Slashdot Mirror
Hillary, GTA, and High School Football
The LA Times is running a really worthwhile story discussing the recent attack on video games in congress. It talks about GTA, the decline in youth violence, and mentions that football actually encourages real aggression, causes real injuries, and is treated totally differently. It's worth a read. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that very few U.S. Senators are listening over the sound of hype.
Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game, and indeed the rise in obesity among younger people is a serious issue. But, of course, you don't get exercise from doing homework either.
heh, sure, those kids are really spending all that time doing homework and not nearly as much as becoming more aggressive playing after-school sports or killing, fucking, and carjacking!
Down with homework and more carjacking! Oh wait.
The most amazing thing about this is that Hillary can get so many people up-in-arms and pissed off about a stupid fucking video game and no one else can mobilize parents to "protect their children" from real harms that go virtually unnoticed in the political arena.
Someone really needs to link serious environmental issues to religion-based morality. Maybe then people will get mobilized. Afterall, it seems to be quite the rage recently...
She is just trying to get the conservative religious vote.
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
The bigger problem is, I believe, that they don't hear anything but the hype. Most politicians don't troll Slashdot or gaming sites. They have enough to do with meetings, looking at bills, more meetings, campaigning, photo ops, and the rest.
I wrote a small piece on this not too long ago that talked about this issue. It's not just that Senator Clinton is believing the hype - that's all she's probably hearing! Who in the gaming community is really going to her and the other politicians who discuss the issue?
Where's the Hollywood style lobbyists from the gaming industry? Isn't this what the ESRB and other gaming organizations should be doing - going to politicians and explaining how an R rating is the same as an M rating, how they're working with stores to keep M rated games out of the hands of minors (and if they aren't, then they damn well better be before Washington does it for them), why the "Hot Coffee" mod was never meant to be played and discovered by people voluntarily choosing to play the nude scene (and if they are minors, do you really think they can't get nude people easier than installing a mod in a $50 PC game?).
Yeah, I'm pissed at Ms. Clinton and Thomson and all of the ilk who "don't get it" - but I don't entirely blame them, because odds are there are few people who have really taken the time to explain it to all of them. (Well, except for Thomson - in my opinion, he's just a money grubbing lawyer now using nudity-in-games claims to line his pocket).
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The military used to have a problem at war. Soldiers whose lives were threatened were hesitating to pull the trigger due to the consequences. Since the advent of the video game they've seen this apprehension dissipate, which undermines the argument that somehow behavior exhibited in the virtual world remains in the virtual world when the switch is flipped off. The military encourages enlistees to play video games during R&R, because they know it has real world consequences.
Of course, I admit that there's one charge against video games that is a slam dunk. Kids don't get physical exercise when they play a video game
What of Dance Dance Revolution and its various clones?
Speaking as an obese man, if that isn't physical exercise, I don't know what is.
In my high school town (Doylestown PA), a group of several football players from CB West High School were attacked by a much larger group of football players from North Penn high school (next school district west). Basically the fight was rooted in the bitter football rivarly between the two schools. Four kids got seriously injured in the fight. One kid got kicked repeatedly in the stomach while he was on the ground.
a wl-update.html
Here's a story about it from the Philly ABC station.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/101504_nw_footbr
I think it is important to point out that we are dealing with the same problems that every generation has dealt with. Crime statistics fluctuate, and IMO they really can't be attributed to just one factor, but as the article correctly points out, we cannot rule out the idea that these violent games give kids an outlet for natrual aggression.
On sexual content, I am more concerned with violence than sex here. I don't really understand why our society is so prudish. Violence on TV (murder, rape, child molestation), is a "concern", but bearing a breast during primetime is an "outrage"!
The bottom line, this is yet another ploy by the Hildabeast to try to portray herself as a conservative Democrat in preparation for 2008.
You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
It remains to be seen how the current wave of methadone addiction sweeping the Midwest will affect future crime rate. Especially considering all the "meth orphans", kids effectively abandoned by their parents who will probably grow up with quite a negative attitude. Specialists are saying that we'll miss the good old days of crack heads.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
Well according to your favorite and mine, Jack Thompson, the Sims is the new bad guy http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/22/news_61296 09.html
Wow, now that EA peddles porn, you would think that matel and all the other makers of dolls would jump on that bandwagon. Who needs real nudity when you have a barbie.
