prolix
-
Posts
171 -
Joined
-
Days Won
8
Posts posted by prolix
-
-
Thanks to everyone who listened. If anyone is interested the more donations & sales I get, the more I pass on to FDR...
-
In a "debate" I posted a lot of links that were anti-spanking. I was pretty confident that there would not be much counter evidence. I guess i was wrong. I got this in return. Several articles that claim to be pro-science and pro-spanking. Can anyone punch any holes in these articles?
Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found.
According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.
But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.
Children’s groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.
However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children.
“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”
Research into the effects of spanking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been spanked, given its past cultural acceptability.
But Gunnoe’s work drew on a study of 2,600 people, about a quarter of whom had never been physically chastised.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/548-new-study-finds-spanking-is-good-for-kids
Spanking is like milk: It does a body good — or at least a mind. No, this isn’t the conclusion of traditionalist parenting expert Dr. James Dobson but the finding of a study conducted by psychology professor Marjorie Gunnoe at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. FoxNews.com reports on the story, writing, “According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.”
This may come as a relief to parents who don’t wish to spare the rod, but have been accosted with numerous studies stating just the opposite. But how do we reconcile these contradictory findings? Well, perhaps the answer is that the previous scientific studies weren’t very scientific. Fox points out that, in the past, such research was lacking because it was difficult in more traditional times to find subjects who had never been spanked. In contrast, Professor Gunnoe included 2600 such individuals in her study.
I had always identified this as the fatal — but furtive — flaw in contemporary analyses of corporal punishment’s effects. To provide just a little anecdote in this regard, I remember once seeing the very libertine Dr. Drew Pinsky on television addressing a certain woman’s psychological problems. She had said that she derived sexual excitement from being humiliated and provided some quite salacious details. Well, Pinsky’s response was to ask if she had ever been struck as a child, to which she answered in the affirmative. He then in effect said, “Aha! You see, I knew it.” The problem was that this show aired at least 10 years ago and the woman was approximately 25 years old, so the days of her “trauma” were about 30 years back. Now, how many people growing up then never, ever — not even once — endured corporal punishment? You might as well have asked her if she had ever eaten carrots and then blamed her problems on beta carotene exposure.
We should bear this in mind when hearing claims used to justify anti-spanking laws, such as the prohibitions they have in Sweden and certain localities in the United States. Professor Gunnoe says that such claims are untenable and just don’t accord with the data.
Yet there is a larger truth about these contradictory studies: in reality, you can find research to justify any position you might take. This is why we must never, in the name of “science,” dispense with what G.K. Chesterton called “that forgotten branch of psychology”: common sense.
Thus, while I believe in corporal punishment (I like a soldier who knows how to maintain discipline) and am sympathetic to Gunnoe’s study, I’ll be consistent and say that the most obvious interpretation of it is insufficient to reveal the truth. For instance, the failure to spank your children is not just a difference, but a symptom. People who won’t lay hand or switch on bare bottom embrace a completely different parenting philosophy than those who will.
The difference is not just that they won’t apply the rod — it’s that they lack what I call a “rod mentality.”
That is to say, to such parents, discipline is often a dirty word. They tend to be overly permissive, set poor examples, be inconsistent in moral guidance and not teach responsibility. They are unlikely to view themselves as absolute authority figures but, rather, will treat the family as a democracy (without a constitution). They are more apt to want to be buddies than parents to their children.
Common sense tells us some other things as well. For one thing, we often hear that corporal punishment is damaging because it “teaches violence,” a nonsensical assertion if ever there were one (I completely refute this notion here). It is ironic, too, given that those who promote this idea are generally evolutionists who believe man to simply be a highly evolved animal. After all, can you think of an animal that doesn’t at times use violence? Animals use it in defense of self and territory, to kill prey, to win females, and sometimes simply because they’re angry. Hey, even Bambi is guilty. I read a while back about a deer that attacked a man, impaling the fellow with his antlers. Yet, evolutionists would have us believe that somehow, magically, man is the only “animal” who ended up with the Gandhi gene while “evolving” in this violent world.
