Obama Presidency

^ call us pansy asses consistent at least... what is more cruel and unusual... swift death from above.. or getting your fingernails torn off ....having to eat Micky D's and listen to top 40 at loud volumes 24/7.  (yes.. I've been through the CIA course on interrogation techniques when I was in the service ) 

Edited by micky - February 21 2009 at 09:30

oh no John... whatever a 'typical liberal' is... Obama isn't it. Much like Bill Clinton.. and that has to scare the hell out of the GOP.  A moderate Democrat..a successful one... is a nightmare to them. That is why they threw the kitchen sink at Bill to try to take him down.  Whoever wins the middle...dominates American politics. Obama is if anything.. one very very smart man. If Micky sitting here knows that... you can bet he does.  

TGM: Orb wrote: A) It's no more brainwashing than trying to instil any sort of moral, patriotic or societal ideas.

No I guess not. But the problem is not that it's brainwashing, but the consequences and nature of the brainwashing. No one ever thinks that if they're not Republican, they'll go to Hell (unless it's tied to kooky religious ideas). Consequently, one is not going to fret nearly as much over being Democrat, unlike a child brought up with a strict fear of Hell and other ways of living. A child is not a very rational creature, in any sense not rational enough to make decisions for itself. Therefore I would argue instill only those values which have to consequences or fear attached to them ("I'm gonna make you love prog, kid!") or only instill respect for the law and basic social codes, as they're necessary to guide kids until they reach rationality. Religious imposition is clearly not one of the above.

Now then, there is indeed the real physical abuse of children in circumcision brought on by certain religious impositions of parents, too.../

TGM: Orb wrote: B) Just because someone's been brought up in a religion doesn't somehow remove their ability to choose whether they follow it in later life.

So that makes the mental anguish and fear they endured until that age: a) not abuse and b) acceptable?

TGM: Orb wrote: C) Religion's not all about the negative aspects (e.g. fear), as a few atheists would like to believe.

Of course not, but the best way to ensure their child goes to Heaven by following the religion is to instill fear of Hell, and without giving them reason to doubt this and consider alternatives, it is abuse.

TGM: Orb wrote: D) It's really not equatable to child abuse. That's just silly.

Insofar as a child can be abused mentally, I see no reason why instilling visions of hellfire after he dies if he doesn't obey the (unexplained, with children) commands he's given does not constitute mental abuse.

TGM: Orb wrote: E) Well, by and large, their religion's telling them to actually spread the word (not to force... well, in Christianity at least, I can't say as certainly for other religions). They can't, morally, ignore their children's perceived spiritual well-being to conform to an idea they don't agree with (presumably, that someone should be left with as little religious influence as possible).

Well that's just too bad for them. Tell me, if you can't even do anything you want to your dog, how can that possibly apply to children? They are not property to be used and abused as one likes. If one just happens to follow a religious belief that demands abusing mentally someone who cannot help but be abused, then you do not have a right to practice that religion. If it goes against one's belief, all the worse for that belief. (Maybe they should recognize that any just God would not want its followers brainwashed into "loving" and "following" it).

Pnoom! wrote: Children most definitely are property, they just have different restrictions that apply to them and not to, say, a stick.  That's a discussion for the philosophy thread, though. In other news: Loooooooooooooooooooooool

I'm looking forward to the Palin Keyes Republican presidential ticket.

(Psst stonebeard and TGM: Orb, you guys want to take it outside? we're trying to talk about Obama here. )


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 21 2009 at 15:50

OK, I gotta know what Ian thinks about this:

Predator Drones Now Patrolling Canadian Border. Say what?



