1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

The child is clutching a couple bucks in his hand that his mom gave him to go buy candy. The wind is blowing in your direction. If the truck hits the child, you will be $2 richer!

It is not in your self interest to accept unearned material when you don’t need it in an emergency to sustain your life.

As far as my values go, child > 2$ or any other amount. Objectivists the people I’m standing up for here would not accept unearned fortune. Same goes for

me and for the same reasons because I’m Mormon.

I think you err in the value judgments you apply to Objectivists or people who seek their own rational self interest. Helping other people is often in your self interests. The values that they oppose are perhaps say if there were two children one your own and one unknown to you, granted you can only safe one to save not your own but you other. That is acting against your interests. These are not confined to hoarding money and material goods. That is for an example not the motive for my work as a writer. I simply want to accomplish at writing and that is my value, which gives me happiness. Now a book written for instant fame and monetary gain is nothing but vanity and sacrificing the integrity of your character is simply not worth it. As I can see you seem to always erect the straw man of materialism. There are other and much more important values and most if not all Objectivists and reasonably selfish people think so.

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

Oh, you recognize that child! His mother is a single welfare mom.

The child is poor.

The child has down’s syndrome.

The child is a minority.

The child is ugly.

The child will never amount to anything anyway.

If the risk is small I don’t mind it sticking crayons in it’s nose.

Certainly I would be less encouraged to do so. Why wouldn’t I be? Granted I has the impossible knowledge that the child would become a alcoholic pedophile I would not save it. Pity for transgressors is treason to the innocent and valuing disabilities is an insult to the able.

But risking your life for other people is not necessarily noble. SAR make sure the area is secure and make sure of their own safety before helping the victim of the accident. That is the reasonable way to do it. Acting only on impulse to save others is hardly a suitable philosophy.

Inertia Posted:

Isn’t America a Capitalist country already?

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

A child is about to get hit by a truck. I can save the child, but I might die or be injured. Well, I guess I’ll just stand here because it’s not in my enlightened self-interest. Log in to see images!You really do love strawmen, don’t you?

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

Yes. And I completely disagree with you about the economic crisis. But getting back to the heart of the problem:

The child will grow up to be patient zero in a plague that kills millions, possibly billions, of people. It’s up to you, now! By letting a single child die you could save the future! Future war.

That is impossible knowledge, erroneous epistemology.

1337xxxlolololxxx1337 Posted:

I think there’s a tv show about it? That guy that like knows the news the next day or something. You’re that guy.

Nope, I’m not schizophrenic.

also galtse

Bill Clinton should have never made banks loan money to the blacks!!!