No.1383
I've had a moral dilemma that I haven't been able to come to a conclusion about since it occurred to me, and I want to know what you have to say about it.
To whom do children belong, or whom is ultimately responsible for them? It seems like there's a tug-of-war between "parents" and "the government/their society" as the answers to this, but I can't find a place to draw the line.
It's easy enough, I suppose, to say that entities outside of a family should intervene if the children within it are being abused, but the definition of abuse gets a little foggy once you get past the obvious violent and sexual forms of it. Richard Dawkins has said that he considers childhood religious indoctrination to be child abuse, and I am inclined to agree. But if this is the case and it is expected that the government would intervene in cases of indoctrination like this, wouldn't that make the government the ultimate legal guardians of children, and not their own parents? How do you then not have a government turn to mass indoctrination of every generation of children through the ever looming threat of stripping child custody away from parents?
I mean, maybe it doesn't really matter. In the worst case scenario of parents indoctrinating their children into the kinds of cults that wind up drinking the literal kool-aid, isn't it just a case of inferior specimens removing themselves from the gene pool? The most easily converted and indoctrinated people killing themselves and their children off only serves to remove their excessive gullibility from the human species, doesn't it? If certain peoples' genes aren't selfish enough to even preserve themselves against lunacy, does it really matter if they extinguish themselves from existence?
But that is terrible for the individual children in question. But we still don't treat children with all the rights of adults for obvious reasons that even the most libertarian individualists could agree to. Kids can't be relied upon to make decisions for themselves, yet they are vulnerable to abuse by incompetent parents or sinister governments.
I don't have a fix on this subject and it's been bothering me increasingly lately. Where and how do you draw the line on child abuse and the responsibility for children?
No.1384
I assume Dawkins is exaggerating by calling it child abuse. If not, that's a bit extreme and I don't agree with it.
Regarding the following point, you can say it's good for humanity as a whole if you weed out the gullible but where do you draw the line? This is a society, it's a machine setup, whether we like it or not, to help each other out. There's many "weak" among us and we all have our "weak" times.
Yes, we could just let anarchy run its course, maybe it'll make us all stronger but that's not the way humans are. We seem to want to find methods to all this madness in life so we have civilization and helping the less fortunate because you never know when/if they're strong they could help us. Also by being cold, it makes other people cautious of you and that's not evolutionarily advantageous.
I think we fool ourselves in society sometimes by thinking 'what's the solution to this problem'. We tend to go to one extreme or the other but a lot of the time there is none and it's a bit of both solutions. In this case, to have some coldness to make people tough it up and have some compassion. There are no perfect answers and most aren't anywhere near it, just times where you have to deal with this world and accept it in all its ambiguousness.
No.1385
>>1384> Also by being cold, it makes other people cautious of you and that's not evolutionarily advantageous.Let me add, unless you're really cunning. Refer to Machiavelli for more. The more you succeed, the higher profile you become and therefore face greater resistance.
But there is a logical reason we have compassion, anger, laws, and a mix of chaos. All are healthy within limits. But to say anything more about the subject regards law and politics and I could not give more fucks about those.
No.1489
>>1383I don't feel Dawkins is exaggerating the issue.
For example, the Amish pressure their children to leave school, reject the world and leave in the 18th century.
If an adult freely choses to reject the internet, television, and the rest of the world.. let them do it.
But if you have never been allowed to know anything else and are forced into making that choice,, I have reservations.
But it's a tough question.. The State isn't always the moral authority.
But just because it's a tough difficult question doesn't mean we should ignore it.
No.1491
Children should belong to themselves.
No.1493
>>1491Says the guy who doesn't have children..
They would eat chocolate cookies for breakfast and never go to school if you let them.
No.1495
>>1493The problem? They would eat a full course meal for dinner and learn from the internet.
Besides, they can't not go to school, because that's illegal.
You must be American, because you're fucking stupid.
No.1498
>>1495Sit a child in front of the internet and they will watch sponge bob or whatever.
The unfortunate fact of education is that a child must endure lots and lots of boring rote memorization before they can grasp interesting concepts.
Children have to been coerced for awhile.
Sometimes we just have to say "because I say so" .
No.1501
>>1498>children have to be coerced for a whileThis shit is what makes kids resistant to learning on their own. They associate it with the negative emotional response any human has to being coerced. This shit has been piloted in the third world. Sociologists just plopped a computer with internet access into a village and let the kids use it however they wanted. The only measure of control they gave the kids was to tell them the subject to study and a specific question/problem they should try to find an answer to. There's a TED talk on this if you have ADD.
No.1506
>>1501the free inquiry approach is great for later learning.. Get them interested in topic and sit them loose on it.
But first you have to train them sit quietly in rows, stand in line, wait their turn, and raise their hand to ask questions.
A lot of early learning is pure rote.
We try to make bearable with things like the "alphabet song", but some stuff can only be learned with drills, rote and repetition.
