Does This Seem Right To You? by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
The main difference between Pastafarianism and Christianity is about 3000 years.
3000? I'd buy anything from 2100 to 1900, but I'd have to quibble over 3000 ;-)

Well the Old Testament was written long before Jesus so 3000 might be too low actually. On the other hand most Christians seem to place more emphasis on the New Testament so it's a bit of a judgment call.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:36 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

If you base it off the Old Testament, you have to say "Judaism" instead. Christianity didn't exist until there were followers of Jesus who was called the Christ, and wasn't organized until long after his death, so you can't say it's been around as long as the Old Testement has.
Facts sure are stubborn things, aren't they?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
and if your argument is going to be 'older is better' I'd like to talk to you about the Tao.

My argument is much more on the lines of they were all invented at some point, the only reason that Pastafarianism isn't considered legitimate is because it's adherents don't act in a suitably religious fashion and we know it was pulled out of some guys ass a few years ago. The reality is that most if not all of the religions of the world were completely made up just like Pastafarianism, so to say that we are not a real religion because it's made up simply is to say that most of the religions of the world aren't real.

Given a couple thousand years with the origin of Pastafarianism being obscured it could easily be considered just as "legitimate" as Christianity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
If you base it off the Old Testament, you have to say "Judaism" instead. Christianity didn't exist until there were followers of Jesus who was called the Christ, and wasn't organized until long after his death, so you can't say it's been around as long as the Old Testement has.
Facts sure are stubborn things, aren't they?

True enough, I guess I should have said Judeo-Chritianity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
heathenistic Earth Worship

Depends on what you mean by 'heatenistic Earth Worship'. Most of the new 'heathen' and 'pagan' religions are exactly that, new. They're name only brandings, and share little, if any, of the culture or mythos with their ancient namesakes.

Personally I'm hoping mother goddess worship makes a come back, you can bet your arse I'll be worshipping with the exalted sacred priestesses every Sunday in the time honoured and traditional way then.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:43 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
and if your argument is going to be 'older is better' I'd like to talk to you about the Tao.

My argument is much more on the lines of they were all invented at some point, the only reason that Pastafarianism isn't considered legitimate is because it's adherents don't act in a suitably religious fashion and we know it was pulled out of some guys ass a few years ago. The reality is that most if not all of the religions of the world were completely made up just like Pastafarianism, so to say that we are not a real religion because it's made up simply is to say that most of the religions of the world aren't real...

Ah, I misunderstood. Yes, fair point.
However, as I've said before, it's really the Dogma of any given religion that divides, obscures, and is fought over. I think if everyone looked at the Spiritual core instead of focusing on the rules, we'd all have a whole lot less to argue about.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Personally I'm hoping mother goddess worship makes a come back, you can bet your arse I'll be worshipping with the exalted sacred priestesses every Sunday in the time honoured and traditional way then.

You can have sloppy seconds, I'm first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Personally I'm hoping mother goddess worship makes a come back, you can bet your arse I'll be worshipping with the exalted sacred priestesses every Sunday in the time honoured and traditional way then.

Not often we agree Cit...... but bring on the sacred priestesses of Mother Goddess Worship...

Funny how a beautiful pair of breasts with maybe a shiny pendant in between can convince two men who argue profusely about everything that they desperately want the same thing.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:46 AM

FLETCH2

Of course when it comes to godess worship standards of beauty are somewhat different....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 19, 2007 4:19 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Individually, well, imma dumbass - I woulda stepped in front of her and refused to move, not that it likely woulda done any good (prolly just get me stoned too, no doubt)

I woulda gone River on as many as I could before they killed me.

But...what would I be doing there in the first place? Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 19, 2007 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The point is, that Finn is all up on his high horse about the judge saying "it's not part of her belief”, and how the state has no right to tell people what they're beliefs entail, then you both see no problem with doing the exact same thing with a belief you don't recognise.

For the second time, no one is dismissing this kids pasta religion, as far as I can tell. Certainly not in the article you posted. That’s just something you added in order to make your little fit work.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And her "affectations" were against school uniform code. I fail to see a fundamental difference, save for which religion.

You fail to see a difference between a girl wearing a ring that symbolizes her conviction for personal responsibility and a kid wearing a pasta pirate outfit? Actually, that explains a lot.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 5:14 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"For the second time, no one is dismissing this kids pasta religion ... That’s just something you added in order to make your little fit work."

6string did, several times. That's probably what Citizen was replying to. And what's your excuse for your little fit of snark - especially when you're so obviously wrong, yet again ?

"You fail to see a difference between a girl wearing a ring that symbolizes her conviction for personal responsibility and a kid wearing a pasta pirate outfit? Actually, that explains a lot."

