|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2011 : 20:57:10 [Permalink]
|
OFFC:
Yes I've read this from the misogynistic, ivory tower, A priori, Atheist Richard Dawkins before. |
You just love to do that don't you? Okay. What is your evidence that Richard Dawkins is misogynistic?
(I'm sure it will show up on your blog, if it hasn't already.) |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2011 : 22:29:57 [Permalink]
|
Wow, I find this interesting. So much going on in this one thread.
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Oh dear everyone's gone quiet...
|
Judge It's good to remember to be patient with both awaiting for and relying to posts. I find the latter most valuable. Delays in reply to postings should never be speculated on as to their cause because anyone would almost always be incorrect while only occasionally not. We All have other responsibilities, other lives, other pleasures and other distractions that jostle each other for first place. I love it. Ain't life great? SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 01:15:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
misogynistic, ivory tower, A priori, Atheist Richard Dawkins
|
Evidence please...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2011 : 01:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
What an awesome challenge. "Prove a particular moral point to be true." How would one even begin to go about doing that? As soon as one assumes a particular ethic, proof goes out the window because there's no objective reason to hold to one ethic in preference to another. |
Good question. But given it what he is talking about is currently not considered child abuse, and he wants to know if it should be considered child abuse. In order for that determination to be made some kind of evidence needs to be presented. A case needs to be made.
The "not allowed" thing is just a distraction, by the way. As a society, we discourage many behaviors without them being prohibited. The more general argument is whether religion itself should be communally shunned, in part because of the effects of indoctrination of children. Nobody needs to petition their government representatives to pass legislation for this shunning to begin.
|
It's not a distraction at all. We aren't talking about frowning upon religious indoctrination, we are talking about reclassifying it as child abuse.
If the topic was "should we all be shunning religion" then your comments would be entirely relevant. But the question proposed reforming laws to prohibit the ways people are allowed to raise their children. That's the question you should be addressing within this topic. I believe you eventually did answer the question with your final remarks
| People still have a right to teach their kids badly, but it's one of those rights that should be exercised with shame, not pride. |
So thanks for finally getting to the point.
Originally posted by Kil
You just love to do that don't you? Okay. What is your evidence that Richard Dawkins is misogynistic?
(I'm sure it will show up on your blog, if it hasn't already.)
|
Yes I do. TBQH I like to throw in a minor contentious remark like that and just watch to see how many people would rather respond to these single lines than actually discuss the topic at hand. I guess it's just easier for them. You have to give these people something. It can't be easy to get to over-9000 posts. And sure, read my blog, the answers to all your question and more can be found there. |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 07/25/2011 01:43:48 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 07:48:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
TBQH I like to throw in a minor contentious remark like that and just watch to see how many people would rather respond to these single lines than actually discuss the topic at hand. I guess it's just easier for them. You have to give these people something. It can't be easy to get to over-9000 posts. And sure, read my blog, the answers to all your question and more can be found there.
|
Oh, you were just being an asshole.
I can play that game too.
Christians are fucking idiots. Edited to add: and liars.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/25/2011 09:37:52 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 08:25:12 [Permalink]
|
OFFC:
Yes I do. TBQH I like to throw in a minor contentious remark like that and just watch to see how many people would rather respond to these single lines than actually discuss the topic at hand. |
The word for that is "trolling." I suppose that makes you a troll.
OFFC:
I guess it's just easier for them. You have to give these people something. It can't be easy to get to over-9000 posts. |
Doesn't matter what the subject is. It's not a matter of it being easier than reading a whole thread. It's a matter of being able to spot an untruth. That you feel perfectly comfortable with lying and then accusing anyone who has caught the lie of not being concerned with the subject is just a deflection. It doesn't make it less of a lie. Anyone can make outrageous statements, but not everyone is comfortable with trolling for reactions. Most of us are not so dishonest.
