Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Not by definition, but by the ambiguity of using a loaded word without clarification.
Christ mung but you’re a fucking asshole.
Psychological Abuse of a Child
I’ll concede that “abuse” is a very loaded word. Patrick is clear he is referring to an abuse of trust and not physical or sexual abuse.
Child abuse or child maltreatment is physical, sexual, or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver. It may include any act or failure to act by a parent or other caregiver that results in actual or potential harm to a child, and can occur in a child’s home, or in the organizations, schools or communities the child interacts with.
Then in the interest of fairness he or anyone should be clear of what the nature of the abuse is each time he mentions it
Patrick’s still riding the “but my insult is based on facts” defense. And that’s totally irrelevant. Accusing another member of child abuse is an attack on the person. Ideas don’t commit child abuse and ideas are not the abusers of children.
This is confusing. If the accused person is in fact abusing a child, and someone points it out, and by doing so is attacking the abuser, and attacks are not permitted, then child abuse IS permitted. You can’t have it both ways.
People who possess certain ideas do commit child abuse, by pointing out that a person holds those ideas of such as entitlement is attacking the idea.
I’ll just add my own two cents.
The readers mostly understand that Patrick is talking about teaching religion. I personally don’t call that “child abuse”. But then, I am not anti-theist.
On the other hand, I do wish Patrick would stop. Using that expression at this site is not particularly useful, and creates an unnecessary distraction.
newton,
Fair point.
That is evidently true.
Make the case that what Sal has admitted to doing is not child abuse, then, rather than just assuming the fainting couch position.
I am saying that the behavior that Sal Cordova has admitted to constitutes child abuse. That is a statement about the behavior, not the person directly. I would hope that he would think about his actions and stop behaving that way.
It’s not simply teaching religion, Neil. Please read the links I provided upthread. Sal Cordova is deliberately using strawman arguments and demonstrably false statements in an attempt to indoctrinate children so that they are unable to learn science later in life. He goes far beyond simple Sunday school nonsense.
Patrick seems to be using the term “child abuse” in the vein that Dawkins used it for religious indoctrination of children. As such, it really shouldn’t be difficult to figure out what he’s claiming, nor do I think it is.
One could always say that the meaning of “child abuse” doesn’t include religious indoctrination, but the whole point of Dawkins use of the term, and probably Patrick’s (at least at Sal’s level), is that it does amount to abuse in fact. So then, presumably, what could and likely should happen is that those who disagree with Dawkins and/or Patrick should argue that it does not it does constitute child abuse.
I mean, such usage is supposed to be pushing the definition beyond what’s generally understood. I tend to disagree with Dawkins on this point (and some other points, too), especially with respect to parents teaching their own children religion. With Sal I think one could make a better case, because Sal clearly is not honest about these matters (seemingly not even to get the point of intellectual honesty, and prone to making shit up any time it pleases him to do so even where it’s pretty clear that he’s lying), he’s out to make a buck by doing so, and he’s learned the rhetoric of ID in order to rubbish science and good epistemics, selling his bullshit as if it were some grand scientific revolution.
I don’t think I’d call it child abuse if pushed to do so, but surely one could argue that it is. I think that those who strongly dislike Patrick’s use of the term ought to argue it out, rather than to simply claim that it is wrong–based on definitions or some such thing.
Glen Davidson
Patrick,
Is it ok for me to accuse a person of child abuse that is teaching the evolution fairy tale to kids? i.e. they are the product of blind unguided processes.
Is it ok for you to lie like that?
Apparently it is for your religious sensibilities.
Glen Davidson
IMO, something similar could be said about libertarians.
Not exactly. While I see Dawkins’ point, I don’t know that I’d use the term for the usual religious upbringing of the mainstream churches.
In this case, Sal is going well past that line into outright indoctrination using demonstrably dishonest tactics.
I’ll try to continue to keep it clear.
I have invited Mung several times to engage in that discussion. If I am convinced that what Sal has admitted to doing is not child abuse, I will apologize.
Thanks. I’d be interested in hearing why it doesn’t meet what you consider the criteria for child abuse.
If they are doing so by knowingly using strawman arguments and false claims with the goal of subverting critical thinking in the future, then yes. I don’t think you can make that case.
I find it easier to regard Sal as the product of child abuse, rather than as a profoundly dishonest person by rational adult choice. If he can’t help himself, and is victimizing children into the same helplessness, perhaps this is not quite as serious as poisoning minds out of sheer evil perversity. Though the results are the same.
If you have anything better than non-sequiturs with regard to my characterization of Sal’s behavior, I’ll be happy to read it.
Um, is Patrick writing libertarian “textbooks” for hapless children?
I’m not really sure how libertarianism would keep anyone from learning science, or anything else, except that just about anything can become “ultimate truth” for some people.
Glen Davidson
You may be right, but Sal really responds badly to that suggestion. I tried it in Noyau once.
That’s a difficulty for me. It’s possible for someone to be honestly convinced about some fact and be wrong. Sal may genuinely believe the material he is/is intending to teach to kids is factual. I’d certainly not let him loose near any child of mine but other parents have the right to choose differently.
touche’
It’s hard to believe that he cares, in fact. He puts Pascal’s Wager at the basis of his “worldview.” Which may be arguable (I think it falls to shreds when fully considered, but I suspect many don’t think that far) as religion, and absolutely sucks if you want to do science. That’s one reason why we have “methodological naturalism,” so that people can do whatever they want religiously while compartmentalizing it with respect to science. Sal won’t do it, preferring the thought that he might gloat over burning atheists in some glorious future.
