The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

Michael Stuart Kelly,

I would not commend a caretaker for leaving a baby on the porch either. Nor would I have the right to initiate force against the caretaker.

I may not be able to initiate force against the caretaker for leaving the baby on the porch, but I am well within my rights to decide not to communicate or do business with that caretaker in the future. In fact, every individual individually has the right not to do business with such caretakers.

If a great portion of society were to care enough for babies not to do business with the careless caretakers, then it would be in a careless caretaker's best interest to take care of the baby! No initiation of force : )

The same would go for those who lie and insult. Lying and insulting surely have a negative impact on our happiness and ability to live a long healthy life, but they are not an initiation of force. We can only "punish" people for such behaviors by not doing business with them in the future.

The only justified way to punish, stop, or end lying, insulting, and leaving babies on the front porch is through making such behaviors undesirable without initiating force.

Thanks,
Dean

Post 221

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:02pm

Hi Dean,

Here we go...

I would not commend a caretaker for leaving a baby on the porch either. Nor would I have the right to initiate force against the caretaker.

I would have that right - both morally and under the law - and I will not hesitate to exercise it. If I saw that, I would personally detain - or have detained - (by force if necessary) the caretaker (parent, custodian, whatever - but adult) long enough to get a formal waiver of custodial rights or a charge filed at a police station for later judgment, get the baby fed and changed and looked at, then deliver it to a proper institution or organization for care and new assignment. Only afterwards would I start talking again about initiating force or about the baby's legal rights as an adult...

Michael

Post 222

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:07pm

Michael,

I don't know Rick. I'm not defending a friend. I'm defending someone who was attacked inappropriately. I don't care what kind of intellectual stature Barbara is supposed to have, it doesn't make her immune from criticism. She's the one that provided not a single actual argument and instead resorted to name calling. And not only is that not a legitimate argument, but the particular insult is based on a distortion of what Rick was saying.

You suggest that Rick has no clue of what he's talking about, but you haven't provided an iota or proof. Further, your own statements on this issue are so questionable that it would seem the reverse is true. For instance, you seem to ignore the crucial difference between ethics and politics, suggesting that allowing something politically is the same as commending it. You bring up the ability to reproduce as if it could in any way be a justification for an others-based morality. You suggest that Objectivist ethics doesn't take into account the human ability to reproduce, with the implication that you're favoring the non-Objectivist ethics. And you failed to see that Rick was dismissing political metaphors because they were taken out of their proper context by others, such as a "contract" with the child to raise him.

See, it's easy to dismiss someone as not knowing what they're talking about. I at least had the courtesy of pointing out where I think you're wrong instead of just dismissing you.

Back to the name calling. So we banter. So what? It's a hell of a lot of fun at times. Maybe Barbara came on strong (she must have had one mother of a reason to do that, too - that is not in character for her), but what are you supposed to do with someone who posts in answer that a person of Barbara's intellectual stature and conduct makes little or no attempt to understand what is being said?

First, insulting someone is not called bantering. Bantering is "Good-humored, playful conversation". Maybe you think she was being playful with Robert, but when it's at someone else's expense, it's called 'bullying'.

Second, you can't defend Barbara's comments as just because after she said them, he was rude. It's backwards. She started it, not him. Of course he has no reason to be polite to someone who's first words to him are name-calling. By that kind of argument, if I initiate force against you and your respond, I can say "see! He deserved it!". You're trying just a little too hard.

This has been a long thread, and I've followed it throughout. There's been a lot of crap upholding altruism and duty-based ethics. People have tried to work back from their preconceived conclusions of what's right when it comes to children. There's been almost no discussion of Objectivist ethics, your own life being your standard of value, etc., except to dismiss it as not being compatible with reproduction. There's been little or no talk of values, only duties and responsibilities. There's no talk of self-interest, only need.

There have been a few exceptions. Luther had many brilliant posts at the beginning. Hong brought in the question of the ethics of the mother, which was right on and an important point. Marcus got it right at the beginning when he said these people are arguing from emotions, not reason, and there's no point. A few others have tried to get the discussion back along Objectivist lines, but evidently child-rearing is considered the big exception to every Objectivist rule.

Post 223

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:13pm

"Rile Barbara up a little and you will feel the smack through the computer screen...Barbara = Mohamed Ali: a natural dancer, finese, sets up her opponent, you never see it coming...My hospital stay was only about 4 months... they're writers and have been around longer than cyberspace..."