OFFC:
And sure, read my blog, the answers to all your question and more can be found there. |
You made the statement here. On this site. In this thread. I'm not required to search for whatever evidence you have to make such a statement. It's your claim. Support it or admit that it was a lie. This isn't the first time you have done that, and each time you have been caught lying you have waved it away as inconsequential. But you know... From my point of view, you're a liar and an admitted troll. I find that to be especially strange because you didn't have to do either to make your point in this thread.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 15:24:49 [Permalink]
|
Oh dear I seem to have upset OFFC not sure if I should feel glad or sad.
Best wishes everybody including religious fundamentalists and creation scientists( an oxymoron if ever there was one)
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612 (iconoclast, militant skeptic , radical atheist and resident in a post industrial northern England town- now with its very own shuttle)
|
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 15:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Think I may set up a study session to teach the Earth is flat or that disease is caused by demonic possession. Perhaps we could put on trial all who don't believe in those truths and burn them at the stake(oh sorry it's already been done; they called it the Inquisition)
Good night everyone
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612 (iconoclast, militant skeptic , radical atheist( probably losiing his grasp on sanity) and resident in a post industrial northern England town- now with its very own shuttle, now being used as a training ground by British athletes in preparation for 2012)
|
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 18:31:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Think I may set up a study session to teach the Earth is flat or that disease is caused by demonic possession. Perhaps we could put on trial all who don't believe in those truths and burn them at the stake(oh sorry it's already been done; they called it the Inquisition)
|
OK, so by this I take it that you haven't the slightest interest in refining your 'argument', or treating this discussion with any degree of seriousness.
From one atheist to another, good night and God bless.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2011 : 19:14:52 [Permalink]
|
If anyone wants cases of religious psychological child abuse, you've asked the right guy:
An old Catholic book, and the bitch who's quoted here They have a link to her blog where you can read the original comment by the blogger as well as the original post by her that started this; I just wanted you all to see that civilized people don't go for that shit.
Unfortunately, some people do. Again, just click on the link they have to get to the actual person and the context. Yes, in both cases, it's as bad as it looks.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 07/25/2011 19:18:43 |
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 01:49:44 [Permalink]
|
Thank you the ignored. You have really shown the religious mindset I have in mind when I talk of why religious indoctrination should be reclassified as child abuse.
The links you supplied are very enlightening. It shows how these people are so besotted by their infallible holy book they don't really see what the words in the book say.
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 06:46:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Thank you the ignored. You have really shown the religious mindset I have in mind when I talk of why religious indoctrination should be reclassified as child abuse.
The links you supplied are very enlightening. It shows how these people are so besotted by their infallible holy book they don't really see what the words in the book say.
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612
|
When you get finished high-fiving yourself, perhaps you could take a look at the other concerns here in regards to religious instruction by non-extremist subsects.
Your argument still suffers from over-generalization by painting the extremists as the norm. They are not.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 07:32:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Good question. But given it what he is talking about is currently not considered child abuse, and he wants to know if it should be considered child abuse. In order for that determination to be made some kind of evidence needs to be presented. A case needs to be made. |
Sure, but asking for "proof" is unreasonable. "Child abuse" is a legal and societal concept, not a scientific or logical idea. Appeals to emotion are pretty much all that is available at the bottom line. Even a hypothetical scientific study showing that kids who are abused in thus-and-such a way suffer from harms X, Y and Z depends upon us caring that we eliminate such harms from our childrens' lives. If we don't give a hoot about raising our children well (and there's no objective reason to), then "child abuse" as a concept becomes moot.It's not a distraction at all. We aren't talking about frowning upon religious indoctrination, we are talking about reclassifying it as child abuse.
If the topic was "should we all be shunning religion" then your comments would be entirely relevant. But the question proposed reforming laws to prohibit the ways people are allowed to raise their children. That's the question you should be addressing within this topic. I believe you eventually did answer the question with your final remarks |
No, Bromley never mentioned reforming any laws. And since lots of things that many people would classify as mild "child abuse" aren't legally considered such, the question needs to be addressed in a broader context.| So thanks for finally getting to the point. |
That you think my introductory material wasn't on-point is a problem. Of yours.
