Child Abuse in Action

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Child Abuse in Action

 READ THIS WEBPAGE FIRST

Ok.  Now, here are the things that disturb me the most:

Child Abusers wrote:
To see this truth live in our children we must teach by both word and example. We need to remind them of Adam and Eve and what happened to them and to us as a result of their sin, and what happens in our own life when we sin. To see a true change in our children's actions we must make the story real.

The thing is, this sets up two very horrible beliefs in children who are not old enough to know better.  First, it teaches them that they are bad people and that there's nothing they can do about it.  Second, it teaches them that Adam and Eve were real, which obviously causes some problems when you get to pretty much any science course you can think of.

Here we see the beginning of core beliefs (for you cognitive psych people) that are going to be subconsciously triggering emotional reactions for the rest of these childrens' lives.  Even if they get away from religion, they're still going to have a horrible time getting away from the deeply instilled belief that they are evil.

Quote:
 We must also keep the application alive by constantly reinforcing this concept whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

 

Oh, did you think about something else for a second?  In that case...

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

 

 


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
That web page is

That web page is disturbing.

Although the parents are already with faith in their religion this whole learning/teaching plan seems a bit like 're-conditioning' for the parent too...

"When you visit the zoo, see a circus or watch a TV program with Elephants in it, this is another opportunity to talk about the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. As we see an Elephant, we can remember and again reinforce and apply these great Biblical Truths of Eternal Value and live them each day."

There is certainly no room for these parents to think for themselves when they are busy doing what they believe is the right thing for their kids.

repetition is good

repetition is good

repetition is good


 

 

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:The thing

Hambydammit wrote:

The thing is, this sets up two very horrible beliefs in children who are not old enough to know better.  First, it teaches them that they are bad people and that there's nothing they can do about it.  Second, it teaches them that Adam and Eve were real, which obviously causes some problems when you get to pretty much any science course you can think of.

This stuff honestly makes me cry. What's strange about doing this to kids is that you're not even letting them get old enough to understand the concept of sin before you tell them they're bad. How does any of that help? If I'm already bad, what's one more sin? In that context, God is like one of those parents who's never proud of you, no matter what you do.

In fact, the sickest thing about the Great Invisible Parent in the Sky is that it matches perfectly to those types of people who grew up with disapproving parents, so it preys on their parental insecurities. That shit works pretty well on adults, so it's fair to say that it has a terrible effect on kids.

HOWEVER

There are a LOT of Catholics that I've talked to (probably because a lame attempt was made early on to make me a Catholic) who found no problem rejecting the repeated doctrines because they make people sound crazy. I don't know if the current trend towards pop-song Jesus in North America is even more insidious, as it pretends to befriend children.

It's very much like advertising to children, which I think should be illegal. I mean specifically targeting children with bright colours and the faces of other happy children. You're attacking a mind that isn't prepared to defend itself, and that's sick.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I totally agree, it's a

I totally agree, it's a brainwashing and it's creepy! Obedience, what a mindfuck.
Actually, things like civil disobedience did something good for the people. If we agree to do something based on our understanding of a reason behind that, then it's a rational choice, not an obedience, and it's much better.

Quote:
What we teach our children stays with them all of their lives. The values and morals we teach by our words and by the example of our lives will help to establish the ethical behavior of our children as adults.
All right.
Quote:
That is why it is so important that children are well grounded in Biblical truth and know how to apply that truth to their daily life.
LOL.



 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The story of ' Adam and Eve'

The story of ' Adam and Eve' is a nonsensical.

todangst's essay on this is illustrious.

 


1. In order to knowingly do wrong, one must first know the difference between right and wrong.
2. The story tells us Adam and Eve are forbidden moral knowledge (to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), but yet they are held accountable for their “sin” of eating the fruit.
3. In order for the Christian moral system to be coherent: sin requires intent (how do Adam and Eve commit a sin if they do not know that it is a sin to not obey the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge?).
4. Is a dog morally responsible for shitting on the carpet? Is an infant morally responsible for taking another toddler’s toy?
5. "Original sin" amounts to being born ignorant of right and wrong.
6. It would seem then that Adam and Eve were punished for being ignorant.
7. If so, then the only two ways anyone can circumvent being sent to hell is if we are born with omniscience or “accept jesus as your personal savior” (and here’s the weird part, jesus is god. So why are the authors of the bible referring to god as jesus?)
8. In actuality, they were punished for disobeying (which makes god seem childish and insecure).


This story is the basis for original sin, and the reason jesus purposely let the Romans kill him (this in itself is inherently absurd because teaching {or creating man with moral knowledge} the human species what is right and wrong would have been the more moral method).

christianity is a failed concept, not that any religion is actually viable.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Dunno why, but this Eden

Dunno why, but this Eden story seems to me actually as a misunderstood allegory. You want a knowledge of good and evil and everlasting life? Well, this requires to leave a sweet paradise of ignorance, and to enter the wilderness, to hunt, kill, devour, to build countless cities and ruin them, to evolve and suffer doing so, for thousands and millions of years. That's all the trick, nothing comes easy. It scares me more what God would do, if the people would actually obey him and never touch the apple.
"Huh, what do I see? Again, a non-functional species, lacking a healthy curiosity and stimulus to evolve? I can't release them into the wilderness like that, they would starve to death there or fall prey to something. All right, let's cremate the specimens quickly and start working on some new prototypes. I have to get it right this time."

aiia wrote:
This story is the basis for original sin, and the reason jesus purposely let the Romans kill him (this in itself is inherently absurd because teaching {or creating man with moral knowledge} the human species what is right and wrong would have been the more moral method).
Maybe not people, but what God did was THE sin Smiling


aiia wrote:
christianity is a failed concept, not that any religion is actually viable. 

You've actually mistaken it with Churchianity. You know, the true Christians already gave all their possessions to the poor, except for one clothes and a pair of sandals.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:The story of '

aiia wrote:

The story of ' Adam and Eve' is a nonsensical.

todangst's essay on this is illustrious.

