|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 17, 2009 04:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But, Death, do you really think kids know enough to be able to choose for themselves?
You give them options, tell everything what it's about, and they choose based on what they want. (obviously middle school onward, the 'basics' are important like I outlined WHY, from primary school)
There isn't much to think about it, it boils down to what you like.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 05:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
For instance in the scenario you posted, parent doesn't presents choices to his kid.
How are they not choices?
-Study and do your homework or else you fail math class!
-Take out the garbage or else the house will stink!
-Use deoderant or else you will stink!
-Don't hit your sister or else you will be spanked! (I know some Europens erroneously think spanking is child abuse though.)
Now, children have to be guided and some things are not negotiable.
"Johnny, eat your vegetabeles."
"No, Daddy, **** you, I don't like ******* vegetables, I'm just going to eat chocolate ice cream. It is MY choice. Don't try to brainwash me, you *******."
Then when Johnny gets older.
"Johnny, be home by 10."
"***** you, you old *******! IT IS MY CHOICE on when to come home. Don't try to brainwash me into what you want me to do. And don't bother telling me not to drink, I'm coming home drunk IF I come home."
No, children don't always get a choice.
It is ludicrous to say that teaching a child that obedience to God is necessary for salvation is brainwashing. That is something a child needs to know. Now, it may be your opinion that obedience to God is not necessary for salvation. Fine, teach that to your children.
But how could you say that a parent teaching his child that obedience to God is necessary for salvatino (which is what the Bible teaches) is brainwashing but you teaching your child that obedience to God is not necessary for salvation is not brainwashing?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 06:45 AM |
|
|
But Elodin, you skip a very important step in your argumentation, which makes it unrelated to what I think TD is saying.
Doing all your examples you use "do this", and then the other party claims the "choice" and does something else.
What I think is lacking is the whole argumentation of why it should be done in the first place, and the sole reason that people, not depending on age, but depending on ability to understand and knowing what one wants, can make these choices in the first place.
So it'd more go like this, if you ask me:
1 "If you eat these vegatibles, you'll most likely keep healthy"
2 "I don't like vegatibles, I like ice cream, also I don't believe you"
1 "*Presents whatever made person 1 believe in the previous statement*, it's your choice, now you know why I believe so, and you know I want was is best for you."
2 "(Is now probably convinced (same environment often means similar thought pattern, especially when we're talking about close family members)) okay, it's my choice, well I don't care for my health, I want to live in the moment, and I don't care about you"
1 "Okay, I understand, that's your choice".
If this style continues, most likely person 2 will regret, but it's up to person 2 to choose, and what I presented there is just one possible scenario, and it's much much more likely that person 2 would actually care about that person 1 would want person 2 to have a good healthy live (eventhough person 2 doesn't), in which way the end of scenario 2 would actually be eating those vegatibles.
Also, it's important to consider, that eventhough the current moment is all we can be certant that we've, it's very likely we'll have many more in the future as well, therefore, it's likewise unlikely that the same scenario will happen each and every time, and one should be prepared to give in, no matter how hard it may be.
On the other hand, it's also important to be able to see over the free will contra lust battle, if the child actually is convinced, like in the example above, but the lust is to strong, and wants to follow the emotions, in stead of the will, then you might want to claim that your child is being "controlled" by the body (like we all can experience).
In these cases, what's also very important is that the other person is already aware of such a relationship of thought, and if agrees, and also agrees on wanting help beating this, you can effectively do so, by preventing, let's say for the example, any ice creams being in the house, and, much like a person who's suicidal, but actually don't want to do it (but for the given moment easy looses the battle of free will vs. lust), you can claim, given the person earlier agreed on it, that it might be okay, to force this person to not be able to do so.
It's a hard topic, because essentially, we'd always have the choice, it's however also our responsibility to make the informed choice, knowing this though requires information from the start of why and how, but it's our consciousness that's this right to choose, because it's our life, and it's through the free will this acts, if we can't control our emotions, our right of choice likewise, gets weakened, because others can't know if they're having to do with someone asking for something they don't really want.
Ideally, we'd have the free will to do what we want, and the freedom to achieve it, getting this free will is certainly possible, but it can often require helps from others, getting this freedom requires we can all agree on it in the first place, i.e. requires the help of everyone.
Also, Elodin, the same way goes with wether a parent should teach religion to their children or not.
Whatever convinced them, that it's the right thing, is what should be presented to the child (or other person for that matter), and then the child could take a stance towards that argumentation, if agreeing, then the child will likely choose to follow, if disagreeing then the child won't, however as time goes, the child will probably be exposed to more information as well, and might change ones ways, again what is important is the ability to choose, but it must be presented against the argumentations of why.
So if the only why is that if you don't do it, you won't come in heaven, then you maybe can expect at the young age (if you don't continue informing) that the child will believe in it, but when going to the next step and asking why, you'll sooner or later come to a place, where you don't know the answer, or where you can't justify it anymore, and that's certain because religious truths aren't logical truths, nor can there put any likelyness of their truths in the real world, for what the existence of the unmeasurable goes, and for the measureables, we've seen again and again the failure of these "truths", which have made people in desperation interpretating everything about it in every other way.
But you know what? If you really want a given message out of a text, and that text is written in poems and what not, over several thousand of pages, then it's no wonder that you can get whatever meaning of it that you wish, eventhough it'd be an anacronism of said times. So when you happen to come to the step, where you realise that all you know, is based on belief, and that's basicly also what you ask your child to do, that's the step where the real choose takes place, that's where the child gets to consider:
"Do I believe in something, of which there cannot be put any likelyness to of wether it's true or not?"
To which the person would most likely answer:
"You know, in reality I don't know if there's an unsenseable flying spaghetti monsters that'll measure every soul after some abitrary system, so believe in it does not make any sense, nor does it to not believe in it, all that makes sense, really, is to not taking a stand towards it, so I don't really care, and it's certainly not something I'm going to waste my time with".
Because basicly, I might tell you something you've no chance of knowing is true or not, do you believe me? Rather, the question is, do you take a stand to believe me, do you even consider it, when knowing that you've no chance of knowing anyway? It becomes obsolete.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted November 17, 2009 08:07 AM |
|
|
To make my point more clear.
Elodin, I suppose you want to teach your children the religion you believe in.
Now to make it clear where the choice really is in this, I think it'd be a good idea, if you'd tell how exactly you're going to do this?
Will you present what made you believe? What if your child disagrees?
You see, the choice does not arrive from the fact that things have consequences, it's there, no matter if there're consequences or not. Consequences are a measure of freedom, whereas choice is a mesure of free will, these are not related.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 09:49 AM |
|
|
This will be a pretty long post - I hope someone reads it, at least.
What I really hate about the way Death argues is that every second sentence of him is starting with an IF. IF the moon was cheese, IF A was B or C was D, IF, IF IF. IF he would just stop abusing sense and logic by inventing imaginary scenarios to prove non-existing points.
One error is, that your understanding about society is already determined by a purpose. For some reason only you know it's clear that society seems to have a mystical destiny, an obligation to do certain things and don't do certain other things. Where would that come from? From heaven? Nature's example? Natural insight?
Development of society (societies) is a process after all, not something that falls from the sky.
In reality - history - there is nothing of that sort, though. Very different forms of societies have developed in the course of history, and while every society based on sacrificing their own children would have been extinct after a very short life-time, history knows enough human societies that sacrificed humans to their gods.
So let's take one. Let's say that this hypothetical society was loosely formed and was hit by some natural desaster some time in the past. A long draught, an insect plague destroying the crops, whatever. Some event that brought said society into ruin. This particular ritual of sacrificing humans, then, came to pass, when the situation for this society became desperate, and then the priest ventured, it might be the wrath of the gods, society had become slack in their worship and piety and this was the penalty; they might try to still that wrath by doing something showing the gods that they are really sorry and that they've learned their lesson.
In their desperation people agreed to try it. After a big palaver, everyone taking part and making suggestions, society agreed to the following: they will sacrifice a young man and a young woman out of this year's children who just passed the rites of becoming an adult. The sacrifices would have to be determined by lot.
Sacrifices were made under a lot of tears with those fate didn't laugh...
