Jake_Ellison

When a thread comes down to finding the proper referents of key concepts that is real progress.
Retaliatory force is a concept that refers to a broader set of actions than does self defense. Self defense is limited to the actions that are immediately necessary to keep the material values you already have: your life, health and property. Retaliatory force is the basis of law and refers to those actions necessary to achieve justice: returning stolen property, pursuing and punishing criminals, and the actions of the military. Retaliatory force includes the force used in self defense as a defined and regulated sub-category because it is justice to defend yourself from assault and robbery. It is not self defense but is retaliation to cruise around your neighborhood trying to figure out who vandalized your car so you can beat him up. No private citizen has the right to enact his own private vengeance, but the law can and must mete out punishments.

Ayn Rand comes to this conclusion in the essay "The Nature of Government".


Now consider this series of Rand quotes (also from "The Nature of Government", block quotes omitted for readability).



A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner.

... unilateral breach of contract, may not be criminally motivated, but may be caused by irresponsibility and irrationality.

Observe the basic principle governing justice in all these cases: it is the principle that no man may obtain any values from others without the owners' consent—and, as a corollary, <cui_334> that a man's rights may not be left at the mercy of the decision, the arbitrary choice, the irrationality, the whim of another man.

The source of the government's authority is "the consent of the governed." This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

Law enforcement and military defense are services provided by paid agents under contract. Failure to pay policemen, soldiers and their suppliers would be a unilateral breach of contract and an indirect use of force. Therefore: Pay your taxes.

When a government is not restricted to its proper functions it is beyond the bounds of its contract and is then in fact the initiator of force when it tries to collect taxes for services never agreed to.

The limits would be set by the budget process in the legislature. There would be elections and perhaps more direct voting on explicit tax limits to settle the policy.

I did address your point. If you think that I am claiming that the government is somehow more intelligent or the people too stupid to do what is necessary then you have not understood me. I am presenting as a fact that the people will be unable to do what is necessary without taxation and government debt. Force is defeated with superior force, not superior moral righteousness. Taxation makes possible the defense of life and freedom therefore it cannot be immoral. We differ on what is necessary.

No one is dealing with my quantitative argument. If the necessary expenditures to win a war total to greater than the GDP then complete liquidation and confiscation of the assets of everyone in the country will not fund the war. Complete confiscation is not even practical, nor is complete liquidation possible.

Really, do you think these people actually want to kill people who don't comply with some stupid movement? It's there to be absurd and silly, not to threaten people.

And "Shaky science"? 97% of the science community agrees that global warming is occurring and that humans to some extent contribute. I don't think we should take political action or that industrial society is somehow inherently evil, but it is not an absurd claim that changes should be made. To what extent, in what way and for what reasons are or should be the issues at hand. I think it would take a skeptic of climate science a hell of a lot of proof to cast serious doubts on the accepted science of the day.

I already did but I'll do it again:

And here is what I said about the comparison:



Now you've accused me twice of some form of intellectual dishonesty and since you are unable to demonstrate that such is the case, then I think in all justice you owe me an apology.



That doesn't speak very well for the Imam does it but I don't propose to initiate force at all. Instead I propose that we retaliate against those who threaten us.



This is a statement of fact not a principle, do you doubt that it is true? To give a couple examples of similar facts: building a Nazi temple or Imperial Japanese temple during WWII would have provided support to our enemies at the time.



Beliefs, most certainly, are not assailable by the government. Speech, like property, if it objectively threatens the basis of Rights, life, is a violation of Rights. So yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater is not allowed and nor would credible threats backed-up by the use of force be allowed -- and this would be true even if we weren't at war.

But no need to get so academic since we aren't talking about beliefs or statements, we are talking about building a building that supports an enemy who is killing us right now.



It is clear from my posts that I advocate killing the people who are attacking us and that if the only thing our enemies are hurling at us are ideas, then we can not retaliate with force. However, your insistence on belaboring this line of attack in which we must tolerate the ideas of those who are actually attacking us is self-sacrificial. Do you not understand that ideas cause action and that the roots of war are ideological in nature?

You wrote:

Are you familiar with "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Same thing here. Islam does not kill people, muslims kill people.

Wikipedia gives an example of the Reification (fallacy) using religion:

Phrases

"Religion attempts to destroy our liberty and is therefore immoral." (attributes intention to religion)

This is easily fixed up as "Religion taken seriously and practiced consistently by people leads to the destruction of our liberty and is therefore immoral."