 


1. In order to knowingly do wrong, one must first know the difference between right and wrong.
2. The story tells us Adam and Eve are forbidden moral knowledge (to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil), but yet they are held accountable for their “sin” of eating the fruit.
3. In order for the Christian moral system to be coherent: sin requires intent (how do Adam and Eve commit a sin if they do not know that it is a sin to not obey the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge?).
4. Is a dog morally responsible for shitting on the carpet? Is an infant morally responsible for taking another toddler’s toy?
5. "Original sin" amounts to being born ignorant of right and wrong.
6. It would seem then that Adam and Eve were punished for being ignorant.
7. If so, then the only two ways anyone can circumvent being sent to hell is if we are born with omniscience or “accept jesus as your personal savior” (and here’s the weird part, jesus is god. So why are the authors of the bible referring to god as jesus?)
8. In actuality, they were punished for disobeying (which makes god seem childish and insecure).


This story is the basis for original sin, and the reason jesus purposely let the Romans kill him (this in itself is inherently absurd because teaching {or creating man with moral knowledge} the human species what is right and wrong would have been the more moral method).

christianity is a failed concept, not that any religion is actually viable.

 

 

Although I don't necessarily disagree with Todangst's conclusions above, I think he should have also considered the original Jewish understanding of the text. From what I've studied, it's more of a sin-punishment concept than the inherent evil of human beings. You can see that core theme played out throughout the rest of the OT.

Also, I'm would disagree that his proof above proves that Christianity is a failed concept. I think any proof that Christianity is a fail concept should be based specifically on Jesus, his life and the cross and not on Adam & Eve.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I agree that this type of

I agree that this type of teaching is very wrong and is a form of psychological abuse.  To say that it is abuse is to imply that it should not be allowed and that the community should step in and prevent such behavior from occurring any longer.  Banning teaching the bible obviously is not going to fly in this country at this point in time.  So how do you get people to realize the harm they are inflicting upon their children, especially when respected community leaders are saying how important it is to teach children the classical morals tales from the bible?  Have any of you had any success in getting anyone who was not already an atheist (or deist even) to realize just what is being taught to children with these tales?  What constructive action can we really take once we realize that these teachings are abuse?

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Do you think kids should be

Christos wrote:


I don't necessarily disagree with Todangst's conclusions above, I think he should have also considered the original Jewish understanding of the text. From what I've studied, it's more of a sin-punishment concept than the inherent evil of human beings. You can see that core theme played out throughout the rest of the OT.

Also, I'm would disagree that his proof above proves that Christianity is a failed concept. I think any proof that Christianity is a fail concept should be based specifically on Jesus, his life and the cross and not on Adam & Eve.

 

Do you think kids should be taught that they were born evil and the only salvation is to kiss the ass of an invisible ruler?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:I agree that

anniet wrote:

I agree that this type of teaching is very wrong and is a form of psychological abuse.  To say that it is abuse is to imply that it should not be allowed and that the community should step in and prevent such behavior from occurring any longer.  Banning teaching the bible obviously is not going to fly in this country at this point in time.  So how do you get people to realize the harm they are inflicting upon their children, especially when respected community leaders are saying how important it is to teach children the classical morals tales from the bible?  Have any of you had any success in getting anyone who was not already an atheist (or deist even) to realize just what is being taught to children with these tales?  What constructive action can we really take once we realize that these teachings are abuse?

 

I mean, these biblical stories are not all bad. For example, I don't see any problems with Christians teaching their children about the Sermon on the Mount, or the commitment of Jesus to the poor, or when Joseph forgave his betraying brothers in Genesis, or when Esau forgave backstabbing Jacob, or when Jesus commanded Peter to put away his sword after he was arrested. All these stories teach great messages for children.

As for disturbing stories in the Bible (Judges 11 really comes to mind), I'm not sure there is anything you can do to stop it. Most people won't listen, and it's not like you can constitutionally create laws against it.

So also aiia, I definitely don't approve of people teaching their children that.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote:I mean, these

Christos wrote:

I mean, these biblical stories are not all bad.

Yeah, neither are the Brothers Grimm or Mother Goose if you alter them thoroughly enough either.  Better to start with tales that don't need such altering and don't have such nasty legacies.  Besides, those singing vegetables in Veggie Tales are seriously creepy!  Smiling

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Dunno why, but

Luminon wrote:

Dunno why, but this Eden story seems to me actually as a misunderstood allegory. You want a knowledge of good and evil and everlasting life? Well, this requires to leave a sweet paradise of ignorance, and to enter the wilderness, to hunt, kill, devour, to build countless cities and ruin them, to evolve and suffer doing so, for thousands and millions of years. That's all the trick, nothing comes easy. It scares me more what God would do, if the people would actually obey him and never touch the apple.
"Huh, what do I see? Again, a non-functional species, lacking a healthy curiosity and stimulus to evolve? I can't release them into the wilderness like that, they would starve to death there or fall prey to something. All right, let's cremate the specimens quickly and start working on some new prototypes. I have to get it right this time."

Lol, the way you described that - if I had never read the story of Adam and Eve before, I might conclude that it was a sneaky satire about the paradox of faith, knowledge, and religion.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Not nitpicking.But...Isn't

Not nitpicking.

But...

Isn't this like 'armchair quarterbacking' for you???

The messages seem a little mixed. "Don't have kids. There's too many!" followed by: "Don't teach your kids this or that!"

 

I'm afraid that even though your point is correct (i.e. Brainwashing), you're still just a spectator in the sport.

Akin to priests giving sex advice? Maybe.

 

There was allegedly a man a long time ago who gave advice on interpersonal relationships. He also was allegedly betrayed by one of his best friends and crucified. lol.

See what I mean?

 

I'm growing increasingly more frustrated every time one of the childless and anti-childbearing atheists decides to weigh in on offspring issues.

At the present time, we MUST let them 'brainwash' their children. I WANT them to do so. The 20% that read it as thoroughly as the site suggests and decide it's bullshit will be tomorrow's atheists. Primarily since there is such a decline in birthrate among freethinkers.

I'm just sayin'.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Not

 

Quote:
Not nitpicking.

But...

Isn't this like 'armchair quarterbacking' for you???

The messages seem a little mixed. "Don't have kids. There's too many!" followed by: "Don't teach your kids this or that!"

 

I'm afraid that even though your point is correct (i.e. Brainwashing), you're still just a spectator in the sport.

