When will a free society take my children from me?

[Donnadogsoth]

Suppose I'm an all-around good parent, EXCEPT--I am a Christian and am indoctrinating my children into the Christian religion.  Now, given my reputation around here which sources to a general hatred of Christianity, and the equation of Christianity and other religious forms as irrational, evil, etc., and therefore tantamount to child abuse, WHEN will my children be taken away from me by well-meaning, "activist" freedom lovers in our glorious Ancap society?

[dsayers]

@staff: Please alter the title to "how much irrationality and manipulation can I fit into a single post?"

 

Somebody who inflicts (irrational) conclusions onto their child is not an "all-around good parent."

 

There is no "general hatred of Christianity" "here." Rational thinkers accept that irrationality is antithetical to rational discourse. People who want peace and freedom accept that child abuse is antithetical. Moral people accept that any violation of property rights is immoral. Categorizing these as "hatred" makes it sound as if it is a preference as opposed to the rational conclusion that "religion is child abuse" is.

[Will Torbald]

Don't worry, your child will leave your side by himself after realizing how insane you are.

[Donnadogsoth]

@staff: Please alter the title to "how much irrationality and manipulation can I fit into a single post?"

 

Somebody who inflicts (irrational) conclusions onto their child is not an "all-around good parent."

 

There is no "general hatred of Christianity" "here." Rational thinkers accept that irrationality is antithetical to rational discourse. People who want peace and freedom accept that child abuse is antithetical. Moral people accept that any violation of property rights is immoral. Categorizing these as "hatred" makes it sound as if it is a preference as opposed to the rational conclusion that "religion is child abuse" is.

 

Right.  So, when will you be taking my child away, and by what means will you do so?  I think you are capable of a straight answer to a question that would be on every Christian parent's mind should Ancap loom.

[thebeardslastcall]

Well I haven't read your post, but I'll just give a brief reply going by the title:
If your child turns out in a way that is opposed (insane in a sane society) to society around it, then it will remain confined to its original property and will not be able to integrate with society. If the child turns out sane (and the parent is insane, but failed to teach the kid insane or bad ideas) then the kid will leave the parent and integrate with the rest of sane society. Will a free society take your kid for being insane? Well, only defensively in the way I picture it. Defensively for the society, not necessarily for the sake of the kid. As they've not the right the interfere if there is no violence exuding from the situation. The likelihood tends to be however that if a parent is being raised violently then the child will also become violent and it will not remain contained and thus people will be acting defensively if they interfere and will not simply be taking the child, but defending themselves in a way that may separate parent from child. But if the parent and child are both acting violently in an uncontained fashion then they're already separated in a fashion and any further physical separation is merely to stop the violently reactive situation that occurs from continued proximity and influence.

So insane religious people will be able to be insane to the degree that they can contain it and that their neighbors are willing to tolerate it. How long will you continue your insanity when you're surrounded by rational people who will not trade with you? I suspect not long, because the only reason so many people are acting religious is because they're surrounded by the insanity. People are religious because they're just swaying with the wind and when the wind blows towards rationality people will abandon religion in increasing amounts and having your children taken from you won't be the issue but being increasingly isolated in a rational world that would cause your child to voluntarily leave you is the most likely outcome. 

If you're thinking it's wrong to have a child taken from a parent at what point do you think it's wrong for a parent to physically prevent a child from leaving who wants to leave to escape a violent or insane parent when outside society is willing to have them? If you're a good parent and the child very much wants to stay then a free society would leave them be because it would be violent to take them away against their will.

 

But this is looking at a free society. What's scary is that you put this fear into the prospect of a free society when children are already being taken from parents in the current (Christian centric) society. What's to stop my children from being taken from me in a Christian society when I'm not teaching them Christianity or making them drink the statist coolade? People who advocate a free society have a better track record here and the current heavily Christian and statist society is stealing kids and separating them from parents en masse. You're standing on a mound of cut off heads and aren't acknowledging them. How about we focus on ending the kidnapping that is currently happening or do you feel the current society is just somehow and your kids are currently 'safe'?

