Jeanine Ring, Prostitution etc

Adam,

I am not comfortable with your assertion that people raised in a specific way or in a specific environment will necessarily turn out in a specific way. You have made that same assertion in other threads. I have countered with examples of why that is not necessarily so. If anything, psychological research indicates nature is a stronger factor than nurture and, even then, I'm skeptical of claims that we're victims of our genes.

Are you implying that environment largely determines the choices a person makes? If it is possible for a good reason to arise from a bad environment, as has been the case, how is it not possible for a bad person to arise from a good environment? Or for an otherwise good person from a good environment to make a bad choice? I was raised by Catholic parents in a Catholic country yet, even before I left my home, I embraced atheism. Ayn Rand was raised in an environment that embraced mysticism and altruism, yet she wrote "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".

Rooster asks a valid question. There is nothing about lifeboats there, only the reality that children don't always turn out the same as their parents. I wish you or someone who agrees with you would try and answer it.

Post 41

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:24pm

You know, Adam, no matter how well one adheres to principle and plans out his life, things don't always go the way you want.

This especially true of raising children. History is replete with children rebelling against the ideas and values cherished by their parents. In fact, at times entire generations do, like the hippies did in the '60s and '70s. The possibility that a child of Objectivist parents might reject Objectivism and embraced Christianity is not exactly a nightmare, let alone inconceivable.

Nevertheless, you refuse to entertain the scenario I put forward. Let's try this: An entirely plausible scenario. You let your sixteen-year-old have sex with her lover. The birth control fails, and she becomes pregnant. She decides to have the child and let you raise it while she fulfills her destiny in college and grad school. Do you let her do that or do you make her financially accountable for her decisions?

Pukszta

Post 42

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:43pm

Rooster,

It's "It is a parent's responsibility to make sure that sexually active youngsters have access to adequate birth control." NOT "OK if parents intervene to persuade the children to use birth control." When kids are brought up with love and respect, then there is no need for parents to control or even persuade. At most, a reminder: "You can use anything from the medicine cabinet when you need it." And mutual trust.

Post 43

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:48pm

Fine, Adam. I got it. It's OK for your sixteen-year-old daughter to sleep around, and it's her business if she uses birth control or not. So what do you do when she gets knocked up and wants you to raise her baby while you're paying to put her through college?

Pukszta

Post 44

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:57pm

Rooster,

I would make sure she knows that our family health insurance covers abortion. And remind her that every child deserves to grow up with two loving parents. And that we have no obligation to put up with a fatherless infant's presence in our house. And then trust her to make the right decision.

Post 45

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 8:49pm

Jeanine was guilty of the very things she was victim to. She herself showed no effort to understand and comprehend the context of others, or of history. She did not display the respect for reality (including the reality of the perspectives of others) that is mandatory to win an argument from a marginalized position, especially her cultural position. She did not practice objectivity, in the most profound sense of the term. Just look at her final gesture. Based on the actions of some under the guise, she has rejected all philosophy and those involved with it. (Much in the same way that Cordero, based on the actions of some under the guise, has rejected all prostitution and those involved with it.) We are thus reduced to something so blatantly invalid as collective judgment!

I was going to write something like that, but I kept silent because I wanted to see what others had to say.

Michelle touched upon one aspect from it on the Kant thread, but hearing Alec put it so lucidly and completely makes me proud.

All I might have added is that Jeanine was probably seeking complete acceptance and not points of agreement. I think that she should have contented herself with the support she had, given that she knew that some people agreed and disagreed with her. However, this would have required some objectivity on her part to transcend the limitations of her perspective. She didn't empathize sufficiently in quite a few instances, so she can't seriously argue with those that didn't empathize with her.

If I had to psychologize (extremely rationalistically), I might argue that a transgender identifies so strongly with their ideas because it is the strongest basis of their view of themselves. A rejection of some of her ideas and/or practices might feel to Jeanine like a rejection of her whole. I hope she comes to appreciate that this is not the case, and that there is value in partial agreement.

Of course, Jeanine and I had our disagreements, but I always make it a point that when I think my debating opponent has sufficiently stated his understanding of my position to my satisfaction, my goal has been achieved. There are many reasons people agree and disagree with each other and to assume that they can all be stated on a web board is to support an extremely delusional perspective of an individual's beliefs.

Post 46

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 8:56pm

Adam,

What happens if she makes the wrong decision?