Of course, in reality, as even cursory observation of babies and toddlers informs, it’s more like the Attila the Hun gene. When they have tantrums, they will often lash out, hitting, biting, and pulling hair. Hey, they will cry and scream without that behavior being modeled for them, either.
Despite this, some would have us believe that parents can control these often violent, disagreeable little creatures without occasional recourse to physical action themselves. These experts tell us that if you have to resort to such a tactic, there is something wrong with your parenting ability. This is an interesting theory. If it is valid, we can save ourselves a heck of a lot of money.
Why not just eliminate our military, for instance? If man can ever and always be reasoned with, there is no need for an entity whose purpose is, in part, to violently impose our will (rightly or wrongly) on others.
Then, if a man breaks the law and resists arrest, won’t the police use violent action to take him into custody? Why should this be allowed? Can’t they just talk to him, reason, and cajole him into compliance? Maybe he just needs to know he’s being listened to.
Oh, this doesn’t make sense? OK, then what do you do when a child “resists arrest”? What happens when the answer to “Go to your room” is “NO!” and the answer to “You’re grounded” is also “NO!”? If force is sometimes necessary with the mature beings known as adults, why would it not be with the raw pieces of humanity known as children?
And if we can’t answer that question without a study, it only proves that, lamentably, reason does not always prevail.
-
4
-
-
If morality is not subjective, then how can you prove that your version of what is morally correct, is the correct version? With math you can use logic to demonstrate the correctness of an equation. Please explain how you can do the same with morality.
Well, it is super easy.
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb
But you will have to graduate middle-school before you are up to the pre-requisite reading level. Maybe find an adult to read it to you. Slowly...
-
This is your subjective belief.
No it is not. It is a objective standard for discerning truth from falsehood. If you care about truth. So, whether you care about truth is up to the subject to decide, but how you arrive at truth is objective and must rely on universal standard...
-
3
-
-
Negative 40 reputation should be a signal to everyone not to read a member's posts. I only read what other members have quoted. Stop engaging and the troll will go away.
Can anyone describe what may be troll-like about my posts. Seems like a lot of adjectives and not a lot of logic and reason to me...
-
1
-
1
-
-
Prolix, all you did was repeat your previous comments. You've added nothing new and it was YOU, not I, that made this about race.
You mentioned race 20 times in your original post. And one of the main points was your reluctance to intervene because of race. You are not making a lot of sense to me here...
-
2
-
-
The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread.
If you can quote me being antagonistic that would be helpful. also if you could quote where I have been given an answer to my question, that would also be helpful. Because every time you try to quote me being antagonistic I can quote a nearby sentence explaining how it is not. And for every answer you post to my various inquiries, I can post a blatant avoidance of my question or a blatant misinterpretation of my question. I have yet to see any evidence for what you claim here sir...
-
3
-
-
I'm going to overlook the argument from ignorance and explain myself in more detail.
It means I have to take race into account with my actions and words because they could be perceived as offensive, even if I never intend offense and even if I do not otherwise care what race or gender someone is. The whole point of calling out race and gender in the original post was because that person was afraid of the reaction that person would have to a personal intervention because of race and gender!
This is exactly opposite of what race and gender "relations" people say they want, but it is what they get because of their historical actions. Welcome to the law of unintended consequences. It is the outraged offended reactions of people who feel discriminated against, even when they weren't discriminated against, that creates reaction formation as a defense mechanism.
The reason you were asked not to antagonize people on the race issue is because this explanation has been given--in various formulations--repeatedly in this thread. It genuinely pains people to have it brought up again, because, frankly, people are ashamed that they have to do these things to avoid conflict over race and gender.
That's the bottom line. The easily offended, and those that excel at acting offended, have exactly what they want: deferral to their sensitivity to the point that they personally gain from interactions.
Now the entire thread has been derailed from a discussion of child abuse to a discussion of race relations. I would have preferred to talk about the intervention, because I am not brave enough to do it, and instead we have created a paragon example of bikesheding.
