Intro Post

"I would want to pass on one thing. if nothing else... the concept of humanism."

How would you feel if your reasons for supporting humanism were used by your child to support an inhumane religion or politician? This is why I would first and foremost instill a logical skepticism; introducing the right concepts for the wrong reasons may do more harm than good.

"it wouldn't be spiritual if it had to be taugh."

I was taught to meditate - are you saying that isn't spiritual?

"And drug use? that's a journey to discover on your own."

Why would you leave your child discover drugs on their own? Do you plan on handing your child the keys to the car without any planning, teaching, or fail-safes? Aren't you concerned about addiction?

"i would hand down the appreciation of art also. To appreciate and protect beauty."

You cannot teach an appreciation of beauty any more than you can teach someone to be more beautiful.

How are my questions condescending? Seriously, because I'm reading them and I only see honest questions with good points for you to resolve. It appears as if you couldn't think of an answer for some of those questions, got mad at yourself for this, then blamed me for putting you in this situation you can't cope with. Please calm down. This is the internet.

"If you cannot teach beauty you can not teach spirituality."

How is that? You're using an enthymeme here and I don't know what it could be to make such a deduction valid. Can you support this statement?

I got into meditation after learning about lucid dreaming. I saught out teachers and books on the subject for my own satisfaction. I don't know anyone who meditates other than the people I saught out to learn from. I became familiar with meditation less than two years ago. It is very spiritually fulfilling. How would you resolve my experience with your claim?

I'm confused about what you've written concerning drugs. Doesn't instilling right and wrong values in a child undermine logic (via is-ought fallacy) and encourage blind acceptance of other's beliefs? What do you imagine the difference is between a child that is raised to recognize Hume's fork (and it's implications) and a child that is raised to believe normative statements blindly? How is it that children are to learn about drugs for themselves while simultaneously being told that they are wrong from everyone their entire lives?

"I don't care for someone to tell me my opinons are wrong and use condescending questions filed with their own opinons to "prove" how wrong I am."

I would like you to look at my reply to your comment and find a single instance where I tell you that your OPINION is wrong. Further, I would like you to point out where I provided any sort of proof for anything that may contradict your beliefs. You are using a straw man fallacy to make me appear as though I'm purporting positions that I do not purport, and that is not intelli_gent. Drop your attitude at the door to teh interwebs so we can have a rational, intelligent discussion about what values would benefit the next generation most.

It doesn't seem like your intrested in discussing, you seem more intrested in dictating.

whatever. I'm deleting my comments, it's not worth it. more lj drama.

I am interested in discussing which values would benefit the next generation most. If questioning your beliefs is dictating, I do not understand why you are opposed to it. Are you not a skeptic?

Why would you delete your comments?

Is your behavior and attitude representative of the members of this community?

What do you believe are the most important beliefs/concepts to pass down to the next generation?

The other comments were deleted before I could get to read them, unfortunately, but from your replies to them, you do seem rather overbearing and at least a little pushy. You initially asked what people believe are most important, then proceed to play Devil's Advocate on everything someone has to say. You have good points, I'll give you that (whether I agree with them is a matter that I'll take care of in a moment), but you seem to lack constructive critism and the ability to validate other's opinions while pointing out deficiencies. Furthermore, you don't have to say something is wrong to get the same point across, there are several points that you used and, whether or not you realized it, implied that the other person was wrong, therefore making your questions seem condescending. Keep in mind, too, that 50% of what is written is misinterpreted by the reader, so your intentions when you write may not be the intentions someone else reads. One would think someone with so much experience with computers, algebra, English, and logic would have a better understanding of the concept of "there is no one right way" and that there are many possible paths to reach the same goal (in the case of your original post, that goal would be to give the next generation the best preparation possible, based on the repliers' opinions of "best").

Now, on to your responses.

