john42t

I thought we're talking about the standards of deciding which degree of altruism is optimal as part of a moral code. You are the one attacking the Objectivist moral code. Now you say everybody should use his own standard? I know what standard I use. I thought you disapproved.

Paul was the first self-hating Jew. Quite possible. I believe this to be the second cause for anti-semitism after the primary cause of them being apart/wealthy/selfish. They also generate a lot of leftists. Hitler surely hated Jews for both reasons. So you have Jew -invents-> Christianity -acolytes of which hated-> Jews (EDIT: Protestantism is different and doesn't apply) and Jew -invents-> Communism -acolytes of which hate-> Jews and Jew -invents-> Shock Doctrine -acolytes of which hate-> Jews I already was about to make a video about this but I need to refine this theory first.

I couldn't agree more. Two questions: 1. According to which standard/criteria should I choose the right amount? 2. Does it matter who benefits the altruism? Is a stranger as good as my child? If yes, why?

Both your choices a) and b) qualify as help, yet b) is, according to you, wrong. Why? Is there good help and bad help? Where's the difference?

No. I don't live for someone else, not even if that means his death. That would be stupid in your language and altruist in mine. Strange, I thought we settled this...

Thank's for clearing that up. I really don't think there's any disagreement here then. I've been stupid in your words and altruist in mine. I'm now selfish in my words and not stupid in yours. The disagreement appears to be purely linguistic.

This case. Basis as in *justification*, no, of course not. But that's not an answer to my question. You withdraw the stupid/mistake in that case? You think my behavior was right? The situation here will be a pre-civilized society where there are no volunteering foster parents available and one I presume it's not the mothers call anyway. So we're talking about the case where a family might let a child die in order to get the rest through the winter or because the child's disabled and will be a drain on them in their harsh conditions. Yes, it's their decision to make in both cases. The better maximize their happiness and survival chance and *do not sacrifice*. Not even to their own child.

She's a conscious troll (and an atheist I believe).

I for one don't argue against this benefit. To the degree that helping other is enjoyable for you, it's perfectly fine. But then I think that has been said a thousand times already.

It was the relative who did the investing, not me. Now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, do you withdraw your characterization as stupid/erroneous?

I said no such thing. I merely said I gave a lot of money to a person I didn't like and that hatred was the result. I didn't talk about a "transaction" or an "investment". I talked about a sacrifice. What prompted you to call this stupid? What prompts you now to call this an error? Where, exactly, is the error? Isn't it moral to suffer for someone else?

He's not a very good troll though. Here's my favorite so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxNp9Evqo3E The good bit starts at 0:30. All those YouTube atheists were up in arms.

You seem to be saying that you see Kantian deontology / idealism in the Objectivist movement, but then I sense irony in the first quotation, as if you think Kant wasn't actually that evil. Can you clarify what exactly you mean, it sounds like an intriguing start.

I think most of it simply comes from experience. There's rather few atheists that are not at least mildly anti-American welfare-statists. Those that are strongly atheist in the sense that they talk about it a lot or even attack Christians in debates are virtually all anti-American welfare-statists, if not marxists/feminists or outright Communists. And then there was actually Communism (and Nazism) that Americans fought against. There is no visible group of atheists who are at least benevolently neutral to American Christians to make up for that.

Bob, I'm asking again: Why was, in your opinion, giving money to that relative a bad idea? Stupid, even?

Copying people is dangerous, as you have a unique set of talents and perspective. Copying people who call themselves Objectivists is outright suicidal. :-)

The interesting thing is that he interrupted his work on "The Art of Computer Programming" because he couldn't type set it to his esthetic standards, especially the mathematical formulas. So he developed TeX over many years, then completed the work on computer programming with TeX. TeX is now the de-facto standard word processor in the mathematical and many natural and engineering science faculties. From my experience at university, it's the mathematicians who are most picky about the beauty of their type setting.

Michael: Funny stories, and I can easily believe that. I was confused as I only knew about the Nazi-emigration and "sense of entitlement" isn't what I would have associated with those (or that entire generation even). Now I understand what you mean - Germans are law-and-order fanatics: They would die by driving on green even though the others don't bother, but they would also stay on red when nobody's there. That's still the case today (to a lesser extent): Even pedestrians wait on red, even when there's no car to be seen anywhere. It's the law, that's all that matters. I wouldn't call this sense of entitlement because it goes both ways. But the modern German culture has been corrupted by welfare and liberalism in the way that people begin to believe that they are entitled to all sorts of things that only benefit them. One example is to have a right to a job. Meaning, if you're unemployed, you are a victim, and therefore morally above those who work (it's not mainstream, but there's a strong minority who believes that). Who can blame them? It's in the human rights charter. Funny. I believe to a great extent many of the so-called Nazis were in the end only the ones who were not Commies. There was no strong non-collectivist ideology in the Weimar Republic, so you had to pick sides or emigrate. "Better dead than red." is probably all that it took to put you in the Nazi camp.

Donald Knuth would hate you.

Yes. I don't think it's a genuine disorder though. It has its upsides and downsides, depending on your psychology and the Zeitgeist.

Wow, that's fascinating. Can you tell more about this? What did they think they were entitled to? Do you know anything about their social background?

I don't even use one. I do that, but I'm too eratic in my concentration to catch all cases where I simply hit the wrong key. EDIT: I spell better than I speak: It's usually the IPA I have to look up from the spelling, not the other way round.

Michael: There's one thing I want to add to your take on charity. I believe it's necessary, although not nice, to make clear that charity is that: charity. That is, it's not a right to be housed, provided for, healed by a doctor, tought in schools, not even a human right, it's charity. I feel that very strongly because I have made the experience that the more people get for free without being forced to acknowledge that they get something they don't deserve, it makes them ugly. The typical case is the welfare state but I think the cause is ideological and also applies to private transfer of wealth. Think of spoiled children. Or that beggar you gave 50 cents and he insulted you because it wasn't a dollar. The government, at least in Germany, isn't handing out any charity - it hands out what is your *right*. That is a very strong, unanimous feeling in the population. I would even say it like that: Most people in Germany believe you have a right to everything most people ever wish for anyway. The meaning of the word "to deserve" is lost.

So why was, in your opinion, giving money to that relative a bad idea? Stupid, even? Was it because I said I didn't like the person or did you have a different reason for calling it stupid?

I don't think early Christianity is snow to Eskimos. Like Marxism, it was (modern Christianity is different) a fell-good ideology that excuses your shortcommings and shifts blame on others: The proud, the rich, the ambitious. In other words, it's not what people don't need - it's what they need to justify their parasitism. Objectivism (and Judaism for that matter) are somewhat the opposite of this, which is why both don't spread that much. It's also why those are hated by the former.