Akin to priests giving sex advice? Maybe.

Are you talking to me?

You are aware, are you not, of just how irate I get when people try to pull the bullshit "You aren't a parent so you can't talk about parenting" argument, right?

Let's just pretend I had a huge temper tantrum, presented the argument that being a parent is not a prerequisite to understanding developmental psychology, and then we agreed to let this thing drop rather than turn it into an internet pissing match.

Damn, I hate that argument more than almost anything else.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Are you

Hambydammit wrote:

Are you talking to me?

You are aware, are you not, of just how irate I get when people try to pull the bullshit "You aren't a parent so you can't talk about parenting" argument, right?

Let's just pretend I had a huge temper tantrum, presented the argument that being a parent is not a prerequisite to understanding developmental psychology, and then we agreed to let this thing drop rather than turn it into an internet pissing match.

Damn, I hate that argument more than almost anything else.

 

Actually, it isn't so much that you understand developmental psychology. Rather it is the overwhelming feeling of self-righteousness that I, as a parent, feel when people try to tell others(or myself) how their children should be raised.

To me, it seems that the childless believe that parents aren't trying to do the best they are able in raising their children. Almost as if the childless EXPECT parents to TRY to fuck up their kids on purpose.

That's not the case. Even the theistic parents want what is perceived as best for their children.

 

 

I don't consider any discussion where my opinion differs from yours to be 'an internet pissing match'.

Nevertheless, I shall move along on my merry way carrying my dissent with me.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Having kids isn't a

Having kids isn't a prerequisite to having an idea of how to raise them. I don't have kids, but I've had a great deal of contact with them over the years. I was one of those few guys who spent a lot of time babysitting in my teenage years, and my exposure to children has only slightly lessened since. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of brainless twits out there with kids. I'm not going to ignore it just because I don't have any myself. If that argument had any reality to it, then we'd still be roaming the plains, since there was a time when all children were raised by the community as opposed to their biological family. Hell, most parents don't do much of anything for their kids these days. It's all done in school while the parents work their asses off just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Yep.No armchair quarterback

Yep.

No armchair quarterback ever lost a super bowl.

How many things have you watched being done and thought "I could do better" only to find out later that "Wow. That was harder than it looked." ???

And really... to flat out say something like:

Vastet wrote:
Hell, most parents don't do much of anything for their kids these days.

pretty much negates anything that parents CAN DO for/with their children because in the eyes of the spectators IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH!

Gee, Walter, if you'd have gotten that extra yard in '86 then the Bears could have repeated. Or darn it, Cal, you couldn't show up for one more game that year?

Having been a child and being around children also doesn't give any of the lot of you the slightest bit of sway in telling anyone what they are allegedly doing wrong.

I became an atheist at church camp. My grandmother wanted me to go to church camp because she thought it was the best thing for me to do. It turns out she was correct, but not in the way she had hoped.

SOOOOO, was sending me to church camp a form a child abuse?????

I drove nearly 400 miles one way so that my oldest daughter could get baptized in the church her mother and I were married at because that is what she wanted to do.

Was it child abuse for me to allow that or even encourage that????

No. It was allowing her to experience something that I had done before and came away as much a nonbeliever as before rather than a 'born-again'.

Did my taking her to get dunked scar her poor little psyche????

Tell me oh wise and mighty childless colleagues... What would YOU have done since the parents of these children obviously don't give a fuck about their development or are entirely too fucking stupid to know what would fuck them up for life and create Mansons, Bundys and Dahmers???

 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Yep.No armchair

Quote:

Yep.

No armchair quarterback ever lost a super bowl.

Gee, guess Charles Darwin and his 'armchair biology' or Einstein with his 'armchair physics' must've been really out to lunch then, hey? It's not like the former ever saw a cell, or the latter ever saw a photon.

Quote:
Having been a child and being around children also doesn't give any of the lot of you the slightest bit of sway in telling anyone what they are allegedly doing wrong.

I imagine it doesn't. Of course, the fact that your inherent bias as a parent makes the job of appealing to you through empirical findings you don't happen to like raher difficult doesn't actually undermine said empirical findings. Sticking out tongue

Quote:

I became an atheist at church camp. My grandmother wanted me to go to church camp because she thought it was the best thing for me to do. It turns out she was correct, but not in the way she had hoped.

SOOOOO, was sending me to church camp a form a child abuse?????

Yes, it was. Don't pretend that you aren't aware where anecdotal stories belong in the field of objective analysis.

The fact that you walked out of church camp an atheist does not somehow demonstrate that children are not, on average, much more inclined to favor irrational ideologies they are taught in their formative years.

Quote:
I drove nearly 400 miles one way so that my oldest daughter could get baptized in the church her mother and I were married at because that is what she wanted to do.

Was it child abuse for me to allow that or even encourage that????

No. It was allowing her to experience something that I had done before and came away as much a nonbeliever as before rather than a 'born-again.

Did my taking her to get dunked scar her poor little psyche????

Tell me oh wise and mighty childless colleagues... What would YOU have done since the parents of these children obviously don't give a fuck about their development or are entirely too fucking stupid to know what would fuck them up for life and create Mansons, Bundys and Dahmers???

I don't know why you're getting so defensive or why you would think resting your case on anecdotes and emotionally charged, finger-stabbing rhetorical questions would make it any stronger.

Do tell: When you drove your daughter to get dunked, did you offer prayers to her to reinforce those of the priest? You you spend the trip there telling her about the awesome radicalness of Jesus Christ, her new Lord and Savior? Do you read her some of the more pleasant parables out of the Bible? Do you have her watch Veggie Tales in the hotel room before tucking her in for bed?

There's a difference between going to have your daughter baptized to show her that it's a silly superstitious ritual and going to have your daughter baptized as an initiation ritual into a religious cult. While we're spewing anecdotes, I watched my step-nephew get baptized into a Pentacostal church just a few months ago, and if you don't call the ceremony involved in that 'brainwashing' I don't know what the fuck you would call it.