Post 47

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:42pm

Nature, regarding whether or not I misread Jeanine's positions, I will concede that there might be statements buried in some of her epic posts which contradict my assessment of her (but they probably contradict her own as well).

In general, she had a tendency to lash out at ANY suggestion of delayed gratification for the sake of long term benefit. Also, I was never clear on what her definition of 'pleasure' was. There are certainly many different forms of pleasure, and for delcaring pleasure a primary principal, I thought this concept should have been systematically defined. (Again, maybe it was somewhere in her lengthy posts, but I never recall that).

Furthermore, her idea of 'passionate living' was based mostly on sexual gratification. Artists excluded, she didn't seem to comprehend the fact that people can be passionate about things other than sex. She frequently bashed the conformity of corporate culture (and certainly there are justified criticisms to be made there) but any suggestions of someone being happy and passionate with their 9 to 5 job absolutely enraged her. I recall one time when she said that she's heard about some corporate circles where "there is a "promiscuous subculture", so therefore she can't "judge it all bad" (something to that effect, anyway). Anyhow, such a statement illustrates to me how much the topic of hedonistic sex dominated her thinking, and prevented her from being fully rational.

(Edited by Pete on 12/22, 10:11pm)

Post 48

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:49pm

I think we have had enough nightmare-ish scenarios for Adam to put up with.

As a late developer, I myself had made a disastrous mistake at ripe age of 25 - I got married without my parents' knowledge, without their blessing. Actually my parents, especially my mother, had protested my choice of boyfriend violently. I mean she cried and begged, and I wouldn't have any of it. That marriage ended six years later. Looking back now I can see it crystal clear that I was so obviously wrong - the guy simply did not love me - a fact my parents knew by instinct while I was completely blinded by my own passion and love. I was beyond reason. I bare the consequence of my stupidity. My parents though not directly financially affected by my mistakes, bared the emotional burden during those years.

I guess what I want to say is, in certain nightmare-ish scenarios, there really isn't much a reasonable parents can do without the initiation of force, which of course is out of question. They'll just have to brace themselves for the consequences.

Post 49

Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:05pm

Hong,

Thank you.

I do not find it profitable to contemplate those "what's the worst thing that can happen next" questions. Ethics deals with living one's life well, and making sure that one can deal with the reasonably predictable consequences of one's actions. When improbable disasters happen, then is the time when one examines the facts, examines the available alternatives, and makes a reasonable choice. If something bad happened to my kid, I would first try to understand the situation in detail, talk with her to find out her perspective and her plans and alternatives and feelings and reasons, and choose my actions in full context. But I don't have any good reason now to dwelve into nightmares that did not happen in fact, and never will.

I do have an adult child who spent part of her adolescence in the custody of her abusive mother, a woman with a severe, self-inflicted mental disorder. I don't know how this experience affected my daughter, and there are many "nightmare scenarios" that could well be in her future. I do not find it useful to contemplate them at this time. I do know that I have dealt with difficult situations successfully before, and that should I need to, I shall do so again. For the time being, my daughter seems to have inherited my character, resilience and strength. She is leading her life in a way that makes her happy, and makes me proud, and I enjoy my life.

Post 50

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:20am

Adam,

If your pregnant daughter chooses abortion, you'll pay for that. If she chooses to keep the kid, you won't financially support that.

That tells me you are willing to condition financial support of your age-of-reason daughter upon the choices she makes. How is that different in principle from what I've been arguing? It's the rational approach any parent should take with a child, especially one nearing adulthood. You may draw a more permissive line than I would, but we will both withdraw our financial support when a line is crossed.

Pukszta

Post 51

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:53am

I'll just make one point on what I consider an overlooked issue. We Objectivists have to get use to misunderstandings from those who are sympathetic or friendly to our viewpoint. It is just a sign of progress if we have fellow-travelers who don�t quite agree or, at times, don�t quite get Objectivism.

Jeanie was very knowledgeable about Objectivism and she explicitly said there are areas of disagreement. She was one of the few people who read my massive polemic on some of the failures of conservatives and she was quite intelligent in her response. As a matter of fact, I found her synthesis of some of my points, while differing significantly from my own viewpoint, to be cogent and interesting. I felt no need to argue as I simply enjoyed seeing another way of integrating the various ideas.

Rand, unfortunately, was always quick to criticize those who didn�t �get it all.� She overdid it! Her approach seemed to convey that any "crack in the damn" would doom the whole philosophical revolution. I take a very different viewpoint. I believe Objectivism is robust, that it can withstand mistaken reformulations, that it is not harmed by a half-acceptance, and that it will prevail.

