I do largely disagree that it’s a therapeutic cult in seminal stages of development. I think a community like FDR can easily be mistaken for something like this due to the radical nature of the ideas and topics discussed there and may thus appear like a cult in the making, but that doesn’t necessarily make it one. In any case the future will show.

Also, I take issue with the notion that someone with fully honorable intentions and sincere pursuit of truth can at the same time be manipulative. As expressed in part 1 I don’t think it is possible to be manipulative without deliberately trying to mislead people. The very definitions of manipulation exclude such unawareness. There is thus no such thing as accidental manipulation. If it is accidental then it’s not manipulation. Ok, I think I beat that horse enough.

As for not having enough information about Tom’s family, come on man.. it is clear from both Guardian and the podcast that Tom’s father shouted with rage, threw things, smashed windows.. What more information do you need? (No need to respond, it’s a rhetorical question.). I do continue to think that if that’s not enough for you to consider this a dysfunctional family, your standards are pretty darn low.

Of course you’re free to have whichever standards you wish… but I don’t share them and I hope most people wouldn’t either.

Thanks for best wishes, same to you.

Instances such as that deserve some kind of comment. Because of the way I phrased the first line, I led you to believe something that wasn’t correct. It was an important part of your essay and deserved a comment. If you don’t mind, I think it’s in-bounds to point that stuff out when it occurs. If you disagree, just let me know.

I’ve been as honest as I can about my uncertainty about the true nature of FDR, especially regarding the volatile “cult” word. The actual words I used were “therapeutic cult in the seminal stages of development.” At what point is a fetus a baby? At what point does swirling matter become a star? I don’t know. What I do know is FDR is a fairly new community, relatively speaking, and that there are some people in that community who are exhibiting cult-like behavior. Can I define it any more precisely than that? At some point, I hope to be able to.

Molyneux himself is almost endlessly complex and also a study in contradictions. I say his intentions are 100% honorable because I believe his search for truth and ethics to be sincere and that search has yielded many good things. Yet I also believe he manipulated Tom, although Molyneux believed he was acting in Tom’s best interest and may not have even been aware he was doing it at the time. But it doesn’t make it right. You expressed some disappointment in me that I didn’t think the family was dysfunctional enough for me to support Tom. My point is, neither I NOR Molyneux has enough information to make any kind of family evaluation and we are equally unqualified to do so.

But…now I’m back to debating, so I’ll lay off! Best wishes and I look forward to future writings from you.

I think there are some fundamental differences between us on the basis of which I cannot even agree that FDRLiberated is solely a site which examined FDR with “an unemotional, objective, but critical, eye”. That it is objective tends to fly in the face of your admissions to bias. That it is unemotional completely contradicts a number of paragraphs in your articles. That it is critical is certainly true, but that is not any kind of a surprise. You seem to want to present it as merely an ongoing examination, but then it would not claim the bias nor present the claims it presents as if they were definitively reached conclusions.

It does read like an explicitly anti-FDR site rather than just a neutral examination.

I did notice where you said you believe relationships are voluntary and I actually addressed that in my article here: “Yet this is apparently not the position he takes as he in the second paragraph and in parenthesis states that for what it’s worth he believes in voluntary family relationships.”. You now claim you have no qualms about kicking a dysfunctional family to the curb, but given all of which I’ve read from you so far you must have a pretty darn low standards as it would appear, for example, that Weed family didn’t appear dysfunctional enough for you to actually defend the deFOO that happened instead of joining with the mother’s cause.

Another thing to clarify is that when I respond to your articles I am taking them as they are. Thus if they imply or are even explicit about FDR being a cult then it doesn’t matter what you say elsewhere my responding to that article is gonna be responding to that claim as well. That you actually do not appear sure of whether it really is or isn’t, yet so clearly lead your readers to believe that it is, actually doesn’t help build your case as all it means is that you’ve jumped to certain conclusions before even being sure of them yourself.

You wish to be “fair with Molyneux” by not throwing the cult charge around, yet you already DID throw it around!. This is so transparent man…

You seem to view this as some sort of an indefinitely ongoing project and expect that I am going to be interested in debating it with you forever. However there is a certain point after which I have simply seen enough, said enough and gave enough chances and cease to see the value in ongoing perpetuation of the issue.

If you could for once be consistent with yourself instead of changing back and forth I hope that this position you supposedly take for me, that Molyneux’ motives are 100% honorable, would be one that would be reflected at FDRLiberated and finally concluded as such. Of course, saying that his motives are 100% honorable while at the same time standing behind articles that call him a manipulating therapeutic cult leader is just a plain exercise in contradiction and hardly inspires me to take you and what you have to say seriously.

Regarding the “family relationships are voluntary,” bit. Check the next paragraph that follows (you have it quoted above). It contains the phrase “I believe it, for what it’s worth.” What you’re dealing with here is clumsy writing by me. As that paragraph states, it isn’t the principle that’s the problem (to me); it’s how Molyneux uses it. On the actual principle that the relationships are voluntary–as I said–I believe it. You can find a number of quotes on LiMi from me stating that I have no qualms about kicking a dysfunctional family to the curb, if necessary. I’ll probably be editing that first line to clarify it soon. Sorry for the confusion.

Finally, on this cult thing. I’ve been wrestling with it for over a year. You can actually find little traces of conversation from me on some web forums where I’ve stated that I do NOT believe it is one. And you’ll find more recent ones where I think it might be. Someone recently made the observation that FDR is “an organization in which some members exhibit cult-like behavior.” That, I believe for certain. That doesn’t necessarily make it a cult, of course, so what FDR is beyond that observation is what I’ve been struggling with. I suspect it may fall under the category of “therapeutic cult,” similar to EST or Landmark Forum. I’ve done quite a bit of research and do feel obligated to lay out my arguments one way or the other at some point. I just don’t feel ready to make a definitive case one way or the other yet.

Because “cult” is such an incendiary topic, it’s important to me ensure that I’m fair with Molyneux. When someone throws the “cult” charge around, it is with the suggestion that some evil person is the mastermind behind it. While I see things that concern me on FDR, I don’t see THAT. Irrespective of the FACTnet information, I have every reason to believe that Molyneux’s motives, at least, are 100% honorable.