Law and war have in common that both are directed when in action against particulars. Crime is not fought in the abstract, criminals must be arrested, convicted and imprisoned. War is not fought in the abstract, individual human beings have to be coerced or killed. Imam Rauf does not fall into the category of either criminal or combatant.

If in an existing suburban housing development a new neighbor moves in and starts dairy farming and stinking up the whole area, he can be sued and stopped. Some here would say that the farmer's property rights were violated, but in fact it was the property rights of his neighbors that had priority and were violated.

She certainly produces something that people eat up, but I don't consider her talented or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGh9zlN6eLo.

Folks, When quoting other posts in the thread, please start by using the "Reply" button that is just below the specific post, instead of using the "Add Reply" button at the bottom of the page. That will bring in the other person's post as a quote, from which one can remove text to leave just the portion being quoted. One can also use the "Multi-Quote" feature when quoting multiple posts.

Alternatively, when adding the Quote tag "manually", you can add the person's name right after the word "quote" inside the opening tag, something like this:

[quote name='ConfusedOpponents Name' ]... blah blah blah... [/quote]

Fallacy of reification:



Just because some of the people holding an evil idea are acting on it, it does not mean you may wage war against all of the people holding that idea, including the ones who are not acting on it. You said it yourself, the crime is acting on the idea, not holding or speaking it.

Trying to circumvent the requirement of establishing whether someone is or isn't guilty of acting on those beliefs, by relying on the fallacy of reification and pretending the idea itself is literally waging war against us is illogical.

What you advocate, if applied consistently, would mean the abolition of all religions.

Fallacy of reification:



Just because some of the people holding an evil idea are acting on it, it does not mean you may wage war against all of the people holding that idea, including the ones who are not acting on it. You said it yourself, the crime is acting on the idea, not holding or speaking it.

Trying to circumvent the requirement of establishing whether someone is or isn't guilty of acting on those beliefs, by relying on the fallacy of reification and pretending the idea itself is literally waging war against us is illogical.

Notes on "Unity in Ethics and Epistemology" Lecture 3
Not a transcript. These notes paraphrase the speaker's points and are not accurate quotes unless in quote tags. {Curly brackets denote my comments}
Lecture #3 The Principle of Two Definitions
LP's own principle, did not discuss it with Ayn Rand.
Thesis:
Some philosophical concepts have two definitions: one broad and one a narrower subcategory of the first. Unlike typical category-subcategory relations, the same word must be used for both senses. Use of the same word is essential for preserving the unity of knowledge.
Definitions are contextual. As knowledge expands a definition may need to be altered when it no longer is adequate to specify the referents of the concept. In general any one context has one definition and new definitions supplant the old definition. EX: Rand's example of the concept 'man' defined by a child then progressing through adulthood.
Definitions are based on objective criteria: similarities and differences {and essentials picked out by the rule of fundamentality.} Definitions of ordinary concepts (man, dog, table) do not reflect personal choices and philosophical biases (beyond specifying a method for defining). There is no such thing as the Objectivist definition of ordinary concepts, as opposed to the anti-Objectivist, pre-Objectivist, or non-Objectivist definition.
The class of concepts discussed here both do and do not include philosophic conclusions.
Value
What is the correct definition of 'value'?
Answer A1: From Galt's speech "A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep." This refers to the goal directed actions of plants, animals and men. Under this definition even the irrational anti-life goals that people pursue such as power, prestige, or any whim qualify as values.
Answer A2: What makes something a value is not merely that someone pursues it but that it supports one's life. Proper values are pro-life.
The apparent paradox is needing to start with the broad definition which opens the door to any goal directed action whatever including destructive acts, only to reach the Objectivist standard of value which then closes the door to destructive acts.
A2 is narrower than A1. A1 is the set, A2 a subset. A2 has built into the answer the Objectivist ethical standard of value.
A1 demarcates a category of behavior that is observable and objective.
Normally later definitions supplant previous definitions but here is a case where it does not. A1 is not offered as an early or temporary definition to be cast aside when the Objectivist conclusions are reached. "A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep." is the correct permanent definition, edited and refined over years to be deliberately broad.
It is invalid to pick one of these definitions as correct. Both serve a purpose and are permanently necessary. The first, broader definition is a condensation and integration of certain facts of reality. The second definition is an inference from the first and thus cannot replace it {without creating a stolen concept}.
The two elements necessary to validate "Life is the standard of value" are:
1) Observation and analysis of living organisms.
2) A definition of value.
Validation of "Life is the standard of value"