Obviously now, if at this point the sacrifice wouildn't be "successful" that society would just have died out - probably killing their priest before that as a last sacrifice -, but they simply may have continued with the sacrifices as well, venturing that two were not enough. This isn't so much different from being threatened by an attacker and stand to fight for the freedom of a society, mind you - people die for the survival of that specific society in the end.
But suppose it "works". Suppose the desaster has just reached its climax and is starting to lose power right after the sacrifice... So this society is spared.
The success of the sacrifice did "prove" to all that it was right to make the sacrifice. "Apparently" they have indeed done something that earned them the wrath of their gods, and they now have made the right amends for that "sin".
At this point someone asks, whether it might not be a good idea to repeat this sacrifice every year, right after the yearly rites of adulthood when the 14-year-olds are formally introduced into the society of the adults. Of course the person asking is older than that, but that's only natural, since you have to be an adult to have part in matters of society.
In any case this particular society agrees at that point that it is a good idea to do so.
Was it wrong of this society to do what they did? I don't think so. Their knowledge was QUITE limiteed to non-existant, they were in danger of dying, and they tried something that worked - accidentally, but still. History is full of things like that which are simply based on errors. Take blood-letting as "cure" for everything, based on wrong assumptions. I mean, if someone is sick, and someone else opens the window to call out to any god to help the sick, and the sick immediately feels better, it seems clear that everyone would think, hey, the gods listened, instead of suspecting it might have been the fresh air coming in through the open window that has a vitalizing effect on the sick.
Anyway, we are still not finished with our society. This society now has a new rite that is linked with a lore. It's the story of how society would have died out if not... and so each year those two unlucky persons will be sacrificed. How will the story continue? There are different options, and it depends on the options what kind of society this is:
a) Lore and rite will be hammered into the brains of everyone, right from the birth of a person, by a lot of parents and society: The Gods ARE; Humans ERR; sacrifices HAVE TO be made, otherwise society WILL die for SURE, proven and sealed. Everyone trying to avoid the ritual is to die. Expressing doubt is forbidden under penalty of death....
There's a police force tasked exclusively with making sure everything concerning the ritual is done.
The fact THAT things are this way - that there is a police and drastic penalties - is indicating that there may (have) be(en) some dissent over the sacrificial rite. At some time there may have been a suggestion to get rid of that stuff which may have led to some kind of civil disorder or even war.
Further investigations will doubtlessly find that the procedure is tampered with: for example rich people can buy "lucky lots" for their children from the priests/police to make sure their own will be unscathed. As this is so, most of these rich people see no reason to do away with the ritual: they and their own don't have to fear anything since they have the money to buy them freedom from it, and the sacrifice may indeed work, so keeping the sacrifices is a win/win situation for them.
Of course, there is some unrest in this society, due to the fact that there is a lot of oppression and corruption and that this is all an open secret - but not PRIMARILY because of the sacrifices. At this point, a sizable majority may still be in favor of the sacrifices, but that's due to the brainwashing taking place; if this society is hit by a desaster, it will simply topple.
b) Society is simply relating the event, the solution and the consequence. Naturally, the further back the actual event is, the more the ritual is discussed. Is it really necessary to do so each year? Maybe every 2nd year will suffice. Supporters point out, that they have been spared by the wrath of the gods, since they have the rite of sacrifices and that it might be a very bad idea to challenge them by changing the proven formula. Everyone agrees that it's a pretty sad thing to do, but better safe than sorry.
Of course there are those who want to leave this society, before their children come of age, since they just cannot stand the idea of losing them to blind fate. Those are allowed to leave, but once they do leave, there will never be allowed to come back.
Most people think that the possible gain is worth the risk, especially since the families of the unlucky ones - since this society now prospers - are treated well. They get a monthly pension from the whole of society and are held in high regard due to the service these families do to the whole of society.
At some point someone has the idea to vote for or against the ritual each year for the coming one. The suggestion is, that from now on, a week after the yearly ritual every adult may vote yes or no in favour or against holding the sacrificial rite in the coming year. The idea is widely discussed. One line of thought is, if the majority of the people is willing to take the risk and invite the wrath of the gods by suspending the sacrificial practise, they should have the right to do so; after all, the decision would always be valid for a year only and might be different the year after. The other line of thought is, that IF sacrifices are suspended and IF the gods will hit them with their wrath, it's quite likely that ALL will be hit equally, not only those who voted against it; a decision to suspend the sacrifices basically would force those who didn't want that to leave and found a new society away from this one, so the gods might spare them.
