Fish Shall Not Be Eaten

[Galnius]

This is not true. Perhaps when you were a child, you were unable to make your own choices, but most human beings have the ability to make their own opinions and choices, and also whether they wish to believe their parents or not.

Depending on the severity of the punishment regime and the regime of indoctrination, the future adult may be unable to truly make free choices that are completely detached from the unhealthy psychological conditioning he's been subjected to as a child

and its unfair to place a person in that kind of a position, why should parents be allowed to do this to children?

Again utilizing the moralistic fallacy...as you are assuming the world is as it should be. Remember last time I was on a thread when I remarked that you were idealistic? This is why. Also, regardless of the beating and such, one always has free will. Evidence to support this includes....slaves trying to escape, those whom have killed/ran away from abusers, etc. The free will is utilized in the decision made. Also, you never specified the punishment that the child was given. Furthermore, parent should be allowed to do this to children as, at home, that families morals are what is taught as opposed to the morals of the general population, and as long as it isnt something highly illegal, then the government stays out of it. Why? Because governments realize that if they try to push their specific beliefs unto everyone, revolt may occur. They WILL go pretty far with this, but they will not state what morals the child can be taught.

[Infected Mushroom]

Depending on the severity of the punishment regime and the regime of indoctrination, the future adult may be unable to truly make free choices that are completely detached from the unhealthy psychological conditioning he's been subjected to as a child

and its unfair to place a person in that kind of a position, why should parents be allowed to do this to children?

Again utilizing the moralistic fallacy...as you are assuming the world is as it should be. Remember last time I was on a thread when I remarked that you were idealistic? This is why. Also, regardless of the beating and such, one always has free will. Evidence to support this includes....slaves trying to escape, those whom have killed/ran away from abusers, etc. The free will is utilized in the decision made. Also, you never specified the punishment that the child was given. Furthermore, parent should be allowed to do this to children as, at home, that families morals are what is taught as opposed to the morals of the general population, and as long as it isnt something highly illegal, then the government stays out of it. Why? Because governments realize that if they try to push their specific beliefs unto everyone, revolt may occur. They WILL go pretty far with this, but they will not state what morals the child can be taught.

in my view they should in some cases, even if unenforced, at least its a statement against arbitrary and unjustifiable parental control

[Schiltzberg]

What is your response to my previous post?

[Infected Mushroom]

So because a moral code cannot be understood by us, we should simply stand by and say... ''Okay, cool. Parent... your kid. Do whatever you want.''

First of all, you have to be understanding of people with different moral codes, and second, you have to respect the beliefs of people with different religions. Think about it like this. I assume that when you were a kid, you were taught that cannibalism is wrong, when I say this (if not, don't eat me ). So say you move to a place where it is common culture for the citizens to eat their dead after they die. Say that you are a kid and you go to school, and a native kid of this place gives you a femur to gnaw away at, and your parents find out. Since they taught you that cannibalism is not okay, of course they are going to punish you, because eating that meat was against the values they taught you. Is it wrong for them to punish you for this?

it depends on the justification for the punishment

if its only based on religion, then clearly not

[Galnius]

Again utilizing the moralistic fallacy...as you are assuming the world is as it should be. Remember last time I was on a thread when I remarked that you were idealistic? This is why. Also, regardless of the beating and such, one always has free will. Evidence to support this includes....slaves trying to escape, those whom have killed/ran away from abusers, etc. The free will is utilized in the decision made. Also, you never specified the punishment that the child was given. Furthermore, parent should be allowed to do this to children as, at home, that families morals are what is taught as opposed to the morals of the general population, and as long as it isnt something highly illegal, then the government stays out of it. Why? Because governments realize that if they try to push their specific beliefs unto everyone, revolt may occur. They WILL go pretty far with this, but they will not state what morals the child can be taught.

in my view they should in some cases, even if unenforced, at least its a statement against arbitrary and unjustifiable parental control

Sadly, your view is irrelevant to the whole. This, once again, is utilizing an opinion.