  Observe that all living things including people are goal directed, they go after things or act to keep them. Definition A1 encapsulates this observation. Observe that life alone is capable of self-generated, self-sustaining action in the face of the alternative of "to be or not to be". Conclude that only life makes the concept of value possible on the obvious ground that only life has the capacity for goal directed action and only life needs goal directed action to avoid annihilation. Conclude that the only standard of value consistent with what makes values possible is life {particular individual life, not Life; but egoism is another subject} The 'Unity' angle
Both definitions are essential to preserve the unity of knowledge. Discarding A1 would discard the observational base that relates value to reality, turning Objectivism into a dogma lacking a means to justify its ethical conclusion. Discarding A1 would also discard the concept that integrates crucial information about all living creatures and all men. Men do not cease being men or become a new species when they act badly. "Nobody pursues values but Objectivists" is ridiculous.
A1 is the "IS" from which A2 the "OUGHT" arises.
A1 permits integration of data across a category regardless of any decision about the proper standard.
A2 is the integration of the same data with a normative standard, permitting moral evaluations.
Because it is the same referents being integrated, using a different word would only create confusion. Using the same word is not equivocation because both senses of the word have the same referents. {The second sense additionally integrates those facts with a normative standard that enables an evaluation to be assigned.
Power: Is power a value? Yes, it has been and still is a major motivation for some people. No, it is irrational and second-handed.
Can't deny power is a value while admitting people desire and pursue it.
The Pattern
2 senses, same word, a general and a specifically Objectivist version.
The first is the reality basis of the second.
The second integrates the same data with a normative standard.
Both 'yes' and 'no' are answers to the same question.
Further examples:
Virtue
A1 - virtue is the action by which one gains or keeps a value. "In virtue of". One should enact the means to gain one's ends. Deontologists advocate certain actions as ends in themselves, hedonists advocate whim worship. Faith, hope and charity are Christian virtues for gaining unity with the Diety. Wisdom, courage, justice , and temperance are the ancient Greek virtues.
A2 - Virtues are actions to gain rational values, pro-life values. Zealous Objectivists have retorted that Christian virtues are not really virtues but vices.
Ayn Rand story
Although LP never asked AR about the "two definitions" problem in general, he did ask her specifically about the definition of virtue. LP asked her why virtues should not be defined as the means and acts to gain and keep rational values.
Ayn Rand responded by asking him to imagine what would happen on that approach. Once having established a particular ethical theory, redefining the general concept so that it only permits your variant is an outrageous violation of objectivity. It would be an attempt to make it impossible to even think about alternatives. Ayn Rand was sensitive to issues of objectivity and was emphatic about never importing your conclusions into the definitions of terms that are condensations of observations. In particular, Ayn Rand was enraged at the suggestion that virtue should only be defined as the pursuit of rational values.
 
