How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?

But certainly we can do only one thing at a time; no matter how many examples you give, to examine them in detail requires that we start with one of them and go to the next one.So, which one should we examine in detail first?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

What law about emotional abuse? Abuse is beating your child to the point of unconsciousness and/or broken bones, not swatting his hand away from a plate of cookies. Abuse is praying over your diabetic child as she goes into a coma and refusing her insulin, not deciding you can't afford braces. I'm really trying to come up with an example of causing a child emotional harm without any other exacerbating factors that would qualify as real abuse. Telling your child she's ugly and worthless sure hurts, but no one's going to go to jail for it. And without the presence of physical abuse in some form or other, just teaching your child hateful, stupid and evil ideas is not in itself abuse. If you can find a case or statute that states otherwise, please cite it.You're also refusing to read those cases you cite correctly or to understand what Rahvin is telling you about them. It's quite clear - these are divorce proceedings in which a judge is determining custody rights. They use all kinds of factors in deciding which parent is more fit. For example, it used to be the case that children automatically went to the mother, unless it could be shown that she was clearly unfit, regardless of how good a parent the dad was. It's still the case in many jursidictions that a gay parent will almost certainly have curtailed custody rights, if he has any at all. And what you have are cases in which a parent's stupid, evil beliefs are being cited as factors in determing custody. Determing custody happens as part of divorce procedings because in a divorce children are not going to be raised by both parents in the same house anymore. What you have are not cases in which children are being taken away from parents because of those stupid, evil beliefs. Your evidence is not supporting your thesis, and if you'd understand what Rahvin is saying you'd see that. Again, who gets to decide what's brainwashing and what's not? I'm sure that a devout Christian, for example, is going to think that raising a child as a Muslim is brainwashing, because for a devout Christian it means that that child is going to Hell. Tell me how, from that particular parent's point of view, training a child to believe with all his heart something that will sentence him to eternal torment isn't brainwashing?

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven DutchI never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill

Of course you dont. In a world of crashfrogs we would have perfect parents and perfect children and what?? a over abundance of racist thinking foster children in need of rescue?

Can you show any legal standing for that definition of 'brainwashing'? Any laws that define it the way you do? Any cases in which it has been interpreted the way you have?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

"Brainwashing" children is redundant. They come with instinctual trust of their parents and a desire to please them; there's a reason kids believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus.Literally any beliefs held by a parent is extremely likely to be attached to by the child. The longer the child is exposed to the belief, the more likely they are to hold it, and the more strongly.Normal parenting is functionally identical to "brainwashing" in children. Rote repetition of information and tasks? Restricting contact to those of similar beliefs? Instruction to obey the Authority unquestioningly ("because I said so")? Establishment of the group (family/church/racist organization, doesn't matter) as "us" and everyone else as "them?" Physical punishment for disobedience to Authority? These things happen in normal childhoods, to kids raised in virtually any environment. Christians expose their kids primarily to other Christians, force the kids to go to church, tech the kids that Christians are good and non-Christians are at best wrong and at worst evil...and you can show virtually the same thing for any group, I'm not just picking on Christians.I mean, there's a reason Christians tend to have Christian kids, Muslims tend to have Muslim kids, Republicans tend to have Republican kids...and racists tend to have racist kids. The age where you can make decisions differently from your parents comes long after you've already absorbed your parent's beliefs; those beliefs can be changed later in life, but it's uncommon, and the stronger the family ties, the more closely the child will cling to the beliefs of the parent. Human beings are not rational by nature, beliefs are as much influenced by environment (who believes what among your family, friends, community, etc) as they are by accuracy, and the environment has an even stronger influence on children who aren't yet able to address the issue of accuracy.

Yup, that's certainly what I'd say. The line Crash seems to be drawing between 'brainwashing' (as he defines it) and 'raising' is a very fine one.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Worse - he says it's a clear, objective line, yet is unable to describe that line in words when asked. When pressed, he uses yet more subjective, circular definitions ("harmful is that which causes harm") that still don't let us clearly define what the hell he's talking about. If Crash were the first person I;d ever heard the word "brainwashing" from, after reading this thread I'd have no idea what "brainwashing" is beyond that it can apparently be done to kids.That's a clear sign that something is wrong.

The law that exists, Zen. Are you under the mistaken impression that it's not against the law to emotionally or mentally abuse a child?CDC definitions of these terms have already been provided. It's up to you to educate yourself on the state of anti-abuse law in the US. Rahvin is simply making up things about some of the cases that aren't true, and outright ignoring most of the other cases. He's got nothing to contribute to the discussion so he's just blowing smoke. That's what I've been saying throughout. I've actually presented several cases of that. They're still up there, if you'd like to go read them. Children are being taken away from parents, for instance the case in Winnepeg, due entirely to the parent's actions of endangering their children by inculcating them in extreme racism.That's happening. There's no universal right of racist parents to indoctrinate little racists. Rather, there's an overriding societal interest in the welfare and upbringing of children. For the fourth or fifth time, courts of law have made and continue to make that determination.

Stop making it about me. It has nothing to do with me.Courts already make determinations about what kind of parenting is in the best interest of the child; courts already determine which parents are fit and unfit to raise children.And well they should! Children are people too, and they have a human right not to be chattel prisoners and subject to abuse simply because an accident of birth has made them related to their jailer. It simply doesn't work like that - courts can and do intervene and sever parental privilege when it's in the best interest of the child.The parent's privileges are subordinate to society's interest in protecting children from abuse.

Says the blowhard who refuses to even discuss or acknowledge a direct refutation of your hypothesis from a source you chose.I think the matter is sufficiently clear to everyone. Except yourself, of course.

Just because it's a three word liberal chant doesn't mean the slippery slope is a "fallacy", it's actually very real. U.S. history is loaded with examples of it, from increased taxation, smoking restrictions, declines in morality, on and on. Today’s entire political discussion about government health care in the U.S. resulted only from past action like Medicare and Medicaid, Social security, and similar government programs of questionable constitutional authority. You expected me to know that? You’re participating in a thread solely about U.S. healthcare, and it says nowhere in your profile where you’re from. So your opinions on why U.S. citizens would want to experiment with foreign systems rather than compare them to the entire history and structure of their own country (that you obviously know little about) isn’t really all that valid, is it?

I guess someone came in a broke your Google fingers, but whatever:

quote:

---

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual "systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated".[1] The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking, behavior, emotions or decision making.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrainwashingAs you can see that's well beyond merely talking to a child. I'm sorry, Rahvin, that you have such a dim opinion of the teachers and instructors that worked so mightily (and fruitlessly, apparently) to teach you that you think of them as nothing more than brainwashers.But simple instruction and sharing of belief is most definitely not what we're talking about here. You people could have looked up the terms being used here, at any point, and seen that brainwashing isn't merely the instruction of a child, and it's not based on a value judgement about the veracity of the claim. It has absolutely nothing to do with that.If there was genuine puzzlement about the term "brainwashing", any one of you could simply have asked for a definition. Asking me "who determines what is brainwashing?" is an entirely different question, and as I've now stated six times, the courts are entitled to make that determination, as they always have been.

As I've repeatedly told you, I'm happy to discuss my evidence at your earliest convenience. At such time as you're prepared to read and address more than the weakest of the bunch, the discussion can continue. The only obstacle to discussion, here, is your adamant refusal to consider my evidence.And you can cease with the name-calling, too. Really, Rahvin, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Huh? Isn't the child's interests enough to warrant protecting them from abuse? What does society have to do with it?

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

LOL. Too funny. In what way is Social Security a program 'of questionable constitutional authority'?

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr