FatPhil
Senior Member.
Nonsense. For example, for those who believe in jealous vindictive sky fairies as their religion, who do they believe this jealous vindictive sky fairy is conspiring with?
Discussion of Metabunk's Politeness Policy
- Thread starter Mendel
- Start date
- Status
tobigtofool
Active Member
The guy dressed in gold at the head of the church.
Ironic you say going to catholic school is branawshing, but there is no conspiracy to brainwsh.
Mendel
Senior Member.
You have not provided any evidence. Maybe you should start doing that.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Pure tosh.
Mendel
Senior Member.
He doesn't realize there are schools and countries where the pupils don't pledge allegiance to the flag every morning.
tobigtofool
Active Member
You are such an impolite poster.
Im out of here, I'm going to go hang out in a conspiracy theory circle because at least they show me evidence instead of making up insulting lies about what I personally believe.
There's your evidence that your tactics dont work.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I did not do that.
But you did it to Phil:
And that statement led me to believe you thought these were the only options a kid could have. If that's mistaken, I apologize.
tobigtofool
Active Member
There you just did it.
I meant that as a general metaphor that reciting a prayer to god or a flag is no different.
I apologize to you phil if my post came off as impolite, wasn't at all my intention to accuse phil of anything.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
I believed in both ...when I was very young. Brains mature. People mature. How would you refer to, say, an adult who believed in Santa Claus? Or an adult who believed in leprechauns and their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? We were all young once, all ignorant, all gullible. Most of us grow out of it regarding belief in Santa, but we have a hard time understanding people who cling to beliefs in their adulthood that are just as evidence-free.
tobigtofool
Active Member
I'd look at that adults life circumstances first before judging them against my own.
And if I actually cared about them I would convince them of neither using compassion and reason.
Ann K
Senior Member.
"Praying to a flag"?? What on earth are you talking about now?
tobigtofool
Active Member
It's a metaphor for standing up and reciting a prayer of thanks and allegiance.
People can worship more than just an invisible god in the sky.
Ann K
Senior Member.
The pledge of allegiance is meant to foster patriotism, not religion. It is not, nor has it ever been, a "prayer". Note: it was the (Catholic) Knights of Columbus who added "under god" to it, and persuaded congress to adopt it. I remember having to learn the new version in school, and thought that was ridiculous: one was patriotism and one was religion and they are NOT the same, so why couldn't the adults understand the difference when I, a school kid, could see it clearly.
It was this interjection of religion where it did not belong that first propelled me to atheism. As you just said, "There's your evidence that your tactics don't work."
tobigtofool
Active Member
Honestly, I define patriotism and religion to be similar enough to be the same thing.
Patriotism and religion go hand in hand in many countries. This is the very first one that they did not.
Religion mixes philosophy, and law. So does governance.
This is a separate debate, fun and interesting as it may be, but has nothing to do with OP or actual discussion. So its better to stay on track:
This stament kind of doesn't even make sense to me actually now that I look at it more critically.
Its saying that:
Ridiculing arguments works.
Empathsing with someone's belief's doesn't.
Empathsing with the targets - what does that mean?
Empathizing and respecting someone's opinions while debating with reason =/= the same thing as just empathizing with them.
Last edited:
NoParty
Senior Member.
I hope not...though I thoroughly disagree with you today.
It's called the "Pledge of Allegiance" for a reason: It's a pledge, clearly not a prayer.
(current version)
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
(original--and for my money, superior--1892 version, by Francis Bellamy)
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands,
one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Many hours could be spent discussing the changes...but that's not needed here...
ETA: I type slowly...I see that Ann K beat me to it, this time. ;P
Ann K
Senior Member.
If you are an American, you live in a country that EXPLICITLY states that we are a country not bound by religion. If you define it that way, the constitution clearly tells you that you are wrong.
tobigtofool
Active Member
Thanks for keeping us in check mick!
I love the constitution, and I use as a tool to argue for a smaller goverment (which I consider to be tantamount to a religion when it gets too big) So I prefer it to be smaller
For example someone mentioned patriotism, when does patriotism turn into nationalism, and when does nationalism turn into something bad?
At what point do we say, ok now your love of country has gone too far? That's what Im trying to say when I compared them, they are the same in that respect IMO.
I love the constitution, and I use as a tool to argue for a smaller goverment (which I consider to be tantamount to a religion when it gets too big) So I prefer it to be smaller
For example someone mentioned patriotism, when does patriotism turn into nationalism, and when does nationalism turn into something bad?
At what point do we say, ok now your love of country has gone too far? That's what Im trying to say when I compared them, they are the same in that respect IMO.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
From Merriam-Webster dictionaryThanks for keeping us in check mick!