[Galnius]

First of all, you have to be understanding of people with different moral codes, and second, you have to respect the beliefs of people with different religions. Think about it like this. I assume that when you were a kid, you were taught that cannibalism is wrong, when I say this (if not, don't eat me ). So say you move to a place where it is common culture for the citizens to eat their dead after they die. Say that you are a kid and you go to school, and a native kid of this place gives you a femur to gnaw away at, and your parents find out. Since they taught you that cannibalism is not okay, of course they are going to punish you, because eating that meat was against the values they taught you. Is it wrong for them to punish you for this?

it depends on the justification for the punishment

if its only based on religion, then clearly not

Religion is, partially, a way of life. It is also highly based upon morals. Now, although thrusting your morals upon someone else IS frowned upon (something you should learn), it is simply not illegal or even NECESSARILY bad, as it still leaves a choice for the person to accept those morals, or reject them. Most of the time, to be truthful, it is rejected.

[Infected Mushroom]

in my view they should in some cases, even if unenforced, at least its a statement against arbitrary and unjustifiable parental control

Sadly, your view is irrelevant to the whole. This, once again, is utilizing an opinion.

and the function of this forum is to discuss opinion so actually, it is relevant

[Infected Mushroom]

it depends on the justification for the punishment

if its only based on religion, then clearly not

Religion is, partially, a way of life. It is also highly based upon morals. Now, although thrusting your morals upon someone else IS frowned upon (something you should learn), it is simply not illegal or even NECESSARILY bad, as it still leaves a choice for the person to accept those morals, or reject them. Most of the time, to be truthful, it is rejected.

children are not often in a position to be able to rationally process religious ideas and be in a position to resist religious indoctrination and unreasonable parental controls

[Galnius]

Religion is, partially, a way of life. It is also highly based upon morals. Now, although thrusting your morals upon someone else IS frowned upon (something you should learn), it is simply not illegal or even NECESSARILY bad, as it still leaves a choice for the person to accept those morals, or reject them. Most of the time, to be truthful, it is rejected.

children are not often in a position to be able to rationally process religious ideas and be in a position to resist religious indoctrination and unreasonable parental controls

Children are ALWAYS in that position. They have brains, intelligence, free will, and emotion. That is all one needs.

[Galnius]

Sadly, your view is irrelevant to the whole. This, once again, is utilizing an opinion.

and the function of this forum is to discuss opinion so actually, it is relevant

It is to discuss opinion, correct, but this thread is clearly one that is attempting to make a conclusion, which makes it as a debate thread, meaning singular opinions are irrelevant.

[Schiltzberg]

This is an interesting topic, but I think that I have made my point known, so I think I will move on. Thanks!

[Infected Mushroom]

and the function of this forum is to discuss opinion so actually, it is relevant

It is to discuss opinion, correct, but this thread is clearly one that is attempting to make a conclusion, which makes it as a debate thread, meaning singular opinions are irrelevant.

singular opinions are always relevant in a forum that is always about discussing opinions

[Infected Mushroom]

This is an interesting topic, but I think that I have made my point known, so I think I will move on. Thanks!

You're welcome. I hope you stop by in a future thread.

[Galnius]

It is to discuss opinion, correct, but this thread is clearly one that is attempting to make a conclusion, which makes it as a debate thread, meaning singular opinions are irrelevant.

singular opinions are always relevant in a forum that is always about discussing opinions

This is not true, and utilizes the composition fallacy. In a opinion thread singular opinions are relevant, and utilize things such as "What do you think"? This SEEMS to be a debate thread, in which singular opinions are NOT relevant to the debate.

[Infected Mushroom]

singular opinions are always relevant in a forum that is always about discussing opinions

This is not true, and utilizes the composition fallacy. In a opinion thread singular opinions are relevant, and utilize things such as "What do you think"? This SEEMS to be a debate thread, in which singular opinions are NOT relevant to the debate.

why are debate threads and ''what do you think'' threads mutually exclusive?

if anything, a debate thread must always fall in as a subset of the broader category of ''what do you think'' threads... and since a singular opinion is important in a ''what do you think'' thread, it would seem to follow that its relevance in debate threads is a natural conclusion

[New confederate ramenia]

No because my religion doesn't forbid fish.