Society frowns on many things that aren't illegal. Spanking one's kids isn't illegal. If fairly reported, it won't even merit opening a case file at CPS. Sixty years ago, it was expected that parents would spank their misbehaving kids, but now it's generally seen as inappropriate and ineffectual (at best), without a single law being reformed.
Developed nations are ditching religion in much the same way. Eventually (I'd think less than 100 years from now), if you mention teaching your kids about the wonders of Christianity, most people will respond with disgust. No, they won't report you to Child Protective Services, but they will think (or even say), "how could you do that to your own children?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 08:04:39 [Permalink]
|
The question at hand: should religious indoctrination be reclassified as child abuse?
It is neither physical or sexual abuse, so we are left with the possibility that it is psychological abuse, something much more difficult to demonstrate.
Just yesterday I wrote a review of "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" - a memoir by a Chinese American woman who engages in a rather extreme (by American standards) form of parenting. Her book resulted in a great deal of criticism and backlash, including some who even declared her to be a child abuser. Check out this idiot, who seriously concludes that Chua's two daughters would be better in foster care. Chua's daughters, who have straight A's in school among many other achievements of which they themselves profess to be proud of, and who both profess to love and appreciate their mother, even if they don't always agree with her 100% (what child does?) according to this idiot blogger, would be better off in foster care. And he seems to base this purely on his disagreement with Chua's values, and more broadly, what he views as East Asian values. I guess the values of pluralism, humility, and the rights of parents and children escape him. Some make this argument that parents like Chua are causing psychological harm to their kids, and they point at rates of anxiety and suicide among Asian kids growing up in high-pressure-to-succeed environments. But is that enough to declare an entire set of parenting customs and values as abuse?
Are we really at a sophisticated enough level of social science and understanding of human behavior to make sweeping judgement and take action against whole groups of people, where both the parents and most of the children defend their values and traditions? What harm might be done by taking action against whole groups of people because we disagree with their values and we insist that we have enough "evidence" for psychological harm being done by their traditions? How will we measure that harm against the supposed good we might be doing?
So let's look at children who are raised by very religiously devout families who engage in religious indoctrination. The difference between indoctrination and other forms of religious instruction is that with indoctrination, the person being instructed in discouraged from questioning the subject. Taking away any knee-jerk prejudice against religious in particular, it must be acknowledged that every family, community, and society has particular taboos and "sacred cows" that children are expected to simply accept and respect. There are some things that, depending on who raises us and where and when, we are not permitted to question, at least not in polite company. This is inevitable. You can't expect adults to throw out their core values just because some other fallible humans vehemently disagree with them, especially when it comes to raising their children. In America, we have freedom of religious written into our Constitution, and most of us claim to think that is a good thing. If it is permissible for an adult to openly practice a particular religion, then why should it not be permissible for that same adult to raise their children to share those beliefs and values?
These claims of "child abuse" do not give children enough credit. In America, where there are a growing number of conservative Christians and growing number of homeschoolers, people are none-the-less much more likely to change religions than in any other society. It's a friggin' religious buffet in this country because of the nature of our secular society that religious people still have to reside within. A person who grows up in a more isolated and homogenous society is much less likely to question their upbringing or to change their values based on introspection than a fundamentalist kid growing up in a pluralistic, secular society.
I have no desire to live in a state where a majority decides to impose their values on minorities, effectively micromanaging and breaking up families, even if I happen to share the values of that majority. In fact, I would fight against such policies tooth and nail. Just like I'm not going to raise my kids like "Tiger Mother" Amy Chua, but I recognize and celebrate her right to raise her children that way. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 08:45:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Thank you the ignored. You have really shown the religious mindset I have in mind when I talk of why religious indoctrination should be reclassified as child abuse. |
and earlier:
| Nevertheless I stand by my original statemnt that religious indoctrination could be reclassified as child abuse not just for the examples I have given but also for that fact that it stultifies young minds into accepting one particular dogma . |
OK, so we've got some examples of cases where religious indoctrination seems bad. Are we, at some stage, going to be offered some data or, at the very least, an actual argument for why ALL forms of religious indoctrination should be considered child abuse? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religious indoctrination of children child abuse?