 

I don't believe anyone is calling you too moronically stupid or delusional to raise a child. The parents who sent their kids off to be looked after by that batty lady in Jesus Camp, the lady who artificially fertilized herself so she could have 8 or so kids, that douchebag who heads the Westboro Baptist Church... these people are too Goddamn looney-tunes to have a automatic right to have kids. They really are, and if you don't want to believe that, well there you go.

 

...And just FYI, there's no 'making' a sociopath. Sociopathy is a genetic trait; you could be the best parent in the world and still give birth to a sociopath.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Soooo, are you saying that

Soooo, are you saying that parents whom are trying to do what they believe is best for their children are actually committing child abuse?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Soooo, are you saying

Quote:
Soooo, are you saying that parents whom are trying to do what they believe is best for their children are actually committing child abuse?

I'd like to be more precise than that:

Brainwashing is child abuse, even if you think it is in the child's interest and/or are not consciously aware that you're doing it.

 

So, yes - more straightforwardly, parents who are trying to do what they believe is best for their children by brainwashing them are committing child abuse.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Do I detect a hidden all

 Do I detect a hidden all or nothing assumption?  Child abuse can only be intentional?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
No. In fact just the

No. In fact just the opposite. Highly subjective.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ok.  Maybe we're not

 Ok.  Maybe we're not talking about the same thing.  Would you define your version of child abuse precisely?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Soooo, are

darth_josh wrote:

Soooo, are you saying that parents whom are trying to do what they believe is best for their children are actually committing child abuse?

There have to be reasonable standards, though. If you believe that you can keep your child from being evil by beating them senseless on a daily basis, I don't think you'd have to have children to see that it's reasonable to want to stop that from happening.

On the other hand, while I know this annoys Hamby, your point is valid. Becoming a parent is a huge psychological change that I believe only parents can understand. And that's from someone who just has lots of friends who are parents. The change is obvious, and I can see how difficult it is.

That said, I don't think the reasonable standards (like above) need interfere with the more subtle actions that a parent can take. For instance, personally, my mother promised my grandmother that I'd be raised Catholic. She gave it her best go, and I learned all the Catholic ... things. It did me no harm, though, because the people I admired as a child didn't take any of the religious stuff seriously.

In your case, how could it be damaging to dunk your daughter (points for alliteration!) when it was something she wanted to try? If you've discussed how you feel about religion, what else can you do?

I don't think that's anywhere close to brainwashing, though. There are people who want to indoctrinate their children. Where one draws the line, however, becomes pretty difficult at that point, because it's really a parent's job to teach a child what they can to help them out. If the parent happens to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Dr. Phil is a qualified therapist, or that guns are a good thing to have in the house, then those parents are going to teach those things to their children.

If you want to also tell them that freedom of thought is important, then we have to let them.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Darth, I don't view Hamby's

Darth, I don't view Hamby's comments as armchair quarterbacking, but as offering a different perspective.  I don't agree with several things he's said about childrearing, but I don't mind thinking about them.  It sucks that parents have to have a thick skin, but we do.  We all get criticism, both from non-parents and other parents.  I have actually found other parents to generally be the worst in this regard.

There's no way to be a perfect parent and that hits those of us who are used to being good at most of what we do hard.  That does make it so much more annoying when non-parents tell us what we should be doing, but I do find the criticisms helpful as long as I don't take them too seriously.  Hamby means well, is right in much of what he has to say, and is just offering us food for thought. 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Yep.No

darth_josh wrote:

Yep.

No armchair quarterback ever lost a super bowl.

How many things have you watched being done and thought "I could do better" only to find out later that "Wow. That was harder than it looked." ???

Not even once. I have exceptionally sound knowledge of my capabilities. If I say I can do something better, I can. Though I don't often say such a thing.

darth_josh wrote:
And really... to flat out say something like:

Vastet wrote:
Hell, most parents don't do much of anything for their kids these days.

pretty much negates anything that parents CAN DO for/with their children because in the eyes of the spectators IT WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH!

You obviously misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't blaming parents in this context, I was sympathising with them.

darth_josh wrote:

Gee, Walter, if you'd have gotten that extra yard in '86 then the Bears could have repeated. Or darn it, Cal, you couldn't show up for one more game that year?

Having been a child and being around children also doesn't give any of the lot of you the slightest bit of sway in telling anyone what they are allegedly doing wrong.

You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. When babysitting someone for a week, you are the parent. Obviously you haven't much experience in babysitting, therefore by your own logic you cannot comment on my experience.

darth_josh wrote:
I became an atheist at church camp. My grandmother wanted me to go to church camp because she thought it was the best thing for me to do. It turns out she was correct, but not in the way she had hoped.

SOOOOO, was sending me to church camp a form a child abuse?????

Answering that question would require more knowledge than the simple phrase "church camp". I never went to one myself, but I've known a few people who did. Some of them found it abusive, some of them found it fun. It rather depends on the camp, and what their policies are.

darth_josh wrote:

I drove nearly 400 miles one way so that my oldest daughter could get baptized in the church her mother and I were married at because that is what she wanted to do.

Was it child abuse for me to allow that or even encourage that????

No. It was allowing her to experience something that I had done before and came away as much a nonbeliever as before rather than a 'born-again'.

Did my taking her to get dunked scar her poor little psyche????

How can it be abuse to do what the child wants? Hell, with baptism everything is different. Just because the church thinks it does something doesn't mean it does. I was baptized. I don't remember it. I don't care that it happened. It didn't mean or do anything. It couldn't have harmed me anymore than a bath could.

darth_josh wrote:
Tell me oh wise and mighty childless colleagues... What would YOU have done since the parents of these children obviously don't give a fuck about their development or are entirely too fucking stupid to know what would fuck them up for life and create Mansons, Bundys and Dahmers??

I could start a whole new topic with this paragraph, but I don't feel like it right now. I answered the base question above, and that will have to suffice.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:On the other hand,

 

Quote:
On the other hand, while I know this annoys Hamby, your point is valid. Becoming a parent is a huge psychological change that I believe only parents can understand. 

It will only annoy me if you fail to sufficiently answer this question:

What class of phenomena are perceptually altered by the phenomenon of being a parent such that the rules of "parental logic" are logically inscrutable to non-parents?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:On

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
On the other hand, while I know this annoys Hamby, your point is valid. Becoming a parent is a huge psychological change that I believe only parents can understand. 

