The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

I haven't seen any reason to think I'm wrong. On the Objectivist Parents board there are a few interesting and well reasoned posts on this. Some argue that a father taking responsibilty for their unplanned child is rational and fully consistent with a rational value system. Some argue that the existence of legal abortion puts the onus on the woman. None of those threads has been full of insults or, worse, bullying. That's restricted to the Solo board.

Of course, not everyone here is part of the Bully Mob. Shayne hasn't been, Katdaddy, Jon, Pete have all been in the discussion and acting like adults. That's as it should be. The Bully Mob - George, Hong, Mike, and Glen so far - are anti-reason posers who stick together to substitute insults and threats for rational arguement.

Just saying someone is wrong doesn't make it so. Start offering proof or an arguement, rather than relying on the mob to help drown out arguments you can't answer. Anyone can re-read the past few posts of the Bully Mob and see it's nothing more than a self congratulatory circle jerk, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. As such, I'm done pointing out how the Bully Mob works. I'm digusted by them, and I'm pretty digusted by the implict support they have - but I'm actually interested in discussing issues.

Post 121

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:01am

Lee said:

The Bully Mob - George, Hong, Mike, and Glen so far - are anti-reason posers who stick together to substitute insults and threats for rational arguement.

What color is the sky in your world? Have a nice life. Be seeing you.

Post 122

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:06am

Katdaddy,

Valid question - I don't think my writing was as clear as it could be on that point. Let me try to lay out what I think the options are. The assumption here is the baby is on the way - the mother to be is having it...so here are the man's options, morally (as opposed to legally - I'm leaving legal issues aside)...

The man can

1) Decide to have nothing to do with the child and their upbringing (or as little to do with the child as the law allows - child support, nothing else.)

2) Be involved with the child, but in a bitter and pissed off way. Do the bare minimum and resent it, because the kid screwed up the man's plans.

3) Be involved with the child, and really make a committment to be an excellent father. Don't complain about what is missed, don't whine about what the mother should done.

I think that's it broadly- don't be involved, be involved and pissy, or be involved and good. People in this dicussion keep acting like option 3 doesn't exist - I'm saying option 3 is the moral, rational thing to do. On the Objectivst Parent's board Marsha Enright makes the argument that it's the selfish thing to do and I agree with her assessment, remembering that Ayn Rand's definition of selfish includes acting in accordence with a rational set of values and that includes taking responsibilty for one's actions.

If it's a choice only between #1 and #2, then the woman is forced to compensate for the man's irresponsible failure to adjust their values in accordance with the reality of a baby. It's a false alternative, though - the third option is the one that is in the best interest of everyone.

It's not a shotgun wedding, because I'm not arguing for a forced marriage or any marriage at all. Only the committment to be a good father.

Post 123

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:15am

Lee said:

"When you say something like 'Abortion. Adoption. No problem.' it shows a cavilier attitude on your part. It very well could be a problem for the woman, left knowing she has a child out there or that she ended the life of what could have been her child."

Now it's about the mothers "feelings". She can lie and deceive and loot, but in the end the trump card is her "feelings".

Enough of you.

Post 124

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:32am

Mike,

In a short post - 2 sentences of argument - you commit 3 logical fallacies. Two straw men and one begging the question. If you need clarification on what those terms mean or why they aren�t valid, keep reading for my special free offer below.

Where did I say she could lie or deceive? (Straw man 1.)

You're begging the question with the looting; make your case that's it's looting � don�t state your conclusion as part of the premise.

Where did I say it's about the mother's 'feelings'? (Straw man 2) Your implication is that the mother can�t make a rational decision, except for abortion of adoption and that the only reason a woman would decide NOT to have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption is based on her feelings. That�s simply not true � there�s nothing about the conclusion that says anything about her thought process. Conversely, is it about the father's 'feelings'?

If you need help understanding informal logic, I'd be willing to tutor you. Or I'd suggest David Kelley's textbook on formal and informal logic - good basic text that clearly lays out what is and what isn't a valid argument. On this post, you get a 'F'.