I just don't get it....
-
5
-
-
...
... ....
What? So much verbiage. So little said.
Alright. I'm calling it. Dude, you are trolling. Its killing this thread and I want you to stop. Now. I am trying trying to discuss real shit here and I will not tolerate juvenile questions like, " Do you want me to be antagonistic?"
The answer to that riddle is, "No. Now contribute meaningfully to the discussion or get out."
Ok, now I think you are being overtly antagonistic. Is it not appropriate for me to ask that? When someone says to me "What? So much verbiage. So little said." I don't exactly feel as though they have read and considered my post. which is fine. Just telling you how it lands with me.
I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?"
I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me.
Ok, here we go. time to be direct and antagonistic. I guess. You didn't stop any abuse, you wanted to and you were conflicted. but your own prejudices, that were of a racial manner, prevented you from acting. Now when I bring up the racial aspect, you say I am derailing. but you are the one that put race at the center of your scenario and introduced it as a reason why you would not intervene. So I really do not understand why it is so difficult for you to talk about a prominent aspect of a scenario that you brought up....
-
2
-
-
Great thread. The only criticism I would have of Bob is this. He could have stressed the empirical and scientific nature of some of the spiritual stuff he talked about.
I think if you take in his full body of work and account for his empirical thinking on things like "Anarchist, Voluntaryist, Agnostic about Everything" then his spiritual stuff is properly in context. But I think there is a (mis?)conception that he holds spiritual beliefs ( he may have; I am agnostic on the subject) because of some of the valid parallels to Crowly, McKenna & Watts in his work. But I do think Bobby was an empiricist first and foremost and had a wild penchant for visual and poetic speech second...
-
If you have not been trained to be sensitive to race in your relations with others, you are a very lucky person. As a manager and a businessman I avoid angering people.
I don't know what any of that means. Sorry, it could just be me...
Wow. Prolix, are you TRYING to be antagonistic?
We've been through this, guy.
I am not. But you are continually casting me as that. So I must counter-ask, "do you want me to be antagonistic?" I ask because that is how you clearly mis-interepreted my first post, And arguablly they way you choose to interpret my subsequent posts. Again, that is not my intention.
You say "we have been through this" But I don't see any definite end of the conversation. Except for your reference to it in past tense here.
I asked you "Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?"
I don't deserve an answer or anything. But I do not think we have "been through it". Mostly because, as you admit, you view it as antagonistic. Despite my every attempt to stress that it is not intended as antagonistic to me...
-
2
-
-
I loved BH6!
(There's also a part where the aunt states that she should have studied up on parenting... she seemed to do well from what I remember.)
Also, the repetition of "Tadashi is here" was a nice way to reinforce the idea that Hiro's brother lives on in Baymax.
(Similar to how children reflect their parents and whatnot.)
Yes, I wanted to include the parental figure, the aunt, but I felt it was kind of a mixed bag and she made very few appearances in the movie...
-
False morality is subjective. Valid morality is objective. It really is that easy. If someones attempts at moralizing are not universal (UPB) then they are attempting morality and failing. If someones moralization is universal then they have given a valid moral statement.
It is like criticism. If someone is giving an invalid criticism, then they are not criticizing at all. If someone is giving a non-universal moralization, then they are not moralizing at all.
You can make it more complicated that that, like so many other things, but I don't know why you would. Of course, I am open to why/how that may not be the case, but I can't see it as of yet...
-
2
-
-
I guess a movie with pro-ancap and pro NAP themes is either not what is happening in this movie or it is not something this community is interested in?
-
1. You are constructing a vast edifice that could easily be explained by something as simple as reaction formation. 2. We've been trained by shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson to take race into account, because they will if we don't.
1. I don't think so. If "reaction formation" can explain anything here to me, I fail to see how from your post. I am "constructing a vast edifice"? Because I thought I was just explaining how I feel.
2. Who is this "we"? I don't feel that the "we" you describe describes me.
-
1
-
-
I want to empty out the moms bank account and take all of her valuables and then stick a camera in her face and have a professional comedian mock and taunt her as she cries and throws a fit. Upload, boom, 2 million views...
