Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 6:45 PM
161 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (4 members, 157 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,700 Year: 2,737/19,786 Month: 819/1,918 Week: 106/301 Day: 24/54 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 82 (44696)
06-30-2003 11:57 AM


quote:
I fear your opposition to Truthlover's village borders on the religious, yourself.

Sigh. I thought that sort of posturing was limited to the theists argument to equivalence.

quote:

You need to listen to NPR a little more, or something. Surprisingly, independant media is out there to be read and watched. Now, it's not as likely to shove itself in your face as "We distort, you comply" Fox News. But then, being an educated citizen is supposed to require a little effort.

NPR is probably an Americanism with which I am unfamiliar. The extent to which the major American broadcasting bodies distort stories is very distrubing and very consistent - behaviour in the Gulf wars across more than a decade, severley misrepresentative reporting of the Battle of Seattle etc.

quote:

Do you seriously think sex and drugs are good for kids? Don't you think there's a maturity level involved in those activites? And children, being who they are, don't you think that they're likely to attempt those activites far sooner than they have the requisite maturity?

In a sense, yes. Kids used to learn about sex by being in the same hovel when mom and dad went at it. Theyt used to learn about drink by being directly exposed to dads drinking buddies. You can still find many small children in pubs in the UK, some of whom can even drink as long as its their parent buying the booze. My argument never was that 10-year olds should be out bonking (although I don't mind terribly as long as its with other 10-year olds) or raiding the liquor cabinet - I argue that excessive prurience about "exposure" and the myth of childhood "innocence" are standing in the way of childrens learning of human behaviours, of which those surrounding sex and drugs are among the most important.

quote:

If not, you're potentially deluded or naive, and certainly have not had kids. Not that I have either, but even as a childless atheist I have much more sympathy for TL's position than yours.

Possibly so - I would then launch an argument that the nuclear family is a major socio-political imposition, has no basis in autochthonous human communities, and especially when articulated in the modern form of "preserving family values" is an overt form of social engineering (to our detriment). Next I will attack schools and suggest that children learn best by falling out of trees, and that 6 hours of sitting is not a wise thing in a plains ape that evolved to walk. As you can see, we may will differ quite profoundly on what good and apprpriate parenting behaviour is - thuis your support for TL in this matter is not itself very worrying.

quote:

This is just inflammatory and outrageous. Chill out, dude. One family, or even an entire village, raising their children they way they see fit (a right traditionally supported by the constitution, to my knowledge), does not create an institutionalized religion.

My criticism is not restricted to institutions. The american constitution is of no relevance to me and will supporting most of its content abstractly, I maintain criticisms of bits. Even so, at no point have I asserted this behaviour is illegal, merely grossly immoral.

quote:

I mean, it's one thing to combat religious ignorance. It's quite another to launch a campaign of total anti-religious intolerance.

I understand your position. But IMO I'm not sure why we should tolerate parents lying to children on such a magnificent scale. I would suggest that the primary functions of religion are the teaching of Obedience and, perhaops more importantly, the production of soldiers. Religion teaches people that dying doesn't matter. That is too profound a personal intervention for me to excuse by citing parental privilige. People are not islands and the world has to deal with the mess left behind; it is not exclusively their business but everyones.

quote:

It's totally one thing to be against an institutionalized religious power structure. But never to my knowledge has TL claimed to be part of such a thing. He's even railed against them himself. All you're doing is attacking another person's individual spirituality, and that's just ridiculously intolerant.

I attack RELIGION - I have a whole different line of attack for INSTITUTIONS. And part of the reason for this is that Protestants, on whom I cut my anti-religous teeth, are tough to nail on an institutional criticism, and with some justice. But then, it is the very personal, family-oriented use of religious indocrtination that is to me the most profoundly distrubing - I genuinely see it as not very distinguishable form any other sort of child molestation, in this case one in which a parent feeds their child a pack of lies for no reason, really, other than the parents self-validation. It is about the most selfish act I can imagine and one I consider a moral nadir.