And you fail to see the similarities ? That REALLY explains it all.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For the second time, no one is dismissing this kids pasta religion, as far as I can tell. Certainly not in the article you posted. That’s just something you added in order to make your little fit work.
...
You fail to see a difference between a girl wearing a ring that symbolizes her conviction for personal responsibility and a kid wearing a pasta pirate outfit? Actually, that explains a lot.

Would you like to reword this to a point rather than an Ad Hominem attack directed at me, or was that the point?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Would you like to reword this to a point rather than an Ad Hominem attack directed at me, or was that the point?

You’re failure to understand the issue doesn’t make it an ad hominem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 1:51 PM

For those interested in the intelligent side of this discussion:

More and more I’m seeing Fletch2’s point about Muslim kids in burkahs. But it’s broader then that, I think. Some people will take advantage of a free system to impose personal views on the larger populace, even when those views have no redeeming value to the larger population or may be detrimental. In the United States there are two cases that went to court involving the right of the free expression of children over the respect for teachers and education environment. A student sued because he felt he had the right to hold up a sign that said “Bong hits 4 Jesus,” against his teachers wishes while under school supervision. Another student sued because he felt he had the right to wear a Pirate outfit that caused disruption in the class against his teacher’s wishes. These kinds of ridiculous cases undermine the authority of our teachers and decrease their effectiveness as educators, while encouraging chaos in the school system.

Over in Britain, they are arguing about whether a girl has the right to wear a chastity ring against the dress code – an unassuming silver ring which symbolizes a conviction for sexual responsibility, vs. the Schools uniformed dress code. This is an issue that has some merit to be decided in the court. True it probably started because of some overly anal teacher, but I can’t really say that the court ruled wrongly on this case, given what they have to deal with. I can see both sides to it.

But in the US the issues are “Bong hits 4 Jesus” and Pasta Pirate outfits – how did either of these completely ridiculous cases make it into the court system? (One of them made it to the Supreme Court for crying out loud!) Now obviously the British school system isn’t flawless given that some Brits are unaware that the United Kingdom is a Monarchy, but my impression is that overall it seems to outperform the American system. Are these three cases just anomalies, or is there some serious discipline and structure problems with American High Schools? Does Britain have its own set ridiculous court cases, or is this generally unique to the US?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’re failure to understand the issue doesn’t make it an ad hominem.

I'll take that as a yes. You're failure to have a debate doesn't make you right.

Don't worry Finn, idiotic insults are about all I expect from you when your argument collapses and you can't deal with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 20, 2007 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
obviously the British school system isn’t flawless given that some Brits are unaware that the United Kingdom is a Monarchy, but my impression is that overall it seems to outperform the American system.

It is, British children are taught to think for themselves, it would seem American Children are taught to throw insults at people they disagree with. Perhaps thats why we find so few Americans capable of a political debate without Demagoguery.

Repeat your maxim over, and over Finn "Those who don't agree with me is a stupid evil". Isn't it time you followed AU's lead? Time for another thread, maybe "Why the Left is so evil" this time?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 6:50 PM

Don't mind the troll Finn.

I don't feel that you did anything of the sort. I thought your last post here summed it up pretty damn well and anybody who is against that stance isn't evil as Cit would want me to call him, but it is also no different than being an anti-smoker who has something to gain by unconstitutional taxes and laws being placed on smokers. They don't smoke, smoke smell annoys them, and if smokers pick up more of their tab, then that's a bonus.

These rediculous cases are only in existance so people who think like him have a seemingly legitamite argument, while intelligent un-biased people look like they're wrong when they say that a sliver ring and a pirate suit are like comparing oranges to orangutangs.

And yes, I stand firmly that worshiping the Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion and even the people who are a part of that gimmick do not believe it is a religion. I believe that they have a point they're tyring to make and that they believe that if Intelligent Design is taught in school that the Spaghetti Monster should be taught in school, and a big part of me agrees with that, but nobody believes this is a religion. You think that kid really did? He's just a dumb little punk that needs to have his ass kicked around a bit. Stuff like that didn't happen back when kids were diciplined by their parents. But today, the kids can just call DCFS if their parents even look at them wrong. Why anybody would even have a kid today is a mystery to me.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 8:54 PM

STARRBABY

You know, I was just thinking about this case, and I would have really liked to have been a fly on the wall the day she wore said ring. Was she discreet and unassuming, or was she showing it down people's throats.

It was against the rules to chew gum in class when/where I went to school. I chewed gum everyday and no one cared or noticed. I didn't attempt to hide that I was chewing gum, I just wasn't obnoxious about it.

As I mentioned, I wonder if she was being obnoxious, because it's interesting what you can get away with if you don't show off that you're doing it.

Just a thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:25 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
You think that kid really did? He's just a dumb little punk that needs to have his ass kicked around a bit. Stuff like that didn't happen back when kids were diciplined by their parents. But today, the kids can just call DCFS if their parents even look at them wrong. Why anybody would even have a kid today is a mystery to me.

