Don't Read to Your Children

[Elerond]

 

 

Except that IS the basic premise of the author of the article. Moreover, the asshat in the interview feels conflicted about coming up with the justification for the family. The idea of justifying something that gives someone an advantage over others actually causes him mental conflict.

 

Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once.

 

 

 

 Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

 

I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family".

 

Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime.

 

Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least.  Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article.

 

 

Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best. So it isn't very good as source when you want to judge Swift's and Brighouse's philosophies, maybe little better than use it as source to judge Platon's philosophies but not much. Article seems to be more a brief glimpse to some philosophies that try to determine value of family and in at least in Swift case how that value would work in society which aim is equality.

 

I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together.

[Rostere]

I read copiously as a kid. It is only in hindsight I've realized I read very few things from after The Lord of the Rings was published (that's how it turned out when my parents got to choose the books I read for me).

 

My first books were "Kidnapped" and "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas", at age 5-6. We didn't have any fancy TV channels so I missed most animated TV series most kids watched during the nineties. I really wonder how many future children will have an upbringing like this.

[Namutree]

I read copiously as a kid. It is only in hindsight I've realized I read very few things from after The Lord of the Rings was published (that's how it turned out when my parents got to choose the books I read for me).

 

My first books were "Kidnapped" and "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas", at age 5-6. We didn't have any fancy TV channels so I missed most animated TV series most kids watched during the nineties. I really wonder how many future children will have an upbringing like this.

None. It's all over. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane

 

 

...According to you. Elaborate. Defend the opinion you have. Argue for it. Despising someone because their principles don't align with yours suspiciously sounds like thought-policing bull****. It's not the mark of someone who trusts that their values hold up on closer examination.

 

 

they must grasp at straws

 

 

...Indicated in the text by what?

 

 

a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place

 

 

Interesting definition of "rational person" you got there. I thought rational people questioned things before blindly accepting them.

 

 

There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice

 

 

Again with the word "rational". Based on whose definition? Also, "familial good" (as in, "the good of the family", because that's what those words mean) isn't even mentioned in the discussion.

 

 

if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do.

 

 

A statement with no textual support in the article. Only relevant quote is this:

 

 

 

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ [swift] says.

 

You may have noticed that "interested in" doesn't imply "accepts as a first principle".

 

 

I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together.

 

 

^Also this. It starts to suspiciously sound like the loudest critics of the article don't even have a clue as to how philosophers operate. Imagine my surprise.

[Malcador]

Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best.

Did a bang up job there. Heh, if they did conclude it was a problem, I don't imagine any solution is practical as people won't take for the State seizing their children or some other totalitarian behaviour. But I suppose their kind doesn't mind that niggle.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Heh, if they did conclude it was a problem

 

...Which they didn't.

 

I don't imagine any solution is practical as people won't take for the State seizing their children or some other totalitarian behaviour. But I suppose their kind doesn't mind that niggle.

 

I'm sure they indeed wouldn't mind, if, y'know, they were actually advocating for that. Which they aren't.

Edited May 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

You do know what 'if' means, right ? Also, you misread the last sentence, too.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Malcador

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You do know what 'if' means, right ? 

 

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation.

Edited May 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Guard Dog]

 

Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best.

Did a bang up job there. Heh, if they did conclude it was a problem, I don't imagine any solution is practical as people won't take for the State seizing their children or some other totalitarian behaviour. But I suppose their kind doesn't mind that niggle.

 

If the state ever did decide to seize everyone's children how would we stop them? Well, in the US & Canada we're all armed to the teeth so I guess that won't be an issue! Suddenly puts gun control in a different light.

[Guard Dog]

 

You do know what 'if' means, right ? 

 

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation.

 

  You become quite argumentative lately haven't you? More than usual!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

If the state ever did decide to seize everyone's children how would we stop them? Well, in the US & Canada we're all armed to the teeth so I guess that won't be an issue! Suddenly puts gun control in a different light.

 

...Do you seriously believe the state wants to take away your guns in order to make their job of taking away your children easier?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

You do know what 'if' means, right ? 

 

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation.

 

  You become quite argumentative lately haven't you? More than usual!

 

 

"Argumentative" is a nice phrasing of what Malc, quite rightly, characterized as "behaving like a ****".

 

That said, I'm pretty sure everybody has a particular pet issue that just pushes their buttons the right way to induce maximal levels of annoyance. People arguing from an utterly uninformed position when all required information to educate themselves is quite literally at their fingertips oh my god they just have to look it's not that hard is one of mine.

[Malcador]

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation.

Ah irony abounds, first off slamming people for illiteracy when you apparently can't parse 'if' and second you being a **** again despite harping on that as a bad quality for a forum to allow. Hm.

 

Just an amusing thought on half of the outcome of their exercise. Certainly reminds me of some meetings at work

 

If the state ever did decide to seize everyone's children how would we stop them? Well, in the US & Canada we're all armed to the teeth so I guess that won't be an issue! Suddenly puts gun control in a different light.

