Parents don’t have rights. The concept of rights is nonsense.
Right, but they do have legitimate influence on children. It’s more like parents have negotiation power. They pay the bill, it’s up to the parents and the child to find an agreement on what the child has to do for said support. Kids doesn’t like it? Run to charity, find new parents, or pay your own way.
There is a real big difference between different types of force.
For instance, rape and defending against rape. Or murder and self-defense. Theft and retrieving property from a thief. The ones who do not grant universal morality are the ones in the wrong, because then they are in a different type of moral act. They say I can rape, you can’t. I can shoot at you, you can’t back at me. I can steal, you can’t. Etc.
There are also differences between different indoctrinations. Usually ‘boogeymen’, if you mean foreigners or whatever, at the very least are things known to exist or could possibly exist.. It could be wrong, but it is in a higher level of wrong than santa or Jesus. That’s why the Santa is taught to kids, while boogeymen is to adults. Adults at the very least can judge logical consistency to some degree and are not just credulous.
Even if we meant space aliens are coming to get us, it would be in a higher level. Since space aliens at the very least can take a material form to give anal probes or whatever. And are not believed to be everywhere at once giving presents, or immaterial in everyone’s hearts, or whatever else can be told to kids.
“Kids doesn’t like it? Run to charity, find new parents, or pay your own way.”
I think the onus is on the parents to find new parents if they don’t want to raise the kid. Since the responsibility is on them for having sex to begin with. The same is true for people who want abortions: fine, but pay for it yourself. A charity or other parents can’t be forced to take the kid; but the parents can be, since having sex and birthing a child morally obligates them towards the child’s well-being. In my opinion, if they make the kid pay their own way it is the same as starving them to death. They might find someone else and thus the original parents wouldn’t be responsible anymore, but what if not?
You want them indoctrinated in rationalism instead?
lol, it has worked well so far…
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” -Albert Einstein
P.S. anything and everything could be seen or not seen as indoctrination. It is a gibberish word.
Not likely. Specifically, read this.
Clayton -
Indoctrination is synonymous with teaching and encompasses everything. In the case of religion what makes it “abuse” is that the child is immediately terrorized with delusions of eternal torment in hell if x is done or not done. It’s also abuse of adults vulnerable to its seduction. What could be psychological abuse if not that? If an age 40 man took a little girl in his van and told her she had to play with his dingaling or something terrible would happen, let’s say… she would go to hell, one can hardly imagine any disagreement in a room full of a cross section of the population that it is abuse. Yet, what part of that constitutes the abuse: the lude act or the threat?
define ‘indoctrination’
It’s patently absurd to expect parents to not discuss their beliefs with their children, or to not try and teach their kids values that they think are important
Indoctrination is synonymous with teaching and encompasses everything. In the case of [meaningless] what makes it “abuse” is that the [legal term] is [meaningless] [meaningless] with [meaningless] of [incorrect universal assumption/meaningless] if x is done or not done. It’s also [legal term] of [legal term] [meaningless] to its [meaningless].
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. Are you saying that (1) teaching religion is not abuse, (2) teaching paedophilia is not abuse or (3) teaching anything is not abuse?
When I made the quip about it being abuse for parents to enforce the reading of HA or no dinner I took it for granted that the parents entered (albeit not explicit) contract with the child to act as their caretakers, including giving meals, by virtue of having created the children. If the parents did not wish to raise the child, be it because they learn he’s a Keynesian or whatever, then they are still obligated to announce that the role of caretaker is available for the child. One thing is for them to drop the kid off at an orphanage, another is to throw them into the basement and refuse wishful-caretakers the ability to retrieve the child.
I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. Are you saying that (1) teaching religion is not abuse, (2) teaching paedophilia is not abuse or (3) teaching anything is not abuse?
All of the above.
I am saying that which one can not speak, one must remain silent.
Are you an abuse nihilist or exclude such deception from your definition of that particular word? Would you like a different word to describe 1 and 2?
English?
above statement is gibberish.
more like, when christians whine that atheists “indoctrinate” their children that there is no god? Hm… let me look in a real world and find a unicorn… nope, there is none. So telling people there is no unicorns is not an “indoctrination” per se. You just trying invoke a straw man and take extreme cases.
A young child is indoctrinated by his/her Objectivist parents. What is the community to do?
Outside of religion, if a child is homeschooled, couldn’t one claim the indoctrination of the child by their parents revisionist outlook on history, or their philosophy that wouldn’t align with a public school’s? It could just as well be the other way around as many claim.
since the only obvious answer-- and I am VERY sure Dawkins would agree with this-- is to have the state make the teaching of religion illegal in one’s own household.
How can you be very sure about something in which you have no evidence? Oh wait, God… Either way, please provide evidence that Dawkins wants to force people not to believe in religion. He may be an arrogant buffon, but I have seen nothing that says he would outlaw religion.
Just because someone might have a grudge against their Creator, or against organized religion (or just an unshakeable belief in their own self- righteousness)
You certainly have an un-biased view on athiests… No, it has nothing to do w the God paradox, or the idea that any kind of creator/actor god is logically impossible, and mentally incoherent. No, it is in their “unshakeable belief in their own self-righteousness.” HAHA, get over the indoctrination friend, most athiests have no problem with the religous other than that they think its silly. You’re basing your view off the loud athiests, which is like basing religion off the loud religous (all religous people want to blow up other religions, and dont believe in evolution would be a stupid argument).
to raise their children without any interference from Dr. Dawkins
Would you use the state to stop him from teaching your kids about rationality?
Either way, no. Teaching your kids your beliefs is natural. The only time I have a problem is when teach them that your beliefs are the only valid ones. Even then, I only have a problem with it, it is not child abuse.
If you can’t teach your child your beliefs, you can’t teach them anything. Besides everyone knows plenty of people who have embraced or rejected their parents religions. Even if it was “abuse”, how are you going to regulate it? This thread’s pointless.