Edited by Slartibartfast - February 21 2009 at 16:26

stonebeard wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: A) It's no more brainwashing than trying to instil any sort of moral, patriotic or societal ideas. No I guess not. But the problem is not that it's brainwashing, but the consequences and nature of the brainwashing. No one ever thinks that if they're not Republican, they'll go to Hell (unless it's tied to kooky religious ideas). Consequently, one is not going to fret nearly as much over being Democrat, unlike a child brought up with a strict fear of Hell and other ways of living. A child is not a very rational creature, in any sense not rational enough to make decisions for itself. Therefore I would argue instill only those values which have to consequences or fear attached to them ("I'm gonna make you love prog, kid!") or only instill respect for the law and basic social codes, as they're necessary to guide kids until they reach rationality. Religious imposition is clearly not one of the above. Assuming a parent believes in hell as strongly as they believe in paedophiles, is instilling a fear of or precaution against hell morally any different from instilling a fear of or precaution against paedophiles? As I said, that child can still make a decision when they are rationally capable of it. When would you say a kid reaches rationality? Does anyone reach complete rationality? Now then, there is indeed the real physical abuse of children in circumcision brought on by certain religious impositions of parents, too.../ Fair enough. That's a much more complex can of worms, and not something I completely agree with. TGM: Orb wrote: B) Just because someone's been brought up in a religion doesn't somehow remove their ability to choose whether they follow it in later life. So that makes the mental anguish and fear they endured until that age: a) not abuse and b) acceptable? I'm not convinced that (mental) anguish and fear are always entirely negative things. I'm not convinced that the negatives of mental anguish and fear outweigh the importance of learning and being able to develop your own worldview based on knowing things. Instilling religion isn't simply about mental anguish and fear. TGM: Orb wrote: C) Religion's not all about the negative aspects (e.g. fear), as a few atheists would like to believe. Of course not, but the best way to ensure their child goes to Heaven by following the religion is to instill fear of Hell, and without giving them reason to doubt this and consider alternatives, it is abuse. I would say the best way to ensure their child goes to heaven is to instill the appreciation of heaven. I think just about every Christian I know, and that's a fair few, would agree with me on that. I get a kick out of going to church when I do. The youngins I know who go to church, by and large, enjoy it. All those I know who've been brought up as and have stayed as Christians have said it's impacted positively on their lives. Those who haven't have got past it without a lot of 'extra' mental suffering, I suspect. TGM: Orb wrote: D) It's really not equatable to child abuse. That's just silly. Insofar as a child can be abused mentally, I see no reason why instilling visions of hellfire after he dies if he doesn't obey the (unexplained, with children) commands he's given does not constitute mental abuse. As I said, I expect (and hope) that religious people don't just overemphasise the hellfire aspect of it. But, regardless, it's giving that child 'knowledge' so that when he reaches a level of rationality, he has the opportunity to draw on that knowledge to make his rational decision. Admittedly, he won't understand or be able to effectively interpret this knowledge at the time he receives it, but unless you can pinpoint some exact time when a child becomes rational after which it is appropriate to give them that 'knowledge', I think it's more important that they have that knowledge so that when they reach an appropriate level of 'rationality' they can interpret and make decisions based on it. TGM: Orb wrote: E) Well, by and large, their religion's telling them to actually spread the word (not to force... well, in Christianity at least, I can't say as certainly for other religions). They can't, morally, ignore their children's perceived spiritual well-being to conform to an idea they don't agree with (presumably, that someone should be left with as little religious influence as possible). Well that's just too bad for them. Tell me, if you can't even do anything you want to your dog, how can that possibly apply to children? They are not property to be used and abused as one likes. If one just happens to follow a religious belief that demands abusing mentally someone who cannot help but be abused, then you do not have a right to practice that religion. If it goes against one's belief, all the worse for that belief. (Maybe they should recognize that any just God would not want its followers brainwashed into "loving" and "following" it). It's not a case of doing anything you want, it's a case of their moral and religious views and view of the purpose of parenting conflicting with yours. The aim of parenting shouldn't necessarily be to produce as blank a canvas as possible so said canvas can make the 'most independent' choice they can when they get to the completely uncertain stage of 'rationality'. The parent has the duty to, to an extent, act as a guide. If they are religious, then their perception of this duty will include explaining some religious precepts.

Basically,

it's not all about hellfire. This needs to be kept in mind. Much as I see these youtube videos of the archetypal 'bible-belt' Christians all the time, they don't correspond in attitude to the religious people I personally know.
I'm not sure that (incidentally, rather than intentionally) giving children the capacity to fear something is equivalent to mental abuse. Now, if it's done to intentionally create fear, which, I think is what you've been getting at, I can understand where you're coming from.
I don't think there's any exact level where we can definitively say someone is sufficiently rational to deal with a certain piece of information. Consequently, I don't think it's unreasonable to supply that information to someone who can't yet rationally deal with it.
I'm not convinced that the role of a parent is just to create as blank a personality as possible so it can make an entirely 'unbiased' choice when it becomes 'rationally' capable of doing so.
Lastly, that child should get other perspectives from elsewhere

Edit: sorry for referencing Christianity as much. Thought it was better to stick with what I know than make blanket assumptions about religious thought in general.

Anyway, wrong thread My bad. I'll try to contribute something constructive to make up for it.


Edited by TGM: Orb - February 21 2009 at 16:15

Pnoom! wrote: Children most definitely are property, they just have different restrictions that apply to them and not to, say, a stick.  That's a discussion for the philosophy thread, though. In other news: Loooooooooooooooooooooool

I have to admit, I'm usually surprised by how left some Americans seem to think Obama is. He's probably still right of both British parties (yeah, I've no idea where the Lib Dems are).

crimhead wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: OK, I gotta know what Ian thinks about this: Predator Drones Now Patrolling Canadian Border. Say what? Unmanned drone prowls over the lonely prairie As the Predator patrols near Manitoba, U.S. politicians say it's a needed security measure. But Canadian experts say it's a PR exercise Are we bugging you?  We're not touching you. I never realized that America had such a problem with illegal Canadian immigrants. They can't be coming to America for healthcare and drugs? Can they?

Edited by Dean - February 21 2009 at 16:39

James wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Children most definitely are property, they just have different restrictions that apply to them and not to, say, a stick.  That's a discussion for the philosophy thread, though. In other news: Loooooooooooooooooooooool I have to admit, I'm usually surprised by how left some Americans seem to think Obama is. He's probably still right of both British parties (yeah, I've no idea where the Lib Dems are). No way is he more right-wing than the Tories.

He certainly is now. The Tories have gone soft and mushy and moved to the centre under Cameron. I mean, you can barely tell the difference between the two parties on policy now.