-
I just saw the Disney movie "Big Hero 6". And I want to assert that it is a very pro AnCap and pro NAP themed story. So obviously there will be spoilers if you haven't seen it. There is a plot synopsis at the bottom if you want to proceed anyway having not seen the film.
I just want to bullet point my observations about possible AnCap and NAP themes.
- Right from the go innovation plays a big role as almost all out main characters are brilliant inventors. Including the main character. Innovation is kinda a character in this movie as it is central to the characters. Entrepreneurship and innovation as a virtue.
- Early in the movie they set up the "evil capitalist" antagonist by having the "public sector" professor accuse him of being, well and evil capitalist.. But it turns out that he was the victim and that the bad guy was actually someone else, it was a fake out plot device.. The capitalist character turns out to be neutral or maybe even sympathetic character. One of the few times I can remember that the capitalist wasn't being demonized in a film.
- The antagonist character turns out to be the Professor not the "evil capitalist". The antagonist is driven by emotion, in this case revenge. Much like the state is driven by emotional propaganda like "we must help the poor!" or "we must avenge 9/11, invade iraq".
- The antagonist steals an innovation from the main character something that they did not make, like our tax dollars, and uses them for evil, like the state does with tax revenue.
- There is a medical robot in the film who is basically the moral center of the movie because he can not harm a human because of programming and is centrally concerned with this premise throughout the movie. The character is basically a NAP-bot and actually dissuades the main character from violence in the movie.
- At one point the lead character goes to the cops to warn about the antagonist, the cops are show to be apathetic and ineffectual.
- There is a scene where all the lead characters are being chased in a car by the antagonist and his giant army of nanobots. The driver of the get away vehicle keeps stopping at red lights and observing the speed limit. Another character criticizes him for this and takes the wheel from him and starts driving fast and running red lights. Don't worry it is 3AM and in a cartoon world so it is safe. The point being that sometimes imminent danger is more important than "the rules".
- At one point in the movie we find out that one of the main characters is ridiculously wealthy and nobody knew. His wealth is used to further the plot in favor of the protagonist and there is no negative connotation to being rich.
- The movie really drives home the NAP argument when the lead character learns that the antagonist, the professor, set into action events that killed the lead characters brother and moves to exact revenge against the antagonist. All the other characters resist, including the NAP-bot who has to be deprogrammed in order to break NAP. A great amount of emphasis is put on this central theme of non-violence.
- The final defeat of the antagonist involves the antagonist running out of microbots, a technology he stole, as he overextends himself in the final battle. This, I think, equates to the government over-extending itself through debt and taxes.
- In the end it turns out that the source of the antagonists emotional revenge, was not even valid to begin with as his daughter was not actually dead. This is like how the media and the governments stir up problems that don't really even exist to further their own ends.
I could list many more small details, but those are just the big ones off the top of my head. So to summarize; Pro NAP themes and characters, Pro innovation and Entrepreneurship themes, the rich are not portrayed as evil and state power is portrayed and apathetic and useless.
I would love others thoughts on this. Also I think it would be a refreshing video for FDR to scrutinize a movie that wasn't a portrait of madness through magic or an avert appeal to socialism or sexism or something like that. I could be totally wrong and it is totally just statist propaganda, but I would love to know what you think. Is it possible for big media to even, maybe accidentally, make a pro NAP and Pro AnCap movie?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Hero_6_(film)#Plot
Hiro Hamada is a 14-year-old robotics genius who lives in the futuristic city of San Fransokyo and spends his time participating in back-alley robot fights. His older brother Tadashi, worried that Hiro is wasting his potential, takes him to the robotics lab at his university, where Hiro meets Tadashi's friends, GoGo, Wasabi, Honey Lemon, and Fred as well as Baymax, a personal healthcare robot Tadashi created. Amazed, Hiro decides to apply to the school. He presents his project—microbots, swarms of tiny robots that can link together in any arrangement imaginable—at an annual exhibition to gain admission. Professor Callaghan, head of the program, is impressed, and Hiro gets in. When a fire breaks out at the university, Tadashi rushes in to rescue Callaghan, but the building explodes and both are killed. As a result of losing his brother, Hiro secludes himself from others.