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 2:45 PM contracycle has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 82 (44710)
06-30-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by John
06-30-2003 9:11 AM


Oh come on now... How many times has this happened, really?

Ok, not as often as I would like.

At any rate, if a woman did say that to me, I would infer that she meant to have sex with me. Would that be an erroneous assumption? (I'd hope she'd tell me if it was.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by John, posted 06-30-2003 9:11 AM John has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 82 (44712)
06-30-2003 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by contracycle
06-30-2003 11:57 AM


Sigh. I thought that sort of posturing was limited to the theists argument to equivalence.

Oh? You think that statement is posturing? So far, you've:

1) presented general statements in an absence of supporting data;
2) assumed the worst in a group of humans, again without data;
3) twisted the words of your opponent/target to support your own worst impressions of him.

Sounds just like religion to me. I'll cite specific exchanges, if you like.

NPR is probably an Americanism with which I am unfamiliar.

Sorry, that would be "National Public Radio". I'm afraid I assumed you were American; I wasn't sure how a non-American would have come to have such familiarity with American news media as to sweepingly damn the whole institution. I'm still not, actually.

As you can see, we may will differ quite profoundly on what good and apprpriate parenting behaviour is - thuis your support for TL in this matter is not itself very worrying.

And that's absolutely fine. I have a sense that, when and if you do have kids, your opinion will change drastically. Of course, I predict mine will do the same.

At any rate, doesn't that make you just a little less qualified to speculate how to raise children than a person who actually has some? It certainly makes you much, much less qualified to actually tell him how to raise his kids. It's that sentiment to which I object.

But IMO I'm not sure why we should tolerate parents lying to children on such a magnificent scale.

Because it's their kids. And ultimately, everybody gets over the lies their parents told them. Honestly, my parents raised me in a way that I percieve as similar to TL; as a youngster, they insulated me from certain things. And it had no effect. I found out about that stuff eventually, but when I was older and mature enough that "forbidden knowledge" had lost much of it's cachet. Thus was I able to approach those areas with clear judgement instead of youthful rebellion.

That is too profound a personal intervention for me to excuse by citing parental privilige. People are not islands and the world has to deal with the mess left behind; it is not exclusively their business but everyones.

This isn't just the idea that "it takes a village to raise a child", this is all the way to "the village has the final say." With what authority do you judge parents? How do you know that your way is so much better? What data do you have? Because all I hear are empty assertion and blanket condemnation of people you don't even know.

I genuinely see it as not very distinguishable form any other sort of child molestation, in this case one in which a parent feeds their child a pack of lies for no reason, really, other than the parents self-validation.

Oh? You don't think for a minute that TL could simply be trying to raise his kids in the best way he knows how? Out of a genuine concern for his own progeny?

Sure, it's a pack of lies, to you. To TL it's very, very true. Who's to say who is right on this? I simply don't understand what authority you think you have that allows you to preempt TL's perogative in this. And as a result you sound just as dogmatic, intolerant, and judgemental as any religous bigot. If anything, I guess this demonstrates the diversity of opinion in the atheist "community" - some of us are just as intolerant as the religions we reject. Too bad, really.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by contracycle, posted 06-30-2003 11:57 AM contracycle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by truthlover, posted 06-30-2003 6:09 PM crashfrog has responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 64 of 82 (44721)
06-30-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
06-30-2003 2:45 PM


Just a note. Thanks, Crash, for taking up the discussion, because it's too personal for me to be unbiased in. I wondered if I was being too rude, and I still do, but one thing I was sure of (and still am) is that contra was being just that--contra. We weren't discussing. He had something to say, and he was going to say no matter what I said, no matter whether it applied.

Throwing out words to be twisted and trampled on is not my idea of a good time. I used to have to do it back when I was a Christian, and I don't care to do it again, even with an atheist.

It does amaze me that the most anti-Christian atheist I've seen on any message board so far is also the most like them I've ever seen.