A suggestion that a minority might be allowed to follow the rite within their ranks is refuted by pointing out, that this would enable everyone to enjoy the protection coming with it, although only a minority would take the risk to lose a beloved child, so that would be unjust.
After a long discussion it is decided that the vote is unnecessary: everyone in favor of the sacrificial rite will simply stay, while everyone against that will leave and found a new society without that rite, some safe distance away - which coincides with the practise of allowing everyone not in favor of the sacrifice to leave anyway, so there's no reason to change anything. After all, everyone is free to stay or leave.
I don't see ANYTHING wrong with b; at this point there will be two models of society established. Doubtlessly most will stay in the safety of the established society, but there will be those who'll try their luck, founding a new one, hoping to avoid the wrath of the god in a different way, for example by consequently worshipping them, but from this point on there will be two competing models of society, and if that one without the sacrifice prospers, the first one will automatically become smaller and die.
Of course, before that happens, doubtlessly someone will have the idea to help finding the wrath of the gods its rightful target - a big fire might prove a point or two. 
We are still doing the sacrifices, mind you. If a society decides to send out soldiers, fighting abroad for the good of whatever, all those soldiers dying - who are children, husband and parent of others - are sacrificed by society. Whether it's a "just" sacrifice or not isn't as important as the question whether the society in question is indoctrinated in doing so, or whether it has other options, whether this rite can be discussed, whether the information is made available and so on. Because right and wrong isn't easy to see and debatable and the question isn't about right or wrong but about the debate.
You see, Death, German society during the NS time wasn't bad because of the ideology - people can think what they want. It was bad because all debate was suppressed; all freedom of mind; because one opinion was forced onto everyone with all methods available; because no dissent was tolerated and those in power made damn sure that children would "learn" "the right thing" "the right way". Don't question; obey. The almighty leader is always right and the instrument of destiny to make sure everything will be good. That is the bad thing about it. It was the foundation for a couple of very sick and very opportunistic people to effectively brainwash a large enough part of society and control the rest with brutal force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, all this has nothing to do with the stuff a society may want to INFORM their children about. There is a hell of a difference of whether you force content into the heads of children with the intention to make it stick, or you try to educate children to become free thinkers and having mandatory lessons as in "make yourself familiar with this stuff, you may find it interesting - or not." In a modern society no one is EXcluded from any information due not only to internet access now, but to library access a lot earlier. Making a selection of topics and making it mandatory to make children familiar with them is quite obviously no different from letting every worker pay taxes. It simply depends on what a society deems to be necessary for any child to be familiar with in order to be able to become a worthy member of that society; as long as it is left to everyone's own decision of how to react on things.
That said, it's obvious that a certaimn amount of conditioning will have to happen anyway. It's pretty pleasant if the whole world is revolving around you, but it's rather obvious that each child has to learn that it simply doesn't. That you can't get everything you want.
Think about infants; the moment they have some need they cry. If at any time someone comes immediately to take care of that need, the infant is already learning something: immediate satisfaction of need. I'm pretty sure that nowadays all children including infants are too much pampered. In earlier times this was quite different. There was a lot to do, many people had lots of children, and it was simply impossible to immediately care for infants and children as soon as they had an itch. What THEY learned was very difficult then, because there wasn't immediate satisfaction of needs. As a consequence children did a lot of things a lot earlier than today since they had to take care for a lot more things including much of themselves.
You'll reap what you sow, and if parents are treating a child like a little prince or a little princess you can reasonably expect that they will behave like one later - and won't understand why things should be different now; after all they are used to it.
