aequalsa

Some time ago I read about a situation where a criminal had assaulted a pregnant woman which caused the child to die. There was some bit of hoopla over whether or not he ought to be tried for murder and assault or just assault. This has always troubled me for a bit and I am looking for some input about the ethics involved. Seems like, if an fetus is not considered a child prior to birth, then that would include the case above, but this doesn't sit well with me. One alternative, the mother's intention to bring the pregnancy to term seems to reduce to a primacy of consciousness issue, while the other, viewing the fetus as a child leads to the illegality of abortion. Any thoughts?

....That's not worry, btw...that's sweat from all this global climate warming change.

Sure. An actual nihilist requires a certain level of honesty with himself and the world, which is why there are so few of them running about. It's internal contradictions collapse on their own heads and they are forced to change their minds. An egalitarian can carry on for a whole life time because he can blame everyone else for the failure of his own nihilistic views when they're put into practice. I'd still probably hold that the two outlooks are the same,philosophically, but that the respective psychologies of the practitioners are quite different.

I think 2046 is on the right track, in that egalitarianism is indistinguishable from nihilism in all essential characteristics. To say that the effects should be the same, regardless of the cause(which is what egalitarianism and Obama seek)is to say that values, "that which one acts to gain or keep" are not inherently dependent on the process of acting. The new definition of values becomes simply, "that which one has." Concrete based thinking. The removal of the action from values, is the elimination of cause and effect and serves not just to destroy values(which it certainly will, wholesale) but to destroy the very meaning of value. In this sense, egalitarianism in all of it's constructs, from affirmative action to issuing six blue ribbons for the same race, is nihilism with a thin later of frosting on top to allow for the evasion necessary to believe in it.

In related news, 'Indigenous thinking can solve climate crises,' says Bolivia's foreign minister http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/13/bolivia-foreign-minister-solving-climate-crises Ironically, he's probably right since "indigenous thinking", generally applied, would lead to the near extinction of humans on the planet.

You're specifically addressing what is now a scientific claim by Locke. In cases of science I tend to agree with you. Little point in studying Aristotle's Parts of Animals, but that does not then disqualify his analytics or ethics, for example.

I can only speak for myself, but I have found in reading, say, Locke's Second Treatise on Government along with a number of articles written about it,opinions can differ significantly as to what he meant. What's more, and more to the point, there are understandings which can be gleaned from the original which are not necessarily covered in any treatment of it you happened to read. An overly obvious argument against your suggestion would be that in reading Thomas Jefferson's(more modern) "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," nothing would be lost in not reading Locke's "life, liberty, and property," most especially is rather lengthy defense of property rights which Jefferson had chosen to exclude. There's nothing wrong with reading more recent works but I think you would be kidding yourself to think that your understanding of an author was very extensive if you had read his critics and supporters but not his own words.

Talent call for short film: Self Hate in America Project Description: Self Hate in America is a short film about "Brandon" a child from an upper middle class home accustomed to getting blue ribbons for his 6th place performances. After barely getting his degree in environmental science he is unable to find a job, except as a Greenpeace panhandler. People's lack of generosity, his requisite low pay, and his own lack of a sex life brings him to the end of his rope and he attends a more extremest environmentalist meeting where he hopes to get on this bitch, Ashley. Soon he's befriended by "Sebastian" the groups leader. Sebastien takes him under his wing and soon takes over Brandon's life leading him down an path of anger, hate and murder and finally abandons him because Brandon banged Sebastian's slutty girlfriend, Ashley. To redeem himself as a mindless follower of the group, he tries to free monkeys in a medical research lab where he has to kill the postdoc who had just found a cure for HIV. Character Description: Brandon: 20-25 multiracial, (black, Hispanic, and islander; no whites, Asians, or other privileged races), good looking. I'm looking for a talented and professional actor that's willing to challenge himself and work for the earth, because I don't want to share the little money I make. Compensation: This is a low budget short film because I have no capitol and no one willing to back my poor writing with their money because the man is keeping me down. Compensation will be deferred(and by that I mean, non existent.) All meals, and snacks will be provided by potluck and everyone will receive a dvd copy of the film.

