5 ms·

What exactly are you having to tolerate?

by castis 10y ago

Retric 10y ago
Poor working conditions for a fellow person. In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits. PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.
- kbenson 10y ago
  It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives. A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.
  - Retric 10y ago
    You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions. PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. I prefer to think I'm "falling into the trap" of assuming that personal choice is important and we want to preserve it. Like most things, both extremes of the spectrum are unhealthy. Indoctrination by your parents about the "one true way" to think is dangerous, but so is indoctrination by the state. The way to fight misinformation is not to restrict that information, it's to provide more information so people can make informed choices. It's a free market of ideas, and information (and light regulation) is key. > We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. We were happy to enslave people as well. That doesn't mean we should condone conduct such as that going forward. > So, it's not actually about 'religion' it's about the short list of accepted religions. No, it's about opening people up to the possibility of choice, and that there there may exist views different than they have been exposed to. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't imagine a world in which people are forced, coerced or steered to a particular belief as being better.
      - Retric 10y ago
        Adults get personal choice when it comes to religion, children don't.
        smithkl42 10y ago
        Adults also get personal choice as to which TV programs they watch, which beverages they drink, which candidates to vote for, whether to join the military. The option is not whether to constrain the choices available to children - it's a matter of who gets to decide. Remember, always turn things around: how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics?
        Retric 10y ago
        > how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics? This has been a common state of affair in many places for thousands of years. But here is the thing, you don't need to indoctrinate someone as an agnostic. An interesting comparison is the effort to maintain belief in Santa Clause vs end it.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    I don't view it as regulating what kids must be exposed to. What we should be doing and what I think the GP is suggesting is that we regulate was kids must not be exposed to. There is no ethically sound justification for forcing a child to go to Church repeatedly during their development. Most religious people believe that children have innate innocence until a certain point. Until that point, they have no need for religion and should be given the opportunity to make up their own mind about it when they are old enough.
- Zhenya 10y ago
  Are they being forced to work at hobby lobby? Are sexually active people who refuse to pay for their own contraceptives a Protected Class?
  - Retric 10y ago
    > sexually active people... a Protected Class? Yes, of course the US only plays lip service to separation of church and state so that can cause confusion.
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      The US also only pays lip service to the enumerated powers. Separation of church and state doesn't mean you're entitled to various federally funded benefits, regardless of your beliefs. At the state level - sure.
    - IncRnd 10y ago
      Sexually active people are not a Federally Protected Class.
      - Retric 10y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion.[4].
        Zhenya 10y ago
        Birth control is specifically for NOT pregnant women. What's your point?
        Retric 10y ago
        Someone that just had an abortion is also not pregnant. Regular abortions are also a form of birth control.
- andrepd 10y ago
  For the record, I agree with both points you make. Preventing your employees from accessing certain birth control products because you are against birth not different from forbidding your employees from having homosexual relations because you are against homosexuality. It's wrong. Also, indoctrination of children is an abhorrent crime. It's child abuse. It's brainwashing, fact, and there's no way to argue otherwise. Brainwashing is the word. It's instilling fear, implanting a worldview in a child while their brain is developing that will cripple and condition them for life. Sending your child every week to church and Sunday school to have dogmas drilled into their heads is tantamount to the "hypnopaedia" in Brave New World. Insidious and abhorrent, a crime against freedom and self-determination.
  - bjt2n3904 10y ago
    > Preventing your employees from accessing certain birth control products Not providing access != prohibiting access.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      He didn't say prohibiting, he said preventing. The distinction matters greatly. For lower paid people, the cost of access can to some mean a difference between eating or paying their bills and getting contraception. Those are exactly the kind of situations where the societal cost of not ensuring access to contraceptives is vastly higher than the cost of contraceptives, so it's not just the employees that are harmed in this, but wider society as well.
  - curioussavage 10y ago
    This is a nice rant, more emotional than well thought out. First off there is no such thing as neutrality in this context. Whatever worldview/moral system you approve of teaching children is not neutral. You are lying to yourself by pretending it's possible to raise a child in some kind of a void. Indoctrination to you = any time somebody teaches a child something you don't approve of. Who is the dangerous extremist enemy of freedom? Look in a mirror.
    - 10y ago

What exactly are you having to tolerate?

by castis 10y ago

What exactly are you having to tolerate?

