Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Indoctrination

12345679»

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I figured out what was troubling me. Just because you aren't indoctrinated or religious doesn't mean you're not an idiot or an asshole.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    What the hell is "not indoctrinated"? Children are invariably indoctrinated in various ethics and customs by the authority figures they are subject to as children.

    steam_sig.png
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Drez wrote: »
    What the hell is "not indoctrinated"? Children are invariably indoctrinated in various ethics and customs by the authority figures they are subject to as children.

    Fine. Resist indoctrination. Whatever.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    What the hell is "not indoctrinated"? Children are invariably indoctrinated in various ethics and customs by the authority figures they are subject to as children.

    Fine. Resist indoctrination. Whatever.

    Maybe I'm just understanding the concept a different way, but isn't it the same thing as imprinting? Isn't this not only a valid but a necessary and inevitable tool that parents use in early childhood? I mean, children aren't morally responsible for quite a while I'd say, at least not fully morally rational. At that point they can go ahead and reject or resist their earlier indoctrination, but before then...

    steam_sig.png
  • CalciumCalcium Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I'm disappointed. Somewhere into the 10th and 11th pages we were getting into interesting debate before the atheist diehards came around again and starting yelping.

    1) It's just as easy to mold someone into a discriminatory bigot without the use of religion as with religion. Take page 13 of this thread, for example.

    2) It would in fact be simple to explain to children rights and wrongs through religion than to try to go through complex explanations. And bloody oath, if anyone starts spewing about the Ten Commandments I'm going to scream. If you haven't actually READ the New Testament, you don't know anything about Christianity. Go read what was mentioned about how Jesus defined morals through parables, it was about two pages back, I believe.

    Can we get back on track?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Instilling values in a child does not require "Because it is said" methodology.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I was going to attempt polite discourse with Sarcastro, but I'm not convinced he would reciprocate.

    As for indoctrination/imprinting, there's a difference.
    Indoctrination
    1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

    The emphasis is mine. No one is saying you can't teach your kids ethics, responsibility, moral behavior and good manners. No one (well, at least not me) is even saying you can't teach your kids about religion. But we are saying is that there are things that you can not ethically teach a child. Unquestioning devotion to an ideal. Bigotry. Hatred. Close-mindedness.

    The most common, by far, place we see this being taught to children is in religious contexts and for religious reasons.

    Imprinting is, however...

    rapid learning that occurs during a brief receptive period, typically soon after birth or hatching, and establishes a long-lasting behavioral response to a specific individual or object, as attachment to parent, offspring, or site.
    Someone could indoctrinate their child very efficiently by taking advantage of imprinting, but they could just as easily teach them Spanish.

  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but I also had things explained to me as a child, not ordered from up on high. And when I did break the rules I discussed it with my parents. I was punished a scant handful of times my entire life. The fact that you associate authoritarian parenting with being religious doesn't mean religion actually requires people to be authoritarian with their children, or that they would stop doing it if they were atheists. Sorry.

    That's not my argument at all if you bothered to read. I am arguing that most theistic religions, at least the ones in question here (I assume the big 3) are inherently authoritarian. This does not mean that every religious person will be authoritarian with their children and every atheist will not be authoritarian. What it does show is that you and I agree that critical thinking and rational approaches to teaching morality are far more important than indoctrination. Apparently your parents came up with far better explanations for right and wrong than "god says x or god says y." That's why I believe that religious indoctrination is harmful. It places the emphasis on WHO teaches, not WHAT is taught and WHY.


    Christianity is a perfect example of an authoritarian religion within family specifically.

    Isnt it even said in the commandments to honor your father and mother?

    It doesent say WHY there is no conditions, there is just BLIND, UNQUESTIONING submission.
    Rules like that are strictly authoritarian. Simply because of the above reasons. You are forced to honor your parents, REGARDLESS of what they do. Simply because there isnt any grey lines.

    Its like god giving an order, and you have no choice but to do it, regardless if your parents are assholes etc.

    Its like the perfect root of UNQUESTIONING.


    You are wrong.

