Chopping up my post to answer it piece meal is a dishonest way to reply.
When I so respond to any citizen of any of the fora upon which I post,
it is an effort to be meticulous and to be thorough as to everything
in that post which I deem to merit a response.
I did not take it as a complement that you wrote a tediously long post
which simply indicated more clearly that you don't understand the concepts in operation.
To the extent that I deem a post to be of little value,
unworthy of response,
I ignore it; vice-versa.
There is little use in continuing to point out to you
that acquiring material objects provides only a transitory "joy" to a child,
My personal experience of childhood
included long periods of boredom
which were relieved by activities that involved spending cash.
Transitory joy is better than the boredom of no joy.
U appear to reject that notion.
Your posts evince a belief that NO
joy at all is preferable to transitory
That seems very STRANGE
By that reasoning, everyone who presents
(did u see how I avoided use of the word "begifts" in deference to your taste ?)
someone with a gift at Christmas time or for a birthday, is in error.
He shoud arrive empty-handed for the birthday celebration.
I don 't believe that is a good idea.
When u deprecate the creation of transitory
joy, however fleeting,
u put me in mind of someone deploring the celebration of the 4th of July
on the ground that thay do not remain illuminated.
When a man awakes to behold the intense beauty of a new snowfall
shoud he be mindful to abruptly turn away, avert his eyes,
refusing to contemplate it because it is destined to melt, in time ?
Shoud a man refuse to eat hedonicly savory food
because in a few moments, its flavor will pass from his mouth ?
I don 't think so.
I stand for the proposition that the creation of hedonic thrills
, and if thay be transitory,
let us make the most of it.
Gather those rosebuds.
and does not constitute an expression of love, and does not benefit children
in the same way that a genuine expression of love will do.
Your posts and those of others have caused me to regret the use
of the word "love" in my chosen title; I wish I had used the frase
" creation of joy " instead.
I 'd give my donee-beneficiary enduring and permanent joy
if I were able to do so. I lack that ability.
the observed ability to evoke joy (however brief) at the point
in time of his or her acquisition of the cash and again when he or she
spends the cash upon an object of desire.
After people whose judgment I respected in Mensa essentially agreed
with the position that u have expressed herein, I put it to a vote of
some of my donee-beneficiaries at the time. (Altho I have had no contact
of my donee-beneficiaries, this is not true of ALL
The vote was unanimous
: thay wanted me to continue
giving away free money. Over the last 20 years, I have had several women
tell me individually, and joyfully, that their young children throw things
up in the air and shout "free money
!"; if I chance to SILENTLY
throw out the cash in the grass,
I have kids shout at me: " SAY THE WORDS !
People who don't particularly like a child will still give them a gift on
occasions when it is socially deemed appropriate--so merely giving a gift
will not necessarily be an expression of love.
I recognize the merit of your logic on this point.
However, if it was a GOOD
gift (something the donee wanted, or enuf cash)
then he or she 'd experience JOY
regardless of the donor 's emotions.
Conversely, people who genuinely do love children might give them gifts,
such as savings bonds to help pay for their education in the future,
or clothing which they will immediately need,
which will not give the child a sense of joy--
True: hence, I do not present such gifts.
I have chosen to promote instant gratification
(tho transitory, as u have repeatedly pointed out).
and yet those will be genuine demonstrations of love.
Your thesis is unfounded and unproven.
U may be correct as to love,
but not as to joy (however brief).
It matters little if it is a child or an adult to whom you "award" your prize
Juvenile donees are more cost-effective on a per dollar basis,
in that because their cash flows are smaller,
there is a more intense hedonic thrill.
For instance, in the early 1990s, after a woman told me that her oldest son
had his birthday (he became 13), I sought him out and gave him
a $10 bill and a $20 bill that I had immediately at hand.
A few weeks thereafter, in conversation he said:
" U know, David, when u put that money in my hand,
that was the most money that I ever held in my LIFE."
I was a little surprized.
His father told me that he was an $8 an hour delivery man.
Altho he was a very, very money conscious person,
I do not believe that if I had given him
the same amount of cash,
I 'd have generated the same amount of joy (however transitory)
because the father was accustomed
to handling cash.
based on a superficiality.
I take it that u are referring to personal beauty, right ?
It is still superficial, and encourages a reliance upon a fleeting circumstance
which is not the product of any useful skill which the individual
has acquired or can develop.
This is accurate.
The awarded prize was SOMETHING FOR NOTHING
except for radiating beauty out into the world.
It is still true that this is a slap in the face of anyone (such as an equally
skilled or even more skillful waitress) who doesn't happen to meet you
idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of "pretty."
In the service of DIPLOMACY
I did not award the prize with another waitress standing next to her.
I have no wish gratuitously to hurt someone 's feelings.
Who was it who condemned my grammar ?
against the likelihood of you ever acquiring wisdom,
given that you demonstrate so little understanding of love and its expression,
What is YOUR
understanding of love ?
According to Setanta: what is love ?
and that you persist in priding yourself on an over-valuation
It is not a matter of pride.
I am not
a collectivist, who advocates SHARING
I have always supported selfishness and greed
(altho not entirely as much as I used to before I began giving away free cash).
The point about candy or money to children
is that a efined sugar product (candy) is a drug of choice for children,
I surmise that u deem this to be a poison.
We do not share this point of vu.
I have enjoyed good quality candy during and since my childhood,
with no sign of abatement.
and the consequences of which are grief for the child
Truely and sincerely: that has never happened
in my experience,
as to any child,
nor has it ever been alleged to have happened.
and others who have to deal with the child,
including the child's parents--
I have discovered (rather unexpectedly)
that the fastest way to become friends with a parent
is to give cash to his or her child; thay LOVE IT !!!
I have never actually been grabbed, hugged and kissed by a parent,
. Thay invite me to dinner,
to all kinds of occasions, graduations, have their children call me
and write to me at home. Its INSTANT FRIENDSHIP
; tho sometimes it
with thoughts of pecuniary exploitation, in time, it does not remain so
and evolves into genuine friendship.
while you go smugly on your way congratulating yourself on your altruism.
O, my goodness !
U insulted me !
I 'm glad that Ayn Rand is not around to read your accusation against me.
I hope Branden does not find out !
As for my being SMUG:
OK: U got me.
Forget Miranda; I confess !
You really don't get this point, and this:
Now u [sic] can say that 's how I got so twisted as to love freedom.
. . . is evidence of how out of touch you are with reality.
I was being defensive
, Mr. Setanta,
anticipating your verbal attack.
There is a valid distinction to be made between freedom and license,
and whether or not that is true, the fact that someone disagrees with you
has no relevance to a notion of freedom. That someone considers you
clueless about children and love doesn't mean that that someone "hates
freedom," a constant sing-song chant of deluded rightwingnuts whenever
anyone disagrees with them for any reason. It also makes me suspect
once again that you may be lying when you say you are a member
of Mensa--that sort of non-reasoning response shows no intelligence.
My enjoyment of my social club will remain unaffected
by your suspicions.
You say you think you hit a nerve, but that is just one more instance
of you preening your ego. All in all, i don't know why you bother to post
anything here, given that you obviously don't accept (and probably often
don't understand) the criticisms others make of what you write. It
appears that your only object is to inform us all of the excellence of your
understanding (as you delude yourself that the case is).
I endeavor to propagate my point of vu on multiple fora.