The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

You're welcome katdaddy. It was while reading your post about the three options that I managed to come up with a clear idea that might answer Lees' original question.

Post 141

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:40pm

I have tuned into this discussion from time to time. Lot's of fireworks. So I went back and decided to read it from the beginning and see what all the shouting was about. I didn't too far and it got boring. Lee sure can talk in circles, can't he? And he does go on and on.

Hi Hong - In Post 6, you wrote, "For some people raising children is just not of any value to them. And I came to the conclusion that for such people to have children would be immoral."

The key to this whole discussion is there. I would even take it a little further. An all-out jerk and reluctant parent could do a whole lot of damage to a kid and to a spouse.

So this issue can only really be answered responsibly when you know who you are dealing with. This reminds me of communist theorists, who used to like to make across-the-board rules for human living without taking human nature into account.

The character of the parent is just as important as economics and lifestyle. There is no single "all-in-one" answer to the dilemma that fits everybody.

Maybe one - Assholes should be kept away from kids.

Good responsible moral people usually work things out as best they can according to who they are and what they have.

Michael

Post 142

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:06pm

I think everyone should step back, take a deep breath, and re-examine what has been happening in this thread.

First let me state that I believe that Lee is wrong and it is because he is wrong that he is unable to convince his opponents. Nonetheless, (some of) those opponents, instead of trying to reformulate their arguments in ways that might result in Lee's understanding, chose to start calling names.

What those opponents have done, in effect, is to say "I've given you my conclusion and my reason for it and your lack of understanding can only be because you're stupid (immoral, Xtian, evading, etc.)." When Lee points out the inappropriateness of such comments, even more invective is hurled his way.

I would expect better from Objectivists but such behavior is evidently fairly common and is one thing that gives Objectivists a bad name.

If, after repeated attempts to convince someone of what you are claiming — and by that I mean reformulating the argument and approaching it from different angles not just repeating the same things over and over; and asking probing questions to discover the root of the disagreement — then the proper course of action is to "agree to disagree" without consigning the other to the lower rungs of hell.

You don't lose points by failing to convince someone and you certainly don't gain points by calling them names.

That said, I think that Lee's error rests on (at least) two points:

First, an equivocation between responsibility as efficient cause and responsibility as moral obligation.

Second, the idea that some human beings, namely infants, have rights that other human beings do not have. All men have exactly the same rights. A 5-day old has no more right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered than a 5-year old or a 50-year old. Whatever the parents (or others) give the child are gifts. Fortunately for the child most parents are delighted to be able to give those gifts.

Post 143

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:20pm

Hi Michael,
I am glad that you tuned in to this thread. And I appreciate very much your comments on this particular point I made, which I think is very important. I expanded on it a bit more in post #88 . Basically, I think people who are not particularly fond of raising kids are NOT immoral at all. I have several childless friends, some by circumstance and some by choice. They are extraordinary human beings. But to be forced to have children could be an immoral thing for them to do and often with bad consequences.

An all-out jerk and reluctant parent could do a whole lot of damage to a kid and to a spouse.

I notice you use "parent" instead of father here. Yes, a woman could be just as reluctant to have children as next man, despite that they have uterus and breasts.

Good responsible moral people usually work things out as best they can according to who they are and what they have.

Exactly.

Hong

Post 144

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:27pm

Rick,

You stated exactly what has been driving me nuts, very well.

I'll address your points, which I disagree with, in another post. Thanks, however, for acting civily.

Post 145

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:59pm

Rick, infants have a valid claim on their parents. They don�t spontaneously appear, but are created by the parents. They are utterly helpless and they exist because someone CHOSE to create them. Creating helpless human life and choosing to not give it �gifts� is a monumental failure to take responsibility for ones� actions. People who do this repeatedly are polluters of my and your planet. They should be forcibly sterilized.

Jon

Post 146

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:28pm

Jon, thanks for setting my straight on your hair (or lack thereof). Due to your facical expression in particular, my feelings are best summed up by a quote from a classic Seinfeld episode:

"He's a loathsome, offensive brute, yet I can't look away..."

Post 147

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:57pm

�He's a loathsome, offensive brute...�

Between Hong and yourself, I have experienced more psychological visibility this weekend than I have in years.

(My sneering sarcasm called out by Shayne, of all people�that ranks, too.)

Jon

Post 148

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:44am

I'm not sure why this topic spilled over from the SOLO Parenting board, nor do I care to go back & read every goddam post to see who started the downward spiral. I *have* read enough to see that Mr. Stranahan is a prize jerk who is clearly conceptually dyslexic. But he has committed no banning offence. So I suggest the rest of you just ignore him. That's the best punishment for attention-seekers in any event.

Linz

Post 149

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:28am

Whew! Glad to see that wanting arguements to be rational, logical and free from insults didn't get me banned! And I'm sorry to be such a jerk amongst such obviously sweet, wonderful, and warm people. I guess if the founder of the board uses insults instead of argument, it kind of sets the tone for the rest of the board.

This was pegged in post 142 - and nobody responded to that part of the post, because you can't argue against it. Insults aren't valid arguments. Reason isn't a catchphrase, it's a method. Logic, formal and informal, are the tools and apparently the Bully Mob has never learned how to use those tools - otherwise they wouldn't blame me for their own lack of ability to form a coherent chain of thoughts strung together logically. The reason it keeps going in a circle is that when I point out the insults that substitute for thought they blame ME - saying I'm not deserving of reason - and now we're back to ad hominem again.

Ask any community college logic professor if that's valid.

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/07, 8:33am)

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/07, 8:35am)

Post 150

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:38am

Lee, you said:

I'm not deserving of reason.

