Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SpookyKitty

Poor Children's Education

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

...you do know it typically takes time?

Loans, if done right, predict making money afterwards, so only loans you don't expect to be able to afford are irrational.

STAYING poor is a choice, but often for young kids, it's just because they were born there. Being incidentally poor here at 18 is not a choice always, while being poor at 30+ is often a choice or failure to be rational. I mean, I'd rather not hire a single mother of 3 who is 35 and poor for an important job, or be in a PhD program. It's stupid of her to end up this way. They "shouldn't be allowed" in the moral sense, not the legal sense.

Nonsense, Eiuol. No man is limited by the circumstances of his birth in qny way shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah!?!

How about someone who didn't get enough nutrition for proper brain development? Somebody confined and restrained as a child so that he missed the elementary steps of cognitive growth? Whose mother put LSD in his formula? Or who simply suffers from birth defects?

I could go on for a long time with cases that would seem to raise problems for your hard-line position. How long could you go on rejecting them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

Nonsense, Eiuol. No man is limited by the circumstances of his birth in qny way shape or form.

I can't tell if that's a serious response. I didn't say it stops them, I said it's not a choice to be born to poor circumstances. There is a period of time after childhood to permit learning. This is so badly reasoned especially for you, that it looks like a joke. All we've got here is a weird notion that loans imply some irrationality or inability to earn or pay back the money. Where's that idea from? Payday loans, sure, but ANY loan?

What about financial aid that you don't pay - no sane/rational PhD student pays for their degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reidy said:

Oh yeah!?!

How about someone who didn't get enough nutrition for proper brain development? Somebody confined and restrained as a child so that he missed the elementary steps of cognitive growth? Whose mother put LSD in his formula? Or who simply suffers from birth defects?

I could go on for a long time with cases that would seem to raise problems for your hard-line position. How long could you go on rejecting them?

Such people are subhuman and aren't really people. They should be left out in the open until they die of exposure so that productive people don't waste their resources on them.

One should only ever give charity (if at all) to those who never needed it in the first place. That's why I recommend that we protest against charities to help the disadvantaged and handicapped, and advocate that people donate their money only to the richest, most rational, and most productive members of society.

Quote

I can't tell if that's a serious response. I didn't say it stops them, I said it's not a choice to be born to poor circumstances. There is a period of time after childhood to permit learning. This is so badly reasoned especially for you, that it looks like a joke. All we've got here is a weird notion that loans imply some irrationality or inability to earn or pay back the money. Where's that idea from? Payday loans, sure, but ANY loan?

What about financial aid that you don't pay - no sane/rational PhD student pays for their degree.

Of course, it's not a choice to be born to poor circumstances. I never said that, just that no man is limited by them at all. Hence, a bright 18 year old could pay for college by first getting a job or starting his own small business and saving his money.

It is not at all counterproductive to take out a loan that you can pay back. It is, however, less effective than simply making all your own money, which one would be able to do if they were more rational.

Let's be clear here. Poor people are poor only because they are lazy, irrational, and probably evil.

Edited by SpookyKitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Let's be clear here. Poor people are poor only because they are lazy, irrational, and probably evil.

yeah, if you really want to help bring more happiness in the world, then focus on sarcastic people who feel too alienated to have regular conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SpookyKitty said:

Such people are subhuman and aren't really people. They should be left out in the open until they die of exposure so that productive people don't waste their resources on them.

I am positive it's a joke now, Dead Kennedys style: 

I mean, even bright 18 your olds aren't going to START rich typically, not to mention some people don't hit genius levels until later on anyway, as long as they demonstrate growing ability. You are proposing, without reason, that the only measure of "most rational" is money. Hell, even an emperor's kid isn't going to be productive prior to growth before some wisdom about working hard.

Money, on its own, is an effect. What CAUSES production is grit, that is, it is the best measure there is to predict doing well. Some poor people have it, some rich people have it, those people are the most productive and rational within society. They might not "get there" until 30, but grit predicts it best. Your standard of poor isn't defined, only "less than income x". All we've got left is the long-standing joke that capitalists think poor people are ALL lazy.

By the way, loans help you reach higher levels of production for good ideas faster. It is earned money still, as long as it was a good idea.

