The Ol' "Hitler and Rand both despised weakness" Argumen

[exaltron]

I'm having fun tuning up this Swedish interloper on the Ayn Rand Lovers board on MySpace. Thought folks in this neck of the woods would appreciate my thouroughly un-PC attack on his assumptions (one being that since Rand and Hitler both despised weakness, they are fellow philosophical travellers):

The Incredible Egg wrote:

The correlation is not weak. It's a form of a totalitarianism that suggests strong should be granted benefits that the weak shouldn't. The difference between Rand (and capitalism) and fascism is that nazism is more vulgar about it. The result of both socities is that the weak has no right to live off the strong. Rand did of course define weak as being jewish. Rand concluded that weak people are those who are irrational. It's the same thing. The difference is that Rand and various fascists has different definitions of what is to be considered as a weakness.

Heh, heh, you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. So now Objectivists are guilty of "discrimination" against the irrational and no different than the racist pigs who contended that Jews were an inferior race. OK! Let's see, in one case there is abundant empirical evidence of a distinction in fitness which some individuals are simply advocating the freedom to recognize peacefully, whereas in the other case a few nasty blokes have gotten together and convinced the masses that a certain group (based on no credible evidence) are fundamentally inferior and should be exterminated. Yeah, looks pretty much the same to me.

Let's test that theory: we'll put a bunch of Jewish folks on one baron tract of land and a bunch of retarded adults on another and see what happens after a few years..

Jews: Israel II (this time it's personal)

Retards: Um, some sort of weird.. poop sculpture?

That seals it, they all deserve equal rights. We Objectivists will now completely rescind our discriminatory policies against the weak and incompetent. We will pretend that they are just as competent as the Bill Gates' and the Rachmaninoffs of the world and if anyone refuses to pretend, we'll lock them up and throw away the key. After all to do otherwise would be totally fascist.

Sorry, no more sarcasm. No, unfortunately humans cannot arbitrarily define what is weak and what is strong. We can try, but Mother Nature tends to bitch slap those of us who get it wrong pretty bad (think "let's do a dance and pray for rain" vs. "let's move away from the desert").

Also consider the following, what if someone managed to prove that a certain ethnicity, race, sex or class was - according to Rands defintion of weakness - weaker than the other, what arguments can Rand hold that these should be granted the same living standard as others? I'm a sucker for everyone's equal value. Rand was not. So, what could she say?

Uh, did the retard thing address that eloquently enough for you? No? Rand's philosophy was a philosophy based on the overwhelming scientific and historical evidence that we are one species and that racial differences are as superficial as differences in eye or hair color, with no more moral importance. Your argument seems to be attempting to create a hypothetical to prove that her actual philosophy -for humans living in this world -is depraved. But I don't think it requires a hypothetical example at all. In fact there are mentally handicapped people out there who are clearly not as competent as the rest of us. They are weak, though unlike most poor people, it is through no fault of their own. If your question is should they have the same rights, I refer you back to the poop monument, in other words, retarded adults would die and/or would be a danger to the rest of us if they were granted the same rights and freedoms. Rights are derived from the rational capacity, which most mentally handicapped will never have, nor would they have the capacity to respect others' rights.

As to whether they should be granted the "same living standard", who is doing the granting? Neither the natural world, nor rational and free individuals would voluntarily accept that those who are brilliant and competent, who produce amazing labor saving devices and live-saving drugs deserve the same lifestyle as shiftless layabouts who watch TV all day or who show no interest in bettering themselves. So how would you enforce this "equal value" in the face of such odds? Ooo, look! It's that fascist label back again, but now it's on you.

[The Wrath]

Whenever my opponent in a debate compares me to Hitler or the Nazis, I invoke Godwin's Law.

Roughly stated, Godwin's Law states that, in any debate on an internet forum, as time moves along the probability of Nazi/Hitler comparisons approaches 1. Whoever is the first to invoke such a comparison automatically loses the debate. Comes in quite handy against wacko leftists who think that capitalism is synonymous with Nazism.

[Bold Standard]

Roughly stated, Godwin's Law states that, in any debate on an internet forum, as time moves along the probability of Nazi/Hitler comparisons approaches 1. Whoever is the first to invoke such a comparison automatically loses the debate. Comes in quite handy against wacko leftists who think that capitalism is synonymous with Nazism.

I bet that Law would also come in handy if you were a Nazi. Damn, I think I just lost... (j/k)

[Vetiver]

If your question is should they have the same rights, I refer you back to the poop monument, in other words, retarded adults would die and/or would be a danger to the rest of us if they were granted the same rights and freedoms. Rights are derived from the rational capacity, which most mentally handicapped will never have, nor would they have the capacity to respect others' rights.

What rights are retarded adults "afforded"?

[LaVache]

What rights are retarded adults "afforded"?

The same rights as anyone else (I assume retarded in this sense means having a low IQ, and not being a vegetable or something). What they wouldn't have is the right to force you to support them.

[Starblade Enkai]

What rights are retarded adults "afforded"?

The OP of this thread seems to imply none.

What a retard.

[exaltron]

The OP of this thread seems to imply none.

What a retard.

Hmm, because I suggested they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as normal adults, that means they should be granted no rights at all? I guess I must be retarded if I'm not able to see how that conclusion follows.

[Starblade Enkai]

Hmm, because I suggested they shouldn't be afforded the same rights as normal adults, that means they should be granted no rights at all? I guess I must be retarded if I'm not able to see how that conclusion follows.

You implied a lack of rights in this sentence: "Rights are derived from the rational capacity, which most mentally handicapped will never have, nor would they have the capacity to respect others' rights."

Furthermore, using logic, who would take care of retarded individuals? If they don't have the same rights as adults they cannot take care of themselves, so would their parents be burdened with this responsibility until the retarded ones died off on their own? If not, then they have neither the rights of adults nor children. So they would either have no rights, or they would have the rights of subhumans, or some other class of rights which I could easily proove was self contradictory.

[exaltron]

You implied a lack of rights in this sentence: "Rights are derived from the rational capacity, which most mentally handicapped will never have, nor would they have the capacity to respect others' rights."

Furthermore, using logic, who would take care of retarded individuals? If they don't have the same rights as adults they cannot take care of themselves, so would their parents be burdened with this responsibility until the retarded ones died off on their own? If not, then they have neither the rights of adults nor children. So they would either have no rights, or they would have the rights of subhumans, or some other class of rights which I could easily proove was self contradictory.

Most retarded adults have the same basic status as children, ie, they aren't fully rational (I should have said that in my original post, but I was concerned with rebutting the poster's assertion that all humans should have the same rights). Incidentally, the point I was trying to make would have been better illustrated by pointing to the mentally ill. That is a case where granting them the same rights as healthy adults would be disastrous, both to the mentally ill, and people they might come into contact with.

As far as retarded adults, they should have the same rights as children, the right to be left alone, unless they are a danger to themselves. Giving them the same rights as adults would mean they could not be taken of, no guardian could be legally appointed to them (of course, they could appoint a guardian voluntarily, but what would their sign-off really mean if they don't understand the nature of the agreement). Giving retarded adults the same rights as normal adults would not magically make them able to take care of themselves, or free them of the need to be treated like a child.

As to whether they have the "right to be cared for" by their parents, as I believe children do: I don't really see how suddenly when a retarded child turns 18, there is any moral difference between casting him out into the world then or when he is 12. Cognitively there is not likely to be a difference. I think this is a potential obligation that parents should know they are taking on when they decide to have a child, just as they must know that they have the obligation to feed, cloth and shelter a healthy child until that child is self-sufficient.