Before people start flaming over whether video games cause or reduce violence, I'd like to remind everyone cum hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.
Football is a very personal sport. There are consequences for your actions. If you hurt or get hurt by somebody on the playing field, you have to deal with it. At the same time, sportsmanship is encouraged. You tackle the person, but at the same time you don't try to maim the other player.
On the other hand, you have GTA which shows characters do everything we've already heard about blah blah blah, no consequences just restart, blah blah blah, and minors might get the impression that blah blah blah, etc.
I'm not trying to justify either side of the argument, but just saying that comparing football to GTA is fundamentally flawed. Oranges and apples.
There is a difference between being willing to do something and wanting to do something. The choice to "Shoot someone or Die" is vary different from "Actuality stealing a car vs. Pretending to steel a car." I have no problem with killing someone with an adequate reason, but I have no desire to go out and shoot someone for the fun of it.
I have been close to death before in real life, but honestly the adrenalin rush from playing video games is a much better high. They are designed to get your adrenalin pumping and they are much better at it than say skydiving. Skydiving may be really fun but it's not fun for vary long and you spend a lot of time and money waiting to have fun. It's the same reason why I don't really go to amusement parks they are fun but video games are much more fun.
I'm fairly certain that very few US Senators are listening over the sound of hype.
You have a niave view of Senators. They understand the silliness and meaningless of what they are saying, probably better than most people around here. What you fail to understand is that media events like this are all about getting face time on TV. Free face time on TV is more highly prized than nearly anything else. The explicit lyrics crusade of the 80s, the assault weapons crusade of the 90s, the current video game violence crusade, all were merely PR stunts that accomplished very little.
It's funny how the most leftist of politicians do exactly the sorts of things that they accuse the right of.
And you think Bill Frist, Tom Delay, and Rick Santorum disagree with her? Hillary isn't truly on the left, she's center right if anything. The fact of the matter is that most politicians will do stupid things to pander to stupid voters. If it stopped working, they wouldn't do it. Unfortunately there is a large, vocal, voting block that wants exactly what she's doing. And if you stand up against it you'll be shouted down with cries of "think of the children!"
Hillary specifically, and Democrats in general, have a long history of blaiming _things_ for the actions of people.
Everyone is blaming someone. Conservatives are blaming gay people for trying to destroy the sanctity of marriage and blaming liberals for aiding and abetting terrorists. Like I said, they're mostly the same. You can say one side is really better than the other on this. What you can do is write to your politicians, you newspaper, post on your blog, talk to other people, and educate them on the important stuff.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Do-Gooder psych is more pathological than that, and it's not limited to Sen. Clinton. Nor is it limited to her party. But it usually starts off with something "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" and metastasizes from there.
Spend enough time behind the counter at the welfare office "helping the less fortunate", or enough time behind the security barricades of TSA "keeping the Homeland secure" and eventually...
Rand's a bit of a nut, and her epistemology may be from somewhere out past Zeta Reticuli, but I think she nailed the psychology of the compulsive do-gooder dead on. To hell with everybody, as long as you're feeling virtuous about it.
This guy obviously hasn't played Dance Dance Revolution before, that is an intense workout. Also as 3D total immersion gameplay begins to become more viable (I'd give it another 10-15years) that bit about a lack of physical excercise will go away.
**insert favorite profound quotation here**
I'm really surprised we haven't heard anything from Joe Lieberman. After all his pontificating after Columbine and the hearings on how video games and Marilyn Manson were responsible, I'm surprised he hasn't decided to opine on the subject.
That's the problem with American politics in a nutshell. In the days of my youth, the party affiliations were clear: the GOP wanted to control my sex life, and the Dems wanted to control my wallet. Everyone wanted a "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" party (i.e., the smallest possible government), but voted on whether money or pornography was more important to them. At least it made some sort of sense.
