This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes. So if everyone could keep their hurtful oppinions to themselves, I would be happy. I don't bring up how much I despise people like the westborough baptist church members in general conversation unless it's relevent, and if it's relevent then there's nobody around who would be offended by my beliefs. If I'm talking to my friend Dan who holds the same beliefs as I do, we can discuss it without a problem. I wouldn't bring it up in conversation to someone I don't know though.
You've done it several times already in this thread.
I really don't mind people having beliefs as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in a significant way. When I say significant way, I mean good or bad. There was a family guy episode that expressed this quite well. Meg was under the influence that God loved her and that God wanted her to convert Brian to Christianity, and wanted her to partake in a book burning. Obviously she thought this influence was good, however most people would agree that this isn't good. The subjectivity of the matter makes any significant influence bad in my oppinion. For instance, the westborough baptist church members may have influenced some people to start hating on homosexuals. The westborough baptist church members would coutn that as good, where I would not.
Influence rests in the recipient, not the "influencer." TBob's influence on me is completely a machination of my psyche, not something he is imparting on me. His beliefs themselves might be a basis for my perceiving him as an influence, but they are not a necessary cause.
Post by
tuckmuck203
Yes. So if everyone could keep their hurtful oppinions to themselves, I would be happy. I don't bring up how much I despise people like the westborough baptist church members in general conversation unless it's relevent, and if it's relevent then there's nobody around who would be offended by my beliefs. If I'm talking to my friend Dan who holds the same beliefs as I do, we can discuss it without a problem. I wouldn't bring it up in conversation to someone I don't know though.
You've done it several times already in this thread.
I really don't mind people having beliefs as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in a significant way. When I say significant way, I mean good or bad. There was a family guy episode that expressed this quite well. Meg was under the influence that God loved her and that God wanted her to convert Brian to Christianity, and wanted her to partake in a book burning. Obviously she thought this influence was good, however most people would agree that this isn't good. The subjectivity of the matter makes any significant influence bad in my oppinion. For instance, the westborough baptist church members may have influenced some people to start hating on homosexuals. The westborough baptist church members would coutn that as good, where I would not.
Influence rests in the recipient, not the "influencer." TBob's influence on me is completely a machination of my psyche, not something he is imparting on me. His beliefs themselves might be a basis for my perceiving him as an influence, but they are not a necessary cause.
I have done it several times in this thread, however I wasn't the one who brought it up in the first place. The OP brought it up and so his oppinion made me feel tempted to share mine.
You can't really help the machination of your psyche though, can you? I wouldn't want my oppinions changed because I wasn't smart enough to realize I don't actually have a reason to believe in something. Take the OP and his siblings for example. Apparently the OP's parents have illogical arguments that the OP's siblings agree with. The siblings aren't smart enough yet to realize those oppinions have no real logical basis. So they spew them out anyway ebcause it's what mommy and daddy told them.
People should think for themselves, or we'll turn into a V for vendetta type of situation where a few people who think for themselves gain some power and suddenly there's a dictatorship where nobody realizes there's anything better than some dystopian military state where oppinions are illegal.
Anyway, I think we've gone a little bit off topic so I'm not really going to respond anymore. Same for the other thread about the wheel of time series.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I have done it several times in this thread, however I wasn't the one who brought it up in the first place. The OP brought it up and so his oppinion made me feel tempted to share mine.
Who did it first is irrelevant. You have absolutely no ground upon which to argue your case, because by arguing to contradict your claim.
You can't really help the machination of your psyche though, can you? I wouldn't want my oppinions changed because I wasn't smart enough to realize I don't actually have a reason to believe in something. Take the OP and his siblings for example. Apparently the OP's parents have illogical arguments that the OP's siblings agree with. The siblings aren't smart enough yet to realize those oppinions have no real logical basis. So they spew them out anyway ebcause it's what mommy and daddy told them.
And then look at it from the other side. OP isn't smart enough to realize that his objections are just knee-jerk angsty teen objections, and his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings.
See? Both sides are equal.
People should think for themselves, or we'll turn into a V for vendetta type of situation where a few people who think for themselves gain some power and suddenly there's a dictatorship where nobody realizes there's anything better than some dystopian military state where oppinions are illegal.
Children should not think for themselves. They're brains are underdeveloped, and they have not had the chance develop any sort of real world code to live by do to a simple lack of experience.
Post by
tuckmuck203
People should think for themselves, or we'll turn into a V for vendetta type of situation where a few people who think for themselves gain some power and suddenly there's a dictatorship where nobody realizes there's anything better than some dystopian military state where oppinions are illegal.
Children should not think for themselves. They're brains are underdeveloped, and they have not had the chance develop any sort of real world code to live by do to a simple lack of experience.