[Donnadogsoth]

Well I haven't read your post, but I'll just give a brief reply going by the title:

If your child turns out in a way that is opposed (insane in a sane society) to society around it, then it will remain confined to its original property and will not be able to integrate with society. If the child turns out sane (and the parent is insane, but failed to teach the kid insane or bad ideas) then the kid will leave the parent and integrate with the rest of sane society. Will a free society take your kid for being insane? Well, only defensively in the way I picture it. Defensively for the society, not necessarily for the sake of the kid. As they've not the right the interfere if there is no violence exuding from the situation. The likelihood tends to be however that if a parent is being raised violently then the child will also become violent and it will not remain contained and thus people will be acting defensively if they interfere and will not simply be taking the child, but defending themselves in a way that may separate parent from child. But if the parent and child are both acting violently in an uncontained fashion then they're already separated in a fashion and any further physical separation is merely to stop the violently reactive situation that occurs from continued proximity and influence.

So insane religious people will be able to be insane to the degree that they can contain it and that their neighbors are willing to tolerate it. How long will you continue your insanity when you're surrounded by rational people who will not trade with you? I suspect not long, because the only reason so many people are acting religious is because they're surrounded by the insanity. People are religious because they're just swaying with the wind and when the wind blows towards rationality people will abandon religion in increasing amounts and having your children taken from you won't be the issue but being increasingly isolated in a rational world that would cause your child to voluntarily leave you is the most likely outcome. 

 

If you're thinking it's wrong to have a child taken from a parent at what point do you think it's wrong for a parent to physically prevent a child from leaving who wants to leave to escape a violent or insane parent when outside society is willing to have them? If you're a good parent and the child very much wants to stay then a free society would leave them be because it would be violent to take them away against their will.

 

But this is looking at a free society. What's scary is that you put this fear into the prospect of a free society when children are already being taken from parents in the current (Christian centric) society. What's to stop my children from being taken from me in a Christian society when I'm not teaching them Christianity or making them drink the statist coolade? People who advocate a free society have a better track record here and the current heavily Christian and statist society is stealing kids and separating them from parents en masse. You're standing on a mound of cut off heads and aren't acknowledging them. How about we focus on ending the kidnapping that is currently happening or do you feel the current society is just somehow and your kids are currently 'safe'?

 

Thanks for the reply.  Almost a straight answer!

 

(1) Are you asserting there are American children being taken from their parents on religious grounds?

 

(2) By "mound of cut off heads" you refer to Child Welfare services or the like separating children from abusive homes?

 

(3) Are you proposing a child should be separated from their household any time they express a desire to leave and an outside expresses a desire to adopt them?

[Mister Mister]

Suppose I'm an all-around good parent, EXCEPT--I am a Christian and am indoctrinating my children into the Christian religion.  Now, given my reputation around here which sources to a general hatred of Christianity, and the equation of Christianity and other religious forms as irrational, evil, etc., and therefore tantamount to child abuse, WHEN will my children be taken away from me by well-meaning, "activist" freedom lovers in our glorious Ancap society?

in my opinion the issue with religious instruction isn't the content of the instruction, but the form of the instruction -- "Accept things which I cannot prove to you, because I say so, and if not you are bad."  The same method is practiced by many atheist parents.  just curious, how would you indoctrinate children into Christianity?  would you tell them about hell?  Original Sin?  my understanding is that Stef's argument is not that ALL religious instruction is necessarily child abuse, but threatening them with Hell, and inflicting the guilt of Original Sin, for which the greatest and most perfect man ever died a horrible and brutal death after being tortured for several days, IS indeed abusive.  If you plan to tell these things to a toddler, I would take a good look in the mirror.  and yes, in a future society, you could expect serious pushback from a community with moral integrity, towards this kind of parenting.