Now there is no "small government" party, it seems. They both want to meddle and they both want your money (OK, technically, today's GOP just wants to spend your money, they don't actually bother to collect it first, but that's a minor quibble). How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties? Do we have to wait for all the Boomers to die before we can get back to small government?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If you RTFA, you'll see:
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
...ever since I took up a martial art.
There are plenty of physical and mental health benefits involved in studying a martial art, but there is the undeniable fact that I am much more prone to violence now.
I'll walk into so many situations with a belief that I can overpower a problem with brute strength or with a precision strike to a body part, whether it makes sense or not. I have the hammer so everything looks like a nail.
I don't think I act on these urges, but I'm sure others might disagree.
Video games never encouraged this kind of behavior in me since video game problem solving is entirely confined within your head.
In football "real aggression" is taught. It's also taught that for aggression to be usefull, it needs to be controlled and directed and timely.
Hitting after the whistle incurs a penalty. Hitting the wrong way incurs a penalty. Hitting the wrong guy let's someone gain yards or score. Going outside the boundaries hurts not only you, but your team.
Yes, football is a very aggressive game. But at the end of the game, you're going to go party, and often with members of the other team (unless they're your arch-rivals but even at the end of the season you'll be laughing with those guys over the last game).
All of which are valuable real life lessons. There's a place and a time in real life for aggressive action (not necessarily physical, but sometimes), but if it's not controlled, you'll quickly find yourself on the wrong end of the moral (and often legal) line.
Mostly what football teaches, though, is that you can push past whatever limitations you percieve given the dedication and time.
I'm not sure that GTA has similarly positive lessons to be learned from it. GTA has the advantage that the aggression is pretend, but has, from what I've seen, no corresponding lessons about control and responsibility to teach.
Politicians and selfish, unresponsible parents are both doing the same thing as most groups faced with a large problem.
Upon trying to find a solution for said large problem, they fix something completely unrelated.
Nowadays parents care less and less about their children and worry more about their own sorry asses. Proper parenting would solve 90% of all agression and violence issues. I've been playing video games for years and I played high school football from 7 - 12 grade, and haven't killed anyone....yet. Time for lousy parents to step up and be..well.. parents.
You're close, but off. WE wanted (the geeky) socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But we're young, male, intellectuals (mostly). Think about those who aren't. Think about the soccer moms. They're not just looking out for themselves, they're looking out for their kids, and are loaded up with defensive instincts. Think of all the people who are being pushed around by fearmongering news.
That's who the parties cater to now. Those who are afraid. That's what "Family Values" is all about - fear. Fear of the unkown, the expansion of things you don't like, fear of foreign influences on your life, fear of a million artificial ghosts who want to eat your kids. Look at the SUVs, the PTAs, the condo associations, etc. All fueld by terrified busybodies.
Of course, we're young and invincible, in a field that reaffirms our own mental godhood, so we don't feel that fear as much.
Parents are being trained to fear every second that their kids are away - of bad influences, of paedophiles, of another kid going nuts and killing them. Once fear takes hold, higher principles like freedom and democracy go out the window.
The unfortunate, silent fact is that Americans _want_ a nanny state. Not the '60s liberal nanny-state, where nanny feeds you and clothes you, but a nanny-state that just tells you what not to do, but doesn't actually care for you.
she probably only stands a chance if the gop puts up a woman too.
always mosh clockwise
On the minus side, Football, like a lot of sports, can teach you to push the limits and try to cheat, or bend the rules unfairly, or hide your fouls from refs. It can also make you feel "better" than other people because you are the center of attention and can do things other people can't. This can make you feel arrogant and want to flaunt the rules.
But then again, it's all how you teach the game. I.E. it's the parents, coaches, teachers, and mentors you deal with that teach you to be an ass, not games.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
"How did America become a choice between two nanny-state parties?"
Because when we are on the recieving end of government spending we feel like its free. We sell our freedom for "free" government services.
Become active in your local school districts don't accept the use of federal funds in your schools. Become more active in other local governments and refuse federal funding to build local roads, stimulate local economies, etc. Refusing to accept federal funds will make it much easier to get votes to curtail federal spending. When there is less money in government it will less attractive to empire-building bureaucrats and corrupt politicians.
