Couple found guilty of murder after using Christian parenting book "To Train Up a Child" - Polidicks

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;42927907]To be fair on them, people back then weren't aware of the effects of smacking kids, back then it was just seen as a way of keeping kids in line until modern psychology came along and showed that it fucks kids up.[/QUOTE] Saying that all physical punishment "fucks kids up" would mean that almost all kids pre 1970 were "fucked up." I'm not sure how you can hold to that conclusion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42927871]Here's my claim: I must have taken out the happy part during your post. Obviously all these claims are relative to the time they occur in. You can't directly compare the mental state of people from war torn Germany after WWI to modern day citizens of the US.[/QUOTE] why? relative to the time they occur? that means everyone is relatively happy all the time no matter what is happening though. [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42927879]Based on what? Whats changed between pre-agricultural and now, and what do you think has changed or will change between now and the "future of society"?[/QUOTE] mostly agriculture, which p. much sucked entirely. it makes lots of people, but they are malnourished people. but warfare has been a constant plague as well.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42927288]If we are to take the Bible as a whole, in the way it is supposed to be taken, we also have verses such as: "4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." - Ephesians 6:4 "21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart." - Colossians 3:21 It seems to me that you have no problem taking the 'bad' verses exclusively in the same way many religious people take the 'good' verses exclusively. Note: by good and bad I don't mean morally good and bad, but the way in which they are often interpreted when out of context. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] If we are to look at it honestly the Bible teaches that parents are to try and have cordial relations with their children by use of rational teaching and instruction when possible, but not to spare corporeal discipline if necessary.[/QUOTE] If we examine these verses, we see them immediately followed by calling a parent's children slaves: "Servants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ,". So that's hardly a good start, it describes the subsequent psychological damage done to a child as representative of his love for Christ. Your quote is a horrible example, yet a perfectly fitting one at the same time. So if we are to take the Bible as a whole, in the way it is supposed t be taken, it still seems to me that supposing you did find a genuinely moral quote from the Bible, it would still be drowned in the violent cries of the sinister men that were its authors. There is simply no need for religion as a moral compass. It is redundant at best, given that secularism is not a sudden lack of moral responsibility, but the lack of adhering to ancient and unfit values. At worst, it can be the cause for martyrdom in the name of what sounds like an infinite and cruel dictator. It can lead people to abuse and kill their own children.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42927932]Saying that all physical punishment "fucks kids up" would mean that almost all kids pre 1970 were "fucked up." I'm not sure how you can hold to that conclusion.[/QUOTE] violence was a lot more common and acceptable back then though.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42927932]Saying that all physical punishment "fucks kids up" would mean that almost all kids pre 1970 were "fucked up." I'm not sure how you can hold to that conclusion.[/QUOTE] It does though. To argue that the physical harming of a child does not have immediate and lasting psychological effects for that child is ridiculous. And just because the damage may not be permanent or outwardly expressed in adult life, I can guarantee that they sure as hell remember it with feelings of confusion about why their own kin is inflicting violence up them. Also, sg, your claim: [QUOTE]My claim is that societies have been able to produce self-sufficient, productive, and mentally stable members of society while using corporeal punishment all the while and any discipline that consistently produces self-sufficient, productive, and mentally stable people isn't child abuse.[/QUOTE] Has a big hole in it. You're right that most people grow up to be productive members of society, but to argue that that is [B]because[/B] of violence against children rather than in spite of it, is, once again, ridiculous.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42927948]why? relative to the time they occur? that means everyone is relatively happy all the time no matter what is happening though.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about happiness. See the first part of my post that you quoted. My point is that people from war torn Germany are going to be generally less mentally stable than people from pre-war torn Germany. This would lead to a change in stability that is completely separate from the use of corporeal punishment. All claims must be relative to be useful at all.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42927932]Saying that all physical punishment "fucks kids up" would mean that almost all kids pre 1970 were "fucked up." I'm not sure how you can hold to that conclusion.[/QUOTE] Psychologists found that it makes people more violent.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928012]I'm not talking about happiness. See the first part of my post that you quoted. My point is that people from war torn Germany are going to be generally less mentally stable than people from pre-war torn Germany. This would lead to a change in stability that is completely separate from the use of corporeal punishment. All claims must be relative to be useful at all.[/QUOTE] mental stability implies happiness.

