Role models for kids?

[Tero]

Role models is fine. I let my kids be influenced by scouts, though the one bit of the oath was a bit thick to swallow. But we had about half religious and half not so religious parents in the troop.

The guilt trip of religion is not OK.

[Quartinium]

Hatter, could explain how objectivism is delusional?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

[rickymooston]

Hatter, could explain how objectivism is delusional?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Michael Shermer discusses the idealogy extensively in his book why peoole believe weird things.

I dont remember the details about it off the top of my head.

On topic, is there anhbixy yiu think is a goofld role model for kds

[Quartinium]

I think the best role models for children are their parents, their guardians, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their older siblings, their teachers, or their elders in the community. My point is that children learn best from who is closest to them. I think that adults have the responsibility to be best role models we can be for all the children in our lives.

That said, my sons and I watch Thomas and Friends quite a bit.

[Historicity]

A delusion does not require a medical or chemical causation. We all have them, every time we believe something in contrast with OBJECTIVE reality, and that belief is resistant to evidence, it is a delusion.

Hatter, could explain how objectivism is delusional?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Even in the realm of careless reading that was a new low. 

[Hatter23]

Hatter, could explain how objectivism is delusional?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Pure Libertarianism, as the Objectivists, rabid fans of Ayn Rand, believe in is delusional

One of the issues I find laugable about Rand's concept of how the world works is the example of Rearden Steel.

Rearden Steel exists apparently through magic.

It has a corporate structure, which cannot exist in the real world except through court recognizing the rights of shareholders.

It makes a profit through a concept of currency, which in the real world only happens when there is a government to back it.

Its workers apprently arrive to the plant via roads that in general don't exist except through governmental projects.

Its workers aren't sick from tainted food, not killed by roving bandits, don't just kill the managers and take over the plant....even though these things would happen in the real world where there is no government enforcement.

It sells steel and ships it without it being stolen by pirates or roving bands of marauders.

People buy their steel, despite that  govenment military is a major buyer, and  construction companies don't have to adhere to building codes(and would turn to a cheaper, inferior product in the real world), the type of infastructure for railroads and bridges exists...how?

It has skilled workforce that is educated...how?

Anyone with a more sophistocated understanding than a 15 year old would understand objectivism is crap. Just as much crap as Communism, pehaps slightly more.

[Quartinium]

So, because you make the connection between objectivism and libertarianism which Ayn Rand herself did not agree was connected you have decided objectivism is delusional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

Further objectivism is not anti-government which based on your example you seem to think it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Politics:_individual_rights_and_capitalism

Am I misunderstanding your position?

Based on the above two beliefs I could completely accept that objectivism is delusional, but my understanding of objectivism based on what I have read is that libertarianism is not objectivist nor is objectivsim anti-government. So, I repeat my question, how is objectivism delusional?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

[Hatter23]

So, because you make the connection between objectivism and libertarianism which Ayn Rand herself did not agree was connected you have decided objectivism is delusional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_and_Objectivism

Hrrm that clarifies things. I wasn't quite aware of the detail of the difference, and I was wrong to think them interchangable.

But my statement of "Rearden Steel must run on magic" and Ayn Rand being delusional, stands.

[velkyn]

And I still don't consider him a "liar". I simply think, his religious conclusions, whatever his justification of them may be, are wrong.

     So he's wrong, but you don't think he's a liar.  Sure, Rick.  Unless he's been livign under a rock, he has been shown its wrong.

And the deaf community is a positive thing because deaf people make it a positive thing. It may be the case that there exist deaf people who make it a negative thing

  The community is a positive thing.  Being deaf is not.

[Quartinium]

Thank you for acknowledging the error.

But my statement of "Rearden Steel must run on magic" and Ayn Rand being delusional, stands.

What exact pathology did Ayn Rand suffer from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

I'm fine with you disagreeing with objectivism as a philosophical system. If it was 100% correct I think more people would be aware of it and follow it. I'm not fine with you making statements that imply a  prolific writer without a history of mental illlness is somehow delusional because you happen to disagree with their assessment of how we as a species might better ourselves.