Well if children are individuals and don't have to do what their teachers say (like don't wear pirate outfits to school or wave the wrong sign) then surely their parents have no rights to discipline them either?

Your POV seems somewhat inconsistant.

In addition I don't believe you are doing them any service here. I can wear jeans to work on Fridays only (in Europe I could wear them every day but was expected to dress up when meeting external clients.) If I "buck the rules" and show up in jeans on Mondays there will be consequences to my employment. I'm pretty sure that pasta pirate outfits don't cut it in corporate America either something they will discover in time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 7:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Don't mind the troll Finn.

You're a troll if you don't insult people for having a differing opinion, but those that do (as long as they agree with you) are not. Interesting, if silly, perspective.

I wonder how your attempts to spark a flame war for no reason workout on the 'who is a troll' scale

Quote:
I don't feel that you did anything of the sort.

Yeah he did, but you agree with him, so you won't admit it. It's alright as long as you're the one doing it eh Jack

Quote:
These rediculous cases are only in existance so people who think like him have a seemingly legitamite argument, while intelligent un-biased people look like they're wrong when they say that a sliver ring and a pirate suit are like comparing oranges to orangutangs.

A judge can't say if something is belief based, but Jack can. Thank you Jack, where would we be without you and Finn, ultimate arbiters of truth. I'll wait until a story that is exactly the same as this, save for not being about Christianity, so you can show us your undoubtedly unbiased position.

Quote:
And yes, I stand firmly that worshiping the Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion and even the people who are a part of that gimmick do not believe it is a religion.

I stand firmly that the Silver Ring thing is merely a gimmick to make money selling silver rings.

The fact you can't see the similarities between the Judge telling her that it isn't part of her belief, and you saying that FSM isn't a real religion goes to the heart of your pro-Christian bias.

I agree, personally, though there does seem to be people who are beginning to see it as a real religion. But people who say it's their belief have to be treated as if it really is, otherwise your merely guilty of what Finn would say:
“in order for a religious belief to exists, it must be approved by the state?”

Seems to me that the people that believe this the most are you and Finn, you just make exceptions for Christianity.

It's amazing that you can think wanting to apply the rules to everyone equal is a bias.

Quote:
You think that kid really did? He's just a dumb little punk that needs to have his ass kicked around a bit.

Yes, he is. But so is she, "I'm a Christian, I deserve special treatment!" You consistently show a similar position, you consistently champion the rights of Christians, and go on about Jackbooted Nazis if Christians have to compromise. That would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that if the exact same thing is done to non-Christians, you don't give a shit. You are not unbiased, and neither is Finn, you both want to say you are, on the mistaken belief that it will lend your biased positions more weight.

I doubt you'd have even posted this thread if the silver ring thing was an Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu et al, movement. Finn would certainly be denouncing it as a stupid case.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I wonder how your attempts to spark a flame war for no reason workout on the 'who is a troll' scale .

I didn't start the fire my man. You guys were doing a pretty good job before I got back here.

Quote:
Yeah he did, but you agree with him, so you won't admit it. It's alright as long as you're the one doing it eh Jack .

You're not the arbiter of me.

Quote:
A judge can't say if something is belief based, but Jack can. Thank you Jack, where would we be without you and Finn, ultimate arbiters of truth. I'll wait until a story that is exactly the same as this, save for not being about Christianity, so you can show us your undoubtedly unbiased position.

I'm not saying it Cit. Common Sense says it, and I'm just speaking for it. You all but flat out admit that you realize that Spaghetti Monster worship is not, nor was it ever intended to be a religion. It was created as a rediculous notion to make sure that Intelligent Design wasn't taught in school by putting it into perspective. Mission Accomplished! Even I agree with that idea.

Nobody, however, really believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor do they worship it as a god. Hence, it is not a religion. Assuming that there are a few absolute wack jobs that really do, they will probably will be people lining up to take those pills that the Science types like to hand out like candy.

Quote:
I stand firmly that the Silver Ring thing is merely a gimmick to make money selling silver rings.

You may be right about that. Nice marketing idea. They already have a large base. But that wasn't what the trial was about. What the Spaghetti Monster has done is taken away from the religious aspects of this case. I've already said that somebody should be allowed to wear their burkah at school. They may get a whole lot of ridicule for it from the other kids. I know I did and that's just for having glasses and braces. Kids can be assholes. I don't see why she can't wear a ring symbolizing her religion and I don't see why the girl couldn't wear a burkah. I say f

it and everybody who has gripes like this should take their kids out of school until the Government backs up and minds their own f

ing business.

Quote:
The fact you can't see the similarities between the Judge telling her that it isn't part of her belief, and you saying that FSM isn't a real religion goes to the heart of your pro-Christian bias.

