Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[AmbiguousGuy]

OK, but next time, if you're going to respond to one of my posts, maybe say something relevant to what you're responding to.

I'm sorry, but I see you as a believer in magic.

You think that 'logic and reason' are capable of making decisions and that you can simply observe the conclusions that they make.

I see that as belief in magic.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm sorry, but I see you as a believer in magic.

You think that 'logic and reason' are capable of making decisions and that you can simply observe the conclusions that they make.

I see that as belief in magic.

Ah, so you don't understand logic and reason as they pertain to evidence. That would explain a lot of your posts here.

 

[Magic Man]

There's no such thing as objective review, unless you have access to some objective source outside of yourself.

Hm...then I guess we have to get rid of science.

Sure, we can agree that there are bad ways and better ways to go about reviewing evidence, but even that is a belief. It's just one we happen to agree on.

Heck, it will even be a belief over whether we decide that a particular piece of evidence is good or not.

And it will be a belief when we decide that there is enough of this evidence.

In regards to evidence, everyone has their own gauge of what they find convincing, what they find acceptable, and how much of it they need before they are willing to commit to a concept. Your claim that there is some standard, objective, set level for everyone seems rather naïve at best, and magical thinking at worst.

This idea that all beliefs are equal and we shouldn't discourage parents from teaching their kids whatever they want because "Hey, they're all just beliefs" is what's naive and magical thinking. But hey, if it's OK with you that parents teach their kids that medicine is evil and that they can fly if they jump off a building, I guess there's not much for me to say.

 

[Willamena]

There's no such thing as objective review, unless you have access to some objective source outside of yourself.

You are an objective source, the only one you need.

I have a computer in front of me. If I turned to another person and ask them to affirm that I have a computer in front of me, and they do, that doesn't make it any more objective, it just make the whole situation silly (and my own sanity questionable).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ah, so you don't understand logic and reason as they pertain to evidence. That would explain a lot of your posts here.

Actually logic is something for which I seem to have a natural talent -- probably related to my expertise with language. Since childhood, even before my linguistics' studies, I've always scored in the 99th percentile on the logic sections of standardized tests.

Sorry. You made me say it.

So would you agree that in any conflict between you and me regarding "logic and reason's" opinion about a thing... that you should defer to me as more likely understanding what they have concluded?

Or if you're most comfortable depersonalizing this, would you agree that you should defer to the highest test scorer when there is a conflict over reason and logic's conclusion on some matter?

 

[Magic Man]

Actually logic is something for which I seem to have a natural talent -- probably related to my expertise with language. Since childhood, even before my linguistics' studies, I've always scored in the 99th percentile on the logic sections of standardized tests.

Sorry. You made me say it.

So would you agree that in any conflict between you and me regarding "logic and reason's" opinion about a thing... that you should defer to me as more likely understanding what they have concluded?

Or if you're most comfortable depersonalizing this, would you agree that you should defer to the highest test scorer when there is a conflict over reason and logic's conclusion on some matter?

Nope, I don't subscribe to the appeal to authority.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You are an objective source, the only one you need.

Do you extend that to everyone? If a JW parent objectively declines to give his child a blood transfusion, you're fine with that since the JW has objectively decided the facts of the matter?

 

[Willamena]

Do you extend that to everyone? If a JW parent objectively declines to give his child a blood transfusion, you're fine with that since the JW has objectively decided the facts of the matter?

It's essential of human beings.

 

[Willamena]

"Objectivity" doesn't mean "something out there," it has no implications of locality.

It simply means the judgement that is free of opinion or feelings.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's essential of human beings.

OK, I guess I disagree. I think there's a line somewhere which shouldn't be crossed.

Let's say a new religion pops up in which the parents have used logic and reason to conclude that God wants a blood sacrifice from each person. And that the best way to appease this GodNeed is to produce children and then kill those children in a particular ceremony -- providing their own blood, by proxy, to their God.

Me, I'd vote to stop these people. I'd be willing to take away their essential right to decide for themselves what logic and reason have concluded.

Call me a right-winger if you must, but I would stop them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope, I don't subscribe to the appeal to authority.

Great. So you decide for yourself what reason and logic have concluded.

But you don't extend that same right to the parents. You don't want them to decide for themselves. Rather, you want the right to inform them what is 'fact' -- and can be taught -- and what is 'belief' -- and cannot be taught.

Yes?

 

[Willamena]

Do you extend that to everyone? If a JW parent objectively declines to give his child a blood transfusion, you're fine with that since the JW has objectively decided the facts of the matter?

It's essential of human beings.

Oh, and you should leave whether I'm "fine" out of it, that asks for an opinion and robs the question of objectivity.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Oh, and you should leave whether I'm "fine" out of it, that asks for an opinion and robs the question of objectivity.

I don't follow you. I was indeed asking you for your opinion.

 

[Willamena]

I don't follow you. I was indeed asking you for your opinion.

Well, I'm not fine with a lot of things, but that has nothing to do with whether or not we can be objective about them.

 

[Magic Man]

Great. So you decide for yourself what reason and logic have concluded.

But you don't extend that same right to the parents. You don't want them to decide for themselves. Rather, you want the right to inform them what is 'fact' -- and can be taught -- and what is 'belief' -- and cannot be taught.

Yes?

No. :no:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No. :no:

I'm glad to hear it. So we are finished here. You agree that parents can teach whatever they like to their kids. All they have to do is believe that they are teaching facts rather than teaching beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

OK, I guess I disagree. I think there's a line somewhere which shouldn't be crossed.

Let's say a new religion pops up in which the parents have used logic and reason to conclude that God wants a blood sacrifice from each person. And that the best way to appease this GodNeed is to produce children and then kill those children in a particular ceremony -- providing their own blood, by proxy, to their God.

Me, I'd vote to stop these people. I'd be willing to take away their essential right to decide for themselves what logic and reason have concluded.

Call me a right-winger if you must, but I would stop them.

Call me a liberal, but that has nothing to do with whether I'd stop them.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm glad to hear it. So we are finished here. You agree that parents can teach whatever they like to their kids. All they have to do is believe that they are teaching facts rather than teaching beliefs.

You do realize that's the opposite of what responding "No" meant, right?

And not even you agree that parents can teach whatever they like to their kids. That's what I don't get about this whole thing.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that there are certain things parents shouldn't teach their kids. The question is where to draw the line. For instance, I hope we all agree that parents shouldn't teach their kids that they can fly when they jump off buildings or that modern medicine in any form is evil and shouldn't be used.

So the question becomes why. Why should parents not teach those things? We can point to the potential for harm in those situations, which I assume is what most would say. But what if the children decided not to test the idea that they could fly, or what if they never got sick to the point of needing medicine? So, teaching such beliefs isn't guaranteed to cause harm to kids.

If we really should be fine with parents teaching whatever they believe to be fact, it allows for so many possibilities that we agree aren't good. So, the parent can't be the final arbiter of what's fact and what's not. There has to be some standard to compare to. All I'm saying is we use that standard to teach kids facts and beliefs.

 

[Falvlun]

You are an objective source, the only one you need.

I have a computer in front of me. If I turned to another person and ask them to affirm that I have a computer in front of me, and they do, that doesn't make it any more objective, it just make the whole situation silly (and my own sanity questionable).

That works for me. But I doubt that's how Magic Man is using it.

 

[Willamena]

If we really should be fine with parents teaching whatever they believe to be fact, it allows for so many possibilities that we agree aren't good.

It also allows for so many possibilities that are entirely innoculous, and even beneficially viable, such as teaching that Santa is real.