[QUOTE=Ricool06;42928002]It does though. To argue that the physical harming of a child does not have immediate and lasting psychological effects for that child is ridiculous. And just because the damage may not be permanent or outwardly expressed in adult life, I can guarantee that they sure as hell remember it with feelings of confusion about why their own kin is inflicting violence up them.[/QUOTE] I was spanked as a child and have no feels, confusion, etc. My relationship with my parents is the most healthy one that I personally know of. We have literally zero animosity towards each other and have a ton of mutual respect. So it seems you can't guarantee it. Also, you have now gone back into making theoretical claims that don't hold when compared to reality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928028]I was spanked as a child and have no feels, confusion, etc. My relationship with my parents is the most healthy one that I personally know of. We have literally zero animosity towards each other and have a ton of mutual respect. So it seems you can't guarantee it. Also, you have now gone back into making theoretical claims that don't hold when compared to reality.[/QUOTE] you can't guarantee anything with social science because humans are fucking complex. however, evidence shows that children who are beaten and spanked are predisposed to violent behavior and aggression.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42928026]mental stability implies happiness.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't? One can be completely stable and not happy. For example, I doubt many soldiers in a war would generally call themselves happy. Does that mean they are also generally unstable? Just as a quick note: Statistically, religiosity correlates with happiness. So the more religious a person is the happier they generally are. This would, under your claim, mean that religious people are also more mentally stable.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928051]No it doesn't? One can be completely stable and not happy. For example, I doubt many soldiers in a war would generally call themselves happy. Does that mean they are also generally unstable?[/quote] YES! [quote]Just as a quick note: Statistically, religiosity correlates with happiness. So the more religious a person is the happier they generally are. This would, under your claim, mean that religious people are also more mentally stable.[/QUOTE] yea sure if you wanna say that then go ahead. i never tried to correlate religion with mental stability, that was someone else. i think it's sorta a meaningless thing to say.

[QUOTE=Ricool06;42927955]If we examine these verses, we see them immediately followed by calling a parent's children slaves: "Servants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ,". So that's hardly a good start, it describes the subsequent psychological damage done to a child as representative of his love for Christ. Your quote is a horrible example, yet a perfectly fitting one at the same time. So if we are to take the Bible as a whole, in the way it is supposed t be taken, it still seems to me that supposing you did find a genuinely moral quote from the Bible, it would still be drowned in the violent cries of the sinister men that were its authors. There is simply no need for religion as a moral compass. It is redundant at best, given that secularism is not a sudden lack of moral responsibility, but the lack of adhering to ancient and unfit values. At worst, it can be the cause for martyrdom in the name of what sounds like an infinite and cruel dictator. It can lead people to abuse and kill their own children.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't know if you're purposefully misinterpreting it or not. The verse is going through classes of people, namely: children, fathers, slaves, and masters. There is no comparison between children and slaves.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928028]I was spanked as a child and have no feels, confusion, etc. My relationship with my parents is the most healthy one that I personally know of. We have literally zero animosity towards each other and have a ton of mutual respect. So it seems you can't guarantee it. Also, you have now gone back into making theoretical claims that don't hold when compared to reality.[/QUOTE] I'm sure your 100% validated claim represents the entire populace very well. We all know here that none of us are dealing with absolutes so for that to be the only fault you pick with my argument for is actually a rather splendid compliment.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42928073]yea sure if you wanna say that then go ahead. i never tried to correlate religion with mental stability, that was someone else. i think it's sorta a meaningless thing to say.[/QUOTE] You said happiness implies mental stability. Studies show religion increases happiness. Under your statement this would also mean it increases mental stability. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Ricool06;42928088]I'm sure your 100% validated claim represents the entire populace very well. We all know here that none of us are dealing with absolutes so for that to be the only fault you pick with my argument for is actually a rather splendid compliment.[/QUOTE] Lol, you're the one who "guaranteed it." If you're backing away from that absolute claim, so be it. There's no reason to use more effort than necessary to defeat a claim. If you make it absolute then a single counter-example defeats it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928051]No it doesn't? One can be completely stable and not happy. For example, I doubt many soldiers in a war would generally call themselves happy. Does that mean they are also generally unstable? Just as a quick note: Statistically, religiosity correlates with happiness. So the more religious a person is the happier they generally are. This would, under your claim, mean that religious people are also more mentally stable.[/QUOTE] You do know that tons of soldiers get PTSD right

