Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:01 pm
I doubt their competence.
On the basis of what data?
On the basis of their non-omnipotence, non-omniscience and non-omnipresence.
On the basis of their humanity.
Ah. So your assumption is that the mere fact that they are human makes them untrustworthy? That might seem reasonable, if we were talking about a small group of people in a particular locale, who could influence one another, perhaps.
But how do you account for the level of their agreements, across many different independent experts and over centuries? It strains all bounds of credulity to suggest that they just "accidentally" happen to agree...but some explanation must surely be plausible.
The simple one, the one I would suggest, is that they were all responding to the same text, and that singularity of text created their agreement. That's the obvious one.
Henry, I copied the following quotes from yours on December 21 last year.
" Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, ------"(HQ)
and
"In a private school, one funded by the folks who send their kids to it, they can teach whatever they like."(HQ)
I object children at school are individuals who can't self-defend. Therefore they need protections against potential abusers of their mental, physical ,and emotional rights.
Regarding the children's mental rights; parents who pay the school fees tend to trust the school, although those who pay school fees will probably inspect the school's ethos and practices more carefully than parents who can't afford school fees. The ruling establishment will tend to protect itself so schools established on behalf of the ruling establishment will perpetuate the class system.
Do you know about those old-established English schools that charge huge fees and it follows accept only pupils from ruling elites? I expect there are similar institutions in the USA.
So how are the children to be protected from abuse by indoctrination other than by democratically administered central control over education? That is hand in hand with a well informed educated electorate?
(At this point I'm not going to elaborate on abuses of children's physical, mental, and emotional rights in all too many private religious establishments)
Seems to me: the kid in this piece is bein' abused, by the very system you say should be protectin' her.
This is a very, very good point.
Today's teenagers are very "experimental" with their sexuality, because it's poorly defined for them. They go back-and-forth, often, between two or more positions on their "orientation" before settling on something. I've known some who were lesbian activists who turned into heterosexual soccer-mom types, and Asperger's kids who couldn't tell what they were because Asperger's Syndrome inhibits psychosexual self-knowledge and their irregular behaviour makes other people inclined to pressure them to be transgender -- until they found out that they were not even slightly inclined that way.
What kind of a hideous violation is it to make a kid "transgendered" when he/she is really not, or doesn't know for sure what he/she wants to do about all that? That's got to be a major violation of rights, whatever else we call it.
Seems to me: the kid in this piece is bein' abused, by the very system you say should be protectin' her.
I agree. Gender issues are difficult. But my own feeling is against surgical or chemical interventions unless to save a life or stop actual physical pain. I'd side with the father. I'd side with the father , not because the parent always knows best what is best for their child, but because the parent in this particular case is against an unnecessary chemical intervention upon his immature child.
There is a horrible scandal in England at this time about girls in local authority care who were routinely sexually abused by a gang of mainly Pakistani men. The police and social services were informed time and again, had evidence of the criminals'
activity but failed to take action allegedly because of ethnic sensitivity. One girl who died of an overdose administered by one of the men had a grandmother who tried time and again to alert the authorities to the little girl's safety needs but was ignored. The problem is certainly that the public institutions failed. However to hand care of orphaned kids to private individuals could be as bad for the kids as local authority care.
"The problem is certainly that the public institutions failed."
No, the problem is in believin' in public institutions.
Anecdote time!
My 13 year is bein' raised Catholic (a hard thing for my deist self to participate in). Every Sunday, after Mass, the boy has Catechism. It's all very tedious, but it is what it is.
This summer, he, along with all the other 13 year olds, are supposed to attend an overnight function accompanied by lay persons and clergy. I sat down with one of those priests, expressed my profound disappointment with the Church's mishandling of its decades-long sex abuse problem, and told him 'I haven't decided if my kid is goin' on this summer retreat yet. When I do decide, I'll let you know. But know this up-front, father, any one touches my kid and the last thing that person is gonna have to worry about are the cops.' After I was sure he had taken my meaning, I thanked him for his time.
A few days later I had a visit from the local P.D. wantin' to know if I had indeed threatened the priest. I recounted what I'd told the priest and why I'd said what I had. I asserted it wasn't a threat, but a promise of consequence, A leadin' inevitably to B.
The officer, formally issued me a warning; informally told me he'd have done the same in my place.
My point: rely on yourself, not some institution.
'But, Henry, not everyone is an atavistic subhuman like you, we need those institutions!'
I get that. My minarchy, for example, is built around the idea of some folks not bein' capable, so we have constables and courts to defend, decide, and levy consequence. But these constables, these courts, are last resort, not first solution.
Really, folks need to try and stand up for themselves first, includin' kids.
I have another anecdote, B, but I may just private that one to you. This forum can only bear so much of the Horrible and Vast Competence that is me, thrust into their soft, fat, faces, so I will not shame them further.
is about how a C of E bishop groomed and seduced teenage religious boys and young men, and how his victims were not believed but were vilified.
It's crucial children are taught self defense which means being street wise about bad men, and how children develop their sceptical faculties and ability to exercise personal autonomy. I have enjoyed the friendship of several Catholics and the RCC no doubt does a lot of good. But to tell kids "do what I say and don't question because the Church knows best" is evil.
I daresay your son will survive if he is as bloody-minded as his father.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:19 pm I recounted what I'd told the priest and why I'd said what I had. I asserted it wasn't a threat, but a promise of consequence, A leadin' inevitably to B.
The officer, formally issued me a warning; informally told me he'd have done the same in my place.
Funny old world. When the likes of us point out the consequences it's a threat. When the authorities do so, it's a warning. When some god does it, it's moral.
Which is incomprehensible to me. If mine came to me with such a complaint, I wouldn't doubt him. He knows what I'd do to the raper. We've talked about this stuff (along with a whole whack of other equally distasteful things cuz I want him prepared for everything) so he knows. He'd never open the door to what I'd do based on a lie.
Why aren't other parents like me? Some aid and abet in the rape of their own kids; they allow their kids to roast in cars; they offer 'em as lambs.
#
"It's crucial children are taught self defense which means being street wise about bad men, and how children develop their sceptical faculties and ability to exercise personal autonomy. I have enjoyed the friendship of several Catholics and the RCC no doubt does a lot of good. But to tell kids "do what I say and don't question because the Church knows best" is evil.
Absolutely. My point, again, is this evil isn't combatted through institution; these conspiracies aren't ended by way of playin' a game with rules crafted by the other guy.
#
"I daresay your son will survive if he is as bloody-minded as his father."
He's got a good head, strong heart, and my example: what can go wrong?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:19 pm I recounted what I'd told the priest and why I'd said what I had. I asserted it wasn't a threat, but a promise of consequence, A leadin' inevitably to B.
The officer, formally issued me a warning; informally told me he'd have done the same in my place.
Funny old world. When the likes of us point out the consequences it's a threat. When the authorities do so, it's a warning. When some god does it, it's moral.
The lesson: be God.
Heaven is primed for another war anyway: might as well make it yours (or mine...yeah, mine...fuck you, guys...I'll be god: a libertarian god...3 commandments, that's it...I don't do prayers, I do consequence).
There is no natural authority excepting the human individual. Human individuals who work in concert with other individuals assess who it's okay to work alongside according to Jesus' dictum "By their fruits you will know them".
Jesus never told anyone to suck up to any priests. Or politicians. Or bosses.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:03 pmThe lesson: be God.
Heaven is primed for another war anyway: might as well make it yours (or mine...yeah, mine...fuck you, guys...I'll be god: a libertarian god...3 commandments, that's it...I don't do prayers, I do consequence).
No, fuck you! I'll be god: a laissez faire god...one rule for all: do not shit on others who do not shit on others. Eternal beating with the fiery bludgeon for meanies.
By the way, who is Heaven primed for war with?
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 12:08 pm
Henry Quirk wrote:
The lesson: be God.
There is no natural authority excepting the human individual. Human individuals who work in concert with other individuals assess who it's okay to work alongside according to Jesus' dictum "By their fruits you will know them".
Jesus never told anyone to suck up to any priests. Or politicians. Or bosses.
Crom built Reality for his own inscrutable reason. He installed, at least in one place, biological machinery that could eventually produce composite beings, free wills (causes with conscience).
What Crom wants or expects only he knows, but: I infer he wants us to make use of Reality, to take this sandbox universe and make it ours. I infer there are objective rights and wrongs, goods and evils. So, yeah, we're supposed to step up and claim the crown, cuz that's the plan. There ain't nuthin' random about it.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:03 pmThe lesson: be God.
Heaven is primed for another war anyway: might as well make it yours (or mine...yeah, mine...fuck you, guys...I'll be god: a libertarian god...3 commandments, that's it...I don't do prayers, I do consequence).
No, fuck you! I'll be god: a laissez faire god...one rule for all: do not shit on others who do not shit on others. Eternal beating with the fiery bludgeon for meanies.
By the way, who is Heaven primed for war with?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:43 pmYou really need three.
Hoowee! I had no idea being god was so complicated. Ok then, number two: Don't let anyone nail your children to crosses. Three: For fuck's sake do not believe that people who lived 2000 years before you knew more about how the world works than you possibly could.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:43 pmIt's civil war.