Wrong. I believe I've stated this case very firmly. FSM is pure bullshit as a religion. It served its purpose and needs to go away. You're not going to win this argument with it. If you want to attack my lack of hostility against the Muslim religion and how I believe they should be able to wear their garb, go for it.

Quote:
I agree, personally,

I know you do. You're not insane. Please stop throwing FSM at me now.

Quote:
though there does seem to be people who are beginning to see it as a real religion. But people who say it's their belief have to be treated as if it really is, otherwise your merely guilty of what Finn would say:
“in order for a religious belief to exists, it must be approved by the state?”

Maybe I'll start the religion of Jack. Then I can be tax exempt and get to work on my harem at home.

Quote:
Seems to me that the people that believe this the most are you and Finn, you just make exceptions for Christianity.

It's amazing that you can think wanting to apply the rules to everyone equal is a bias.

LOL.... I think just the opposite is bias. I've already proven that with my statements here. FSM does not count. It is not a religion. It is a STRAWMAN so you can refute my position no matter what I say here unless I say you're right.

blahh... blahhh.... BLAHHHHH.....

Whatever else you said, I would just have the same answer. There is no such thing as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no such thing as the Bogey Man. There is no monsters under your bed Cit. You can sleep with the light off and nobody is going to rip you out of your bed and eat you.

I'm sorry I come off as so disrespectful to you here, but FSM is bullshit and you know it. I don't want to hear about it anymore.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 5:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Don't mind the troll Finn.

Citizen thrives on contention. He’ll get over it.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And yes, I stand firmly that worshiping the Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion and even the people who are a part of that gimmick do not believe it is a religion. I believe that they have a point they're tyring to make and that they believe that if Intelligent Design is taught in school that the Spaghetti Monster should be taught in school, and a big part of me agrees with that, but nobody believes this is a religion. You think that kid really did? He's just a dumb little punk that needs to have his ass kicked around a bit. Stuff like that didn't happen back when kids were diciplined by their parents. But today, the kids can just call DCFS if their parents even look at them wrong. Why anybody would even have a kid today is a mystery to me.

This is a bit theatrical. I have no doubt that this pasta pirate stuff could be a product of someone trying to make a political point and that this is the reason why many claim to follow it, but it could be that some people are devout followers of spaghetti or whatever the hell it’s about – I don’t have a clue. If they are, I’m not going to tell them they’re not. But regardless of whether it’s a legitimate religion or not, there still needs to be some semblance of structure to the education environment and kids still need to listen to their teachers. We can disagree on what that structure is, and that’s the real point here, not the religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Stuff like that didn't happen back when kids were diciplined by their parents. But today, the kids can just call DCFS if their parents even look at them wrong. Why anybody would even have a kid today is a mystery to me

For a guy who hates other people telling him what to do, you sure have an authoritarian streak in you.

Quote:
But regardless of whether it’s a legitimate religion or not, there still needs to be some semblance of structure to the education environment and kids still need to listen to their teachers.

Not trying to be snotty here but... why? What is this "structure" supposed to be doing? Or is it necessary for it's own sake?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I'll actually flog that one.

Structure is the frame, Chaos is the pretty.

People want a structure, it gives them something to mentally cling to as their minds branch out and explore.

If that structure is all there is, and there is no exploration - you got nothin, conversely, without it, no one feels secure enough to explore.

So, yes, there needs to be some bedrock there no matter how much of a faery castle you wanna build, how it is applied, and how much of it, are matters of dispute.

I don't think that way myself, but I am an anomoly.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Stuff like that didn't happen back when kids were diciplined by their parents. But today, the kids can just call DCFS if their parents even look at them wrong. Why anybody would even have a kid today is a mystery to me

Quote:
For a guy who hates other people telling him what to do, you sure have an authoritarian streak in you.

There are just some arguments that are completely unwinnable with you people. Do you propose Signy, that parents don't dicipline their children at all? This is not just to say to scald them and tell them when they're wrong, but to teach them the right things so they don't grow up to be intolerable little self-serving shits....

But maybe you would rather have the schools take care of that? You wouldn't be in the minority there. Too many people in this country, neigh the world, have no business having children and the only choice the children have is to learn from schools because their parents, for lack of a better word, SUCK. I'll count myself in that one. I won't ever have kids. I'm doing them a favor because I know that I will be a horrible parent.

On that note, do not ask me to fund child healthcare with my cigarettes or my income taxes. Not my f

problem.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:49 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Stuff like that didn't happen back when kids were diciplined by their parents. But today, the kids can just call DCFS if their parents even look at them wrong. Why anybody would even have a kid today is a mystery to me
For a guy who hates other people telling him what to do, you sure have an authoritarian streak in you.