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928087]I honestly don't know if you're purposefully misinterpreting it or not. The verse is going through classes of people, namely: children, fathers, slaves, and masters. There is no comparison between children and slaves.[/QUOTE] This verse is in an entire chapter about how fathers should treat their children, and I would have thought "masters according to the flesh" would have been a pretty obvious reference to two people related by blood, a father and child. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed reading that part.

I believed in a benevolent and all knowing god until hair starting growing around my asshole. My buttcheeks weren't sticking together before and they were doing just fine. Now I curse god and his faulty designs including but not limited to: 1) Hands too big to fit inside a Pringles can 2) Ear hair 3) Awkwardly sized ears 4) Ticks, mosquitoes, land leeches and the horror of nature in general 5) Lack of photosynthetic cells 6) The inability to eat Taco Bell without shitting blood 7) Christian Weston Chandler 8) Organs not naturally suited for space travel 9) Perpetually itchy ballsack These are serious design flaws and I think that we as a species need to arrange a meeting with god to hammer out a better design pronto.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42927582]My claim is that societies have been able to produce self-sufficient, productive, and mentally stable members of society while using corporeal punishment all the while and any discipline that consistently produces self-sufficient, productive, and mentally stable people isn't child abuse.[/QUOTE] And how do you know that societies that used more corporal punishment had more self-sufficient, productive, and mentally stable people?

[QUOTE=Ricool06;42928123]This verse is in an entire chapter about how fathers should treat their children, and I would have thought "masters according to the flesh" would have been a pretty obvious reference to two people related by blood, a father and child. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed reading that part.[/QUOTE] So the armor of God is about fathers and children as well? I've never heard that interpretation, please tell it to me. Also, the slave section ends with the phrase: "whether slave or free." It is obviously referencing slavery and not children. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Last or First;42928146]And how do you know that societies that used more corporal punishment had more self-sufficient, productive, and mentally stable people?[/QUOTE] I don't and have never made that claim. I do know that child abuse doesn't create those things.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928108]You said happiness implies mental stability. Studies show religion increases happiness. Under your statement this would also mean it increases mental stability. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] Lol, you're the one who "guaranteed it." If you're backing away from that absolute claim, so be it. There's no reason to use more effort than necessary to defeat a claim. If you make it absolute then a single counter-example defeats it.[/QUOTE] Fallacy time! [url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division[/url] So say we take your statement of religion increasing happiness as true, it doesn't immediately mean that this happiness would mean total fundamental mental stability.

[QUOTE=Ricool06;42928160]Fallacy time! [URL]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division[/URL] So say we take your statement of religion increasing happiness as true, it doesn't immediately mean that this happiness would mean total fundamental mental stability.[/QUOTE] I didn't make the claim about happiness and mental stability being directly linked, yawmwen did.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928108]You said happiness implies mental stability. Studies show religion increases happiness. Under your statement this would also mean it increases mental stability. [/QUOTE] again if you wanna say that and it's backed by studies you can go ahead. i would argue with you about whether it's the religion that causes happiness or whether it's the community that comes with heavy church participation that causes happiness...

