Freedomain Radio

Someone left this comment on my LJ:

I'm sorry for commenting on the negative but i just couldnt read this and do nothing. I'm sorry to tell you that either I'm misinterpreting what you're saying or you're wrong. Just because you may not feel love for your parents right now doesnt mean any other children can't. Of course a newborn child doesn't love. In fact, they not only do not love as they don't hate or have any kind of feeling for anyone. Children only start having feelings of any kind after 3 years old. And yes, they can love at that age. And to say that "a child's attachment to their parents does not arise out of an independent evaluation of that parents virtue." is to be, im sorry, a bit narrow minded. That only applies to mistreated children. Children who are treated with respect and whose parents treat them with love do really see their parents as they are and may love them. That kind of confusion only happens to mistreated children, which seems to be your case since you picture everyone elses life as if it was yours. This was the part of what you wrote that i didn't agree. I do agree that some parents expect their children to love them, but many others don't. No one should ever be forced to "love" someone. And thats what parents sometimes think about their children. And on this part i agree with you. Now to say that "your children don't love you, they just feel attachment" i would suggest you to widthen your definition of love and to learn a little more about development of the newborns, since that statement only apllies on the two cases i've mentioned, which are the minority.

Sorry for making this harsh comment.

Best regards

Andre

 It sounds like he thinks he's critiquing something YOU wrote. What's interesting about this, Nate, is that it's exactly like some of the criticism Stef has gotten directly about this subject.

More evidence that the MATERIAL is what scares people, and not the MESSENGER.

Greg Gauthier:

 It sounds like he thinks he's critiquing something YOU wrote. What's interesting about this, Nate, is that it's exactly like some of the criticism Stef has gotten directly about this subject.

More evidence that the MATERIAL is what scares people, and not the MESSENGER.

 

Spot on Greg, spot on.  It is also obvious that he didn't read it very carefully as there is a "by Stefan Molyneux" and a "transcribed by Nathan McKaskle" with a link to the podcast. 

Nathan:

Children only start having feelings of any kind after 3 years old. And yes, they can love at that age. And to say that "a child's attachment to their parents does not arise out of an independent evaluation of that parents virtue." is to be, im sorry, a bit narrow minded. That only applies to mistreated children. Children who are treated with respect and whose parents treat them with love do really see their parents as they are and may love them.

Wowsy - has he never heard a baby cry, or laugh? Or get hungry?

And of course we're talking about attachment, not love, which is clearly specified...
 

Here's some very enjoyable empirical evidence to the contrary of this silly commentator:

[YouTube:5P6UU6m3cqk]

Stefan Molyneux:

Nathan:

Children only start having feelings of any kind after 3 years old. And yes, they can love at that age. And to say that "a child's attachment to their parents does not arise out of an independent evaluation of that parents virtue." is to be, im sorry, a bit narrow minded. That only applies to mistreated children. Children who are treated with respect and whose parents treat them with love do really see their parents as they are and may love them.

Wowsy - has he never heard a baby cry, or laugh? Or get hungry?

And of course we're talking about attachment, not love, which is clearly specified...
 

The guy clearly did not read it very carefully before criticizing, he probably didn't like the implications and therefore decided to criticize before even reading it fully.

Also I responded with the fact that babies are born with emotions just as they are born with sexual organs, that doesn't mean they are capable of love anymore than they are capable of sex. 

Greg Gauthier:

Here's some very enjoyable empirical evidence to the contrary of this silly commentator:

I LOVE that video. 

Their response to my response...

I define love as an involuntary response to virtue in the same way that anger is our involuntary response to a lack of virtue or maltreatment. Similarly, well being is our involuntary response to a healthy lifestyle.

I'm not sure why I need to widen my definition of love, we can't widen our definition of words without losing understanding of what it is we're talking about. I can't define truth as falsehood and expect to come up with anything that is true.

Did you read the article on attachment theory? A child has emotions at birth by the way so I'm not sure where you're getting that information, but just because they have emotions at birth doesn't mean they can love anyone by the above definition. In the same way a child is born with sexual organs but is not capable of being sexual at that point.

Subject: Re: Children do not love you. Children, your children, do not love you.
There are a lot of involuntary responses to virtue, love is one of them, but that doesn't make it a love definition. Saying a window is a hole in a wall doesn't make it a definition of a window.

Concerning the attachment theory, after skimming through the wikipedia definition what i can see there is that those attachments "Secure Attachment ,Avoidant Attachment" etc are different personalities of instincts. Those reactions already exist in animals. So if by "children don't love you", you mean "kids-until-age-of-3-to-5 don't love you" yes i agree. But in my opinion, and i think most people will agree with me, the world child is used until the teens, therefore my disagreement.\u003cbr\>Best regards\u003cbr\>\u003cbr\>Andre\u003c/blockquote\>",1] ); //-->

Best regards

Andre

My response:

Can you name another involuntary response to virtue? 

Nathan:

i would suggest you to widthen your definition of love

I find this comical, they work bacwards from their conclusion.

Children do love their parents, therefore if your relationship to your parents is not love, you have to change the definition of love so that it is.

Rediculous.
 

Now I know why that line "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist." really bugs the hell out of me.

This was his reply to the first question on what other involuntary responses he thinks there are to virtue:

"arousal, being proud of, agreement, admiration, respect, want more?"

What do you think?