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

[jmdrake]

Big for starting this thread anything to expose the fraud is good service to liberty.

Btw here are the videos the cult leader Stefan Molyneux doesn't want you to see. All the videos were archived and reposed in this youtube channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXtp2ZZWZcRrhrR9ICWO71g

Personally, my best video of em all is this.



As you watch the videos, try and pick out anything that could be mistaken for harassment of his sheepish viewers. You would notice that you cannot find anything. The man sent govt agents i.e. introduced the gun into the room because someone is using his words to expose him. Anarchist my ass.

Wow!

Yea, but not even Hitler is all bad. Every human being have some good quality about them, some redeeming attribute that will make them qualify as not "all bad". The man is a cult leader and a con artist who contradicts himself just about every time he opens him mouth and in my opinion does as much harm as any good he bring to the liberty movement. And for anyone who missed the Eric Garner controversy, here is the video of it.



I won't call him a racist but he somehow seems to get it right when it comes to the Cliven Bundy situation but for Garder, he had to do some serious mental gymnastic to paint him in the worst light possible and make justification for the cops and businesses that called the police. You cannot make this kind of thing up.

Interesting. I saw the video of Stefan attacking the Mike Brown "gentle giant" meme, and I largely agreed with that though I believe the cops actions were questionable and the prosecutor was a disgrace. But Stefan attacking Eric Garner for selling cigarettes without a permit? Is he going to defoo himself from himself now?

 

[jmdrake]

I haven't seen anywhere Stefan is purposely lying and I'm guessing this is a really bad topic to use to try and 'prove' he is a liar because it sounds like a lot of what happened wasn't publicly documented - there was a horrible degree of harassment coming from a very hateful person toward her patient(s) and some of the callers on the show and it sounds like that is in fact what prompted the investigation to begin with - what resulted and what she was charged with regarding her advice on the show wasn't that big of a deal compared to what other bigger radio personalities do.

*sigh* Please watch this video. I have cued this up right to Stefan's big fat lie. Joe Rogan says "This practice of defooing. Your wife got in trouble for this right? For advocating it on your show?" Stefan says "no." http://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI?t=3m57s How on earth is that not a lie? And since it is a lie, why on earth would you believe Stefan's account of events?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Now if I'm right, then why be angry at PRB for starting this thread?

Oh, I'm just messing with him. He told me that he's annoyed with me. He's annoyed because he knows I'm right.

He won't even agree to stakes where the loser leaves the forum for a limited time. It's because he'll lose money.

How about it, PRB? Loser leaves for one year? Six months? One month?

Come on, Ohio State and Oregon. Bet?

 

[dannno]

1) Yes Stefan is a liar and I've already posted the video to prove it. He claimed his wife was never suspended at all. That's not just lying, that's pathological lying.

Well maybe she wasn't suspended? Maybe the board later pulled the decision or dropped the suspension? Or maybe he has a better explanation for why he made that statement.

All I see is this huge witch hunt coming at him and his wife for no good reason.. Turns out he was right that she was not suspended for recommending defooing to her patients as many people had stated.. it was all over the internet broadcast and we have very little information as to how that all came about.

2) I don't know about Dr. Drew and I don't follow Dr. Laura. But are you telling be that you don't understand the difference between giving hasty advice and giving blatantly wrong advice? How long should a Dr. know a patient before she should be able to say to a patient "Your family believes in the income tax? Defoo them!"

This is all completely ludicrous..

You have the whole thing on defooing for income tax completely wrong. You might consider defooing them if you found out that they had a predilection for indiscriminate violence and power or something along those lines through conversations you have with them over a long period of time. If you found out that they were really a dangerous, callous uncaring person. Some people don't even want to discuss those topics, it could take years or you might never really get to the bottom of understanding their beliefs because they may shield them to protect their circumstances. The idea is that something as simple as the income tax can lead to a discussion that shows a persons true nature or beliefs. The only thing I would say to Stefan is that a lot of people use 'devil's advocate' arguments and so they might not actually believe the things they say, they may just be throwing out arguments to understand your belief system better.

