefan's insane cultish idea of "defooing."

 

[jmdrake]

I just gave him another neg rep to offset you plus rep.

Is this Stefan fellow a constant liar, like PRB? Which is worse, inconsistency or lying?

How often does one have to lie before being a constant liar? Here is Stefan caught lying to Joe Rogan about his wife's suspension.

http://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI?t=3m57s

Another +rep to PRB.

 

[PRB]

I don't know this Stefan, know his deal, nor do I care. He might or might not be inconsistent. You however, are a pathological liar.

Pretty much how you make your living here. Neg rep.

Let me sum up what I know and have learned about Stefan, you may not care, but I'll say it for the rest to read.

He's a self proclaimed free market anarcist or anarcho capitalist, most if not all people who ID with this position oppose copyright, not just the government enforcement, but the entire concept that ideas or information can be protected or one can use force to stop another from spreading it. (I should add, another prominent speaker on this topic is Stephen Kinsella who has at least reposted an article agreeing with Walter Block that blackmail should be legal)

Anyway, the issue at hand is a person who doesn't believe in either using government to get things done, or the enforcement of copyright, has actually used a government law as a threat to force a company to remove information, which he has admitted has nothing to do with copyright. At the very least, it's abusing a law for an ulterior purpose, aside from legal trouble, he's a hypocrite for using a law he doesn't believe in.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

1. Cite where you've proven I'm not a liberty minded person,...

I have already done it countless times. Neg rep. Reason: Playing dumb.

.

 

[silverhandorder]

I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone. Just compare his behavior to jmdrake. Jm does not like SF either but he does not come off as somene who enjoyes attacking someone.

On top of everything PRB simply lies.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Another +rep to PRB.

Another neg rep for PRB. That's four neg reps to your two plus reps. Go ahead and +rep him again. I neg repped him 15 times in the other thread. I neg repped that other asshole almost 30 times in the other thread until his bar turned red.

 

[PRB]

I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone. Just compare his behavior to jmdrake. Jm does not like SF either but he does not come off as somene who enjoyes attacking someone.

On top of everything PRB simply lies.

I'm sorry for enjoying what I do. But where did I lie? I keep hearing Northcarolina say that but I don't know what he's talkig about, can you perhaps answer this for me?

 

[PRB]

Another neg rep for PRB. That's four neg reps to your two plus reps. Go ahead and +rep him again. I neg repped him 15 times in the other thread. I neg repped that other asshole almost 30 times in the other thread until his bar turned red.

you go play your little pissing contest, gotta give you props for admitting you got nothing better to do.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I can tell PRB is a troll juat by how vitriolic he is. How he gets pleasure from attacking someone...On top of everything PRB simply lies.

Sums it up.

 

[silverhandorder]

Let me sum up what I know and have learned about Stefan, you may not care, but I'll say it for the rest to read.

He's a self proclaimed free market anarcist or anarcho capitalist, most if not all people who ID with this position oppose copyright, not just the government enforcement, but the entire concept that ideas or information can be protected or one can use force to stop another from spreading it. (I should add, another prominent speaker on this topic is Stephen Kinsella who has at least reposted an article agreeing with Walter Block that blackmail should be legal)

Anyway, the issue at hand is a person who doesn't believe in either using government to get things done, or the enforcement of copyright, has actually used a government law as a threat to force a company to remove information, which he has admitted has nothing to do with copyright. At the very least, it's abusing a law for an ulterior purpose, aside from legal trouble, he's a hypocrite for using a law he doesn't believe in.

Why you lyng? Why does a copyright holder need to explain his reasoning for wanting to enforce copright?

As far as hipocricy. Stefan said in the past that wrong doers do not deserve protection. If you attack me I can use violence to put you down. If you stalk people you sure as hell I will use govt to srop you. Any means at his disposal.

 

[jmdrake]

Another neg rep for PRB. That's four neg reps to your two plus reps. Go ahead and +rep him again. I neg repped him 15 times in the other thread. I neg repped that other asshole almost 30 times in the other thread until his bar turned red.

I honestly don't know how you have so much rep. Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets? Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person that's so insane or dishonest that he tells people (and gets his wife to violate her professional responsibility and tell people) to isolate themselves from friends and family who don't agree with Stefan. I like some of what Stefan says, but in some ways he's much worse than anybody he has ever criticized. Defooing? If Alex Jones ever said something that evil I would never listen to him again.

 

[dannno]

Except the private information he was complaining about was already available to the public through his show.

Nope. I'm 100% correct. Stefan's wife got suspended for going along with Stefan's insane cultish idea of "defooing."

No, you said that the private information he was complaining about was available on Stefan's show when there was A LOT more to it.. You were wrong, Stefan and his callers were dealing with somebody who had a serious chip on their shoulder and I don't blame him for the actions to help put a stop to the harassment. The only reason you can't see what is going on is because you WANT Stefan to be wrong because you have strong disagreement with him in some other areas.

I listened to that show with Rogan and Stefan months ago when it came out. Defooing is not "insane", it is completely sane in some situations. The question comes down to for who and when it should be done. I don't know if I would agree with Stefan on every instance, but it's really just a matter of opinion. Everybody has their own thresholds. Stefan has a low threshold, but if I were making the decision in my own life I would still listen to and value his opinion. That doesn't mean I'm always going to follow it.

Just because Stefan got something wrong when it came to Gandhi doesn't mean he's a bad guy. He is a great researcher and philosopher. I'm sure if you called in to discuss that with him he would have taken it into consideration. I don't agree with him on every point, I think he has a complete misunderstanding regarding the effects of cannabis and other psychoactive but that doesn't mean I can't listen to his insights on various subjects and public figures. He did great shows on Robin Williams, Bill Cosby and Elliot Rodgers. They were packed with information that most people would never know about them and that was very useful in determining what kind of lives they had.

He also presents his own flavor and arguments for NAP which are interesting. You don't have to agree with them all. I personally would avoid hitting my kid if I had one, but I'm not 100% convinced that any type of punishment involving contact is bad for children either.. But Stefan makes some good cases that it may be and I've always agreed with his alternative of explaining things to children in a rational way so they can learn to make good decisions for themselves.

 

[PRB]

Why you lyng? Why does a copyright holder need to explain his reasoning for wanting to enforce copright?

Ok, we're getting somewhere.

No, a copyright holder DOES NOT need to explain his reasoning or justification for using his rights or asking for enforcement he's entitled under, that's the lovely thing about law and rights, you don't need to justify it as long as you can prove it's done to you.

EXCEPT, he needs to prove it's actual copyright infringement, he's admitted it's not (and he's admitted he's used the law to indirectly enforce censorship in the name of privacy).

The legal question ends there, if he lied about copyright infringement, he'll have trouble both civil and criminal for it, that's his problem.

Morally and logically, he's a hypocrite for using a law he's admitted he doesn't believe should exist.

As far as hipocricy. Stefan said in the past that wrong doers do not deserve protection. If you attack me I can use violence to put you down. If you stalk people you sure as hell I will use govt to srop you. Any means at his disposal.

How does he determine who is a wrongdoer? Can I say he's a wrongdoer and therefore doesn't get to call the DMCA police?

 

[dannno]

I honestly don't know how you have so much rep. Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets? Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person that's so insane or dishonest that he tells people (and gets his wife to violate her professional responsibility and tell people) to isolate themselves from friends and family who don't agree with Stefan. I like some of what Stefan says, but in some ways he's much worse than anybody he has ever criticized. Defooing? If Alex Jones ever said something that evil I would never listen to him again.

So a woman or child who is being physically assaulted or raped on a daily basis by her husband shouldn't defoo?

If the same husband supports stealing half of the woman and child's income, how much better is he? Certainly better, but how much?

I think the thing that Stefan is good at doing is showing the true callousness of the state. People like to say Stefan and his people are some sort of "cult", but really who is the bigger cult than the people who follow the US Govt and are ok with the concept of theft?

Ya, people are going to be trapped in the matrix, I'm not going to stop talking to my parents just because they stay trapped in it.. But at the same time the entire notion that all these people openly support theft is a pretty scary concept. It puts things in perspective, and it helps OTHER PEOPLE put these things in perspective as well.

