Ya, and while you’re at it, make it sound pleasing to the ear.
Do you feel “compassion” for the police officer shot on the job? His or her spouse?
The fireman killed rescuing a person in a burning building?
How about a prostitute on the streets who gets raped and beaten?
A coal miner who developed black lung?
Do you have sympathy for someone who loses their house in a flood or fire?
Someone who tries to start a business with all of their money and then fails?
See answers above in bold all caps.
Thanks, I was not aware of that.
It also doesn’t help that different people are sympathetic to the person for different reasons, as well. For example (using the woman in the other thread): some people may feel sympathy for her just because she was evicted due to the property being foreclosed on the landlord; others may feel sympathy for her because all that happened, and the landlord did not inform her of any of the details (i.e., allowing her ample time to find another place to live, etc.).
I’m glad to hear that you agree that different people will set their sympathy bar at different places - but I don’t get that impression from your posts, though (e.g., “I just don’t see the big deal here.”).
IOW, how are we (as readers of your posts) supposed to reconcile your acknowledgment of the different sympathy bar levels, with your apparent lack of understanding that that’s ultimately what “the big deal” is? I think this is why a lot of people consider your posts trolling.
Well, I think that the part I bolded and underlined and italicized above should alert the reader to my awareness of the subjectivity of the analysis.
You flatter me with your attention.
Nope. Still waiting…
Of course you wouldn’t participate in or start such a pile-on thread. Would you*?
CMC fnord!
*Think hard before ya answer, 'cause some days the search function actually works.
This is unrational. I am not an attorney, so I won’t even dip my toe into some of the serious problems with the doctrine of proximate cause. It is also somewhat beside the point. It is your logic that is the problem.
Let me make sure I am understanding your thinking. Suppose we are talking about a “business decision” for argument’s sake. An agent undertakes a business decision that can have a variety of payoffs, both positive and negative. Each payoff has a different probability, and these probabilities can be estimated but never truly known. Suppose something shitty happens. You are making the choice whether to feel sympathy or not.
Here’s how your thinking goes. You are basically inferring the probability that a given event will occur conditional on its actual occurrence to a single individual. In other words, you form your prior beliefs about the probability of this event after it has already happened, and you use these ex post priors to form value judgments about the agent himself. If it happened, then barring extremity, it must have been forseen by the agent, so fuck him for whining.
This is not a rational way to update your beliefs about the likelihood of events. If you actually used this updating rule in your own life instead of just a tool to judge others, it is a miracle that you have done half as well in your life as you claim you have. It is a further miracle that you have entered into any transactions whatsoever willingly.
Humans are notoriously terrible about predicting the likelihood of future events. Not only do we miscalculate the odds, we also miscalculate the magnitude of the payoffs as well. Risk is a part of life, and rational people do what they can to mitigate it. But perhaps sympathy flows from our understanding of our own shared imperfections. A rational person may consider a transaction and see a thousand other people perform it successfully. He forms his prior beliefs based on a reasonably large sample, and aware of the risks, he transacts.
But if the probability of getting screwed is conditional on the unobserved state of the world and that state changes, it pretty much stinks. He played the odds, but the odds of the game changed midway. It’s life, it is not always an example of stupidity or poor calculation, and when the magnitude of the pain is high, it can be deserving of sympathy.
I am not going to tell you whom you should feel sorry for. Like you said, it’s definitely a subject that has room for argument. But you really shouldn’t get away with this self-congratulatory ex post shit. To quote another book popular with teenage males, even the wise cannot see all ends. I just hope your Bayesian equipment is working right when you need it most.
I disagree with Rand Rover’s views in this thread, but the above appears to me to be a seriously flawed evaluation of his reasoning. Can you point out some quotes from his posts that support any of the above? Especially your notion that he is judging something to have been forseeable based on the question of whether it in fact happened or not.
@Rand Rover,
Do you feel sympathy for someone who wakes up one morning to discover that they are being evicted right there, that very day, as in they must leave the house right now this very minute, all because the landlord failed months ago to relay crucial information about the relevant status of the property?
AND he was too stupid to even do THAT right:
The gulags were the SOVIET prison camps. Dumbass.
Wow…just…wow. You really are one cold-hearted rat bastard.
I love how she should just “buy a house instead.” Wow-of course! Why, she could just pull the money out of her ass and go out and buy a house!!! How simple!!!
You know, MY family decided to buy a house after years of renting…only for my dad to be laid off, because he found out his boss was committing insurance fraud! Isn’t that just lovely!!! And it was all Dad’s fault, right?
I hope someone gives you a good solid kick in the balls. Twice. With steel-toed boots.
He did not come out and say this directly, but I maintain that it is an unspoken assumption that underlines his reasoning.
Any possible outcome of a business transaction short of alien abduction is essentially, by Rand’s definition, “forseeable” once it occurs. My sense is that there can be an entire chain of causes between the transaction and the outcome, but as long as they can somehow be linked to the original transaction, the outcome is “forseeable” by Rand’s definition. I continue to maintain that this is a pretty terrible ex post way of reasoning. A thought experiment would be to imagine Rand listing all of the possible risks of entering into a transaction. Then suppose something extremely unlikely occurred which could, even tangentially, be demonstrated to flow from the original transaction. Should Rand have forseen it? Would he maintain that it is someone else’s fault (socialists, democrats, liberals, whatever)? The fact that one might be able to connect a chain of causes from a transaction to an outcome does not make that outcome inherently forseeable.