So he may not be lying as such, but he’s hardly begun to deal with any of these matters with deliberate honesty. He doesn’t want to.
Glen Davidson
What an exercise in missing the point. Assume all posters here took on your attitude Patrick, because that’s what you’re inviting.
You could accuse Sal of pedophilia, assuming you thought you had a factual basis for the accusation, then you could demand that we argue over the definition of pedophilia, and claim that if someone disagrees with you it is their burden to show you wrong.
Lizzie Wept.
And I am saying we could all comment on the behavior of other members and hope that they stop behaving that way. But it is persons who behave (or not), not ideas. Behaviors are not ideas.
Attack the idea of child abuse all you like. Avoid claiming that Salvador is behaving like a child abuser. It’s a really simple distinction to draw and one that is called for here at TSZ.
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.
If anyone has ever led a child to believe any of them ever performed any action in the world, then that person is a child abuser.
It’s the entire point. What Sal has admitted to doing is not illegal. The only way to convince him to stop is to point out just how appalling his behavior is. Taking advantage of a child’s trust in adults in order to indoctrinate with clearly fallacious arguments and claims is abuse. I’m calling him on it because he is harming children and should stop.
What do you suggest one do when one sees abuse being committed?
That’s not analogous. We have the evidence of Sal’s own comments describing exactly how he is attempting to indoctrinate children. It’s abusive on its face.
I disagree. Your approach implicitly sanctions abusive behavior. I’m not going to fail to point out child abuse when it is admitted just because doing so offends your delicate sensibilities.
Do you believe that what Sal has admitted to is acceptable behavior?
Could you imagine the hit that atheism would take if child abuse came to a halt? Who would want to be an atheist then?
I don’t find it relevant to whether or not your accusations that Salvador is a child abuser violate the rules.
Oh good. Now you’re going to argue that child abuse is not illegal. But whether something is legal or illegal is still irrelevant.
There are all sorts of things that are not illegal. It’s not illegal to be mentally ill or demented. But it is against the rules to imply that other members are mentally ill or demented.
Right Patrick?
So you think it’s more important to follow the blog rules than to address admitted child abuse?
I don’t think you do. If you thought that someone here, particularly someone on the reality-based side, had admitted to something immoral by your standards, you’d harp on it incessantly.
What you are encouraging is the sanction of child abuse. I’m not going to join you in that.
No, I suggested that you contact the authorities. In fact, I think it would be the moral and responsible thing to do. I think that’s the proper way to address allegation of child abuse. I also proposed a new rule according to which child abusers would be banned. How are you coming along with getting that rule implemented?
So here you are again, illogical, irrational, proposing a false dichotomy.
Oh, and I also think that trying to “out” Salvador for child abuse on a blog is a cowardly and reprehensible idea.
Liar. You’re a great advert for moderation here at TSZ Patrick. Keep it up. 🙂
So when I encourage you to go to the authorities, that’s because I sanction child abuse.
And when I propose a rule to ban child abusers, that’s because I sanction child abuse.
Try harder Patrick. You might be able to look even more the fool.
I demand a jury of my peers (YECs and other Christians) to judge whether me teaching kids about Jesus and creation constitutes child abuse. Patrick is in no position to absolutely judge whether Jesus existed and whether Jesus is who he said he was. Only God ultimately knows that.
Therefore, if Patrick cannot unequivocally prove Jesus is not who He said He was, He cannot prove teaching kids about Him is child abuse. In fact, if the Christian God is real, teaching the kids atheism is child abuse.
I did not admit to child abuse, I admitted to child care in teaching them what I believed to be the truth.
I will say that under oath in a court of law in the USA with my hand on the Bible from which I taught the kids from and the Bible several Presidents of the USA put their hands on when they took the oath of office, so help me God!
You’re indoctrinating them, teaching them lies, killing their ability to think critically, and making money out of it. It’s disgusting. You’re a con artist at best
So Patrick lied. Such an example for us all.
He’s teaching them. Like Patrick indoctrinates his children. Like all children need to be indoctrinated. Like dazz was indoctrinated, and yet didn’t turn out all that badly.
[ETA: ok, that last might have gone a bit further than the evidence warrants.]
You and Patrick are so full of shit. What does that phrase even mean, “killing their ability to think critically.” Do you still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy? How about you, Patrick?
Who the hell here at TSZ was raised by parents who killed their ability to think critically? What utter nonsense.
That’s because I realized it was bullshit and I quit. My parents didn’t like it when I refused to go to church anymore at age 14 but then again they’re not fucking fundies
I rest my case. No hope for you Mungy
Consider your decision in light of the fact that your ability to to think critically was killed off. Your decision must have been based on something other than critical thinking.
The effects linger …
Not curious what Sal did admit to which caused Patrick to liken his actions to child abuse?
Hey Mung: you’re not a YEC, you don’t agree with him, therefore you agree Sal is teaching those kids lies. Presumably you think the Earth is old based on evidence, but somehow you don’t think teaching kids to ignore the evidence in favor of religious presuppositions counts as indoctrination.
Your dissonance is at display. Selective critical thinking
It wasn’t.
No, when you ignore the fact that what Sal is doing is immoral but not illegal and suggest going to the authorities you are attempting to distract from the core issue of what he has admitted doing.
You don’t like me calling him out on his abusive behavior. Why is that? Do you not think it is abusive? If so, make your case that it isn’t. Do you recognize that it’s abusive but still don’t want him called out on it? If so, why?
The only point you’ve made so far is that you don’t like one of your coreligionists having his abusive behavior noted. Too bad.