First, I'd like to say something about your comments on meditation and spirituality. In this case, I agree with the other poster in that you can't teach spirituality. You can teach the act of "spiritual" things, such as praying and meditating, but you can't teach the spiritual aspect of it, that's something that the practicing party has to achieve on their own. Also, what's highly spiritual for one person, may not be so for another. Meditation seems to be highly spiritual for you, but it's not so much for me (yes, I do meditate, and I don't find it quite as spiritual as you do). On the same token, there could be an activity, such as a hike in the woods, that someone finds highly spiritual and you don't feel the same way.

The same goes with beauty, you can't teach beauty, but you can teach someone to see beauty in a different way. You may not be able to teach someone to appreciate beauty, but can teach them that beauty isn't just an attractive face, but the way the sun reflects off the water, or a mother (of any species) nursing and caring for her offspring. Seeing more than what's on the surface tends to generate more of an appreciation for the subject.

Doesn't instilling right and wrong values in a child undermine logic (via is-ought fallacy) and encourage blind acceptance of other's beliefs?

This question especially interests me. It seems to me that that question is completely contradictory to your own original post. You seem to be against encouraging "blind acceptance of other's beliefs," yet you want to teach your child(ren) about things like "moral/political/social priority of liberty," drugs, and zen, among other things. Unless you're teaching sheer facts that can only be backed by allowing your child(ren) to re-create these experiences and what you teach them is completely unbiased, is it not inevitable to have at least some "blind acceptance of other's beliefs"? How would you teach logic in such a manner that there is no blind acceptance? Keep in mind, too, that not everyone believes drugs are addictive (you might want to consider teaching about the "it won't happen to me" mindset and ways to avoid it). And be careful how you teach your philosophy "defined very specifically as the ability to do all that injures no one else," since that can easily be twisted so that they can do harm without actually injuring someone and your idea of "introducing the right concepts for the wrong reasons may do more harm than good" becomes pretty much moot. You have good points, just be careful how you teach them.

Thank you so much for responding; I enjoyed reading your thoughts.

Is it bad, in this community, or in your personal opinion, to play the Devil's Advocate? I can't think of a reason why polemicism would be looked down upon in a community of scholars, especially skeptics.

"Furthermore, you don't have to say something is wrong to get the same point across, there are several points that you used and, whether or not you realized it, implied that the other person was wrong, therefore making your questions seem condescending."

Would it be prudent for me to explicitly point out the downfall of others when I believe them to be in error? If you said the world was flat, I would be inclined to respond, "How do you resolve your claim with the experimental evidence that shows otherwise?" Would it be better if I said, "You are incorrect, and this (whatever reasoning or source is appropriate) is why"? How would you respond to an obviously incorrect assertion?

One would think someone with so much experience with ... you would have a better understanding of the concept of "there is no one right way"

I am looking, but I can't find my declaration of absolutism. Where did you get this impression?

You have some interesting commentary on spirituality. rosetinted_gurl said that spirituality cannot be taught. I asked if meditation was spiritual. rosetinted_gurl asked me what I meant by meditation. I replied with a short description of my experience. rosetinted_gurl did not give any feedback beyond this. Thank you for answering the question, it is easier to have a discussion this way. Spirituality and meditation must be stipulated to answer the question, which you did well, and going with that context I agree with you. It is too bad that rosetinted_gurl could not have stipulated as you did before becoming (apparently?) upset.

I'm glad you made a more in depth comment on aesthetics - that seemed lacking in rosetinted_gurl's comments. I think beauty is tied to appreciation, as you say. Appreciation, however, is an emotion that is not so easily dissected. To appreciate something, you certainly must have priorities and values in alignment with what is to be appreciated, which could perhaps be taught. It is a little weird for me to think of teaching beauty through imposing values on someone else, which seems necessary for teaching beauty.

You seem to be against encouraging "blind acceptance of other's beliefs," yet you want to teach your child(ren) about things like "moral/political/social priority of liberty," drugs, and zen, among other things.