I realize this comment was probably tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth pointing out that parenting should be an authoritarian enterprise. Children aren't yet ready to make decisions for themselves and need an experienced adult to do it for them. Adults on the other hand can be expected to make decisions for themselves and live with the consequences. Too many people today don't make this distinction and are all too happy to accept a 'parental' government, and/or think parents shouldn't be allowed such authority over their children.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 3:21 AM

Similarly for education: take 20 kids, provide no structure to the education environment, no authority in the classroom and see how much geometry they learn at the end of the semester. I promise you, it will be none.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 4:23 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

authoritarian

There are different styles of parenting. Some have divided them up into: authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and uninvolved.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,1423335,00.html

Authoritative parents love their children unconditionally and accept them for who they are. They keep a close eye on their children, provide them with plenty of support, set firm boundaries, and grant considerable freedom within those boundaries. Authoritative parents monitor their children and intervene when necessary, but let them get on with things when there is no need to interfere. They mean what they say, and do not shy away from conflict when enforcing the boundaries they have set. Authoritative parents are loving but not over-indulgent, involved but not overly controlling, clear about limits but not excessively risk-averse, and permissive within those limits but not neglectful. Most people would like to be an authoritative parent, whether or not they actually are.

Authoritarian parents, in contrast, have a colder parenting style which is more demanding but less responsive to their children's real needs. Authoritarian parents are highly controlling, but not very warm or loving. They intervene frequently, issuing commands, criticisms and occasional praise, but do this in an inconsistent way. They expect their children to obey their instructions without explanation, and may use emotional tactics to get their way, such as making their children feel guilty, ashamed or unloved. Authoritarian parents often interfere when there is no real need to, and issue threats without always carrying them through. At the extreme, some highly authoritarian parents resort to physical or emotional abuse in their attempts to control their children, which obviously can cause lasting psychological damage. Children who are beaten or denied any affection are at significantly greater risk of becoming abusive parents themselves.

Indulgent parents are responsive but undemanding and permissive. They are warm and loving but lax, setting few clear boundaries. They often respond to their children's wishes, even when these are unreasonable or inappropriate. Punishments are seldom threatened, let alone carried through, and the children often appear to have the upper hand in the relationship. Indulgent parents try to be kind, but shy away from conflict or difficulty.

Uninvolved parents are unresponsive, undemanding, permissive and set few clear boundaries, largely because they don't really care very much. Unlike authoritative parents, they are neither warm nor firm and they do not monitor their children. Instead, they are laid-back and unresponsive to an extent that can sometimes seem reckless. In extreme cases, uninvolved parenting may stray into outright neglect.

--------------------------------
Given these descriptions, I wonder which you all would chose to best represent what you mean.

Anyone interested in clarifying ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 4:39 AM

FLETCH2

I would have thought an authoritative style of teaching would be most effective too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Citizen thrives on contention. He’ll get over it.

Actually I prefer to debate with people who don't call their opponent stupid because they don't agree, and can't come up with an argument.

Maybe you'll get over yourself and realise that Finn saying something doesn't make it so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I didn't start the fire my man. You guys were doing a pretty good job before I got back here.

You didn't exactly douse it or keep your nose out either.

Quote:
You're not the arbiter of me.

So it is ok when you do it?

Quote:
I'm not saying it Cit. Common Sense says it, and I'm just speaking for it.

Common sense says you, and you alone in the entire world, have the right to decide what are beliefs, and what are not. Funny, never come across that one myself

Quote:
You all but flat out admit that you realize that Spaghetti Monster worship is not, nor was it ever intended to be a religion. It was created as a rediculous notion to make sure that Intelligent Design wasn't taught in school by putting it into perspective. Mission Accomplished! Even I agree with that idea.

No, it was created as an extreme example in order to highlight various inequalities and illogical arguments, the major one being Intelligent Design. The fact that you don't like it when someone dismisses one persons protestations of belief, while you yourself are blithely dismissing another's, would be another example.

It leads to the interesting thing about freedom of speech, it's only free while you let people you don't agree with talk (which is why some people around here don't actually believe in freedom of speech, thankfully they're in no position to silence dissent). Similarly, religious freedom only exists while you accept that anyone has a belief, even if your 'common sense' tells you they are making it up.

Quote:
Nobody, however, really believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor do they worship it as a god. Hence, it is not a religion.

A) Prove it.
B) There are religions without Gods.
C) What right do you have to tell other people what they believe in?

Quote:
You may be right about that. Nice marketing idea. They already have a large base. But that wasn't what the trial was about. What the Spaghetti Monster has done is taken away from the religious aspects of this case.

Sorry? Are you sure we're on the same page? The trial was about whether she was allowed to break school rules on a whim, because she said doing so was integral to her religion. The FSM has nothing to do with the trial, whether or not the silver ring is merely an affectation, a clever marketing ploy, or an integral part of her religion goes straight to the heart of the matter.