 

If, on the other hand, you tell them the truth, something like "This is what Daddy believes for X and Y and Z reasons, though many other people believe in different gods, and other people believe in no gods at all.  I hope you will be open to Daddy's beliefs, and take part in these rituals because I think it will make your life better."  I don't think there could be a problem there.  Because you are allowing the child the freedom to think for themselves.

 

I don't think, in a free society, children would be forcibly separated from their parents unless it was the last possible option.  the costs and risks are just so high, that it wouldn't make sense to do this over a disagreement about metaphysics.  but you are asking us like we are the Department of Child Protection in an anarchist society, which wouldn't exist.  it would be up to experts and leaders in the community to negotiate and come to the best solution.  Why is this an issue?  Is this really your biggest concern in the world?

[Donnadogsoth]

Thanks for the answer, RoseCodex.  The integrity of the family is a very important issue, as is the protection of the welfare of children.  I find it unsettling that the sentiment here suggests teaching children the tenets of traditional Christianity could be considered child abuse, but, at the same time, I sympathise with the suggestion that an anti-rational education is also child abuse.  I am interested in a rational education for any children I might have, and as a Christian humanist that education would have to be religion couched in rationalist terms.

 

Points of a Christian education:

 

1.“Heaven” means “principle” and “Earth” means “sense impressions.” This is the most important thing to teach children as soon as they can understand it.

 

2.In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.

 

3.God made man in His own image, so man is the creative species, capable of finding jewels of Heaven and using them to alter his practice on Earth.

 

4.The basis for all morality is increasing the survival-power of man on Earth, by the discovery of principles in Heaven.

 

5.Any man who actually does, or desires to, operate according to principles of Heaven is blessed by God, any man who does not is cursed.

 

6.Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Who knew every principle in Heaven, and Who came to Earth to teach mankind the proper way to act towards man and God.

 

7.The first commandment of Jesus is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your strength and with all your soul.”

 

8.“Heart” means emotions, “mind” means thoughts, “strength” means willpower, and “soul” mean intellect or your knowledge of principle.

 

9.The second commandment of Jesus is this: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

 

10.In preaching these good things, Jesus incurred the wrath of the wicked, who murdered Him.

 

11.No one rose up to help stop Jesus's murder. And neither would we. Thus, we all killed Him.

 

12.Because Jesus was God's Son, God revived Him and brought Him to live forever in Heaven.

 

13.Any man who knows and loves Jesus has a seat in Heaven, even if that man has never heard of the name Jesus Christ.

 

14.God will repay good for good and evil for evil to all, and he who does not know and love Jesus, even by the unspeakable Name of Christ within his heart, earns a place in Hell.

 

15.Hell is separation from God and Heaven, which is a terrible thing.

 

16.God is a God of good taste, who created mankind to be beautiful and loving, and to understand Heaven and multiply and have dominion over the Earth.

 

17.To please God, we should act by His commandments, and we should talk to Him when we are in private, called prayer, thanking Him for the good things we have received in Heaven and Earth, praising Him for His creation, and asking for His help in our lives.

 

18.No one knows how prayer works, but prayers are good things that win favour with God. Even if God doesn't provide the help you seek, the prayer itself has value. God does not always give you what you want, because God has His own plan, His ways are not our ways. Take strength from prayer, which helps organise the mind.

 

19.We who believe in the name of Jesus Christ are called Christians. Christians are called to teach about Jesus to any who will listen, so as to better direct their attention to Heaven and increase the survival-power of mankind.

[Koroviev]

This post should be titled "When will my property rights be infringed upon in a society based around NOT infringing on other's property rights"

[Donnadogsoth]

This post should be titled "When will my property rights be infringed upon in a society based around NOT infringing on other's property rights"

 

Children are property?

