Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
"Cannot" versus "Should Not"
OK, I'm done derailing the macroparasite thread. Everyone is welcome, just read some of what's already been said.
So, we've got the issue of whether or not it's right to regulate thoughts, essentially. I argue that it's feasible, and I also argue that there are cases where certain sets of beliefs can lead to harm of others, at least when put into practice. We already legislate certain sorts of behaviors that are unacceptable, even if these behaviors are tied to some sort of philosophy. Thus, I contend that we indirectly regulate the philosophies themselves, either through legislation or through social rejection mechanisms.
There is no issue with an adult having a belief system that includes detriment to others, so long as they do not engage in or facilitate the conduct of said detriment. However, when an adult molds a child to become a vehicle for that belief, he has committed an act of child abuse, whether or not that child actually engages in the detrimental behavior. We can (and have) identified practices that we collectively deem unacceptable (female genital mutiliation anyone?), so I contend that the philosophy which encourages the practice of such a detrimental behavior is itself at fault, as are those who follow it and encourage its propagation to children, who are unwitting recepients.
Thus, we are capable of legislating at least the behavior resultant from a given philosophy, and as such can effectively legislate a philosophy away. I argue that we should do so when it is clear that the philosophy encourages detriment to others, and especially in cases where children are being indoctrinated into said philosophy.
Disucss. Or flame.
So, we've got the issue of whether or not it's right to regulate thoughts, essentially. I argue that it's feasible, and I also argue that there are cases where certain sets of beliefs can lead to harm of others, at least when put into practice. We already legislate certain sorts of behaviors that are unacceptable, even if these behaviors are tied to some sort of philosophy. Thus, I contend that we indirectly regulate the philosophies themselves, either through legislation or through social rejection mechanisms.
There is no issue with an adult having a belief system that includes detriment to others, so long as they do not engage in or facilitate the conduct of said detriment. However, when an adult molds a child to become a vehicle for that belief, he has committed an act of child abuse, whether or not that child actually engages in the detrimental behavior. We can (and have) identified practices that we collectively deem unacceptable (female genital mutiliation anyone?), so I contend that the philosophy which encourages the practice of such a detrimental behavior is itself at fault, as are those who follow it and encourage its propagation to children, who are unwitting recepients.
Thus, we are capable of legislating at least the behavior resultant from a given philosophy, and as such can effectively legislate a philosophy away. I argue that we should do so when it is clear that the philosophy encourages detriment to others, and especially in cases where children are being indoctrinated into said philosophy.
Disucss. Or flame.
Comments
For instance, if children are taught by their family that homosexuality is some how corrupting then go to school and see a gay teacher being completely normal (and probably not immediately identifiable either) then they have been confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs and they begin to question them.
As such, regulation should be used to encourage critical thinking and prevent parents blocking out different views or introducing biased ones.
Any thoughts? That was very rough and ready.
Edit: Oops, homophobia is actually corrupting. Meant to say homosexuality.
Essentially, is there a point at which we can intervene in child rearing if it's evident that the parents are being detrimental to a child's intellectual development?
We're fast becoming a nation of Palins. We're being palinized.
Edit: @HJoe: As part of the prevention of clustering together, schools that actively filter out or bias against the common curriculum would be subject to reform or closure (I may be deviating into a vote-Scott scenario but we can realisticly do so through lobbying.); Curriculum would also need to be clarified and brought in line with modern (liberal) thinking [and so we hit a problem]. You raise a very interesting point. Direct intervention should be used when the rearing of a child is causing them harm or can be shown to be making them unable to properly exist within society and the modern world.
The difficulty is defining the legal language and boundaries such that they can be enforced and not got around.
On an unrelated note: Could we please keep the discussion away from purely hypothetical or abstract situations. Think big.
My major point of contention is that raising a child in an environment that stymies their intellectual and emotional growth is just as bad as physically abusing that child, and since we already have laws in place to remove children from physically abusive environments...
The issue I see is in defining what it means to "properly exist." I mean, *I* could certainly set some guidelines, but other people could set different guidelines. The best thing I can say is that we need to foster the growth of critical thinking skills, and any environment that stymies the ability of a child to develop said critical thinking skills would therefore be considered an abusive one, and it would be better for the child to remove them from that environment and place them in a more supportive one.
And yes, I know that's basically a stone's throw from tossing everyone into "reeducation centers" and so forth. That's why I'm looking for counter-arguments. I'd rather not be a fascist if I can help it.
Problems like this have really got to be tackled from all angles and I would try to use cultural and educational while keeping legislation for cases such as the one you described.
If laws were enacted against ideas that are deemed unacceptable, we are worse than bigots. We are not only giving up any moral ground, but we are turning the bigots into martyrs for the cause. It is better focus time, effort, funds, etc. on closing the class and education barriers. Having lived in a rural area that literally only had two black kids in school (and that was only for a year), I was surprised when kids that came from bigoted families were friendly with the two kids. Just because a parent teaches something, is no guarantee that children will accept it. Time and a concerted public effort to educate the public and admonish/marginalize those with radical and unreasoned positions has worked in the U.S. and can work in European nations that have growing problems with bigotry (Germany, France, Italy, etc.) Making the bad guys martyrs only hurts your cause. Not to mention, when you open the can of works of legislating what is in a person's head it sets a precedent that can be used against anyone, even you.