    It is obey your parents unless it is illegal or it is a sin. For instance if your Father told you to have sex with your sister and you didn't do it, then it would not be a sin for you to disobey.

    Isn't good for a religion to teach children to obey their parents? Afterall, most parents have more information, life experience, and reasoning power than their 14 year old hormone laden child.

    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.


    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »

    Teaching your children that there is an authority to be obeyed no matter what, no matter how much you disagree after reflection, is indoctrination in my book. Saying that any conclusion is off limits (such as, God does not exist) is telling a child to turn off their brain when they should be questioning and examining every inch of their world as much as possible.

    No matter what god does, you obey and you love him. Thats uncritical thinking.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »

    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.


    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

    And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I figured out what was troubling me. Just because you aren't indoctrinated or religious doesn't mean you're not an idiot or an asshole.

    Well funny enough, its often the religious people that call people idiots, and other insults.


    I cant remember any atheist calling me an idiot(in all my life), yet, already one religious dude has done so, in this thread.


    Whenever you critizise christianity, there will always pop up some asshole calling you names.


    Why is that? Arent christians supposed to try to be like jesus?
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »

    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.


    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

    And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.

    What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Well funny enough, its often the religious people that call people idiots, and other insults.


    I cant remember any atheist calling me an idiot(in all my life), yet, already one religious dude has done so, in this thread.


    Whenever you critizise christianity, there will always pop up some asshole calling you names.


    Why is that? Arent christians supposed to try to be like jesus?
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »

    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.


    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

    And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.

    What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?
    The irrationality is in the part where you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As for your comments regarding (in a thinly veiled way) my religion, well, again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Well funny enough, its often the religious people that call people idiots, and other insults.


    I cant remember any atheist calling me an idiot(in all my life), yet, already one religious dude has done so, in this thread.


    Whenever you critizise christianity, there will always pop up some asshole calling you names.


    Why is that? Arent christians supposed to try to be like jesus?
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »

    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.


    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

    And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.

    What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?
    The irrationality is in the part where you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As for your comments regarding (in a thinly veiled way) my religion, well, again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
    That's because you've been pretty good at not talking about it. Like most defending their religion the argument tends boil down to screaming as loud as you can "you don't know what you're talking about" with no further explanation.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Where the fuck are you guys getting that I'm defending anything? I'm simply saying that Gregor knows jack-all about Christianity.

    ABC, what the fuck is wrong with you guys?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Where the fuck are you guys getting that I'm defending anything? I'm simply saying that Gregor knows jack-all about Christianity.

    ABC, what the fuck is wrong with you guys?
    Without saying anything about you know, what he knows fuck-all about. Just that he knows fuck-all apparently :|

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Where the fuck are you guys getting that I'm defending anything? I'm simply saying that Gregor knows jack-all about Christianity.

    ABC, what the fuck is wrong with you guys?
    Without saying anything about you know, what he knows fuck-all about. Just that he knows fuck-all apparently :|

    So what would you call uninformed hypotheticals?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    I'm going to have to side with Fencingsax on this one- this isn't a particularly accurate reading of the Bible. I mean, sure, the damn thing is convoluted, contradictory and irrational at times, but there's more to it than just "Follow these 10 Rules without exception."
    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

    I can certainly say you're wrong, because centuries of Bible scholarship, interpretation and study have definitely concluded that it doesn't say at all what you think it says.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Everyone needs to keep clear exactly which behaviors they are arguing count as indoctrination here. People are running the gammit between saying you can't teach your children anything about religion is true, to anything short of physical force doesn't count. It has completely stalled the discussion.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Everyone needs to keep clear exactly which behaviors they are arguing count as indoctrination here. People are running the gammit between saying you can't teach your children anything about religion is true, to anything short of physical force doesn't count. It has completely stalled the discussion.

    We're at the "semantics" stage of an argument. Someone'll probably Godwin us in a moment and the whole thing will come to a crashing halt.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think semantics are the problem, but I don't think that's what people are arguing about. I think there's still legitimate discussion to be made on the subject, but if people don't keep clear exactly what they are talking about it gets too confused. Most particularly when people try to defend someone else's post.