Should I force my child to eat his/her veggies? My child won't do it on his/her own, and they NEED those nutrients/fiber. Ideally, I would inform my child of the reasoning behind eating veggies and the child would accept. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. I first and foremost would install a skepticism in my child to challenge everything, but this cannot help my child to learn, only avoid learning things that are unreasonable. To this end, I must provide what I believe will be best for the child by indoctrinating those values (essentially) at force. Don't think I don't see the paradox you point out; skepticism fails to be a good standard of logic by its own nature. None the less, I must force vegetables on my child and hopefully my child will understand liberty (and other priorities) as I do.

I'm not going to get into the semantic debate about liberty, because I have been through it a million times. If you really want to discuss it, I'm OK with that, but hopefully it will be enough to tell you that I am a consequentialist with a desire to be free from restriction in all action that do not injur someone else. I'm aware of the gradient that exists in the definitions of injury. Is it OK to torture your child? Is it OK to lovingly feed your child his/her favorite fast food until they will inevitably develope obesity as an adult? I can't pretend to be able to resolve such difficult shades of grey.

"I first and foremost would install a skepticism in my child to challenge everything, but this cannot help my child to learn, only avoid learning things that are unreasonable."

I think the greatest minds have learned unreasonable things just to go and prove them unreasonable.

What do you mean?

What concepts/beliefs do you think are most important for passing on to the next generation?

It's not bad to play Devil's Advocate, it forces a person to think, but like I said, it usually gets across better if the you "do so constructively." Basically, things like "you have a good point, but..." You can point out flaws in a person's argument without seeming offensive, again with things like "I think your intentions are ..., but what if/about..." Though, I do have to make a comment about your flat-world example... The world being round is a fact that's been proven time and again. However, last I checked, there was no one, right way of teaching/parenting and people teach and raise their kids based on their own values. Your original question, therefore, is purely opinion and belief-based. Feel free to question responses that seem counter-intuitive to the well-being of the next generation (such as a person's view on drugs), and ask for elaboration on things that aren't clear (perhaps a person's definition of humanism or other abstract ideas), but, and perhaps my emphasis wasn't clear in my last comment, sometimes "you are wrong" is an implied statement rather than an explicit one. Whether you intended it that way or not, that's how it came across. It's interesting to see how vastly different the paths are that two people can take to get to the same place (I found that out through another debate where the other person had views that were completly contradictory to mine, but the desired result was pretty much the same).

Unfortunately, I cannot read the other half of the original conversation to properly gauge whether or not she overreacted. Your questions, though honest, could have come across as condescending since there was nothing else with most of them to indicate that you were having problems understanding her point of view, or, since in some cases you flat-out said you were confused, the following statements seem to imply something different. Like I said, you may not have meant them to be that way, but half of everything read is misinterpreted by the reader, so what's a simple, honest question to you can take a rather condescending tone to your reader.

Then you have the people that hate to have their views questioned and get all huffy when someone asks them questions that require in-depth reasons in order to answer clearly, which may cause them to re-think the beliefs they've had for so long.

I am looking, but I can't find my declaration of absolutism. Where did you get this impression?

I hate to be vague, but it's mostly an overall impression and not one, specific statement. It's basically a similar explaination as the paragraphs above.

Thank you for the compliments, too, by the way.

As for making your child eat veggies, there are other alternatives and ways to encourage them to eat them besides forcing them (though getting them to eat fruits is probably easier). Peanut butter or cream cheese on celery sticks is one way. Granted, there are variations of everything and every kid's taste is different and some form of force may be necessary, but there are also ways around it. And fast food? Well, ideally, you wouldn't go to them at all, but that's unrealistic. So, it would only be a treat once in a while, kind of like ice cream and sweets, and nutrition should also be taught so they know why they can't have cake for breakfast and McDonald's everyday. Sometimes, you get lucky and have a kid that likes veggies and isn't fond of fast food.

The liberty thing? Don't really care about the whole liberty debate thing, so that can be laid to rest here.

On a side note, you seem interested in "alternate beliefs" (for lack of a better term). Have you ever looked into Wicca? You have the same mantra of "do what you will, but harm none." It's worth looking into and learning about, at least (I'm not talking about just the "spells and magic" stuff, but the philosophies and whatnot are interesting).

