You two guys were great together, like a team. Real individual commitment, and really funny. I watched last night, and today thought about the humor. Woke will always have limited appeal because it is so humorless. That's what I think. Thank you, again.
"Scaring your children with tales of Hell and eternal damnation—which you know to be false—to deter them from becoming woke is nothing short of child abuse."
His statement causes many questions to come to mind, I'd like him to clarify his position a little more. I'd appreciate any of the following questions being asked.
If a child is raised as a Christian and it is determined that one of the parents is not a believer, should the child be taken from the abusive home or does the child need to raised Christian specifically to combat woke ideology for it to qualify as abuse?
Are parents of all church-going families abusive?
Should children be removed from all Christian homes or do head start and PreK programs influence the children early enough to effectively combat abusive effects of being raised with Christian beliefs?
Thank you for asking my question! David's response was along the lines of what I thought it would be and I appreciate him taking the time to clarify. My concern is with a phrase like "child abuse" being used in a manner similar to the phrase "words are violence". I agree with his actual point that it seems ill-advised for parents to knowingly deceive their children. I suspect David is unaware that he was nearly quoting George Brock Chisholm.
“In principle, there seems to be no great difference between the control of the other diseases and that of the neuroses. The main problems which have to be overcome are the same-the ignorance, moral certainties, prejudice, and so on. Just as it so commonly has been taken for granted that parents have a perfect right to leave their children exposed to death, by neglecting to protect them from diphtheria or smallpox; so it has long been generally accepted that parents have a perfect right to impose any points of view, any lies or fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates, or faiths on their defenseless children. It is, however, only relatively recently that it has become a matter of certain knowledge that these things cause neuroses, behavior disorders, emotional disabilities, and failure to develop to a state of emotional maturity which fits one to be a citizen of a democracy, able to take one's part in making a world fit to live in. "I believe" or "I do not believe" have been acceptable as valid reasons for arbitrary limitations or distortion of a child's experience, for imposing any kind of guilt and fear on the child, for perverting the child's capacity to observe and to think clearly, without thought about the effect on the life of the child and on the society in which he will live. Surely the training of children in homes and schools should be of at least as great public concern as are their vaccination or toxoiding, for their own protection and that of other people. Emotional and social health is at least as important as physical health; neither type of health can be held to be exclusively the concern of the parents, for it has much importance for the community.” - George Brock Chisolm (Founding Director-General of the World Health Organization). Page 16. The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society The Responsibility of Psychiatry. G. B. Chisholm.
I think the Substitution Hypothesis seems like a flawed concept. In recent years, many atheists (me included) have felt reassurance at the ever-increasing percentage of the population identifying as "nones". I (now seemingly erroneously) interpreted this uniquely as people taking a turn toward a more reasoned way of thinking without once asking myself how many of my fellow "nones" are people who don't apply reason any better than their religious counterparts, but for whom scrolling social media or playing video games or whatever fills the church-sized hole in their heart. I think I'm in Jphn McWhorter's camp of considering "the Elect" (those of the SJW mindset) as a new religious group. It'd be useful if there was a way to identify as an atheist who was committed to the idea of rational thinking.
Sorry Peter, this question is about your conversation with Andrew Doyle (I also love Andrew; he and his blue eyes make me swoon); I think he mentioned a book he said he read when he was a kid - do you remember what it was called, “Truckers“? I searched Amazon and only found…well definitely not children’s books. Thank you for your fabulous show. You have a natural on-air personality; the camera loves you, as they say!
I know... Can't be his #1 fan for years w/out knowing that! Peter, you are one of my favorite podcasters ❤️, and I've taken the liberty of suggesting guests for your pod; here I go again! Joshua Slocum of Disaffected Podcast; he discusses current affairs in our ClusterB society. T.T. Exulansic; her work on analyzing the butchery that passes for "gender-affirming care" is an incredible resource (watch the Phalloplasty Philes & Vaginoplasty Volumes, I am Jazz's Waking Nightmare). Here's a horrific (they all are) example, I mention it because of the FDA part: "Mastectohism: Binders, Keepers" https://exulansic.substack.com/p/mastectochism-binders-keepers . Her ribs are mutilated from "breast-binding, but the doctors who diagnosed the rib injuries saw no reason to report it. I looked on FDA site and found 1 ONE entry about breast binders: "...medical grade 'top' binders are an unmet area of need..." (Exulansic has had to move 2 or 3 times in a year because of TRAliban threats of violence).
You two guys were great together, like a team. Real individual commitment, and really funny. I watched last night, and today thought about the humor. Woke will always have limited appeal because it is so humorless. That's what I think. Thank you, again.
Silverman recently said,
"Scaring your children with tales of Hell and eternal damnation—which you know to be false—to deter them from becoming woke is nothing short of child abuse."