Post 125

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:43am

Lee: So are you now saying that if she lied and deceived, then the father has no moral obligation to the child? Because I thought you'd already made it clear that you thought he did.

Post 126

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:39am

You presented the following three options for Frisco. The man can:

1) Decide to have nothing to do with the child and their upbringing (or as little to do with the child as the law allows - child support, nothing else.)

2) Be involved with the child, but in a bitter and pissed off way. Do the bare minimum and resent it, because the kid screwed up the man's plans.

3) Be involved with the child, and really make a committment to be an excellent father. Don't complain about what is missed, don't whine about what the mother should done.

If you had presented these three options in the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding and heated arguments. I, like most of the others here, saw the options for the mother because she was the pregnant one and ultimately it is her decision what to do about it. Now we find that he does not love the woman, but she decided to have the baby and be a full-time mom. Are we to assume that the couple stays together or that he leaves her but owns up to his parental responsibilities. Couldn't it be argued that he has to support the mother of his child as well? Ok, we won't go there. Assume though, that he acknowledges his paternity and they work out a joint parenting agreement? Can I assume also that the parents are no longer a couple or do they stay together for the sake of the child?

Ideally, he would be man #3 but again, considering his attitude about children, the fact that he doesn't love the woman and most likely feels that he is being forced into parenthood against his wishes, he is least likely to pick scenario three. I would love to hear the argument that the girlfriend uses to successfully convince him to become the active involved father. I shall then have her go work on my ex, who is barely a #1.

Post 127

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 12:03pm

Lee,

I looked up "Argumentum ad Baculum" here:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html

There are several interesting examples. There was also this:

"Threats, per se, however, are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments."

Post 128

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 12:53pm

Mike,

That's a good link, thanks - lots of interesting stuff. I may send my son there later for homeschool related activities...

Ad Bacculum is tricky as a fallacy, because it usually indicates the end of any attempt at reasoned discussion. So, really it's just a complete and total surrender of thought; it's the ultimate non sequitar.

Post 129

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 1:11pm

Lee,

You never answered my calling on your post here: http://www.solohq.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0361_3.shtml#61

Seems like you can make pointless non-arguments too. I actually agree with the poster above who called you the biggest prick on solo. You have so many posts where someone provides a reasoned argument against what you say and then you just twist away in another direction without ever dealing with their rebuttal. It's no wonder people suggest that hitting you would be a good idea. I wouldn't hit you, I'd just ignore you for the ranting bag of pointless hot air that you are. Yes yes, I know, people here don't read Ayn Rands's non-fiction and blah blah blah ad hominem crap crap crap. You are a troll. I'll grant that you are an intelligent troll who is quite well read on Objectivism and logic as well. The reason conversations with you devolve into pointless ad hominems, is that it is impossible to rationally argue with someone who who runs away from every rebuttal made and folloows on with nasty little attacks. People get pissed and attack you, and then you call them mindless? *Sigh* Objectivism needs to be saved from the like of you misanthropes.

Ethan

Post 130

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:47pm

I didn't answer you, sorry. I was making a comment based on what preceded - it wasn't an argument, exactly. I don't want to go into it, really, because it was based on two previous posts by other people. If you really want me to explain that comment, I will. If you don't, sorry it wasn't clear.

I never said the part about people not reading Ayn Rand's non fiction - that's someone else.

Blah blah blah ad hominem crap means what? That I call logical fallacies? I didn't make up logical fallacies or the rules of logic. Do you really see that as 'blah blah blah'.

Did I attack Katdaddy? Shayne? Jon? Pete? I can name a slew of people I've never 'attacked' because they didn't jump to insults. Reading the archives last night, I realized that the cliquishness of this site has been pointed out before. I didn't make it up, it's pretty obvious.

I'm sorry I disturbed the safe little world some people had here by asking for a higher level of arguement. That whole ad hominem blah blah blah thing. But I learned that the blah blah blah stuff are the rules of argumentation, and a few people here haven't, apperently.