One day, Hiro accidentally activates Baymax, who follows one of his microbots to an abandoned warehouse. There, the two discover that someone has been mass-producing Hiro's bots; they are attacked by a masked man called Yokai, who is controlling the bots. Realizing this man has stolen his project, Hiro decides to catch him, and upgrades Baymax with armor and a battle chip. After Yokai attacks Hiro, Baymax, GoGo, Wasabi, Honey Lemon and Fred, the six form a superhero team.The group discovers a former lab of Krei Tech, a prestigious robotics company, that was experimenting with teleportation technology. The test went awry when the human test pilot vanished inside an unstable portal. Yokai is revealed to be Professor Callaghan, who stole Hiro's bots and used them to escape the fire. Realizing that Tadashi died in vain, Hiro angrily removes Baymax's healthcare chip, leaving him with only the battle chip, and orders him to kill Callaghan. Baymax almost does so until Honey manages to insert the healthcare chip back in, restoring the robot. Angry at his friends, Hiro goes home, and breaks down when Baymax asks him if killing Callaghan will make him feel better. To soften Hiro's loss, Baymax plays humorous clips of Tadashi running tests on him during Baymax's development. Hiro realizes that killing people is not what Tadashi would've wanted and makes amends with his friends.
The group discovers that the test pilot was Callaghan's daughter Abigail; Callaghan is seeking revenge on Alistair Krei, the president of Krei Tech, whom he blames for his daughter's death. The team destroys the microbots, but the portal remains active. Baymax detects a still-alive Abigail, and he and Hiro rush in to save her. On their way out, Baymax's armor is damaged and he realizes the only way to save Hiro and Abigail is to propel them through with his rocket fist. Hiro refuses to leave him, but Baymax insists until Hiro tearfully gives in. Hiro and Abigail make it back, while Callaghan is arrested.
Sometime later, as Hiro is finally moving on, he discovers Baymax's healthcare chip (which contains his entire personality) clenched in his rocket fist. Delighted, he rebuilds Baymax and they happily reunite. The six friends continue their exploits through the city, fulfilling Tadashi's dream of helping those in need.
During the end credits, it is shown through newspaper headlines that Hiro has been awarded a grant from the university and a building is dedicated to Tadashi. In a post-credits scene, Fred accidentally opens a secret door in his family mansion and finds superhero gear inside. His father, a retired superhero, arrives and embraces him, stating that they have a lot to talk about.-
1
-
He did not put undue emphasis on that aspect of the situation. Prolix, I do see the point that you are making, where the focus is most important is the little boy, of course.
I agree, but I just found his emphasis to be peculiar, not wrong or anything like that. Certianly not undue, that would be racist. And yes, you got it, the emphasis or focus should be on treatment of children, not race. Now I was just saying that I thought he was setting up a further discussion on how different cultures treat childeren.
I guess to me it kinda struck me that he inserted (played?) the race card, by speculating that they would play the race card first. And the reason he pre-supposed that they could play the race card, in my opinion, is that he wanted to give himself an excuse for not saying something to the women.
Look, I don't pretend to say that he should or shouldn't confront the women hitting the kid. I don't think he needs to give an excuse. But it reads as an excuse to me. That is up to him looking at the situation. It is a personal decision you have to make for yourself and I do not intend to tell anyone what to do ever or judge them for doing/not doing something. I was simply very distracted by the role race played in his story. As I demonstrated, he could have told the story without race. It seems to me, that the only role race plays is to assuage his conflicting feelings about confronting the abusive women. Now either that is something to think about or it isn't. But it is just how it lands with me having been surrounded by a lot of racism in my own life. Sometimes it is very subtle and sometimes it is not there at all when it appears to be, I would not assume to know.