Dr. Laura and Dr. Drew WOULD give blatantly wrong advice sometimes... I am certain of it based on how much hasty advice they gave. And the board 'suspended' Stefan's wife not for giving wrong advice, defooing can be good advice at times...but they gave it to her because she gave it out hastily..

But for example, anybody who used cannabis according to Dr. Drew and Dr. Laura (and Stefan, to be fair) is an 'addict' and couldn't possibly be treating a medical condition, considering cannabis has probably the greatest medical efficacy of any substance on the planet.. So Dr. Drew AND Dr. Laura would likely recommend to a woman who has a misunderstanding of cannabis and perhaps has too high of expectations of what a partner should be doing for them to leave a husband or father who is perfectly responsible and reasonable, just for using cannabis. That would fly on a radio show, yet it may be horrible advice. It might be like hiring a tweeker or gambling addict who passed their drug test over a stoner who failed their drug test, because the "board" recommends testing applicants for drugs. It flies, but its a bad decision.

4) Why on earth would you believe that the only way this would "come up" is if someone was harassing her patients? Do you not believe that someone could have simply filed a complaint with her governing body and included a link to the specific podcasts? I'm not one to go around always invoking Occam's Razor, but this time it really fits.

I'm not going to write-off Stefan as a liar because of Occam's Razor when I wasn't involved in the conflict.

 

[PRB]

Oh, I'm just messing with him. He told me that he's annoyed with me. He's annoyed because he knows I'm right.

He won't even agree to stakes where the loser leaves the forum for a limited time. It's because he'll lose money.

How about it, PRB? Loser leaves for one year? Six months? One month?

Come on, Ohio State and Oregon. Bet?

Election year coming up, bitcoin just dropped, I'd rather be on here weekly.

But really, how long need I stay off for you to stop calling me a troll, liar, liberal? Your answer will tell me whether I care about your bet.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL. I love how NAP advocates have to stretch the definition of aggression to include blackmail, defamation and fraud. Next you'll tell us smiling is aggression just so you can justify punching a person in return.

NAP is a nonsensical argument because at the end of the paragraph, it's basically "aggression is what I call aggression and/or unjustified force" totally circular.

It's funny how one can call defamation "destroying" but I bet the same person like you will say piracy is not "destroying" a person's profits, because in your mind, you arbitrarily decided what IS or ISN'T legitimately information one can protect. To say defamation is an actionable tort or crime assumes that free speech should be limited to truth and/or a person is obligated to maintain another person's reputation and public image. No such obligation seems to exist when we talk about whether the average consumer needs to respect the privilege of an artworks' creator to only distribute his work, copies of it, or derivatives of it as he sees fit for the price he names.

If you can justify copyright infringement on the grounds that "I never agreed to uphold copyright" or "I never recognize you hold copyright", you can surely say the same about reputation and defamation. Why should I not be allowed to lie about you for money or fun?

The argument WRT IP is about property, not "information". The pro-IP side would have us believe that intangibles are tangible just because they made up a law. They're somewhat like the Keynesian mystic cultists of the information age. It's utter nonsense that would never have occurred to anyone prior to the rise of corporatism. If you had tried to convince a Mozart or Gutenberg or Aristotle or Antoine Louis their ideas were as much property as the clothes on their backs but in some other mysterious way, they would've called you a nutcase.

 

[Barrex]

There I am a liar. I returned...ffs

Sorry, but you are uninformed. From your own link.

(a) You made public statements and provided advice to the public via the website www.freedomainradio.com and podcasts available thereon, wherein you promoted and recommended “deFOOing”, or dissociating from families of origin, both in general terms and in providing advice to specific individuals. You further made these statements and provided this advice in the context of your personal experience and while relying upon your qualifications as a psychological associate. Finally, when providing advice to individuals, you did so without properly assessing the circumstances of the members of the internet audience to whom the advice was provided;

So can we end the attacks on PRB in his thread now? The "evidence" presented in Stefan's case proves he is a liar and that the people defending him haven't even bothered to vet his claims.