It will only annoy me if you fail to sufficiently answer this question:

What class of phenomena are perceptually altered by the phenomenon of being a parent such that the rules of "parental logic" are logically inscrutable to non-parents?

There is a responsibility for the life of another that is with you 24/7 that I'm not sure someone who is not a parent can completely grasp.  It's not just a matter of realizing that you need to care for the child, but becomes a need to nurture and provide that is as strong as the sexual drive.  This only applies to parents who are willing to truly parent instead of just breed.  Do you ever feel this almost overwhelming responsibility for another person that never ends?   

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:There is a

 

Quote:
There is a responsibility for the life of another that is with you 24/7 that I'm not sure someone who is not a parent can completely grasp.

Be careful of your language.  I used the word "inscrutable" for a good reason.  I am completely capable of understanding both the emotion and the logic behind 24/7 responsibility.  Have I experienced the emotions firsthand?  No.  Do the emotions change the laws of logic?

For comparison, have you ever owned a restaurant?  I do, and until I did, I couldn't possibly have imagined the emotional energy necessary to be completely responsible not only for my own life savings, but for the livelihood of twenty-odd people who depend on me to keep my doors open through the worst recession in my lifetime.

Now, are you incapable of commenting on how to write schedules or enforce company policies simply because you've never owned a restaurant?  Of course not.  Should you defer to people who have when you don't understand something?  Sure.  That's basic epistemology.

Now, I'll rephrase the question I posed ever so slightly:  What class of phenomenon involved with parenting so alters a parent's perceptions of the universe that the parent becomes capable of performing logical tasks that are inscrutable to non-parents?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Hambydammit

anniet wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
On the other hand, while I know this annoys Hamby, your point is valid. Becoming a parent is a huge psychological change that I believe only parents can understand. 

It will only annoy me if you fail to sufficiently answer this question:

What class of phenomena are perceptually altered by the phenomenon of being a parent such that the rules of "parental logic" are logically inscrutable to non-parents?

There is a responsibility for the life of another that is with you 24/7 that I'm not sure someone who is not a parent can completely grasp.  It's not just a matter of realizing that you need to care for the child, but becomes a need to nurture and provide that is as strong as the sexual drive.  This only applies to parents who are willing to truly parent instead of just breed.  Do you ever feel this almost overwhelming responsibility for another person that never ends?   

Well for one thing, that responsibility does in fact end. It might not end as quickly as some, but it ends at 14 or 16 or 18 or 19 or 21 or whatever age happens to be the age of majority where you are. Sometimes it's even before that moment. At that time, you have NO responsibility for the child, unless you choose to accept extra responsibilities. At that point they are legally an adult, and the responsibility lies with them.

As for feeling it myself, I have always felt a responsibility for all children. If I see a child in trouble, I will help that child if I can. I never even thought about this character benefit within my psyche until somewhat recently. I don't have to be a parent to feel responsibility for a child. In fact, my feeling may be "superior"(if such a word can be applied here, it was the only one that came to mind to get the point across) to yours. I feel it for every child equally. You feel it for your own above and beyond others. Or at least, that's the impression I recieve from reading your post.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
There is a responsibility for the life of another that is with you 24/7 that I'm not sure someone who is not a parent can completely grasp.

Be careful of your language.  I used the word "inscrutable" for a good reason.  I am completely capable of understanding both the emotion and the logic behind 24/7 responsibility.  Have I experienced the emotions firsthand?  No.  Do the emotions change the laws of logic?

For comparison, have you ever owned a restaurant?  I do, and until I did, I couldn't possibly have imagined the emotional energy necessary to be completely responsible not only for my own life savings, but for the livelihood of twenty-odd people who depend on me to keep my doors open through the worst recession in my lifetime.

Now, are you incapable of commenting on how to write schedules or enforce company policies simply because you've never owned a restaurant?  Of course not.  Should you defer to people who have when you don't understand something?  Sure.  That's basic epistemology.

Now, I'll rephrase the question I posed ever so slightly:  What class of phenomenon involved with parenting so alters a parent's perceptions of the universe that the parent becomes capable of performing logical tasks that are inscrutable to non-parents?

Thank you for the warning.  Smiling  You're right about the restaurant and the same applies to child rearing.  While I might be able to analyze your schedules or someone with more people skills might be able to analyze how to enforce company policies, neither of us know your staff or clientele well enough to fully realize the impact of any changes we might propose.  That is where your experience becomes so valuable.  You have a different perspective due to your experience.  That doesn't mean you know everything and shouldn't listen to ideas from people who know nothing about running a restaurant, but it does give you a certain amount of practical experience when evaluating the theoretical. 

You have spent a great deal of effort in understanding human psychology.  You have an amount of theoretical knowledge in this particular area that cannot be dismissed, but you do lack practical experience in child rearing.  I'm not trying to discount what you do know with this statement, just pointing out that you haven't had a chance to actually run experiments based on what you have studied.  I wouldn't say that being a parent changes the logic behind good parenting so much as it gives you a different perspective that allows for a different set of ifs, ands, and buts and possible consequences to be seen easily as you are more familiar with at least one set of irrational human quirks - that of your own child(ren) .  This obviously does not apply to all parents.  I feel like I haven't fully answered your question, but am not sure what exactly I've missed.  Please do let me know what aspect I've overlooked.

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Now we're getting

 Now we're getting somewhere.  You're getting what I was trying to say.  In short, here's why the "You aren't a parent so you don't know" argument pisses me off.  It's not an argument, and it isn't justification for anything.  It's just an emotional outburst.

Let's take the restaurant business as an example. Suppose you were to suggest to me that instead of making salsa from scratch, I should contract with a wholesaler to make it for me, reducing labor and therefore reducing my tax load as well.  I could respond two ways:

1) You've never been a restaurant owner.  You can't talk about my business.  Don't tell me how to run my business!

2) Well, that would seem like a good idea up front, but typically, a restaurant doesn't have enough purchasing power to get a reasonable deal from a wholesaler until they are doing well over two million in sales, and I'm only doing about seven hundred and fifty thousand in sales.  The bottom line is that until my business grows more, it would not be to my benefit.