I'll commend all you atheists and agnostics (if that's different, lol, I don't want to be involved in that discussion from another thread!). Until Contracycle I have never once had an unbeliever pay no attention to my side of the argument the way Christians do regularly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2003 2:45 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 07-01-2003 5:03 AM truthlover has not yet responded
 Message 71 by nator, posted 07-02-2003 10:20 PM truthlover has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 82 (44739)
07-01-2003 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by truthlover
06-30-2003 6:09 PM


We weren't discussing. He had something to say, and he was going to say no matter what I said, no matter whether it applied.

Yeah, you're pretty much right on with this. It's like arguing with a creationist.

It does amaze me that the most anti-Christian atheist I've seen on any message board so far is also the most like them I've ever seen.

I'm worried he's going to give scientific-minded atheism a bad name. Normally when creationists say "you're just trying to escape god" or something, it's laughable. In his case I wonder if it's the truth. He does seem evolutionist not because of the evidence but because it's not religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by truthlover, posted 06-30-2003 6:09 PM truthlover has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 82 (44745)
07-01-2003 6:11 AM


quote:

Sounds just like religion to me. I'll cite specific exchanges, if you like.

Please do.

quote:

Sorry, that would be "National Public Radio". I'm afraid I assumed you were American; I wasn't sure how a non-American would have come to have such familiarity with American news media as to sweepingly damn the whole institution. I'm still not, actually.

We see quite a lot of CBS, CNN etc. It's hard not to, really, a point worth bearing in mind in relation to the 1st worlds dealing with the third.

quote:

And that's absolutely fine. I have a sense that, when and if you do have kids, your opinion will change drastically. Of course, I predict mine will do the same.

I already have god-children

quote:

At any rate, doesn't that make you just a little less qualified to speculate how to raise children than a person who actually has some?

No, not if they believe in invisible fairies. Secondly, this implies an appeal to "instinctive parenting" of which there is very little evidence. So no, there is no reason to suppose that a parent is endowed with supernatural insight just becuase the chemistry all worked according to plan.

quote:

Because it's their kids.

And kids are PROPERTY, huh? Kids don't have human rights, they are not the recipients of sympathy, because they are just OBJECTS who are OWNED. That is not acceptable. It is totally untenable to suspend a childs humanity on the basis of deferral to their parents.

quote:

And ultimately, everybody gets over the lies their parents told them.

Not really. Some people are believers their whole lives. Some even go on to inflict it on their own children.

quote:

Honestly, my parents raised me in a way that I percieve as similar to TL; as a youngster, they insulated me from certain things. And it had no effect.

I am happy for your recovery.

quote:

I found out about that stuff eventually, but when I was older and mature enough that "forbidden knowledge" had lost much of it's cachet. Thus was I able to approach those areas with clear judgement instead of youthful rebellion.

Why is this superior to just not inflicting these lies on children in the first place?

quote:

This isn't just the idea that "it takes a village to raise a child", this is all the way to "the village has the final say." With what authority do you judge parents? How do you know that your way is so much better? What data do you have? Because all I hear are empty assertion and blanket condemnation of people you don't even know.

Well, in fact, as I have pointed out already, I can and do make alternative reccomendations. And yes, I think there is a huge amount of secular parenting advice and thought about how we should be raising children. But then again - I'm not sure that the burden of should lie on me, but rather with the odd cultists. Noen of this prevents or should prevent me dioscussing profound disgust at this for of child abuse.

quote:

Oh? You don't think for a minute that TL could simply be trying to raise his kids in the best way he knows how? Out of a genuine concern for his own progeny?

Yes, I do believe exactly that. In such a way that theprogeny will be fulfilling for TL:'s vision of their life. In other words, to validate the lies that TL has beleive their whole life by also beleieving it.

quote:

Sure, it's a pack of lies, to you. To TL it's very, very true. Who's to say who is right on this?

The world. And without some sort of basis beyond "god told me to do it this way", then there is no basis for idly standing by and watching this cruelty perpetrated with malice aforethought.

quote:

I simply don't understand what authority you think you have that allows you to preempt TL's perogative in this.