Post 131

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:51pm

And...

This whole thread is such a confusing mess at this point that it's hard to tell who said what when.

If any of the Bully Mob wants to have a formal debate online about the this subject, with a proper back and forth - and then we can have that scored for use of logic and fact - let me say, bring it on. We'll do it out in the open, but keep it orderly.

Now, let's see who the cowards are in the intellectual arena.

Post 132

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 2:52pm

Lee, you say that Frisco should change his values in order to do the responsible thing and raise his child as a good father would. But you're saying that Frisco should be something that he is not. He, and the pregnant woman, have both demonstrated irresponsible behavior of an unfortunately common sort. There are no good options, unless both of them suddenly and simultaneously acquire good judgment and appreciation of the importance of "the long term best interest of the child". I agree completely that Frisco should (radically) modify his values to live up to his new responsibility. But as a practical matter, this seems unlikely to happen quickly enough to do the child much good.

Referring to the title of this thread; Frisco has a restricted sense of self, and therefore is incapable of demonstrating the necessary virtues of responsible fatherhood.

Post 133

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 3:24pm

Lee,

Marcus got you exactly right early on here. Additionally, you are an intellectually challenged, reading and thinking-impaired parasite who is completely blind to the basic arguments made by numerous people in this thread. You are so used to the notion that everyone must think like you and do exactly what you want. Otherwise you�d start throw tantrums and bite like mad dog. It is you who initiated the first insulting post in this thread when others only tried to politely ignore you and now you are crying of being bullied?! You only deserved worse.

Just as despicable as your altruistic and looter�s mentality, you�ve also been twisting facts and misinterpreting words on this forum and you are doing the same thing misinterpreting or at least taking out of context of other people�s words at Yahoo Objectivist Parenting Group. SOLOists have only been too civil in dealing with such a pathetic and half-witted troll like you.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/06, 3:31pm)

Post 134

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 3:40pm

Thanks Randy, you got it! Hip, hip, hooray!

Post 135

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 4:04pm

Mike asked,

Now it's about the mothers "feelings".

It has always been about the woman, and the woman only, no matter what Lee claims. If it is really for the interest of the unborn child, adoption by a loving and capable couple would be ideal, as pointed out by Luke long ago. No, it can not be, according to Lee, because that's not what the woman wants.

In my opinion, there is only one morally justifiable reason for the guy to be a willing father of the child - that is if he really deeply loves the woman and would trade his other values in life in order to be with the woman he loves. But that is not the case here, as has been stated many times since the beginning.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/06, 4:08pm)

Post 136

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 4:22pm

Randy,

What behaivor do you think is irresponsible? In my fictional scenario, they were using birth control but it's not 100%. So, do you think their having a sexual relationship is irresponsible per se?

Post 137

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 4:31pm

Hong,

I just went back over this thread, looking for who starting insulting who.

And Marcus did. If you can find an insult by anyone, including me, before his let me know.

(Shayne sort of did by referring to my 'bizarre' viewpoint, but that's more insulting than a direct insult.)

Marcus said 'Lee is what Linz would call an Objecti-Christ. He can't get past his own need to make children his highest value and therefore expects us to sacrifice ourselves for them as well. No wonder he has problems with accepting free-markets! I dare say he has problems accepting the principles of objectivism in the first place!

He is not receptive to rational discourse because he has his own emotive agenda. Why debate him further?'

I answered his babble back then - but that's the first nothing but insult comment in the whole tread.

Your post is just as bad. It's all inaccurate insults. It's all bullshit, but I'll just ask one question - and everyone should note that Hong probably won't answer it...

How did I get wrong what someone said on Objectivist Parents? Explain that one point.

Post 138

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 4:53pm

Lee,

Engaging in sexual intercourse that may result in pregnancy, however small the probability, when you are not ready or willing to accept the consequences is irresponsible behavior.

Post 139

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 5:10pm