"You will encounter two different types of criticism of Objectivism [as a morality] with a life and death difference in terms of the soul, mind, and honesty of your opponent depending on which he offers. One type of criticism is that Objectivism is a wrong morality, an evil morality, a selfish morality, too idealistic a morality, etc. Other things being equal you can deal with a person like that, that is just a disagreement about content and in principle they are still open to go back to reality. But the type of person who will say to you "Objectivism is not a morality at all" is the type of person who is completely closed off to reality and is a pure dogmatist. The type of person who will say Objectivism is not a morality at all is exactly parallel to a Nazi who will define man as a white Aryan. The Nazi will go on to distinguish good and bad among white Aryans but the rest of mankind is regarded as subhuman."  
Morality
A1 - a code of values accepted by choice
A2 - a code of pro-life values accepted by choice
Ayn Rand frequently refers to other moral codes: Kantian, Christian, the morality of altruism, wrong moralities, irrational moral codes, etc. All of those are moralities based on the observation of a genuine human need. Ayn Rand also went on to argue that Objectivism is the only consistent moral code, and that altruism is the destruction of morality. {John Galt: "And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality—you who have never known any—but to discover it."}
How could it be proven that altruism is anti-moral except by starting with a neutral objective definition that subsumed altruism within the category so that conclusions about morality could be applied to it? The same word must be used because the same concept is being used.
Q: Why not just differentiate between rational values and irrational values?
A: Totally inadequate. That neglects the values of plants and animals, which are neither. Irrational and rational would be subcategories that could only be distinguished after observing the data that gives us values in general. 'Value' first abstracts away from the method of achieving a goal to start with the fact of achieving a goal.
Hero - a total embodiment of a given code of morality.
Self-esteem - a positive evaluation of yourself based on a certain standard of value
Egoism - giving one's own values primacy over the values of others
Epistemology - the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, means and methods of knowledge.
We say all the time that there are three approaches to epistemology, the intrinsic (mystic), the subjective (skeptic) and the objective (rational). All deal with the same subject and give guidance on it. And yet, the skeptic claims knowledge is impossible and the mystic says there is no human means to know about anything important apart from revelation. Epistemology follows the pattern.
Philosophy - a reasoned view of man, knowledge and values. Linguistic Analysis and Existentialism are attempts to address the need for a philosophy, and yet each is such a failure they are actually negations of philosophy. Philosophy follows the pattern.
Aside: Even to qualify as a philosophy in the general sense requires an attempt to reason.
What is common to all the concepts which have dual senses? All are philosophical, all are broadly normative in the second sense. {and identify a need for normative guidance in the second sense} Fulfilling the need for guidance based on authority, emotion, tradition results in error. Fulfilling that need with the same reality orientation that recognizes the problem is the only consistent way to solve the problem without contradiction.
Decide for yourself about Rights
A1 - "a sanction to independent action", which Ayn Rand contrasts to acting by permission.
A2 - Galt: "conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival". {Galt's definition is normative by appealing to "proper" survival, which incorporates some standard.}
Seems to follow the pattern. "They have legislated a right to health care. Just walk up and get it now." - in the first sense
"You can't legislate a right, the only real rights are defenses against initiations of force." - in the second sense. Relies on the first sense to derive a consistent normative version of rights.
Inapplicable to certain Concepts:
Do not apply to:
Logic - This is already a normative conclusion about thought. In a certain sense we all always pursue values, there is no counterpart sense in which we are all always logical.
Objectivity - this is already normative
Existence - there can be only one existence, a normative version of existence is impossible.
Polemics
Define terms objectively in the broad sense first then work toward normative conclusions.
Examples: An egoist defined objectively is someone who acts for his own benefit. You would reject egoist defined as someone who cares only about himself and will step over corpses to get what he wants.
Do not start conversations or arguments with "altruism is the doctrine that destroys all values". You must start with an objective definition the altruist himself would recognize.
A socialist says "I define capitalism as the system of exploitation of the proletariat." A capitalist says "I define socialism as the system of enslaving the able." Both definitions are subjective and useless as starting points {both simply assume the conclusion they wish to establish}.
Q: (Betsy) "Man" has two senses, mankind and male.
A: A completely different linguistic issue. Depends on the language. Many, even most, words in the dictionary have multiple definitions and senses, and some will be broader than others. That alone is not adequate to find the relationship examined here. The narrower sense must be derivative from the first and normative.
Q: (Prodos) Can we say "pseudo-value" or "pseudo-epistemology"?
A: No.
Q: (Dave) How many concepts do we have here? How is it possible we have the same concept?
A: The two definitions refer to the same facts from different perspectives.
Q: Can we distinguish between the two definitions as follows: The broad definition identifies a category of normative abstractions. The narrower definition is a normative abstraction.
A: That is helpful, like the IS-OUGHT relation. Thank you.
Q: What about physics in the medieval sense vs. the modern context?
A: Was torn about that. We can say it is like epistemology, but there is more continuity and growth with the field rather than outright corruption and contradiction.
Q: Is "Objectivist" in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" there in recognition of the need to use a modifier when using epistemology in its narrower, second sense?
A. Yes. "Introduction to Epistemology" would be fantastically arrogant in the bad sense.

To challenge you, I shall say that no certain nation consists any common fundamental characteristics – nation (in the conservative – collectivist and standardless context you have mentioned it) is only a group of individuals that holds that has any rights such as stealing a territory or having an economical relief to realize their own wills only by the fact it exist – that there exists a genetic proximity as a result of a faith or an arbitrary faith as a genetic result – although in effect even while getting farther away of a certain place or (mystical) ideology you can reproduce. Although, to clarify the facts of the a-correction about this anti concept named 'nationality,' I am about to analyze every of the well-know "clear" characteristics of the nation:
1) Language: In effect, concept are extract formed by perception and sensation of common, fundamental characteristics – and is given to be humanely taught relatively easily after choosing to think. Nothing about faith. (Although if you believe that faith shall be a cause to grammatical succession you actually do not know what a concept formation is.) Most highest purposes of the language, i.e., the visual or audience symbols you use to describe those concepts, are about precisely, fluency and communication. English language, today, is not "built" on any nation and is the most logical, aesthetical and business language. More over, a legislation to the need of keeping a language used shall not occur in a free society – i.e., a one that has a justification to exist.