As to Rearden Steel running on magic, I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

In my opinion, you and objectivism would be better served by stating simply that you disagree with the general principles of objectivism, though given how this started I think it's really libertarianism you disagree with. I don't mind if you like the taste of brussel sprouts, that's your opinion. I do mind you saying that brussel sprouts are an animal.

[Johnny Spunkypants]

A good role model is someone like David Icke. He's endured a lot of ridicule and become stronger for it, he says what he thinks without caring about what anyone says, and he's a very hard worker (thorough researcher), and he's an individual.

Peace.

[Hatter23]

Thank you for acknowledging the error.

But my statement of "Rearden Steel must run on magic" and Ayn Rand being delusional, stands.

What exact pathology did Ayn Rand suffer from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Did she hold idea resistant to evidence? Yes. That idea is objectivism.

I'm fine with you disagreeing with objectivism as a philosophical system. If it was 100% correct I think more people would be aware of it and follow it. I'm not fine with you making statements that imply a  prolific writer without a history of mental illlness is somehow delusional because you happen to disagree with their assessment of how we as a species might better ourselves.

As to Rearden Steel running on magic, I'm not even sure what you're saying here.

In my opinion, you and objectivism would be better served by stating simply that you disagree with the general principles of objectivism, though given how this started I think it's really libertarianism you disagree with. I don't mind if you like the taste of brussel sprouts, that's your opinion. I do mind you saying that brussel sprouts are an animal.

I disagree with say Conservatism, it isn't delusional. I disagree with it, but unlike Objectivism, it doesn't require beliefs inconsistent with reality.

Objectivist beliefs inconsistent with reality:

-People with power and money will not use unethical means to accumulate more power and money, including the influnce over courts

-Laws can be arrived at Objectively. The need not be a system in which these are actually decided.

-Infastructure will be developed without a governmental body

-Control of information as a commodity will not end up with a populace who cannot make informed or reasonable decision in the marketplace, as the majority would be illiterate.

-If  "each individual has an inalienable moral right to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort" that Courts, Police, and Military(the only portion of government allowed to exist) could function without funding or a body deciding what their mission and limitations would be. Furthermore, without a governing body...currency itself could exist.

And fundamentally Rand or her rabid fans never seem to understand, either in Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged, that a power vacuum would be created and consequently filled.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a bad  for a lot of our legislators to take a few of these ideas and apply the "do we really need this" test in the spending and law making decisions.

[Quartinium]

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a bad  for a lot of our legislators to take a few of these ideas and apply the "do we really need this" test in the spending and law making decisions.

We agree that a few of these objectivist ideas should be applied by our legislators in law making decisions.

I disagree with say Conservatism, it isn't delusional. I disagree with it, but unlike Objectivism, it doesn't require beliefs inconsistent with reality.

Objectivism, like Conservatism, is a system of thought. My understanding of objectivism is that there are no required beliefs, only an objective reality. Conservatism, from my perspective, is often connected to other systems of thought which are about beliefs. I disagree with belief as a mode of thought.

Objectivist beliefs inconsistent with reality:

-People with power and money will not use unethical means to accumulate more power and money, including the influnce over courts

-Laws can be arrived at Objectively. The need not be a system in which these are actually decided.

-Infastructure will be developed without a governmental body

-Control of information as a commodity will not end up with a populace who cannot make informed or reasonable decision in the marketplace, as the majority would be illiterate.

-If  "each individual has an inalienable moral right to act as his own judgment directs and to keep the product of his effort" that Courts, Police, and Military(the only portion of government allowed to exist) could function without funding or a body deciding what their mission and limitations would be. Furthermore, without a governing body...currency itself could exist.

My understanding of objectivism is that laws, infrastructure, education, the marketplace, currency, courts, police, and military would exist by common agreement and it would be government. My understanding of the form of that government is that it would be a meritocracy which I agree with.

And fundamentally Rand or her rabid fans never seem to understand, either in Objectivism or Atlas Shrugged, that a power vacuum would be created and consequently filled.

We agree, I see this as desirable.