But I think it is a valid question worth asking. "Are our attitudes about race correct and fair?" I think that is a valid question to ask ourselves to a certain extent. Is you assuming that they would play the race card because they are black the same or similar to you assuming that someone is racist because they are white?
I am sorry, my ears poke up when I see extra emphasis on race. I tend to expect some other valid observations coming after. I asked about this and he immediately reinterpreted what I said to be the complete opposite of what I said. And then after that he restated his original comments in regards to my curiosity. Look, he brought it here for a reason, he wanted our thoughts, unless they could be re-interpreted as critical and dismissed without consideration apparently...
-
2
-
-
I hate the way 80% of British men look, so, to me, that seems like a reasonable number...
-
4
-
5
-
-
2008, "Statism is Dead" series came across my recommended videos on youtube. Hooked! Never missed a show since...
-
2
-
-
So I got 10 negs and 0 comments on why. How is that productive or helpful?
-
1
-
4
-
-
Would my body be able to PHYSICALLY survive, the amount of pot, I would need to smoke to endure having a front row seat to this?
Yes, it would. Pot has a giant LD50. Also I would NOT smoke weed on greyhound, they will bust you super easy even if you smoke at a rest stop. I speak from experience. Also smoking weed to combat/counteract stress is not the ideal usage of that particular sacred herb according to many people. Again, just my experience.
Now although I do find the situation you describe very interesting, I was also struck by your assertion of race more than I was interested in this subject which I have considered many times before. I understand your concern that you may have race thrust into it by the other person., IE they "play the race card". I understand that and agree with Joel Patterson when he says, "I think your concern was probably valid, Zelenn"
That said I was struck by the importance race played in your setup non the less. Could it have not been described as...
So, I'm in a greyhound bus station and I am observing a little boy being hit and yelled at by two women, presumably family. Knowing that I could not safely broach the issue without the women becoming hysterical and fearing that I would be kicked off the bus for causing a scene, I resorted to alerting a police officer to handle the matter.
Two officers are dealing with the issue as I type and I have mixed feelings about this. I stopped child abuse, but used the State to do it.
I'm glad I stopped the abuse, for now, I'm sure nothing will happen permanently, but was calling the State in my only option? How would you suggest I approach two females and say, "Stop hitting your fucking kid, you soul destroying, violence edifying vermin!"
See if you typed that. I would have then commented on the last part. There are many varying things you could say to someone in this instance. I understand that what you typed is what you want to say, but come on guy, that is not what you would actually say. Which is why you said nothing. There is a way to confront people in this situation. It is not either "lash out in anger" or "do nothing and go smoke pot to chill out" as it appears you present it here. Do you recognize that there are some medium things you can say to somebody in that situation that could be less confrontational? Of course you do. So you have told us some of your reservations about confronting them. but do you have others? Is that something you want to explore? Maybe explore how and what you may ideally say to someone if you are in this situation, this unfortunate situation, that you find your self in now?
I mean, there is still time. You can go and be very nice to these ladies and still provide some good information to them in a non-confrontational way? A less confrontational way maybe? Even though, what you are doing is totally confrontational. Maybe the most important and most confrontational situation you can have besides violent combat...
No offense, but is this a real question?
Yes.
Why would I bring up race unless i intended to include further cultural observations?
No. That is not what I asked you. So you have yet to answer my question. Look, not that I deserve an answer, it is what it is. But I thought I would just point it out, as a matter of consideration to you, all the same...
-
1
-
2
-
-
I'm not a racist, but with all the race baiting that happens in our culture, is it really so horrible that I would factor in the possibility of being race carded for addressing the issue?
I didn't say anything was horrible. Also I went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you a racist. I was simply asking a question. A question you didn't answer btw...
-
1
-
3
-
-
Study: Spanked Children May Grow Up to Be Happier, More Successful
in General Messages
Posted
Sorry, the articles I found could not link their sources, looking into that now to see if there ever was a source study, or just some christian "study", which is not a study at all but bullshit navel-gazing by christian academics...