2) Culture: Culture is the sum of intellectual achievements at a society by individuals with full or non-full to its laws and way of living. It does not set the laws nor the way of living of a state in a free society – but is set by them. It is not created by a mystical belief and not necessarily by the fact of a nation ('a group of individuals with a related belief that is united while arguing to a its own right to get regions to realize their ideas accordingly to their beliefs' – this definition is the real one to character those who call themselves 'national'. Their term is an anti-concept.) People that've been forced to renounce their property or to stay in a country that will sacrifice other rights of them are not given to represents in the exhibition of 'culture'.

3) Genetics: It might be true that X ideology believers group or Y country livers have some common genetic related characteristics, but it is irrelevant since those are qualified to live whenever they want a country or an ideology and still bring children to the world. There are also certain people who live in a country although the are suffering by its moral goodness (which is by the way very sad as exists).

4) Policy and history: It is maybe the closest argument here to reality – but that is only since it is the most far away one of the mystical-collectivist belief of the nationality – for the same reason it is no proper to justify nationality in considerated context. Arguments such as "I love Hong Kong because there is a relative freedom of market there" or for the sake of an illustration "I love New York since skyscrapers give me an emotion of joy" are crossing the short borderline that differentiates between the national subjectivism, the ''love" of something only since it is consistent in the arbitrary emotion of nationality which simply exists for no reason, "I think that X nation has a right to exist because I am one of it," and basing on an objective standard and on you own love by your own ultimate value, "I am just since I think that justice is right. X country is also just". Ms. Rand used to belong to that sort of state-evaluators.


This post is based on a lecture I had en my public school. After having that, teacher distinguished as an example that 'make-up is a characteristic of females although a male can have it too'. Now, as most of you know the objectivist theory of concept formation, although it includes some sexual stuff that no philosophy should analyze, -- what is the problematicalness in this argument. Can a concept be formed and differentiated from others although it has no definition or fundamental characteristic?

In our days in Israel, some quite important objectivist have left to the conservative, the more popular side, probably because of their hate to the left-wing side. Though, it is important to remember that those who deny any right to live and think that faith is upper than rationality are no better, at all.


T.R.

Thank you, Rockefeller.
I believe things usually get more complicated than that in practice.
It is often hard to say which side is right and which one is wrong. Even for rational people, official propaganda and genuine misunderstandings fueled by patriotic zeal make almost impossible to tell between agression and retaliation.

Take First World War, for example. An example of how nationalisms blew up a world of relatively free trade and prosperity. Who was the agressor?

Sometimes thinks get complicated when the freer country is the one attacking the less free country.
Take the Mexican-American war, for example. The US was at that time the closest a country has been to a laissez-faire economy, Mexico was a mild, very mild dictatorship, yet this was clearly a war of territorial conquest by the US.

Or take the war between Russia and Japan at the start of XX century. Or the Boers war in South Africa between the British and the Dutch colonists. Or the War of the Pacific by which Chile defeated Peru and Bolivia. Chile was the agressor, yet slightly freer and richer.

I am pleased to see how nationalistic zeal is going out-of-fashion, but it is still dangerous.
Should Muslim Chechenia secede from authoritarian Russia? Malasia is also Muslim, but far better than Russia in terms of freedom and cooperation with countries with Western values.

My point is that citizens are expected to rally behind their armies or be considered traitors, and that most wars bwtween nation-States are ( and have been) irrational, not related to defending justice but to expanding power and influence over the lives of men.

In my ideal world, people would easily move among micro-states, showing more loyalty to reason than to motherlands, and showing no mystical attachments to any country in particular. If microstate A attacks microstate B, or if it is hard to distinguish agressor from victim, rational citizens could easily move (or move their savings) to microstate C. Wars would be a bad business most of the time and governments would have to appeal to reason and present clear proofs, validated, perhaps, by third parties and courts.