If I give you answer #2, you still wouldn't have the experience of owning a restaurant, but you wouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that your idea wasn't that great after all, and you'd know why.

With parenting, it's the same.  When those of us who are childless suggest something that parents believe is unworkable, either there's a good reason -- which can be explained logically -- or there isn't.  If there is, then explain it to me, and I can learn something, or perhaps I can argue with you to show you that your explanation isn't valid after all.  If there isn't, then don't play the "I'm a parent" card.

You know, I'm sure, that the act of childbirth releases a ton of various bond-inducing chemicals, perhaps most notably oxytocin.  It's extremely well documented that the effect of these chemicals is to create a deep and long lasting EMOTIONAL bond between mother and child.  And since you've read all my stuff on evo psych, you know that emotions are nature's way of getting us to do things that we wouldn't do logically.  They are literally logic-evaders.

With that in mind, think back to all the parents in your life you've seen give the "DON'T TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY CHILD!!!" emotional  outburst.  Now, think about how many of them were doing things that all their friends thought were pretty ill-advised, and think about the times you've cringed at someone's parenting practices.  Our evolution is designed to make us extremely protective of our children, to the point of irrationality.  It seems contradictory in today's society, but remember, we have only lived in this kind of society for a few thousand years.  For the previous 99% of our history, the only real question was whether or not to doggedly and loyally protect your children against all threats.  We hadn't invented all the other shit we have today to make irrational decisions about.

Essentially, there are only two ways the "Don't tell me how to parent" argument can be interpreted logically:

1) I'm very emotional about this and feel threatened by you.

2) I have a good reason for disagreeing with you, and I can explain it to you logically.

If it's one... well, with all due respect, I invite you to sit and spin.  If it's two, let's skip the theatrics and talk about empirical data.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

 

Oh, did you think about something else for a second?  In that case...

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING! 

Must... resist... darkside...

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Essentially, there are only two ways the "Don't tell me how to parent" argument can be interpreted logically:

1) I'm very emotional about this and feel threatened by you.

2) I have a good reason for disagreeing with you, and I can explain it to you logically.

If it's one... well, with all due respect, I invite you to sit and spin.  If it's two, let's skip the theatrics and talk about empirical data.

 

I think we pretty much agree on this one too.  People who don't have kids can certainly contribute to the discussion regarding child rearing.  Unfortunately, it's often idiots who don't have a clue that open their mouths and then prejudice parents against taking advice from non-parents.  Non-parents have to overcome this hurdle by showing that they do truly have something to contribute to whatever discussion.  You've done this to my personal satisfaction, but obviously not everyone agrees with me. 

I would just like to note in passing that for #1 there can often be an element of "I'm tired.  I'm human.  I'm aware of my shortcomings regarding being a parent and am working on all that.  I've had enough and you need to back off."  I'm sure you can understand and sympathize with this.  I would imagine it's near impossible to perfectly run a restaurant (especially in this economic climate) and sometimes you need to just get through something related to the business without a whole lot of flak from lets' say your best employees who do know enough to contribute to your decision making process.  The decision(s) you make maybe could be enhanced by what they have to say, but will still be ok without their input.  And in child rearing EVERYBODY and their grandma have opinions.  It's not exactly fair to you, but this constant receiving unwanted and often times idiotic advice is what you personally are up against when talking about raising kids.  It's a good thing you seem to have a thick skin!  Which means #2 has to be very strong.

In terms of #2, we touched on the idea of the use of the subconscious on a thread several weeks ago.  I'm wondering how much you have studied the ideas revolving around intuition and if you have any good book recommendations here.  Sometimes when trying to figure out what to do for my kid I don't know why a certain approach is correct, but I know it is.  Now, since hanging around here, I have become very much aware of the idea of positive confirmation of results wherein people remember what did work well and forget about what didn't and am incorporating that into my analysis.  However, it still seems that more often than not these situations when I am sure about what to do but cannot logically explain fully why I know this to be the correct approach do turn out more positively than negatively.  And in such cases I would not be able to provide you with a fully logical explanation as to why this approach X to parenting is better than approach Y until well after the situation has passed I can better see how everything played out.  I can understand your not wanting to give someone a free pass if they cannot logically explain why they see a certain approach as beneficial as that can (and often does) have very nasty consequences, but sometimes that is the best answer a person can give at the moment. 

I do look forward to seeing what you'll have to say regarding the above paragraph.  I have no doubt it will be thought provoking.  Smiling 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The decision(s) you

 

Quote:
The decision(s) you make maybe could be enhanced by what they have to say, but will still be ok without their input.

There's an unfortunate difference between restaurants and children.  If you are a terrible restaurant owner, your restaurant typically closes.  If you're a terrible parent, your child typically continues living after you're dead.  Clearly, it's a bigger moral issue to be sure you're getting the parenting right as opposed to just getting it done.

Quote:
I'm wondering how much you have studied the ideas revolving around intuition and if you have any good book recommendations here.  

I've only really done detailed study on the evolution of intuition and how it's essentially a natural extension of Game Theory in human nature.  That is, it's not designed to get the best answer.  It's designed to generally get an answer that works ok.  As far as a book specifically about examining intuition as part of your everyday life, I can't say I can recommend any books, as the ones I've read weren't that scientific, and read more like self-help books.

There is an interesting read called "The Gift of Fear" which talks about our intuitions and violence, but obviously that's only peripherally related, and it's not strictly scientific.  It is, however, written by a former FBI profiler, if memory serves me right.

Anyway, as to why intuition normally works relatively well, it's a combination of a few things:

1) Our gut is in tune with our instinct, which has worked well enough that we come from a line of 100% successful reproducers billions of years long.

2) Our intuition incorporates ingrained experience as well.  Whether you're consciously aware of it or not, when you intuitively say something to your child, you're processing the fact that your mother said something similar to you, and it worked on you.  In other words, rather than consciously go over every bit of data in your brain, you go through what amounts to a quick-scan that is the result of hundreds of thousands of bits of data that have been cumulatively added to your knowledge base.

