Discussing Santa Claus with Fiancee

[hunterrose]

How do you get "you want a child to do what you say out of trust"? Or that what I wrote contains the implication you state? I just don't see where either of those comes from in what I wrote.

Really?

Learning that his parents have permitted him to persist in a false belief can make him lose his trust in his primary guides.

What then do you mean by "lose his trust in his primary guides" and why would this be an immoral thing to cause?

One side's contention is: that one should put up with people's little irrationalities, because we all have them to some extent, and that it would be impractical not to because then one would never find a partner worthy enough.

If you wish to group everyone that disagrees with you into one "side", I think it'd be better stated:

that one

should

is not immoral

in putting up with some

particular

irrationalities in other people, because

we all have them to some extent

the benefit of an association may be worth more than the detriment of a second-hand irrationality

, and that it would be impractical not to because then one would never find a partner worthy enough

She may have been mistaken about her children benefitting from the belief in Santa Claus, but her attitude when the OP wanted to discuss it with her was willful, and irrational.

Wait a minute. Are you saying that she is less than "100% rational" not necessarily because she wants to tell her children that Santa is real, but because she no longer wants to discuss it?

If you try to have a rational discussion with [mistaken people]... their attitude toward that attempt will reveal their attitude toward reason

So if this gets to a point that you no longer wish to discuss whether telling kids about Santa is harmful, will that be an admission that you are no longer 100% rational?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Hunter: She didn't only want to not discuss it, but she wanted to not resolve it and to go ahead and have kids with him and then tell them about Santa anyway.

[intellectualammo]

So long as you don't live in Mt. Oliver, then we're good.

Geographically speaking, we are not only on the same side of the river, but not too far away, since I'm on the South Side Slopes. But, that's pretty ironic, I think, seeing how we really aren't on the same side, so to speak, and quite far from being so.

I'd be careful slamming your fist on a table and shouting so loudly at your new girlfriend that it wakes up the neighbors, if and when you do so. The new one may not be accustomed to this, and could always file, rightfully so, a court order against you like a EPFA that could turn into a PFA...the sleep deprived neighbors could come in handy...

So, in other words, instead of making you bleed, as you want her to, she could be making you plead...

[aleph_0]

If she were so weak, I wouldn't feel so much for her. Besides, she has also said that she enjoys fighting and described fights she had with previous boyfriends.

[Inspector]

I'm going to flip the script here: Does anyone see any harm in telling the child right off that Santa Claus is make-believe? Frankly, I don't think that, as a kid, I would have missed the "magic" element of it in the least. I mean, come on: presents!!!

[hunterrose]

She didn't only want to not discuss it, but she wanted to not resolve it and to go ahead and have kids with him and then tell them about Santa anyway.

I don't want to tell the child that Santa Clause is real, on the basis that telling the child a blatent lie is wrong. It ignited into a debate about it, and her only arguments being "it's different," "it's fun," and "we'd be those crazy parents no one likes." I attacked the "different" and the "crazy parents" arguments from the position that just because everyone else does it, doesn't mean it's right. And I address the "It's fun" argument with the response that withholding the "Santa Clause" fairy tale doesn't detract from the fun of giving gifts on Christmas. At the same time, I also conjecture that including a blatant lie into the child's upbringing, can only cause problems in the long term, and that even if it's a "fun" lie, it's still a lie nonetheless, and helps to give the child a sense that Magic is somehow real, which is clearly is not.

But she did want to discuss (and resolve) it; otherwise, she wouldn't have entered into a debate and given her arguments in the first place. You're assuming that she didn't want to resolve it because she didn't agree with Chop's argument. And she still wanted to tell their kids about Santa because his argument didn't show that telling kids about Santa was harmful/immoral.

A lot of people's idea of debate is "state your bad ideas and I'll attack them for points". Some people aren't so interested in this kind of contact sport - but that doesn't mean they are irrational in disliking/avoiding such onslaughts after initially hearing the arguments.

Not to mention (from the contact sport perspective) that Chops didn't successfully refute her arguments in the first place...