In one of the threads I was begrudgingly defending the rule of law and I would say that the above is a fairly accurate summation of it. Since the conclusions that rule of law lead to, seemed personally distasteful to me and lead to a number of inconsistencies(In particular, too many and too varied of exceptions in execution) I had to reconsider the assumptive foundation. I think the mistake lies, essentially, in holding the rule as equivalent to the actuality. As with all ethical rules, if reality is the final arbiter of morality, then punishments and rewards will accrue regardless of whatever label we assign it. Causes have effects(and sometimes affects) and saying that something is good or bad is really no more than a conceptual shortcut for us to label and categorize people and acts. Specifically in this case, to say that one should follow the law is to say that if one does not, some consequences will occur. There is no additional meaning than that, other than to say specifically what consequences will follow what breach. The "rule of law" is a legal construct and not a personal one so to use it outside of its context is to eliminate its meaning. If we were writing a constitution, than it would be widely agreed that people should be held accountable under the law regardless of whether or not the particular transgressors agree with it and that it should absolutely be enforced regardless of whether or not the enforcing agents agree with it. As individuals, we can do whatever we choose, including breaking any and all laws, and we will simply suffer the consequences. The problem left then is that when the rule of law is not upheld by the government, then a privileged class or race is created to the extent that laws are not enforced. So non-enforcement of immigration laws, jim crow laws, affirmative action, ridiculously low sentences for white collar crime, legal exemptions for the king, nobility, or members of congress, tax breaks for large corporations or churches, and that sort of thing all create inequalities in the application of law. In short, the demand should be for an objective system of law that enforces its rules with consequences strong enough to deter the behavior until those rules are changed, rather than demanding or hoping that individuals follow them when consequences are weak or unlikely.

The way it generally happens is that a power differential exists or develops in a relationship(parent-child,husband-wife,etc)and this difference in strength, whether through intellectual advantage, emotional manipulation, or physical abuse, is used to alter the perception of reality on the part of the "weaker" party. So even an adult with a well defined set of proper principles can become hard pressed to continue with regard to them if the effects are not as expected. Take honesty. If every time you speak the truth you are beaten severely or a baby explodes or whatever, your willingness to tell the truth will taper. The consequence doesn't need to be true even....just your perception of it. All virtues and proper acts, we have to validate with our own first hand experience, so when it isn't validated consistently or at all, it becomes impossible to believe and therefore impossible to uphold. In an extreme enough situation, especially one maintained for long enough, I think it it is unlikely that someone would ever recover significantly and certainly not completely. A question can't be answered, absolutely, like that in the abstract since there is so much room for variance in particular contexts, but i have no difficulty imagining circumstance from which no one would recover.

I vaguely remember hearing in a psych class that powerpoint was found to be particularly ineffective at conveying information but I don't remember specifically why or the exact source. If I had to guess it would be because human learning takes place in the form of a blooming fractal design rather than a linear train of thought, in which case, hyperlinking would be much more ideal. The "this, therefore this, therefore this" deductive method makes a case but is not open ended enough to allow connections to be made to each individuals personal context. Without that capacity, it's functionally useless for someone who doesn't already share the views being presented.

I absolutely agree again. Token economies, such as those they often set up in psych wards and prisons are amazingly effective, while inside them. As soon as they leave the token economy almost no long term changes are made. The problem with the approach is so obvious that it's funny. As all good objectivists ought to know, people are different from dogs in that we possess significant reasoning capacity, so when they leave the token economies, they immediately realize that there are no more Scooby Snacks and they stop maintaining the desired behavior. Children lack a lot of reasoning skills and the ability to hold broader concepts. Helping them understand causation, what the effects, short and long term, their actions will have, is far more beneficial. Especially in the context of understanding those things which they have experienced first hand.

