|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 27, 2009 10:31 AM |
|
|
Err, Mytical, strictly spoken, you are spamming your own thread. 
It's called Where do we draw the line?
It's not called, do children need structure and discipline? Of course they do, but the question was a different one.
So, again, I miss your point (relevant for the thread).
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 10:37 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:39, 27 Jun 2009.
|
It is about where we draw the line at discipline. Slightly offtopic however (I went a bit off topic about where to draw the line). Now back on the topic.
1) I think that anything past a belt (and even sometimes the belt depending) is abuse. If you close your hand into a fist, or have to cover a bruise YOU ARE ABUSING.
2) Society should have LIMITED ability to tell us how to raise our own children. Only in matters of abuse, neglect, or abandonment (or similar) should society have any right to intercede. What is or is not the above is another matter.
3) This is one that a lot of people disagree on. Spanking a child on the rear (and not leaving a bruise) is not abuse to me. So we could debate forever on that matter and get nowhere. Any bruises however, imo is Abuse..pure and simple.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 11:17 AM |
|
|
If you look at the world, clearly, the right for parents to brainwash children to members of the most extremist religious positions is the reason for a lot of really, really bad things in the world.
Society should be able to protect not only the children but society and the world from this.
Which is just one example.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 11:22 AM |
|
|
The thing is, it is only opinion as to what is 'extreamist religion' and what is not. It may be a popular opinion, but it is still opinion. To some (not all) atheist ALL religion is extream..so maybe we should make it all against societies rules. Only some religious people (and not extreamist) think that atheism and agnostic beliefs are 'extream' so we should perhaps make that against societies rules...along with all freedom of speech and thought.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 12:27 PM |
|
|
You wouldn't say that protecting children from porn is equal to a no-sex ideology, would you? Then why would you assume that protecting children from being brain-washed into separating peolpe into Jews, Catholics, Muslims and so on is equal to atheism?
Moreover it's not RELIGION that's the point here - it's BRAINWASHING OF CHILDREN that is. Parents give children an example. Moreover children are curious anyway. You don't have to force a certain religious opinion onto children, they will just see what their parents do and which examples they set, and when they grow older they can decide for themselves whether they want to dig into that or not.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 12:37 PM |
|
|
Hmm I think you misread my post. I said it could be said that some people think that way..but to your point. So, we shouldn't teach our children any of our views on the world? Think about this, carefully. How is teaching a child your religious views and different from teaching them science, history? History is often shaded and biased by who wrote the history book (Cultural bias toward their own culture and portrail of who was 'bad' guys and 'good' guys in a war).
No social studies..let them figure out how society should run for themselves? There goes manners, that is brainwashing. Or responsibility, brainwashing again. Also, just because you grow up in a religious environment doesn't mean you will be religious.
Sharing our view with our children is not brainwashing, even when it comes to religion. We give our children all the information we can, and it is always shaded by our personal bias. They still grow up to be their own people. Been true since the dawn of time.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2009 12:55 PM |
|
|
You teach everything social basically by example. If you, as parents, don't LIVE manners, you can't teach them to your children. If you DO live manners, your children will learn them anyway.
If you eat with your fingers it would by folly to try and teach your children to eat with knife and fork - if you do eat with knife and fork it will be natural for a child to try it and the only thing you have to do is to make sure that it's tried long enough, if it doesn't work immediately.
Science is different. You simple have to learn certain things. History is different either: there is no way to experience it except reading books (and having a look at some old monuments and so on).
Quote:
So, we shouldn't teach our children any of our views on the world?
That depends on how you define "teach". If you mean teach as in "inform", yes. If you mean teach as in "force upon", no. It's that simple, ESPECIALLY with religion.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 09:40 AM |
|
|
Children go to school where they learn what that society has decided is best. They are 'forced' to learn things, like history, that that society has decided is the 'correct' version of history. Thus they are being brainwashed...right?
While I agree there are cults out there that do indoctrinate their children..I disagree that all religions do it at all times. I was raised in a strongly christian setting, 'forced' to go to church all the time etc etc. I am not a Christian. None of my brothers and sisters are (and I have a lot of them). Hmm but maybe we are getting way off topic again? 
Ok lets delve into crime and punishment, specifically under what circumstances (if any) the death penalty might be the best solution?
