Hyndis

One of the emotions that exist in all social animals is empathy. Humans are social animals. Thus, humans ought to show some empathy.

If I see something I could have helped with but I haven't, for some reason, I always get a guilty feeling afterwards, and so next time I try to do better. I'm far from perfect, but I at least try to show and act on my feelings of compassion for those who are in some sort of trouble.

And frankly your insistance upon a logical reason to make you help others is downright disturbing. There are of course logical reasons, in that its far cheaper to pay some taxes so that children may grow up healthy, as they can be productive citizens that will pay taxes of their own and those taxes will take care of you when you're old and senile. Its an implied social contract.

And its also the humane and moral thing to do.

extinctionist

THIS was your point? :banghead:

You can justify a hell of a lot of things by extreme rationalism, several of them very nasty indeed. Can I give you some all-binding 'ought' reason at the end of a long, rational argument. Possibly, but I can't really be bothered to try. Fact is, society makes all children their responsiblity because most people recognise it is the humane thing to do. You don't have to like it, but you're in the minority, because most people's empathetic values allow for the possibility of children needing help from society.

You aren't likely to get an answer that pleases you, if you don't want to hear one. Feel free to use rationalism to say you shouldn't contribute a tiny amount of your taxes to a social safety-net, if you want. Then take that argument to the rest of society and try and get them to agree with you.

I wish you the best of luck!

meritocrat

Really? I don't believe that.
Of course not ALL things in life have a logical base. I never stated in this thread that they do! Is it 'moral' to expect people to help you, when you don't help them?

I don't see what I said that is so alarming to you. I'd think most people in most situations (if asked to do something) would demand a rational reason as to why. If I asked you to walk into traffic, would you do it? No, because it would be illogical to do so.

To reiterate I recognise that NOT EVERYTHING can be logically explained.

Little Sister

Sorry, I didn't get the memo. So are you now saying that you agree that there's a certain amount of loss you're experiencing from your, shall we say, child-aversion-tendencies, and that's why you're digging your heels in on a different issue?

meritocrat

I don't understand your rebuke.

It's only you people who are mentioning the OP when all others in the discussion have moved on.

Little Sister

You didn't answer my question so I'll assume that's a yes.

meritocrat

I didn't answer your question because it was a non sequitur and an unsubstantiated attack.
I never stated I am experiencing any 'loss'.

Little Sister

Oh, got it. An attack. I see. Wow, for someone that doesn't mind seeing a kid get beat on, you're actually very sensitive. Sorry. I'll try to cool it then.

meritocrat

Huh?
What's that got to do with children?
Maybe because computer ownership wasn't as widespread fifty years ago?
My rights are those my government gives me. If I was a child I am not any more (and thank heck!).

To judge is normal; we all do it.
OK then.

meritocrat

Yes I don't mind seeing a kid get 'beat on' (I assume you're too lazy for proper grammar). As for sensitivity, it's you people who threw a fit, that's if the first few posts in this thread are anything to go by! I haven't sworn at anyone in this thread but people have sworn at me!!

And as for attacks, come on you DON'T know you shouldn't make ad hominems when debating?