[dsayers]

This post should be titled "When will my property rights be infringed upon in a society based around NOT infringing on other's property rights"

Great point. The topic is framed as if the people taking the children away are the ones violating property rights, not the parents. As if the parents own the children, so abusing them isn't a violation, while taking them away would be. That's pretty gross actually.

[shirgall]

Good people in society will just refuse to do business with you until you do right by your children. Consider your deed in the dark as your food supplies dwindle. Maybe they won't let you starve, or your children at least, but they will not let you buy any of the good stuff.

[Mister Mister]

Thanks for the answer, RoseCodex.  The integrity of the family is a very important issue, as is the protection of the welfare of children.  I find it unsettling that the sentiment here suggests teaching children the tenets of traditional Christianity could be considered child abuse, but, at the same time, I sympathise with the suggestion that an anti-rational education is also child abuse.  I am interested in a rational education for any children I might have, and as a Christian humanist that education would have to be religion couched in rationalist terms.

 

Points of a Christian education:

 

1.“Heaven” means “principle” and “Earth” means “sense impressions.” This is the most important thing to teach children as soon as they can understand it.

 

2.In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth.

 

3.God made man in His own image, so man is the creative species, capable of finding jewels of Heaven and using them to alter his practice on Earth.

 

4.The basis for all morality is increasing the survival-power of man on Earth, by the discovery of principles in Heaven.

 

5.Any man who actually does, or desires to, operate according to principles of Heaven is blessed by God, any man who does not is cursed.

 

6.Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Who knew every principle in Heaven, and Who came to Earth to teach mankind the proper way to act towards man and God.

 

7.The first commandment of Jesus is this: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, with all your strength and with all your soul.”

 

8.“Heart” means emotions, “mind” means thoughts, “strength” means willpower, and “soul” mean intellect or your knowledge of principle.

 

9.The second commandment of Jesus is this: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”

 

10.In preaching these good things, Jesus incurred the wrath of the wicked, who murdered Him.

 

11.No one rose up to help stop Jesus's murder. And neither would we. Thus, we all killed Him.

 

12.Because Jesus was God's Son, God revived Him and brought Him to live forever in Heaven.

 

13.Any man who knows and loves Jesus has a seat in Heaven, even if that man has never heard of the name Jesus Christ.

 

14.God will repay good for good and evil for evil to all, and he who does not know and love Jesus, even by the unspeakable Name of Christ within his heart, earns a place in Hell.

 

15.Hell is separation from God and Heaven, which is a terrible thing.

 

16.God is a God of good taste, who created mankind to be beautiful and loving, and to understand Heaven and multiply and have dominion over the Earth.

 

17.To please God, we should act by His commandments, and we should talk to Him when we are in private, called prayer, thanking Him for the good things we have received in Heaven and Earth, praising Him for His creation, and asking for His help in our lives.

 

18.No one knows how prayer works, but prayers are good things that win favour with God. Even if God doesn't provide the help you seek, the prayer itself has value. God does not always give you what you want, because God has His own plan, His ways are not our ways. Take strength from prayer, which helps organise the mind.

 

19.We who believe in the name of Jesus Christ are called Christians. Christians are called to teach about Jesus to any who will listen, so as to better direct their attention to Heaven and increase the survival-power of mankind.

this is fog.  I don't want a 19 - point platform about your theological positions, I'm asking HOW you would teach things to kids.  Do you allow them to question or disagree?  Do you tell them they are bad for disbelieving.  Do you also tell them that many other people in the world have many different beliefs?  Do you tell them they are born with Original Sin?  Do you tell them about Hell?  These are the main things a peaceful society would be concerned about.

 

After thinking about it a little bit, the whole premise of the post annoys me.  It seems like you are saying, "this is how I intend to raise my children, and any criticism of my intentions as a bigoted attack on my person".  And by immediately going to the last possible response, forcible separation of children from parents, you are trying to frame US as the intolerant aggressors, and yourself as the hypothetical victim, which immediately escalates things.  Usually when people unjustly frame themselves as the victim it's because they are trying to take advantage of other people, so this concerns me. 

