Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

Folks:

I sacrifice a night [horse] in the mid game because I am a fanatic about pawn structures ever since I read Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in 1960 about the same time as Atlas.

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game. Now a knight is valued as either 2 1/2 or 3 "points". A pawn is valued as 1 point.

Therefore, what would xray's or your statement as to that "exchange", trade, sacrifice...????

Adam

Kudos Selene for bringing up the chess play example, since it perfectly shows how WRONG Rand's definition of 'sacrifice' is. (For she actually believed 'sacrifice' means exchanging a higher for a lower value - patently absurd of course as the chess example clearly shows! )

Rand got it backwards again, for the exact opposite is the case:

Whichever figure you "sacrifice" (= trade) in chess, whether it is a pawn, a bishop, a knight, a rook, or even the queen - it is done to get a HIGHER value in return, right, Selene?

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

And it is the same with all so-called "sacrifices". They are made to get a higher value in return. There's no exception.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Folks:

I sacrifice a night [horse] in the mid game because I am a fanatic about pawn structures ever since I read Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in 1960 about the same time as Atlas.

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game. Now a knight is valued as either 2 1/2 or 3 "points". A pawn is valued as 1 point.

Therefore, what would xray's or your statement as to that "exchange", trade, sacrifice...????

Adam

Kudos Selene for bringing up the chess play example, since it perfectly shows how WRONG Rand's definition of 'sacrifice' is. (For she actually believed 'sacrifice' means exchanging a higher for a lower value - patently absurd of course as the chess example clearly shows! )

Rand got it backwards again, for the exact opposite is the case:

Whichever figure you "sacrifice" (= trade) in chess, whether it is a pawn, a bishop, a knight, a rook, or even the queen - it is done to get a HIGHER value in return, right, Selene?

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

And it is the same with all so-called "sacrifices". They are made to get a higher value in return. There's no exception.

You are really clueless and evasive.

Adam

[merjet]

You [Xray] are really clueless and evasive.

Adam

It's her nature, Adam. She's like a cricket that is helpless in a heavy rain. (The sound.)

Edited August 7, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

Kudos Selene for bringing up the chess play example, since it perfectly shows how WRONG Rand's definition of 'sacrifice' is. (For she actually believed 'sacrifice' means exchanging a higher for a lower value - patently absurd of course as the chess example clearly shows! )

Rand got it backwards again, for the exact opposite is the case:

Whichever figure you "sacrifice" (= trade) in chess, whether it is a pawn, a bishop, a knight, a rook, or even the queen - it is done to get a HIGHER value in return, right, Selene?

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

And it is the same with all so-called "sacrifices". They are made to get a higher value in return. There's no exception.

You are really clueless and evasive.

No, she hits the nail on the head, and that seems to hurt.

[Selene]

Kudos Selene for bringing up the chess play example, since it perfectly shows how WRONG Rand's definition of 'sacrifice' is. (For she actually believed 'sacrifice' means exchanging a higher for a lower value - patently absurd of course as the chess example clearly shows! )

Rand got it backwards again, for the exact opposite is the case:

Whichever figure you "sacrifice" (= trade) in chess, whether it is a pawn, a bishop, a knight, a rook, or even the queen - it is done to get a HIGHER value in return, right, Selene?

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

And it is the same with all so-called "sacrifices". They are made to get a higher value in return. There's no exception.

You are really clueless and evasive.

No, she hits the nail on the head, and that seems to hurt.

Damn this must be true love!

[Brant Gaede]

Altruism--sacrifice--as a moral code is one way rulers keep if not get their power. You must sacrifice for the state! Okay. Done. That makes me, the ruled, feel better: I sacrificed and gained the higher value of feeling better after I felt bad for being selfish. I've been duped, of course.

Michael is sacrificing for having a super troll on his site, but he's getting a higher value?? What might that be? People interested in Objectivism come here and find a super Objectivism/Rand denigrator prolific poster continually repeating herself as an excuse for an argument she'll win by insisting on her definitions. She's made her points, look at the length of this thread! In another month she'll be the last man standing.

--Brant

[Xray]

Altruism--sacrifice--as a moral code is one way rulers keep if not get their power. You must sacrifice for the state! Okay. Done. That makes me, the ruled, feel better: I sacrificed and gained the higher value of feeling better after I felt bad for being selfish. I've been duped, of course.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" - this Old Roman propaganda slogan is a classic example illustrating your point.