What you write is like what Nietzsche wrote to the effect that resources ought not be spent on say, helping people through suicide, as they're "weak" people already. So, it' s inefficient. The problem, or thing to think about, is what makes for a strong or gritty person. Being poor isn't a weakness unless you examine what causes the poorness at that point in time. Sure, if you DEMONSTRATE irrationality, let 'em be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eiuol said:

I am positive it's a joke now, Dead Kennedys style: 

I mean, even bright 18 your olds aren't going to START rich typically, not to mention some people don't hit genius levels until later on anyway, as long as they demonstrate growing ability. You are proposing, without reason, that the only measure of "most rational" is money. Hell, even an emperor's kid isn't going to be productive prior to growth before some wisdom about working hard.

Money, on its own, is an effect. What CAUSES production is grit, that is, it is the best measure there is to predict doing well. Some poor people have it, some rich people have it, those people are the most productive and rational within society. They might not "get there" until 30, but grit predicts it best. Your standard of poor isn't defined, only "less than income x". All we've got left is the long-standing joke that capitalists think poor people are ALL lazy.

By the way, loans help you reach higher levels of production for good ideas faster. It is earned money still, as long as it was a good idea.

What you write is like what Nietzsche wrote to the effect that resources ought not be spent on say, helping people through suicide, as they're "weak" people already. So, it' s inefficient. The problem, or thing to think about, is what makes for a strong or gritty person. Being poor isn't a weakness unless you examine what causes the poorness at that point in time. Sure, if you DEMONSTRATE irrationality, let 'em be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grit_(personality_trait)

I'm pretty sure that the cause of money and wealth is not grit but reason.

But yeah, this is a joke, haha. But I've yet to see an argument that explains why my Devil's advocate position is at variance with Objectivism.

Edited by SpookyKitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpookyKitty said:

I'm pretty sure that the cause of money and wealth is not grit but reason.

But yeah, this is a joke, haha. But I've yet to see an argument that explains why my Devil's advocate position is at variance with Objectivism.

The variance is your strange idea of a static "poorness" as opposed to looking at a person's virtues. There are degrees of poorness, some of it is limited to a degree by mental or physical capacities. Being not a billionaire may just be a sign of not being as awesome, but it's not a moral inferiority or a rationality inferiority. Grit is a form of pride and productivity I'd say, it is a factor of being rational. Being rational is not limited to an IQ score. No grit, well, you're not gonna make it. As far as education, it's not rational to say "getting a loan is irrational", or "funding a smart and gritty student is not efficient". The people who become rich by effort are gritty. Loans help "bootstrap" into being rich or getting a product to market, or getting good ideas out. Da Vinci did it that way, and surely the Medicis were largely rational about money, so probably were being efficient to fund him.

Money is only one consequence of grit. It's only one sign of virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eiuol said:

The variance is your strange idea of a static "poorness" as opposed to looking at a person's virtues. There are degrees of poorness, some of it is limited to a degree by mental or physical capacities. Being not a billionaire may just be a sign of not being as awesome, but it's not a moral inferiority or a rationality inferiority. Grit is a form of pride and productivity I'd say, it is a factor of being rational. Being rational is not limited to an IQ score. No grit, well, you're not gonna make it. As far as education, it's not rational to say "getting a loan is irrational", or "funding a smart and gritty student is not efficient". The people who become rich by effort are gritty. Loans help "bootstrap" into being rich or getting a product to market, or getting good ideas out. Da Vinci did it that way, and surely the Medicis were largely rational about money, so probably were being efficient to fund him.

Money is only one consequence of grit. It's only one sign of virtue.

There is no point to virtues that do not correspond to material success in reality, since said success is the whole point of those virtues in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Keating would agree. So would James Taggart, who was happy to point out the profits his railroad was making as a result of decisions his sister disapproved. I doubt that anyone here would, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

There is no point to virtues that do not correspond to material success in reality, since said success is the whole point of those virtues in the first place.

Yes, they should be able to. Hence the idea of taking time or getting funding as long-term projection of material success. Being poor -now- doesn't mean it's irrational to "bootstrap" to turn rich or gain some major value (like PhD students getting funding for research).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eiuol said:

Yes, they should be able to. Hence the idea of taking time or getting funding as long-term projection of material success. Being poor -now- doesn't mean it's irrational to "bootstrap" to turn rich or gain some major value (like PhD students getting funding for research).

Ok, but what if you don't have the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it'd be irrational to seek that goal. Sometimes, people are oversaturated in goals at the cost of quality and ability. On the other hand, some people only need to make time, so it's not true they don't have time. You ask "can the person meet my expectations, if I fund (reward) them?" If not, out they go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2016 at 2:31 AM, SpookyKitty said:

I've kind of lost my train of thought on this issue. Confused myself, mostly.

