Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tabitha

Regulars
  • Content Count

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Tabitha

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 12/31/1979

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    New England
  1. No. A person "shouldn't" have to do anything, just because they can. I "can" take up ceramics, afford to donate 20% of my income to a third world country, and adopt 4 more cats. But I don't want to do any of these things. Why should I if I don't want to? "Can" does not imply "should." I never understood this, either. Nor do I understand it when people say they want part of themselves to "live on." The harsh reality is that no one cares and life is going to go on without you once you're gone (as it should). Quick! Name all 8 of your great-grandparents. Most people can't eve
  2. True, but one could just as well argue that spending time parenting is highly unproductive. Changing diapers, wasting hours in the car driving people to and fro, not to mention all the extra cleaning and laundry, don't exactly scream "productivity" to me. I'm not saying that parenting isn't a virtue. In fact, I think nurturing another life is a wonderful thing, and if more parents were Objectivists, we would all be better off. I just have a hard time seeing link between parenting and "productivity." Or, maybe I'm just operating on a different definition of productivity. Obviously
  3. I am a licensed social worker. I came to Objectivism in my mid-20s, which was after I had already completed my degree and was working for some time. Had I been exposed to Objectivism at a younger age, I can't say I would have made the same decision. Up until recently, this contradiction I'm living with bothered me. How can someone as pro-capitalist as I am be in one of the most altruistic fields imaginable?! I have come to decide that what I do does not conflict with Objectivism in the slightest. I'm one the "direct service" end of social work, which means I provide straight counselin
  4. Tabitha

    Friends

    Over the years I've become less and less hung up on who's an Objectivist and who isn't. My friendships for the most part are based on passion for life (I would say "sense of life, but I'm not sure it would be accurate to apply that term here). I have several friends who are as leftist as they come, but if they are out and doing things and living life to the fullest, that's enough for me. One friend in particular describes herself as a feminist and is philosophically different from me in other ways, but she's not sitting at home obsessing over these matters. She's excited to get up everyday
  5. Mine's my beagle, of course....
  6. My main gripe with feminism, aside from the collectivism which you pointed out, is that it dismisses the reality that women are agents who choose to act. Feminists gripe about women being treated as sex objects and not earning as much as men... yet, women are choosing to put themselves in positions to be viewed as sex objects. (Not all women all the time, obviously - I'm referring to strippers, women who dress and act in certain ways, etc.). Women who stay at home with their children are choosing to do so. Talking to some feminists, you'd think they believe that men plant some type of micr
  7. Thank you all so much for the suggestions! I will check each of these out. Regarding these two, do you know if/when they'll be available on itunes?
  8. I commute several hours a week to work and have recently taken up listening to podcasts to pass the time. There are two great ones out there - Peikoff's questions and answers and one called "Talk Objectivism" - but I'm looking for more. They don't have to be Objectivst per se, but recommendations having to do with philosophy / critical thinking would be greatly appreciated. What do you listen to?
  9. This was my status update yesterday: "No one should die because of zombies if they cannot afford a shotgun, or even just a machete, and no one should be turned into a vampire if they get bit by one--or a werewolf for that matter. If you agree, post this as your status for the rest of the day." I didn't make that up myself (I copied and reposted it from another friend). Not sure if I'd consider it the most Objectivist/philosophical response, but it's a response nonetheless....
  10. I LIVE in Taxachusetts, and I actually know people who went to his wake! One person said, "I waited in line for only 3 1/2 hours." All I could think of is, well, that's 3 1/2 hours of your life that you'll never get back.... I once saw a bumper sticker that said, "my gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car."
  11. Rand's characters can better be described as "asocial," not "anti-social." If you're anti-social, you've got some real problems, as being anti-social involves doing heinous things and feeling no remorse. Murderers are anti-social. Roark and other characters are asocial, or indifferent to others when it comes to "being social" for the sake of being social because it's the "nice thing to do." The two are totally different concepts. The first one is deplorable, the second is a value.
  12. Yeah... those are all good points. If their multiples "just happened," that's a different story. Though it is a shame many of them were born at low weights with poor vision, it's not the parents' fault; especially if aborting was not a safe medical option. It's just odd to me that this culture reveres multiple births the way it does (given the number of shows there are).
  13. But that's just it. Have you seen the show? Everyone is just so miserable. This isn't to say their physical needs aren't being met, but the more "tuplets" one has, the less likely everyone is getting what they need. Or if they are getting their physical needs met, there's no energy leftover for the emotional. Yes, each child gets a "special day" with the parents once every other month or whatever it is... but so what? Seven "turns" at this later, the kid is all but back to the drawing board with the parent. In the meantime he's living the horrors of forced sharing and other nightmares o
  14. I don't agree that the current children need to give consent, necessarily. If a set of parents wants a couple of children spaced by two years, a two year old cannot "consent" to his parents having more children. Nor should he be asked. It's up to the adults to have enough sense to not have and raise a bunch of children in a self-sacrificial heap, which you so aptly describe. I'm reminded of Montessori's description of the problem with modern education. But can you honestly argue that it isn't significantly more ideal to be a "set" of one or two? The pregnancy itself happe
  15. I agree that the Duggars seem to be the most solid of the bunch. The kids come off as grounded / calm in a sense, and I'm a fan of home schooling. However, I chalk their relative centered-ness up to their lack of television and video games (which I think is great), as opposed to their 'moral' upbringing. My gripe with the Duggars in particular is that I have a huge problem with children being forced into caregiving roles that go beyond the occasional babysitting. My observation of the Duggars is that the older ones are expected to all but rear the younger ones. I mean, they didn't ask
×
×
  • Create New...