I simply don;t understand what prerogative you think TL has. Children are not property, they are not things. IS TL also free to kill their children, based on thiis prerogative? No, we impose limits.

quote:

And as a result you sound just as dogmatic, intolerant, and judgemental as any religous bigot.

Or, one might suggest, you just don't have the courage of your convictions and would rather fiddle while Rome burns.

quote:

If anything, I guess this demonstrates the diversity of opinion in the atheist "community" - some of us are just as intolerant as the religions we reject. Too bad, really.

Why? Seesm to me that that is pie in the sky; it rests on the assumption that the only people who convert their theory into action in the real world are irrational believers. ANd yet, what good is any theory if not implemented in the real world? Was it good enough to develop penicillin and then say that giving people mud baths for bullet wounds is entirely legitimate as long as they really, really believe it works? Thats not good enough; what after all is the point of science if we never use it for anything practical? But we do, all the time - why should this be an exception.?


Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2003 2:11 AM contracycle has responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 82 (44748)
07-01-2003 6:26 AM


quote:

We weren't discussing. He had something to say, and he was going to say no matter what I said, no matter whether it applied.

Thats right. Theres nobody reasonable in the world but you. Anyeone who disagrees with you is necessarily irrational - otherwise, why would they disagree with you?

quote:

Throwing out words to be twisted and trampled on is not my idea of a good time. I used to have to do it back when I was a Christian, and I don't care to do it again, even with an atheist.

Anmd yet that is exactly what you are doing when you use "protecting" to mean "smothering" and "teaching" to mean "suppression".

quote:

It does amaze me that the most anti-Christian atheist I've seen on any message board so far is also the most like them I've ever seen.

Withdraw that. I do not believe in invisible fairies.

quote:
Until Contracycle I have never once had an unbeliever pay no attention to my side of the argument the way Christians do regularly.

I have seen many families run on this sort of manipulative lines. Your particular delusion is not unusual or unique. Your appeal to "doing the best thing" is worthless when based on supernatural speculation. You don't have an argument, just dogma - and while others may be willing to turn a blind eye and allow religious zealots to inflict such gross psychological deformity on their own children, I am not without at least calling you on it. I leave crashfrog to wrstle with his own conscience.


  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 82 (44750)
07-01-2003 6:34 AM


quote:

In his case I wonder if it's the truth. He does seem evolutionist not because of the evidence but because it's not religion.

And this is wrong because.....

People believe all sorts of absurd things. Some nutcases even believed that they should occupy Iraq, and did so. If it is merely FERVOUR which alienates you from religion, then you don't have a very valid stance - your criticism is with action rather than the spurious claims to supernatural insight. In which you are going to be a busy bee criticising every one and anyone who ever acts on any analysis of the world as they understand it. Either way, it substantially undermines your atheism - if it was only a criticism of fanatcism, and not supernaturalism, then what is your stance that makes you an atheist?

"How could I indifferently stand by, and behold some of the very best of my fellow creatures cruelly treated by some of the very worst?" Richard Parker, Leader of the Nore Mutiny, executed 1797


  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1822 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 69 of 82 (44752)
07-01-2003 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rrhain
06-28-2003 10:41 AM


It is absolutely true that a person who wears provocative clothing is not asking to have sex with every person who might happen to respond, but it is indicative that the person is considering having sex with somebody or at the very least is interested in arousing the interest of other people.

I think you need to think about that a bit. Proscribing provocative clothing is a subjective idea. Though to YOU it might indicate that the person is considering having sex with someone or is trying to arouse interest that person may just be wearing what he or she is comfortable with. It used to be that women who wore skirts higher than the ankle or showed their shoulder were being provocative, but would you hold that to be true today? Or how about some muslim countries where women without a veil or Hajhib?(sp) are considered acting immorally. There are tribes in many parts of the world where they wear a minimum of clothing and go naked part of the time. Is that in any way provocative?

There isn't anything that humans do that some other animal doesn't also do.