(Note: This is not easy. Nothing that takes forethought and self-control is easy.)
IMO all the problems with national politics come directly from apathy in local (and personal) matters. (ie. Why are we surprised by government debt when consumer debt is so high? Why are we surprised with corruption in Congress when we allow - or participate in - corruption in our neighborhood association politics? Why are we surprised at cheating CEOs when we steal office supplies and give - or recieve - only token punishments for cheating in school?)
-----
This in an incomplete thought, and is not meant to fully represent the complexity of the many problems that exist in government, but I think that it addresses important cores of those problems.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
If you think that's a long shot, consider:After the 2000 election, and particularly after 9/11, Al Gore started kicking ass. His speeches at Move-On and the DNC convention are good examples.
I think he would learn from his own mistakes in 2000 and Kerry's in 2004, and not listen to the idiots that led both campaigns. After 9/11, when the Republicans started pulling shit like the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq, Al Gore came out swinging against it. He was not afraid to take a stand. He wasn't kidding anyone by pretending to be a moderate. I think that's what the Dems need.
I hope that he has the good sense to run again, and that the Dems have the good sense to nominate him instead of Hillary.
The important thing is, though I personally believe that computer games do make people less likely to hesitate while looking down the sights of a gun at a human, it really doesn't make them more likely to be in the situation of looking down the sights of a gun at a human. The things that do that are anger, greed, fear and necessity and it is quite likely that computer games would reduce all of those things. It reduces anger by giving players an outlet (and maybe making relationships less deep), greed by separating the player from the real world, fear for the same reason it makes people more deadly and necessity by keeping kids off the street and unfit enough to be kept out of the army.
Computer games make shooting at soft targets easier, but it doesn't turn people into criminals, its the same as the reason that we don't hear of many ex-commandos killing people on the street even though they have been taught to fire without hesitation.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
"I was wondering this same thing. Could this be a conceivable conclusion? Could it be possible that kids these days are actually getting their adrenaline fix from these games instead of causing real-life crimes (or vandalism)?"
Possible. Something else to consider, though: GTA doesn't just allow you to commit vandalism, it also deals you consequences for your actions. Run over pedestrians, police chase you. I'll tell you something, once you've gained three stars in that game, the Police turn into real bastards. They keep coming, they never give up, and your chances of survival have more to do with luck than skill. I can imagine kids saying "Well, that was fun, but man I never wanna piss off the cops."
It's hard to say, really. My basis for this suggestion is that in playing GTA I've become quite allergic to attacking 'innocents' in the game. It's a lot easier to play when you don't have cops trying to drive up your butt. Compare this to Crazy Taxi. I never made any effort to avoid pedestrians in that game because they'd instantly jump out of the way. If you ask me, that's far worse than GTA. You'd think that people would understand that "Don't do that." doesn't have near the effect that "Don't do that BECAUSE..." does. GTA's not bad at illustrating the consequences.
"Derp de derp."
Exactly. Kerry winning in '04 was the worst thing that could have happened to her because she would have to wait until '12 to run and that might have been too late for her. She's had an eye on the Oval Office ever since she had to leave it when her husband had to.
I'm not rabid, I've had my shots I promise! It's just that I can think for myself, I do not need to have some political party tell me how I should be thinking. Clinton lied to me and I was pissed. There has been plenty of evidence that Bush was told early on that there was no WMD, or connection to 9/11 yet he decided that would be the selling point for the war. He lied to me and directed his people, Powell, Rice, Cheney to lie to me and I'm as pissed at him as I was at Clinton. Just because I think your guy is as guilty of telling lies as Clinton was does not make me rabid. In fact I've gone out of my way to point out that in my opinion (I do get to have that according to the constitution at least for the time being) BOTH parties lie, and don't give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves. Unfortuantly, sheeple (you included it would seem) on both sides keep rewarding the "system" that give us serial liars as the top people they could find for the job. Then the tactic to cover for that is to call people who call shenanigans "unamerican", or "Rabid". It is not only my right to question my leaders but my duty as a freedom loving American. I'm sorry you disagree and I'm really sorry if that goes against your parties line.
