Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Notice that I said in my post that professional creationists are worthy of contempt. I'd also add that their groupies and wannabies, a category into which many Freeper creationists would fall.
But you have to understand that MOST creationists (freeper or otherwise) don't fall into either category. I guess my point (and Derb's) is that when judging a person's character, there are more far more important things to consider than whether he's been duped by a some pseudoscience that really doesn't have any relevence to to the everyday lives of most people.
there's that dang word again.
gentlemen, PLEASE: If a sense of right and wrong was "innate" (ie: in-born) rather than inculcated, human morality would be essentially uniform across all cultures throughout all time.
It ain't.
By a LONG shot.
We define right and wrong by what we are taught. We adopt the "morality" we are raised in, indoctrinated by carrot and stick.
This is not to say that there is no such thing as an absolute transcendant right-and-wrong system. This is merely a refutation of the unsupported sentimental notion than humans are born with such a thing ingrained in their natures.
Again: The *potential* is there in most of us. Reaching in, in whatever form, requires training.
Of course people need moral and ethical training. But the elements of empathy, compassion and recognition of fairness are built in -- or not as the case may be.
an unassembled collection of slide, frame, barrel, barrel bushing, takedown lever, hammer, sear, sear disconnect, trefoil spring, hammerspring, recoil spring, barrel-link, trigger, triggerbar, gip safety, etc... does not equate to a functional pistol. they are the *potential* for one.
as I stated, from the get go: most (or all) are born with the *potential* to have a system of right and wrong. Unless assembled (and, yes, disciplined with pain and humiliation and fear when needed) the human will NEVER get to right and wrong but will remain what he was when born: utterly self-centered.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
My experiences are in direct contradiction to yours.
Being hit taught me to lie to avoid punishment. I even remember the day: I tried to hit my sister. Whap! from Dad. "Do you still feel like hitting your sister?" "Yes." Whap!
4 or 5 repeats and I lied. Also decided never to tell the truth again unless it was the "right" answer.
It wasn't until adulthood that my sister and I became friends and I decided I was strong enough to be honest from then on.
Didn't hit my own kids. All have, at one point or another, gotten public recognition of their fine character.
you never used pain, humiliation, or intimidation to discipline your children?
...
ok.
So you're claiming evolutionists claim child abuse is 'part of our psyche', but not 'part of our purpose or intention'. So what is it, then, Davie? And how is saying it's part of our psyche not an enabling mechanism? After all, if it's part of our psyche, we can't help it, can we?
Some 'abominable lie'! Unless 'abominable lie' means 'if you parse my words in some tortured non obvious way, they don't actually mean what they seem to mean.'
Gerry has been keeping this gem in his closet.
It's out there on the internet, guy, not in my closet. I suggest you learn to stand by your words. Sarcasm, yeah right.
It was sometime hard to figure out a better alternative, but that is correct.
I don't take a moralistic view on this unless I get the "God says so" folk bothering me. And I'm not sure (present company excepted) that everyone is smart enough to come up with on-the-spot alternatives even if desirous of doing so.
I also think that from an evolutionary perspective, a quick swing at a kid who is doing something that bothers the parent has a parallel among chimps and, thus, probably an honorable primate ancestry.
perhaps I should elaborate - in the home in which I was raised, there were exactly two breaches of the rules which generated corporal beatings: Lying, and stealing. There were few other breaches which earned lesser forms of physical discipline.
much earlier in life, only failure to instantly obey a command in a particular voice, most commonly "stop!", generated physical violence. And NOT often - my mother's backhand was a fearfully precise, memorable, and shocking implement of discipline. In those years, instant obedience to such a command is a survival necessity. Such commands were seldom issued, and never when not needed.
all other "negative consequences" were more subtle, and tailored to the personality of the child in question. but there *were* imposed negative consequences for inadequate performance or incorrect behavior, all designed to instill inhibition from that behavior out of fear of repetition of the consequence.
This is appropriate, and I am at a loss to see how a child, born without a conscience or any kind of sense, can be trained up from the native "like-don't like" paradigm into the "right-wrong" paradigm.
ola.
doing well?