On what basis?
Well, you’ve proven yet again that I have underestimated the vast intellect of the pile-on poster. My god, it’s so clear now that anything I say should be dismissed because I don’t understand the difference between Soviets and WWII-era Germans.
If only we were able to institute some sort of internet license, so that people like myself could be denied membership on the basis of rule 602-14a, re: mixing metaphors. Oh wait, I think rule 414.3e8 disallows you on the basis of being a fucking waste of oxygen. (Though obviously I hope you remain breathing comfortably and freely through your mouth as you indignantly rolleyes at my hubris.)
How god damned moronic do you have to be? Godwin’s law is about the probability of any usenet discussion containing a comparison to nazis approaching 1 as the thread continues. I’ve literally drunk myself into a stupor by this point in the evening, and I still dominate you intellectually! A simple Google search gives you the entire etymology of “Godwin’s law” and various correlaries, which should indicate to even a chimp of subnormal intelligence that “successfully” invoking Godwin’s law is as easy as saying “YOU ARE AS A NAZI”.
The ONLY point you can come up with is that I combined nazis and soviets? Two of the worst regimes in recent history? Do you think it was an accident, that I meant to literally compare you to either a group that worshipped racial purity or the apparatus of a dictator obsessed with ideological unity (or at least the appearance of such) but accidentally conflated the two, giving you your opening to take me down a peg or five? No, no, a thousand times no! You just, plain and simply, fail.
You, sir or madame or whatever sort of gendered individual you are, is this the best you can offer? That obviously nazis and soviets are different? Well, sir, I salute your attention to detail and your historical acumen. I submit to your obvious rhetorical superiority. I bow down to your skillful cutting wit. You have without a doubt crushed me under the heel of your cutting wit. In the proverbial duel of sharpened wits, you have shown yourself to be armed with a big plastic spatula.
The mere fact that you have chosen to try, Seven Samurai style, to step up and challenge me to a mental swordfight indicates to me that I have scored some sort of hit, just as your weak use of !!! and Wow… just wow and your pathetic “rhetorical” questions show that Rand Rover has intellectually run circles around you (which sort of saddens me, if you are stepping forward as some sort of defender of the common man).
I would like, nay, I would love for you or someone else to step forward and raise the level of discussion to new heights of legerity and wit. I would enjoy being attacked with scalpel wit and laser precision, as you simultaneously crush my ego and demonstrate the raw idiocy of Rand’s position! Yet I am forced to deal with your excuse for wit, slightly less edged than a bowling ball, and wielded with the same level of delicacy.
Christ. I’d make a comment about going now to throw myself in the river, but I imagine that you would seize upon such a comment and make the exceedingly obvious rejoinder, thus further reducing my opinion of your mental prowess and pinking shear wit.
Not to go too meta here, but you know what’s incredibly annoying? Someone who hijacks a pitting to scold everyone else who posts in the threads. Consider this nice tall glass; I think you know what it contains.
Rand Rover, I see no rational basis on which to withhold sympathy from people based on whether their poor decisions are in the world of business or not. Do you believe that everyone in the world has equal business acumen? That’s a patently ridiculous idea. You may have good business acumen, but other folks are really good at reading emotional dynamics, or really good at spatial visualization, or really good at writing incredible dramas.
If you suck at understanding emotional dynamics, it would be absurd for me to withhold sympathy from you when your marriage falls apart.
It occurs to me that perhaps **Rover **is not an asshole, but a high-functioning autistic individual who lacks the ability to feel empathy for others. In discovering Ayn Rand, he has found a justification for this shortcoming, and clings to it like an emotional security blanket. I’m no clinician, but it would explain a lot about his inability to feel compassion for those who are enduring life’s setbacks
Other acceptable answers are:
- Randism is simply fucked, and anybody buying into it will have a fucked outlook on life as a result.
- Randroids tend to simply be fucked, and the condition of being a non-empathetic asshole with a superiority complex and delusions of rationality is functionally interchangeable with being a Randroid.
- A bit of 1 and 2, which explains why it appeals to angsty teens and most young adults have grown out of it. Those who stick with it that far into adulthood end up like Leonard Jackoff.
How do you come to feel sorry for:
A) A prostitute who is robbed and beaten. She was breaking the law, and everyone understands that violence is a risk of prostitution.
B) A coal-miner who has black lung. Everyone knows the risks of coal mining. If they don’t want black lung, they could have just chosen another job.
C) Someone who loses their house in a flood or fire. In both cases, they should have insurance, and in the case of a flood, they would be fairly precisely advised of whether they live in a flood plain.
AND YET - not feel sorry for a woman with two kids, who obeyed the law, who paid the rent on time according to her contract, and yet got tossed out on the street because her landlord didn’t abide by his own contract, when she had no way of even knowing whether he was keeping up with the mortgage?
Nothing about this has any ring of truth or consistency. The simplest explanation is that you realize you said something wrong and stupid and yet you refuse to admit it (again, classic Randroid).
Agreed, but autism or Aspergers would account for why some do not outgrow their adolescent fascination with Rand.
Her picture is at the top.
Regards,
Shodan
Even by your standards, this is particularly special.