-Hitler was right, but did it wrong.
-Imperialism is right.
-Personal liberties are flexible
-Everyone else doesn't exist so I'm right
That was an epic aim chat.
However, is effectively the same thing. You're still telling them what they can and can't teach their children by undoing what they do at home. What if public education contradicts what the parents tell their children? Who gets to be right? Something has to give somewhere. I completely agree about educating the public, but as I've said, what happens if a parent decides to remove their child from that system? Can we just force the child back in?
I very much value self-determination; my issue lies with parents who would essentially impose a system that discourages critical thinking at home, and interferes with the ability of a child to develop critical thinking skills. If we try to educate it into children in a public setting, it's effectively the same as telling that parent that their philosophy is wrong.
EDIT: Hush, George.
EDIT THE SECOND: To put it in some other words, I'm fine with an adult believing whatever. When an adult imposes a belief system onto a child, and that belief system is one that is counterproductive to that child's development, I say that's abuse just the same as physical abuse. We need adults to teach children, but we need them to do it in a way that's not just trying to perpetuate their own beliefs through an easily-molded mind.
The children were taken even though there was no evidence of abuse or neglect, just funny names.
Little Adolf Hitler removed from parents by welfare workers.
I have to admit that being saddled with a name like "Adolf Hitler" is worse than some of the weird names celebrities have been giving their kids but if Hitler is his middle name then being in school as Adolf Campbell is not that bad. Should the NJ Youth and Family Services have been allowed to take these kids if the parents only crime is having poor judgement in naming their kids?
More on the story.
Under governments in which thought policing went on, they would often convict based on shoddy, hearsay proof. Neighbors that disliked each other, business people that wanted to take out the competition, politicians in an effort to grab power point fingers at everyone they dislike. How do you prove that a parent taught a child anything? Do you go by what the kid says? What if the kid was sent to bed without dinner for being a dick and wants to see their parents taken away?
Most importantly, what do you do when people think other ideas distasteful? You have set a precedent and all it takes is the majority or those with a majority of power (money, military might, etc.) to start making more and more ideas off limits. It is just not effective, accurate or viable.
There's no evidence of neglect, but let's say we could find evidence that the parents were teaching the kids Hitler-esque things. One of the reasons people have children is to have a vehicle by which their ideas may persist through time. What if the ideas they're passing down are detrimental to society as a whole? I don't know if I'd say that it's ineffective per se. It works, it just really really sucks.
In no way am I saying that fascism or thought police or what have you is a good thing. The problem I see is that I'd like to try to break the cycle of bigotry, wherein bigots pass down ideas to children and perpetuate the divisiness in humanity. I see no way to break that cycle that doesn't essentially condemn a philosophy, and if we want to move forward, we have to make an effort to counteract bigotry. I'm basically talking about the limits of cultural relativism.
Even bad ideas should be preserved even if they are only preserved so that we remember why they are bad ideas.
I didn't read the original thread until after I posted in this one.
There will always be some form of "A is better than B" belief structures in society. Every social group forms its own pecking order and has its own ideas about who they are better than. Often this is as harmless as, "we are cooler than you because we play the Burning Wheel while you dumb schleps play Dungeons and Dragons." Other times it can be downright violent, "Who let the spic into little Italy? Someone order a burrito? No? You better get your ass out of here before we break it."
Only time and prosperity will get rid of the violent types of bigotry because those types evolve from a sense of insecurity. It is far easier to hate that guy standing on the street corner that does not look like you and picture him stealing work meant for you than it is to take a good look at yourself and realize that the only thing in your way is you. Who will be the arbiter of which ideas are good and which ones are bad? How many kids do you know that grew up in homes with strange ideas that had those ideas survive unchallenged into adulthood? The only way those ideas can survive is if the people who think that way live in closed communities (which is the problem with fanatics/radicals). Though that separation may be good for the rest of us by keeping those ideas in the social equivalent of a Darwinian tidal pool we allow those ideas to quickly mutate into something worse within the closed community.
One possible solution is to take a few members out of the closed community and expose them to the world at large in a positive manner with the hope that upon returning they will reduce the level of radicalism within their closed community. For that to have any chance of working those members must be strong enough to share their new thoughts without being ostracized by the elders of their closed community. You also run the risk of changing those few people too much which may cause their community to become even more radical as they perceive contact with the evils of the outside world as a form of contamination that can not be removed.
Either way I'd rather see people have the freedom to think stupid things than live with the thought police.
Things do change, I'll grant you that. The question I have is whether or not it's actually possible to overcome that divisiveness you've pointed out. Yes, discrimination will occur. Dare I say it's wired into our biology. So, will it always be there? Is it worth trying to counteract it wherever we can? Or do we just keep "doing what seems right" and hope for the best?