Edit:

I'm going to flip the script here: Does anyone see any harm in telling the child right off that Santa Claus is make-believe? Frankly, I don't think that, as a kid, I would have missed the "magic" element of it in the least. I mean, come on: presents!!!

Personally, I don't think there's any particular harm in telling a child that Santa is make-believe or real. Edited November 19, 2006 by hunterrose

[IAmMetaphysical]

Hunter: the jist of Kevin's post and the problem with it is that he doesn't advise Chops to resolve the conflict with better arguments, but to stop argumentation, and concede because it would be emotionally detrimental to his gf. Chops' gf is wrong about telling their kids that Santa is real, her defense of it is irrational and he pointed that out. Thats what you do in argumentation/debate, you show how your opponent's arguments are flawed and IF THEY HAVE RESPECT FOR REASON they will change their views, if they are irrational, they will cling to them.

[KevinD]

[T]he jist of Kevin's post and the problem with it is that he doesn't advise Chops to resolve the conflict with better arguments, but to stop argumentation, and concede because it would be emotionally detrimental to his gf.

Show me ONE SINGLE SENTENCE, in anything I've written EVER, which advises that a man kow-tow to his partner and "concede" her positions, on the grounds that not doing so would be "emotionally detrimental" to the poor, irrational little twit.

I want specific words to this effect — not some twisted, nonobjective "jist" of what you would prefer to imagine that I've said or stand for.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[hunterrose]

Chops' gf is wrong about telling their kids that Santa is real, her defense of it is irrational and he pointed that out.

But he didn't refute her argument. She said that telling their kids about Santa would be fun; nothing Chops said evidenced that to be irrational. She (apparently) doesn't believe that telling the kids about Santa is harmful, which he also didn't show to be an irrational position.

The problem is that Chops/you believe that obviously the anti-Santa position have been irrefutably stated, and thus the only way a person can still disagree is if they're 1)mistaken or 2) evasively irrational - never does it cross your mind that you might be the wrong one

show how your opponent's arguments are flawed and IF THEY HAVE RESPECT FOR REASON they will change their views, if they are irrational, they will cling to them.

But haven't we shown that your arguments are flawed?

[Dismuke]

I just noticed this thread and missed all of the back-and-forth fireworks - and I rather doubt I am going to take the time to catch up on it either.

Anyhow - here is the way to deal with the issue of Santa Claus and to save one's self a bucket load of money at the same time!

[IAmMetaphysical]

"But haven't we shown that your arguments are flawed?"

No, I don't think you have. You have been merely stating that it is not detrimental because, i think, you don't undertsand the importance of honesty, and acting in accordance with reality. The reason I assume its obvious to you, is because I assume you've read enough of Rand's take on honesty that it would be evident to you as well. It is obviously detrimental for an adult to believe in Santa Claus right? Do we agree on that? So what about being a child makes this belief ok? It is never in anyone's best interest to believe things about reality that aren't true. And thinking a tomato is a vegatable or a fruit is not the same thing, that is a case of being mistaken. You can never be mistaken about the thruthfullness of the existence of Santa Claus as an adult. One might think it is fun for a child to believe such things, and that it makes a child's childhood "brighter" but it doesn't change the fact that they must live their life according to reality, and that childhood is the preparation for that. You don't prepare someone for reality by having them indulge in fantasies that can never be.

I absolutely sympathize with your fiancee. You had no right to "poke holes" in something which is important to her. Is this your idea of romantic love?

If you meant something different by "imprtant to her" then explain.

Your fiancee doesn't give a whit about any of your brilliant "arguments," or the most logically-founded of your conclusions — so long as you're acting in a manner which is anything less than 100% accepting, supportive and caring toward her.

100% accepting??? Accepting of what? Accepting of "her" for "her-self"?? Unconditionally?

Try to FEEL everything she says to you on the deepest level that you can.

Ugh, feel????? How am I supposed to ijntepret this????????

[DavidOdden]

I just noticed this thread and missed all of the back-and-forth fireworks - and I rather doubt I am going to take the time to catch up on it either.

On the other hand, that might allow you to cut to the chase.