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928148]So the armor of God is about fathers and children as well? I've never heard that interpretation, please tell it to me. Also, the slave section ends with the phrase: "whether slave or free." It is obviously referencing slavery and not children. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] I don't and have never made that claim. I do know that child abuse doesn't create those things.[/QUOTE] I take it by your rapid discourse, that you are unwilling to answer me as to why you skipped over the "masters according to the flesh" in favour of a rather ancillary argument?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928169]I didn't make the claim about happiness and mental stability being directly linked, yawman did.[/QUOTE] mental illness does imply general happiness though. someone who is generally unhappy is probably not "mentally stable". although someone can be happy and not stable...

[QUOTE=Ricool06;42928186]I take it by your rapid discourse, that you are unwilling to answer me as to why you skipped over the "masters according to the flesh" in favour of a rather ancillary argument?[/QUOTE] Any reference to "the flesh" is in reference to our earthly bodies as opposed to the spirit or soul. So while we know that no one is a slave in reference to the soul (the Bible teaches that God shows no partiality to the master or slave) there are still many who are slaves according to the flesh.

I have no problem with someone believing in religion. However, if you take your beliefs and use them to cause pain--physical or emotional--on someone else, you're a [b]fucking idiot.[/b] Gay marriage is being held up by religion (and also assholes in general). While we would still have homophobes without religion, many homophobes use religion to legitimize their hate.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928203]Any reference to "the flesh" is in reference to our earthly bodies as opposed to the spirit or soul. So while we know that no one is a slave in reference to the soul (the Bible teaches that God shows no partiality to the master or slave) there are still many who are slaves according to the flesh.[/QUOTE] That is quite unfitting contextually. Let's assume you are right though, and talk about how the bible encourages the acceptance of slavery. Can you understand that no matter which way you swing it, it turns out a horrible, moral mess. It should be nothing to follow for good parenthood. [editline]20th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;42928244]I have no problem with someone believing in religion. However, if you take your beliefs and use them to cause pain--physical or emotional--on someone else, you're a [b]fucking idiot.[/b] Gay marriage is being held up by religion (and also assholes in general). While we would still have homophobes without religion, many homophobes use religion to legitimize their hate.[/QUOTE] Not just that, but it is often the cause for it. The rampant sexual repression that is taught in many faiths is usually passed on to children, and when children grow up knowing hate, they become hateful.

[QUOTE=Ricool06;42928266]That is quite unfitting contextually. Let's assume you are right though, and talk about how the bible encourages the acceptance of slavery. Can you understand that no matter which way you swing it, it turns out a horrible, moral mess. It should be nothing to follow for good parenthood.[/QUOTE] Slavery was completely different back then. If you couldn't pay off a debt, you worked it off as a slave. There was no racial motivation or thought that slaves were less than human. There is no "assuming I'm right." I've given the interpretation that fits with the rest of the Bible and has been agreed upon for over 1000 years. (Augustine of Hippo uses this interpretation around 400 AD in [I]The Confessions)[/I]. If we were to assume "the flesh" meant some familial relationship then dozens upon dozens verses wouldn't make any sense.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42928339]Slavery was completely different back then. If you couldn't pay off a debt, you worked it off as a slave. There was no racial motivation or thought that slaves were less than human. There is no "assuming I'm right." I've given the interpretation that fits with the rest of the Bible and has been agreed upon for over 1000 years. (Augustine of Hippo uses this interpretation around 400 AD in [I]The Confessions)[/I]. If we were to assume "the flesh" meant some familial relationship then dozens of dozens of verses wouldn't make any sense.[/QUOTE] If that's the case, that slavery was somehow mutually beneficial, why in the world would there need to be a Bible verse telling slaves to be obedient with "fear and trembling"? You're just plain ignorant of everything you are reading.