The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

Jon: No one in this forum is stupid enough to argue that children can only learn these things through pain. The statement itself doesn't even have meaning since clearly it depends on the age of the child (certainly children of a certain age can understand the idea of being hit by a bus and killed).

So your assertion that somebody said it lacks any credibility. So I take your lack of "patience" and "interest" to really mean that you either couldn't find the posts or know you won't find the posts.

What I believe you might find is posts saying that children below a certain age might require physical punishment if they keep doing things that might get them killed or seriously hurt. E.g., if a two-year-old keeps dashing into the road after you tell him not to, then it's time to start spanking him for it. Which is a far cry from the claim that "children learn best by experiencing pain."

All you've demonstrated by your statement is what you already demonstrated in the other thread: that you never comprehended the arguments of the pro-spankers.

Post 81

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 11:03am

Why any rational adult would intentionally inflict physical pain on their own child is beyond my comprehension as well. You can teach a child about safety and other issues without resorting to violent acts.

Post 82

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 11:09am

It's the "old school", katdaddy - many claim you can't live without it - spanking, etc.

Post 83

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 12:29pm

Katdaddy: : �Why any rational adult would intentionally inflict physical pain��

Because holding the hand of a two year old is too much to ask of a rational adult. Rational adults want the use of both hands. Through fear and intimidation, a two year old can be taught to walk at heel like a dog. If you value your time, and use of both hands, you will find that this is in line with your selfish interests.

Jon

Post 84

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 12:53pm

Because holding the hand of a two year old is too much to ask of a rational adult.

Note how quickly they lapse into ad hominem...

Post 85

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 1:00pm

It is ad hominem to point out that a child can be kept from the street by holding its� hand?

Post 86

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 1:03pm

Well, I suppose maybe it is.

I am saying that he is an idiot who doesn�t hold the hand of a child, near traffic, who has gained a reputation for running into the street.

Jon

Post 87

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 1:06pm

Shane asks:

Pete

What if you knew that by your non-involvement, the child's life would be effected negatively?

If I felt the mother was psychologically or morally unfit for parenting, then I might intervene on the child's behalf. Assuming that's not the case, I don't think it's good for a child to grow being passed back and forth between a different parents with different homes. I think a single parent environment might even be better than that from a stability standpoint, assuming the child has only known one parent (a divorce situation is different, obviously, because the child presumable already has an established relationship with both parents).

Post 88

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 2:01pm

Pete,

That quote in your above post is not from Shayne, but from Lee, who obviously thinks that you should change your own value system and do whatever the women wants. I believe Lee will find Atlas Shrugged much more bizarre than the response he got from this forum.

Your concern about the welfare of the child shows that you are a decent, compassionate, and responsible guy. You shouldn�t be taken advantage of because of it and shouldn�t be punished for it. Katdaddy�s post #72 of this thread stated perfectly, in my opinion, what a rational and responsible woman should do.

Also, do not feel guilty or ashamed to admit that you are not ready for child, or that you are apprehensive for the tremendous task of raising a child (yes, you are not wrong that it will change your whole life), or even that you are not fond of children at all. It�s perfectly normal. Each individual has different temperament and value system. Raising child is not a career for everybody. If you force yourself into taking part in such an important endeavor that you don�t enjoy at all, it could only harm everyone involved: yourself, your partner and the child. Therefore it would be immoral. Not every guy is as maternal as Jon The Tender One, not even every woman is disposed for the task of child rearing. We all have heard stories of negligent or abusive mothers, or even mothers killing their own children! Those are of course just the extreme cases, but there could be millions of miserable mothers out there who really shouldn't be having children in the first place.

(I noticed that I used rather forceful tone here. I do have strong feeling about these issues.)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/05, 7:13pm)

Post 89

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 2:17pm

Thank you, Hong. Finally, I am understood! I am not just a shaven-head landlord (my last building hasn�t sold), not just (along with Cordero) an advocate of the 9mm, not just a pheasant and quail slaying gun dog owner�I am also a maternal stay-at-home Dad who is tired of hearing the opinions of dip-shits who think children must be hit and that creating pregnancies is no big deal.

Jon

Post 90

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 2:33pm

Well Jon, I'm tired of people who quite clearly have never read any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction come in here and pretend they know how to apply her philosophy. You are an obvious product of today's progressive education system, but unlike some you've not used Rand to rise above it, rather you use her to rationalize it. Contrary to what they taught you in school Jon, just because you say it doesn't make it worthy of stating.