Many people are ruled by their fears, but that is nothing new. People have been playing on each other's fears as far back as recorded history goes.
Of course "soccer moms" are defensive about their kids, it's part of their responsibility as a parent. The problem is when this is taken to the extreme, and kids are actually denied the experiences required to grow up. Many people do buy into the fear mongering that goes on in the media, but most people (that I know anyway) do not buy into the fear constantly mentality.
The best description I ever heard for the job of a parent was to raise them so that they can SUCCESSSFULLY leave. I have kids and I worry about them, but I do not buy into the fear mentality. I do, however, use common sense with my kids. I watch them, keep an eye on what they are absorbing through the TV, video games, movies, etc. and generally keep them away from life's major potholes. I won't let my children play any video game that I haven't looked into myself. The government, in my opinion, has done it's job with the rating system (assuming they are the ones requiring the ratings), the rest is on the PARENT. Kids will have influences in their lives whether their parents like it or not, our job as parents is to teach them right from wrong so that they can resist bad influences on their own, and to intervene when they aren't doing what they know is right.
This debate is structurally identical to the case against pornography and obscenity throughout the last several hundred years; only the medium has changed. Advocates on both sides of this unsettled issue would be well advised to read the history of obscenity trials.
For anyone interested, try _The Secret Museum: Pornography in Modern Culture_ by Walter Kendrick.
both political parties, and both genders?
I understand the bias in regards to the political parties-- but the bias against gender is a sign of immaturity. I expected better.
For as much as we hate George W. Bush, at least nobody of his gender has ever rolled their eyes when we quoted Jabberwocky!
Funny you should say that. My Sunday School teacher, his wife, and my male HS Civics teacher/Mayor of my town have accused me of Satanism for reciting that poem.
And for the record, I know plenty of woman who know the Poem by heart. It's popular among geeks in both genders.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
You misunderstand the equation involved. It's not that there is only the positive of "feeling good because I'm doing the right thing." It's that that feeling outwieghs the negatives associated with doing the right thing.
You were bored, you were stressed, but that was more than offset by the benefits you got by doing it. If that were not so, you wouldn't have done it. (Well, actually you might have, but in that case you would have some severe psychological issues.) This is readily apparent when you consider this: if you hadn't been helping a friend, would you have accepted that boredom and stress? or would you have put and end to it? What made enduring it worthwhile?
None of this is to say that it is wrong to help others. It's just a recognition that we wouldn't do it if we didn't get something out of it. We may not be able to quantify it, or even think of it in those terms, but that's the fact of the situation.
AC
It doesn't seem to me like you've read the Fountainhead (which is her only book I have read). Sure, it's about egotism to some degree, and I certainly don't agree with everything in it. But it's also about honesty, to others and to yourself, and about a way of friendship that lots of people don't seem to understand.
Keating, Ellsworth, and others, are bad not because they live for others instead of for themselves, but because their *values* are not their own but others' values. They don't have their own judgement, and therefore they have no sense of honor and honesty.
The "good guys" in the book, i.e. Roark, Dominique to some degree, and that sculptor guy (forgot his name) share friendship and want to help others be happy, just as they are happy doing what they are destined to do (sculpturing, architecture).
Funny, but most people I hear complaining about Rand's stuff don't really seem to get it. Hell, maybe her philosophy (which I don't know) is stupid, maybe her writings are shallow, but the Fountainhead was *very* entertaining to me, and it pictured a way of life that's different from what everybody expects from you. Don't take it as dogma/religion (don't take *anything* as religion, actually), just let it inspire you.
One more thing, about the "Do nothingers": are you talking about Roark, the guy who's a workaholic, or about people like Keating, who would be admirable by most peoples' standards, but doesn't actually work much himself?
Clinton is a pretty good candidate for a lightning rod on this one. The 'morality' of video games has traditionally been an issue for social conservatives who reel in the face of social change (they tend to call it something like a decline in traditional moral values). I wouldn't expect this kind of rhetoric from someone like Hillary Clonton, who is relatively socially liberal. She's a big fat target because this appears to be blatant political posturing for the 2008 presidential election. Adding to this, she is a high profile democrat (mainly because of who she is married to), and is pretty outspoken. She is also a target of many conservative republicans for various reasons (yes, gender is likely a big fat one).