Trying not to quibble over semantics or whatever and I am sure you recognize this mistake, but I don't think you can say that animals do anything humans do. Ie. Make clothing, dig and refine metals, propose theories on their origins.

[edited to add quote]

[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 07-01-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rrhain, posted 06-28-2003 10:41 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Rrhain, posted 07-03-2003 2:56 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 82 (44813)
07-02-2003 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by contracycle
07-01-2003 6:11 AM


I'll cite specific exchanges, if you like.

Please do.

Sure thing. Comments like this:

quote:
I feel it immoral to stand idly by and simply excuse this evil by acknowledging that people believe this things.

The use of words like "immoral" and "evil" are common in religious fundamentalism.

The blurring of church and state is far too developed to safely consider that a police officer does not themselves use their position to further their religious prejudices.

Dismissal of authority via claims of conspiracy or corruption are common defense mechanisms of fundamentalists.

So I cannot under any circumstances take your word for the fact thet they are well adjusted - I'm sure you THINK that, but I don't.

Flat-out rejection of oppositions claim without contrary data. Common tactic of fundamentalists.

Basically your rhetoric has been inflammitory and fundamentalist, but rather data-light. If you think Truthlover's kids - or the kids of any theist - are somehow harmed by the experience, why not present some data in that regard?

Of course, all we have so far is your own experience, which apparently we're supposed to take as gospel. What I really love is this:

So no, there is no reason to suppose that a parent is endowed with supernatural insight just becuase the chemistry all worked according to plan.

What, it would take supernatural insight to have better knowledge than you? Ah, the arrogance of the fundamentalist.

Thats not good enough; what after all is the point of science if we never use it for anything practical? But we do, all the time - why should this be an exception.?

Go ahead. Do some science. Prove, using nonannecdotal data that supports your theory, that TL's theism does harm to his children. And that raising them outside of a moral framework that includes abstinence from sex and drugs until an age of maturity is better. If you've got the data, as you continually imply, show it! Anything else is just your assertion that religion is harmful to children. That's fine for you to say, but if you want that theory lent credence, we need to see data. That's science.

Honestly you're the kind of atheist that creationists accuse us of being.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by contracycle, posted 07-01-2003 6:11 AM contracycle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by contracycle, posted 07-03-2003 11:48 AM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 71 of 82 (44887)
07-02-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by truthlover
06-30-2003 6:09 PM


quote:
I'll commend all you atheists and agnostics (if that's different, lol, I don't want to be involved in that discussion from another thread!). Until Contracycle I have never once had an unbeliever pay no attention to my side of the argument the way Christians do regularly.

I have to tell you, TL, that I am a little embarassed that I didn't object to Contracycle's inflammatory messages to you before now. Although it's late and it probably means less because it's late, I was dismayed at his/her unkind remarks. I certainly do not share the position and I don't actually believe that I would consider your kids abused, from what I have read so far. Not at all.

So, sorry I didn't speak up before now. I was enjoying our discussion and I hope, although I was asking you pointed questions and our viewpoints are obviously pretty different, that you were too.

Allison

PS Thanks to Crash, as well


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by truthlover, posted 06-30-2003 6:09 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2003 12:22 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 80 by truthlover, posted 07-03-2003 11:23 PM nator has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 82 (44898)
07-03-2003 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by nator
07-02-2003 10:20 PM


PS Thanks to Crash, as well

Just callin' it like I see it. I'm opposed to accepting dogmatic assumption as proven fact, no matter who's doing it.

If contracycle thinks TL's kids are being abused, let's see some data. Show me that kids raised religiously are worse off than kids raised in the accepting presence of drugs and sex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by nator, posted 07-02-2003 10:20 PM nator has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 810 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 73 of 82 (44902)
07-03-2003 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Wounded King
06-30-2003 5:22 AM


Excellent Poem.