I love the constitution, and I use as a tool to argue for a smaller goverment (which I consider to be tantamount to a religion when it gets too big) So I prefer it to be smaller
For example someone mentioned patriotism, when does patriotism turn into nationalism, and when does nationalism turn into something bad?
At what point do we say, ok now your love of country has gone too far? That's what Im trying to say when I compared them, they are the same in that respect IMO.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
What is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?
Nationalism and patriotism are similar insofar as both words emphasize strong feelings for one’s country. However, the two words are not synonymous. Nationalism, while it refers to loyalty and devotion to a nation, tends to imply the placing of that nation above others, a tendency that is not necessarily implicit in patriotism.
Fortunately in the USA we have the opportunity to support our nation (patriotism) while changing the aspects of it that are objectionable, such as nationalism.
deirdre
Senior Member.
your analogy was fine. They are just being purposefully difficult. Don't feed the trolls.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
There's nothing secret about the fact that the guy in gold thinks he's collaborating with his invisible friend.
-- the startpage search engine's current default response to a search for ``define conspire'' - it's a POST query, I don't know if there's a GETable URL.conspire (verb)
1. make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act
-- https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspireintransitive verb
1a
: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement
-- https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspireto plan secretly with other people to do something bad, illegal, or against someone's wishes:
It's also odd that you consider the priest's intentions to be unlawful, bad, harmful, wrongful, or illegal. Perhaps you should aim for dismantling this organisation for the greater good?
tobigtofool
Active Member
I wasn't suggesting that, or governments are, just the behaviors of those that partake in either are comparable.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
that's a whole mess of uninformed/cherry picking/moving the goalposts bunk.
the point is whether patriotism, Catholicism, islamic schools, the "Church of Woke", or any morality/ideals we teach to our children (like bullying is bad, stealing is bad, etc etc) they are all the same types of "brainwashing" ..if one wants to water down the definitions of brainwashing by saying:
It's fine if you disagree, but that would make you wrong.
Google's AI says "Brainwashing is a colloquial term that describes a systematic attempt to force someone to accept a certain doctrine, command, or allegiance." Catholic school teaches your there is only one true religion and failure to abide will result in eternal damnation. That is absolutely brainwashing. The "Church of Woke" is as real as the bogeyman so I'm not going to address that. @FatPhil is right
tobigtofool
Active Member
Educating, brainwashing, tomato tomato.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.aspx#section5
Woke doesn't seem to be the problem, it scores equally bad as non-woke.Students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. Catholic and Lutheran schools were each compared to public schools. For both reading and mathematics, the results were generally similar to those based on all private schools.
For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools.
Last edited:
econ41
Senior Member
They are all methods of persuading people to adopt a point of view.Educating, brainwashing, tomato tomato.
Sadly, and despite @Mick West's word of caution, the tensions are again increasing.
In a thread discussing politeness, there's a fundamental process issue when members use emotive loaded terms that are themselves impolite.
"brainwashing" is an emotively loaded term**. I am not "catholic" - in fact my own protestant biases from my younger days would have pedantically insisted on "Roman Catholic". But those who share catholic beliefs are at liberty to persuade others, and make proselytising efforts to persuade others to join. Those efforts can be referenced politely as can the persuasive actions of any major or minor demographic sectoral interest group. Referring to those efforts by emotively loaded words is not polite.
The TOPIC of politeness is available for discussion. Provided it is discussed politely. Resorting to impoliteness in this thread is doubly offensive.
.
** and I only picked one recent example. As an example of the need to separate statements of objective fact from emotively loaded and impolite terminology.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
What goalposts were moved - where were they before, and where do you think they are now?
How are dictionaries "uninformed"?
How is copying every top dictionary hit "cherry picking"?
If it really was cherry picking, then why didn't you just immediately respond with definitions, of the word in the same context, that counter the ones that I've provided?
No it wasn't. It's not me moving the goalposts, it's either you or @tobigtofool [sic] - I was explicitly responding to his point:
-- https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussion-of-metabunks-politeness-policy.13249/post-307290tobigtofool said:
I'm prepared to alter my word usage to "indoctrination" if you're prepared to agree on that. "Brainwashing" does have a "scare factor" that might put you off its use, but it's certainly a term of the art. E.g. the title of this:
``"Stop Brainwashing children!” Richard Dawkins on religion, biology and America''
Source: https://youtu.be/watch?v=SmSJD3igd4Q
in which explicitly uses the term in only his second sentence (75s), even though he also falls back onto "indoctrinated" almost immediately afterwards (138s), as does the interviewer (228s). I consider "indoctrination" to be self-evident that it's barely worth discussing - there's inculcation of a doctrine, so it's indoctrination.