[IAmMetaphysical]

Another thing. This quote from her: "Why are you saying this? It's not going to change my opinion." is the essence of irrationality. If I decide to stop debating this issue with yoiu, it will not be the same as the above. YOU CAN change my mind, if you put forth convincing arguments.

EDIT: sorry I keep finding "nuggets" This takes the cake:

There is no "right" or "wrong" in a romantic relationship.

So you're an advocate of moral greyness in regards to romantic relationships? What about romantic relationships lifts them from reality?

Edited November 19, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical

[Dismuke]

On the other hand, that might allow you to cut to the chase.

My attitude is if someone has time to read through 80 something postings - and many of the later postings consist of the "he said" "he didn't say" variety - such a person probably has a lot of time on his hands.

[KevinD]

IAmMetaphysical: "May you get what you deserve."

My attitude is if someone has time to read through 80 something postings - and many of the later postings consist of the "he said" "he didn't say" variety - such a person probably has a lot of time on his hands.

How nice of Dismuke to stop by to announce what a busy and important person he is!

Edited November 19, 2006 by Kevin Delaney

[hunterrose]

Here is the way to deal with the issue of Santa Claus and to save one's self a bucket load of money at the same time!

That's just evil

I think you don't undertsand the importance of honesty, and acting in accordance with reality.

In the context of "detrimental to the child", how is the child not acting/living in accordance to reality? Or being dishonest in believing that Santa exists?

[IAmMetaphysical]

Santa Claus does not exist, anyone who believes so is acting in contradiction to reality.

IAmMetaphysical: "May you get what you deserve."

What does that mean? Are you quoting me? Have you know explanation about your own words?

[softwareNerd]

I suggest that it's time to close this thread unless one side or the other starts to really "feel" -- with all the empathy of a friendly discussion -- what the other side is saying . Or, does someone think this argument has the potential going somewhere?

[aequalsa]

I suggest that it's time to close this thread unless one side or the other starts to really "feel" -- with all the empathy of a friendly discussion -- what the other side is saying . Or, does someone think this argument has the potential going somewhere?

Actually, before you close it,one thought I have had that has always bothered me about Mr. Claus, is that he seems to be the perfect primer to a belief in mysticism and god in particular. In essence, you have this old grandfatherly, patriarch guy who will give you special presents made and delivered by impossible means if you behave the way he tells you to and do not research the issue by inspecting your parents closet. And you are injecting this notion into the mind of a child at a point where their context is so limited that the line between reality and fantasy is difficult for them to determine. So I am staunchly opposed to it because I think it makes for a poor metaphysical foundation in the mind of children.

Regarding the relationships...Something I have come to realize is that when I am attempting to explain something to someone, and they do not understand, most often it is because I have done a poor job of explaining rather then them being evasive and dishonest or just plain dumb. Especially with regard to other objectivists or people who are generally reason based in their approach to life.

The thing which I have the most difficulty with in that regard is that I might explain something in a way which makes perfect sense to me while they are still resistent to it. Something which I am absolutely certain of, even. I used to believe that this was a result of evasion or dishonesty on their part, which was a mistake. What typically causes these impasses, is that I am unable to put it in a context that they understand. Because many things, especially those things gathered inductively and connected to a large number of interconnected existants are difficult if not impossible to see without the predicating knowledge. The fix, which isn't as easy as it might sound, is to try and understand what foundational pices they might be missing in order to come to the belief they do hold.

From that perspective I would agree that one ought to be accepting of their lover(maybe not a 100% of the time because sometimes people do need an epitomological slap upside the head) perhaps 99% of the time. Ostensibly if you love the person, you are already certain of their intellectual honesty. So when they argue something which is blatantly wrong, I assume that it is an error of knowledge rather then an error of morality and that the fault of the disagreement is primarily mine for not being able to explain in a way that makes it understandabe to them.

[hunterrose]

I think it's going somewhere, sN. And I don't have any control over it, but I don't think this should be closed yet. Isn't that reserved for threads where neither side is showing the other side's arguments to be invalid?

Rationality is not the amount of correct knowledge someone has, but the process they use in gaining new knowledge and integrating their knowledge. It's about the method, not about the result.

Agreed. The child is not necessarily being irrational simply because of a resultant belief that Santa exists.