So why would so many people tear into her for an issue like this? Perhaps many were expecting someone a little more socially liberal to champion their cause. Modern republicans tend to beat the 'morality' drum, and this is has become expected behavior from them. This is merely speculative, as I can't speak for everyone else, but I'll tell you how I feel. I'm neither a liberal nor conservative. I may go some ways on some issues, and a different way on other issues. That being said, I think that the point of Hillary Clinton's recent push for video game legislation has nothing to do with personal beliefs, but more to do with showing moderates that she can go the other way on some social issues. In the process, she has sold people who are affected by censorship of this media a little short...and I'm one of them. I am fully aware that she is not the only Democrat pushing the issue -- Chuck Schumer is pretty outspoken about this as well (I think that he called for a ban on a recent game prior to its release). As a registed voter in New York state, I've sent both of them letters and have informed them both that if they continue to pursue this course of action, that they will lose my vote permanantly.
Is it because she has a vagina? For some people...perhaps they will never see past gender. However, my criticism of her has nothing to do with her gender and more to do with the issues mentioned above.
Can I turn this around to you with another question: Should her gender excuse her from criticism?
-Turkey
I was watching a HBO documentary on the pr0n industry called Pornocopia. And, yes, it was a documentary. One film critic was talking about Hollywood and double standards of sex and violence. She said something like "Hollywood substitutes sex with violence because it can show violence."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Grossman's book suffers from very poor battlefield analysis. For example, he consistently overlooks the most obvious reason for not shooting at the enemy: fire draws return fire. Not shooting is often motivated by a simple desire for self-preservation.
While there may be some value to Grossman's work, his arguments are not well supported by the evidence he provides.
Honesty. Loyalty. Kindness. Laughter. Generosity. Magic!
I'm surprised how easily everybody seems to be won over by the corporate response to what is really a case of fraud. This is not about the sex and violence in the game. It's about defrauding the ESRB.
Hillary is not trying to ban violent games. Nor is she trying to ban porn. But the game industry agreed to police themselves with the ESRB. Now we have an example of a game company lying to the ESRB, getting a rating that will let them sell games in Walmart, but putting porn on the disk anyway.
The FTC investigation is not "Is there sex and violence in games?" The investigation is: "Did Rockstar knowingly defraud the ESRB, and how can we stop companies from doing this in the future?"
And for those who would blame the parents, remember that the ratings are supposed to help parents pick the right games for their kids. You can hardly blame the parents for using the tools that are given to them, especially when those tools are subverted by the industry.
I blame Rockstar for engaging in questionable business practices and potentially ruining it for the rest of us. This whole argument about "how bad is violence and sex in games?" and "creative freedom" is really beside the point, and put forth by the game industry to divert attention from the real problem. Nobody is trying to stop anybody from writing any game they want. But you can't wrap an X movie in an R rating and shrug your shoulders and say, "Gee, how did that get in there?" Give me a break.
I used to think the same thing about sex and violence, but then I realized how I react to seeing sex or violence on television.
I see violence on television and I might think, "Wow! Neat!" or maybe, "That was cool." The thought that does not go through my head is "Hmm... I should try that."
When I see sex/nudity on television, I think, "Mmm... boobs. I'm horny." It makes me want to have sex. Yeah, not all of the time, but I've never thought to myself, "That violence just makes me need to be violent." This is why porn is big. It gets people wanting sex. Think about pedophiles like Michael Jackson. One of the first things a pedophile does is show chidren porn.
I guess what I'm saying is violence on television and video games doesn't often lead to violence in real life. (How many copies of GTA have been sold versus how many GTA copiers have there been?) However, sex in video games and sex on television does lead to sex in real life. (at least in my opinion.)
On a related and ironic note, the password to confirm that I wasn't a script was the word "maleness"
Please don't take these as ad hominem attacks, I'm just trying to point out a few things that jump out at me about this post.
