The 3 Foundations of FDR

1. The essential idea behind FDR. (Your parents are bullies and you don't love them.) The Foundation of FDR

2. Why FDR was created. Molyneux says it's merely to pry you away from a belief in the "inherent virtue of family." That is, until you dig deeper. It's all in Prying Them Loose

3. How the theories of a well-known psychologist are used by FreeDomain Radio: The Rape of Alice Miller


If you decide to leave the FreeDomain Radio "community"...

Sorry folks, snark takes a holiday.

This post is from the heart and is directed to people who may be hurting right now. I'll be back with more fun next time!

If you decide to leave...


Is FreeDomain Radio a destructive cult?

In which I aggressively and fearlessly sidestep the big question, head on!

Part 1: The journey into FDR

Part 2: The three persuasions of Stefan Molyneux

Let’s detonate the UPB self-detonating argument! You know you want to—remember how much fun we had killing the “Against me” argument?

According to Stefan Molyneux and his UPB True Believers at FreeDomain Radio, “the act of arguing against UPB automatically validates it.”

(Why? Because—for you to make your argument at all—you require universally preferable behaviors, such as the pursuit of truth.)

OK, let’s break this down. There’s a little psychological trick going on here, but most FDR followers can’t see it. They’re actually being tricked, or tricking themselves, into validating the book that Stefan wrote. It’s just a little matter of shifting, or ill-defined, premises. Here’s how it works.

The phrase “Universally Preferable Behavior” can represent any of these three things:

  1. A concept that suggests there may be behaviors or ethical choices that are universally true for everyone.

  2. The “brand name” Molyneux developed to make you think he invented the above concept.

  3. The title of a book written by Molyneux, in which he claims to have rationally proven UPB.

In the mind of the average FDR True Believer, all those three things are fused together as one. Whether they are even consciously aware of it or not, what they’re actually saying is this: “the act of arguing against any element of the Universally Preferable Behavior™ concept automatically validates Molyneux’s book of the same name.”

Well, no. Not even close. There may be Universally Preferable Behaviors and there may even be a way to prove them rationally, but Molyneux’s book appears to have fallen very short of that.

You can explode the faulty logic in his book all day long, if you wish. That still doesn’t necessarily mean you are arguing against the actual existence of UPB as defined in #1 above.

So, back into the ethics pool, everybody! All arguments detonated!