Take math for example. You have to learn a lot of boring concepts before you can have fun with it. You cannot just set an eight year old loose and expect them to grasp probabilities and statistics.
We give them frequent breaks,, let them go outside and run around for recess, but sometimes it's going to be dull and they will just have to learn the self-discipline to endure that.
No.1507
>>1498Children are naturally inquisitive. Either you're a theist, or had abusive parents. Or both.
No.1509
>>1507What a stubborn idealist you are!
Children are inquisitive but spelling, grammar, multiplication tables, and other such things do not appeal to their imagination. But they still have to learn these things.
I am not saying you hit them with sticks or anything. But you have to withhold desert until they eat their vegetables.
I am simply being realistic.
I'm guessing you are young, don't have any experience with children, and grew up privileged and pampered in some special creative school.
Life is really going to kick you in the balls in the near future when you discover you cannot just walk around following your bliss and doing what interests you.
I hope you don't turn to prayer in the face of that harsh reality. It's sad when people do that, and it doesn't work.
No.1510
>>1507Are you seriously saying that anyone who is an atheist had abusive parents? I don't even know how to respond to bullshit of this magnitude.
No.1513
>>1510I never said that. I just said that he must have had abusive parents.
No.1514
>>1509Who says that they don't appeal to their imagination? If a child is enthralled by linguistics, naturally they would be interested in spelling and grammar. Please don't project your shortcomings on all children.
>Turn to prayerlol
Oh wait, you're serious?
Ahahahaha!
Oh boy, this ride never ends. I bet you call yourself "agnostic."
Kill yourself.
No.1517
>>1514Show me an eight year old that is fascinated with conjugating verbs.
People have to learn all sorts of things that boring.
Sometimes those things lead to interesting concepts..
and sometimes it's just the crap you do to pay your rent and buy food.
I cannot see why anyone is having trouble grasping this reality. You have already accepted the universe is indifferent and when you die you cease to exist.
Why is the concept that sometimes you have to endure things that aren't fun a deal breaker here?
No.1519
>>1517What's boring to you is not boring to everyone. I can't help that you couldn't learn about Jesus all day, and you actually had to learn something of value.
No.1526
>>1519But it is loads of fun to argue pointlessly and insult strangers on the internet isn't it.
I love you, anon, you smug little fuck.
No.1527
>>1526You're arguments sound like a child molester defending his actions, and you tell me I'm smug?
Please, anon. You need help. I recommend you fuck off back to
>>>/christian/Maybe they'll share your views of child abuse.
No.1531
>>1527You're funny. I like you, anon.
It's kind of sad that neither one of us has anything better to do than this.
You had me going with the "children are naturally inquisitive and would just love to memorize a multiplication table" but the Christian child molester rant is too much.
Your troll-fu is good, but it isn't that good.
No.1532
>>1527>>1526You guys should take it to tinychat.com/atheism or something.
No.4189
>>1383
>To whom do children belong, or whom is ultimately responsible for them? It seems like there's a tug-of-war between "parents" and "the government/their society" as the answers to this, but I can't find a place to draw the line.they don't belong to anyone. they are people that are still small. the only thing parents and the society should do for them is protect them and kind of make sure they are fed well.
basically libertarian point of view-
the government shouldn't force people to do things they don't want to do but they should just protect them from people who want to hurt them like "TERRARISTZ"
that being said, nobody should belong to anyone, unless they are into kinky stuff.
No.4261
Children belong to themselves.
No.4273
>To whom do [people] belong
Nobody. Nothing.
Children don't choose to be born. Parents choose (or fail to responsibly prevent) children. As such, parents have a responsibility to look out for the wellbeing of their kids. From a broader perspective, society has an incentive to take care of children because they take part in society and how they behave is shaped by their environment. The reason society intervenes in the case of abuse is that it's in our interests to stop abuse. Abused kids tend to commit crimes and perpetuate the cycle of abuse. I think lying to children about the nature of reality is bad, but I don't think that alone qualifies for abuse. Telling kids that there's a chance they will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire is, in my opinion, psychological abuse, however. I know from personal experience that you can really fuck someone up without physical or sexual abuse. The line is certainly fuzzy there, though.
As for the Darwinian question you pose, OP, here's my thoughts. Certain genes predispose people to certain behaviors (not cause). If you save the children of parents who have genes with a predisposition for irrational self-destruction (or worse, harm toward others), you are preserving those genes and risking that these children will grow up to treat their children the same way (or similar) to how their parents treated them. The end result here is more suffering, is it not? Even if you can stop every case of abuse, the abuse has to start in the first place. And it's not like none of the parents will slip through the cracks. So trying to fight the self-destruction prolongs and creates the suffering for which those genes are responsible. This is a really hard thing to talk about, but bear in mind I'm not advocating taking any action (I'm not even comfortable passing judgement of any kind here). I'm just stating my understanding of the systems involved. It's a hard call no matter who you are, and I think it's above my level of knowledge.
No.4297
>develop strong AI
>stop reproducing
>????
>problem solved