I thought it was going to be a text that I could read over immediately and continue the discussion.
Off the topic:
Linking to a book on Amazon isn't actually considered backing up one's point of view. You may as well not do it, because it doesn't really help clear anything up. I know you've got a thing about allowing people come to their own conclusions about your point of view, but doing this sort of thing undermines the dialog.
It's one of the quirks of participation in a virtual forum-- in my opinion, it is essential that evidence be readily provided to the wider audience at no cost. This reasoning is why bugmenot is so prevalent and such a useful tool.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Yes, of course I do. I also kick puppies and push old ladies down in the street.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing I have come to appreciate from Dag (and Matt) is that if someone really knows what they are talking about and knows the evidence to support it, then they can summarize the relevant points themselves and then defend their point of view taking that evidence into account.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You may as well not do it, because it doesn't really help clear anything up. I know you've got a thing about allowing people come to their own conclusions about your point of view, but doing this sort of thing undermines the dialog.
I have no idea why you would say this. Could you explain your reasoning?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Who are you addressing this to? Any person from any background is going to say that the faith they grew up in requires them to come to that faith through examination and individual conclusion. Such statements should not preclude the influence of our childhoods on how we frame the questions we ask and interpret the answers we find. I have seen very little in the way of moral judgment with regard to that in this thread, more an acknowledgement that it exists and plays a significant role. Who called it immoral?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I've said, it is more complex than that. The choices aren't absolute free will versus no free will at all. I believe (and my study and research bear this out, in my opinion) that free will can be likened to a muscle. One's capacity for resisting external influences/manipulations can be developed or enervated. Also, specific types of manipulations can be countered by specific types of knowledge/training/personality factors.
I would like to point out that "One's capacity for resisting external influences/manipulations can be developed or enervated" says nothing about the concept of free will at all. but that discussion doesn't really belong in this thread.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who are you addressing this to? Any person from any background is going to say that the faith they grew up in requires them to come to that faith through examination and individual conclusion. Such statements should not preclude the influence of our childhoods on how we frame the questions we ask and interpret the answers we find. I have seen very little in the way of moral judgment with regard to that in this thread, more an acknowledgement that it exists and plays a significant role. Who called it immoral?
Somebody explicitly said it was awful and terrible, though I don't think it was you. That sort of set the stage for many of the similarly-aligned opinions to sound like moral judgments. Were they not intended that way?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You may as well not do it, because it doesn't really help clear anything up. I know you've got a thing about allowing people come to their own conclusions about your point of view, but doing this sort of thing undermines the dialog.
I infer this from your expressed reluctance to provide links on topics that you seem to feel have been discussed, such as here:
You have claimed in the past that it is the reader's responsibility to educate themselves on whether your position is valid or not, and have refused to provide links for your stance.
I think this is a difference in the way that we approach fora; I tend to feel like the way you go about this is not conducive to discussion.
Be that as it may, linking to a book on Amazon does exactly zilch to prop up your POV.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy: I can't say. I just wanted to maintain I don't hold a moral judgment on it. That same conditioning we receive as children affects how we view authority figures and how we learn to socialize. Even in those years approaching adulthood, when rebellion and limit testing is prevalent, we are still basing those decisions off the framework we learned to associate life with. Even with religious conversion (to another religion or none at all) isn't instantaneous, and is still coloured by our lives prior to that questioning. I apply no moral compass to it because it is still an observational phenomonon with regard to how childhood affects out lives, not a predictive phenomenon. You can't look at a child and determine the choices they will make in the future. Only in extreme cases that are not indicative of any larger group or organization can we have an idea of how it affects that person later in life.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, Did I not provide links or refutations from commonly known things, like cults, to specific accusations made? I thought I did. Looking back, I'm sure I did. Every specific accusation, I answered with one of these. That was me talking about cults and the Milgram experiment and the fundamental attribute error, right?
When I have time, I may touch on some more experiments so that people can get a better idea of the background. And I provided a link to an external resource that is highly reputable and highly reviewed that also establishes what I was saying.
When I contrast this to what kat offered in support of her position: absolutely nothing, I'm not sure what I've done wrong.
It seems to me that you are expecting me to teach a course in social psychology to kat when I have absolutely no reason to expect that she'd listen to what I was saying in any way other than to look for things she thinks are flaws.
What is it you want me to do? I can (and have) easily address specfic claims, but the sort of broad ignorant statements that kat is making are another thing altogether.
---
Also, you are seriously mistating my positions both on the global warming thread and the other one that you are referencing. You make a habit of making false accusations at me and I don't appreciate it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I expect that those who invoke authoritative evidence for their opinions are able to both present the evidence and explain and defend why it is supportive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already did. Can you show me a specific claim you made that I didn't address?
I expect people who make definitive claims to be able to back up their statements. To me, that is basic intellectual integrity. Unfortunately that seems to be something that many on Hatrack don't share my views on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I expect that those who invoke authoritative evidence for their opinions are able to both present the evidence and explain and defend why it is supportive.
You posted that you are unwilling to do research to argue a point yo made in this thread. That is an unreasonable expectation of you to demand of others.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it isn't. Those who invoke the authoritative evidence in support of their view should be able to present it, not tell everyone else to go look it up for them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
example: You said brainwashing is a convenient fiction. I answered this with a concrete refutation and asked where you got the idea. You then ignored the issue completely.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to use an authoritative source of evidence to prove your point, Squick, then you should be able to present, summarize, and defend that evidence.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example, to establish the power of psychological manipulation, I linked to the Milgram experiment.
To support the idea that many people judge the effect of manipulation poorly, I linked to the fundamental attribution error.
To demonstrate that there is a whole body of research that supports what I am saying, I linked to a page for a popular press book that contains both a description of the book and a whole mess of reviews talking about the content of the book, many of which support what I am saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Errr...yeah it was. I presented a link to a summary of the information and specifically applied what it said to the point under discussion. And I refuted every specific claim you made.
Alternatively, have you presented, summarized, or defended anything that supports the definitive statements you made, despite being asked to multiple times?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
You made a claim that brainwashing is a fiction. MrSquicky provided arguments that you are just saying that and provided examples. You may find the examples unconvincing, but you have made no attempt to support your original claim and have made it clear you have no wish to support that original claim with evidence. You state that MrSquicky must support his claim, but you are unwilling to support yours.
I can understand not believing his examples are worthwhile, but instead of posting parting shots at his posts while others actually argue finer points of validity, why not offer something substantial besides "I believe that is convenient fiction." in your posts? You are otherwise coming across as condescending and petty.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky doesn't have to support with evidence if he doesn't want to. If he does want to, though, he needs to be able to present, summarize, and defend the evidence.
Please, Justa, there have not be ad hominems or personal insults so far. I think it would be better if it stayed that way. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:you are seriously mistating my positions both on the global warming thread and the other one that you are referencing. You make a habit of making false accusations at me and I don't appreciate it.
:shrug:
I think I've characterized you fairly in this thread.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I will admit that Squicky could've possibly done a better job at summarizing all those claims in his own words, it's true that you haven't backed up your point at all katharina. Why should the onus of proof be on him?
Though personally I respect Squicky's method of presenting information. I'd almost always prefer to read a wikipedia article or other linked information source, as it's usually more thorough.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe that's a difference in preference? I don't - I am rarely interested enough to slog through an article to find what someone was referring to. Linking but not summarizing is functionally ineffective.
That's also why I don't generally hunt up for links of my own - I am interested in the conversation, but the research I save for when I am getting paid.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by Puppy: So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Forgive me for jumping in, but I thought this was a good question, and I'd like to take a stab at it.
I don't think what you've outlined above is immoral. It IS stacking the deck extremely heavily. From the time the child is born, a very large part of his/her world revolves around your religion. As they grow up, a large part of their context for understanding and relating to the world around them is shaped by religion. How many young adults, knowing that they could be ostracized by a substantial part, if not all, of that community would voluntarily choose to say they disbelieve? I'd like to think I'd be willing to risk it, but I'm really not sure.
I surely don't accuse anyone (here) of doing it purposefully, but it's a little like holding someone's childhood hostage. "As long as you maintain your belief, we'll maintain these ties to your childhood." Knowing the comforting value of early memories, I can only hazard guesses as to what it might be like for a person from a devout family and community coming to realize they don't share the faith.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Squicky doesn't have to support with evidence if he doesn't want to. If he does want to, though, he needs to be able to present, summarize, and defend the evidence.
Right, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to, just like you don't want to. Right?
quote:Please, Justa, there have not be ad hominems or personal insults so far. I think it would be better if it stayed that way.