The issue is not, as Finn would like to characterise it, the Judge dismissing her belief, no one dismissed her belief, he just said the ring wasn't essential to that belief. I imagine the case hinged on it, she needed to show that in order to practice her religion, she needed to wear the ring, she couldn't, so it was concluded that her ring was no more fundamental to the practice of her religion than wearing a cross pendant is for a Catholic, or sticking a metal fish on your car is for a Born again Christian.

Quote:
Please stop throwing FSM at me now.

When you get WHY I'm bringing it up I won't need to bring it up any more.

Quote:
Maybe I'll start the religion of Jack. Then I can be tax exempt and get to work on my harem at home.

Why not, I had a friend at Uni that decided to join the non-denominational church of light over the internet, and can now perform legal marriage ceremonies in 48 states of America.

Quote:
LOL.... I think just the opposite is bias. I've already proven that with my statements here.

Wanting to apply the rules to everyone without exceptions is biased.

Riiiight.

Quote:
FSM does not count.

While we're throwing things out on a whim...

Why can't I just decide that any particular religion doesn't count?

Quote:
It is not a religion. It is a STRAWMAN so you can refute my position no matter what I say here unless I say you're right.

Actually no it isn't, but this is a tautology.

Quote:
I'm sorry I come off as so disrespectful to you here, but FSM is bullshit and you know it. I don't want to hear about it anymore.

Do we all get to say stuff like that?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 7:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Has anyone ever watched "Supernanny"? She gets kids to behave without yelling, screaming, hitting, or threatening by consistently setting limits, enforcing them, and modeling the behavior she intends for the children to follow.

Finn, the reason why I asked about class authority is that there are several rationale for it:

1) It fosters an environment necessary for teaching. (I have to add tho that the environment for "teaching" is not necessarily the environment for "learning".)

2) All children need a sense of regularity to feel secure.

3) Children must become used to obedience because authorities at all stages of life expect obedience, even if it is unfair.

4) You may perhaps have other reasons that you haven't touched on.

AFA the environment necessary for teaching... if students are to be quiet while the teachers goes on... and on... and on.... about a topic, then authoritarianism is necessary. But there are many ways to teach, and learn, that do no require this style. I volunteered for a school year to assist in my daughter' class on my day off, and I got the six most disruptive children in the class: mine, who was neurologically compromised, three who were incredibly ADHD (man, you have NO idea how bad that can be!) and two who were emotionally fragile. And we learned adding and subtracting using pennies, and I read to them and let them talk to me. It was very resource-intensive and physically draining, but these kids never learned anything but what I taught them.

For a while, I had several children in my home: one retarded kid (mine) and three emotionally fragile youngsters (6, 8, 12) and I had to figure out what to do with them in the afternoon. So I would hold little "classes" about all kinds of crap- what is "metal"? (I would tell them the properties, show them some examples, and make them find at least three things made of metal and bring them to the table.) Cooking. Geometry (paper folding).

I agree that some subjects are just very difficult and require some sitzfleisch, but the need for that kind of attention can be minimized in favor of active learning.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:56 PM

Nice post Rue. Thanks for giving a way to clarify that.

Unfortunately, I was a child raised primarily by my single mother who was very Authoritarian. She was completley inconsistant with her threats and her praise. I never thought at any time that she didn't love her kids very much, but she resorted to extreme emotional manipulation and massive guilt trips. I suspect that if my father ever successfully got custody of us when we were younger, she would have killed herself. I remember on several occasions hearing that my Dad had told people that she was brainwashing us, and that also came up when he took her to court to prove her an unfit mother. The fact that I didn't voluntarily just go to my Dad when I was a kid is proof enough for me that she did indeed brainwash us with her manipulative parenting style and guilt trips.

My old man would have been an Authoritative parent, but was never allowed because the court system's bias against fathers in this country, particularaly in Illinois. She was constantly threatening him with court actions to take us away from him, causing him to basically have to resort to being an Uninvolved parent, minus the neglect. There were almost no rules when we were with Dad because he knew he had no legal footing, should anything my mother didn't approve of arise, and he just wanted to make sure that we liked coming over and being a part of his life. He never taught us anything about life or how to stand up for ourselves because he was afraid that anything he said would get back to her and he'd be in more trouble, and he was right. I'll always have fond memories of going to the Planetarium, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Shedd Aquarium and the Zoo with him and my brothers almost every weekend.