How on Earth could that have happened? You spelled it out so brilliantly.

On 11/1/2016 at 9:38 PM, SpookyKitty said:

I'm pretty sure that the cause of money and wealth is not grit but reason.

But yeah, this is a joke, haha. But I've yet to see an argument that explains why my Devil's advocate position is at variance with Objectivism.

And of course, Spooky Kitty, you never will see the difference between your satirical position and the truth. That's because there is no difference. You've enlightened me to the lameness of Objectivism! Let's see if I got it right:

So, the poor, as you've identified them, have a right to an expensive service, for which someone else has the obligation to pay. That expensive service, an opportunity to earn college credits by being permitted to attend the most expensive schools is their entitlement. The underlying morality that makes this so is that the improvident, illiterate, and sometimes foul-smelling poor have needs just as the middle-class and the rich. And while the rich can always afford to pay a mere pittance of their vast and unlimited wealth, the lower middle-class kid, who parents make too much money to qualify for any state supported funding, can go pound sand up his/her ass. Working parents can afford to pay for both their kid's and the kids' of strangers through their tax contribution. Those "poor kids" are so much more deserving, especially if they don't have the time or resources -- the same time and resources made available to the lower middle-class kid, such as public libraries and elementary schools -- to study in preparation for higher education. In the meantime, the kid who did his/her diligence in public schools, scored sufficient grades, but has working parents with an income just above the threshold can be required to pay more for college, when the courses are inflated from the public policy of entitling all to higher education. Screw that lower middle-class kid; let him get a menial job. That kid's been bred to have the kind of work-ethic that makes him/her perfect for unskilled labor or the trades. Maybe he/she will be lucky enough to have offspring who will be poor enough to deserve my sacrifice and the sacrifice of greater society for the greater good.

The social safety-net should rightfully be designed, not so much to empower those on the low-end of the economy, but rather to ensnare the taxpayers and keep them in their place! Oh, and of course it should catch some of those rich people; those parasites make for exquisite dining, yum yum. Eat the Rich!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Repairman said:

And of course, Spooky Kitty, you never will see the difference between your satirical position and the truth. That's because there is no difference. You've enlightened me to the lameness of Objectivism! Let's see if I got it right:

Where in the world did you think this was SK's position? The point was a poor-hating devil's advocate posing as an Objectivist. Her getting confused was either admission of error, or at least acknowledging "this doesn't make sense from an Oist perspective". It's a worthwhile exercise I say. The better route to go here is to say why in fact being poor isn't itself a lack of virtue. After all, isn't money good, so being poor a lack of good?

Talking about why or how -owing- poor people or anyone stuff due to need, is a distraction. No one said or implied it was their belief. Have you ever questioned if Objectivism hates the poor? I have, but it was easy to say no, for the reasons I posted here. If Objectivism had no reply, it would be a lame philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it doesn't help to argue against a position no one took. It looks more like not knowing why or how Oism doesn't see poor people as inherently lazy, thus arguing that you don't owe poor people anything. Right, but it doesn't say if poor people are able to be moral despite not being rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Well, it doesn't help to argue against a position no one took.

It does speak to the clarity of the position as it was taken.

On 11/1/2016 at 7:55 PM, Eiuol said:

I am positive it's a joke now, Dead Kennedys style: 

I missed the punchline here.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The point was a poor-hating devil's advocate posing as an Objectivist.

And this does little to help clarify it for me.


There are allegations that Rand hated the poor. Such allegations haven't been substantiated, to the best of my knowledge.


As infants, we are all impoverished when it comes to knowledge. Each of us has to mine and refine into finished product our own stockpiles of knowledge.

If the mining aspect refers to the evidence of the senses, first one needs to distinguish the ore from the rest of the perceptual field. When it comes to refining the ore, what steps were taken to convert it into a finished product?

As delineated, the process is already two-fold deep. This can diverge into those that are knowingly trying to pass off counterfeit product, those who are holding counterfeit product and are knowingly or unknowingly trying to pass it off, and those seeking to ensure they are using the best methods available to convert their raw materials into finished product in the most efficacious methods available.


This still leaves open the relationship between one's stockpile of knowledge and one's stockpile of wealth.  The answer is eloquently stated in Atlas Shrugged via John Galt saying:

A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?—Right or Wrong? Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow—right or wrong? Is a man's wound to be disinfected in order to save his life—right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power—right or wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have—and the answers came from a man's mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right.

 

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...