Plus I got Bidinotto on my case... no slouch, either. So what you're telling me is I better leave the country?
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/28, 3:19pm)

Post 224

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:52pm

I think that "offensive" language seems appropriate in some cases.

1. If a person pretends to be engaging in a discussion on the controversial side of a discussion but continues to evade every argument put forward by the other side, all the while claiming "fallacy", "fallacy", or "you didn't understand what I said", etc, or while, on the one hand acting the rube "I'm just a dumb guy, but I think..." on the other hand "I've read everything on Objectivism so I know as much as any of you", and "I'll be glad to tutor you on the fundamentals of logic", all the while insulting people you admire, at some point you just want to call that person a pretentious prick: so I did.

2. If a person advances an idea so seemingly outrageous that nearly everyone is offended by it, one of two cases must be true: you need to check your premises, or, everyone else needs to check their premises. If you are unwilling to check your premises and present your whole argument, and instead, you want EVERYONE ELSE to check their premises, you just might be a lazy asshole, and , someone just might call you one.

I think ideas are very important to everyone who participates in these forums, emotions can get charged. I see an "initiation of bad will" can cause a self defense "negative reaction", which "blows up" into an uncontrolled oscillation. I, personally, will try not to call anyone a pretentious prick again.

Post 225

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 3:59pm

Joe,

Could you please just either (a) delete this entire thread or (b) transfer it over to Firehammer's group?
It's really getting on my wick!!!

Post 226

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:11pm

Joseph,

Thank you for taking this time to write on these issues.

For instance, you seem to ignore the crucial difference between ethics and politics, suggesting that allowing something politically is the same as commending it. You bring up the ability to reproduce as if it could in any way be a justification for an others-based morality. You suggest that Objectivist ethics doesn't take into account the human ability to reproduce, with the implication that you're favoring the non-Objectivist ethics.

I am sorry you got the impressions you did from your "suggesting..." and "with the implication..." and so forth. Your conclusions about my thinking in this quote are pretty much (nay, very much) off the mark. If I have been vague, I do apologize.

One fact of reality that exists with the birth of a child is that it cannot take care of itself. If left to its own care, it will die. How on earth can Objectivist ethics not take that into account? Ignoring it by saying that the "need" of the young is not the adult individual's problem - or calling the necessity imposed by nature on the young needing to be cared for altruism?

If Objectivism is to be a philosophy for human beings, then the issue of how to get human beings over the hump of time and development until they can effectively exercise their individuality needs to be addressed responsibly - not from emotions - not from politics - not from religion - and not from a rigid "that's the baby's problem" stance either. This last to me is particularly forcing the concept of individualism to an absurd length.

Moral guidelines can be set that will ensure that our species continues without condemning individuals to collectivism or to servitude to the need of others. I cannot accept Objectivism as a philosophy only for already-formed adults. It is for babies too - who also have their own lives as their moral standard (sort of... they really have no idea of what morality is at that stage). And they will become fully responsible adults one day - they just have to survive that long...

About manners: I certainly agree with you about good manners. All I can say about Barbara right now is that she is neither a bully nor a silly woman. She came out with that comment on a "dead" thread and this was not in character. There has to be much more here than meets the eye. I choose to wait and see (and banter...).

About me dismissing someone for not knowing what they are talking about, if you read my previous posts again, you will find my objections clearly stated. If a person wants to talk about damages in a legal-contractual context, that person gains nothing by not having a clue as to legal definitions. (The execution of a performance bond, for example, is contractual performance, not damages, but I will not dally here...) In this case, he completely watered down his argument with incorrect peripheral information and got on with his "So-and-so, where you are wrong is ..." routine. Frankly I tried, but I was also told in no uncertain terms "where I was wrong"...

Joe, I dearly hope this guy was just being rude to Barbara right back and does not really consider her capable of not wanting to understand an issue she is commenting on. That is just not her. And I do not believe that he is completely that lacking in discernment.

Once again, thank you for these considerations - they make me think and I like that.

Michael

Post 227

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:38pm

Mike said: "I think that "offensive" language seems appropriate in some cases. ... 2. If a person advances an idea so seemingly outrageous that nearly everyone is offended by it, one of two cases must be true: you need to check your premises, or, everyone else needs to check their premises. "

Do you mean like using as an example in an argument the idea of placing an infant child out on a porch to fend for himself? The implication being that whether he freezes to death to dies or thirst the parent is not morally culpable.

