Question for the parents on this board...

[candyflip]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

you are a piece of shit to make fun of kids

You're just a piece of shit.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

The Objectivist debater on the other side will say a mentally sound person values his oen life above all others. And thus, the Objectivist would claim that the mentally sound choice would be to preserve one's life above all others.

Anyone can argue anything they want. Proven science does not support that premise .also, the fact that lunatics are debating something, doesn't mean the conclusions have an basis in reality.... Or even the debate itself for that matter. An "objectivist" can argue and debate all day long but I am talking proven, well studied and well documented neuroscience and you are taking about fringe lunatics who's ideas have no basis whatsoever in reality. They might also argue they can levitate. Big deal.

The decision on this matter in a normal brain is made instantly and below conscious awareness. There is no internal rational debate, much less conscious awareness of the decision making process that led to the conclusion.. There is only your brains own confabulations to rationalize the intense flash of negative emotion and decision.

Quoting sun tszu does not make your initial question any less troubling to a normal person, nor does it somehow suggest the asking of it is any more sane. All you are trying to do with that is Donnie back and put a pretty red bow on it.

[TCLGirls]

For those wou would choose the let their child live, Like I would, I suggest taking a very close look at all the people who have adopted or been influenced by Ayn Rand philosophy. It's pretty scary.

Ron Paul
Rand Paul (2016 US Presidential Candidate)
Clarence Thomas (US Supremem Court Justice)
Paul Ryan (US politician who said Ayn Rand convinced him to enter poltics)
Alan Greenspan (who was AR's lover for a while)

[TheSquealer]

Worst attempt at political trolling ever as you can't say in what way she influenced them (positively or negatively and in what way all). You just attach her name to theirs and point and say "oooh... scary!!"

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Anyone can argue anything they want. Proven science does not support that premise .also, the fact that lunatics are debating something, doesn't mean the conclusions have an basis in reality.... Or even the debate itself for that matter. An "objectivist" can argue and debate all day long but I am talking proven, well studied and well documented neuroscience and you are taking about fringe lunatics who's ideas have no basis whatsoever in reality. They might also argue they can levitate. Big deal.

The decision on this matter in a normal brain is made instantly and below conscious awareness. There is no internal rational debate, much less conscious awareness of the decision making process that led to the conclusion.. There is only your brains own confabulations to rationalize the intense flash of negative emotion and decision.

Quoting sun tszu does not make your initial question any less troubling to a normal person, nor does it somehow suggest the asking of it is any more sane. All you are trying to do with that is Donnie back and put a pretty red bow on it.

I never said the question I posted was not troubling. it is indeed troubling. That's why it is worthy of discussing if merely to identifying those who would not choose their child. If we had it your way, no one would ever ask that question in the first place. And thus it would be harder to identify those who would chose to have their children die in order to save themselves.

[OneHungLo]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

First you said: "Personally, i am fascinated that the question was asked at all. The brain will never process a question like this logically... as reason only follows a strong flash of affect from emotional intuition and we then react accordingly."

Stating that assumes you thought I was asking this question in order to seek guidance.

Then you said: "..suggests quite a bit about the emotional wiring of the person asking the question."

Stating that suggested you failed to realize one can ask questions in order to develop a logical debate rather than an offer to explore one's personal emotional wiring.

Bro, you're a psychopath...accept it and move on

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Worst attempt at political trolling ever as you can't say in what way she influenced them (positively or negatively and in what way all). You just attach her name to theirs and point and say "oooh... scary!!"

All those who i have posted have been influenced positively by Ayn Rand. And that is indeed scary given that a major tenet of AR's philosophy is that one should consider their own lives above all else, all the time.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Anyone can argue anything they want. Proven science does not support that premise .also, the fact that lunatics are debating something, doesn't mean the conclusions have an basis in reality.... Or even the debate itself for that matter. An "objectivist" can argue and debate all day long but I am talking proven, well studied and well documented neuroscience and you are taking about fringe lunatics who's ideas have no basis whatsoever in reality. They might also argue they can levitate. Big deal.

Unfortunately, the Objectivist movement is not just a bunch of lunatics with no influence...though I wish they were that irrelevant. The Ayn Rand Institute does many things to advance their philosophy, many of which are considered "legitimate", like donating her books to school children by the millions.