    Guy: post

    Dude: response

    Fella: Guy is right, Dude is wrong. (but Fella and Guy are thinking two different things about indoctrination)

    Now if Dude responds it becomes very difficult to keep clear exactly what he is saying to which party, because things have become so muddled.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • CalciumCalcium Registered User
    edited April 2007
    That's because you've been pretty good at not talking about it. Like most defending their religion the argument tends boil down to screaming as loud as you can "you don't know what you're talking about" with no further explanation.

    Unless you have read (hell, admitted the damn existence of) the New Testament and are willing to stop pretending that the Ten Commandments and all the various garbage before the New Testament are the only important facets in Christianity, I daresay you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
    Greger wrote: »
    Well funny enough, its often the religious people that call people idiots, and other insults.
    I cant remember any atheist calling me an idiot(in all my life), yet, already one religious dude has done so, in this thread.
    Whenever you critizise christianity, there will always pop up some asshole calling you names.
    Why is that? Arent christians supposed to try to be like jesus?

    I fail to see how this is anything other than condescending garbage. Do you have a real point or not?
    Greger wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.
    What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?

    What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?[/QUOTE]

    Oh no... why is this guy getting attention? Man, to summarise the other 400 religious threads in this forum, as much as you might like to spew this kind of trash, no one has solid proof that there is a higher being or not. Not a scrap of solid evidence. This is why every single other thread here resolves to "Christians cause atrocities, Christians are discriminatory hicks" vs "That's a generalisation and you know it"
    Haven't seen any real arguments for indoctrination for a good while now. Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I've changd my mind. The discussion really has died. I'll see you folks next time around I suppose.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Well funny enough, its often the religious people that call people idiots, and other insults.


    I cant remember any atheist calling me an idiot(in all my life), yet, already one religious dude has done so, in this thread.


    Whenever you critizise christianity, there will always pop up some asshole calling you names.


    Why is that? Arent christians supposed to try to be like jesus?
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »

    The commandments are probably meant to be more important then the lesser rules mentioned in the old testament, so I would have to obey my father.

    Its exatly the same thing when you have the choice to either eat an unpure animal, or kill a person. Murder is forbidden by the ten commandments, so you would eat unpure, or commit homosexuality or anny lesser sin if you only had the choice of two.


    There is no more details mentioned in the "honor your parents" part. Therefore you cant say that Im wrong, because you didnt write the bible, and you are not god.

    And this is why I'm leery of anyone who considers atheism to always be more rational.

    What do you mean? Where is the irrationality? If anything I would say that the bible is irrational, but I dont follow it now do I?
    The irrationality is in the part where you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As for your comments regarding (in a thinly veiled way) my religion, well, again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    LOL, you cant even motivate it! Do YOU have any idea of what your talking about?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    LOL, you cant even motivate it! Do YOU have any idea of what your talking about?

    What word did you mean to use here?

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Calcium wrote: »
    Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

    Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Calcium wrote: »
    Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

    Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.

    "Madrassa" is Arabic for "school" so "Madrassa school" is redundant. Not all of 'em are that religious, either. You should say something like a "Fundamentalist Islamic School" or some such.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Calcium wrote: »
    I'm disappointed. Somewhere into the 10th and 11th pages we were getting into interesting debate before the atheist diehards came around again and starting yelping.

    1) It's just as easy to mold someone into a discriminatory bigot without the use of religion as with religion. Take page 13 of this thread, for example.

    2) It would in fact be simple to explain to children rights and wrongs through religion than to try to go through complex explanations. And bloody oath, if anyone starts spewing about the Ten Commandments I'm going to scream. If you haven't actually READ the New Testament, you don't know anything about Christianity. Go read what was mentioned about how Jesus defined morals through parables, it was about two pages back, I believe.

    Can we get back on track?

    Re 1: That is not what is in question here. The OP was in response to Dawkins' claims that religious indoctrination is a form of emotional/psychological child abuse. Dawkins would also put indoctrination into, say, Stalinist Communism or Nazism in with this as well.