Excuse me? I have pointed out that your behavior is making things worse, not better. Deleting or editing the content of your posts to hide it does not excuse your behavior. Don't pin your poor behavior on me. You are the one taking potshots without once going back and adding depth to your dismissive assertion earlier. At least two others have, and plenty of people are offering a reasonable argument at some things MrSquicky has said. You continue to post glib one-liners and make no attempt to back up your assertion. That is your own choice, I have nothing to do with that behavior. I am simply pointing it out as unacceptable. If it was unacceptable when I engaged in it, then it should be equally unacceptable when you do.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was up for three seconds and I took it down. If you take down where you labeled me with derogatory terms, then that would be cool. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, i do think it's a difference in preference...and i will admit that at times that method does detract from the flow of conversation. So it has it's pluses and minuses
but that's besides the point. Squicky at least provided a small basis for his assertion. I haven't seen any from your end yet.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
People are welcome to dismiss my assertions if they believe they need peer-reviewed evidence to be believed. I haven't invoked any authorities. Beyond myself, of course, but we are all doing that when we present out opinions.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I labelled you no deroggatory terms. I commented on the (dismissive without explanation) content and tenor of your your posts. I did not say you are anything, I said that your posts in this thread are making you seem that way. I did not say it for you to like it, I said it because your posts have done more to prevent discussion than they have to encourage discussion. My suggestion is that you stop trying to turn the effect of your behavior on others. Take it for what it's worth, but that is no more than what anyone has said to me previously when asking me to behave more productively.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. I have to admit I'm still not happy about the terms, but I acknowledge that you were describing what you saw as my behavior instead of me personally.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a situation where you are pretty sure that the person isn't going to listen to what you said in any way other than to try to find flaws in it, I think linking to a complete account and explaining how you think the relevant parts apply is the best choice. In my view, the things I'm talking about are complex issues and are best served, especially before a hostile, actively ignorant audience, by presenting them in as full a context as possible.
Do people really think I need to summarize the entire Milgram experiment every time I bring it up? The idea makes no sense to me.
Likewise, I expect that it is common knowledge that cults utilize brainwashing techniques and that brainwashed cult members have committed suicide, so much so that I didn't feel any external verification of this (especially considering that kat never challenged what I said nor in fact mentioned the entire topic after I refuted her definite claim). Was I wrong?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, kat, I would appreciate it if you remain civil, much like you said you were going to. The taunting that Jutsa quoted is unwarranted and unproductive and I wish that you didn't feel a need to engage in it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if someone invokes an authority to back up their assertions, they need to be able to explain the evidence and especially why it is currently relevant.
The other option is to not invoke the authority. That option is always available.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interrupt this bickering for a response to the original post and video.
When I was a teen, I hated church. Didn't want anything to do with it. Hated going to mass on sunday, hated going to ccd, didn't want to be confirmed. I never claimed to be an atheist, I just didn't like going to church.
The reasons were various. We always went to a late mass on Sundays and I thought that wasted most of the day. I thought mass was boring. I didn't understand it. I didn't like what my religion was telling me. I didn't like doing things I didn't want to do.
At one point I told my mother I didn't want to be confirmed and didn't want to go to church anymore. She didn't yell, or swear at me like that woman did. She just told me, calmly, that if I wanted to keep living in her house, I would do what I was told to do. Or else I could leave. And I have no doubts that she would have kicked me out of the house had I decided to push my disagreement, on that issue or any other.
Is that fair? I don't know. And frankly I don't care. I've taken that stance with some issues with my step kids. My mother was boss, there was no arguing or negotiating on some things with her. And I see now, that was often a good thing and it helped shape me into who I am today.
So yes, I got confirmed and did my time in church until I was on my own and able to make my own decisions on religion. At which time, I left the church and didn't look back for 17 years. Now that I've come back, I am eternally grateful that my mother made me stick in there and get confirmed. I am eternally grateful that she laid a foundation of belief in my life, that I was able to touch that foundation and use it as a base for my return to God and my religion. As usual, my mother knew best. I really don't care how fair it was to me as a 16 year old kid. It wasn't my mother's job to be fair, it was her job to raise me as she thought was best. And that's exactly what I tell my step kids now.
As far as the family in the video goes, it is telling that she has to black mail her kid with christmas presents to get the kid to go to church. It's hard for a mother that doesn't set an example of action to enforce that action on her kids. She says that they're going to church every week from now on. If she wasn't going to church, wasn't setting that example, how can she expect her kid to not follow her example? If she's not strong in her faith, how does she expect her kid to be? Even though my mom forced me to do ccd and get confirmed, she did set an example and was active in her religion. Had she not, it would have been hard for her to force me to go. That's what this mom is fighting now.
As far as raising your kid in your religion, of course you're going to do so. If you believe in your religion, you want your kid to grow up in that. Do people really belong to a religion, and not teach their kids, bring them up in it? What's the point then? I can't imagine being catholic, not teaching my kid about being catholic, and just let them figure it out for themself. It's your duty as a parent to teach your kids about your beliefs, and about God. How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
Relativism at its finest.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if someone invokes an authority to back up their assertions, they need to be able to explain the evidence and especially why it is currently relevant.
Which, as I've exaplained, is what I did. Are you planning on addressing my explanations?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My parents didn't make or even encourage us to do anything about religion. Mom is Lutheran, Dad is Presbyterian. We have some Catholic relatives in our extended family.