Meta, I don't know how "acting in contradiction to reality" is defined. If it is (for man) defined as being irrational, then a Santa-believing child (not necessarily being irrational) is not acting in contradiction to reality. If it is defined as being wrong, then convincing a child of any falsehood, intentionally or mistakenly, would cause the child to "act in contradiction to reality."

I agree (with sN) that this should stay within the confines of a "friendly" discussion. No point in me being rude or snide

You are injecting this notion into the mind of a child at a point where their context is so limited that the line between reality and fantasy is difficult for them to determine. So I am staunchly opposed to it because I think it makes for a poor metaphysical foundation in the mind of children.

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but doesn't the quoted idea mean that you staunchly oppose any element of fiction (i.e. cartoons, fairy tales, toys, video games, etc.) because it makes for a poor metaphysical foundation in the mind of children?

[aequalsa]

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, but doesn't the quoted idea mean that you staunchly oppose any element of fiction (i.e. cartoons, fairy tales, toys, video games, etc.) because it makes for a poor metaphysical foundation in the mind of children?

Absolutely. Before 4-5 I think most of those things are very harmful, but I'm a big fan of montessori so my inclinations on this come from her, primarily. Fiction stories would be ok if they are reality based. Most developmental psychologists are currently in agreement that TV and video games(any two dimensional activity)are bad for young kids generally, but horrible before the age of 2.

[~Sophia~]

Because many things, especially those things gathered inductively and connected to a large number of interconnected existants are difficult if not impossible to see without the predicating knowledge. The fix, which isn't as easy as it might sound, is to try and understand what foundational pices they might be missing in order to come to the belief they do hold.

I very much agree with this.

[softwareNerd]

The fix, which isn't as easy as it might sound, is to try and understand what foundational pices they might be missing in order to come to the belief they do hold.

Great post AequalsA. I agree that empathy is a great way to approach a person one wishes to convince. There are times when a heated argument can shock one or the other person out of a position -- usually, after the argument is over and they're re-visiting it in their own minds. Most of the time, however, empathy is the way to go. And, if its a lover, I wouldn't recommend the argument route -- it usually doesn't end like in the movies !

[Inspector]

I suggest that it's time to close this thread unless one side or the other starts to really "feel" -- with all the empathy of a friendly discussion -- what the other side is saying . Or, does someone think this argument has the potential going somewhere?

Well, I did ask something which has the potential to go somewhere, but I fear it will be lost in the chaos...

Edit:Personally, I don't think there's any particular harm in telling a child that Santa is make-believe or real.

What, in your opinion, is the benefit of portraying the Santa Claus myth as real, as opposed to as make-believe?

[Dismuke]

How nice of Dismuke to stop by to announce what a busy and important person he is!

Gee, Kevin, what an intelligent, well-mannered and mature comment on your part.

The simple fact of the matter is that very lengthy threads - especially when there is evidence that flame wars have occurred and there is evidence that people have had to restate and re clarify their positions over and over again - more often than not contain a number of digressions and lots of repetition of the same points over and over again. Rarely are they worth the effort it takes to go back and read everything. Such a statement does not imply any criticism whatsoever of the any particular prior participants in the thread - I have been deeply involved in more than my fair share of such threads and even in outrightly unapologetic flame wars over the years. Sometimes, however, a reader can come upon such a thread at the tail end and see a comment or observation which, independent of the previous postings, is worthy of comment. It is absurd to expect someone to devote a significant amount of his limited time wading through a lengthy thread which he has every reason to suspect consists mostly of mud fights and repetition.

Jumping into such a thread at the end puts one at risk of possibly covering old ground which was discussed several dozens of postings ago. Therefore, it is only prudent for a person who joins such a thread and wishes to make a comment that is on topic with the thread title and is not a mere comment on an obviously recent digression to alert people of his context. That is what I did - just in case someone made a similar point however far back.

I have no idea what position you took, Kevin, in the little spat that has occurred here - and I have no desire to make any effort to find out. Regardless, if the 1960s style manners you exhibited in your snide little comment are indicative of your overall approach, you will probably find yourself at a disadvantage regardless of what position you take in a discussion.