12 Replies to “The Enslavement and Imprisonment of Western Children”
Beyond stating the obvious that too many people waste resources getting useless degrees, that was a lame post. It might have been much better if either (1) the author had any experience raising his own children and (2) the author had taken some humanities courses to develop beyond sophomoric hermeneutics. The reality is that parents make tremendous sacrifices for the welfare of their children out of genuine love and charity. I have seen parents rationalize their inability to provide more for their kids, but rarely worse. A more cogent analysis might have considered how they are misled into less effective parenting strategies and lack critical thinking skills to see through social institutions that cause the effects the author laments. Perhaps parents should take a course in Foucault (although I prefer Nietzsche for insight into critical thinking). In any event, to suggest parents enslave or use their children is clumsy and unobservant of the great majority.
Right out of the ball park Captain! Your observations are accurate and illuminating. I, like you, am sorry for the poor little souls that live in bubble wrap and are ignored as useful, productive, positive members of families. I perceive them being treated more like pet miniature Poodles than slaves (since children are being taught no useful skills at home or in school) but I share your empathy for small humans.
The reality is that having children has, for thousands of years of human history, been entirely about ensuring someone to provide for you in old age and infirmity (with a healthy dose of selfish gene evolutionary psych).
Gosh. Methinks I suffer a lot less anguish for having children, than poor Ol’ Cappy does for not having any!
Now maybe it’s just because folks that I know and hang around with aren’t in the “designer parents” crowd, but is it really that bad out there, Cappy? I mean, maybe my wife and I are getting the wool pulled over eyes, but I believe (hope?) our kids still love us and I don’t think that there’s a lot of simmering resentment over Sunday School and Church Parade.
Matter of fact, I think 3 out of four fall into the common-sense/small ‘c’ crowd…and the other one will eventually get there when her make-believe government job disappears because her baby-boomer parents stop contributing to the slush fund.
Now maybe we’re just the lucky ones. And if that’s the case, then I feel truly liberated and terribly grateful!
If he is so confident and secure in his decision not to have kids why write all the rationalization? Further, if he is childless and happy, so be, good for him. Why does he feel it necessary to slag parenthood. He can hardly have seen an urgent public need to fire out such a thin critique of religious upbringing, parental motivation and child rearing in general. I think that he is trying to convince himself more than anyone else. Having read a bit of his book I fell happier knowing he isnt having kids. He has nothing to teach anyone about responsibility or common sense for that matter.
I usually appreciate the Captain’s insights, but a conservatism without God is just as irrational as liberalism with or without God, and just as ugly.
Scott, John S, thank you.
If one has made his bed, one must lie in it and not insist other follow suit, regardless of his cynical views of parenthood.
The reality is that having children has, for thousands of years of human history, been entirely about ensuring someone to provide for you in old age and infirmity (with a healthy dose of selfish gene evolutionary psych).
Posted by: Daniel Ream on May 15, 2013 4:29 PM
—————————————————————
Nonsense. That’s just a side benefit. The reality is that having children has, for thousands of years of human history, been a side effect of sex for pleasure.
Well just imagine if you could tender a compelling argument for liberty, freedom, and individualism without using religion or god as a crutch.
Heh, self righteous atheism (a paradox in itself). And, yes, proselytizing. Of course there is little truth to it; just a glaring lack of perspective accompanied with particularist views and an elitist attitude. “Insofar as religious institutions and openly religious
worlds have moved to the periphery of culture and society in
modernity, academic institutions have been thrust into a truly new
role, a priestly role of sanctioning our society…”
(Journal of the American Academy of Religion LXII/4 p.1014)
Indeed… Wait, there’s more.. “No doubt nihilism can be a banal nihilism, as it is in our mass culture and society, but no less so when it assumes a sophistical veil, as it does in our academic societies, societies which are perfecting the arts of a seemingly benigh[sic]nihilism.”
(The misspell here is pure Freud, a lie so grand they choked on it.)
The apostles of Nietzsche so badly want to be the priest they can barely hide their jealous contempt. Godless monsters like these prevailed to create Nazi Germany and are at the forefront of the progressive movement today. And you embrace this. How sad for you, how sad for us it is to endure your sanctimony here. You strike out like a child because you live a barren existence and it’s giving you angst. You are the slave.
Confined, restless, and bored you take your mental emetic and sit at your keypad. Out it all comes. A catharsis of contradiction and prescription cemented with precious few facts. Well, enough! High Windows or High Flight
See the difference a little faith can make?
Although I think the Captain was off-base on child-rearing, I’ll defend him on the atheism. As Frans de Waal demonstrates in his new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, religious doctrine and beliefs are simply not required for morality and moral behaviour. Indeed, in my experience it is folly to trust anyone who is moral because of religious doctrine and not because their feelings are anchored in biology. If you want to assess if someone is trustworthy, read their eyes not their lips. Belief in gods is as superfluous as belief in Santa Claus. Sure, our family plays the Santa Claus game at Christmas, but our kids figured out before they were six it was a game–you pretend to “believe in” Santa Claus to make the ritual more fun. Thus they learned a life lesson. If anyone asks you whether you “believe in” something, what they are implicitly saying is that it is not really true–“do you play the game?” is what they really mean. No one asks if I “believe in” the sun for a reason–it is true there is a sun.
So much for the fine old tradition of minding one’s own damned business.
Beyond stating the obvious that too many people waste resources getting useless degrees, that was a lame post. It might have been much better if either (1) the author had any experience raising his own children and (2) the author had taken some humanities courses to develop beyond sophomoric hermeneutics. The reality is that parents make tremendous sacrifices for the welfare of their children out of genuine love and charity. I have seen parents rationalize their inability to provide more for their kids, but rarely worse. A more cogent analysis might have considered how they are misled into less effective parenting strategies and lack critical thinking skills to see through social institutions that cause the effects the author laments. Perhaps parents should take a course in Foucault (although I prefer Nietzsche for insight into critical thinking). In any event, to suggest parents enslave or use their children is clumsy and unobservant of the great majority.
Right out of the ball park Captain! Your observations are accurate and illuminating. I, like you, am sorry for the poor little souls that live in bubble wrap and are ignored as useful, productive, positive members of families. I perceive them being treated more like pet miniature Poodles than slaves (since children are being taught no useful skills at home or in school) but I share your empathy for small humans.
The reality is that having children has, for thousands of years of human history, been entirely about ensuring someone to provide for you in old age and infirmity (with a healthy dose of selfish gene evolutionary psych).
Gosh. Methinks I suffer a lot less anguish for having children, than poor Ol’ Cappy does for not having any!
Now maybe it’s just because folks that I know and hang around with aren’t in the “designer parents” crowd, but is it really that bad out there, Cappy? I mean, maybe my wife and I are getting the wool pulled over eyes, but I believe (hope?) our kids still love us and I don’t think that there’s a lot of simmering resentment over Sunday School and Church Parade.
Matter of fact, I think 3 out of four fall into the common-sense/small ‘c’ crowd…and the other one will eventually get there when her make-believe government job disappears because her baby-boomer parents stop contributing to the slush fund.
Now maybe we’re just the lucky ones. And if that’s the case, then I feel truly liberated and terribly grateful!
If he is so confident and secure in his decision not to have kids why write all the rationalization? Further, if he is childless and happy, so be, good for him. Why does he feel it necessary to slag parenthood. He can hardly have seen an urgent public need to fire out such a thin critique of religious upbringing, parental motivation and child rearing in general. I think that he is trying to convince himself more than anyone else. Having read a bit of his book I fell happier knowing he isnt having kids. He has nothing to teach anyone about responsibility or common sense for that matter.
I usually appreciate the Captain’s insights, but a conservatism without God is just as irrational as liberalism with or without God, and just as ugly.
Scott, John S, thank you.
If one has made his bed, one must lie in it and not insist other follow suit, regardless of his cynical views of parenthood.
The reality is that having children has, for thousands of years of human history, been entirely about ensuring someone to provide for you in old age and infirmity (with a healthy dose of selfish gene evolutionary psych).
Posted by: Daniel Ream on May 15, 2013 4:29 PM
—————————————————————
Nonsense. That’s just a side benefit. The reality is that having children has, for thousands of years of human history, been a side effect of sex for pleasure.
Well just imagine if you could tender a compelling argument for liberty, freedom, and individualism without using religion or god as a crutch.
Heh, self righteous atheism (a paradox in itself). And, yes, proselytizing. Of course there is little truth to it; just a glaring lack of perspective accompanied with particularist views and an elitist attitude.
“Insofar as religious institutions and openly religious
worlds have moved to the periphery of culture and society in
modernity, academic institutions have been thrust into a truly new
role, a priestly role of sanctioning our society…”
(Journal of the American Academy of Religion LXII/4 p.1014)
Indeed… Wait, there’s more..
“No doubt nihilism can be a banal nihilism, as it is in our mass culture and society, but no less so when it assumes a sophistical veil, as it does in our academic societies, societies which are perfecting the arts of a seemingly benigh[sic]nihilism.”
(The misspell here is pure Freud, a lie so grand they choked on it.)
The apostles of Nietzsche so badly want to be the priest they can barely hide their jealous contempt. Godless monsters like these prevailed to create Nazi Germany and are at the forefront of the progressive movement today. And you embrace this. How sad for you, how sad for us it is to endure your sanctimony here. You strike out like a child because you live a barren existence and it’s giving you angst. You are the slave.
Confined, restless, and bored you take your mental emetic and sit at your keypad. Out it all comes. A catharsis of contradiction and prescription cemented with precious few facts. Well, enough!
High Windows or High Flight
See the difference a little faith can make?
Although I think the Captain was off-base on child-rearing, I’ll defend him on the atheism. As Frans de Waal demonstrates in his new book, The Bonobo and the Atheist, religious doctrine and beliefs are simply not required for morality and moral behaviour. Indeed, in my experience it is folly to trust anyone who is moral because of religious doctrine and not because their feelings are anchored in biology. If you want to assess if someone is trustworthy, read their eyes not their lips. Belief in gods is as superfluous as belief in Santa Claus. Sure, our family plays the Santa Claus game at Christmas, but our kids figured out before they were six it was a game–you pretend to “believe in” Santa Claus to make the ritual more fun. Thus they learned a life lesson. If anyone asks you whether you “believe in” something, what they are implicitly saying is that it is not really true–“do you play the game?” is what they really mean. No one asks if I “believe in” the sun for a reason–it is true there is a sun.
So much for the fine old tradition of minding one’s own damned business.