Eating Rand's Baby

[imurray]

Over in the thread "Settling the Debate on Altruism" Brant has threatened to eat the baby and burn the hat in Rand's now infamous example of "sacrifice".

My questions for you are:

Is it moral to eat an imaginary baby and burn an imaginary hat to settle a real debate?

Is an imaginary baby more valuable than an imaginary hat?

Can one sacrifice buying an imaginary hat for feeding an imaginary baby?

What if the mother was from Wisconsin and the hat was made out of cheese and she fed it to the baby after she bought it?

What say you?

Edited April 7, 2010 by Panoptic

[tjohnson]

As Fat Bastard said in Austin Powers "Baby get in my belly!"

[imurray]

As Fat Bastard said in Austin Powers "Baby get in my belly!"

Who knew that Austin Powers had Randian overtones?!

Fat Bastard: the epitome of a rational, moral human being.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Panoptic

[Brant Gaede]

This belongs in the humor section.

--Brant

yum, yum

[dan2100]

Over in the thread "Settling the Debate on Altruism" Brant has threatened to eat the baby and burn the hat in Rand's now infamous example of "sacrifice".

My questions for you are:

Is it moral to eat an imaginary baby and burn an imaginary hat to settle a real debate?

Is an imaginary baby more valuable than an imaginary hat?

Can one sacrifice buying an imaginary hat for feeding an imaginary baby?

What if the mother was from Wisconsin and the hat was made out of cheese and she fed it to the baby after she bought it?

What say you?

It reminds me of Rand's supposed comment on eating children as related by Harry Binswanger:

'As the work progressed [on the Lexicon], Miss Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the project. One value of the book had special meaning to her: it eliminates any shred of excuse (if ever there had been one) for the continual gross misrepresentation of her philosophy at the hands of hostile commentators. As she quipped to me, "People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast."' -- http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/preface.html

[Brant Gaede]

That's right, Dan, she did not advocate eating babies, but as a neo-Objectivist I have an acceptably broader palate.

--Brant

more recipes please--I'm still experimenting--babies too; I'm down to a week's supply

[Brant Gaede]

Panoptic: Imaginary?! I'll give that a try too.

--Brant

[dan2100]

That's right, Dan, she did not advocate eating babies, but as a neo-Objectivist I have an acceptably broader palate.

--Brant

more recipes please--I'm still experimenting--babies too; I'm down to a week's supply

And I thought you were a post-Objectivist.

[Dragonfly]

'As the work progressed [on the Lexicon], Miss Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the project. One value of the book had special meaning to her: it eliminates any shred of excuse (if ever there had been one) for the continual gross misrepresentation of her philosophy at the hands of hostile commentators. As she quipped to me, "People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast."' -- http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/preface.html

But she doesn't say anything about dinner. I can't help wondering about her preference for beef Stroganoff, what was it made of?

[imurray]

'As the work progressed [on the Lexicon], Miss Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the project. One value of the book had special meaning to her: it eliminates any shred of excuse (if ever there had been one) for the continual gross misrepresentation of her philosophy at the hands of hostile commentators. As she quipped to me, "People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast."' -- http://aynrandlexicon.com/book/preface.html

But she doesn't say anything about dinner. I can't help wondering about her preference for beef Stroganoff, what was it made of?

People! Beef Stoganoff is peeeoople!

[Brant Gaede]

That's right, Dan, she did not advocate eating babies, but as a neo-Objectivist I have an acceptably broader palate.

--Brant

more recipes please--I'm still experimenting--babies too; I'm down to a week's supply

And I thought you were a post-Objectivist.

Just a cannibal at heart.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This belongs in the humor section.

Brant,

So it does.

Michael

[Xray]

Just a cannibal at heart.

--Brant

I once was a member of an organistation (well established in society) which celebrates a cannbalistic ritual: the Catholic Church, where at each mass the believers are told that it IS Jesus's body and blood the priest is ingesting, and then the believers ingest it as well during act of the "holy communion".

