Interesting. The day I comment that I wasn’t surprised that Molyneux was refusing interviews, he posts a reply he made to a request for an interview. I guess we’ve both tapped into the collective unconscious. His post at FDR includes and invitation to blog about it, so I will.
Here’s the breakdown, for the impatient and/or rushed (I am still getting all my fallacy terms straight, so I hope I picked the right ones):
Paragraph 1: Lie
Paragraph 2: Misrepresentation
Paragraph 3: Strawman (no one is arguing that he is for child abuse, or that adult relationships are not voluntary)
Paragraph 4: Exaggeration, Understatement, Lie
Paragraph 5: Appeal to Popularity
Paragraph 6: Appeal to Authority
Paragraph 7: Ad Hominem (against a group; maybe there’s another word for it)
So he refuses to participate in interviews that also interview her. I wonder if he’ll accept interviews that just get his point of view, like that article in the Globe and Mail did. An FDR member has asked what publication asked for an interview. I am curious to hear it, too. I am assuming it was the British press, because that’s where most of the Barbara Weed stuff has been coming out.
It always amuses me how he waffles between being some podcaster and the most important philosopher alive. In this email he’s just some podcaster.
Oh! And member eddiegorey was also banned. They are dropping like flies again.