You got it!

Post 151

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:28am

I know, I've got you pegged. That is the stupid point that Bully after Bully has made, and it's an invalid argument on it's face. It's blaming someone else for YOUR inabilty to argue properly.

Let's say I'm not 'deserving of reason'. Then why the insults? You aren't hurting me, you're just proving that you can't argue.

It's you, Hong and the rest of the Bully Mob who has shown, endlessly in this thread, that you don't deserve rational arguement because you dont' CARE about rational argument. Yet, I continue to argue with logic, pointing up time and again the logic fallcies in nearly every post of yours. Take away the fallacies, and you have nothing left to say. Take away the name calling, and you are bankrupt. You're not stupid, you're worse - you are willfully irrational - and that isn't an ad hominem, it's a accurate description of someone who substitutes insult for argument and should know better.

Post 152

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:37am

No, you didn't get it. What was I thinking!

Post 153

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:45am

Jon Letendre writes:

Rick, infants have a valid claim on their parents.

So you assert.

They don�t spontaneously appear, but are created by the parents. They are utterly helpless and they exist because someone CHOSE to create them.

So? How does that create a claim?

Creating helpless human life and choosing to not give it �gifts� is a monumental failure to take responsibility for ones� actions. People who do this repeatedly are polluters of my and your planet.

Agreed. However, that hardly is the basis of a claim. (BTW, what was the purpose of the 'repeatedly'? Does a single instance not constitute "pollution"?)

They should be forcibly sterilized.

What have they done to you? I agree that they should be shunned and/or ostracized, at least criticized, but to initiate force against them is unjustified.

Post 154

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:52am

Hong,

Stop evading my previous question : How did I misrepresent what was on the Yahoo Group's list?

(sound of crickets)

See - this is where you can make an arguement to prove your point. Like, point out what was actually said and then how I got it wrong. Facts logic blah blah blah.

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/07, 11:49am)

Post 155

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:47pm

Rick,

The claim is born by the parental decision to create the child. Decide to sign a contract, and someone will have a claim on you. Decide to procreate, and your creation (until capable of sustaining itself) has a claim on you. Drop-off to an orphanage is fine�but doing it repeatedly is parasitical dependence on the goodwill of others, those of us who will not sit by and watch children die. Without our goodwill, these babies WOULD starve and die.

I say repeatedly because innocent mistakes can be made. Think of it as �three strikes.�

What have they done to ME? They are filling my world with underprivileged children, stocking orphanages with kids, some of whom will thrive and be good people, but many of whom will bounce from foster home to foster home and some of whom will be breaking into my van to steal speakers. That�s a long chain, I admit, but they are initiating force against me, so I have the right to respond with force�sterilization at my expense.

Jon

Post 156

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 3:51pm

Lee whined:

"It's you, Hong and the rest of the Bully Mob who has shown, endlessly in this thread, that you don't deserve rational arguement because you dont' CARE about rational argument. Yet, I continue to argue with logic, pointing up time and again the logic fallcies in nearly every post of yours. Take away the fallacies, and you have nothing left to say. Take away the name calling, and you are bankrupt. You're not stupid, you're worse - you are willfully irrational - and that isn't an ad hominem, it's a accurate description of someone who substitutes insult for argument and should know better."

You just don't know when to shut up. I think George got you exactly right. And I stand by my statement that you're the most arrogant pretentious prick I've seen on solo in the last four months.

As far as "pointing up time and again the logic fallcies in nearly every post of yours."

In your dreams. You have a barely perceptible grasp of logic or objectivism in spite of your pretensions. Is that enough insults for you?

I can hear it now, "Mommy, mommy, that man said bad words".

Mike,
Proud member of the "Bully Mob"

OK Rick. Now I'll agree to disagree.

Post 157

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 5:42pm

Mike,

Good example of another completely content free post filled with nothing but insults. But I'll give you a chance. You state that I don't know have a grasp of logic or objectivism - prove it. Point to examples. Show where I've erred. Cite examples. Don't name call, prove.

Watch, everyone - he won't. Same as Hong - I'm still waiting for you to tell everyone who I misrepresented the discussion on Objectivist Parents.

In fact, anyone here can see for themselves that Hong lied about that - just go over to Groups.Yahoo.com and sign up for the board. Read the posts. Civil discussion. No name calling. Two people aside from me view the man being responsible as the ethical thing to do. And note that over there, far from the Bully Mob, she doesn't say a PEEP to them.

(Edited by Lee Stranahan
on 3/07, 5:44pm)

(Edited by Lee Stranahan
on 3/07, 5:48pm)

Post 158

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:06pm

Lee,

From a Reason magazine article on the occasion of AR's 100 birthday:

"Rand�s rejection of the moral code that condemns selfishness as the ultimate evil and holds up self-sacrifice as the ultimate good is a radical challenge to received wisdom, an invitation to a startlingly new way to see the world."

You flunk objectivism 101 there.

I posted this earlier:
"
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."

You thanked me for it. You shouldn't of, I posted it to point out your misuse of "Argumentum ad Baculum". I even added the quote. It obviously went right over your head like everything else anyone has posted on this thread. And I suppose your post I quoted in my previous post didn't contain any insults, you conveniently group everyone who disagreed with you in virtually the entire first half of this discussion into a "Bully Mob" so you don't even have to try to reread and try to extract anything useful from it that might challenge your preconceived notions. You have, however, given me a mission. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven"[my favorite movie]: "I've killed everything that walks or crawls, and I'm out to kill you, Lee Stranahan". Metaphorically speaking of course. Not that you're not already the living dead.

Post 159

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 6:59pm