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/reflections-of-a-firebrand
His statement causes many questions to come to mind, I'd like him to clarify his position a little more. I'd appreciate any of the following questions being asked.
If a child is raised as a Christian and it is determined that one of the parents is not a believer, should the child be taken from the abusive home or does the child need to raised Christian specifically to combat woke ideology for it to qualify as abuse?
Are parents of all church-going families abusive?
Should children be removed from all Christian homes or do head start and PreK programs influence the children early enough to effectively combat abusive effects of being raised with Christian beliefs?
Thank you for asking my question! David's response was along the lines of what I thought it would be and I appreciate him taking the time to clarify. My concern is with a phrase like "child abuse" being used in a manner similar to the phrase "words are violence". I agree with his actual point that it seems ill-advised for parents to knowingly deceive their children. I suspect David is unaware that he was nearly quoting George Brock Chisholm.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/brock-chisholm
“In principle, there seems to be no great difference between the control of the other diseases and that of the neuroses. The main problems which have to be overcome are the same-the ignorance, moral certainties, prejudice, and so on. Just as it so commonly has been taken for granted that parents have a perfect right to leave their children exposed to death, by neglecting to protect them from diphtheria or smallpox; so it has long been generally accepted that parents have a perfect right to impose any points of view, any lies or fears, superstitions, prejudices, hates, or faiths on their defenseless children. It is, however, only relatively recently that it has become a matter of certain knowledge that these things cause neuroses, behavior disorders, emotional disabilities, and failure to develop to a state of emotional maturity which fits one to be a citizen of a democracy, able to take one's part in making a world fit to live in. "I believe" or "I do not believe" have been acceptable as valid reasons for arbitrary limitations or distortion of a child's experience, for imposing any kind of guilt and fear on the child, for perverting the child's capacity to observe and to think clearly, without thought about the effect on the life of the child and on the society in which he will live. Surely the training of children in homes and schools should be of at least as great public concern as are their vaccination or toxoiding, for their own protection and that of other people. Emotional and social health is at least as important as physical health; neither type of health can be held to be exclusively the concern of the parents, for it has much importance for the community.” - George Brock Chisolm (Founding Director-General of the World Health Organization). Page 16. The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society The Responsibility of Psychiatry. G. B. Chisholm.
https://mikemcclaughry.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/psychiatry-of-enduring-peace-and-social-progress-chisholm-and-sullivan-1946.pdf
Ngram Chart of truth, values, community
https://ibb.co/QD9m4Qm
Sure. Happy to ask Dave. Thanks for posting your question.
I think the Substitution Hypothesis seems like a flawed concept. In recent years, many atheists (me included) have felt reassurance at the ever-increasing percentage of the population identifying as "nones". I (now seemingly erroneously) interpreted this uniquely as people taking a turn toward a more reasoned way of thinking without once asking myself how many of my fellow "nones" are people who don't apply reason any better than their religious counterparts, but for whom scrolling social media or playing video games or whatever fills the church-sized hole in their heart. I think I'm in Jphn McWhorter's camp of considering "the Elect" (those of the SJW mindset) as a new religious group. It'd be useful if there was a way to identify as an atheist who was committed to the idea of rational thinking.
The jury is still out on the substitution hypothesis. I really like Dawkins' answer.
Sorry Peter, this question is about your conversation with Andrew Doyle (I also love Andrew; he and his blue eyes make me swoon); I think he mentioned a book he said he read when he was a kid - do you remember what it was called, “Truckers“? I searched Amazon and only found…well definitely not children’s books. Thank you for your fabulous show. You have a natural on-air personality; the camera loves you, as they say!
I don't. I'm sorry. And I'm also sorry to say you're out of luck. Andrew is gay!
I know... Can't be his #1 fan for years w/out knowing that! Peter, you are one of my favorite podcasters ❤️, and I've taken the liberty of suggesting guests for your pod; here I go again! Joshua Slocum of Disaffected Podcast; he discusses current affairs in our ClusterB society. T.T. Exulansic; her work on analyzing the butchery that passes for "gender-affirming care" is an incredible resource (watch the Phalloplasty Philes & Vaginoplasty Volumes, I am Jazz's Waking Nightmare). Here's a horrific (they all are) example, I mention it because of the FDA part: "Mastectohism: Binders, Keepers" https://exulansic.substack.com/p/mastectochism-binders-keepers . Her ribs are mutilated from "breast-binding, but the doctors who diagnosed the rib injuries saw no reason to report it. I looked on FDA site and found 1 ONE entry about breast binders: "...medical grade 'top' binders are an unmet area of need..." (Exulansic has had to move 2 or 3 times in a year because of TRAliban threats of violence).