Two truths and a lie

[Vort]

Homosexual behavior

• Homosexuality is a natural and not uncommon psychological and physical condition in human beings (and other animals).
• Persecuting, hurting, threatening, or even making fun of people for their homosexual tendencies is indecent, antisocial, destructive, and immoral.
• Anyone who says anything against the (newly established) orthodoxy of homosexuality being perfectly acceptable is evil and should be excluded from decent society, by force of law if necessary.

Abortion

• Because of their unique role as creators of life, women throughout history have often been subjected to unfair and even evil treatment.
• Western society agrees that human beings, and not the state, should have control over their own bodies.
• A fetus doesn't qualify as human because it cannot live outside its mother's body, so therefore a woman should be allowed to destroy her fetus at any time and for any reason. Anyone who disagrees with this is "anti-choice" and is trying to deprive women of their rights of self-determination.

Gender

• Sex (or "gender") is determined by chromosomes and by gene expression. Some (small percentage of) people are chromosomally sexually ambiguous, and some (very small percentage) reflect a gene expression that does not always match up with their chromosome structure.
• Gender roles are to some degree a social construct, one which many people tend to cross over at some point or another.
• "Gender" is completely fluid and has no real relationship to your genetic makeup. Or, equivalently, "gender" doesn't exist.

Parenting

• It is society's duty to help parents rear their children.
• Some parents abuse their children, sometimes in small ways and sometimes in unspeakable ways.
• Government has the just power to make sure children meet all societal expectations, regardless of the parents' wishes.

Fatherhood

• Mothers are the disproportionately important parent during pregnancy and the child's first years.
• Many men abuse or abandon their duties as fathers.
• Men aren't vital to a child's development and, in many cases, should be excluded from their children's lives.

Feminism

• Historical attitudes about women have often not matched modern Western attitudes.
• In many cases, women have historically been relegated to a lower social and even legal status.
• Women are oppressed, and should be legally favored in a great many instances in order to compensate for historical inequities and make up for current societal trends.

Psychology

• The powerful tools of science can be and have been profitably turned to the question of human psychology.
• People with psychological disturbances have historically been vilified and subjected to inhumane and even appalling treatment.
• Modern psychology is a mature and reliable science, and the word of psychologists should be relied on in legal and social matters, even (or especially) over the counsel of Church leaders.

Reliability of Church leaders

• Men are imperfect.
• Church leaders are men.
• Church leaders should not be trusted, and especially should not be trusted if they say anything that disagrees with the common wisdom.

We could play this game all day. It's important to see this phenomenon and to recognize its prevalence around us, and perhaps especially in our own thoughts.

[anatess2]

Okay, let's do a social experiment.

Find the truth and lies surrounding the principles of this news story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/mother-lets-snake-bite-baby-teach-a-lesson-one-year-old-red-rat-florida-chartelle-geanette-st-a7778591.html

[Guest]

Lie: This constitutes child abuse.

Truth: She wanted to teach the child about the dangers of snakes.

Truth: The child was not injured.

Not Mentioned: A 1yo is not going to remember any such lesson through this.

[anatess2]

24 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not Mentioned: A 1yo is not going to remember any such lesson through this.

Not quite.  Babies that age learn by experience/impressions.  They're sponges.  They would gain that first impression and it would either get validated by future impressions or nullified.  As the child lives with pet snakes, she'll more likely than not have more impressions to add to that experience.

This is actually a very interesting event.  Babies, even children, normally do not have a fear of snakes out the get go.  Snake-phobia that is very common in societies all over the planet regardless of culture is a learned trait.  So, if you can get ahead of it (fear of snakes is embedded in society, from the snake in Genesis to Slytherins of Harry Potter), you'll have a higher likelihood of your child growing up without adopting that irrational fear and have a more healthy respect for these creatures.

Edited June 8, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Not quite.  Babies that age learn by experience/impressions.  They're sponges.  They would gain that first impression and it would either get validated by future impressions or nullified.  As the child lives with pet snakes, she'll more likely than not have more impressions to add to that experience.

Really?  I'd challenge you to take your 1 yo baby (if you had one) give him this one lesson, then let it sit out in the garden where you know venomous snakes slither around and see what happens.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Really?  I'd challenge you to take your 1 yo baby (if you had one) give him this one lesson, then let it sit out in the garden where you know venomous snakes slither around and see what happens.

That is really silly.

Anyway, I added to my post.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let's do a social experiment.

Find the truth and lies surrounding the principles of this news story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/world/americas/mother-lets-snake-bite-baby-teach-a-lesson-one-year-old-red-rat-florida-chartelle-geanette-st-a7778591.html

This is probably not the way I would teach my 1-year old daughter about snakes.  