How would you counteract it without reinforcing it in the process? If you tell someone that they can not discriminate based on skin color and then you you complain because there are not enough members of race X working/living in a given area you only make the problem worse by forcing people to look at race. In effect you are forcing a quota system on people which causes normally tolerant people to become intolerant because they fear where it might lead. Even when these programs have good intentions behind them (affirmative action) they still end up with side effects that increase racism when people who would otherwise qualify for something are denied that something because they are not the right race. It is even worse when someone else is given that something (who is less qualified) simply because they belonged to the right race.
So no, racism (and its related ism's) will never go away, there will always be some difference in people that will be used to discriminate against or for. Even within racial groups there is discrimination (he's not black enough). The best we can do is to make a conscious effort to look at people based on their character and judge them based on their actions rather than their heritage.
EDIT: Discrimination always exists. Therefore, why is it OK for us to discriminate in one direction and not another? Why is it OK to discriminate against racism? I'm not arguing in favor of cultural relativism; I'm saying that it seems as though we already do a bit of thought policing on our own, so why not drop the pretense and collectively decide what is good and what is not?
Put yourself into the kid's shoes. He has two different authority figures telling him two conflicting 'truths'. If he has learned how to think for himself he will be more likely to be able to look at both 'truths' and figure out which one is more true than the other. As the kid gets older he'll also begin to learn how to read a person's motive. He'll begin to ask, "why is this person challenging my view on this issue?" This is the point where problems can occur because if the person attempting to impart their 'truth' is not sufficiently able to explain their 'truth' then the critical thinker is likely to dismiss them and their truth based on their own judgement of the person attempting to pass the 'truth' on to them. This then leads to cynicism as the critical thinker begins to see other people not so much interested in passing on truths as they are interested in influencing people.
So, no, it's not OK to force 'truths' onto kids while they are a captive audience in a school system. It is also not acceptable to put the kids in an environment where these 'truths' are passed subliminally by way of indirect exposure. Propaganda is still propaganda no matter how good the intentions behind it. All it takes is one kid to look behind the curtain and expose the wizard. The best way to pass these ideas on is through open discussion and debate. You use the word "discriminate" as if it were something bad. There is nothing wrong with discrimination, you discriminate every time you spend your money. Why did you buy the Coke and not the Pepsi?
Please don't confuse discrimination (something that is OK) with racism (something that is not OK).
I still can't shake the notion, though, that educating people in any direction is effectively like policing an opposing viewpoint. Teach people to tolerate and you're policing the bigots, essentially. I don't have a problem with this per se, but I have to wonder: why is it OK if it goes in that direction?
EDIT: Steve: Let me explain a bit further. Guy X is a bigot and thinks he's doing right by teaching his kid that black people are ruining the world. School system tells child that you shouldn't discriminate against anyone based solely on color. School system is effectively discriminating against bigotry, but we're not going to complain because it's not a bad thing.
I know that not all discrimination is bad, nor am I implying that it is bad; my question is, what is it that decides when it's bad and when it isn't? Is there some sort of objective truth behind it? Or do we just decide?
When you teach a viewpoint you are failing your student. A student who lacks the critical thinking skills necessary to understand why some things are right and others are wrong will forever fall victim to peer pressure and group thought.
I think you are getting hung up on the destination and not taking the time to understand that their is a journey involved.
I'm all for teaching critical thinking, so do we really think we can teach just critical thinking without ever presenting any underlying principles? Total subjectivism? That basically provides the grounds to say that all philosophies are exactly equal: moral nihilism.
So, even if you're teaching them to question a given viewpoint, presenting that viewpoint creates a bias about it. Is that OK? Does it depend on the bias in question?
You are simply being impractical and argumentative and either misunderstanding or disregarding what I am saying.
Any time you present an argument, you create a bias for that argument. Even if you're encouraging questioning of that argument, you're still creating a bias for that argument. If you could present every argument ever, that'd be one way to reduce the bias, but that's not feasible.
I AGREE that you MUST present clear-cut statements along with critical thinking training. I AGREE WITH YOU. You need materials to work with in order to develop those critical thinking skills.
When I ask, "Why do you present the arguments that you do," I am not trying to lead you. I'm asking an honest question: why do we teach what we do? Even in a subject that teaches heavy critical thinking, you will present clear-cut statements in some context, and doing so will create a bias. This is known. So, the question is, why do we present the arguments that we do? Why should we teach "Hatred = Bad; Tolerance = Good?" Even if you teach it with 6 other arguments, some of which could be "Hate = Good; Tolerance = Bad," why do we pick those specific arguments?
I am not "simply" being anything. I am seriously inquiring as to why we choose to believe what we do, and why we spread the information that we spread. I have a notion as to why that is - because we argue from what we believe are fundamental truths - but I want to hear some other views. That's all I'm after. I'm not being argumentative, I'm being inquisitive. I'm not arguing for or against what anyone has said; I want to know why they've said it.