Poor working conditions for a fellow person. In a wider context indoctrination of children. I feel that 'Sunday school' is child abuse. But, where we don't tolerate public beatings of children some topics are considered off limits. PS: I accept many people will disagree with this. But, while many pat them on the head and move on I think it is important for everyone to understand their bubble is just that, and their assumptions are far from universal.

kbenson 10y ago
It's a tricky subject, because heavily regulating what kids must be exposed to by the state could easily be classified as propagandized brainwashing. If we support both the right of parents to express their beliefs to their children and the right of the children to make an informed decision when they are adults about their beliefs, the best thing may be have a mandatory "survey of beliefs" class for children at various points in their lives. A class that covered the 4-5 most common world religious beliefs as well atheism in a way that did not promote any of them, much less one over the others (a tall order in some communities, I'm sure), would do a great deal to both inform individuals on various beliefs and how they interrelate, as well as foster understanding for others.
- Retric 10y ago
  You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions. PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. I prefer to think I'm "falling into the trap" of assuming that personal choice is important and we want to preserve it. Like most things, both extremes of the spectrum are unhealthy. Indoctrination by your parents about the "one true way" to think is dangerous, but so is indoctrination by the state. The way to fight misinformation is not to restrict that information, it's to provide more information so people can make informed choices. It's a free market of ideas, and information (and light regulation) is key. > We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents. We were happy to enslave people as well. That doesn't mean we should condone conduct such as that going forward. > So, it's not actually about 'religion' it's about the short list of accepted religions. No, it's about opening people up to the possibility of choice, and that there there may exist views different than they have been exposed to. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't imagine a world in which people are forced, coerced or steered to a particular belief as being better.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Adults get personal choice when it comes to religion, children don't.
      - smithkl42 10y ago
        Adults also get personal choice as to which TV programs they watch, which beverages they drink, which candidates to vote for, whether to join the military. The option is not whether to constrain the choices available to children - it's a matter of who gets to decide. Remember, always turn things around: how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics?
        Retric 10y ago
        > how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics? This has been a common state of affair in many places for thousands of years. But here is the thing, you don't need to indoctrinate someone as an agnostic. An interesting comparison is the effort to maintain belief in Santa Clause vs end it.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I don't view it as regulating what kids must be exposed to. What we should be doing and what I think the GP is suggesting is that we regulate was kids must not be exposed to. There is no ethically sound justification for forcing a child to go to Church repeatedly during their development. Most religious people believe that children have innate innocence until a certain point. Until that point, they have no need for religion and should be given the opportunity to make up their own mind about it when they are old enough.
Zhenya 10y ago
Are they being forced to work at hobby lobby? Are sexually active people who refuse to pay for their own contraceptives a Protected Class?
- Retric 10y ago
  > sexually active people... a Protected Class? Yes, of course the US only plays lip service to separation of church and state so that can cause confusion.
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    The US also only pays lip service to the enumerated powers. Separation of church and state doesn't mean you're entitled to various federally funded benefits, regardless of your beliefs. At the state level - sure.
  - IncRnd 10y ago
    Sexually active people are not a Federally Protected Class.
    - Retric 10y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion.[4].
      - Zhenya 10y ago
        Birth control is specifically for NOT pregnant women. What's your point?
        Retric 10y ago
        Someone that just had an abortion is also not pregnant. Regular abortions are also a form of birth control.
andrepd 10y ago
For the record, I agree with both points you make. Preventing your employees from accessing certain birth control products because you are against birth not different from forbidding your employees from having homosexual relations because you are against homosexuality. It's wrong. Also, indoctrination of children is an abhorrent crime. It's child abuse. It's brainwashing, fact, and there's no way to argue otherwise. Brainwashing is the word. It's instilling fear, implanting a worldview in a child while their brain is developing that will cripple and condition them for life. Sending your child every week to church and Sunday school to have dogmas drilled into their heads is tantamount to the "hypnopaedia" in Brave New World. Insidious and abhorrent, a crime against freedom and self-determination.
- bjt2n3904 10y ago
  > Preventing your employees from accessing certain birth control products Not providing access != prohibiting access.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    He didn't say prohibiting, he said preventing. The distinction matters greatly. For lower paid people, the cost of access can to some mean a difference between eating or paying their bills and getting contraception. Those are exactly the kind of situations where the societal cost of not ensuring access to contraceptives is vastly higher than the cost of contraceptives, so it's not just the employees that are harmed in this, but wider society as well.
- curioussavage 10y ago
  This is a nice rant, more emotional than well thought out. First off there is no such thing as neutrality in this context. Whatever worldview/moral system you approve of teaching children is not neutral. You are lying to yourself by pretending it's possible to raise a child in some kind of a void. Indoctrination to you = any time somebody teaches a child something you don't approve of. Who is the dangerous extremist enemy of freedom? Look in a mirror.
  - 10y ago