[jeffrey smith]

Kudos Selene for bringing up the chess play example, since it perfectly shows how WRONG Rand's definition of 'sacrifice' is. (For she actually believed 'sacrifice' means exchanging a higher for a lower value - patently absurd of course as the chess example clearly shows! )

Rand got it backwards again, for the exact opposite is the case:

Whichever figure you "sacrifice" (= trade) in chess, whether it is a pawn, a bishop, a knight, a rook, or even the queen - it is done to get a HIGHER value in return, right, Selene?

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

And it is the same with all so-called "sacrifices". They are made to get a higher value in return. There's no exception.

You are really clueless and evasive.

No, she hits the nail on the head, and that seems to hurt.

Damn this must be true love!

Actually, I don't think that Rand would dissent from X-Ray's actual point (which she's elided to the point of confusion during the progress of this thread). People don't in general give up a value unless they are coerced (in which case the term sacrifice may not be the best one to use--do we generally say the mugging victim sacrifices her purse to the mugger?) or they believe that they are receiving in return a value that it is greater than the one they are giving up. Now I am pretty sure that even X-Ray could not deny that at least some of those times that belief will be mistaken, and that the value being received is worth less than the value being given up, when looked at it from the standpoint of an outside observer. Rand's definition of sacrifice limits it to those cases, with the "standpoint of an outside observer" being replaced by or equivalent to "Objectivist standard of valuation". X-Ray believes that no such standpoint of an outside observer is possible--that's where she really disagrees with Rand. I disagree with Rand's definition because 1)I think "surrender" implies an involuntary element that is not necessarily present (like my example of the man buying a suit to help him find a job) and 2)I think the emphasis should be not on the relative worth of the values being received and given but on the subjective worth of the value being given up.

Merlin seems to think that "sacrifice" requires a victim in all cases. I disagree--but his view is not a necessary implication of Rand's definition.

[Selene]

Correct.

"X-Ray believes that no such standpoint of an outside observer is possible--that's where she really disagrees with Rand."

One of the reasons that I used the chess example, is that the sacrifice of an objectively more "valuable" piece for a lesser valued one was to illustrate that an outside observer could interpret the "exchange", which in chess semantic is always equal, in a number of different ways and by a number of different standards.

We exchanged Queens, rooks, pawns which is one objective observer's conclusion and it would also be both players conclusion. Objectively the exchange is "weight wise" not a sacrifice.

However, a more knowledgeable observer might notice that the exchange was instigated by the black player and note that the exchange was not equal because it cost the white player a "tempo" and equalized the automatic advantage that white has by making the first move.

Both players may think its an equal exchange when it was not. However, no observer would see it as a sacrifice.

Adam

Post Script: thanks for the new word:

e·lide (-ld)tr.v. e·lid·ed, e·lid·ing, e·lides 1. a. To omit or slur over (a syllable, for example) in pronunciation.b. To strike out (something written).2. a. To eliminate or leave out of consideration.b. To cut short; abridge.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Remember a famous Queen sacrifice?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

PS: I'm not asking Michael to ban Xray. As long as people engage her they can sharpen their minds if up to it. And if her arguments can't be answered ....

--Brant

[Selene]

Remember a famous Queen sacrifice?

--Brant

Ok Brant:

In chess the Queen sacrifices are legend. but I sniff a great historical pun or the rock group Queen event coming!

Adam

[merjet]

Merlin seems to think that "sacrifice" requires a victim in all cases.

False. I wrote about them quite a bit, because Xray arbitrarily declared them irrelevant.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[jeffrey smith]

Merlin seems to think that "sacrifice" requires a victim in all cases.

False. I have wrote about them quite a bit, because Xray arbitrarily declared them irrelevant.

Thanks for clarifying. But I'm with Xray on this. More precisely, I understand that many times there is a victim who is sacrificed, and that often enough the person who is persuaded to make a sacrifice when they shouldn't is the victim of the person doing the persuading, but I don't think it's essential to the meaning of "sacrifice" that we are considering here (as opposed to the meaning which involves priests and altars).