    Re 2: Several people here have already explained why non-religious explanations are superior to religious ones. I still haven't seen any argument against the idea that theistic religion is inherently authoritarian. Since even Sarcastro has implied through his own posts that non-authoritarian ways of teaching children are superior, you start to see why non-religious explanations should be preferred.

    Re what Sarcastro said about interior loci of moral authority: Actually, Nazism is a prime example of an exterior locus. The source of control is entirely exterior since the Fuhrer was the absolute ruler. Obedience was demanded without thought. One obeyed the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party (enforced by the military, SS, and other tools of the state) on pain of death. You make it seem like the rise of Nazism was due to an excess of individualistic thinking. That is obviously not the case. In fact, Nazism and communism have often been compared to state religions with their elevation of leaders to demi-gods and the prospect of a perfect world (the Aryan world and the Marxist world, respectively).

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Why do you force your religion unto your kids? Is it true belief when they have had it fed to them before they had anything else to compare it too?
    Why do you force your art onto your kids? Your morality? Your music? Your taste in interior design? You beat-up old jalopy? Answer: because they're your kids. That's sort of how it works.

    "Thats sort of how it works" Is not a valid argument in my eyes. Traditition, or just what is usually the case is no real argument or motivation.
    Why don't you go ahead and define what you mean by "forcing," Greger?
    Still waiting. Also, as a completely honest question, is English your first language? You seem to misinterpret many peoples' ideas, as well as your own.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Calcium wrote: »
    Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

    Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.

    "Madrassa" is Arabic for "school" so "Madrassa school" is redundant. Not all of 'em are that religious, either. You should say something like a "Fundamentalist Islamic School" or some such.

    But a LOT of the koran schools are fundamentalistic. Dont want to generalize.

    But theres enough cases to use it as an example.

    The london bombers had all been to koran-schools. It was pretty much the greater influence that led to the bombings.

    Concidering their Imam didnt seem to have supported them, and that noone in their family seemed to now they were going to blow themselves up.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Calcium wrote: »
    Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

    Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.

    "Madrassa" is Arabic for "school" so "Madrassa school" is redundant. Not all of 'em are that religious, either. You should say something like a "Fundamentalist Islamic School" or some such.

    But a LOT of the koran schools are..

    Some are, some aren't. Madrassa's simply have gotten a bad name in the US because some of them are pretty terrible. It's become a loaded term that is used incorrectly.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Calcium wrote: »
    Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

    Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.

    "Madrassa" is Arabic for "school" so "Madrassa school" is redundant. Not all of 'em are that religious, either. You should say something like a "Fundamentalist Islamic School" or some such.

    But a LOT of the koran schools are..

    Some are, some aren't. Madrassa's simply have gotten a bad name in the US because some of them are pretty terrible. It's become a loaded term that is used incorrectly.

    Frankly I've heard/seen the results of more horror-stories about Catholic schools than madrassas.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Calcium wrote: »
    Indoctrination, anyone? The corruption of little kids minds with religious doctrine?

    Madrassa schools. Or quran schools. Most muslim suicide bombers have been to those. Many kids get sent there when their young.

    "Madrassa" is Arabic for "school" so "Madrassa school" is redundant. Not all of 'em are that religious, either. You should say something like a "Fundamentalist Islamic School" or some such.

    But a LOT of the koran schools are..

    Some are, some aren't. Madrassa's simply have gotten a bad name in the US because some of them are pretty terrible. It's become a loaded term that is used incorrectly.

    Frankly I've heard/seen the results of more horror-stories about Catholic schools than madrassas.

    Frankly I've heard/seen the results of more horror-stories about Public schools than madrassas.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Hehe. D.A.R.E. Indoctrinating kids into proper voters who can always be swayed by "whoo! tough on drugs!" in a pinch.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I was going to attempt polite discourse with Sarcastro, but I'm not convinced he would reciprocate.

    Polite discourse is always welcome, Phobos. I tend to return in kind and intent.
    As for indoctrination/imprinting, there's a difference.
    Indoctrination
    1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

    The emphasis is mine. No one is saying you can't teach your kids ethics, responsibility, moral behavior and good manners. No one (well, at least not me) is even saying you can't teach your kids about religion. But we are saying is that there are things that you can not ethically teach a child. Unquestioning devotion to an ideal. Bigotry. Hatred. Close-mindedness.