[ilnjscb]

Can you show me where Rand, Peikoff or Brandon ever advocated allowing one's children to die? No Jewish person, which is all three of the above, would advocate that, except maybe Abraham, cause he was told to personally by his deity.

[clickity click]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Personally, i am fascinated that the question was asked at all. The brain will never process a question like this logically... as reason only follows a strong flash of affect from emotional intuition and we then react accordingly.

It is moral question. Moral questions are processed very differently in the brain than other mundane questions.

The only way a person wouldn't process this question properly or not understand a parents instant, unwavering decision to save their child is if something is wired wrong in their brains emotional processing.... such as with a psychopath where there is no intense, internal emotional response to the loss of their child and every dilemma and every decision, no matter how disturbing to a normal person is basically a tie to them and they could go either way (i.e. kill this dog by bashing its head with a rock or pet it and give it a toy to play with).

The interesting thing in asking this question is that, though the answer seems painfully obvious to anyone, it likely isn't obvious to the person asking it, thus it suggests something is up with his brains emotional wiring... being that to a normal person the question could be likened to say, asking "if you are thirsty, would you drink something". You could only ask such a question if you weren't sure what thirst was, why people drink water etc etc etc, again, telling you that something is really wrong in this persons brain and impeding their ability to understand these things.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Well, the answer should be obvious. As a parent there is zero question what the answer is. As a person of reasonably sound mind, even if one is without children, it's still obvious what a parent would say. So the question is then "how could one be confused as to what a parent might decide to do?".

Psychopaths are almost never violent. They do have brains that a mis-wired in such a way that they are usually aware that they have a real problem as all day, everyday, they are seeing that they lack the same emotional responses of others. They learn to understand the world and behavior in a very different way. They learn to fake the right emotional responses at the right time etc creating the perception of normalcy. But generally speaking, they love an a world that is emotionally gray vs ours of vivid and widely varying color). As an analogy, you and I know at a stop light to go on green. A psychopath, has learned to go when the top light is on. This is why they can be around us and not stand out in spite of their gross emotional deficiencies and seem perfectly normal until they slip up and ask a question like "why would a parent save their child"

Understanding how our brains process moral decisions and knowing that normal people experience a very strong flash of emotional affect, after which they act accordingly, it is also easy to understand how a person lacking that intense emotional response is confused at why a parent would save a child.

Psychopaths have no emotional attachment to their children. They don't experience love. To them, their children are objects and possessions. Letting one die is the emotional equivalent of throwing away an old shirt. In most cases, a relief unless that child brought something to the table (achievements, abilities/talents, attractiveness etc) which reflect well on the parent or some other benefit to the parent which they would regret losing.

Anyway, sincerely not understanding why it's an absurd question to ask, suggests quite a bit about the emotional wiring of the person asking the question.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

A few things should also be said. People generally don't understand what "psychopath" and psychopathy are. It's not like the movies. Psychotic and psychopathic are not the same either. Generally speaking, though a range of common personality traits are common to psychopathy, it stems from a deficiency in specific areas of the brain, resulting in severely retarded or absent emotional responses. Some psychologists argue that up to 3-4% of people in the USA are psychopaths. They are doctors, lawyers, physicists etc etc etc and at most just seem "abrasive" or "a little eccentric" or "kind of a dick" to others and lead pretty normal lives

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Interestingly, psychopaths don't fear they are psychopaths ;)

Ayn Rand may feel that from a rational perspective, it makes sense, but our brains do not process moral decisions with rational reason.

Further, there is additional genetic encoding in our DNA to further ensure we sacrifice for blood relatives (kin altruism related behaviors) to protect and further our genes.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

You quoted me where I used very clear and unambiguous language, specifically saying "sincerely not understanding....." obviously taking that into account. I didn't state specifically that you didn't understand, as I have no clue as to your motivation for asking the question.... though, it is again worth pointing out that the answer for any sane parent is obvious. So obvious that a non parent would not hesitate in answering the same. This would make the very asking of the question suspect.

After all, if Ayn Rand said that drinking water is unnecessary, no one would come to a forum to ask the masses what they think as the answer would be obvious before asking.

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

It's fair to say that quite a bit can be inferred about a person who asks a question of 1000s of strangers with such a universally obvious answer. Maybe you'd like to "just ask" some other questions like "should I fatally stab a pregnant woman" or "should I eat my child"... after all, just questions and who really knows what people will say??