The context here, which you may have missed, is that liberalism has, as a core part of its philosophy, the notion of tolerance. That differing ideas, backgrounds, genitalia, and pigmentation ought to be accepted and tolerated. It's a farce of course because they typically, as this story illustrates, do not accept differences in ideology. Their belief in tolerance is really only skin deep. To compare it to yourself on an apples to apples basis, it might be more like having an Objectivist school run like a cult which required everyone to sacrifice everything they owned for the good of the school administrator. It delegitimatizes them as an example of their philosophy and to a lesser extent, delegitimizes the philosopy itself.

I didn't mean to imply that a child ought to be allowed to experience serious pain or trauma as a learning experience. In the moment, restraining the child or carrying him away from the situation is fine. Especially if complimented by explanations once the immediate danger has passed.

Thanks, and yes. I would go further and avoid as much as possible most punishments. Time out for example creates a similar emotional effect on the child as more corporal punishment. The understanding is the same, "If you do something to displease me I will be angry with you and use force to make you unhappy."

No, I had not, but I enjoyed those. Thanks.

I feel like you are viewing relationships in an inaccurately dichotomous way. That your choices are either to sacrifice massive amounts of time and energy to have a relationship or to not make that sacrifice and not have that relationship. There is no particular rules about what relationship has to look like outside of what you decide for yourselves. A relationship can as easily be someone you sleep with every three weeks as it can be a spiritual 7-11. As a thought experiment, maybe, consider at what point of investment the relationship would feel worthwhile. If you only got to have human contact one day a year and the other 364 would be spent working alone on a desert island, would you enjoy that day away from your projects? If yes, then slowly add days until the amount of time seems right for your enjoyment. Once you figure that out you can present it to him as what you are currently able and willing to contribute to the relationship. And of course, he can make his own choice about whether that is enough of a relationship for him. i for one would rather spend 1 afternoon every two weeks with someone who wanted to be with me than every hour of everyday with someone who felt obligated to hold my hand. That would make me shudder. I am taking you literally here but I have trouble imagining that you literally only see drawbacks. Since your other activities are things that you value highly, they might make an apt comparison. If you hear a symphony or some other piece of music that you like, that you value, then it has some mixture of qualities that elicit joy for you. The sound washes over you and makes you feel a certain way, you admire the thought and energy that went into making it, or maybe it connects to your own past experiences. I suggest that other human lives are the same. The individual that someone creates out of their lives can be worthy of that same consideration, and like a song that you enjoy, a thirty second clip isn't enough. You want to listen to it all the way through, maybe over and over again. You admire how much work and focus was required for them to exist. That the things in them, that you are attracted to, are fruit born from some morality or set of standards that they hold themselves to. It's something you want in your life because its very existence brings you pleasure and being reminded of it consistently helps you more often feel the way we are supposed to. There's enough reasons to write a book but that's the essential for me. They make my life taste better.

That definition does not quite square for me with individuals whom I have known who advocate conspiracies. They usually cite a wide range of historical facts and information. Rockefeller's letter to the governor of Colorado ordering him to send in the national guard to deal with the miners, for example, or the name change from Bauer to the "less Jewish sounding" Rothschild. The epistemological mistake is not, in my opinion, laziness or an unwillingness to research. They live for that. I think that it has more to do with their reasoning and drawing of inferences without adequate support or proper rules of logic...Confusing causation, confirmation bias, and the like. That absence of reason leaves them no choice but to fill in the gaps with whatever makes sense to them or what they want to believe. Honestly, I'm surprised they don't make up a majority in the US since collecting and memorizing facts without the requisite methods needed to reason about them is modus operandi for most public education. Although revisionist history might fairly be considered and agreed upon set of conspiracies, so maybe they do.