I believe *this* is what set Robert Bidinotto off, and later had Barbara agreeing with his response.

Unlike Joe, I see no "distortion of what he was saying". Robert was re-acting to another thread (here) where he asked Pasotto, "Now, knowing this, you choose to deprive your voluntarily produced infant or young child of his life-sustaining food. Or you leave him outside on the back porch to go fend for himself. Are you seriously suggesting that such neglect does NOT constitute a violation of rights? If so, then what exactly is your understanding of "rights" -- of what they are, and what they are for?"

Pasotto responded to this with: "As for leaving him on the back porch, I would consider that to be despicable but leaving him on the front porch of an orphanage to be merely cowardly."

Later I asked Pasotto: "Rick you said: "As for leaving him on the back porch, I would consider that to be despicable ... "Just despicable? Or would you consider it criminal as well? (Criminal, in the sense that this act should result in legal prosecution). If your answer to this question is, yes; then you may need to re-think your entire line of argument."

Pasotto responded with: "George, I choose my words carefully. I mean exactly what I say."

Later Bididnotto states: ".. if someone has to pore through a philosophy text in order to find a reason not to abandon a kid on the back porch, he deserves far worse than my insults."

*This* is the context of Roberts response to Pasotto on *this* thread, and Barbara's agreement with that response. It was a response that in truth, was far too measured.

Joe Rowlands, says: "I'm defending someone who was attacked inappropriately. .... And not only is that not a legitimate argument, but the particular insult is based on a distortion of what Rick was saying."

Joe, read the first thread I provided a link to carefully, you will find that your response to Robert and Barbara is highly mistaken.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/28, 4:47pm)

Post 228

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:43pm

Marcus, I am very tempted. I was hoping that at least one of the early contributors would find a new home there.

Michael, my point was that you could be dismissed just as quickly. And although you've clarified, your clarifications are stating the same thing. Because a child has needs, someone is obligated to provide for them. Who says? Altruism does. Duty-based ethics does. But not rational self-interest. This thread is taking the same twists and turns every impracticable ethics has had to take. First you say it's a moral duty. Then, when you still can't convince people, you insist there's a need for violent force to make them act appropriately.

The million dollar question here is if you're allowed to use "retaliatory force", what exactly is the nature of the child's rights? Are they positive rights, where they have a right to it and everyone is enslaved to make it happen? And if so, just how far do these rights go? Right to married parents? Right to a good job? Right to a rubber ducky at bath time?

Those so eager to suggest the violent use of force to get their way have the burden of proof on their hands.

You also start talking about morality to ensure our species continues. With this thinking, once again reproduction is a duty, not a value. You want to add moral guidelines or rules or whatever, but ultimately you have to answer how those are subsumed by life as the standard, or reject it entirely. You can't have both. So we're far from agreeing.

George, I've read the other thread as well, and it wasn't much better than this. I see the big questions as follows:

1.) What is the basis of morality and is it compatible with children. From the beginning of this thread it's been suggested that rational self-interest can't explain raising children, and so a duty-based, altruistic ethics is promoted. I reject this idea, and think the people resorting to it are starting with their decisions and trying to rationalize them, even to the extent that they reject self-interest, or trying to compromise between altruism and self-interest, which is the same thing.

2.) What is the nature of a child's rights? Positive rights or negative rights? If positive, what's the extent of them? If negative, is it okay to quietly starve a child where other people would be willing to help?

The positive rights camp suggest a child has a right to be raised properly. What the hell does properly mean? Teddy bears? His own room? Loving parents who never fight? Private schools and tutoring? Space camp? The absurdity of this position should be obvious to anyone. Once the positive right is asserted, there's no end to it. And more importantly, it's not just a simple job of saying what would be good for a child. A positive right means violent force. If you don't do it, we'll kill you. This thread started by enslaving the father to the whims of the mother. But it wouldn't end there...what happens if the father dies? Is society responsible for the child? Once a positive right is granted, slavery is the only possible outcome, and nobody is safe.

It's not at all surprising that Rick and others (including myself) would question the philosophical underpinnings of these so called rights.

Those who reject these positive rights still have some questions to deal with. Is starving a child a violation of their negative rights? In what context would it be true, and what context wouldn't it? If you don't want your baby, and someone else goes to feed it and you prevent them, you're killing the child. There's no need to proclaim a positive right to a happy childhood or whatever. So I think in the context of a society where people are willing to provide for the child and the parent doesn't permit it and lets the child die, that would be covered by these negative rights. In the context of a society where nobody wants the child, it wouldn't be (as historically has happened, called "exposure" I believe).

