Originally posted by Brooklyn-
[email protected] 17 2006, 04:59 AM
I was certain you would not be in favor of leaving the chore to the church.
actually, i wouldn't call it a "chore." anyone genuinely interested in kids and kids' well-being would love to see them grow up, especially psychologically. of course, some people are indiscriminate; they'd leave the "chore" to petty tyrants without even second-guessing themselves. social consequences, i presume, are sometimes thought to be non-existent, or unimportant.
or, if not unimportant, at least a nuisance.
In that one man's "good talking to" is another man's "mental abuse."
yet, that's just the case. one man's good talking to is another man's mental abuse. ethics are non-logical, metaphysical forms. they are ethereal, and illegitimate.
yet, we still keep them. why shouldn't we? every "ought" and "ought not" is riddled with social prejudice.
yet, if our ethics consist of maximizing freedom and happiness without sacrificing "direction" (if there is such a thing as direction), our ethical considerations must be uniform.. and consistent.
you'd like to take children away from physically abusive parents. at the same time, you'd like to, probably un-intentionally, condemn one form of abuse and legitimize another. unfortunately, not every kind of scar is visible on the skin. some are visible (or hidden) in the "spirit," to use your word.
do you honestly think that a parent that teaches his kid to scream hysterically at the sound of a ringing telephone is entitled to parenthood? what about a parent that convinces his child that she's a worthless whore unless she wears her sari and marries the man of her father's choosing? is every opinion equal? useful? justifiable?
is every form of abuse physical?
is there such a thing as a tyrant that insults, threatens, and/or indoctrinates her child until that child becomes a nervous, frightened, hopeless fuck-up? is it fair that the child is forced to grow up into that frightened, hopeless fuck-up simply because some people believe that "all ideas are equally harmful" and thus refuse to intervene on the kid's behalf, all based on some kind of pre-historic, uncritical principle?
The vast majority of parents love their children and do everything in their power to ensure their children do well physically and emotionally.
i agree. believe it or not, even the religious & tyrannical muslim parents that lock their daughters up in the house believe they are after their children's physical and emotional well-being.
after all, they don't want their daughters growing up to be "stupid whores" that have a life and a husband of their own choosing, as that would incite allah's wrath upon the household.. and upon the father's "dignity".
regardless, their beliefs don't always conform to reality. and the reality is, despite their "efforts," they are still and probably always will be stupid tyrants without the sense to let their children live a free and independent life.
this doesn't apply to every parent, and not always to this extent.. yet, these are the natural consequences of parental hegemony. you don't trust the state, and that's fine.. i just don't trust the parents, either.
Lastly I would forward the notion that our society mollycoddles children for far too long. The age of majority ought to coincide with the age of puberty. Thirteen or fourteen ought to be the age a child should be free to be on thier own.
i agree, except for the last part.. i'm not sure what you mean by "on their own."
What is truth?
all that is the case.
There is such a thing as educating people out of their indoctrinations.
it depends on the kind of indoctrination. certainly, all "morality" and "ethics" and "moral codes" will always be indoctrination, as ethics are not factual entities that can assume logical forms.
however, you can indoctrinate a person out of the belief that, "the world is the center of the universe." such a question is purely scientific, and therefore purely factual.
Ultimately everything a parent tells a child will be questioned.
maybe, or maybe not. regardless, if a person starts to realize that "there's nothing wrong with having a boyfriend" at age 50, the fact is that s/he wasted a good deal of her life on parental bullshit.
she may, of course, come to that conclusion at age 9, and lose her virginity at age 10 to another little kid. nothing wrong with that. however, she shouldn't have to take any risks, any gambles like, "well, i'll either remain a hopeless fuck-up, or i won't.. i guess it depends on what influences me, and whether i'll be able to break free from my parents before it's too late." such a risk is unnecessary, and rather brutal.
So everybody pretty well gets to determine for themselves what amount of religion they will accept or reject in their lives regardless of who gets first crack at them.
sure, but first they have a damn good chance of going through a lot of bullshit, a lot of guilt, and a lot of crying before they're able to choose their own values.
again, they shouldn't have to take that gamble.
The Puritans have the same rights as athiests to exist
yes.
and pass on their trancendental values to their children.
NO!
No?
That makes your opinion omnipotent.
And even if your judgement were to prevail I still don't see how you can get away from the parent issue.
So far as I know ever person excluding the test tube babies has a parent.
Like it or not parents and children form bonds.
How would you get away from parents influence?
The vast majority of people become parent in early adulthood.
Becoming a parent changes people as there is an obvious responsibility to mainstain the life of the child and provide nurture.
Too bad, but nature allows for the stupid as well as the smart to reproduce.
Stupid people have the right to have children and to raise them too.
Stupid people make lots of mistakes but usually nothing life destroying.
So the real question that underlies a lot of the discourse is how do we wipe ignorance from the face of the Earth?
Many have tried to accomplish that goal at the point of a gun.
Mises tells us the way is to reach the intellectuals and they will teach the masses.
I got no problem with words as weapons.
Words hurt and word heal.
There is nothing that I would care to do about a parent convincing their children that they are worthless whores if they don't marry the chosen man and the like.
Those are cultural phenonmena that I got no business messing in.
It is my business to find a nice girl who is not all messed up.
There is always somebody for everybody.
Trancendental matters are a deeply personal matter that should remain personal matters.
It will be up to the abused generation to learn and not pass on the abuse.
It is my personal observation that "spoiled" is what I see most often and rare is the case of abuse.
There is no shortage of troubled and troubling people in the world. The care of their souls as Jefferson put it belong to them. There is nothing anybody else can do for them.
For instance, what do you do with a person who hears all about the left from you and all about the right from me, but cannot make a decision as to what ideas were more meritorious? What if rather than dissapoint either one of us the person reggressed and simply never spoke another word?
Now neither one of us abused this person simply by exposing them to new ideas but the pressures were just too great and this person decides to never make another decision for the rest of their lives. No having to disappoint anybody ever again.
That is essentially what a schizophrenic is. There would nothing that you or I or anybody else could do for this person until this person decides that decision making is part of being a responsible person.