The effects of positive punishment are well understood in behavioral psychology. They create the illusion of effectiveness for the parent(punisher) because the child develops a fear response that is directly associated with the punisher so that they avoid the act only or especially when the punisher is present. For this reason, the punishment acts as a positive reinforcer for the parent because from their perspective, by all appearances it works extremely well. Fear is powerful, but unfortunately is usually accompanied by anger, guilt, and shame which are internalized to different degrees by the child and almost universally results in a lack of trust and a poorer relationship with the parent. An exception to this is children prior to the age of 3(preconscious) who seem to do better when swatted than their peers. Ostensibly because the pain is directly associated as being a result of their own actions since they have not, by that age, developed the capacity for the necessary differentiation. In other words, they don't understand enough to blame the parent for the act so they just avoid the behavior in the same way that they would a hot stove they had touched. For older children this is not the case. As bluecherry suggested above, causation is difficult to break apart in human psychology, but as a general rule, children learn how to behave primarily by understanding and seeing what they should do rather than by using a checklist to avoid all of the things they ought not do. That's why focusing on negative behavior tends to reinforce it. It puts it in the forefront of their minds in the same way that telling someone to "NOT think about a rock" immediately conjures up the thought of a rock. A parent paying little attention to bad behavior while showing immense interest(not praise) in good behavior tends to shape the child slowly but surely in a somewhat gentler way, which gets the desired behavior without squashing their delicate little souls. The important question to ask is whether the goal of parenting is to produce a person who does what is expected of him ought of emotional need or fear of others or whether the goal ought to be the creation of an independent spirit, learning to make choices with reason as their primary guide. In short, natural consequences teach the child about the world and causation in it, while the consequences you impose teach the child about how you feel about him, and not necessarily in an accurate way.

Wow...I want to say that it was 'Jefferson and his Time' which I read 17 or 18 years ago, although I read it on the back of a few other shorter biographies so I could be mistaken. If you haven't read that set and are a fan, I'd recommend it, anyways though.

If I remember correctly, with the exception of the glass for the windows, Monticello was built from materials made on his lands. The bricks,the wood, even the nails were made from materials . He tried to monetize his nail making operation but failed. Also, Monticello was built over the course of like 40 years and during that time, a number of slaves became skilled tradesmen as a result. In saying that the slaves were collateral, I'm saying that they were not his to free. It would be as reasonable to ask why he didn't free his neighbor's slaves. I don't mean to portray him as a Randian hero, just to suggest that he shouldn't be judged by that standard. Also I didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Jefferson inherited the slaves and the plantation with quite a bit of debt which was collateralized, in part, by the slaves(which were property). He was a spendthrift and a poor businessman, at least insofar as he was busy with other errands like intellectually fueling a revolution, so it was not until the end of his life that he possessed the means to free many of his slaves, which in fairness, he did. If cars started being given AI and then a large part of the population starting thinking they should share our rights, it would not change the fact that under the law your car still belonged in a sense to the lender and could not be freed without the permission of the bank.

Sure I can! Those materials, the golden beads, are designed to assist in teaching 1-1 correlation between numerals and quantity and to give a concrete representation of dimension to 4-5 year olds. That girl looks to be 8 or 9, so unless she is developmentally behind or lacking a conceptual understanding of those things I see no reason why they would still be teaching her using them. I have 4 year olds in my class that are adding large numbers using numerals alone. If that is Montessori, then it is likely an (mis)application added by later Montessorians for older children.

I see that as the critical question that you need to discover for yourself. For myself, and, I gather, most other people, romantic relationships are an immense joy and a huge source of personal growth. I agree with Rand's view, that they are a secondary values, and must be based on the primary values which you prefer, but as secondary values go, a good relationship can be pretty top notch. So I would think it important to discover very precisely why it is that you do not enjoy relationships. Especially if the unenjoyable aspects are related at all to the unpredictability and lack of control that another volitional entity brings into your life. Something else to consider is whether it is the relationship that you are currently in(And/or have been in) or relationships in general which are not of much value to you. I am not necessarily suggesting that you ought to break up with who you are with as much as consider the possibility of redefining the relationship in terms of expectations and time, in a way which makes it feel like an added value to your life rather than a sacrifice.

Not to pick hairs, but in defense of Jefferson "creator" was added later in the editing. His original was as follows: "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;[2] that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights[3] inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"