As a kid, I found it difficult to imagine that what I had in my mouth was Jesus's body, nor could I understand what was the purpose and logic of eating it at all.

Over in the thread "Settling the Debate on Altruism" Brant has threatened to eat the baby and burn the hat in Rand's now infamous example of "sacrifice".

My questions for you are:

Is it moral to eat an imaginary baby and burn an imaginary hat to settle a real debate?

You mean Brant might be guilty of - psst -- I only dare whisper those words: thoughtcrime?

What if the mother was from Wisconsin and the hat was made out of cheese and she fed it to the baby after she bought it?

Panoptic, I'm afraid that there is escape fo the Wisconsin mother from Rand's moral condemnntion in case she feeds the cheese-hat to the baby "only from a sense of duty".

Another variable to take into account here is whether Rand liked cheese much enough to speak of it as an "objective value".

If it was an objective value in her eyes, my guess is the Wisconsin mother would run into trouble with Rand if e.g. she for whatever reason dedided to throw the cheese hat into the garbage after buying it.

Reading and writing about all that cheese makes me want to eat some. There's an unopened packet of sliced Tilsit cheese in the fridge, but I would more like a chunk of Parmesan. I think I'll buy some to grate for today's spaghetti dinner.

Speaking of dinner:

View PostDan Ust, on 07 April 2010 - 09:57 PM, said:

'As the work progressed [on the Lexicon], Miss Rand became increasingly enthusiastic about the project. One value of the book had special meaning to her: it eliminates any shred of excuse (if ever there had been one) for the continual gross misrepresentation of her philosophy at the hands of hostile commentators. As she quipped to me, "People will be able to look up BREAKFAST and see that I did not advocate eating babies for breakfast."' -- http://aynrandlexico...ok/preface.html

Dragonfly. But she doesn't say anything about dinner. I can't help wondering about her preference for beef Stroganoff, what was it made of?

Crucial point, which illustrates once more how important it is to look at the complete picture, leaving no stone unturned. ;)

Edited April 8, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

But she doesn't say anything about dinner. I can't help wondering about her preference for beef Stroganoff, what was it made of?

I saw the recipe somewhere on the Net, it had ketchup in it, listed onions not shallots, and the mushrooms were boiled, rather than sautéed in butter, so the fat content was lower. It didn’t look good to me.

Now if I remember correctly, the broth was supposed to be made with boiled baby’s bones, but allowed for substitution of bones from “Kantian Humanities Professors slain in anger”. Even rarer, and with reportedly a truly unique, delicate flavour, is spinal column of deconstructionist moral relativists. But many claim that it’s a hoax, and that there is no such thing.

[Xray]

But she doesn't say anything about dinner. I can't help wondering about her preference for beef Stroganoff, what was it made of?

I saw the recipesomewhere on the Net, it had ketchup in it, listed onions not shallots, and the mushrooms were boiled, rather than sautéed in butter, so the fat content was lower. It didn’t look good to me.

Now if I remember correctly, the broth was supposed to be made with boiled baby’s bones, but allowed for substitution of bones from “Kantian Humanities Professors slain in anger”.

*** satire continued ***

Ah, now I understand why Peikoff always called that Recipe "Deontologists' Demise", firmly denying there were any baby bones in it. Peikoff was quoted saying he had a bone to pick with Meanie Muckraker (the infamous columnist writing for those horrible tabloids!) - in case Muckraker refused to recant his allegation that Peikoff had a finger in the pie and edited the original recipe "Baby Stroganoff" by changing it into the harmless "Boeuf Stroganoff".

Peikoff (whose temperament is well-known) threw a temper tantrum threatening to make minced meat of Muckraker, should he ever meet him. Muckraker recanted. Hmm, could this now be called a 'sacrifice'?

ND: Even rarer, and with reportedly a truly unique, delicate flavour, is spinal column of deconstructionist moral relativists. But many claim that it’s a hoax, and that there is no such thing.

Was that the same hoax recipe which also contains straw from the subjectivist strawmen? For many claim those subjectivist don't exist either.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Xray