I will give a 'worst case' scenario (though I am sure that it is not the worst a person can do)
Lets say that Jimbob goes out and manages to kill 100 kittens, 100 babies, and turns them into soup that he then eats. Death Penalty? Or no?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 10:22 AM |
|
|
Mytical, this is about drawing a line, and to argue with, "I have been this and that and there is no ill effect" means that you won't draw ANY line ANYWHERE, since there will always be one who can field something like that. You know, as with smokers: "Unhealthy? Naa, the cousin of my grandma's best friend, he used to smoke 2 packs of cigaretts each day from since he was ten, and he was 91 when they buried him, after he folded his Corvette round a tree."
Moreover, teaching history AS WE KNOW IT is no brain-washing either - it's teaching about what we know about history as opposed to teaching religion which is teaching a history that is quite different.
For the Death Penalty - you either have it or you don't. If you haven't there obviously is no crime that will be punished with it. If you have, you have it for whatever reasons, and it will be used for a lot of crimes. In the US, while there are many states that actually have the DP, I think it's Texas where half or so of them are actually executed which means either, that Texas is the state where the meanest criminals live or where the hardest judges work. Either way it leaves room to discuss.
I don't think that the question whether DP or no DP depends on the severity of the crime. You see, the most severe crimes are motivated either by religious/political madness (terror, suicide bombings) or by social madness (serial killings and so on, based mostly on upbringing). However, by killing the "victims" of that madness you don't eradicate the roots of that madness.
Personally I think that humans should atone for their deeds. If a person kill 100 others and eats them, there is nothing wrong if that person dies or suffers for the good of humanity: research of that person's madness, testing out new drugs and so on. Is that cruel? Maybe. So?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 10:29 AM |
|
|
From the Death Penalty part on I agree with you. I still disagree with how you seem to view religion however. Again, not really the place to discuss that tho.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 10:59 AM |
|
|
See it this way, Mytical.
There seem to be enough people who pray to Satan, and no matter what else it may be, it IS a religion.
Obviously, if you allow freedom of religion you cannot forbid that, as long as sacrifices are kept to animals (animal sacrifices ARE allowed anyway). Moreover, obviously, the way you see it, society has no right in any way to protect children from being brain-washed by their satanist parents.
If that doesn't sound right, that's the problem. We think that it is WRONG to influence children into doing something. We don't force children into marriages and frown upon all (soecieties) who do it. We don't think that children should become a member of a political party. How would it look if an 8-year-old would run around with the Communist Manifest or the current program of the Republicans and quote from it? Nor do we want that parents force their children to learn a certain profession. We frown about parents with a sick ambition, more or less forcing their young children into sports like figure-skating, gymnastics, tennis and so on where they train and train and train.
But raising a child into a follower of a religion, any religion, is ok? Isn't that DEMONSTRATING how brain-washed society actually is in favor of allowing this kind of thing? I'd say yes.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 11:14 AM |
|
|
Well first any law should be a consensus, since we do have to draw the line somewhere. Now I know this is going to be a bit unpopular, but I do not think that a religion (any religion even Satanism) should be confined by special laws that do not apply to everybody else and every other religion. Nor do I advocate religions having special privliges that ordinary people do not. A religon must be able to function within the laws for EVERYBODY, or it should be made illegal and shut down.
So, no I would not single out Satanism..as long as it's members function within societies laws, and they want to teach their children it..I would be ok with it.
You seem to think, however, that every religion force feeds their children and allows them not to think for themselves. I could argue the same about 'science' (I won't but I could). It teaches absolutes that if anybody thinks differently about they are 'missinformed', 'crazy', or 'deluded'. And about history, and math, and..well you get the picture.
This is a BIT offtopic and we may want to start another thread however. Plainly put I think you are wrong about religion. It is not just mindless brainwashing.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 11:25 AM |
|
|
While I agree with the first part of your post, it's your second post that can be proven wrong:
There is no different kind of science taught. The current scientific opinion about Biology, for example, is the same everywhere - if there are conflicting theories about something this is taught as well.
Not so with Religion. With Religion, there are many competing ones, with nothing pointing to one being righter than the others. And brain-washing here is to teach ONE AND ONLY ONE as THE one, the REAL one, with everyone else being wrong.