Thank You for that.

db


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Wounded King, posted 06-30-2003 5:22 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 74 of 82 (44915)
07-03-2003 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by DBlevins
07-01-2003 7:20 AM


DBlevins responds to me:

quote:
quote:
It is absolutely true that a person who wears provocative clothing is not asking to have sex with every person who might happen to respond, but it is indicative that the person is considering having sex with somebody or at the very least is interested in arousing the interest of other people.

I think you need to think about that a bit. Proscribing provocative clothing is a subjective idea.


Of course. I already said that. Did you miss my comment about Victorian era clothing and how one can tell what a culture considers sexual just by looking at the fashions of the time? What is revealed and what is kept hidden?

quote:
Though to YOU it might indicate that the person is considering having sex with someone or is trying to arouse interest that person may just be wearing what he or she is comfortable with.

Oh, please. You're acting as if you walk around seeing women in bridal gowns as everyday wear. I never said that there is a universal dress code. Of course what is considered provocative is controlled by culture, but people live in that culture and they all know what the culture considers to be provocative.

When Li'l Kim showed up to that awards ceremony wearing a Spandex cat suit that only covered one side, leaving her other breast exposed completely except for a pasty, she knew what she was doing. When Jennifer Lopez showed up to two different awards ceremonies wearing gauze, she knew what she was doing.

quote:
It used to be that women who wore skirts higher than the ankle or showed their shoulder were being provocative, but would you hold that to be true today?

Yes. We still have rumblings of that in our culture and you can see it in certain styles of dress...the way the slits are cut down the sides such that the legs are usually covered except every now and again you can catch a glimpse. Certainly our culture doesn't have a problem showing quite a bit more than that, but we still understand the value of holding back and providing only peeks.

Remember the shower scene in Psycho? Did you notice that you never saw Marion Crane actually getting stabbed? Oh, she screamed, Norman was pumping his arm, but the only time you ever saw that knife and Crane's body in the same shot is in a single, half-second shot where a hand holding the knife which is pointed at the ground and has absolutely no blood on it comes into the frame from the right in front of Crane's torso.

And yet, that is considered one of the scariest scenes in cinema. Hitchcock was a master at withholding and using your own imagination against you. He knew what buttons to press and was content to let you fill in the rest. We can still do that today and it still works. Our culture has expanded on the options, but the old ones are still around.

quote:
Or how about some muslim countries where women without a veil or Hajhib?(sp) are considered acting immorally.

And they know that. You're forgetting that these people live in a culture where that is the accepted standard. The signals sent out by things like clothing are culturally defined and of course you wouldn't expect someone from outside that culture to understand what they were.

But you would expect someone from that culture to know them. I don't expect someone who has never heard any English to be able to read these words. I do expect someone who has been speaking English for twenty years to be able to do so.

Clothing is another form of non-verbal communication. In American culture, we tend to keep a fair amount of space between people when we're talking, even among close friends. Being closer than that implies a deeper relationship. Anyone who grew up in the USA knows what that distance is without even having to think about it consciously. Other cultures, however, don't share that concept.

quote:
There are tribes in many parts of the world where they wear a minimum of clothing and go naked part of the time. Is that in any way provocative?

Depends on how they do it. They have a culture that they're living in and thus, their methods of being provocative will be known by everyone in the culture and they'll use it to send the signals they wish to send.

quote:
quote:
There isn't anything that humans do that some other animal doesn't also do.

Trying not to quibble over semantics or whatever and I am sure you recognize this mistake, but I don't think you can say that animals do anything humans do. Ie. Make clothing, dig and refine metals, propose theories on their origins.


It's not a mistake. I notice you hacked my comment to shreds. Here is what I said immediately afterward:

We may be better at it, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality.

Now tell me: Why did you remove this part considering that it addresses your comment directly?

Some animals do make clothing. Some animals do dig and refine materials. And some animals do think about things.

We may be much better at it than other animals are, but that's a difference of quantity, not quality.

Question: Is Dick and Jane a book? Oh, it's not a very deep book and it has a limited vocabulary and it isn't very long, but does that make it any less a book? On what fundamental basis does War and Peace qualify as a book while Dick and Jane doesn't?