His two kids from his second marriage are leaving for school in about a month. One of them with a full 5 year acedemic and baseball scholarship to ISU and the other, a 16 year old, will be going to a Math and Science academy to live there for the next 2 years with other kids, mostly asian, that are as smart as he is. Because of his grades, that's free too. I have no ill will towards them at all. I think it's great that my old man was able to do it right the second time, though it does sting to see what I missed out on. All he needed was a good wife at his side and a great mother to their children. I've never seen two parents care for their children and do so right by them as they did. The one going to college isn't even my Dad's biological son. I would imagine that they would make ideal parents someday if they marry the right girl.

I, on the other hand, will be Authoritarian if I were to be a parent. I don't like that, but I don't know any different. Maybe there is a way to change that, but since it's such a part of me now, I don't think it could be any different. Moreover I tend to shy away from any form of commitment and also to lose interest in things very quickly. At least I know I wouldn't be physically abusive.... so I guess that's something anyways.

Unless I know going into it that I could be a caring and Authoritative like my Stepmom and Dad, I will do my unborns and the world a favor by not repeating that cycle. If the only people in the world that had kids were people like them, the world will be a much better place. We wouldn't need to tax everybody for healthcare for kids, our children would actually learn things about life when they were growing up and be fit to be leaders in society in the future. They would be able to take care of themselves without Government intervention and, in turn, raise their own children to be the same. That's not to say that only people who think as they do should have kids, but that only parents who raise their kids in a similar fashion should. I know those kids have never been struck, but at the same time, I'm sure there was hardly ever a reason for it. I envy them, and though I have taught one of them to play guitar, I usually keep my distance from them because I don't want to rub off on them.

If you didn't already realize it, I probably like myself about as much as Citizen does...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 6:37 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I completely disagree with those mere four categories - pigeonholing really limits peoples ideas when it comes to such things and it's not so very far from that to a black/white "im right and your wrong" ideology grudgefest.

Parenting isn't like fixing a leaky faucet, or fixing a flat, there is no one size fits all solution, and in that it's far more like trying to practice medicine with no patient histories.

As for Supernanny, as I have pointed out time and time again, the key is respect, you bring some, you get some, or at least you get the chance to EARN it, and all trappings aside, THAT, more than anything else, is her secret - to simply treat them as people, human beings.

Disagree with me if you must, but those four categories are full of loaded language, and slant, in order to justify the poison-parenting cycle I despise so much, with a couple wordgames and a sidestep to a similar sounding "style" and suchlike.

How bout you strip the top one off, and THEN look em at em be forced to choose - yes ?
Bet you'd change your mind real quick, wouldn't you ?

And they take two parenting styles that CAN work, that HAVE worked, push them to the furthest negative extreme remotely possible, and then use THAT as their "baseline" for this description ?

Bull. Shit.

Ok, cause that's what it is.

My mother wasn't uninvolved or neglecting me when she was hiding behind the curtains no doubt chewing her nails, watching me crash my bike over and over after ripping the training wheels off - my mother was giving me privacy and respect, two things the entire fucking rest of the world thinks we should utterly deny children, two things the bedrock and security of their very mental health *depends* upon - and yet every parenting model thrown at us denies the childrens need for em.

When I am with my nieces, the only real limit I set to them is their own conscience, and I don't issue them orders, but will offer advice and answer questions if asked, and not in a demeaning, degrading fashion - but the same way I answer an adult who asks the same things.

They wanna go somewhere, and there's no reason they shouldn't be there or I should not take em, we go - if there's any dispute, we negotiate, yes my word is final (and that because it is my vehicle and my property), but the answer to unreasonable or irrational requests isn't to treat a child like an enemy mounting an attack and start a damned war.

The better answer is to counter with ridiculous requests of your own and reveal to them through gamesmanship just how silly they're being, and more than once within that, I found during such discussion that sometimes what YOU might see as an unreasonable or irrational request actually has some pressing or even important reason behind it, such as losing a friends favorite hairbrush and desperately wanting to replace it quickly so as not to upset them - they're not often gonna tell YOU something like that up front, but if they trust you a lot, it'll come out... you know you're there when they tell you something like that up front, because they DO trust you to understand.

As for wanting "things", material wealth doesn't mean a whole lot to my family, can't really miss what ya never had - but craft and skill does, both nieces and the nephew selected at least one christmas gift that required thier own skill and craft to finish, a wooden soapbox racer miniature, an unfinished, unpainted jewelry box, and a large latchhook wall hanging.

It's kinda inherent and traditional to build and craft, and that urge, that desire leads to... what ?.... Mess, of course it does, and lots of it!
But LIFE is messy, I mean good heavens, you ever seen childbirth ?
I don't care how big, awful or shocking the mess is, as long as it's cleaned up when they're done, in a reasonable amount of time and you don't block the traffic areas.