I'm sorry, but I'm really confused as to what is bothering some people about my behavior. You say, "last I checked, there was no one, right way of teaching/parenting" but I don't see anywhere that I've said there's only one right way of teaching/parenting. What are you refering to? You say, "Your original question, therefore, is purely opinion and belief-based," and I obviously know this since I wrote it, and besides balking at the notion of teaching beauty there was nothing I objected to. Are you telling me something subtly that I'm not getting? You've said, "sometimes 'you are wrong' is an implied statement rather than an explicit one. Whether you intended it that way or not, that's how it came across," but I don't understand why you would want me to explicitly call people out on their mistakes - it is it constructive to explicitly tell people they are wrong rather than use the Socratic method to explore truth? I don't understand what situation you're refering to in your "paths" statement at the end of your first paragraph.

"Your questions, though honest, could have come across as condescending"

The only questions I can imagine being condescending are complex question fallacies. If I were asking people, "So, have you stopped raping your daughter?" then I would understand any offense taken. Asking someone, "Why do you believe what you believe?" or even something as off-base as "Are you a rapist?" is not proper grounds to take offense - nothing is assumed, so where is the attack? I have not assumed anything, but merely asked questions, and yet I've been scolded like a father saying, "Don't ask Daddy hard questions when he's drinkin', damnit!" Thinking of this is inspirational; I believe I'll make another post in this community.

I am fan of Hume; you won't find me making any declaration (never mind absolutes) without a deliberate dependence on (usually many) qualifiers. As an empiricist, I do not like deontic logic.

I'm alarmed at your response to my analogy concerning forcing children to eat their veggies. It is a model upon which you can imagine that you want a child to question your authority while simultaneously surrendering to your will. This was not intended to be commentary on dietary health, nor on persuading children.

I have looked into Wicca moderately - about as much as I've looked into Buddhism, Scientology, and Mormonism. I study different religions, but in no way can I bring myself to accept a priori beliefs.

So, what concepts/values do you believe would best serve the next generation?

Nice input. I know I'm not adding much to the pot, but I enjoyed your comment thoroughly and wanted to let you know that. Good day man.

Thank you. ^_^ I enjoy picking apart arguments. :)

What concepts/values do you think are most important to pass on to the next generation?

I'm looking forward to your reply from my comment to you above.

wow. I leave for a couple days and come back to this?

First of all, thanks for joining. I think your initial input and concepts are not only interesting, but valuable thought.

Please don't make assumptions on the "attitudes" of the community. This community wouldn't be valuable if everyone had the same opinions and attitudes to begin with. I wasn't able to see all of your "discussion" but from what I did see...let's just make sure everyone remains respectful, even if you disagree; instead of pointing fingers, contact me (mod) or move on: it's really not worth fighting.

Have I been disrespectful? For what reason should I have contacted a moderator, was there a problem? What does it mean, in this context, to point fingers? Ever hear that a sign of greeting in one culture is a sign of offense in another culture? These seems to be the case, but I don't know which of all the things I've done has been offensive, so please be more explicit in pointing out how I have been disrespectful.

So... what do you think are the best concepts to pass on to the next generation?

This comment was not directly squarely at you, and I'd appreciate easing off the tension.

Best concepts? Not sure at this point; humanitarianism for one. I'm not old enough to answer, I think. It's the same reason I wouldn't yet have children-- my life experience, though vast for my age, hasn't succeeded the point where I feel I would be completely qualified to pass traits on.

Tension? This implies that my last post contains the signal that is offensive to some members of this community. I do not see the problem, though, and you've avoided telling me what my offense is though I did ask nicely. I venture, would you answer this question in your next comment?

How old are you? I'm only 21, and I haven't even finished my second year of college (because of work demands). I, too, feel that I'm not ready (intellectually, emotionally, economically, etc.) for a child. I'm sure that it will be one of the most FUN things ever, though, as I love the experience of teaching and observing. Getting a baby kitten was one of the endearing moments of my life that made me want to have a kid, so I can just imagine what it would be like to hold my new born offspring in my hands.