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I've said again and again that a mentally sound person will make the same choice and only a person with severe mental deficiencies such as psychopathy can choose otherwise. I fail to see where there is "debate". If the question is asked "can you run a world record mile time" the obvious answer is "no.... Unless you've been training and are capable of doing it". A debate doesn't change potential outcomes.

I think I love you.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Can you show me where Rand, Peikoff or Brandon ever advocated allowing one's children to die? No Jewish person, which is all three of the above, would advocate that, except maybe Abraham, cause he was told to personally by his deity.

1. Rand rejects religion.

2. From Ayn Rand's personal journal discussing ethics of the ideal man:

"His life and work come above all?nothing and no one can interfere, or even be considered beside it."

https://books.google.com/books?id=2G...hers& f=false

[Sid70]

This thread is:

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Can you show me where Rand, Peikoff or Brandon ever advocated allowing one's children to die? No Jewish person, which is all three of the above, would advocate that, except maybe Abraham, cause he was told to personally by his deity.

"Rand argued in The Virtue of Selfishness, her nonfiction work on moral philosophy, that (i) one?s own life is logically the ultimate value because it makes all other values possible; that (ii) it is therefore irrational for a valuing being not to defend and further this life above all other values; and that (iii) this entails strong conclusions about the rightness ? actually, the moral necessity ? of living selfishly"

What Was Ayn Rand Wrong About? - Forbes

[Phoenix]

Of course i choose my children to live. What sucks is that in the past, this sort of tactic was used simply to separate the parents from the kids then both are executed.

The best option would probably be to try and go Chuck Norris with about 100 other fathers at the same time and rush the guards stealing their weapons. I would like to think I am brave enough for such a thing. However, it is likely i would be killed.

What a shitty thing to have to decide, we are monsters. This exact scenario has happened many times. I feel a big sick to think about people who have had to decide this in reality.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Of course i choose my children to live. What sucks is that in the past, this sort of tactic was used simply to separate the parents from the kids then both are executed.

The best option would probably be to try and go Chuck Norris with about 100 other fathers at the same time and rush the guards stealing their weapons. I would like to think I am brave enough for such a thing. However, it is likely i would be killed.

What a shitty thing to have to decide, we are monsters. This exact scenario has happened many times. I feel a big sick to think about people who have had to decide this in reality.

Well I think in regards to the original problem I posted, most parents would not want to be killed. But if forced with the choice of being killed versus their child being killed, vast majority of parents would choose to die...and they would be happy with that choice knowing that their child will live.

The far more devastating scenario IMHO is Sophie's Choice, where the parent must choose which child is to be executed, and which one lives.

[CurrentlySober]

Originally Posted by Sid70

This thread is:

Fap Fap Fap...

Ps - Is this Ayn Rand character related to Sally???

[Sid70]

Originally Posted by CurrentlySober

Fap Fap Fap...

Ps - Is this Ayn Rand character related to Sally???

This is a topic starter's mind set description.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

"Rand argued in The Virtue of Selfishness, her nonfiction work on moral philosophy, that (i) one?s own life is logically the ultimate value because it makes all other values possible; that (ii) it is therefore irrational for a valuing being not to defend and further this life above all other values; and that (iii) this entails strong conclusions about the rightness ? actually, the moral necessity ? of living selfishly"

What Was Ayn Rand Wrong About? - Forbes

Very inconclusive. I've seen financial "guidebooks" that were more direct concerning treatment of children.

The bottom line, Ayn Rand, whatever her real name was, can't be bothered to look it up, and her school had nothing bad to say about family per se.

Objectivism, though, just like every other behavioral philosophy, will inevitably fall short unless it addresses the fact that civilization, to paraphrase Jared Diamond, is a huge fucking mistake.

Ayn Rand was personally an indulgent sack of shit, but so was Ghandi, so was Constantine, etc, etc. Someone came on here a few days ago and extolled Abraham Lincoln. Don't get me started.

[MakeMeGrrrrowl]

Originally Posted by clickity click

I think I love you.

I agree. He's pretty awesome.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Very inconclusive. I've seen financial "guidebooks" that were more direct concerning treatment of children.

The bottom line, Ayn Rand, whatever her real name was, can't be bothered to look it up, and her school had nothing bad to say about family per se.

