Originally posted by no1marauderLaugh all you want, but you haven't refuted the rationality. You pick out isolated quotes, without context. If you actually read Rand you might understand the nature of your misrepresentation. But then, I'm not here to convert you, but to live my life for my own sake.
That just gets a LMAO! It's spin and nothing more.
Originally posted by no1marauder"I know you rarely bother to read other people's post or you have a severe reading comprehension problem,"
Sandusky is indicted for sodomy and other sexual crimes against children.
Schultz and Curley are indicted for perjury and for failure to report (I know you rarely bother to read other people's post or you have a severe reading comprehension problem, but it has already been mentioned that school administrators have a duty to report sus ...[text shortened]... All and Penn State may be civilly liable because of that law (Big Government in action).
You know nothing of the sort. I routinely quote the portions of text I respond to. I understand the collective responsibility of the institution, and of various administrators, which may explain the tendency to sweep stuff under the rug for so many years.
Big government in action, resulted in a severe delay in justice, and likely more victims, if justice is ever truly served. The actions of a single rational, moral man could have stopped a lot of this a decade ago, possibly sparing dozens of victims. Unfortunately, the one individual who could have done something, didn't. Why? My guess is because the law and institutions made it dangerous for him to do so.
Originally posted by TeinosukeIs there a problem with our laws if there is that big a gap between moral and legal? English common law, from which most American law is derived, has a significant basis in morality.
The obligation is moral, not legal.
How many people would drive by a house on fire, and fail to report the fire to 911? I would bet that significantly fewer would report an assault, armed robbery or carjacking in progress.
Another disconnect is no1's argument that a fiduciary relationship must exist for any requirement to report a felony to police. Yet in other matters he would insist that upper income people do have a fiduciary responsibility to the "less fortunate". If we citizens are our brother's keeper financially, then how do we escape the responsibility to report a crime in progress? Please, understand this isn't a legal argument, but one of basic legal philosophy.
My thought is that our legal system either enhances or creates our moral attitudes. What people will do when faced with a moral dilemma is at least pushed in a certain direction by the applicable laws. When the laws aren't clear, or offer loopholes, people will tend to find them.
Originally posted by normbenignYour guess is, as usual, moronic. He was following the precepts of action that your own philosophy requires if you were consistent, which you are not. It's hard to understand what exactly is your latest complaint is about government in this case though you routinely blame it for virtually all ills; I am unaware of ANY governmental policy which encourages the non-reporting of child sexual abuse.
"I know you rarely bother to read other people's post or you have a severe reading comprehension problem,"
You know nothing of the sort. I routinely quote the portions of text I respond to. I understand the collective responsibility of the institution, and of various administrators, which may explain the tendency to sweep stuff under the rug for so m ...[text shortened]... n't. Why? My guess is because the law and institutions made it dangerous for him to do so.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYour hypocrisy and inconsistency is truly stunning. The enemy of Big Government now insists that government make it a criminal act not to report crimes. And insists that our moral values are largely a byproduct of government action! The mind reels.
Is there a problem with our laws if there is that big a gap between moral and legal? English common law, from which most American law is derived, has a significant basis in morality.
How many people would drive by a house on fire, and fail to report the fire to 911? I would bet that significantly fewer would report an assault, armed robbery or carjac le laws. When the laws aren't clear, or offer loopholes, people will tend to find them.
I would argue no such thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign"Isolated quotes"? They are the central ones to her entire demented philosophy as she herself states! And you know it.
Laugh all you want, but you haven't refuted the rationality. You pick out isolated quotes, without context. If you actually read Rand you might understand the nature of your misrepresentation. But then, I'm not here to convert you, but to live my life for my own sake.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes isolated, and of course when I supply the context, you call it "spin" with no further argument. Truly, nearly always an attempt at argument by intimidation, except that I'm not in the least intimidated.
"Isolated quotes"? They are the central ones to her entire demented philosophy as she herself states! And you know it.
Originally posted by no1marauderHardly, and I will not bother to repeat what I said before as it just doesn't compute when someone already has a closed mind.
Your guess is, as usual, moronic. He was following the precepts of action that your own philosophy requires if you were consistent, which you are not. It's hard to understand what exactly is your latest complaint is about government in this case though you routinely blame it for virtually all ills; I am unaware of ANY governmental policy which encourages the non-reporting of child sexual abuse.
If you weren't dead set on being argumentative, you might have discerned that I wasn't necessarily critical of government, in this case. Unless you think that internal University policy is government. What I am critical of, is the cultural indifference to wrongdoing. You admitted McQueary's moral shortcoming. If a person's circumstances dictate that they walk away from wrongdoing without reporting, something is amiss.
Are you aware of any cases in which good Samaritans ended up at the very least severely inconvenienced by the law, if not punished for their coming forward?
Yes you are unaware, and determined to stay that way. You refuse to question, of course presuming you already know what you clearly don't.
Originally posted by no1marauderI made no insistence about legal action or legislation. You are dreaming. I did indicate that morality can be eroded by government actions which encourage immoral reactions. Economists call that "moral risk".
Your hypocrisy and inconsistency is truly stunning. The enemy of Big Government now insists that government make it a criminal act not to report crimes. And insists that our moral values are largely a byproduct of government action! The mind reels.
I would argue no such thing.
Originally posted by normbenignSpin was the right word for that post. Twisting the facts and Randian philosophy to make it appear as though a true Randian wouldn't have acted like McQ did.
Yes isolated, and of course when I supply the context, you call it "spin" with no further argument. Truly, nearly always an attempt at argument by intimidation, except that I'm not in the least intimidated.
For one, you say "McQueary's productive work involved helping young men achieve their potential. Turning a blind eye was contrary to that productive work, even if it meant that work had to be done elsewhere."