Guh. Well now I feel compelled to respond one last time. Here is where we disagree for the most part. I think that EVERYONE should think for themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to ACT on those oppinions if they impair someone else obviously, but they should have them. Everyone should develop their own oppinions. Well, everyone over the age of like 7, but that's simply because before age 7 you probably aren't even going ot remember anything besides traumatic events that you can't even really make sense of at that point.
Before 7 you probably could have your oppinions influenced and still develop oppinions of your own. Around 7 to 10 is when I developed my own definite sense of morality I think. And in my oppinion morality is the basis of all other oppinions.
But now no more responses.
Post by
Tartonga
And then look at it from the other side. OP isn't smart enough to realize that his objections are just knee-jerk angsty teen objections, and his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings.
See? Both sides are equal.
Both sides equal? Not even close. His siblings are childs and you just said "
Children should not think for themselves. Their brains are underdeveloped, and they have not had the chance develop any sort of real world code to live by do to a simple lack of experience.
" If they don't go to school (which is the case), their only educational experience is what their parents can offer, their point of view.
On the other side, the OP went to school, he is a teenager, who has already abstract thoughts and a developed brain and can see the world from different points of view. He knows what his parents think, but he thinks the real truth lies on what the research of humanity has been discovering through experiments, and not what illogical arguments from a metaphysical point of view say.
You can't claim that "his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings". Their siblings, for now, only know what their parents teach them. The fact that his older brother shows them that there are other points of view, is like opening their eyes. They will have the chance to choose, but as for now that's not what their parents are offering to them. Otherwise, they will only think that there is only 1 truth, 1 truly point of view and that seems to be what happened to their parents: they grew up learning from a metaphysical point of view and they won't accept other points of view that contradict what they think, even if they don't even have a logical argument to support their beliefs.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And then look at it from the other side. OP isn't smart enough to realize that his objections are just knee-jerk angsty teen objections, and his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings.
See? Both sides are equal.
Both sides equal? Not even close. His siblings are childs and you just said "
Children should not think for themselves. Their brains are underdeveloped, and they have not had the chance develop any sort of real world code to live by do to a simple lack of experience.
" If they don't go to school (which is the case), their only educational experience is what their parents can offer, their point of view.
On the other side, the OP went to school, he is a teenager, who has already abstract thoughts and a developed brain and can see the world from different points of view. He knows what his parents think, but he thinks the real truth lies on what the research of humanity has been discovering through experiments, and not what illogical arguments from a metaphysical point of view say.
You can't claim that "his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings". Their siblings, for now, only know what their parents teach them. The fact that his older brother shows them that there are other points of view, is like opening their eyes. They will have the chance to choose, but as for now that's not what their parents are offering to them. Otherwise, they will only think that there is only 1 truth, 1 truly point of view and that seems to be what happened to their parents: they grew up learning from a metaphysical point of view and they won't accept other points of view that contradict what they think, even if they don't even have a logical argument to support their beliefs.
The issue is between him and his parents. You need to read back through threads before jumping in. His parents are of that opinion, he is of a different opinion.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Guh. Well now I feel compelled to respond one last time. Here is where we disagree for the most part. I think that EVERYONE should think for themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to ACT on those oppinions if they impair someone else obviously, but they should have them. Everyone should develop their own oppinions.
Most kids I know are of the opinion that candy is not bad for them. Keeping them from acting on that is one thing, but even more important is instilling into them the idea that candy is indeed bad for you. It's the parents job to teach their kids. And kids often believe things that they should not.
Well, everyone over the age of like 7, but that's simply because before age 7 you probably aren't even going ot remember anything besides traumatic events that you can't even really make sense of at that point.
Before 7 you probably could have your oppinions influenced and still develop oppinions of your own. Around 7 to 10 is when I developed my own definite sense of morality I think. And in my oppinion morality is the basis of all other oppinions.
Memory is only the smallest part of being able to make decisions. The prefrontal cortext, where logical thinking and planning take place, is massively underdeveloped before ~20, while the limbic system, specifically the amygdala where emotional reactions stem from, is relatively overdeveloped. It's part of the reason children cannot be tried as adults.
Post by
Patty
Nonetheless, indoctrination into thinking that there is only one correct way of thinking, acting and expressing yourself, even against other (sometimes more substantial) evidence is not exactly very defendable. Regardless of age. Furthermore, it's a fact that sweets (in excess, of course) are bad for you. It is not a fact that being homosexual is bad for you, or not believing in God is bad for you.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Nonetheless, indoctrination into thinking that there is only one correct way of thinking, acting and expressing yourself, even against other (sometimes more substantial) evidence is not exactly very defendable. Regardless of age. Furthermore, it's a fact that sweets (in excess, of course) are bad for you. It is not a fact that being homosexual is bad for you,
or not believing in God is bad for you
.
According to you.
According to the other side, it is bad, and thus kids must be taught to embrace it.
Post by
Patty
Nonetheless, indoctrination into thinking that there is only one correct way of thinking, acting and expressing yourself, even against other (sometimes more substantial) evidence is not exactly very defendable. Regardless of age. Furthermore, it's a fact that sweets (in excess, of course) are bad for you.