 

Since this is a hypothetical, as you don't have kids (I'm guessing?), and we don't live in a free society, why not start from a place of calm exploration, rather than this hysterical ultimatum?  A more productive conversation might go something like, "what aspects of a Christian upbringing are abusive, and what aspects might be tolerated in a free society?".

[Donnadogsoth]

this is fog.  I don't want a 19 - point platform about your theological positions, I'm asking HOW you would teach things to kids.  Do you allow them to question or disagree?  Do you tell them they are bad for disbelieving.  Do you also tell them that many other people in the world have many different beliefs?  Do you tell them they are born with Original Sin?  Do you tell them about Hell?  These are the main things a peaceful society would be concerned about.

 

After thinking about it a little bit, the whole premise of the post annoys me.  It seems like you are saying, "this is how I intend to raise my children, and any criticism of my intentions as a bigoted attack on my person".  And by immediately going to the last possible response, forcible separation of children from parents, you are trying to frame US as the intolerant aggressors, and yourself as the hypothetical victim, which immediately escalates things.  Usually when people unjustly frame themselves as the victim it's because they are trying to take advantage of other people, so this concerns me. 

 

Since this is a hypothetical, as you don't have kids (I'm guessing?), and we don't live in a free society, why not start from a place of calm exploration, rather than this hysterical ultimatum?  A more productive conversation might go something like, "what aspects of a Christian upbringing are abusive, and what aspects might be tolerated in a free society?".

 

Now, come, RoseCodex, the Internet is made for extreme discussions. I think it was a good starting point asking when a free society will take away my children. Now to your questions:

 

Do you allow them to question or disagree?

 

They can question all they want, their understanding of principle will come in time and then they won't need my authority.

 

Do you tell them they are bad for disbelieving.

 

Their theological education will be based primarily on the classical arts and sciences, so they will internalise a feeling of badness whenever they violate reason or good taste.

 

Do you also tell them that many other people in the world have many different beliefs?

 

Such knowledge will eventually filter to them whether from their parents or from outsiders.

 

Do you tell them they are born with Original Sin?

 

Yes, in the sense that humans are all born with a lust for wickedness coming from their ego and mother image complexes, and that this can be overcome through principle. That is, humans possess the divine spark which makes them worth saving.

 

Do you tell them about Hell?

 

Yes, a hell both in this world of giving in the bestiality of the senses, and in the world to come, as having sacrificed one's potential for immortal efficiency in helping the human race.

 

These are the main things a peaceful society would be concerned about.

 

Are you concerned about my given answers above?

 

...why not start from a place of calm exploration, rather than this hysterical ultimatum?  A more productive conversation might go something like, "what aspects of a Christian upbringing are abusive, and what aspects might be tolerated in a free society?".

 

Given that hundreds of millions of children are being raised to varying degrees and with varying flavours Christian, I think this concern is one that Christian parents will have when their beliefs are admonished as being irrational, evil, initiating force against their children, and the like. All the moreso in a proposed anarchic environment wherein the authority to divest children from their “abusive” parents will be decentralised and therefore seemingly less predictable (“anarchic”).

 

So, I have given you my answers to your questions and a point-by-point summary of the religious beliefs I would seek to teach my child, not including the Nicene Creed which would be a companion to it, so let's consider your more productive conversation initiated, yes?

[Will Torbald]

Such knowledge will eventually filter to them whether from their parents or from outsiders.

 

Do you tell them they are born with Original Sin?

 

Yes, in the sense that humans are all born with a lust for wickedness coming from their ego and mother image complexes, and that this can be overcome through principle. That is, humans possess the divine spark which makes them worth saving.

 

Do you tell them about Hell?

 

Yes, a hell both in this world of giving in the bestiality of the senses, and in the world to come, as having sacrificed one's potential for immortal efficiency in helping the human race.