These aren't obvious questions or answers. But these are the one's that make some people run down the path of positive rights. In my opinion, Rick approached this honestly and at least from the correct starting ground of negative rights. His critics have not bothered distinguishing themselves from the "enslave mankind for the children" crowd, let alone deal with the more difficult issues.

Post 229

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:52pm

It would appear something else is being overlooked here, Joe [in addition to those altruisticnesses you've mentioned] - that is, there is no such thing as intrinsic value [see Tara Smith's VIABLE VALUES for details]... this make a different approach to the issue of the child, its survivalness, and the supposed responsibilities of the adults involved... as you've said, the child has no positive rights on anyone else - and, if you would note, in a world where this is taken as such, only the wanted child would be born, and raised, and valued as such by the person who does this - and these others which are the subject of discussions here would not come into being...

Post 230

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:53pm

Thank you, George. There is a context here -- a long series of exchanges in which I did not simply flip off an individual with an insult instead of an argument: if you go here...

http://solohq.com/Forum/ObjectivismQ&A/0094.shtml

...and read all of the posts that led up to this, especially some very long and, I thought, meticulous ones I posted in response to the individual whom I insulted, you will see that my response came when that individual finally exhausted my patience.

The morality we were debating was whether a child, voluntarily conceived and carried to term and brought into the world, has a right to expect his parents to care for him until he can care for himself. The individual in question denied any such claim. If you're too lazy to follow the debate, read only his posts on this thread numbered 152, and especially 169, second paragraph:

The child certainly cannot claim any damages when what the parents have in fact done is to give him the gift of life. To demand more is simply ungrateful.

Now I want to call your attention to that last word, "ungrateful." Let it sink in, please. That is not a philosophical argument. That, my friends, is simply a morally contemptible attitude: a complete denial of responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, which in this case means the responsibility to care for a child one has produced.

That a child who would expect such care is demeaned as ungrateful is so morally unspeakable that "asshole" is actually the kindest term I could think of.

To Phil and others who would criticize such terms as not helpful in furthering civilized debate: you're right. But it is a term which is extremely helpful in ending a debate with someone whom I concluded--after lengthy discussion--was not civilized to begin with.

In fact, I wouldn't take back that word now if I were subjected to torture.

Post 231

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:17pm

Joe says: I reject this idea, and think the people resorting to it are starting with their decisions and trying to rationalize them, even to the extent that they reject self-interest, or trying to compromise between altruism and self-interest, which is the same thing.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I think that the main argument for the child�s rights does not involve a compromise between altruism and self-interest. A child does not exist by chance, but by choice. An adult(s) has made a choice to conceive a child. A child, like all things, has a specific nature, a nature that is unique to humans in general by virtue of his inability to maintain his physical existence without help. The adult choice to have him requires an understanding of what this entails, and the responsibilities that it will include. It is not a question of �duty� there is no duty to have a child, but once chosen to be had, the parent has assumed the responsibilities or consequences of their choice. Just as all human choices will result in either responsibilities or consequences � this one does as well.

Joe says: What is the nature of a child's rights? Positive rights or negative rights?

They are negative rights, just as any other human being. A child�s rights, are differentiated from an adults only in one respect, they are dependant on the adult to maintain those rights because of their level of development. The rights are identical, what is different is the context in which those rights can be exercised. The adult created that context � as such those adults have a moral responsibility to ensure they are safeguarded. As a corollary to this, the state has an obligation to protect those rights, and to prosecute any parent who violates them.

Joe says: If negative, is it okay to quietly starve a child where other people would be willing to help?

Of course not. There is a minimal but obvious requirement that is necessitated in order to ensure the child does not die. To starve a child is to violate his rights, this cannot be defended on the basis of, it would therefore violate the parents right to withhold food: there is no right to violate another persons right.

Joe says: It's not at all surprising that Rick and others (including myself) would question the philosophical underpinnings of these so called rights.

I am surprised.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/28, 6:22pm)

Post 232

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 6:54pm

Robert Malcom, you're right that it is a question of intrinsic values. I consider that to be identical to the duty-based ethics.

Robert Bidinotto, once again you discuss a child having a right of the child to expect the parents to do certain things. Is it inconceivable that someone would doubt that such a duty exists (it stopped being a mere responsibility when the government was called in)? It's all fine to say that you're responsible for your actions, but how do you get from that to jail time?