    The most common, by far, place we see this being taught to children is in religious contexts and for religious reasons.

    Imprinting is, however...

    rapid learning that occurs during a brief receptive period, typically soon after birth or hatching, and establishes a long-lasting behavioral response to a specific individual or object, as attachment to parent, offspring, or site.
    Someone could indoctrinate their child very efficiently by taking advantage of imprinting, but they could just as easily teach them Spanish.

    And interestingly enough, I don't disagree with anything specific here. I very much agree with the bits on hatred, bigotry and close-mindedness. Imprinting is an interesting tool often used for many types of indoctrination, the promotion of an unquestioned authority, for example.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Re what Sarcastro said about interior loci of moral authority: Actually, Nazism is a prime example of an exterior locus. The source of control is entirely exterior since the Fuhrer was the absolute ruler. Obedience was demanded without thought. One obeyed the Fuhrer and the Nazi Party (enforced by the military, SS, and other tools of the state) on pain of death. You make it seem like the rise of Nazism was due to an excess of individualistic thinking. That is obviously not the case. In fact, Nazism and communism have often been compared to state religions with their elevation of leaders to demi-gods and the prospect of a perfect world (the Aryan world and the Marxist world, respectively).

    This argument can go around and around, you say exterior and pick an external authoritarion symbol, I say interior and pick a failure of the individual to self-correct. Which leads me to conclude that both models are bullshit. The real truth must be a mixture between the two, where ones interior loci determines the value and meaning of the exterior loci - to have one without the other is not possible, and so any promotion of one over the other would be inherently flawed.

    Nazism, either way you slice it, is only an example of a hate culture grown out of control.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Some are, some aren't. Madrassa's simply have gotten a bad name in the US because some of them are pretty terrible. It's become a loaded term that is used incorrectly.

    Well, madrassa's Arabic, so that's 10x scare points, right off the bat.

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm sorry, but we don't have any madrassas where I live. Are these foriegn immersion schools in a local context, or is buddy just assfucking the entire concept of foreign education?

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but we don't have any madrassas where I live. Are these foriegn immersion schools in a local context, or is buddy just assfucking the entire concept of foreign education?

    I think there's a pretty severe overreaction towards anything Muslim (and to amuch lesser degree, anything foreign), but in the context of religious schools, if that's the kind of madrassa we're talking about, I don't think fears are completely unfounded. Certainly, there could be largely secular "religious" institutions, like the Catholic schools in Hong Kong that just pay some lip service (or possibly the schools in England, I'm not sure about their religious situation exactly), but I think that otherwise, you're just getting a healthy dose of complete bullshit mixed in with your schooling, and that's never a good thing.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but we don't have any madrassas where I live. Are these foriegn immersion schools in a local context, or is buddy just assfucking the entire concept of foreign education?

    I think there's a pretty severe overreaction towards anything Muslim (and to amuch lesser degree, anything foreign), but in the context of religious schools, if that's the kind of madrassa we're talking about, I don't think fears are completely unfounded. Certainly, there could be largely secular "religious" institutions, like the Catholic schools in Hong Kong that just pay some lip service (or possibly the schools in England, I'm not sure about their religious situation exactly), but I think that otherwise, you're just getting a healthy dose of complete bullshit mixed in with your schooling, and that's never a good thing.

    I completely agree. Religious schooling needlessly shelters individuals from the harsher realities of social criticism. The tendancy is to overcompensate in the curriculum, moving past moderate and into the realm of extremist.

    I don't think people realize just how much public schools reflect the naturally occuring ideologies surrounding them. Since they take the same attitudes and beliefs as are predominate in the community, there is little to no need for specialized takes on any ideology. Sooner or later people need to learn how to cope and adapt to the world that actually exists around them. It's far better to do this during a period of guided learning than to simply be thrust out to the wolves when one finishes secondary.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
Sign In or Register to comment.