Out of the six of us, four are active in our various churches. To are Catholic, one Methodist, one UCC.
I know many, many Irish guys who were brought up in a Catholic country by Catholic parents and they avoid religion altogether.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
The real question for me is, "Can you really claim to have faith yourself if you don't think it is worth teaching it to your children?"
Thanks for the response, Juxtapose. I agree that the way a person is raised, naturally, has a huge impact on the way they view the world, even as they become an adult. However, this isn't unique to religion. Raising your child without religion has effects of its own that are exactly as powerful as raising them with a particular one.
If, for instance, a child would someday have benefitted greatly from developing faith, but because of his upbringing, was never able to take any religion seriously, that would be an unnecessary obstacle generated by his upbringing, which is no more or less negative than an analogous religious upbringing might have been.
I think we all just need to recognize that no matter what, all children, as they age, have to deal with the fact that they were raised with certain assumptions that they may or may not naturally agree with, but that color their perceptions of the world regardless of whether they would like them to. It's just a natural part of getting older, and raising a child in a religion is not some unique thing that warps their life in some special and terrible way.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't follow links. I didn't find the explanations to be relevant, thorough or convincing.
There is a huge difference between not liking the quality of something and saying that those things don't exist.
I would appreciate it if you kept this in mind.
---
edit: There is also a big difference between statign something about what someone said and engaging them on it, by, for example, explaning the specific problems you had.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a big difference between socially acceptable religions like Catholiscism and the groups we call cults.
I think that it's ridiculous to try and equate the psychological pressures put on normal Catholics by their religion and religious leaders, and the pressures put on, say, the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate folks.
It's true that manipulation is used in religions. It's also true that humans use manipulation all the time. It's only evil when we manipulate others with the intention to deceive or otherwise harm them. We call non-invasive, non-harmful, non-personality-threatening manipulation, "persuasion."
I've manipulated my children into accepting a bedtime of 8:00pm. Being children, they would naturally strain against such an "early" bedtime. I manipulate them to do what I want by making bedtime a pleasant time-- we read books, sing songs, and tell stories, and we play a little.
If they whine and fuss about bedtime, it becomes a less pleasant experience. Because we are consistent with our application of bedtime policies, the children know what to expect. There are no surprises-- as sure as the sun's gonna rise, Dad's going to read us a book, tell us a story, sing a song.
This is manipulation. And there's nothing wrong with it. It's acculturation.
It's parenting.
quote:Do people really think I need to summarize the entire Milgram experiment every time I bring it up?
No, but as kmboots and kat pointed out, the Milgram experiment doesn't translate well to their understanding of religion. So an explanation, by you, perhaps supported either by your own comments, or by comments that are readily available to your audience in the form of links, is in order.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
A link of the type I provided is substantiation. I provided an explanation (edit: and a full explanation for those unaware of it) of why I thought they were relevant. If you personally have a problem with reading links, then we disagree. But that doesn't support a claim that I didn't substantiate what I said. I don't agree with what you want me to do is necessarily required of me, especially in light of the manner in which you seem to be discussing this.
---
edit: The Milgram experiment is, like many of the things I discuss, a complex thing. Proper understanding requires exposure to it in full. I don't think copying the whole link over isn't productive, nor necessarily legal. I see no problem in a case like this to link to it. Am I wrong in this, other people besides kat?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a link to the Milgram experiment (for those not already familiar) makes more sense than explaining what it was in a post though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that it's ridiculous to try and equate the psychological pressures put on normal Catholics by their religion and religious leaders, and the pressures put on, say, the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate folks.
Who did that?
---
quote:No, but as kmboots and kat pointed out, the Milgram experiment doesn't translate well to their understanding of religion. So an explanation, by you, perhaps supported either by your own comments, or by comments that are readily available to your audience in the form of links, is in order.
Then it is good that I didn't bring it up in direct reference to religion, but rather to establish the potential power of properly done manipulation, as I already have explained.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly we disagree over the existence and quality of the evidence in your posts, Squicky. I don't see us coming to an agreement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as raising your kid in your religion, of course you're going to do so. If you believe in your religion, you want your kid to grow up in that. Do people really belong to a religion, and not teach their kids, bring them up in it? What's the point then? I can't imagine being catholic, not teaching my kid about being catholic, and just let them figure it out for themself. It's your duty as a parent to teach your kids about your beliefs, and about God. How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
As has been said, many people are not saying that this is a matter of doing or not doing it, but rather of how one does it. There responsible and irresponsible ways of raising your children inside a religion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clearly we disagree over the quality of the evidence in your posts, Squicky. I don't see us coming to an agreement.
That doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to get you to stop repeating claims that I didn't do something which I in fact did.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