Have you studied humanitarianism, or do you support the common notion of humanitarianism? Humanitarianism encompasses some beliefs that are a priori truths, which I object to. Are you the anthropocentric type? Do you think that stealing from the rich to give to the poor is humane? What would you consider a humane solution to overpopulation (such as the problem of cannibalism in western China)?

Listen, I don't have time to analyze every word typed, nor do I have time for drama.
Your comment above (posted: 2006-08-03 07:38 pm) really annoyed me. You spent more time an entire paragraph and then some putting down someone's comments because of her "lack of depth." Intelligence doesn't mean putting someone down; you take in someone's input and interpret it accordingly, not rip it apart because it's not up to your standards-that's ignorant and causes tension.

I'm 21 as well, a senior in college. I'll be moving on to law school soon.

No, I haven't studied humanitarianism; I've worked in medicine for years now. I am for humanitarianism as Wiki describes it: "human beings deserve respect and dignity and should be treated as such." (Another reason I had problems with your putting down rosetinted_gurl.)
I do not agree with "stealing from the rich," etc; I think it's up to the person to either donate or not, maintaining respect for their beliefs and wishes.
Overpopulation will solve itself--survival of the fittest; I'm not sure I can come up with a perfect and humane solution no more than I can save the world... I think humans are constructed a certain way that allows things to work themselves out, even if that isn't what we're always going to be comfortable with.

I do not ask for drama or any word-by-word analysis from you. You seem to be upset at my metacommentary towards rosetinted_gurl when answering sydneyrodriguez's comment on aesthetics. I did not put her down for her lack of depth, as you say, but rather said her answer lacked depth; this is not condescending, but a very relevent response when given the context of sydneyrodriguez's stipulations. If you disagree with me, it would be more prudent to explain why or ask me for clarification rather than simply inform me that you are upset. I never said intelligence means putting someone down, so I don't know why you would bring such up. What is the "according" way to interpret any given input? You've not actually told me what was incorrect about my interpretations.

Have you studied meta-ethics? What do you really mean by "deserve"? How so?

Do you know of Kohlberg and his theories on morality? Would steal to feed your starving child? Why or why not?

Of course overpopulation will "solve" itself through survival of the fittest, but that's not a humane solution. People are eating each other. It seems weird that you shun opposition to your "solution" because others aren't "comfortable" with it, yet your humanitarianism obviously stems from your discomfort in other's suffering. This is quite the ideology gap; what do you mean?

Did you know...
-Homosexuality is a form of population control, is a sign of overpopulation, and is common in the animal world?
-Cannibalism is quite common in the animal world, contributing for up to 95% of the mortality rate of some species, and is found in several species of insects, reptiles and small mammals and isn't alway a result of food shortage? It is also common for humans during times of extreme famine.

It's not always humane, and certainly not pretty, but it's a fact of life and part of nature. Whether people like to believe it or not, we're animals, too, and subject to the same laws of nature that every other animal is subject to.

I didn't know that homosexuality was a sign of overpopulation. That suggests some very heavy relationships between the individual and society which I've never seen evidence for. Do you have a study or a name to throw around to support this?

I'm not claiming that these selection tools are humane (or pretty). I recognize the harsh reality of life and nature. Then again, I am not a humanitarian (as it entails concepts which I disagree with). I'm trying to understand how mystar2685 reconciles her priorities (humanitarianism) and her caustic view towards humanity (very inhumane, such as her apathetic view toward's people over-heating to death here: http://community.livejournal.com/intelli_gent/6526.html?thread=23422#t23422 ).

"I do not see the problem, though, and you've avoided telling me what my offense is though I did ask nicely."

She explained that it wasn't directed squarely at you, so no worries mate.

I'm sure that she's capable of writing on her own behalf ;-D

But since you mention it, she does say, "This comment was not directly squarely at you, and I'd appreciate easing off the tension," which indicates that her initial comment wasn't directed at me, but the second clause certainly is a request to me to ease off the tension, no? This would merit my asking, "Tension?" even given her saying (as you pointed out) that the first comment wasn't directed at myself.