3) Here's where it gets potentially nasty.  When we say our intuition worked, we are normally talking about short term goals.  For instance, you use a particular technique to get your kid to do his homework before dinner, and he does his homework before dinner.  Bear in mind that there are probably thousands of ways to get a kid to do homework before dinner, and each of them has different short term and long term consequences.  For instance, one way might get him to do the homework, but he will be so angry about the method that he will intentionally produce shoddy work, out of spite towards you.  Another way might get him to do it, but resentment will build up over time, and he will eventually learn to hate that subject.  This might be fine if it's World History, and he turns out to be a famous mathematician, but you get the point.  I can't think of the number of adults I've met who, upon learning that I used to teach piano, would exclaim that they wish they'd continued in lessons, but their parents' method of making them practice so turned them off that they gave it up at their first opportunity, and now they wish they hadn't done so.  So, their parents wanted them to practice, and they did, but they gave up piano as a result.

So, while intuition is usually good for short term solutions, it's not so fantastic at predicting long term success.  The best thing we can do is make a genuine and honest study of what cognitive psychology has to tell us, and do our best to incorporate science into our intuition.  None of us can be certain of predicting the future acurately, and it's a crapshoot one way or another.

I know it seems that I'm particularly harsh on certain practices or beliefs in parenting, and if so, it's because I have enough knowledge of the consequences that I can say that on balance, it's going to end poorly in the long run.  I certainly don't fault parents who are doing the best they can in the 24 hours they have each day.  What I fault in parenting is the same thing I fault in everything else -- going at something as if you are an authority when you are not.  

To go back to the restaurant analogy, if you get a thousand restaurant and hotel management masters students in a room and get them to draw out successful business models, you'll get pretty consistent agreement on a lot of fundamentals, and more disagreement about particulars.  A new business owner would be stupid to ignore the fundamentals, but could be accorded some slack if he wanted to try something different if it was superficially so.  Children are humans, and as such, they behave very predictably with regard to the fundamentals of human nature.  Unfortunately, many parents don't even get that straight because they have no idea what human nature is.  Those are the people I'm most upset with, and the ones I don't take any shit from when they tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Sorry. Full-time job (most

Sorry. Full-time job (most days). Full-time parent (damn cellphones to hell[wherever that is]). Eye-wink

 

1.) I have never ran a restaurant and couldn't tell you how to plan a menu. I can be a good customer or a bad customer depending upon my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE visiting your restaurant.

That's the key.

If you're around my children and they are assholes then absolutely you could say something and be justified.

However, my spouse is given free rein to take the kids to church if they want to go. She could force them and I would still allow it because it has not been proven to do harm. Many of us are living proof. (Sure. Some of us run around with a little grudge for missing out on Sunday morning fishing trips. lol.)

It is the same in the instance cited to begin this thread. These people are doing the only thing they think will make their children into 'fine, upstanding citizens'.

WE haven't met their children or the parents. WE don't have enough data to form an objective analysis of success or failure because the kids that may be affected by this particular type of indoctrination are still in development.

We have nothing more than anecdotal evidence in any of the cases. Yet you want religious parents to prove it's NOT child abuse to enforce biblical/ideological tutoring upon their offspring???

Prove it NOT? Few people can respond to that question with regard to ANYTHING.

We can't PROVE that religious indoctrination at an early age is child abuse because there are a serious number of us that have had that sort of upbringing yet are religion-free.

 

I'm not trying to be snide here, but it may come off that way:

It's like you're looking for an objective criteria for something that, in my opinion, can only be a subjective matter and outside of your perception.

I'm not saying that you COULDN'T be a good parent or give some good advice to parents just because you don't have children. I am saying that you are unable/unwilling to apply it yourself and thus coming off as an armchair parent instead of a coach or coordinator on the field.

You're putting forward hypotheses but not including the testable criteria and ignoring/missing some data.

 

 

 

Vastet,

Yes. I have babysat before I became a parent. A lot. Nine female cousins, six older than me. All but one very fertile. Nothing kills a tryst with a MILF like explaining why you have a carseat in the living room if you don't have kids. lol.

Not one moment of that experience helped me when it became my own children I was watching. Sorry.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Vastet,Yes.

darth_josh wrote:

Vastet,

Yes. I have babysat before I became a parent. A lot. Nine female cousins, six older than me. All but one very fertile. Nothing kills a tryst with a MILF like explaining why you have a carseat in the living room if you don't have kids. lol.

Not one moment of that experience helped me when it became my own children I was watching. Sorry.

 

I can't believe that. I easily acknowledge that every child is different, and therefore some experiences will necessarily also be different with every child(even a parent cannot be prepared for every child they have, because of this reality), but caring for a child cannot help but prepare one for caring for a child.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Josh, with all due respect,

Josh, with all due respect, I'm not even going to respond because I've already responded to everything you've said in this post.  If you don't see that, then... well, I've addressed that, too.  I'll leave it to the reader to judge.  Like I said before, I really just don't have the patience to have this discussion with someone who sincerely holds to your position.  It's like arguing with a theist.  You don't see that, and you believe I don't see your point of view.  We're just going to have to part company on this.

In all seriousness, I still think you're way cool, though.  No bullshit, no sarcasm.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Whoa!Who is asking whom to

Whoa!

Who is asking whom to prove something 'NOT'?

Yeah.

Probably best to break it off. You know, I'm just one of those stupid breeders that wants other parents to raise their own children so that I can help 'fix' them when they're grown.

 

You cited the website as being offensive because it is allegedly child abuse.

There are way more offensive sites on the net directed at people with children. Am I, as a proud planned parent, supposed to just skulk away when something at the foundation of parental rights gets blasted???

 

Whatever.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I didn't ask you to skulk

I didn't ask you to skulk away.  Be confident in your victory if you like.  Call it a draw.  Call it an empty pissing match.   I don't care to have this discussion with you.   It's just going to end with us not agreeing.  I'm ok with that.  I'm asking you to be ok with it and leave it so we don't spend days bitching at each other about something we're never going to agree on.

In fact, I withdraw my demand for a definition from the other thread.  The reality is that this is one area where we don't and won't see eye to eye, and I'm ok leaving it at that and not crossing swords.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
OK.Just a link drop

OK.

Just a link drop then.