And what a silly comment about pregnancy. In today's age, in comparison to the extremely serious choice of deciding have a baby, getting pregnant is in fact is no big deal. The woman who evades that and proceeds with pregnancy regardless of the consequences to herself and to the man is an irrationalist who should definitely not be having any children.

Post 91

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 2:36pm

Shayne,

You are making a huge leap, equating taking responsibilty for a pregnacy with pleasure=sin. Surely, you see a difference between those two positions. Nobody mentioned sin. Well, wait - you did. And then you ascribed it to me. I told you that you were wrong, but I guess you know better than I do what I think. Really, man - don't you see how condescending that is? You can disagree with someone without distorting their opinion.

Restate your point, and I'll keep my responses to you in a seperate post. I slightly resent this, because I don't think it's that hard to ignore parts of a post that don't directly relate to your point. I feel you're making me jump through an extra hoop, but whatever. I'll do it and I won't bitch about it.

Spell checkers don't catch my main problem, which is dropped or incorrect words. If I was writing a formal article or post, I'd care more. I consider this informal communication, so suffer a little. I said sorry.

Post 92

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 3:04pm

Shayne,

I like children. I enjoy raising them. Imagine that I am a woman and you a man. Should you be fucking me?

Jon

Post 93

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 3:09pm

Whoaaaaaa there Shayne!

Now Jon and I have gone round and round on the spanking issue that we disagree on, so I am *more* than familiar with having an argument with him.

But this comment you made: "Well Jon, I'm tired of people who quite clearly have never read any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction come in here and pretend they know how to apply her philosophy. You are an obvious product of today's progressive education system, but unlike some you've not used Rand to rise above it, rather you use her to rationalize it."

That was uncalled for, and unjust. Go back and read some of his post, post that range a myriad of topics, and you will find that you are mistaken. Go toe to toe with him on this issue as you will (I am closer in agreement with you than him!), deal out out your strongest blows as you will. But, that across the board condemnation was wrong.

If you really want to take out some anger on a deserving target, I strongly recommend Lee Stranahan - he has earned it.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/05, 6:50pm)

Post 94

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 3:16pm

Thank you, George. Fuck you, George.

Thanks.

Jon

Post 95

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 3:41pm

George: I don't believe that blind spots this big, paraded around as if they represent virtuous thinking, are ever justified. They always represent a failure to integrate a proper method, intellectual laziness and brazen arrogance. The same kind of arrogance that leads to all manner of rights violations that we see going on in the world. I have no doubt Jon would have the government enforce his rights-violating viewpoint on all of us if it weren't already happening.

There are two kinds of people. One reacts to an error with "oh well, no need to dwell on it, let's get on with life." This is the pragmatist, the product of today's progressive schools. The other is thoughtful about it, thinks about what caused the error, takes steps to correct it, and is careful about being too assertive before he's earned the right to his certainty. It's usually easy to recognize which is which, since the thoughtful approach doesn't lead to these gaping blind spots with an attitude to go along with it.

Post 96

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 3:51pm

George,

What did I do to hurt your wittle feewings?

Post 97

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 4:13pm

Hong, stop putting words into my mouth, and stop being so condescending. I never said 'do whatever the woman wants' - that's subjectivism, pure and simple - it's what's in the best interest of the child. And there are some standards someone can use to determine that,

And if you know anything about parenting or just read the statistics, it's pretty obvious that not having a father around has hugely negative consequences, compared to having a father involved. In every case? No, but the stats are mathematically significant.

I stated at the very top, it's not proper to be a mopey parent who whines about everything they gave up. It's a matter of adjusting one's values system to reality.

Katdaddy's response was about what the woman should do, which was never my question. But here's what the woman should do, in my opinion...first, she should talk to the man and tell him that she expects him to be a good father. Not marry her - but be a good involved father.

If he refuses - and Hong seems to think he should refuse - then he's an asshole, and she has to act accordingly. Then, it's what Katdaddy said.

But the woman having to fall back on plan B doesn't change the fact that Plan A should be for both people to do what's right for the child. That means both people putting aside aspects of their lives to do the right thing.

What I still don't get is how Hong can ignore facts like the stats on families with no fathers, and how she can do that and lead the parenting group.

Post 98

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 5:56pm

What is my unforgivable blind spot, Shayne? That I believe men should think about the intentions of the women they have sex with before having sex with them? That I believe a man who impregnates a woman is more responsible for the resulting baby than I am?

Jon

Post 99

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 6:04pm