I have wasted enough time with this now. Everyone seeing this differently, well that's your right. But do me a favor, everyone, and spare we these little one-sentence quotes followed by a snide comment. I'm not going to respond to them anyway, since that's not discussion, but hair-splitting which I'm thoroughly sick of. Also, Death, should you bother to answer, spare me IFs and outlandish examples and thought experiments. History is big enough, so there's no necessioty to invent societies where it's taught to commit suicide - when there is one that involves suicide in specific situations. I can't say that my hopes are high, though.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 10:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A child is no more a member of a particular faith that he is a memmber of the post-workers union
-marcus brigstock (the man, the lefty legend!)
as far as i see it, people seemed to have forgotten a little something called middle ground. Can't a parent teach their child abour their faith, and can't the state teach the child about the facts? both are stuff that the kid needs to know if they are to grow up to be well-rounded adults.
if you have a child who has muslim parents and is taught in a state school, then the child will know the storys and the customs of Islam, but also have an understanding of mathematics and geography. It doesn't have to be one or the other, where the child turns out to be a fanatical shut-in or a godless fact-s***ing machine.
I have learned from both my parents and my education. From my parents, I have learnt to respect everyone no matter what race, religion, sex or creed, how to use a knife and fork, and that going off and having a sulk might make you feel better but it doesn't solve anything. education has taught me Sciences, Drama, the capital of france, Bletchly park and so many other things. why do things have to be exclusive?
more to the point, you guys are forgetting another thing that raises a child and helps forge his identity... Friends! the crowd that your offspring will fall into will drastically change his outlook on life. before I met my friends, I was a timid little boy who wouldn't say boo to a goose. now, i'm a heavy-metal loving, smoking, drinking guy who got banned from joining the christian union for asking "if god is all powerful, can he create a rock that he can't lift?" there are loads of factors helping to raise a child, mainly parents, school, friends and the media...
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 10:41 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:46, 17 Nov 2009.
|
I am cringing about getting into this mess again, but guess it is time to dive in head first, because I see a general problem here.
All teaching of any kind, is a kind of brainwashing. Take Math for example. How many times are you told 1+1=2? You are told over and over and over and over, until you 'understand' that 1+1=2. Which, is what brainwashing is. You are told something so many times, that it becomes a fact, regardless of the reality. Now, do I mean that math isn't reality? No, absolutely not. However, it is purely a 'human' concept, and only has validity because humans agree it does.
Now, before I continue, this is not to open a debate about the validity of the knowledge, or a debate on life on another planet. However, should we encounter other 'communicating' life forms (I believe that some animals are actually more intelligent then us, but lack the opposable thumb, thus why we are the dominate species, so I won't say 'intelligent life forms') they may have a very different concept of math...or even no conscious concept of it at all.
So everything we are taught, at all (yes this includes religion) is a form of brainwashing. Because in order to understand it, we require repetition. Somebody informs us of the knowledge they think we should have, over and over, until we understand it. Even if the knowledge is 'neutral' that is not important.
Another prime example is History. A lot of History is written by the victors of a war. Who the 'bad guys' were, who the 'good guys' were, who started the war...etc. Now their are other 'neutral' people yes..but most of them were not there..so they have to take somebody ELSES word on the matter. Also something 'minor' that might have actually been the start, can be overlooked even by the people accused of starting things. Yet we are 'indoctrinated' that the version of history we hear is TRUE. Anybody who believes anything else other then what they say is true is delusional, stupid, or mistaken.
Now yes, this also applies to religion. Note : None of this means that it is a BAD thing after all, we do have to have 'common' knowledge. They are taught that some old book's writing is absolutely true, and that anybody who says otherwise :
Lacks comprehension,
Is lying,
Is stupid,
Is anti-(insert name of the religion here)
etc
And they won't even CONSIDER any other point of view. Again, this is ALL teaching, not just religion. People won't consider that a stop sign is NOT red but Pie (as an example as to what a color might have been called under different circumstances).
So, in a way Elodin is correct that we are indoctrinated, he just doesn't understand that EVERYBODY is. Everybody is brainwashed, because yes we do NEED common knowledge.
No school I know of (anymore), went to (By the way I moved around a lot when I was young so I have been to quite a few schools), or any that my friends went to has taught Evolution. Or Anti-Theism in any way. In fact the subject of religion..for or against is avoided like the Plague. Which is not a bad thing. Let religion and/or evolution be taught by the parents, leave it entirely out of school altogether.