Objectivism, though, just like every other behavioral philosophy, will inevitably fall short unless it addresses the fact that civilization, to paraphrase Jared Diamond, is a huge fucking mistake.

Ayn Rand was personally an indulgent sack of shit, but so was Ghandi, so was Constantine, etc, etc. Someone came on here a few days ago and extolled Abraham Lincoln. Don't get me started.

Of course Ayn Rand is not going to come out and say "family sucks, let your children die". That instantly would turn everyone off. But that is the logical conclusion from her philosophy and all her works.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Of course Ayn Rand is not going to come out and say "family sucks, let your children die". That instantly would turn everyone off. But that is the logical conclusion from her philosophy and all her works.

Your conclusion. I don't see that at all.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

Your conclusion. I don't see that at all.

Yes of course it is just my conclusion that Rand would not come out and explicitly say "families suck, let your child die." Why? Because anyone who wants people to follow their philosophy will not suddenly introduce an offensive/unpopular concept. Doing so immediately turns off a prospective follower. Rather, the more efficient way to introduce a philosophy is to focus on the more "palitable" general concepts...like 'selfishness is a virtue", or that the "individual comes before all else". That's what Rand did.

[Rochard]

I am forty-six years old and have lived a good life. I want my child to have the same. I would send my kid.

My kid comes first. Always. In everything. It's not even open to discussion.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Yes of course it is just my conclusion that Rand would not come out and explicitly say "families suck, let your child die." Why? Because anyone who wants people to follow their philosophy will not suddenly introduce an offensive/unpopular concept. Doing so immediately turns off a prospective follower. Rather, the more efficient way to introduce a philosophy is to focus on the more "palitable" general concepts...like 'selfishness is a virtue", or that the "individual comes before all else". That's what Rand did.

That is your personal interpretation of what Rand did. I'm not sure there is much scholarly support for your personal opinion, but if there is, please post.

[Tam]

Originally Posted by Sly

If you chose yourself, would it even make a difference? You are dead either way.

Your child, on the other hand, can live their life without that same guilt. A parents love for their child is different than a child's love for their parents. Parents should not see their children die, but children know they will see their parents die.

I agree with you here - as a Mom, I'd have to choose to set my child free - no matter what, they would have at least a fighting chance to survive - whereas, I'd be dead - and therefore not have a chance in hell of survival - any chance they have to survive and live, I am all about that.

I am not sure how they would live, happy or not, I can't imagine how they'd be happy with a dead mom - but at least I'd "sleep" well knowing I gave them a chance and they'd know I gave everything to give them that chance.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by ilnjscb

That is your personal interpretation of what Rand did. I'm not sure there is much scholarly support for your personal opinion, but if there is, please post.

Objectivism has been critiqued and dismissed in many scholarly journals:

"First, we critique objectivism as a philosophical system of questionable legitimacy and coherence."
Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity

"This article argues that the first-person shooter Bioshock uses the video game medium to provide a powerful critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. "
The battle for Galt's Gulch: <i>Bioshock</i> as critique of Objec...: ingentaconnect

"...objectivity is not a suitable ideal for understanding a text, historical event, or cultural phenomenon because there exists no one correct interpretation for such phenomena."
Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond - Google Books

[Vendzilla]

My daughter of course, I never thought I would have lived this long anyways.

[ilnjscb]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Objectivism has been critiqued and dismissed in many scholarly journals:

"First, we critique objectivism as a philosophical system of questionable legitimacy and coherence."
Objections to an Objectivist Approach to Integrity

"This article argues that the first-person shooter Bioshock uses the video game medium to provide a powerful critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. "
The battle for Galt's Gulch: <i>Bioshock</i> as critique of Objec...: ingentaconnect

"...objectivity is not a suitable ideal for understanding a text, historical event, or cultural phenomenon because there exists no one correct interpretation for such phenomena."
Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond - Google Books

Critiqued is different than definitively accused of advocating the placing of one's own interests above those of one's children, to the children's definitive detriment. We know that any philosophy of any credibility will have its detractors. I think you've extrapolated an espousal of parental indifference or neglect where none exists. Objectivism has numerous real flaws, not least of which, as I previously mentioned, is the failure of its founder to genuinely adhere to any of its principles. I don't think any spurious claims need to be attributed to it to make a point.