Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_ttribe

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _ttribe »

Ray A wrote:What are they learning in Primary?

Well, we discuss it every week after they get home and if I find anything erroneous I try to correct it. Are you counting on me being able to recite each of these conversations?

Ray A wrote: About Enoch cities floating in the atmosphere?

Nope.

Ray A wrote: Every species aboard Noah's Ark?

Nope.

Ray A wrote: That human biological evolution is a dud?


Ray A wrote:No worries? You okay with all that? Will you encourage them to read alternatives to the "unregulated truths" which could attract millstones for not adhering?

Enough with the millstones Ray...I didn't, and don't use that terminology. It's divisive in this case.
_Ray A

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _Ray A »

ttribe wrote:Enough with the millstones Ray...I didn't, and don't use that terminology. It's divisive in this case.


Blame Scotty Dog. Hopefully you have more sense.
_ttribe

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _ttribe »

beastie wrote: I suspect it's the underlying beliefs that are the issue.

And you would suspect wrong.

Have I objected to my neighbors' parenting when their religion conflicted with mine? No.

Have I objected to my co-workers' parenting when their philosophies were objectionable? No.

You see, I've known people who are racist...I've known people who are of all different faiths...I've known all types of people who taught their children things I thought were wrong...and guess what I never did, and would not presume to do - yep, object to how they raise their children.

Tell you what beastie, next time you find me criticizing you, or other critics, for raising your/their children outside the Church, then you can call me on this. In the meantime, you are attempting to make this all about the underlying subject of the Church and it just isn't for me. It's about leaving our children out of our disagreements on forum's such as these.
_ttribe

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _ttribe »

Ray A wrote:Blame Scotty Dog. Hopefully you have more sense.

Didn't I already suggest you take the issue up with Scott?
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _beastie »

You see, I've known people who are racist...I've known people who are of all different faiths...I've known all types of people who taught their children things I thought were wrong...and guess what I never did, and would not presume to do - yep, object to how they raise their children.


So you do not go on record with me saying that I hope that children of bigots grow up to reject their parents' bigotry? Because, according to this response, that would constitute objecting to how they raise their children.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think the simple fact of being a parent should make one's teachings sacrosanct and beyond objection in the larger society.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Ray A

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _Ray A »

ttribe wrote:It's about leaving our children out of our disagreements on forum's such as these.


We are not talking about the children - we are talking about methods of "brainwashing", or indoctrination, and whether it's healthy or not. And whether critics or those with alternative ideas should be "hanged on a millstone".
Last edited by _Ray A on Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
_ttribe

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _ttribe »

beastie wrote:So you do not go on record with me saying that I hope that children of bigots grow up to reject their parents' bigotry? Because, according to this response, that would constitute objecting to how they raise their children.

I will go on the record and say that I believe bigotry to be horribly wrong. I have no right, however, to interject my opinion on the matter into someone else's family.

beastie wrote:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I don't think the simple fact of being a parent should make one's teachings sacrosanct and beyond objection in the larger society.

I hold the parent-child relationship in high esteem...sorry.
_ttribe

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _ttribe »

Ray A wrote:We are not talking about the children - we are talking about methods of "brainwashing", or indoctrination, and whether it's healthy or not.

Where does it end Ray? Do I not teach my children my country's values? Do I not teach them my own values? At what point does it cease getting classified as "brainwashing" and just recognizing from my own experiences what is more likely to get them through this life happily and what is not?

Ray A wrote:And whether critics or those with alternative ideas should "hanged on a millstone".

You keep trying to discuss this...I'm not interested.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _beastie »

I will go on the record and say that I believe bigotry to be horribly wrong. I have no right, however, to interject my opinion on the matter into someone else's family.


How in the world does going on record stating that one hopes that the children of bigoted parents grow up to reject their parents' bigotry constitute "interjecting your opinion on the matter INTO someone else's family"???

I hold the parent-child relationship in high esteem...sorry.




So do I.

Holding the parent-child relationship in high esteem has nothing to do with the willingness to express the hope that children eventually reject certain teachings of their parents. It just has to do with recognizing that parents aren't perfect, and sometimes we pass on harmful teachings and ideas to our children. I think most parents would hope that, if they have inadvertently taught their children erroneous or harmful ideas, that one day their children would be wise enough to reject those same teachings. Wouldn't any loving parent hope that for their child?

The real crux of the matter is the disagreement over what constitutes harmful or erroneous ideas.

by the way, you're really sending mixed messages. Earlier when I responded:

I will go on record saying that I hope that the children of fundamentalist polygamists grow up and find a way out of that culture. I will go on record saying that I hope the children of fanatical believers who embrace a jihad (or whatever the group may call it) against larger society grow up and find a way out of that culture. I will go on record saying that I hope the children of Muslim parents who do not believe females should be educated or go out of the house unattended grow up to reject those beliefs. I will go on record saying that I hope the children of bigoted racists grow up to reject their parents’ teachings about the “others”. I am completely comfortable going on the record making such assertions. Am I “crossing the line into the territory of the parent-child relationship” by making such assertions?

In fact, as a teacher, I teach my students to discard bigotry, even though I’m aware some of their parents embrace bigotry. So there I’ve done more than express a hope those children will abandon their parents’ bigotry, I’m actually teaching children something contrary to what some of their parents teach. Have I crossed the line?

I’m not saying that Mormonism is the equivalent of these examples. I’m using these obvious examples to demonstrate that your generalization is ill-founded. There are times – even outside abuse – when it is appropriate for members of the outside society to express the hope that children will escape certain beliefs that their parents may cherish.


You responded:
Perhaps you might do me the courtesy of assuming I am speaking of a "rule of thumb" (and what that means) before you accuse me of engaging in ill-founded reasoning.


Now you seem to be saying that going on the record with such hopes for other people's children is "interjecting your opinion into someone else's family" and would indicate that you didn't "hold parent-child relationships in high esteem".

So I have no idea what you're really saying.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Gadianton Plumber

Re: Scott Lloyd whines about new dangers of unregulated truth.

Post by _Gadianton Plumber »

He stepped in it and is now tracking all over the carpet.
Post Reply