 

You're a monster.

[Koroviev]

...make sure to work in the implication that the danger of property rights being infringed upon in a society defined by not infringing on property rights is greater than in the current statist system that is defined by the infringement on property rights.

 

Also, can't forget to add a clause about how confusing your children, lying to them, and scaring them into submission is in no way infringing on their property rights

[Donnadogsoth]

You're a monster.

 

And you're good at missing the point.

[MrNlul77]

@donnadogsoth, you are a troll!.

 

Don't feed the trolls!.

[Alan C.]

This is what happens when people choose irrationality and superstition over science and reason:

 

7 deadly cases of parents who chose faith over meds

 

Shocking Numbers of Children Die in America When Their Parents Turn to Faith-Based Healing

[AccuTron]

I think D-soth is getting served here with an extra helping of Trounce.  (Not that it matters, but for some reason I think D is male, yet the name Donna ain't.  So if I use the pronoun "he"....)  

 

The ground about telling a child things which require supernatural or illogical beliefs, has been well trod here.  Yet, as I think about various parents I've met over the years, religion isn't even needed to see how many people have tickets to The Land Of No Logic.  That's also well trod.

 

I think post 15 is a pretty good overall guide.  I never heard Original Sin as anything other than an arm-twisting perversion.  Yet here it's explained pretty well.  C'mon people, we're apes!  Reading much military history, this is a species that thinks burning a village is a good way to get out of the house.  Our various ancestors would throw a kid out of the tree for messing with whatever primeval internet we had.  Maybe it's the wording:  call it Original Stupid.

[Koroviev]

And you're good at missing the point.

 

lol nice edit

[Donnadogsoth]

This is what happens when people choose irrationality and superstition over science and reason:

 

7 deadly cases of parents who chose faith over meds

 

Shocking Numbers of Children Die in America When Their Parents Turn to Faith-Based Healing

 

You're implying that killing your kids by depriving them of modern medicine is common to Christianity, which is a patent lie.  Does the Church promote faith healing at the expense of modern medicine?

[Donnadogsoth]

I think D-soth is getting served here with an extra helping of Trounce.  (Not that it matters, but for some reason I think D is male, yet the name Donna ain't.  So if I use the pronoun "he"....)  

 

The ground about telling a child things which require supernatural or illogical beliefs, has been well trod here.  Yet, as I think about various parents I've met over the years, religion isn't even needed to see how many people have tickets to The Land Of No Logic.  That's also well trod.

 

I think post 15 is a pretty good overall guide.  I never heard Original Sin as anything other than an arm-twisting perversion.  Yet here it's explained pretty well.  C'mon people, we're apes!  Reading much military history, this is a species that thinks burning a village is a good way to get out of the house.  Our various ancestors would throw a kid out of the tree for messing with whatever primeval internet we had.  Maybe it's the wording:  call it Original Stupid.

 

I call it ICES: Ignorance causes Craziness which causes people to behave in Evil and Stupid ways.

[Alan C.]

You're implying that killing your kids by depriving them of modern medicine is common to Christianity, which is a patent lie.  Does the Church promote faith healing at the expense of modern medicine?

 

Christianity and other superstitious worldviews legitimize irrationallity and magical thinking, and encourage people to shun and ridicule science and reason (except when they personally benefit from it).

[Donnadogsoth]

Christianity and other superstitious worldviews legitimize irrationallity and magical thinking, and encourage people to shun and ridicule science and reason (except when they personally benefit from it).

 

More lies.  You pay too much attention to Christian-hating secular scientists who like to pretend science is a secular trade secret rather than something bequeathed to them in large part by Christian (mostly Catholic) scientists.  If what you say is true there would have been no Catholic scientists, scientist-priests no less.  How did Gregor Mendel benefit from his pea experiments?

[rosencrantz]

How did Gregor Mendel benefit from his pea experiments?