I still believe it's brainwashing too - the school indoctrinators just start with a more rasa[*] tabula onto which to perform their inculcation - but we can agree to disagree over that usage, and I happily and politely consider you as wrong on this point as you happily and politely consider me.
[* Incidentally, I know etymology isn't definition, but a lot of people consider "tabula rasa" to have meant "blank slate", but it didn't - it more precisely meant "blanked slate", scrubbed clean of what was there before - it's the passive perfect participle ot rado, radere, to scrape, used when the subject (in this case the feminine singular tabula) has had the action of scrubbing done to it. So the slate version of "washing" was involved to reach that state, the state now used to describe the childlike mind. Of course, Locke was using the term as merely an analogy - it is as clean as it would be had it been (=passive) washed (=perfect participle), so the definition's actually irrelevant, hence this paragraph being entirely a footnote, in case some are interested in the origins of the terms that are in common use.]
FatPhil
Senior Member.
You know, I think I'll give @tobigtofool a pass on this - I even chuckled with a slight nod of the head when I read it, there's a useful kernel within.
Breaking it down:
One is obviously an expression of subservience to a higher authority, one from whom you are expecting support, often performed in front of an object of symbolic value.
Unlike the other, which is instead an expression of subservience to a higher authority, one from whom you are expecting support, often performed in front of an object of symbolic value.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is which, I've left it deliberately vague.
tobigtofool
Active Member
But I'll take the pass.
The first one is the leader of the democratic peoples republic of north Korea.
And the other one is the leader of Russia?
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
it doesnt matter which term you use, his original point -y'all worked so hard to twist- was the same could be said for any morality or ideals any school teaches our children.
i believe everything we teach our children (aside from math, reading etc) is "brainwashing". i already said that.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Which post of his do you consider to contain his "original point", and what sentence in that post embodies that particular point? Oh, please don't paraphrase it - quote and cite, posting guidelines, and all that. And then please quote and cite my reply to it that supposedly "twisted" that point? I'd like to know exactly what I'm being accused of. I seem to be following a very different trajectory through this thread from you, and yours appears to include either clairvoyance or time travel.
deirdre
Senior Member.
yup
nah, my brain is just wired like
i'm not knocking your abnormal brains, we need people with abnormal brains to do the complicated maths, et al, for us!
Ann K
Senior Member.
Please note, religious schools scored as well in reading and mathematics. But knowing how to read is not the same thing asEducating, brainwashing, tomato tomato.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.aspx#section5
Students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. Catholic and Lutheran schools were each compared to public schools. For both reading and mathematics, the results were generally similar to those based on all private schools. Content from External Source Woke doesn't seem to be the problem, it scores equally bad as non-woke.
WHAT you read, and this does not address what the explicit purpose of a religious school is ...which is to push their religious viewpoint on kids to the exclusion of others.
(This is apart from the point that has often been made, that private schools have discretion in which students to accept while public schools do not, thus skewing any testing statistics in their favor.)
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Normal or not, you've evaded the clear and simple questions in my last two posts. I find such evasion disrespectful, and consequently impolite. How does such evasion bring clarity to a discussion?
Ann K
Senior Member.
The devil is in the details of that "etc". History, physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and sociology are all things which have been grotesquely twisted or completely covered over at times by religious teachings. None of these concern "morality or ideals".
deirdre
Senior Member.
i'm not going to discuss things from 50 or 200 years ago.
I think your question is simple enough in this case that you can easily figure it out yourself. And i feel you would be more open to accepting it if it doesnt come from me. you figured out the "content-lexical tie" @tobigtofool used. (ps its sexy when a man can admit he might have misunderstood something initially, unless you said 'pure tosh' because you actually do believe that it is only "brainwashing" when you dont agree with what is being taught. ? I personally dont think that's what you meant, but obviously i could be wrong.)
tobigtofool
Active Member
Just to clarify Deidre is correct about what I meant.
Also:
Well, that was a short journey.
Also:
Well, that was a short journey.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
????
I'm not. I'm talking about things that are happening TODAY. (Well, except for history, of course.
) Haven't you been paying attention to the books that have been yanked from so many libraries in schools in places like Florida - and Texas - and Oklahoma - and Missouri - and Wisconsin - . Haven't you been paying attention to the number of states that are feeding public school children a diet of "Prager U" right-wing propaganda instead of actual science? Haven't you been paying attention to the number of politicians who vote in their preferred slanted textbooks instead of allowing kids to learn factual matters?Apparently you haven't.
- Status
Similar threads