I am with Elodin on one point, that is that parents should get to decide SOME things that their children learn. In fact they should be the sole decider for somethings. Government should stay the heck out of it. Because in the end every bit of knowledge we gain is 'brainwashing'. Since if somebody went around calling a puppy and called it a pizza (and not as in its name) ... chances are they would be locked up. Because we can't accept that things are different then what we were taught. Again, just to say it again (as people tend to miss this part)..this is not a BAD thing (common knowledge is a GOOD thing else we wouldn't have a clue what each other were talking about).
Edit : A lot of people will read this, and their first thought will be "I AM NOT BRAINWASHED. This person is an idiot, a stop sign IS red, not PIE." which is exactly what we are 'programmed' to do. Not accept anything that is contrary to what we are taught. To reject it immediately and out of hand. Sounds like brainwashing to me.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 10:45 AM |
|
|
And a word on optionsb for children.
In terms of making things mandatory I have no problem if parents make reading the bible mandatory for their children. However, that's all that should be mandatory. How the children feel about it, whether they believe it or not, THAT should be left to them. I've made that point quite often meanwhile.
It's NOT mandatory for parents to make options available for their children. It's mandatory, though, to teach them that it's their right to look for ways how to create options for themselves.
So, OF COURSE parents have the right to serve their children vegetables and no sweets. They don't have the obligation to make the option available for their children to eat sweets and then pray that they will find the best way.
Instead, when asked about sweets, they might say that they don't intent to give them sweets (or more than a certain quantum), since they do not think that would be healthy - however that they are free to buy themselves sweets. If the children THEN point out that they don't have any money to buy themselves sweets, the parents can point out that there always is the option to try and EARN themselves some money to buy sweets. Taking out the garbage regularly might earn them a buck a month or something like that.
Important is that it's not the obligation of the PARENTS to make options available they are not convinced of. They don't have the obligation either to go and buy books dealing with different religions, however, they shoulöd POINT OUT that there are some and that the child HAS THE OPTION of trying to obtain them for reading.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 10:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I am with Elodin on one point, that is that parents should get to decide SOME things that their children learn. In fact they should be the sole decider for somethings. Government should stay the heck out of it. Because in the end every bit of knowledge we gain is 'brainwashing'. Since if somebody went around calling a puppy and called it a pizza (and not as in its name) ... chances are they would be locked up. Because we can't accept that things are different then what we were taught. Again, just to say it again (as people tend to miss this part)..this is not a BAD thing (common knowledge is a GOOD thing else we wouldn't have a clue what each other were talking about).
You WOULD HAVE a point if the parents were the one whod had to take all the blame and clean up all the mess in case something goes wrong with their children.
Which isn't the case, though. Not at all. In fact, if something goes wrong it's society that will have to clean up the mess if the parents can't for whatever reason and it's society as a whole that will suffer - and that's why the government has a say, and correectly so. Not only that, it's easy to see as well.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:03 AM |
|
|
Generally on principle I agree, however, I fail to see how that applies to religion in general. True, some people teach their children hate, and call it a certain religion. However, in general the only thing teaching religion does is actually help a society. Generally (not always mind) a religious/spiritual person tends to more 'positive' deeds. Maybe for a selfish reason (ie not going to some form of afterlife punishment), but the net gain for society is positive.
While this same does apply to 'radical zealots' who think that everybody who doesn't believe as they should die (or such)..the government should never be 'babysitters'. Or we should all just get a labotomy so we have no thoughts of our own, and just be mindless puppets for a few 'lucky' individuals.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:26 AM |
|
|
I disagree with that as well. A society based on freedom of choice depends on parents NOT undermining that. What is true for everything else should be true for religion as well. If, for example, society does NOT allow parents to pick the marriage partners for their children and marry them off with 12 - why should they allow FORCING them into intimate marriage with a religion?
I still think, that parents can make it mandatory for their children to DEAL WITH an issue, but not to force them to uncritically copy their own stance on it, if I can communicate the difference.
You might say it this way: no matter what the state says, the parents have any right to INFORM their children about the existance of a belief and that they follow it for this and that reason ("because we believe it's true"), but it shouldn't be mandatory for children to adopt the same belief.