In the course of advancing our philosophy, I suggest that we should often aim for respect � not agreement � from many kindred spirits. Sometimes that respect turns into agreement, but often it merely welcomes us to the contemporary cultural conversation that must precede any greater influence. This doesn�t not mean we hide our differences or our passions but only that we respect the context of others. ... And ask for the same in return.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 12/23, 6:06am)

Post 52

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 7:28am

Rooster,

This is getting tiresome, so I hope that this is your last message on the subject.

No, I would not be willing to condition my obligation to provide for my daughter with room, board, and education, until she is ready to support herself with her own chosen work, on anything else. I have undertaken an obligation to make it possible for my child to develop into a fully Human adult. As a person of good character, I would not renege on that obligation as long as it is at all possible for me to fulfill it.

No, I would not be willing to pay for an expensive and self-destructive whim, such as bringing up a fatherless infant etc. I am glad that no such thing happened in reality, because it would bring into question whether I had, in fact, properly fulfilled the very different parental obligations I had back when my child was still a child.

There is no moral equivalence between the two. The bottom line is that context matters.

Post 53

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:27am

Adam,

The bottom line is that you draw lines not to be crossed by your children just like most parents do.

Pukszta

Post 54

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 11:31am

Rooster,

No, I do not "draw lines" in the sense that, for example, Christian parents "draw lines." I act, in all matters, in accordance with the facts of reality. To use your metaphor, instead of drawing lines on the basis of arbitrary beliefs in my consciousness, as a Christian would, I follow the natural shapes given to objective concepts by the facts of existence. There is no moral equivalence between false moralities based on primacy of consciousness, and objective morality grounded in objectively ascertained knowledge of reality.

Post 55

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:52pm

Adam: "Jeanine is an Individual, and losing her is a significant blow to the usefulness of this forum."

I agree with you, Adam. And it's obvious what you mean by "individual" in this context.

Barbara

Post 56

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:06pm

George, I do not agree with you about Jeanine's attitude toward Objectivism. I think her negative remarks were essentially those of a lover who feels herself rejected and is struggling to understand why.

But that was not what I objected to in your post. As I said, it was the cruelty of your remarks. To call Jeanine "Mister" was to take direct aim at what had to be her greatest vulnerability. I have no objection to your disagreeing with her, disagreeing vehemently; I do object to the deliberate infliction of pain, particularly when dealing with someone whom you can know has had a more difficult life than most through a fact not of her choosing: the fact of believing that she was born into the wrong body.

George, I do not agree with some of the things that are being said against you by people who agree with me that your post was uncalled for. That's why I suggested that you were thoughtless. I hope I'm correct. I do not see you as normally being a cruel man. But in this instance, that's what you were.

Surely, when we see someone bleeding before us, we can be sufficiently magnanimous to back off a bit. Kindness, after all, is not an Objectivist vice.

Barbara

Post 57

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:29pm

Barbara,

Sometime in the next few days I will send you an email in reference to this.

George

Post 58

Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 11:00pm

Barbara - you wrote:

"Kindness, after all, is not an Objectivist vice."

I suspect you've hit on the nub of the issue here. I believe "Objectivists" of the ARI/rationalist/intrinsicist variety actually *do* consider kindness a vice. They equate it with altruism. They appear to be mean-spirited to a fault. The idea of respecting someone's decision to be true to her biology & become a woman as best she can when born in a man's body would be utterly alien to these types. They have a monolithic view of gender & sexuality that simply flies in the face of everything we've learned from science, not to mention from common-sense layman's observation. Never let the facts get in the way of deeply-rooted prejudices!

I note that two of Jeanine's attackers subscribe to the view that SOLO is a perversion of Objectivism, since they offer succour to the site of the Catholic, the phascist & the homofobe (the site where the homofobe wrote a phive hundred-part series on *why* SOLO is a perversion of Objectivism!), even as they pretend to have SOLO's interests at heart in chasing away the likes of Jeanine. Hypocrites! I serve notice that they will not succeed one iota in remoulding SOLO in their own crimped, mean, mystic-conservative image. It is *their* Christianity/Islamo-fascism in Objectivist guise that is a perversion of Objectivsm!

I repeat - I thought maybe Jeanine could be won over. In that sense, I thought more highly of her than her attackers - I don't think they could *ever* be won over to Objectivism!

Linz

Post 59

Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:22am