Sorry, but you are liar. AGAIN. Are you doing this on purpose? You are not retarded and you know difference between prosecutions argument and truth. Everything that prosecuting side alleges is not truth. Especially when prosecuting side got agenda of its own.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
ALLEGATION- a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Those are not findings, sentence or anything else. They are allegations. Committee received those allegations in complaints. Guess who made those complaints and allegations? hint-hint, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more...

Everyone please read this in its entirety before commenting further.
https://members.cpo.on.ca/public_register/investigation_detail/124

Agreed. If you have IQ above 2 you will understand that she was punished for talking with people and nothing else. Oh Z HORROR of it... and try to understand the difference between "allegation" and other words.

THE ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT- someone complained is not equal to "he is guilty". If I tomorrow came and alleged that jmdrake is pedophile would everyone automatically say he is guilty and killed him? No. From allegations to killing there is investigation, prosecution, trial....

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS- Facts that both sides agreed on.

In a nutshell: She was accused of prescribing her patients "defooing" (leaving their families) without any evidence. Her random cases were inspected and there were no evidance to support that allegation.

She admitted that she was on her husbands talkshow and talked freely with other free persons about "defooing" and that defooing is acceptable in some cases (beating, abuse etc.). That is her only "misconduct"- she talked to other people.

She pleaded guilty and agreement was done. What else could she do? Go into expensive legal battle and risk losing her job? Plea bargains are death of justice systems. If I am not mistaking government in US has 97% conviction rate.* Would you go against that? If government wants to get you it will get you. You are pushed in and you try to get out of it as soon as you can and with smallest punishment possible.

There are a lot more documents that you can find if you want.

*I believe that stat is for criminal cases but it shows governments power in other trials/hearings etc.

Dude, Barrex is technically right.. it says right in the link you posted that the only thing she was in trouble for was appearing on the internet radio broadcast and offering advice regarding defooing without having a deep enough understanding of the individual's situation, not for recommending defooing to her patients which they found no evidence of and admitted such toward the end of the link you provided, which you did not bold.

To that end, I don't understand how Dr. Drew was able to be on "Love Line" for all those years with Adam Carolla. Dr. Drew would always offer really hasty advice without knowing the person or their situation very well, that was always my complaint with the show. I have the same complaint about Dr. Laura.. She will start yelling at her callers if they start giving her too much background information and then she gives them advice based on two or three sentences.. These people are/were broadcast on nationally syndicated radio and did basically the same thing they are accusing Stefan's wife of and they did so on a daily basis, I think it is ridiculous.. They would recommend breaking up with people and making all types of really extreme family related decisions based on almost nothing..

I'm guessing that Stefan is also correct that the reason this entire issue came up was likely due to the person harassing the callers, I have never seen any indication that Stefan is a liar.

She was under government microscope and she was cornered. If she fought it she would probably lose her license during proceedings and trials that would go on for years. She pleaded guilty and put is all behind. That is what 99% of lawyers (honest ones) would suggest to her. It is sick. Everything is sick. From government going after her, people going after her, her patients, callers of the show just to get to Stefan. Sick fucking people everywhere.

Those people are earning money from spitting on Stephans work (selling mugs, t-shirts, asking for donations etc.) and they pretend that they are "justice warriors". They had right to spit and criticize Stephans work and earn money from it but they didnt stop on that and they crossed the line. Some people dont understand or pretend not to understand. They used informations on the show to get to more personal informations and identities. This is called cyber-stalking and it is a crime. Stefan, his family, his customers were under attack and Stefan retaliated.

I am no debating his philosophy but if I were him I wouldnt be so mild about those attacks. I would got pissed and do a lot of damage. We live in society where everyone can be ruined legally if someone wants it badly. That is what this thread reminded me of and that is probably why it annoys me so much- beside anarchists/libertarians started another internet war amongst them selfs. Moronic and retarded. Fuck this thread and fuck anyone who...fuck it.

I unsubscribed and definitely am not posting in it.

 

[acptulsa]

Election year coming up, bitcoin just dropped, I'd rather be on here weekly.

But really, how long need I stay off for you to stop calling me a troll, liar, liberal? Your answer will tell me whether I care about your bet.

