Ah…you are laboring under the misapprehension that I made the term up it seems. Please, let me disabuse you of that notion. From Wiki:
I’m not going to slog back through everything I wrote, but I believe I mentioned infant suckling?
Since we are on this stupid subject, why not look at what Wiki has to say about what an instinct is while we are beating this dead horse to death in mid-stream? I note (with some irony) that ‘pain’ did not, curiously enough, make the list.
Things have changed since I studied this stuff. The way I learned it most of the things listed above were considered ‘reflexive actions’ (contrary to the belief of some I didn’t make the term up…though I’m flattered in a backhanded sort of way to receive such credit). It seems that definitions have changed somewhat since the dark ages when I studies this subject…or perhaps my understanding was imperfect. Though reading the last line…perhaps not. Seems there is still some debate on this…despite the hand waving and ‘Of COURSE humans have instinct you cretin’ type remarks.
I’m willing to, at this point, let this stupid hijack go. Back away from the key boards everyone and either continue to beat Rand up some more or perhaps have someone start a thread to debate human instinct or the lack there of. Whatever floats everyone’s boat.
Now I remember what bugged me so much about her: it is the* tone* of her writing, she is an unpleasant conversation. She’s not as smart as she thinks she is, but seems accustomed to an audience who rates her quite highly. Thus, she thinks she can offer rationalizations in place of reason, she thinks she’ll get away with it.
“…must not be aimed at a single scapegoat…” is prime Rand. Why, heavens no, we would not want to have someone unjustly singled out and scapegoated! Why, that would be terrible! And then we are invited to gratitude for the industrialists, how they toil that we might have them, given the “absolute necessity” of their “continued existence”. How many of us have stopped in our daily lives to thank an industrialist for this selfless service?
At the same time that she denies the value of altruism, she tries to steal a bit of its polish.
Just thought I’d pop in to call your attention to the fact that “simplicity” is NOT the noun form of “simplistic.” It is the noun form of “simple.” The noun form of “simplistic” is “simplism” (the consistent application of modifying prefixes to these words preserves their relationships).
The definition of “simplism” is
Under the circumstances, a reasoning man might be forgiven for finding it difficult to underrate the quality.
Yet lots of very successful animal and insect species have thrived in spite of adopting altruism as a means of furthering their evolutionary fitness for survival.
Luckily there are no subjectivists around here or else they may exploit my other hypocrisy that I like receiving blowjobs but do not like so much giving them.
No, seriously…
Objective value employs rational standards. The value of anything is objectively evaluated by moral standards. Standards are solidly rooted in facts.
Your values may be subjective but mine are objective. A=A, bub.
I wish to force you to repeat the simple act I engaged in. My act was fruitful and simple.
If you have a specific problem, please do alert me. I am not callous, I am not sadistic. I am, however, disgusted at your capacity to keep up with me. I am one sloppy fellow in the scope of things.
Could you repost that without the whole “citation needed” thing?
In case you say no, then…
Citation needed.
Walt Disney movies have parrots coveting diamonds and meerkats vocally (in English) complaining about flatulence and bluebirds trilling entire musical compositions but I do not give a multimillionaire the pass so what gives you a chance?
In short, just talk to me like a human would talk.
So, in one post, you ask someone else to track down a quote for which you did not provide a link. Then, in the very next post, you ask someone to repost something you previously requested because the link that he **did **provide only gave you 10 cited examples. You were apparently willing to do even less than the “fruitful and simple” act performed by Enter the Flagon: all that was needed was to click on the link he provided, and you’d have more examples than you were likely hoping for.
Were you aware of the contradiction when you posted, or was it a case of cognitive dissonance?
I count 5 claims for which a citation was needed. Where are you getting 7?
More significantly, your failure to engage the relevant and cited examples – which you asked for and which do much to belie your claim that “altruism has no value” – has become conspicuous. If it will help, I will provide exactly what you asked of Flagon: a reposting of the list including only cited statements.
So, you’re refusing to examine the evidence presented to you on principle? You’re not willing to examine anything that isn’t pristine?
I honestly have no earthly idea what you’re asking for. I have now twice linked you directly to a list of all of the citations. And now I’ve done it three times.