That said, I don't think it rises to child abuse either.  Just a style of parenting that is not really my style.  Just a little... too... Spartan.

Edited June 8, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That is really silly.

Anyway, I added to my post.

So you agree that it is silly to believe the child would learn that lesson.  Thank you for your confirmation.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So you agree that it is silly to believe the child would learn that lesson.  Thank you for your confirmation.

Did you learn math by just teaching additionr one time?  So, you're saying because a baby can't grasp addition at a year old, the baby won't learn from introducing numbers at that age?  That, of course, is silly.  And your post is snarky.  This paragraph is not intended to be such.  Just wanna head that off so we don't go on another argument.

The family has a pet snake.  The baby lives around it.  He is learning about reptiles already.  Yes, even at a year old.  That's how babies learn - from impressions.  Brick by brick.  We have pet snakes too.  No, I didn't let my kid learn about reptile teeth by purposely letting them get bit. They learned about snakes bites in theory.  And so when they got bit (these are not domesticated animals, you will get bit eventually), they weren't surprised or fearful or develop a phobia of some kind.  This mother decided to purposefully let the baby get bit to accomplish the same effect as my theoretical teachings through direct experience .  It is simply another brick in the baby's learning.  Yes, a practicum stays in a baby's psyche longer than theory.  But in my opinion, purposely getting bit is highly unnecessary - for anybody, not just babies.  I prefer the Montessori method - allow the child to learn through natural curiosity, and not have the lesson forced upon him.  But that's just me.  To each their own...

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by anatess2

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

This is probably not the way I would teach my 1-year old daughter about snakes.  

That said, I don't think it rises to child abuse either.  Just a style of parenting that is not really my style.  Just a little... too... Spartan.

Yeah.  My mother and siblings think the way I raise my children are too Spartan because... I let my kids roam the neighborhood unsupervised, I let my kids go on the roof and jump to the nearby tree, I let my kids bike 150 miles on a 3-day bicycle tour... they got their own pocket knives at 8, their own rifles at 12...  They think it's child abuse that we even have pet snakes, let alone get bit by them.  So yeah, I've been the recipient of these "you're a bad mother" sentiments so I'm not as quick to judge another mother's parenting style.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yeah.  My mother and siblings think the way I raise my children are too Spartan because... I let my kids roam the neighborhood unsupervised, I let my kids go on the roof and jump to the nearby tree, I let my kids bike 150 miles on a 3-day bicycle tour... they got their own pocket knives at 8, their own rifles at 12...  They think it's child abuse that we even have pet snakes, let alone get bit by them.  So yeah, I've been the recipient of these "you're a bad mother" sentiments so I'm not as quick to judge another mother's parenting style.

None of those hit me as being Spartan or bad mothering at all.  In fact, I think I did most of those things as a kid myself, and I'm still here to talk about it!

There are genuine examples of bad mothering (or fathering) out there.  For example, one "trend" I have heard about is for parents to "introduce" their kids to drugs (e.g., marijuana) by doing drugs with them, sometimes when the child is as young as 10 or 11.  That is bad parenting.

But I do think we need to be careful about throwing around the "bad parenting" label when parenting style merely is different, because such a judgment is both extremely subjective and extremely hurtful.

Edited June 9, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[anatess2]

Mental Health:

• The area of Neuro-Science and Psychiatry is slow to progress relative to other areas of Medical Science.
• Today's Psychiatrists rely too much on psyhotropic prescriptions instead of behavior modification or psychological strengthening.  Mental Illness can be overcome through righteousness.
• Psychiatry/Neuro-Science is voodoo science and chemical imbalances causing Mental Illness do not exist.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Mental Health:

• The area of Neuro-Science and Psychiatry is slow to progress relative to other areas of Medical Science.
• Today's Psychiatrists rely too much on psyhotropic prescriptions instead of behavior modification or psychological strengthening.  Mental Illness can be overcome through righteousness.
• Psychiatry/Neuro-Science is voodoo science and chemical imbalances causing Mental Illness do not exist.

I thought this was two truths and a lie?

I just see three lies here.  Maybe a half truth on point no. 2.

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I thought this was two truths and a lie?

I just see three lies here.  Maybe a half truth on point no. 2.

(Not that I am going to get bogged down into an argument about it, if you know what I mean.  I have debated too many holocaust deniers (true story!), etc. in the past, and I know all the evidence in the world isn't going to change some peoples' minds.)

You're in the opposite extreme of this discussion.  It IS 2 truths.  #1 is an easy one.  #2 and #3 is where the extremes pull on each other - which is exactly the problem caused with 2 truths and a lie... it muddies everything up.