It is not a fact
that being homosexual is bad for you,
or not believing in God is bad for you
.
There is no real empirical or objective evidence that suggests that solely being an atheist is detrimental to an individual, compared to solely being a religious person.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
There is no real empirical or objective evidence that suggests that solely being an atheist is detrimental to an individual, compared to solely being a religious person.
So in other words, your belief that it's not detrimental is pure opinionated conjecture.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Post by
Patty
I never said it could not possibly be harmful. Hence "Nonetheless, indoctrination into thinking that there is only one correct way of thinking, acting and expressing yourself...". It can go both ways. I personally don't believe that there is some God that created anything, but I respect the fact that people do that - as long as they don't force their beliefs on others.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I never said it could not possibly be harmful. Hence "Nonetheless, indoctrination into thinking that there is only one correct way of thinking, acting and expressing yourself...". It can go both ways. I personally don't believe that there is some God that created anything, but I respect the fact that people do that - as long as they don't force their beliefs on others.
You raise your children according to your beliefs. That's what it means to raise a child. That encompasses everything from your view on whether lying to permissible or not to whether you believe in a God or not. Child rearing is necessary because it takes a good decade or two for a person's mind to develop to the level of an adults.
Post by
Tartonga
And then look at it from the other side. OP isn't smart enough to realize that his objections are just knee-jerk angsty teen objections, and his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings.
See? Both sides are equal.
Both sides equal? Not even close. His siblings are childs and you just said "
Children should not think for themselves. Their brains are underdeveloped, and they have not had the chance develop any sort of real world code to live by do to a simple lack of experience.
" If they don't go to school (which is the case), their only educational experience is what their parents can offer, their point of view.
On the other side, the OP went to school, he is a teenager, who has already abstract thoughts and a developed brain and can see the world from different points of view. He knows what his parents think, but he thinks the real truth lies on what the research of humanity has been discovering through experiments, and not what illogical arguments from a metaphysical point of view say.
You can't claim that "his beliefs are going to negatively affect his siblings". Their siblings, for now, only know what their parents teach them. The fact that his older brother shows them that there are other points of view, is like opening their eyes. They will have the chance to choose, but as for now that's not what their parents are offering to them. Otherwise, they will only think that there is only 1 truth, 1 truly point of view and that seems to be what happened to their parents: they grew up learning from a metaphysical point of view and they won't accept other points of view that contradict what they think, even if they don't even have a logical argument to support their beliefs.
The issue is between him and his parents. You need to read back through threads before jumping in. His parents are of that opinion, he is of a different opinion.
I read everything you said and I'm in fact posting in this thread since before you came...So, what's your point with saying that "
the issue is between him and his parents
"?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I read everything you said and I'm in fact posting in this thread since before you came...So, what's your point with saying that "
the issue is between him and his parents
"?
Your objection compared him with his siblings. That statement above is to show that your objection is irrelevant because it's not what I'm talking about.
I don't care if you were here before me. You jumped into a discussion which you were not part of an made an irrelevant comment.
Post by
Patty
You know what, we're arguing over the same points now; it's quite clear that I'm not going to so much as chip your impenetrable closed mindedness, so I'm just going to stop arguing now. Goodbye.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You know what, we're arguing over the same points now; it's quite clear that I'm not going to so much as chip your impenetrable closed mindedness, so I'm just going to stop arguing now. Goodbye.
Doesn't that make you equally close-minded?
Post by
xaratherus
You know what, we're arguing over the same points now; it's quite clear that I'm not going to so much as chip your impenetrable closed mindedness, so I'm just going to stop arguing now. Goodbye.
Doesn't that make you equally close-minded?
Because she won't open her mind to something you have no evidence to convince her of?
No. No, it really doesn't.
Post by
Adamsm
*cough* Patty is a he xaratherus.
Post by
xaratherus
Telling your son that he can't have Maccas for breakfast, lunch and dinner will automatically make him miserable. Is that immoral, according to your code? Will that stop you from doing it, for his own good?
No, it is not immoral, because as I said, it's an 'infringement' for just reasons - doing so would be harmful to his health. The difference between this and
Keyword is 'unjust'. If you're doing it for their own good, then that makes your action 'just', potentially. As I mentioned to Patty, if you honestly believe that being gay will send you to Hell, then you're justifiably trying to protect your kids by telling them that they shouldn't be gay.
is that no one can point at 'Hell' and say, "You're going there if you do this." I
can
point at things like cavaties, obesity, and so forth to show why eating McDonald's for every meal would be harmful.
Hell is a threat, not a justification, and I'll come out and say that any religion that tries to propose a loving deity that renders eternal punishment for finite crime is ridiculous on the same scale as Scientology.
But I'm done in this thread, like Patty.
*cough* Patty is a he xaratherus.
Sorry Patty - he, not she.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.