Like with everything else - it is completely ok for parents to tell their children that they belief it would be a good thing to marry this or that person or take this or that profession - but they should accept that it's the decision of the child and that they can think a thousand times they know better - it's simply not THEIR life.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
Which would require an ammount of Thought control and big brotherism that would boggle the mind. Not to mention that it would be 'brainwashing' the populace to follow the morals and ethics YOU think they should. Regardless if your morals and ethics you follow is 'mainstream' or not, why do YOU (or the 'mainstream') get to decide that?
Since it is impossible to monitor such teaching without the above (the thought control and/or big brotherism), it would be one of those 'rules' that is impossible to enforce. Hey, maybe all children should be FORCED to learn Unitarianism! No? You wouldn't like that much huh? (Unitarianism is a belief that all religions should be united and everybody should believe in SOMETHING, but it is not important as to WHAT/WHO they believe in).
So again why should YOUR morals be forced on others, but theirs shouldn't be forced on you? Because you say so?
____________
Message received.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How are they not choices?
Those are NOT choices. Those are orders and consequences.
Quote:
-Study and do your homework or else you fail math class!
No problem, I wanna beceome a musician anyways
Quote:
-Take out the garbage or else the house will stink!
Mum made the garbage, not me
Quote:
-Use deoderant or else you will stink!
No problem. Deodorants are bad for the environment anyways
Quote:
-Don't hit your sister or else you will be spanked! (I know some Europens erroneously think spanking is child abuse though.)
If you spank me Dad, I will go to the courthouse and report. You know, in modern western countries, kids have RIGHTS too
Quote:
Now, children have to be guided and some things are not negotiable.
Parents are not always the best example how a kid should grow up. Being open minded is how a kid should grow up. Being able to judge by themselves instead of just repeating what dad told them for 15 years. Judge the current world situation and make their decisions on their own experiences and beliefs, and not on a 2000 year old book, which stands still since then. Being a good person has nothing to do with reading a book or listening to fanatics.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:40 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:41, 17 Nov 2009.
|
I actually agree with Angelito. People should have free choice, especially children when growing up (and yes that means I agree with Jolly). However, since it would require Thought Control or a epic amount of 'Big Brotherism' (we are talking Cameras and microphones EVERYWHERE including BATHROOMS) to inforce, it just is not logical or concievable.
Edit : Though I don't agree with Angelito where the Bible is concerned  .
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 11:55 AM |
|
|
Mytical, that jusst isn't true.
I haven't commented on the rest of your post about that everything is brain-washing - it's not. In mathematics, for example, we LEARN that certain things are simply defined, and the rest can be proven out of it. In history we have what is left from the past and make conclusions from it - we don't tell anyone it WAS so, period. Instead we give reasons and can SHOW why a thing is believed to be this or that way, and most of the time we make a difference between things highly likely and just assumed.
In the case of religion no amount of thought control is necessary - I don't believe in revolutions from a certain point onward. However, you can TEACH these things at school (not force them onto people) and let children and juveniles debate them. This will lead to people adapting and society changing over time.
That is, if society has a concept about aducation that includes this principle, of course.
You see that with other things as well - sexual education, for example. There's no thought control with that one either, there's just a general stance in society what may be the right way and what may be the wrong way, and school teaches a couple of things.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 12:16 PM |
|
|
I'm sorry JJ, I believe you are mistaken. Knowledge given out in school, by parents, etc are always given out as Fact. It's a fact that a dog is a dog. There is no 'alternative'. You are told things like this over and over, with no other teaching considered or allowed. Anybody who says anything contrary to it is (As I said) : Delusional, Confused, Insane, etc.
If you asked somebody what color something was and they answered "I like pie." chances are you would think they were insane, 'mentally challenged (the politically correct term for 'retarded'), or something similar.
Again, this is not a bad thing. Because we do need 'common knowledge' in order to know what we are talking about. However it IS brainwashing. Brainwashing gives no possible alternatives to the 'truth' it gives. 1+1 will never = Orange. It is not POSSIBLE. The attack on pearl harbor will NEVER have been committed by the Spartans. I don't know if you think I mean Brainwashing as a bad term or what, but it is not meant that they are teaching something that is neccessarily untrue. Just that they leave absolutely no alternative to their 'truth'.