 

I suppose he got nice soups.

[Alan C.]

Another unfortunate consequence of the proliferation of superstitious dogma is the victims (including children) of exorcisms who are beaten, burned, tortured, and killed in an effort to extricate evil spirits.

 

The idea that there are invisible entities floating around, and inhabiting and controlling people, comes from religion (including Christianity). People who believe that they are being controlled by invisible beings are likely to be mentally unstable and may be psychotic. Religious folks who peddle this cockamamie baloney (including Christians) are morally culpable for the harm done.

[Torero]

Good question Donnadogstooth and I am shocked by the answers given by so-called "freedom lovers"... wow.

 

People who want to infringe their own rational thinking method on others who have other methods; anti-theists disguised as "libertarians". Reading the replies it seems they want an increase in children taken away from parents while in my definition of a free society that number would decrease...

 

My answer would be that as long as you're not damaging your children's health, there's no rational reason to take away your children.

 

Taking away someone else's offspring based on irrationality itself is directly contradicting a rational society.

 

Also the vast majority of religious people are not extremists who close themselves off from rational thinking.

 

It's not necessarily religious but circumcision is a practice that in a free society should have been voluntarily abolished so the question becomes rather irrelevant on that specific topic.

[Des]

Suppose I'm an all-around good parent, EXCEPT--I am a Christian and am indoctrinating my children into the Christian religion.  Now, given my reputation around here which sources to a general hatred of Christianity, and the equation of Christianity and other religious forms as irrational, evil, etc., and therefore tantamount to child abuse, WHEN will my children be taken away from me by well-meaning, "activist" freedom lovers in our glorious Ancap society?

The assertion "There is an omnipotent being" contradicts all other assertions.

 

The assertions "There is an omnipotent being" and "I am" are contradictory.

The assertions "There is an omnipotent being" and "I have a reputation around here" are contradictory.

The assertions  "There is an omnipotent being" and "sources to a general hatred of Christianity" are contradictory.

The assertions  "There is an omnipotent being" and "taking children away is mean-spirited of the doer and harmful to the children", are contradictory.

 

Either there is an omnipotent being, in which case we all know nothing, may as well go pray silently, saying not a word to each other

 

OR

 

We agree to disregard that possibility and accept apparent knowledge based on sense data, as the real knowledge, and then we have something to discuss, relative to co-ordination of action.

[Des]

 therefore tantamount to child abuse

I have an issue with the term "abuse". The valid part of my issue with it, is that we don't have a way to determine motive with certainty.

 

Sure, in court proceedings, we make informed guesses about motive.

 

When referring to an adverse childhood experience, we are not ascribing motive to any actor in the event that creates the experience.

 

Now, if we accept that an event occurred, and it happened in such a way that a person under 18 could have some experience of the event, then we need only deal with the less certain determination of whether the experience was adverse or otherwise. So we use some method to estimate that the experience was an adverse experience.

 

If we say "abuse", then we must also show ill-intent on the part of some actor, and, although you might reasonably infer ill-intent in many cases, ill-intent is not an assertion capable of rigorous proof, it remains an informed guess. So, why complicate an already less-than-rigorously provable assertion of ACE, with another less-than-rigorously provable assertion of ill-intent?

 

If we would prefer a person to adjust his actions, is the best approach to assert that we detect ill-intent on his part, or to assert that we estimate the consequences of his actions (if not amended), will cause harm (be adverse)?

[Donnadogsoth]

The assertion "There is an omnipotent being" contradicts all other assertions.

 

The assertions "There is an omnipotent being" and "I am" are contradictory.

The assertions "There is an omnipotent being" and "I have a reputation around here" are contradictory.

The assertions  "There is an omnipotent being" and "sources to a general hatred of Christianity" are contradictory.

The assertions  "There is an omnipotent being" and "taking children away is mean-spirited of the doer and harmful to the children", are contradictory.