Jeeze I can just imagine the screeches and shocks of horror most folks would admit if the middle girl decided to paint that box on the kitchen table!
I'm like, wait till *after* dinner, yes ?
Got newspaper, right ? paint in question is water-cleanup ?
Good to go, pack up your mess when it's done - need any help ?
Oh, and why not let your brother use the other end of the table to paint his racer ?
Less newspaper and only one mess, and you split the cleanup, right-o?

And when the nephew's mind wandered a bit off the cleanup and got caught by the PS2, no, I didn't automatically assume defiance and go on the assault, what a monstrous thought!
Forget something ? *pointed glance*
Oh, crap! yeah, sorry!
Cause kids are kids, yanno... they'll learn.

Although not often expressed in so many words, when a child comes to you and says "teach me?" - waving them away or slapping them in the face, oh yes, that's a lesson they *WILL* learn and pass on, as is a firm and loving hug.

I dunno how to explain it too well, guess I don't have the words, but every harsh, cruel, or unpleasant moment of interaction between my childhood self and adults, is right there, racked and orderly, on a neat little shelf in the back of my mind - and every time I wind up in that situation from an adults perspective, I KNOW what to do, because I have not, I have NEVER, forgotten what it was like to be the one looking up in fear and hope.

Call it parenting Bushido if you wish - not that I don't make mistakes, but I admit them and correct them, and I *will* issue an actual, meaningful apology to a child if they are due it.

It's all respect, at the end of the day, you respect them, they respect you, and you set the course with your own example, instead of the back of your hand.

Ain't that a better way ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I completely disagree with those mere four categories - pigeonholing really limits peoples ideas when it comes to such things and it's not so very far from that to a black/white "im right and your wrong" ideology grudgefest.

I know you're right here Frem... making four categories would be as useless a gesture as if there were campaign finance reform and there were only 4 political party contenders as the aftermath. To think that there are 300 Million plus people living here and we only have two legitimate choices is a huge insult to all of us. Reminds me of Patrick Swazeys "Love or Fear" seminars on Donnie Darko. (My favorite movie, BTW). One of my favorite parts was when he told the teacher that it was all bullshit when they were trying to categorize everything as "black or white" via "Love and Fear".

Even in my last post I said that my dad fell into one of the categories, minus some of the traits. I hate public school man. I know that's where we get it from. It promotes cliques, and labeling and stereotyping...

And we take that into adulthood with us and think that we're so educated.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yah, to clarify, what they did there, was take three parenting styles...

And then pushed all three to the furthest even remotely possible negative extreme, and posted them as baseline...

Then took the ONE that they wanted to "Push" and ran it all the way in the opposite direction to the furthest even remotely possible positive extreme, and held it up as a *separate* parenting style, without doing so to the others.

So you have styles 1, 2, 3 on that last, ok?

And they list em as.
+1 (positive)
-1 (negative)
-2 (negative)
-3 (negative)

Without including any positive aspect of 2/3

It's a mindgame, a magicians-force, pretending to offer you a "choice" while actually trying to make it for you.

As I said, Bullshit, is what it is.

I see *right* through games like that, every time, and any discussion of parenting has em, over and over, cause no one wants to accept anything but their own way as valid, no more than religious fanatics do.

Such discussions are generally unproductive and unless I feel there's some good to come of it, I won't participate.
(I'm sure you've noticed my absence in certain topics/threads)

But I wasn't gonna let such an obvious bit of skulduggery (on behalf of those who wrote it, not whomever posted the link, mind you) just fly unchallenged, oh hell no.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 2:57 PM

PIRATEJENNY

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/16/nring1
16.xml

I will say right off, I don't believe in not having sex until marriage. Hell... I'm probably the RWEDer who's the least likely to ever get married. Not that having had sex before marriage has done me a world of good, in the long run, but who's to say that life would be better now had I not? Maybe I would be happily married now at 27 years old, if the only way i could have sex was being married first. Then again, maybe I'd already be divorced and paying child support for three kids I barely ever get to see anymore....

This is all besides the point though. This girl and her friends at a school in the UK has been denied their right to express their religion, by being banned from wearing nothing more than a silver ring at school. A school, I might add, that allows practicioners of other faiths wear their religious garbs every day, even though they are against dress code.

This is the type of attack on Christianity, which is only focused on Christianity, that really gets under my skin. Just another example of how our leaders would love for us to live in a Godless society.

Again, who's to say if we'd be better or worse off in a Goddless society? This is not my call to make. In the mean time, I see no reason why this court case went the way that it did. I hope she appeals and gets a judge with half a brain and a enough respect for the individual to allow them their right to practice their faith in a way they see fit.

As long as she wasn't using the ring as a weapon against non-Christians, or insulting people of other religions in a way which directly involved her wearing the ring, I don't see the problem here. Neither of these were the case, at least they weren't brought up in the article at all....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

This is a good example why all religion she be done away with..religion is bad for the soul

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 30, 2007 5:39 PM