 

[PRB]

I honestly don't know how you have so much rep. Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets? Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person that's so insane or dishonest that he tells people (and gets his wife to violate her professional responsibility and tell people) to isolate themselves from friends and family who don't agree with Stefan. I like some of what Stefan says, but in some ways he's much worse than anybody he has ever criticized. Defooing? If Alex Jones ever said something that evil I would never listen to him again.

my guess is, he doesn't care whether Molyneux is right or wrong, he just hates me so he'll keep neg repping me until I stop posting here. I don't care why and how he can get so many reps to throw around, if that's his purpose of life, let him have it

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Are you hacking the system or using sock puppets?

Nah, it's all me. I'm sure PRB will be uncharacteristically honest and confirm that all those neg reps are from me.

Regardless, I'm not sure why you would neg rep someone over being critical of a person...

Because that is not his point. He couldn't care less about Stefan, Stephen, Steve, or anybody else like this. His whole schtick is going through liberty websites, finding what he identifies as gaps, and then posting here. His whole game is attempting to show the apparent hypocrisy of libertarians. I honestly don't know how you can miss this.

 

[acptulsa]

My turn to negrep you.

Cite me where I said I believe in gray areas? Or specifically, when it comes to whether lack of physical harm can be an actionable tort or arrestable crime.

You said the only crimes are actions which cause physical harm. Whether you care to argue that point rationally, or just repeat it ad infinitum in hopes that will cause us to believe it, you deserve the negative rep for pretending there's any reason at all to believe we all feel that way here.

Reputation is not physical, just like information is not physical. Damage to reputation is not measurable scientifically or materially. That's aside from the fact that damage of reputation, if it can be proved at all, is not physical damage to a person's person or property.

Whether you believe a person's reputation can affect his or her ability to make a living or not, whether you believe a person who physically injures someone is liable for his or her lost wages, and whether or not you care to defend your position that a person who affects another's ability to make a living is liable for lost wages, you still deserve a negative rep for pretending the position you took is in any way The Libertarian Position.

So yes, unless and until you prove it's a crime, it's a pre-crime or non-crime.

I never said extortion is a crime either. Rapist is not a rapist if he's forcing foreplay, forcing foreplay is sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment, but not rape until there's penetration. Even statutory rape requires penetration, otherwise it's all other kinds of crimes, but not rape.

So, if you don't say it's a crime, it isn't a crime, and you won't discuss the matter at all. Negative rep is deserved for being a monarchist--provided, of course, you get to be king.

How can you prove something that's not physical? Anybody can lie about anything.

1phys·i·cal adjective \ˈfi-zi-kəl\
: relating to the body of a person instead of the mind

: existing in a form that you can touch or see

: involving or related to sex

Full Definition of PHYSICAL

1 a : of or relating to natural science
b (1) : of or relating to physics (2) : characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics

2 a : having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature <everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance — Thomas De Quincey>
b : of or relating to material things

3 a : of or relating to the body <physical abuse>
b (1) : concerned or preoccupied with the body and its needs : carnal <physical appetites> (2) : sexual <a physical love affair> <physical attraction>
c : characterized by especially rugged and forceful physical activity : rough <a physical hockey game> <a physical player>

So, you talk about physical harm using definition three, then proceed as though you were using definition two all along. You weren't. This is a trollish and disingenuous bit of meaningless sophistry, and well worthy of your negative rep. Of course someone does not have to do you physical harm to do you real harm in the physical world.

I don't know who you think you're fooling with this naked and moronic sophistry, but people that stupid don't tend to gravitate to this forum.

 

[Barrex]

Nope. I'm 100% correct. Stefan's wife got suspended for going along with Stefan's insane cultish idea of "defooing."

Read suspension hearing papers. She was not suspended because of "defooing"! In there it is specifically written that she never used "defooing" on/with her patients. She was suspended because stalkers used informations like photos, videos to get to peoples phone numbers, identity and other private informations to harass listeners. Use less he said/she said and more documents. They are out there (complaints, hearings, lawsuits and many more) if you are interested.

*I am not a member of any cult nor am I "fanatic follower"; I dont listen to Stefans show; I watched few of his youtube videos... and most of them not entirely. Putting "sorry" before insult doesnt make insult any more acceptable. I will not participate in this "debate" any further. Too much negativity, name-calling, trolling etc.