Bad strategy. We have very long memories.

If you want to hang here without being accused of trollish behavior, stop attempting to make us look foolish in our own home ground by pretending to argue libertarian positions using sophistry and every other sort of embarassingly stupid trickery you can devise. Some of us have been dealing with people trollishly trying to make us look stupid by putting up with their presence for seven years and more. I don't know why you think you're better than them...

I've seen some of the 'I can't tell you any good reason why a racist would be a libertarian, but I'm libertarian because I'm racist' trolls that were here when I arrived that you can't hold a candle too--and they were terrible at trollish maneuvers.

 

[jmdrake]

There I am a liar. I returned...ffs

I haven't called you a liar. I said you were wrong. That said, now I am calling you a liar and full of shit. Stefan Molyneux told Joe Rogan that his wife was not suspended or reprimanded for pushing defooing on his show. That is a lie. You know that is a lie. Your own source proves that is a lie.

Sorry, but you are liar. AGAIN. Are you doing this on purpose? You are not retarded and you know difference between prosecutions argument and truth. Everything that prosecuting side alleges is not truth. Especially when prosecuting side got agenda of its own.

Moron, I have neither lied nor am I retarded. The allegation is that Stefan's wife was suspended for comments she made on his show. That allegation is true. If you can't understand that then you are dumber than a box of rocks and you aren't worth talking to. I'm not bothering with the rest of your dishonest ignorant screed. You drank the Kool Aid and you're are beyond help.

 

[dannno]

I haven't called you a liar. I said you were wrong. That said, now I am calling you a liar and full of shit. Stefan Molyneux told Joe Rogan that his wife was not suspended or reprimanded for pushing defooing on his show. That is a lie. You know that is a lie. Your own source proves that is a lie.

Or maybe, as he has been accused elsewhere, he thought Joe asked whether his wife was suspended for advocating defooing to her patients and merely made a misstatement.. Though I wouldn't assume that I would rather hear his reasons, although I'm pretty sure he is sick of this whole situation.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Election year coming up,

No, it's 2015.

bitcoin just dropped

,

So did avocadoes.

I'd rather be on here weekly.

You rather be on here weekly so you don't miss your pay.

I actually have more to you lose than you.

You:

1. Have no friends here.

2. Are not liberty minded.

3. Have never made a liberty post.

4. Make nothing but adversarial posts.

5. If you really wanted "a little interaction/entertainment/education" from a forum, then you'd take the bet. These forums are a dime a dozen, so you would not lose anything you claim by going to another forum.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Wow!



Interesting. I saw the video of Stefan attacking the Mike Brown "gentle giant" meme, and I largely agreed with that though I believe the cops actions were questionable and the prosecutor was a disgrace. But Stefan attacking Eric Garner for selling cigarettes without a permit? Is he going to defoo himself from himself now?

Wait, what? He attacked Garner for selling cigarettes without State permission? Wow. WTF kind of anarchist does that? Oh Lawd. I knew there was something way off with him.

 

[jmdrake]

Well maybe she wasn't suspended? Maybe the board later pulled the decision or dropped the suspension? Or maybe he has a better explanation for why he made that statement.

Find. Provide the proof to back up that claim because Barrex sure as hell hasn't.

All I see is this huge witch hunt coming at him and his wife for no good reason.. Turns out he was right that she was not suspended for recommending defooing to her patients as many people had stated.. it was all over the internet broadcast and we have very little information as to how that all came about.

So.....you are perfectly okay with a psychologist telling people over the radio that they should be assholes and disassociate with their own friends and family who haven't adopted some new philosophy (new to the listener) that her husband is pushing? Really? As long as she doesn't say it in her practice you are 100% okay with it?

This is all completely ludicrous..