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by DBlevins, posted 07-01-2003 7:20 AM DBlevins has not yet responded

    
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 82 (44975)
07-03-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
07-02-2003 2:11 AM


quote:
Go ahead. Do some science. Prove, using nonannecdotal data that supports your theory, that TL's theism does harm to his children.

I cannot see the future, therefore I do not know for certain that harm will be caused. However, I have every reasons to thinkn that this will be the case. This is parent who is ostentatiously educating their child in a lie, in a MISREPRESENTATION of the world; I cannot see how this can be responsible parenting in any sense.

And yes, I do use moral terminology. Theists all too often conflate adherence to their particular theology as an abstract virtue or practical good citizenship; and I wish to make it absolutely crystal clear that I consider their behaviour to be thoroughly bad and irresponsible citizenship, and indicative, not of moral strength, but moral cowardice.

I can certainly demonstrate negative consequences of theistic upbringing. Every now and again we run across a theist who, for example, declines medical attention - such as blood transfusion, or antibiotics - to their children on the basis of theistic dogma.

Furthermore, this is not a problem that is confined merely to the theistic family, in that the implicate others in their abuse; frex:

http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/jw.htm
http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/rhodes.htm

This is an example of the well known scenario of a Jehovahs Witness refusing a blood transfusion, and the sort of textual authority they cit for so doing.

Do we not, as a society, have a responsibility to prevent people from carrying out what it in effect homicide on their own children? I think that we do, and that a parent exhibiting this sort of disregard for their childrens lives is in short not competent to be a parent. IIRC some child protection orders have been issued on this basis in the UK.

Then we have examples of the kinds of things that theistic parents might see as suitable treatments for disobedience, such as this brain washing gulag:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/classroomviolence/story/0,12388,987932,00.html

quote:

And that raising them outside of a moral framework that includes abstinence from sex and drugs until an age of maturity is better.

It seems to me there has been a lot of research in this area, mostly aimed at rates of incidence pregnancy in children. The majority appears to me to encourage the idea that the earlier and less moralistically the subject is addressed the healthier the childs appreciation of sexuality.

http://www.findarticles.com/m0FQP/4508_129/66276486/p1/article.jhtml?cf=0

In fact, the trend in mainstream sex education over the last several decades has been away from delayed education and towards early education, as the New Statesman indicated in an article related to the above: "Only if we adopt these and other positive measures can Britain hope to reduce significantly the rate of teenage pregnancies. We lost a decade of progress during the 1980s and now lag behind several of our European neighbours. Those who oppose sex education and confidential advice are highly vociferous. But they are a tiny minority and ministers should not be distracted by them." So no, I don't think that a serious case can be advanced that witholding information has support as a useful approach to child-rearing.

There is an analogous scenario with alcohol. As this page points out, "When children are served alcohol by their parents, drinking problems are generally low. When children are prevented from drinking until an older age, drinking problems tend to be high. The evidence is overwhelming."
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol-info/ChildrenAndParenting.html

quote:

If you've got the data, as you continually imply, show it! Anything else is just your assertion that religion is harmful to children.

Not RELIGION. Religious PARENTS are harmful to children.

quote:

That's fine for you to say, but if you want that theory lent credence, we need to see data. That's science.

Yes. And the science, certainly in the UK for the last 40 years, has tended strongly against moralistic and puritanical child-rearing.

I maintain the TL's expressed intent to isolate themselves among a like-minded community that will never challenge any of this dangerous dogma but reinforce it, which bears all the hallmarks of contemporary puritinasm, carries a serious danger that extreme emphasis on obedience and surbordination to the patriarch, the endorsement of corporal punishment (not sparing the rod) and the willingness of co-religionists to employ something like the above re-education centre, should give everyone serious cause for concern over the health and wellbeing of TL's children.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2003 2:11 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2003 4:42 PM contracycle has not yet responded
 Message 79 by truthlover, posted 07-03-2003 11:05 PM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019