Which is making a big assumption about what McQ sees as his productive work. All we can say for certain is that McQ's productive work was training a select group of young man to become better football players because he was paid to do so. What happened to random 10 year old boys had nothing at all to do with that work and as such, according to Randian philosophy there is nothing at all wrong with completely ignoring the abuse.
Further you say that
"But McQueary did sacrifice himself and his values? "
Sacrificing "values" is a strange thing thing to say whilst arguing within an objectivist Randian framework. I get that you wouldn't allow such abuse to happen because you actually care about other people. The knowledge that you didn't act to stop such a thing might be a greater sacrifice than the potential of retaliations for acting against the abuse. However, it's perfectly possible to be a good little Randian whilst not sparing a second thought to the victims of rape. Placing your own job above the suffering of children is perfectly consistent with Randian thought.
Originally posted by BartsYou'll have to show me somewhere that Ayn Rand argued that there are no moral imperatives.
Spin was the right word for that post. Twisting the facts and Randian philosophy to make it appear as though a true Randian wouldn't have acted like McQ did.
For one, you say "McQueary's productive work involved helping young men achieve their potential. Turning a blind eye was contrary to that productive work, even if it meant that work had to be done els ...[text shortened]... wn job above the suffering of children is perfectly consistent with Randian thought.
Secondly, we have no indication that McQ was an objectivist.
I've not seen where Ayn Rand argued against caring for others. She argued against not caring for yourself first. It follows that if you don't care for yourself, the alleged caring for others is rather meaningless.
I dare you to try this argument with any number of objectivists. You will find nobody in agreement with these wacko notions.
Originally posted by normbenign- Show me where she argues that there are. You yourself say that she argues that you first have to take care of yourself, before looking after others. To me that means that I have no moral imperative to do anything that I believe might hurt me.
You'll have to show me somewhere that Ayn Rand argued that there are no moral imperatives.
Secondly, we have no indication that McQ was an objectivist.
I've not seen where Ayn Rand argued against caring for others. She argued against not caring for yourself first. It follows that if you don't care for yourself, the alleged caring for others is ...[text shortened]... with any number of objectivists. You will find nobody in agreement with these wacko notions.
- Except that his behaviour is entirely consistent with an objectivist moral system.
- You can care for others under a Randian philosophy, I'm not arguing you can't, but it is with the caveat that caring for others doesn't hurt yourself. If McQ decided that caring for others (stopping the abuse) could hurt himself (risk his job), then he is perfectly entitled to do nothing about the abuse.
Originally posted by quackquackI was wondering if you still thought Paterno should not have been fired. Paterno was God on that campus. He was the most influential person at the university if he ever chose to exert that influence.
Paterno reported the incident to his superiors: the athletic director and the president or the University. There is no claim Paterno violated any law and there is no claim he did not meet his legal responsibility of reporting a claim to his superior.
It is ridiculous to expect football coaches to do their own investigation or to not believe the res ...[text shortened]... They find the constitution especially the 4th, 5th and 6th ammendments to be inconveniences.
I know the situation is complicated and there is hindsight, and that Sandusky was originally well-liked and well-respected. Yet, it is striking to consider the conversation between McQueary and Paterno moments after McQueary witnessed Sandusky a 50 year old man analy raping a 10-year old boy in the shower on campus. Sandusky's reputation was at stake, but what you have done if you were Paterno with the influence? If I were Paterno, I would have reported it to the police and district attorney, and used my influence to demand that Sandusky be questioned and preferrably arrested. And if the anal rape of the child confirmed, I would have publicly ostracized Sandusky. McQueary had the great opportunity to beat the crap out of Sandusky during the rape of the child. Too bad McQueary didn't take the opportunity.
Sandusky retired early and did not get another job, which was considered odd. Also, Paterno only briefly spoke at Sandusky's retirement dinner, and then left immediately. People thought that was odd. Now it is clear that Paterno was already distancing himself from Sandusky the serial child rapist.
Originally posted by BartsRational selfishness is covered in an entire chapter of her book on "the Virtue of Selfishness". I don't intend to type the text in here for people too lazy or too cheap to buy the book.
- Show me where she argues that there are. You yourself say that she argues that you first have to take care of yourself, before looking after others. To me that means that I have no moral imperative to do anything that I believe might hurt me.
- Except that his behaviour is entirely consistent with an objectivist moral system.
- You can care for others ...[text shortened]... uld hurt himself (risk his job), then he is perfectly entitled to do nothing about the abuse.
In the objectivist newsletter, she repeatedly argues against altruism as pure evil, as it is in direct conflict with man's survival instinct, and defies reason. Above all, man is a rational, thinking being, and as such has choices and decisions facing him at every turn. Those decisions mean decisions on ethical matters, moral matters. It is a waste of my time and effort to convince you that your accusation is false, although it is made without any substance. It is like me asking you to prove you don't beat your dog.
"You can care for others under a Randian philosophy, I'm not arguing you can't, but it is with the caveat that caring for others doesn't hurt yourself."
An Objectivist may take less advantageous choices if he rationally decides to do so. A father rationally chooses to feed and cloth his family and pay his rent or mortgage in lieu of spending all his money on frivolous personal pleasures. Your misunderstand the denunciation of altruism, which makes self sacrifice the primary good.
"If McQ decided that caring for others (stopping the abuse) could hurt himself (risk his job), then he is perfectly entitled to do nothing about the abuse."
However that decision may not have been rational, and ought to have been in conflict with ethical considerations. Objectivism is not blanket permission to do whatever you want, even if it defies reason, logic and facts. Rational selfishness is not blanket permission to abuse others if it is to your advantage.