[Brant Gaede]

Remember a famous Queen sacrifice?

--Brant

Ok Brant:

In chess the Queen sacrifices are legend. but I sniff a great historical pun or the rock group Queen event coming!

Adam

All I know is Bobby Fisher did it and won the game. He wasn't playing a dead man either.

--Brant

[Xray]

Selene, on 07 August 2009 - 07:22 PM, said:

One of the reasons that I used the chess example, is that the sacrifice of an objectively more "valuable" piece for a lesser valued one was to illustrate that an outside observer could interpret the "exchange", which in chess semantic is always equal, in a number of different ways and by a number of different standards.

Whichever figure you trade, you do it for the sole purpose of achieving a higher value in the end: to win (or draw, which also a higher value compared to losing).

You yourself pointed this out:

[Selene]:I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to winor draw the game.

NO ONE trading a value X does this because she/she wants to get a lower value in return. For this would go against the natural law of self-interest both biologically and psychologically hardwired us humans.

One always wants a (subjectively perceived) higher value for what one gives.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

One of the reasons that I used the chess example, is that the sacrifice of an objectively more "valuable" piece for a lesser valued one was to illustrate that an outside observer could interpret the "exchange", which in chess semantic is always equal, in a number of different ways and by a number of different standards.

Whichever figure you trade, you do it for the sole purpose of achieving a higher value in the end: to win (or draw, which also a higher value compared to losing).

You yourself pointed this out:

(Selene)I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game.

NO ONE trading a value X does this because she/she wants to get a lower value in return. For this would go against the natural law of self interest both biologically and psychologically hardwired in all of us.

One always wants a (subjectively perceived) higher value for what one gives.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Merlin seems to think that "sacrifice" requires a victim in all cases.

False. I wrote about them quite a bit, because Xray arbitrarily declared them irrelevant.

Merlin, I didn't "declare victims irrelevant", but pointed out that discussing the victims is another topic altgether.

It is like when e. g. in discussing the sacrifice the biblical figure Abel made and thinking about the goal he wanted to achieve, one would suddenly shift the discussion to the slaughtered lamb.

On can of course decide to discuss victims of sacrifices, but here in this specific discussion, it would mean getting sidetracked.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray:

"The natural law operating 100 per cent of the time is that humans cannot act against what they value higher."

Merlin Jetton:

"In order to dodge counter-arguments and play word games, what Xray conveniently ignores is that a person can be prevented from obtaining something he/she values even more highly by somebody else using coercion or threats."

Merlin,

If someone holds you at gunpoint and says he will kill you if you don't hand over your money, what will you do, and why? Do you value your life more than the money? Being a victim of initiation of force and/or coercion, does not change the hardwired mental action. If you value your life more than the money, then the higher value will motivate your action. Natural law does not change with personal circumstance.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ahh.

Now it is clear - there are no standards as to what to value - it miraculously is all in the hard wiring.

So essentially you are the worst of both worlds a Calvinistic Skinnerian without any moral standards.

I am sorry that I am making you stutter with your double posts, I mean no harm.

"For this would go against the natural law of self interest both biologically and psychologically hardwired in all of us."

The difference between "natural law" and what Michael continues to ask you about in defining what objective "is" "is"*?

You still refuse to understand the intention and the underlying argument that the chess example was used for.

What is your ontological assumption about being "xyz-ray" (just a pet name for you)?

Adam ;)

* with major apologies to the sexual predator who used to occupy our White House.

[Xray]

As for your Americanisms, they seem to lean toward Westerns. You a Karl May fan, by chance? Just curious.

You are correct about the Westerns - I grew up with them as a kid, for my father used to watch them a lot on TV.

As for Karl May, I devoured the Winnetou books when I was about nine or ten, being very impressed with the "hero" Winnetou, the "noble and brave apache chief" who valiantly fought side by side against all kinds of "evil" characters with his friend Old Shatterhnd (Karl May created this figure as a fantasy ideal of the man he would have liked to have been).

I cried rivers when my admired hero Winnetou DIED in volume III, and did not forgive Karl May for letting him die in battle. How could he do this, I thought.

Well, X-Ray, answering your question is probably not in my self-interest (will Robert Preston's hat fit me?). Can't resist, though.