You have the whole thing on defooing for income tax completely wrong. You might consider defooing them if you found out that they had a predilection for indiscriminate violence and power or something along those lines through conversations you have with them over a long period of time. If you found out that they were really a dangerous, callous uncaring person. Some people don't even want to discuss those topics, it could take years or you might never really get to the bottom of understanding their beliefs because they may shield them to protect their circumstances. The idea is that something as simple as the income tax can lead to a discussion that shows a persons true nature or beliefs. The only thing I would say to Stefan is that a lot of people use 'devil's advocate' arguments and so they might not actually believe the things they say, they may just be throwing out arguments to understand your belief system better.

You obviously haven't watched the video I posted. Do yourself a favor and watch it before attempting to comment. This is the theory Stefan promoted. Those who support statism support government force to enforce it. So if you support farm subsidies, you want people who don't support farm subsidies to be shot. Don't associate with people that want you shot. Here. Watch this for yourself. http://youtu.be/lN5OjzEfQmI?t=14m49s

Dr. Laura and Dr. Drew WOULD give blatantly wrong advice sometimes... I am certain of it based on how much hasty advice they gave. And the board 'suspended' Stefan's wife not for giving wrong advice, defooing can be good advice at times...but they gave it to her because she gave it out hastily..

Defooing someone because they disagree with you on farm subsidies is never acceptable advice.

But for example, anybody who used cannabis according to Dr. Drew and Dr. Laura (and Stefan, to be fair) is an 'addict' and couldn't possibly be treating a medical condition, considering cannabis has probably the greatest medical efficacy of any substance on the planet.. So Dr. Drew AND Dr. Laura would likely recommend to a woman who has a misunderstanding of cannabis and perhaps has too high of expectations of what a partner should be doing for them to leave a husband or father who is perfectly responsible and reasonable, just for using cannabis. That would fly on a radio show, yet it may be horrible advice. It might be like hiring a tweeker or gambling addict who passed their drug test over a stoner who failed their drug test, because the "board" recommends testing applicants for drugs. It flies, but its a bad decision.

In many states being a cannabis user is an invitation for the police to come and steal your home. Whether you agree with that or not (I personally don't) that is a high risk to put your family in just so you can get high. While I wouldn't agree with someone leaving their husband over that, I find that to be a far cry from telling someone who says she supports farm subsidies "Do you want me shot?"

I'm not going to write-off Stefan as a liar because of Occam's Razor when I wasn't involved in the conflict.

I'm not writing Stefan off either, but he is a liar. Not all liars are bad people. It's interesting the "logic" that's being batted about in this thread on Stefan's behalf. There's the "logic" that his wife got suspended because her patients were harassed (total fabrication) and then there's your "logic" that "Well...maybe she didn't get suspended after all. Maybe they just said they were going to suspend her." Okay. Possible. Unlikely but possible. No proof offered for this claim, but possible. That doesn't change the fact that Stefan has given some great analysis over the years. But he's not the saint he pretends to be. He shouldn't go around making up "Truth about everyone under the sun" videos if he's not willing to face the truth about himself.

 

[silverhandorder]

Wait, what? He attacked Garner for selling cigarettes without State permission? Wow. WTF kind of anarchist does that? Oh Lawd. I knew there was something way off with him.

Thats not true watch foe your self...

 

[jmdrake]

Or maybe, as he has been accused elsewhere, he thought Joe asked whether his wife was suspended for advocating defooing to her patients and merely made a misstatement.. Though I wouldn't assume that I would rather hear his reasons, although I'm pretty sure he is sick of this whole situation.

*facepalm*

Joe Rogan: But this practice of defooing. This is, I mean it's pretty widely criticized right? I mean your wife got in trouble for this. For advocating this on your show right?
Stefan: No
Joe Rogan: She didn't?
Stefan: No
Joe Rogan: Didn't she get suspended? Didn't she have...?
Stefan: No. No. None of that is true.
Joe Rogan: So that's just lies.
Stefan: Yeah. None of that is true.