[Galnius]

This is not true, and utilizes the composition fallacy. In a opinion thread singular opinions are relevant, and utilize things such as "What do you think"? This SEEMS to be a debate thread, in which singular opinions are NOT relevant to the debate.

why are debate threads and ''what do you think'' threads mutually exclusive?

if anything, a debate thread must always fall in as a subset of the broader category of ''what do you think'' threads... and since a singular opinion is important in a ''what do you think'' thread, it would seem to follow that its relevance in debate threads is a natural conclusion

A what do you think thread is asking for someones opinion. The way you worded the questions here are asking for a conclusion. That is why they are different. Now, in the search for a conclusion, your singular opinions simply do not matter, and should never be taken into account unless you yourself are trying to discover a conclusion BY yourself, and even then, it is best to utilize outside sources.

[Thalasus]

Does the state (as the entity in charge of what gets served to whom in public school lunches) have the right to force their own worldview on the child and ignore and invalidate the worldview of the parents? I would say no. If the child's parents don't want him to eat fish for a religious reason and the government is trying to ram fish down his/her throat, I will always side with the parents.

[Galnius]

Does the state (as the entity in charge of what gets served to whom in public school lunches) have the right to force their own worldview on the child and ignore and invalidate the worldview of the parents? I would say no. If the child's parents don't want him to eat fish for a religious reason and the government is trying to ram fish down his/her throat, I will always side with the parents.

Yeah...no matter which way you go SOMEONE is forcing their opinions down SOMEONES throat.

[Infected Mushroom]

Does the state (as the entity in charge of what gets served to whom in public school lunches) have the right to force their own worldview on the child and ignore and invalidate the worldview of the parents? I would say no. If the child's parents don't want him to eat fish for a religious reason and the government is trying to ram fish down his/her throat, I will always side with the parents.

the government won't be forcing fish down the child's throat if that is what you are concerned about

that would be assault and battery

[Galnius]

Does the state (as the entity in charge of what gets served to whom in public school lunches) have the right to force their own worldview on the child and ignore and invalidate the worldview of the parents? I would say no. If the child's parents don't want him to eat fish for a religious reason and the government is trying to ram fish down his/her throat, I will always side with the parents.

the government won't be forcing fish down the child's throat if that is what you are concerned about

that would be assault and battery

Thats....thats a figure of speech. When people talk about shoving something down anothers throat, it means forcing their views upon another.

[Infected Mushroom]

the government won't be forcing fish down the child's throat if that is what you are concerned about

that would be assault and battery

Thats....thats a figure of speech. When people talk about shoving something down anothers throat, it means forcing their views upon another.

it isn't the fish that is being shoved down people's throats, it is the rightful idea that you should not prohibit your child from eating fish for reasons that are illogical, arbitrary, oppressive, and religiously-motivated

if he has allergies to fish its one thing, its quite another to simply try and force your religion on people

[Galnius]

Thats....thats a figure of speech. When people talk about shoving something down anothers throat, it means forcing their views upon another.

it isn't the fish that is being shoved down people's throats, it is the rightful idea that you should not prohibit your child from eating fish for reasons that are illogical, arbitrary, oppressive, and religiously-motivated

if he has allergies to fish its one thing, its quite another to simply try and force your religion on people

Its also quite another to force your opinions onto the parent. The moral goes both ways. Is it morally wrong to force your opinions onto another? For some, yes. Here, the parent truly believes that eating fish is bad. It would be, at least for some, morally wrong for the government to say that the parent must not limit what their kids eat, as that is the belief of the government. Morals are opinions.

[Galnius]

Thus, in conclusion, one cannot tell the parent that they cannot do what they believe is best for the child if said action is not illegal (as in, you cant kill your child or give them cocaine)

[The Alexanderians]

the government won't be forcing fish down the child's throat if that is what you are concerned about

that would be assault and battery

Thats....thats a figure of speech. When people talk about shoving something down anothers throat, it means forcing their views upon another.

I.M. has a hard time with metaphors and figures of speech. Literal-ism is strong with them.