George and Robert, the interesting part about these arguments for a parent's "responsibility" is that the exact same argument is used by people to support outlawing abortion. There are "consequences" to having sex and the parents have a "responsibility" to do this or that. In fact, reading the first five pages of this thread was like deja vu from some arguments on abortion. The only difference is that Lee and yourselves have decided birth is the point of responsibility and violent force (at least for the woman).

So could either of you explain the difference? The anti-abortionists says if you have sex, you must be responsible for the fetus. You say if you have a child, you must be responsible for the baby. And both groups declare that it should be backed up with a gun. I dismiss the anti-abortionists by saying that just because they claim there is a responsibility, doesn't mean there is. How does your position avoid this in a way that anti-abortion can't? To me, they both sound like someone saying "this is what I want, and I think it should be enforced by the government".

Obviously both of you are determined to not back down from the insults. I've registered my complaint. If you still think your position is so clear and obvious that only an asshole wouldn't understand it, I guess you'll have to lump me in as an asshole (on top of any asshole status I've achieved elsewhere). Cause I'm just not buying it.

I'm not particularly interested in continued argument on this topic. I pointed out what I consider obvious problems with the debate so far, and why I think it's inappropriate to start throwing insults when your position is so unclear. You can disagree, as you obviously do. It's a free world. But I've made my point to Rick. He should know he's not alone.

Post 233

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:03pm

Is starving a child a violation of their negative rights? In what context would it be true, and what context wouldn't it? If you don't want your baby, and someone else goes to feed it and you prevent them, you're killing the child. There's no need to proclaim a positive right to a happy childhood or whatever. So I think in the context of a society where people are willing to provide for the child and the parent doesn't permit it and lets the child die, that would be covered by these negative rights.

"If you don't want your baby, and someone else goes to feed it and you prevent them, you're killing the child."
Killing sounds like an initiation of force. Is preventing another from giving a child what it needs to live an initiation of force? Is it really killing, or just extremely despicable behavior? What if it is taking place on your own property?

I would like to propose a new situation.

A woman owns some property. The property is composed of a moat that surrounds an island. The island is 3metersx3meters. The moat is 40cm deep and 2meters wide around the entire island. The moat is filled with oil. The woman put up signs throughout her moat that read "No Trespassing", which are clearly readable and understood by everyone.

The woman has been pregnant for 9 months. She goes through labor by herself in the middle of the island, during which people surround the island and offer help, but she refuses and points to the "No Trespassing" signs. The baby is now outside of her body. The woman immediately leaves the baby, and stands in the pool of oil. She just stands there, and refuses to move until the baby is dead. She claims that anyone that tries to reach the baby would be using her property by an initiation of force. The woman will not change her mind.

The baby is laying in the middle of the island. He is becoming hungry, thirsty, and cold, all of which may lead to his death. He is physically incapable of providing himself with food, water, and heat/insulation. He is most likely mentally incapable of realizing that he will die. He senses hunger, thirst, and cold, and the negative feelings that his body creates to associate with those senses. I think it would be unchallenged for me to claim that to be in such a situation would be against the baby's will.

The crowd, now in the thousands, are disgusted and confused. They all look to you to decide what to do. By our compassion for human life, our first thought is to disregard the woman's wishes, and help the baby. Unfortunately, if we do this, then we are trespassing, and acting against the woman's will. We may believe the woman to be insane, but never-the-less, she has negative rights unless she broke another's negative rights.

Is there any way to save the baby without initiating force?
Has the woman initiated force?
Is trespassing an initiation of force?

Thanks,
Dean

Post 234

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:07pm

Joe says: Obviously both of you are determined to not back down from the insults.

First of all, I have never insulted Pasotto, but I should have.

Joe says: George and Robert, the interesting part about these arguments for a parent's "responsibility" is that the exact same argument is used by people to support outlawing abortion. There are "consequences" to having sex and the parents have a "responsibility" to do this or that.

What a terrible analogy, and one that *you* know better than to make. We are talking about a living, independant, and individuated human being. The comparison you have chosen to make is nonsensical.

Joe says: So could either of you explain the difference? The anti-abortionists says if you have sex, you must be responsible for the fetus. You say if you have a child, you must be responsible for the baby. And both groups declare that it should be backed up with a gun.

Another apples and oranges example.