[Xray]

And your examples of non self-interest are .....?

Still waiting for examples of non-self interest from you, Ginny.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I am sorry that I am making you stutter with your double posts , I mean no harm.

"Stutter with your double posts?" I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is your ontological assumption about being "xyz-ray" (just a pet name for you)?

Adam ;)

Again, I have no idea what you mean. Please elaborate.

[Dragonfly]

As for Karl May, I devoured the Winnetou books when I was about nine or ten, being very impressed with the "hero" Winnetou, the "noble and brave apache chief" who valiantly fought side by side agains all kind of "evil" characters with his friend Old Shatterhnd (Karl May created this figure as a fantasy ideal of the man he would like to have been).

Ah yes, Karl May, as a boy I devoured his books. Later I also saw some of the films with Barker and Brice, but I didn't really like them, in my opinion they were not the right actors for Old Shatterhand and Winnetou, Brice was obviously not an Indian but someone merely unconvincingly pretending to be one and Barker looked more like a playboy than the serious hero (who was as May's alter ego also a writer and a composer) of May's books.

I cried rivers when my admired hero Winnetou DIED in volume III, and did not forgive Karl May for letting him die in battle. How could he do this, I thought.

It didn't end the series however, he filled it up with many more stories in which Winnetou still played a role.

[jeffrey smith]

Merlin, I didn't "declare victims irrelevant", but pointed out that discussing the victims is another topic altgether.

It is like when e. g. in discussing the sacrifice the biblical figure Abel made and thinking about the goal he wanted to achieve, one would suddenly shift the discussion to the slaughtered lamb.

On can of course decide to discuss victims of sacrifices, but here in this specific discussion, it would mean getting sidetracked.

Umm, considering that this discussion of sacrifice is itself a sidetrack from what was supposed to Rand's views on gender, I call that a ROTFL moment.

And having gotten back in my chair, I have to ask: is there any human action in the Xray universe which is not a trade? and is there any trade in the Xray universe which is not a sacrifice? Because your usage seems to indicate that they all collapse into each other, a universal solvent.

As I said previously, although I have problems with Rand's definition, at least it's a clear one which she used consistently. I suggest you follow her example.

[Xray]

As for Karl May, I devoured the Winnetou books when I was about nine or ten, being very impressed with the "hero" Winnetou, the "noble and brave apache chief" who valiantly fought side by side agains all kind of "evil" characters with his friend Old Shatterhnd (Karl May created this figure as a fantasy ideal of the man he would like to have been).

Ah yes, Karl May, as a boy I devoured his books. Later I also saw some of the films with Barker and Brice, but I didn't really like them, in my opinion they were not the right actors for Old Shatterhand and Winnetou, Brice was obviously not an Indian but someone merely unconvincingly pretending to be one and Barker looked more like a playboy than the serious hero (who was as May's alter ego also a writer and a composer) of May's books.

I too saw some of the films, as a kid shortly after I had read the books, and could not relate to Pierre Brice or Lex Barker as convincing actors of the roles either.

I especially found Lex Barker totally unsuitable for the role as Old Shatterhnd ("playboy" fits it quite well, for he looked more like a type hosting a jet set party on his yacht in the Bahamas. )

As for Pierre Brice, he at least tried, but looked far removed from the Winnetou image I personally had in mind. For example, Karl May always described Winnetou as having a thick mane of "long shiny blue-black hair" falling down over his back, and I remember how disappointed I was when seeing the actor's wig barely having shoulder-length. "That's not Winnetou!" I decided back then and that was it.

But this often happens when one reads a literary source before seeing the film adaptation. One almost always pictures the characters differently from how they are portrayed by the actors. Among the worst I recall seeing in that respect was the 1957 film adaptation of the Brothers Karamasoff.

Aside from Lee J. Cobb as the father, the other actors did to fit the roles at all imo. Not to mention how terribly "kitschig" this film was as a whole.

Xray:

I cried rivers when my admired hero Winnetou DIED in volume III, and did not forgive Karl May for letting him die in battle. How could he do this, I thought.

Dragonfly:

It didn't end the series however, he filled it up with many more stories in which Winnetou still played a role.

I discovered that a good deal later, but it never managed to really let Winnetou "resurrect" in my mind.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray