"The techniques of brainwashing developed in totalitarian countries are routinely used in psychological conditioning programs imposed on American school children.

These include emotional shock and desensitization, psychological isolation from sources of support, stripping away defenses, manipulative cross-examination of the individual’s underlying moral values, and inducing acceptance of alternative values by psychological rather than rational means.

These techniques are not confined to separate courses or programs...(and) are not isolated idiosyncrasies of particular teachers. They are products of numerous books and other ‘educational’ material in programs packaged by organizations that sell such curricula to administrators and teach the techniques to teachers. Some packages even include instructions on how to deal with parents or others who object...Stripping away psychological defenses can be done through assignments to keep diaries to be discussed in the group and through role-playing assignments, both techniques used in the original brainwashing programs in China under Mao."

--Dr. Thomas Sowell, economist and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution; 1993 Forbes Magazine article titled, "Indoctrinating the Children".

^if the accepted moral values of your school's institution differed from yours, you would not want them teaching your children something different than what you want for them.

Whether you like it or not, neither you or I have the right to tell someone else how to raise their kids.

Unfortunately for this family, they are a bit backward... so?

Ok our society is changing, and they are going to have to decide what to do about it. Culture will decide eventually on this issue and the consequences will be accepted... There will be a day when it homosexuality is accepted as normal.

In the meantime, teaching your children at home that homosexuality is wrong is not considered child abuse. They have the right to indoctrinate their children with whatever religious beliefs they wish.

You would not want something forced on your child an idea you disagree with.

^jonny

1. You are correct that this is another debate. My only intention was to discuss this in humans as I am talking about economics. Robots might very well be able to interact with human beings--but if they could, I argue, you would have to call them "alive."

2. What is your definition of a "right" ? You are free to define it in any way you want--words are just labels. I made my argument by assuming the meaning of words--all of which I defined. As defined, my argument is irrefutable, and will continue to be so until someone explicitly refutes it. Challenging my definitions of "right" or "morality" is not valid because I explicitly defined each in the proof. You are using your definitions to try to apply to my logic and that is not possible.

3. Forget self-determination, it means the same thing as the right to life. It is not a precondition. Read the proof again--I show explicitly how I arrive from this:
"This right, the freedom to engage in self-sustained, self-generated action, exists only for individuals in a social context--and is what I term "the right to life.""
to this:
"for every individual, "the right to life" specifies the freedom to think and act, to pursue one's own ends through voluntary, uncoerced action."

All I am doing is substituting words which have identical meaning. The first concept is more abstract so I am merely putting it into common language.

Anyone (or thing) can be coerced into all sorts of actions by others in its social group without impairing its ability to sustain its life.
This is false--I just disproved it above. Again you are confusing "convince" with "coerce". Coercion and compulsion cannot be executed without physical force. That is--physical force on you or someone else.

4. You are severely mixed up. Steve is not threatening anyone. If he was, why would he give them any water, why wouldn't he just take the sun hat? He is exercising his right to own property...nobody is entitled to his water if he doesn't want to trade it. These ideas are radical, I understand that. You are twisting up what steve "should do" and what steve "has the right to do". Yes, if steve is a decent human being who doesn't want to see 5 people die in the desert he should share his water. That is another question altogether. Steve has no obligation to share it, if he chooses not to. He violates nobody's rights by going off to himself in a corner, and drinking the whole jug. How could he if he owns the jug of water?

In effect, you are saying that steve has the obligation to sustain everyone else. This is a serious statement and you need to prove it.

Your sense of "what someone should do" is severely clouding your ability to digest this information--and I understand why. This idea seems to flies in the face of probably everything you've ever heard--just as it did me when I first heard it. However, what someone "should do" and what someone has the "right to do" are two independent things. What someone "should do" is defined by culture, what someone "has the right to do" arises from the fact that they are a living being with the right to life--as I demonstrated above.

Societal values are different than moral values. Morality, here, is the binary label on whether you violate another's rights. If you violate another's rights, you are acting immorally. If you do not, you are acting morally. Thus, steve can choose not to share his water, and be acting "morally" (as defined above)--although upon returning will probably be regarded as a pretty wicked individual (by cultural or societal standards). Societal values change in time which is why they should never be used as a moral guide. If we did, we would think slavery was "moral" 300 years ago just because society did not condemn it. It is important to distinguish between the two because both play important roles.

Without the "right to life" society is not possible, all you would have would be a mass of violence and meaningful interaction would be few and far between. Societal values are also important as they help hold a society together. The reason this probably seems foreign as our current philosophy emphasis societal values but says little to nothing of actual human rights. It tries to muddle the two together and that is just false--its what the bible does, its what the bill of rights does, it whats the UN's "human declaration of human rights" does. None of these mention anything about "the right to life" except perhaps in "the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness" but even here it is not emphasized. I have shown above that human beings have certain inalienable rights (right to life, right to property), that humans must adhere to through all time, and in all countries, societies, cultures, and geographical regions.

Does that help any?

Overall, do you think my proof is valid?

>> ^imstellar28:
^NetRunner
I never said that in order to be open-minded you have to change your opinions. I'm just saying that most American's have the exact ideas that their parents/culture instilled in them. Changing parties says nothing about changing opinions--as you said--the parties have shifted their opinions, which is why people switched parties.

I watched the beginning of this again, and I think we're mistaking what he said for openmindedness and closemindedness. He introduced it as "openness to experience", craving novelty and variety. We don't have some strong resistance to going to see a play -- even one titled the Vagina Monologues.

Social conservatives...would be apprehensive, to say the least.

He later refers to them as open and closed minds, which is probably the source of confusion.

Still...I have yet to see any liberals in this thread--despite responding to my comments--give even a single political issue they have changed their mind on. and when I say issue...I don't mean the iraq war..I mean a fundamental issue...like war in general as opposed to the iraq war.
I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions, but its a really high chance that whatever beliefs you formed growing up...are the exact same beliefs you have today.
I don't deny he is a fast talking speaker with a slick presentation...it does sound good, but his ideas are just rubbish.

I'm not really understanding your point -- if you don't have to change your opinion to be open-minded, how is the fact that no one here is saying "I used to love war, then I decided maybe it's not so great" even relevant?

The video pretty much says that people are affected by their environment with regard to the accentuation of these moral values, so you're agreeing with several of the tenets of the theory...how is his idea rubbish?

nope nothing to do with mom and pop at all, because anyone who studies hard and gets top grades and is in peak physical shape and whose parents can get a US Senator or US Congressman to write a letter of recommendation for them... oops.

i went to HS with a guy who got into West Point because mom and dad had the wealth and social and political influence (state republican committee chair) to pull it off, it sure wasn't becasue of his stellar academics or high moral values. Dunno if he ever graduated, he was such a doper.

The sons and daughters of Joe 6-Pack need not apply.

There are more people running around now with no morals, values or ethics and little understanding of basic human nature and history.

I know. And yet, people still brought back the Bush administration in 2004. It boggles the mind, really.

[...] you've been programmed by a lying, deeply-in-denial left-wing media circus as well as a government "education" that celebrates the collective over the individual. I'm not blinded by hatred of Bush so I can reasonably explain where he is lacking.

I haven't been programmed by anything or anybody, and I resent you for even bringing that up. You're a button pusher, and nothing more.

I hate Bush for what he's done to the Middle East, to the world's view of us, and to our domestic programs. That information doesn't come from a left-wing conspiracy. I saw him land on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, donning a flight suit he hasn't worn since the 70s, and stating "Mission Accomplished." I see that after 5 years of bloodshed, Iraq is nowhere near the point of standing up so we can stand down. I talk to my friends, one of whom is missing an eye because Bush sent him to Iraq to fight people who were not a threat to us. And all this while the Taliban is reconstituted in Waziristan. I don't need a left-wing conspiracy to understand the mentality of our Dictator, because it's right in front of me every day. And it's not on the nightly news; it's in the talks I have with staunch Republicans who despise Bush for sending them to Iraq four of five times. It's also with the Republicans who lambaste Bush for spending like he's a Democrat with a trust fund. So don't tell me I've been programmed, just because you think everything you disagree with is a conspiracy.

You mention the Congress holds the real power, and I agree with you, to an extent. They do hold the purse strings. And I hate them for every time they've bowed like a guilty dog when Bush smacks their nose and demands money for his wars. But the fact is, no matter how much I hate Congress for funding the wars, I hate Bush even more for STARTING THEM! Congress wouldn't need to debate a war spending bill if Bush wasn't so thick-headed and gung-ho about destroying the Middle East. Place the blame where it belongs, but place it in the amount that it is necessary.

If any group was enslaved as children and brought up to obey their
masters, it's Christian Neo-Conservative "Moral Majority" Republicans.

There are more people running around now with no morals, values or ethics and little understanding of basic human nature and history. These weasels and wastrels with the entitlement mentality far outnumber members of the so-called Religious Right. What is a "neo-conservative", really? A left-wing hippie who for some reason is strong on national defense. They deserve a better, more precise name.

Especially anybody who would vote for Bush, and still hold him in high regard after seven years of disgraceful pandering to corporate interests. I would never accuse any follower of the Bush doctrine of having good taste.

Consider the idea that you've been programmed by a lying, deeply-in-denial left-wing media circus as well as a government "education" that celebrates the collective over the individual. I'm not blinded by hatred of Bush so I can reasonably explain where he is lacking.

Olbermann's job is to parrot what his stable of "comedy" writers makes up every day. Like Al Franken, he somehow eats mediocre yet craps the occasional gold coin. I suspect many on the left are embarrassed by him, just like they are of Franken.

What is the point of even mentioning the Congressional rating? You may as well say, "Bush may have a poor approval rating, but so did King Louis the XVI." Declaring the shit of another leader smelly doesn't make Bush's shit smell any better.

Congress is the real power, as they hold the purse strings. The joke is on the idiot "protest voter" conservatives who put the Donkey in the driver's seat 2 years ago. Now we all must sip a mug of Fail, waiting for the chance to clean house again via elections.

eriously this is very irresponsible reporting, I mean:

"A program based on quote 'Christian Character, morals, values, and integrity'"

Those were all taken out of context...

The site really reads: "Teaching your children to adopt a 'Christian character', don't expect them to learn morals. The staff 'values' sex over an enrollment fee. A place where money or sex gets you farther than 'integrity'"

So really, we can see that this lady should've known what to expect from this school, the information is right there for the public to read...

I agree wholeheartedly, but when you're a politician looking for bipartisan support and attempting to appeal to a widely polarised population, this is the only plausible course of action you can propose. The older people get, the more dead set they are in their ways and their supposed moral values, it takes time to usher in progressive ideas even when it comes down to basic equality.

Perhaps America is just not ready for gay marriage?

Sorry couldn't help myself

Wow, this is something I don't often see here. I hate to see people going after each other. This is one of the best sites I've visited with respect to, well, respect.

Not that anyone listens to me, but I'd just like to make the observation that people here are by and large pretty damn good about discussing issues and differences of opinion and perspective without getting personal and I've really appreciated that. I would hope that we could kick back into that gear here. End of point.

As far as this video is concerned, I'm not too big a fan of pitting animals of any kind against each other for the mere amusement of humans - it just seems cruel and completely unnecessary. Not that I didn't engage in a number of acts of cruelty as a kid (still waiting for the serial killer urge to kick in...)

Having said that, it does strike as a bit of hyperbole to get up in arms over what is shown here. I just can't really take the "you either respect life - all of it - or you don't" seriously. Seems to me there is a moral gradation that we apply with repect to other beings, that is, the more complex, the more moral "value" we assign to them. After all, bacteria are of the animal kingdom, but I hardly think anyone is going to object to a video depicting two of them duking it out... And yes, TO THE DEATH!!!

I think the problem most people have with being an atheist is that they feel like being able to answer to a higher power keeps them stable and rooted to moral values in a way that they wouldn't be if they couldn't lean on some higher authority figure. With that they feel like they have motivation to do the "right thing". The "right thing" for must modern people that ponder these questions is being altruistic (putting others before themselves).

Modern monotheistic religions are all at their core altruistic and when people see the fruits of this altruism they are comforted in knowing that their god is good so in the end hopefully good things will come to them. Historically religions have not necessarily been altruistic and many non-major religions and cults are narcissistic in nature.

I'm not sure why so many people incorrectly try and say that atheism is a religion. Atheism is a belief that is grounded in the facts that are available to modern society. If a person honestly sticks to the facts of modern science I think atheism is a very reasonable conclusion to make.

Of course being human isn't always about the facts. It is about subtleties and feelings and while there might always be a great explanation the ingrained "feelings" that people have are more often than not stronger than their learned logic. Likewise it is the imagination of the human species that not only keeps it moving forward, but sometimes holds us back from finding the real truths of the universe.

One last note on bashing the leaders of religions, I have never seen or heard of a case where a person in a position of great power was not corrupted by their position. The old adage "absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to be wisdom for the ages. Just because the leaders of large religions are corrupted does not for me symbolize the goodness or evilness of the religion. Powerful positions not only turn good people bad, they also draw bad people to them, whether it is a government position, religious leadership position, or scientific organization executives all are bent to satisfying their own needs and skewed outlook on reality.

Sorry for the length.

Ok, I hate double posting, but after re-reading nedtheundead's post, I can't not respond.

@nedtheundead:

1. Please space out posts, I almost died reading that.

2. I'm not sure you understand the atheist world view. To put it simply, there isn't one, because you can't really coordinate the lack of something. Thus, atheists must construct moral values on their own. One simply has to hope that killing someone with an axe is not found by others to be morally right.

3. Perhaps you've never taken a psychology course. The human mind is regularly and carefully studied by scientists throughout the world. These are not 'assumptions', but rather they are scientific discoveries.

4. You find it incredible that Dawkins cannot understand that atheism is unprovable. I find it incredible that you would jump to this conclusion, without considering that you may simply not understand why it may be provable. Think about it this way: Even if you believe in a God, you must realize that that makes you atheist to every other God (Zeus, FSM, etc.). Simply understand that atheists are atheist about your God for similar reasons that you are atheist about others.

5. You claim that science is not a tool of reason or logic. I simply claim, "WTF!?" If you understand anything about the scientific method, then you will realize that you are very, very wrong. I can not even begin to fathom how you would arrive at the conclusion that science does not employ reason or logic. I cannot fathom, also, how you state that science makes models and predictions about the world, without employing the use of logic and reason! How, exactly, do you think scientific research is conducted? Guesswork?

And finally, your final quotation that absolutely stuns me.

"what each person believes is really real is merely a leap of faith."

So, does this imply that if I tell you a container is filled with pure oxygen gas, rather than verify it, you'd rather 'take a leap of faith'? I have difficulty believing these words from someone who also stated:

"what matters is what is true."

Yes religion of any kind requieres blindness to logic. So soon or later it is bound to fall apart. Whether it is reincarnation, souls or whatever. However if people insist in souls this is how I would define them.

But before I do that I will actually go step beyound this gentelman and said that a humans by themselves are soless creatures. The so call soul is made by life experiences. The end result is that you have a soul with many dimentions to them. Whether a soul is great or not is base on summing all the dimensions where those dimensions could have positive or negative weights to them. The value of those weights is what is call moral values define diferently by diferent people.

I will considore a new born child to have little or not soul. But he/she has great potencial to have a great soul. A fly has also a little soul but it is physically incapable to have a great soul. At the end only great souls are worth remembering. For instance people who kill other people for fun may have complex souls but not great.

This is how religion should think of souls rather than little angels flapping their winds.

That doesn't sound right to me either. Which passages are you thinking of?

1 John 4:18 - There is no fear in love.

As far as other passages telling you to love God or fear God, well, those are basically everywhere.

Be careful there. It is not a rule book. That was one of the problems with Judaism, and I think is also a problem with Islam. And it is a problem in alot of Christian's minds. They were/are buried in legalities and rules.

The reason I said this is because I believe that atheists are generally good people. Yes, some of them may be bastards to religious people, but ultimately I don't think they mean anymore harm than a fundamental Christians who is equally biased against atheists. And they do it all without help of the Bible. I get frustrated when there are so many Christians who believe that you HAVE to have the Bible to lead a good life, yet atheists and even Buddhist monks do it on a daily basis. Really, the Buddhists have it better than any other religion, and they haven't "discovered" Jesus, like so many assert is necessary for moral values.

I suppose that may be the biggest reason I gradually became agnostic, because I was raised Catholic. After being told to deny God is blasphemy and a mortal sin, I began to wonder about Hindus, Buddhists, people living in Africa who have never heard the word of Christianity, ect. Would God send them to hell? Well, by the church's definition, yes. And when I pose this question, I always get the definitive "I don't know." Sorry, but that's not good enough for me. And I know you'll probably say something like, "God has the answer" or "It's His choice," but if He made me with this quizical nature, then I'm curious as to why He wouldn't want me to use it. For that reason, I reject the definition of God set by Christianity and substitute my own. In the end, however, I choose to remain indifferent about it, and just try to live as best as I can.

Instead, it's like this:

Take a sheet of music. Play it with perfect timing the way it is written, "by the rules." It sounds like ass.

Take the same sheet of music and play what the sheet music "means". You can have a truly beautiful performance.

I think Jesus was big on not being so focused on the rules, but rather the spirit of what the rules meant. I think that was one of the most important things he had to say.

Try again, because that didn't make any sense. Music sounds perfect when you play it perfectly. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to write it down.

Also, (and this is really nit-picking so I apologize), but you stated in the comments that it would be possible to survive without gravity. No, it wouldn't. The earth wouldn't have formed if it wasn't for gravity. And just think for a moment on how well you would do if suddenly you woke up and you were floating up to outer space.

Like the bolsheviks, you libs live in a parallel universe, opposite reality.

It's somewhat forgivable if you're under 25 with a skull full of mush: you've been lied to your whole lives and robbed of an education in American history and moral values of any sort.

You just make yourselves miserable, ending up pessimistic and hating your own country.

That's no way to live. What will you do when Bush is out of office? Who will you complain about then?