Well, you could always kill your children before they take them. Denial of a prize is easy, after all. Of course they could always just nab them right after delivery. But they'd need to do a soft sell before that - media outcry and so on.

 

Hm, this sounds like it'd make a terrible movie. Maybe Boll can direct. Or Bay.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

 

If the state ever did decide to seize everyone's children how would we stop them? Well, in the US & Canada we're all armed to the teeth so I guess that won't be an issue! Suddenly puts gun control in a different light.

 

...Do you seriously believe the state wants to take away your guns in order to make their job of taking away your children easier?

 

  No.

 

I realize it's hard to tell when someone is screwing around when just reading text because it's hard to capture tone. I do post a lot of stuff just for arguments/discussion sake. But I think most of you know where I'm coming from most of the time.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Guard Dog

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm sure it would require a heroic effort on your part to actually read the article instead of launching into wild and uninformed speculation.

Ah irony abounds, first off slamming people for illiteracy when you apparently can't parse 'if''

 

 

 

Yes, thank you, Master, now I have seen the light. I was wrong to assume people actually tried to inform themselves about a subject before forming an opinion. Foolish me.

 

 

you being a **** again despite harping on that as a bad quality for a forum to allow. 

 

Well it is a bad quality for a forum to allow.

 

That said, Meshugger did ask me to be less polite in one of the endless incarnations of the GG subtopic. Seriously people, just make up your mind on what you want from me 

[Hurlshort]

 

 

I realize it's hard to tell when someone is screwing around when just reading text because it's hard to capture tone. I do post a lot of stuff just for arguments/discussion sake. But I think most of you know where I'm coming from most of the time.

 

 

Usually I think you are coming from Tennessee, but on occasion you sound a bit more like Florida.  

[Elerond]

A state has as much power as people of the state gives to it, if the state don't get outside help. Meaning that the state need support of majority of power that the state's people hold to do anything.

 

So in scenario where a state somehow has power to take people children away, it means that in that scenario majority of power that people of the state hold is behind that decision or that decision is made with support of outside power. In first option it don't mater if people have right to carry guns, because they majority of power that gives to people is behind the state's decision to take children away, which mean that majority of those people that own those guns want to take children away from their parents, of course if majority of power that people supporting the state decision is not high enough this scenario probably leads in civil war. In second scenario we speak in situation where another and probably larger and a more powerful state supports minority power in the state and forces majority of power in the state accept their view, this scenario will even more likely lead to civil war, in this scenario people's right to own guns probably means that outside power needs to be much higher than if people of the state didn't have right to own guns.

[Malcador]

Yes, thank you, Master, now I have seen the light. I was wrong to assume people actually tried to inform themselves about a subject before forming an opinion. Foolish me.

You're confusing the point with the manner.

 

 

That said, Meshugger did ask me to be less polite in one of the endless incarnations of the GG subtopic. Seriously people, just make up your mind on what you want from me 

Meshugger is a shady fellow.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

I realize it's hard to tell when someone is screwing around when just reading text because it's hard to capture tone. I do post a lot of stuff just for arguments/discussion sake. But I think most of you know where I'm coming from most of the time.

 

 

Usually I think you are coming from Tennessee, but on occasion you sound a bit more like Florida.  

 

I haven't completely assimilated yet!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

You're confusing the point with the manner.

 

 

Elaborate.

[BruceVC]

 

Yes, thank you, Master, now I have seen the light. I was wrong to assume people actually tried to inform themselves about a subject before forming an opinion. Foolish me.

You're confusing the point with the manner.

 

 

That said, Meshugger did ask me to be less polite in one of the endless incarnations of the GG subtopic. Seriously people, just make up your mind on what you want from me 

Meshugger is a shady fellow.

 

 

Malc you seem very sensitive about alumin posting etiquette ? I really don't think he is particularly aggressive or dismissive...have you seen how some  people  talk to me in the GG  thread? If you think alumin is rude you would be shocked by there comments 

 

I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

[Guard Dog]

 

I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

 

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right?

 

[Malcador]

Malc you seem very sensitive about alumin posting etiquette ? I really don't think he is particularly aggressive or dismissive...have you seen how some  people  talk to me in the GG  thread? If you think alumin is rude you would be shocked by there comments 

 

I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

You're late with this Bruce! And just from previous input it is amusing.

[BruceVC]

 

Malc you seem very sensitive about alumin posting etiquette ? I really don't think he is particularly aggressive or dismissive...have you seen how some  people  talk to me in the GG  thread? If you think alumin is rude you would be shocked by there comments 

 

I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

You're late with this Bruce! And just from previous input it is amusing.

 

 

Can you go into more detail, I am not sure what you mean?

[BruceVC]

 

 

I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

 

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right?

 

 

 

This thought made me laugh....imagine if I found out that there are only 5 or so real people active on these forums and all this time I have been having the same debates with people who sometimes agree with me and sometimes don't depending on there sock puppet