"...I am at a loss to see how a child, born without a conscience or any kind of sense, can be trained up from the native "like-don't like" paradigm into the "right-wrong" paradigm...."
Check your premise. Kids are born with the sense to want to please and be accepted by their parents.
That is why the overwhelming majority of kids, even abused ones, love and justify their parents.
It's also why I rarely argue the point. I have almost never had anyone say to me: "You were able to raise great kids without causing them pain and humiliation. That's great, can you give me some ideas?" The ususal is either "You're lying," or "You wre lucky."
This tells me there is an emotional attachment to the position, not a rational one. Arguing only causes futher entrenchment and justification.
BTW, I'm trying not to cut and run on this, but I've had some computer problems and have a small mountain of unfinished stuff to get done. Spent much of the day on the phone with tech support. Responses will continue tobe slow, if any.
In my case, I accept your statements provisionally.
I have interacted sufficiently with you on FR to be reasonably certain that not only would you not make deliberate misrepresentation on this issue, but that you would not deign to do so with any topic conceivable. The proviso has nothing to do with any suspicions concerning your honesty or integrity, but with a question of possible error in observation/analysis.
As I said, I am at a loss to see how you pulled it off.
I will add that I suspect fear and humiliation and pain of some form did indeed act as factors in the upbringing techniques you used. I would require nearly infinite information countering this suspicion to abandon it.
You and others have made a few unsupported and sentimental statements-as-fact concerning "innate/inborn/born-with" characteristics which run counter to everything I have observed of very young humans. I propose that it is possible that you have mistaken a result for a cause.
Humans are born needy and self-centered.
The parents are providers of nourishment and warmth and comforts of all sorts.
The kid likes this.
Sooner or later (usually very soon... within weeks) the child experiences an episode of unrequited want - the parent is not there or is not in a position to provide.
The child experiences pain, anxiety, primitive fear of loss.
The child reacts to these negative stimuli in various ways, one of the more common of which is the development of propitiation and endearment strategies.
Perhaps these strategies are instinctual, perhaps not.
What seems certain is that they are not uniformly expressed and do not equate to an ethical paradigm - they are, again, elements of the potential for such a paradigm.
Unless some significant evidence is provided which demonstrates the existence of humans born with an ethical or moral code which, from birth, causes them to choose "what is right" over "what I like" - I ain't buying it.
I note we all have forgotten one important inborn trait: the capacity for emulation/mimicry
Children have an innate desire to please, imitate, and be accepted by their parents.
Thank you for the compliment. I shluld also say that you are, by far, the most dispassionate of all the folk who have ever disagreed with me on the subject.
I am fully aware that my anecdotal statements are only one step up from useless. I am also aware that just not hitting is not enough to be a good parent, firm expectations and good role-modelling are right up there in importance. Along with a swarm of other things.
The innate characteristics I refer to, though, are anything but sentimental (those who know me would laugh hyseterically at the thoughtof me sentimental).
They are simply basic biology: any social mammal that is not accepted by its parent(s) is going to be food for something, possibly even mom. Most culture is acquired by imitation.
Designing a good piece of objective research in this area would be extraordinarily difficult, but I think it might be worthwhile.
Continued slow response warning. My heavy work season is just starting and I'm heading out soon for some outdoor project prep.
my error. missed it. sorry.
doing experimental research on children is indeed (and should be) quite impossible.
tailoring non-experimental observational research (through very careful sample selection from among extant families) to yield the same conditions as a designed experimental regimen could work, but would be exceedingly difficult to pull off - uncontrolled variables would slip in, and most would not be readily identifiable.
We are not the same as evolution. Logic never has been your strong suit, has it?
Oh man, you sound just like the spiteful leftists I engage in for sport. Sardonic distortions of my name? How churlish, pathetic, and almost beneath you.
I just felt that, since you feel free to address me as 'Gerry', I should try to be equally familiar with you. How hypocritical of you to object. And how completely typical.
I'm disappointed that you had to reach back that far to find something to disapprove of; there's something to be said for trying to remain above reproach. A
You've had quoted material from one of my posts on your profile for almost that long. Again, how hypocritical, and how completely typical.
No complaints. Mostly taking a break for the sake of my sanity. This place has been more unpleasant than usual recently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.