For instance you say that a person is taught history and can make their own conclusions out of it. So tell me, is their any conceivable or possible way that a student answers the question "Who attacked Pearl Harbor?" by "The Spartans" that they would be marked correct? No, they HAVE to answer a certain way or fail. So they MUST learn the way that the school wishes them to. Which..is the essence of Brainwashing. Getting people to understand what YOU (in this case society and the school) want them to.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ihor
Supreme Hero
Accidental Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 12:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People should have free choice, especially children when growing up (and yes that means I agree with Jolly). However, since it would require Thought Control or a epic amount of 'Big Brotherism' (we are talking Cameras and microphones EVERYWHERE including BATHROOMS) to inforce, it just is not logical or concievable.
Absolutely agree. What you all are talking about? You can say parents what to do but they WILL do as they want. In which way state can make parents to do what it wants as for this question. I don't know.
As bixie said a big influence is made by many factors. The only difference IMHO is that parents always want the best for their children. BTW the state wants the best for society but not for your particular children. I don't even mention about friends. Thats why I don't see anything bad in brainwashing by parents. But of course everything has its own measures. So the following quote is also good.
Quote:
Being open minded is how a kid should grow up. Being able to judge by themselves instead of just repeating what dad told them for 15 years.
Before children are enough old they can't chose what are good and what are bad. So somebody have to do that for them. And those should be parents, not state. And parents ARE responsible for their children.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 01:34 PM |
|
|
Mytical, you are mistaking two things here.
Most things we learn today don't need to be hammered in - they speak for themselves. If you learn a thing in Geography, it's possible to check that. If you learn something in history you can check the FACTS.
Brainwashing comes only into play, when you learn things that are not speaking for themselves and not facts. For example, it's a fact that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. However, looking into the whys and motives and so on ill involve an INTERPRETATION of facts (which can be wrong due to the fact alone that facts may be missing or uinknown). As long as these things that involve interpretation are well-reasoned and you don't forget to inform about uncertainties, there is no brainwashing or conditioning involved, since everything is open all the time.
Brainwashing comes into play only when things are taught as facts that are not facts; when things are taught to be true without giving any explanation that can be checked.
So hat you call brainwashing, most of it is just learning a convention so that a communication is possioble. That hasn't got anything to do with the sense the word is used here.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 04:10 PM |
|
|
This is my definition of brain washing contra teaching, and what I understand when someone uses this term:
Brain wash: Presenting absolute information, if the person does not doubt it, but accepts it as an absolute truth, it's brainwashing.
Teaching: Presenting likely information, if the person doubts it, the person can choose whether it's likely enough to be considered true or not.
For brain washing, information=knowledge, independent of the information (does not matter if it's pigs can fly, or cars are faster than bikes).
For teaching, information=>knowledge, if the information is likely enough to be considered true.
So, e.g. Mytical, what you call brain washing above, is what I call definition, as long as I've a choice in the matter (i.e. no one is deciding for me), then I'd not call it brain washing.
@JJ I read your long post, it's nicely put up how society could have evolved in history, and that society may be based on other stuff than what is "right" where right is defined as maximum freedom for everyone (i.e. getting what you want), because people might be willing to give this up for irrational fear, or whatever that defeats their free will.
Because, in the long run, it's clear that what is "right" (again defined as before) is to never let go, but keep on fighting, so a giant is treshing your town and will only stop if you feed him? Invent armors and iron houses and see how well the giant does now.
Of course, these are much harder to apply, in the context of your example (let's assume the catastrophy was a hurricane) heavier houses, or sealing off the wind far away through several sand walls, might have done the trick, but as soon as you give up and let go, i.e. as soon as you stop actually taking account for what you experience and starts accepting anything as true without being able to put any likelyness to it, then that's where the given person of the given society fails.
About your army example, I disagree because the person of the army have a choice, even when picked to perform duties, in your example, you did not make it clear what would happen with those who was choosen, but then decided they wanted to leave the city in stead.
If they're free to leave the city (which would mean they'd have to choose over and the timing would go all bad), then your analogy to the army holds in my opinion, but if they're not, then I don't think it holds.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2009 04:20 PM |
|
|
|
In option b they can, but they are never allowed to come back (or if they would want to, they would have to make a sacrifice).
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