Dannno, note the succession of lies! First Joe just merely says "She got in trouble for that right?" Now Barrex wants to call me a liar because he claims she was merely "accused." Well so freaking what! If I get arrested, even if I ultimately get acquitted, I still got "in trouble." So Stefan lied. Joe Rogan never says anything about what happened in her private practice. That's a red herring. Now I know that you haven't called me a liar, but you are going along with someone who did, when so far all of the evidence that has actually been presented backs up my claim that Stefan got caught lying red handed. If someone wants to prove me wrong bring forward the evidence and prove me wrong! Look, enough with the freaking hero worship man crush stuff. As I said earlier in the thread, Stefan has done some wonderful analysis. I have linked, and will continue to link, to his explanation of how our interventionism in World War I helped cause World War II and that intervention helped launch the Cold War which helped launch international terrorism. But I'm not going to pretend he is somehow right for starting this crap by advocating "defooing" for stupid reasons and getting his wife to go along with it and then using the DCMA to go after people who were calling him out on it. Really, you don't want to think anything bad about Stefan, so you will think the worst about someone else that you know absolutely nothing about just because Stefan says so? Seriously? This is like the people who automatically hated Paula Jones because they loved Bill Clinton.

 

[silverhandorder]

So.....you are perfectly okay with a psychologist telling people over the radio that they should be assholes and disassociate with their own friends and family who haven't adopted some new philosophy (new to the listener) that her husband is pushing? Really? As long as she doesn't say it in her practice you are 100% okay with it?

Her husband never advocated that.

Defooing someone because they disagree with you on farm subsidies is never acceptable advice.

He never advocated that.

I'm not writing Stefan off either, but he is a liar. Not all liars are bad people. It's interesting the "logic" that's being batted about in this thread on Stefan's behalf. There's the "logic" that his wife got suspended because her patients were harassed (total fabrication) and then there's your "logic" that "Well...maybe she didn't get suspended after all. Maybe they just said they were going to suspend her." Okay. Possible. Unlikely but possible. No proof offered for this claim, but possible. That doesn't change the fact that Stefan has given some great analysis over the years. But he's not the saint he pretends to be. He shouldn't go around making up "Truth about everyone under the sun" videos if he's not willing to face the truth about himself.

You have not proven he is a liar. He does not owe you an explanation over his private business. Being barred for 6 month to go through retraining does not really seems the same thing as you claim. You are going after him because you don't like him.

 

[jmdrake]

Thats not true watch foe your self...

It is true. He said the store owners were "victimized" by Eric Garner because he was undercutting their business selling loose cigarettes. Really this is getting old. No matter what evidence people put forward regarding problems with Stefan, his supporters will turn around and say "That's not true" without giving a single shred of evidence or coherent logical argument to back up their claims. Stefan lies to Joe Rogan and denies that his wife got in trouble for advocating "defooing" on his radio show? It must have been because Stefan just didn't understand what Joe Rogan was saying.

 

[jmdrake]

Her husband never advocated that.

Yeah he did. I've posted the transcript of the video that proved he did.

He never advocated that.

Yeah he did. I've posted the transcript of the video that proved he did.

You have not proven he is a liar.

Yes I have. I've posted the transcript of the video that proves this.

He does not owe you an explanation over his private business. Being barred for 6 month to go through retraining does not really seems the same thing as you claim. You are going after him because you don't like him.

Are you serious? My "claim" is that she got in trouble. Being barred for 6 months = getting in trouble. When Joe Rogan said "Your wife got in trouble for this right?" Stefan said "No." That was a lie. You know that was a lie. My liking or disliking him has nothing to do with this.

 

[jmdrake]

For the record, I don't "dislike" Stefan, but the stupidity and dishonesty he is causing to grow in some of his followers is enough to make me dislike him. Joe Rogan said "Your wife got in trouble for this right?" And she did. The very people attacking me in this thread admit she got suspended for 6 months and she got reprimanded. Anyone with half a brain knows that's "getting in trouble." Maybe you think she shouldn't have gotten in trouble, but that's beside the point. Now actually the suspension was itself suspended but only because she agreed to stop advocating "defooing."

Really anybody who wants to know the truth, watch this video. At 6:45 in he says "You don't go on a shopping excursion with a mother in law who wants you shot." And his definition of someone who "wants you shot" is someone who advocates statism in any form or fashion.

 

[PRB]

The argument WRT IP is about property, not "information".

can information be property, yes or no?