 

Either there is an omnipotent being, in which case we all know nothing, may as well go pray silently, saying not a word to each other

 

OR

 

We agree to disregard that possibility and accept apparent knowledge based on sense data, as the real knowledge, and then we have something to discuss, relative to co-ordination of action.

 

Oh no you don't.  Next you're going to tell me an omnipotent being can make a legal  $20 bill.

[Donnadogsoth]

I have an issue with the term "abuse". The valid part of my issue with it, is that we don't have a way to determine motive with certainty.

 

Sure, in court proceedings, we make informed guesses about motive.

 

When referring to an adverse childhood experience, we are not ascribing motive to any actor in the event that creates the experience.

 

Now, if we accept that an event occurred, and it happened in such a way that a person under 18 could have some experience of the event, then we need only deal with the less certain determination of whether the experience was adverse or otherwise. So we use some method to estimate that the experience was an adverse experience.

 

If we say "abuse", then we must also show ill-intent on the part of some actor, and, although you might reasonably infer ill-intent in many cases, ill-intent is not an assertion capable of rigorous proof, it remains an informed guess. So, why complicate an already less-than-rigorously provable assertion of ACE, with another less-than-rigorously provable assertion of ill-intent?

 

If we would prefer a person to adjust his actions, is the best approach to assert that we detect ill-intent on his part, or to assert that we estimate the consequences of his actions (if not amended), will cause harm (be adverse)?

 

I'm having trouble with your jargon.  Take a case study:  I make it publicly known that I am non-violently educating my child in the Nicene Creed.  Does anyone take my child from me then?

[Jaeger]

I guess it would be abuse depending on what you mean by "indoctrinating" .  If it means teaching your kids about Christianity, and why you believe, then no it's not abuse.  If it means forcing your kids to go to church or else face a consequence then I think it can be abusive.  Obviously if you and your wife are church going, and you have underage kids, you have to take them or CPS will show up and rip you a new one for leaving them home alone.   However if you have kids that are old enough to stay home and they don't want to go to church don't force them. just use common sense.

[algernon]

When I imagine what someone would be willing to do in a free society, I have to think what I would personally do. In a free society there would be no superstitious belief of government as it exists today, which gives people in costumes supernatural powers to carry out the will of God. So you have to ask yourself, in a free society would men ever break into a house and risk being killed, or killing someone else for a plant they have in the house? Absolutely not. I actually had the unfortunate experience of knowing a cop that would regularly arrest people and put them in a cage for cannabis, yet at parties his wife would smoke. So without his authority of God (Government), he would have never cared about the plant. "I was just following orders".

 

Going back to the child abuse question, would I ever forcefully remove someone's kids because they indoctrinated them? Of course not. Would I risk my life because they spanked their kids? No. Would I risk my life because they kept their child locked in a closet - yes I think so. If people in a free society act in such a way that they own every action they carry out, and not believe it somehow belongs to someone else - "I was following orders", then you have to imagine only the more serious aggression against children would be dealt with. Everything else would be left up to social pressure and ostracism.

 

Something I have wondered - I believe humans are naturally logical - would a child raised absent of indoctrination, after becoming an adult, one day in the library thumbing through books and finding a bible for the first time, would they believe it suddenly to be true? That would be hard to believe. It takes years and years and years of constant exposure and peer pressure to conform the developing brain.

 

I've seen parents spend a lot of energy convincing children Santa Clause exists, absent of any evidence or reason they slowly begin to accept it due to their respect and admiration for their parents, until one day it comes crashing down! An older child spilled the beans, gives the children the evidence, the presents were from the parents all along! Of course parents will eventually admit it was all a "fun game". Is religion any different than Santa Claus carried into adulthood?

[Carl Green]

Donnadogsoth,

 

I'll start by directly answering your question. I don't know.

 

Based on how you think a free society would operate, what would be your answer to this question, and why?