"If it feels good now, do it! " is not a great philosophy. This seems like a straw man argument itself. I've read many of Rand's books, and I really never read anything she wrote that recommends acting on emotion (how it feels), or acting on short range timeframes. A more appropo summation of her philosophy along those lines might be "If you analyze the situation and make value judgments that consider long range benefits, and this is in the long run more beneficial to you than it is costly in the short run, do it".
Sure, in the end everything we do, we do for selfish reasons, but I like helping people. This is an arguable point, and I think this is a common misconception of objectivism. Rand didn't argue that there was no such thing as a selfish act (many people have made this argument, but I think she would have disagreed highly with this). In her writings, she recognized selfless acts; anything that sacrifices a higher level value for a lower level value is a selfless act. In your case, as long as you derive some long range benefit from your kind and charitable acts, then you have acted in your own self interest ie. selfish. There's no negative connotation intended in this usage of the word selfish. Rand wouldn't say this is bad, she would say it was moral and the right choice for you to make. However, if you do these acts and in the long run they offer no benefit to you (say you do them because you feel guilty about your success and end up losing something of value in the long run), then she would say that is a selfless act, and as such it is wrong. She felt that there are many philosophers and politicians calling for true selfless acts in the name of altruism as a goal in itself, and she spoke out against this.
You don't want to help others? Fine. Don't, see if I care, but if you are going to mock me for caring and for acting out of compassion and assign to me the basest of motives, I am for sure going to point out how selfish, egotistical, and short sighted you are. I don't think Rand mocked others for doing what was in their self interest. I read Rand to mock more those who would claim that it is your duty to help others, and that the only way you can enjoy helping others is to not derive any pleasure or benefit from it yourself. I realize I haven't read everything she wrote, but I really don't recall anywhere that she actually mocked those who enjoy helping others.
Ayn Rand and people like her who consider any kind of charity or compassion as selfish egotism are the laziest type of self involved, egotistical, idiots. Again, I don't think she made the argument that charity is inherently selfish, I think she recognized a distinction between the two, but I think she is commonly misquoted in this respect. (Perhaps Nietschze or some other similar philosopher made this argument? I know it showed up on a popular American sitcom at some point).
I wholeheartedly agree. Things need to change. Now is the opportunity with over 200,000 people that identify themselves as libertarian, and approximately 20,000 that are members of the Libertarian Party (dues paying). Of the 20,000 registered members, a much more vocal minority has swayed party platform and political tactics to the detriment of a cause many of us (all party affiliations) believe in, smaller government.
http://www.reformthelp.org/home/intro/
Check out this link. I have hope. With support, the opportunity to reform the LP into an effective party is a real possibility.
We end lives all the time, when such a death is in the better interests of society.
We send people to war to die, in the belief that it's better for our society to sacrifice some lives in exchange for a stable and healthy society.
We take people off life support when they contribute nothing to our society, and only put an emotional and financial drain on the rest of us.
We (rightfully) execute the guilty when they pose a danger to society.
Given the choice between a dead fetus, and a living child of an impovrished mother who doesn't even want a child (and will likely grow up to be a drain on society), I'll take the sacrifice, however unpleasant it may be to me.
Honestly, what defines the words "Liberal" and "Conservative?" I can't see any consistent difference anymore.
Republicans go after Janet Jackson's boob on TV. Democrats go after something analogous in GTA (and now The Sims?). Do their "morals" depend on the medium for some reason?
Can we please have a group of people who are consistently interested in defending my personal freedom? The ACLU has always impressed me for this reason, no matter how extraneous some of their projects are. At the end of the day, one of the few measurements I get to see of my government's effectiveness is how freely I am able to do what I want to do.
What's the point of a democracy if not that?
Back when the 2nd Amendment was penned, times were interesting - if a well-armed militia meant a well-armed citizenry, what that did was put the citizens and government military on equal footing. To my knowledge, there wasn't much differentiation with respect to the weapons used by the military and those used by citizens. If the citizens had to defend themselves against a goverment that had spun out of control, they could- and it would be a fair fight.
Contrast this with the conditions we have today...we still have the 2nd Amendment, but the difference between what the government has at its disposal, and what the citizens are allowed to have, makes me wonder if it would even be *possible* to defend against such an occurrance.