Joe says: I'm not particularly interested in continued argument on this topic. I pointed out what I consider obvious problems with the debate so far, and why I think it's inappropriate to start throwing insults when your position is so unclear. You can disagree, as you obviously do. It's a free world. But I've made my point to Rick. He should know he's not alone.

Unbelievable! I am stunned. But I do agree with one thing you said, the part about not being particularly interested in the continued argument on this topic. I'm through with it. I wish you and Pasotto the best in your quest to figure out why it should be immoral to murder a child, and why it should also be illegal.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/28, 7:24pm)

Post 235

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 7:46pm

Amen, George.

No moral principle, including rights, arises or applies independent of the physical facts of nature. The relevant factual context in the case of children--in fact, the defining context--is their dependence on adults for their very physical survival. In fact, today's adults, including those arguing here, wouldn't even exist if their rights as children to sustenance from their parents hadn't been recognized and enforced. And this discussion would therefore be moot.

But what is the source of the moral and legal responsibility of parents to children? Responsibility is the application of causality to human action: one is responsible for the consequences of one's volitional actions. That includes the responsibility one has to the children one produces, since they are dependent on parents for their survival.

But that responsibility doesn't apply to fetuses. The crude analogy between a biologically dependent, non-cognitive fetus and a biologically independent, cognitively functioning baby breaks down on many levels. Rights, by the Randian perspective, are moral principles that apply to human freedom of action in a social context -- nothing of which applies in the case of a non-cognitive, biologically parasitical fetus incapable of independent social action, but all of which applies to a cognitively functioning and biologically independent child.

Since parents are responsible for producing a child, since the child is by nature dependent on the parent for his survival, and since the child has human rights, the child therefore has a right to be sustained by his parents until such time as he can sustain himself.

This isn't brain surgery. And because of that, like George, I'm through with further discussion of it. Why? Because I don't like to belabor the absurd.

Folks, I can't help but look at this discussion (and similar ones) and see it as non-Objectivists do, whenever they tune in. And what do they see? They see a bunch of people debating (and often denying) fundamental moral-legal (causal) responsibilities that even they grasp as so obvious as to be virtually self-evident.

I don't wonder at the widespread mockery and rejection of Objectivism when hours and hours are spent arguing about such things as whether a parents should be held legally accountable for denying their child food, on the grounds that their child has no "right" to support and would be "ungrateful" for insisting upon it.

Let me add that I am relieved that in our current governmental system, so vilified by the intellectual giants who concoct such arguments, the police haven't been so philosophically corrupted that they don't arrest the bastards who would neglect their kids.

That this sort of discussion doesn't strike you as completely bizarre, and those issuing such denials as beyond the pale, is to me ample justification for Objectivism's continued unpopularity. And for my departure from this thread.

(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 3/28, 7:50pm)

Post 236

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:09pm

Perhaps a few comments on my response to Barbara in post #198 can be instructive about some of what is going on here.

First, Barbara wrote "...Rick Pasotto's view of parental responsibilities..." and I responded that I had made no comments about parental responsibilities. So far, no one has challenged my reply. Evidently facts are not important to some people.

Second, Barbara did not call names � she merely agreed with those who did. Therefore it should have been obvious that my comments about lack of justification for name calling were not directed at Barbara but rather at those who actually did the deed.

The only (implied) criticism of Barbara would have been that it's inappropriate to make light of an egregious failure of civil discourse.

Post 237

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:18pm

In post #198 I wrote "Name calling in place of rational argument is never justified. It's particularly egregious when there has been little or no attempt made to understand what is being said."

George's comment in post #234 "I wish you and Pasotto the best in your quest to figure out why it should be immoral to murder a child, and why it should also be illegal." is significant evidence for that lack of understanding. Nowhere have I (or Joe) ever claimed any such thing.

I think it's quite clear that there are some serious emotional blinders on some eyes around here.

Post 238

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:30pm

In post #235 Robert Bidinotto writes:

In fact, today's adults, including those arguing here, wouldn't even exist if their rights as children to sustenance from their parents hadn't been recognized and enforced.

This is so entirely wrong I really can't believe that anyone could possibly write it.

Did it not ever occur to you that children are a value to their parents and that nurturing their children is something parents want to do — something parents find to be in their own self-interest to do?

Are you really trying to claim that the only reason for parents to feed and clothe and house their children is because otherwise they would be violating the child's rights?

What kind of parental relationship is that? What kind of child-rearing is that? How would you expect a child brought up by such parents to turn out?

Post 239

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:55pm