If that's not brain-washing you have to redefine the word.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
|
Hmm so it is ok if there is only one version of something? Interesting. Actually, you might be suprised how similar a lot of religions are if you looked, but that is another topic.
Again, however, you are missing the point I think. Freedom of thought is something we should never try to limit. Being free to pursue your religion is freedom of thought. Of course it may not impact you, so why should you care? What if the majority of people decided "Jollyjoker" (inserting your real name, address, etc) must be forced to believe that gravity is actually gravy, and should he ever have children (I don't know if you already do) they must never learn any type of science of any kind? I seriously doubt you would follow that law. You would (and rightfully so) argue that you should be able to teach your children anything you wish, including science.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 12:03 PM |
|
|
I thought I had made myself clear enough.
Brain-washing is, if there are many conflicting and contrasting and competing "systems of thought" with nothing to tell that one is right over the others or even that there is one that is right, if you teach ONE and only ONE claiming that one to be right.
You really want to discuss that?
In science you teach science, simple as that, and if there currently ARE contrasting theories both are taught or introduced.
This is in line with teaching children METHODS to be able to make their own decisions sometimes, which is what rasining children is all about.
In Religion this is handled differently. Teaching a SPECIFIC religion, telling a child that it has to BELIEVE THIS AND ONLY THIS is exactly doing what you say: it suppresses freedom of thought and indoctrinates children with a certain "system of thought", even though there are different ones (which do the same).
It's basically like this: At home your parents buy a certain kind of Cola, and the children drink it. If they are elsewhere they may get another kind of Cola served, and maybe they see a difference or not. If they like another Cola better, they may ask their parents why they can't buy that one. Even if parents will like their brand better, they will buy that other Cola for their child, but they won't have a problem with their child preferring another Cola. After all, itÄs a question of taste.
But think about religion. Think about what the reaction was there. It would go: "This is only real Cola, all others are fake, and even if they seem to taste fine, they will make you ill in the long run. You always have to drink THIS Cola, and you must do it in a specific way, otherwise evil things will happen." And so on.
Don't you understand that?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 12:12 PM |
|
|
No brainwashing is "Only this way is correct, everything else is false." a HUGE difference. It doesn't matter how many ways there are..1 or 1 billion. Also you are ASSUMING (you know what they say about assuming right?) that people who follow a religion never discuss other religions with their children.
Just because it isn't your personal belief (don't argue semantics here please) doesn't mean it is brainwashing. Don't you understand that?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 12:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No brainwashing is "Only this way is correct, everything else is false."
That's not exactly brain-washing, but that's EXACTLY what is done with children if they are made members of a certain religion and taught in its ways. Because at least all monotheistic religions teach that THEY are the only one that is right, when they actually have no reason why this should be the case WHICH IS THE REASON WHY BRAIN-WASHING IS NECESSARY! Don't ask; believe!
Moreover this is EXACTLY the reason why there are so many conflicts with religious roots. There are no reasonable arguments for a specific religion and against the others, so there have to be unreasonable ones, ending in violent arguments.
And, by the way, brain-washing means that a person is indoctrinated with certain "thoughts", no matter the person. Teaching science is NOT brain-washing, since it is done by showing and proving what is taught as true and by characterizing an assumption as such. Children are not taught to blindly believe in science, on the contrary.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 12:50 PM |
|
|
I will just agree to disagree on this point. Since hitting our heads on a wall is not productive, we can move to the next 'Where do we draw the line?" 
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 01:11 PM |
|
|
Ah. So you are against people being raised to become able to make reasonable decisions when the time is right, but advocate the right of parents to make the decisions for them, when they are a child.
So why can parents not marry children, for example? After all, they can divorce themselves in case they are unhappy with it, one they are grown-up.
Or why should parents not pick the profession for their children, teaching it to them from earliest childhood - after all, if they don't like it as a grown-up they can still switch to another, right?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 01:22 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:30, 29 Jun 2009.
|
Ok. Here it is. If you seriously think what you posted above, there is really nothing more to discuss. If you don't then it is just provication, and there is nothing more to discuss. Simply put I prefer personal freedom (including how to raise your own child) over a fascist regime that tells you how to do everything. That includes religious freedom. There are logical things that we as a society need, including no killing, raping etc. A thought police is not one of them.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
