humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:00:12 -0700, David Buchner
wrote:

>Malrassic Park wrote:
.
>> >And heaven forbid kids should do anything that could result in a bruise!
.
>> And I know of a sad situation in which children are being kept under
>> really decrepit circumstances, and so the benevolent state was called
>> in but won't do anything about it because it doesn't fall under their
>> "guidelines"; instead, these "social workers" go around chasing down
>> tales of bruises no wider then your finger.
.
>> It is all so sickening. State social workers are the lowest form of
>> non-criminal humanity.
.
>I'm signing your petition.

Yes, well if you had read or re-read the article I don't think you
would have bothered to write most of the rest of your post.

>I've heard enough of these stories to be nervous. My kid is *covered* in
>bruises. As is any 4-year-old who's not kept in a padded room and/or on
>a leash. And I seriously wonder whether some do-gooder is going to be so
>oblivious of reality, that they honestly think it's some kind of clue to
>sinister happenings.

I've seen that cops will often just wait in hospital ER areas just
looking for an excuse to arrest someone on the basis of finding some
bruises.

A friend of mine was accosted by a do-gooder for leaving his baby in
his car on a hot summer day. He had gone into a convenience store for
less than 5 minutes while leaving the air conditioner running in the
car with the engine on. He just didn't want to pack the kid around
with him on such a short trip. So of course a couple minutes later he
comes out with his bottle of Coke and some lady starts ragging on him
threatening to call the cops.

Moral of the story: Don't leave your kid in the car on a hot summer
day with the engine on and the air conditioning running and spend two
minutes buying a bottle of coke from a convenience store, someone
might call in S*W*A*T.

>> >Of course, if the kid meant what you think he meant -- then yeah, he's
>> >obviously wrong.
.
>> Campbell spoke off-the-cuff, it wasn't a prepared speech.
.
>Is that the name of the kid in the story? Let's please remember this is
>a high school kid, mouthing off. You don't remember being a high school
>kid, mouthing off? I sure do.

Campbell is an Objectivist. Objectivists never mouth off, not at any
age. Didn't you know that? Besides, it was an off-the-cuff statement
to a reporter. Mouthing off usually consists of a lot of verbal
insults and gibes designed to intimidate.

>> He cited two very different issues. Religion is, in an ambiguous sense
>> maybe, protected in this country. But then he compares this to other
>> issues such as race. Is religion being protected by "political
>> correctness"?
.
>Again, he didn't use those exact words either. But I think, yeah: in a
>general way, there's this attitude that it's wrong to offend, belittle
>("diss") or challenge other people's beliefs; that nobody can say
>whether they're right or wrong.

He didn't use very precise words at all. And I don't base the school's
reaction on the PC movement, but on Columbine and the paranoid
tightening down of security afterwards in public schools throughout
the country.

>> Christianity, at least, hasn't exactly been the focus of the PC
>> thought-police,
>
>What did the school do, in response to the complaints? Take them
>seriously? Worse: what did everybody automatically know to do when they
>felt "offended"? That's right: run and complain to some Authorities.
>Irrationality is protected, alright -- as long as it's *organized* and
>tax-exempt irrationality.

I didn't glean from the news story that the kids felt *offended.* I
got out of it that they felt threatened by his insulting, aggressive
attitude.

'But students did feel threatened--so threatened that one parent, Paul
Jacobson, the father of Elle Jacobson, a student in Campbell's English
class, has withdrawn enrollment for both of his daughters from
Parker."

>This isn't exactly my angle on it, but this guy is looking at the
>"protected" nature of religion about the same as me:
>http://savethehumans.com/culturebashing/outbursts/nice_guys/index.shtml

"Say something today that makes you a little nervous because someone
might not like you for it." I do that sometimes, especially when I'm
with religious people I know, but I don't point fingers and angrily
accuse people of being ignorant. I might "innocently" ask a mormon
acquaintance why he only has one wife, or why it's not ok with the
church for a wife to have multiple husbands, or I'll pick on
contradictions in the church, or in the Bible, etc.

But that is not what Campbell was doing, and it appeared threatening
to the Xian students.

>> but non-whites and women, and to a lesser extent any
>> other people who are considered "different" in a society traditionally
>> dominated by rich white males who are, more often than not, your
>> garden-variety religious theists, whether Catholics or Protestants.
.
>> So what exactly was the alarm all about? Protecting religion? No, it
>> was about protecting students who felt threatened by Campbell's speech
>> and actions, and so Campbell decided to play the "religion" card in
>> order to make another pretty little reasonable-sounding speech.
.
>You're talking now of his remarks after the hullaballoo?

Yes, we were discussing his remark to a reporter about religion being
protected in this country.

>I still think there's a case to be made that for authorities to even
>consider taking seriously any students who felt "threatened" by
>Bible-abuse -- that that means there's a general assumption that
>attacking somebody's beliefs is close to attacking themselves.
>
>>He spoke of productivity in his show-and-tell session with the class,
>>but I don't see him making much productive use of his reason in any of
>>that.
>
>Uh, high school kid?

Remember, he was a self-proclaimed OBJECTIVIST high school kid.
According to the news story, Campbell had said:
'Ayn Rand personifies her vision of man's existence in her magnum
opus, Atlas Shrugged. Rand says that the pursuit of our own happiness
should be our goal in life and that morality does not come from
others.'

And as for his statement in the speech about the productive use of
reason: 'Things like faith, mysticism, and feeling restrict one from
productive, rational thought, and if we are not thinking, we are not
free.' But his demonstration was not a productive use of reason.

So, yes, "uh, high school kid." Uh, I mean, Objectivist high school
kid.
--
We usually go over the top w/ our new found freedoms.
Unfortunately, her 'followers' are as radical as Pat
Robertson's. Discernment goes out the window.
- A youtube poster