It is not about Terry Jones or his message, it is about the reaction to it. When religious leaders in another country threaten violent protests to suppress the rights of an American, they are attacking the political body all Americans are already a part of.

In that sense, everyone's already aligned with Terry Jones, and denying him support against outside violence just because he is Christian negates the whole purpose of having a country. In my view, American leaders (including the general in charge of the Afghan war) have done exactly that, and everyone should protest their decision. Do you really think that it's gonna be any different when someone makes the best possible argument against Islam and gets threatened the same exact way?

It only took repeated visits from the FBI, outraged comments from pretty much every American leader, promises to not cover it from news groups who in the past aired American secrets obtained illegally without blinking, and denunciations from the Vatican and the UK. (oh yeah, and violent protests and death threats from Muslims )

Then again, the freedom of expression which allowed Americans to commit similar gestures in the past without fear of violence (aimed at the Bible, most often), cost millions of American soldiers their lives. So, even in light of all that talk and outrage, our current leaders invested relatively little effort into just giving it away.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

No. (because religions don't have intentions, only people do)

Which presents us with a conundrum. Are we going to demand that the very same environmentalist Discovery Network which is the victim of this attack be removed from the sacred site of this attack, out of respect for the victims of the attack motivated by the very ideology they themselves are spreading?

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgements".

Well, that's exactly what a bullfight is to me!. I look forward your comments!

I watched Beck today for a few minutes.

He went into a fair amount of pseudoMormon doctrine. Hell, he even told everyone to pay their tithing (I know ftw)?

He's declared the Tea Party to be the third great awakening. He's basically insisting that this is going to be about God. That's not an endorsable aspiration.

However as a religionist, he seems firmly convinced that religion means personal faith and personal salvation. Mormonism holds that knowledge is necessary for salvation. What knowledge, you ask? Good question, the answer is what makes Mormonism a total crock. But there is nevertheless an appeal to individual accountability for acquiring knowledge and for making choices. Glenn Beck is trying to force out any other interpretation of religion from the public sphere. Interpretations that include collective salvation and social justice.

Religionists don't rely on solid evidence to construct their concepts. As a result they are more 'flexible' than academics. This has obvious drawbacks, but I have come to conclude that it gives religionists - particularly in American society - a phenomenal advantage in their inductive reasoning over the Left. Yes, they employ too many pseudo concepts - but this allows them to employ a broader inductive process.

That's why they know that individual knowledge and choice is important, but they don't know why exactly. That's what Beck is appealing to: the reason they don't know they have.

I don't like Beck's movement, but I'm happy about the possibility of it driving back Obama's. And this isn't a point about the lesser of two evils. I think we can hope that Beck will be influenced to identify the role of reason in his message. Or someone. Because we can't convince these people to give up God.

I think it is unfounded, based on the hubris that people working in developing countries are supporting most of the US consumption. All one has to do is look at whether that assumption is true or not, to make up their mind on the rest.

I think it is unfounded, based on the hubris that people working in developing countries are supporting most of the US consumption. All one has to do is look at whether that assumption is true or not, to make up their mind on the rest.

Thanks again for using the search function, JacobGalt. Really...

I find it kind of funny it looks like I'm going to be one of the first to answer this, since I really just generally hate kids and am going to make damn sure I never have any. XD

Anybody who goes into parenting for the right reasons at least doesn't do it with an explicit thought about "passing on their genes." If that was the reason, no infertile people would still want to adopt. People who go into parenting, when they do it for the right reasons, are motivated by a desire pass on not primarily their genes, but their knowledge and their sense of life. They, may take great pleasure and pride in watching a person start from basically nothing and see how that kid develops slowly but surely and what the child will accomplish and what kind of person they will become from the combination of what you put into raising them and what they experience in life and what the child themselves will choose of their own volition. I think parents who get into it with the right motives have to have a good attitude toward human potential and themselves and from this want to make some kind of living product of a human potential grown up by them in the atmosphere they can make for that child based on what they can give them of a sense of what the world and life and people and so on are and can be like. For people for whom any romantic partner is part of the equation, it may be partly about also that they evaluate their partner's sense of life and its likeness to their own as so good they want it to be part of that project. In the case where they do produce the child biologically together too, part of it may be a little symbolic value in having the child quite literally produced from the two of them and, if it doesn't require something special medical intervention to get the job done, in an act born of their love for each other, their own high estimates and values for each other and what kind of people they are.

Has this been helpful to you?