Link for Hamby

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Quote:On

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
On the other hand, while I know this annoys Hamby, your point is valid. Becoming a parent is a huge psychological change that I believe only parents can understand. 

It will only annoy me if you fail to sufficiently answer this question:

What class of phenomena are perceptually altered by the phenomenon of being a parent such that the rules of "parental logic" are logically inscrutable to non-parents?

Oh no, I'm not going that far. I'm saying that there's a huge emotional change that happens to parents, not that the rules of logic no longer apply. I was validating an emotional response from Josh, but you shouldn't interpret that as an attempt to change the rules of argument.

But it's easy to see how even the difficulties faced on a job could only be appreciated by someone who's actually done that job. I'm not saying that just because someone has been a parent, it necessarily makes them a better judge of how children should be parented. That may seem contradictory to my own point, but couples often go to a third party to ask about relationship or parenting issues, and that third party could be a childless doctor who could give them valuable information on parenting that they otherwise wouldn't have.

That appreciation of the job isn't an argument, though. I don't think there's a precise way to express how shitty or excellent parents have been. I've known a bunch of people with varying degrees of both. It doesn't take a parent to see that someone abusing their kids physically isn't doing a terrific job, but once it gets more subtle, I'd say you would have to make a stronger case, taking into fair consideration the people who have done the work of parenting already.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The greatest proof that

The greatest proof that being a parent does nothing special for someone is in all the abusers among parents. If being a parent did anything real, then why is it that most child abusers and neglectors I've heard of over 20 odd years in North America are parents? The only group that compares is the priesthood. And they don't come close.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh look, some statistics to

Oh look, some statistics to back that up.

According to the (American) National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, in 1997 neglect represented 54% of confirmed cases of child abuse

Neglect can only be the fault of the parent. Most sexual abuse is familial. As is physical abuse. So much for the myth of the parent being designed in some way to be a parent.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If being a

Vastet wrote:

If being a parent did anything real, then why is it that most child abusers and neglectors I've heard of over 20 odd years in North America are parents? 

To be fair, a parent has roughly 100% more opportunity to abuse a child than a childless person. I don't know if you can cite that as an argument. The exceptions are teachers, scout leaders, etc., who would have access to children, but I don't know how you'd compare those statistics reasonably.

[edit for clarity]

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Oh look, some

Vastet wrote:

Oh look, some statistics to back that up.

According to the (American) National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, in 1997 neglect represented 54% of confirmed cases of child abuse

Neglect can only be the fault of the parent.

Agreed.

 

Quote:
Most sexual abuse is familial.

By 'familial' it doesn't mean parents.

What are the statistics on babysitters?

 

Quote:
As is physical abuse. So much for the myth of the parent being designed in some way to be a parent.

Agreed. Parenting is a work in progress. Punishing the parents AFTER they have abused or neglected the child is the way the system works.

Preventing the parents from teaching their children their ideology and values is unacceptable in an allegedly free society.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Vastet

HisWillness wrote:

Vastet wrote:

If being a parent did anything real, then why is it that most child abusers and neglectors I've heard of over 20 odd years in North America are parents? 

To be fair, a parent has roughly 100% more opportunity to abuse a child than a childless person. I don't know if you can cite that as an argument. The exceptions are teachers, scout leaders, etc., who would have access to children, but I don't know how you'd compare those statistics reasonably.

[edit for clarity]

I don't know about that. There's 4 schools and a bunch of playgrounds within walking distance of my house. Probably a couple of pools too. And a rink. Information about camps and such is easy to get a hold of. If I wanted to smack a kid around or sexually abuse one it would be pretty easy to get access to one. This is the case everywhere, though admittedly some places have some pretty advanced security, it is not by any stretch all encompassing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Vastet

darth_josh wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Most sexual abuse is familial.

By 'familial' it doesn't mean parents.

True, but it often does.

darth_josh wrote:

What are the statistics on babysitters?

No idea. Your turn to dig up a link. Sticking out tongue

darth_josh wrote:
Quote:
As is physical abuse. So much for the myth of the parent being designed in some way to be a parent.

Agreed. Parenting is a work in progress. Punishing the parents AFTER they have abused or neglected the child is the way the system works.

Preventing the parents from teaching their children their ideology and values is unacceptable in an allegedly free society.

An acceptable alternative is to make sure that parents don't have a monopoly on a childs education. Parents should not have the right to bring up a child on lies; crippling their ability to have a healthy and happy life, anymore than they should be able to beat their kids; having a similar effect.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliate
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Child abuse in action...?

Fun with toddlers:

 

CLICK HERE

and if another mod can embed the vid, please do so, I just can't get it to work. {MOD EDIT: Embedded video.  ~HD}

 

I should add my thoughts not just a video:

The above video is an example of one of many ways a parent can 'abuse' a child. What they are doing to the kid speaks to a child being treated like a 'play-thing'...disgusting.

A parent should expose their children to all beliefs and thoughts regarding a god. The parents would need to be willing but since their parents and their parents parents were merely parroting what they were told while growing up...seems like this would be wishful thinking on my part.

So how does one stop the cycle of indoctrination? I am hard pressed to call it 'abuse' (just see the video above)

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
OK.You guys win.I really

OK.

You guys win.

I really thought I had seen it all.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


fgneibarger
fgneibarger's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2009-02-17
User is offlineOffline
  READ THIS WEBPAGE

 

 READ THIS WEBPAGE FIRST

Ok.  Now, here are the things that disturb me the most:

Child Abusers wrote:
To see this truth live in our children we must teach by both word and example. We need to remind them of Adam and Eve and what happened to them and to us as a result of their sin, and what happens in our own life when we sin. To see a true change in our children's actions we must make the story real.

 

This, while stupid and rather disturbing, didn't bother me quite as much as this:

Quote:
 We must also keep the application alive by constantly reinforcing this concept whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.

Holy shit. This is just plain wrong. But then, christians tyr to behave like we're in the wrong and that we're trying to fool everyone into our beliefs. Hypocrisy.


Quote:
BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING!

BRAINWASHING! 

BRAINWASHING!

I don't have the time to cater to your religious beliefs. Its much less time consuming to simply mock them, and, on occasion, give a reasonable explanation as to why I do so. But that's if I'm in a good mood.