Hide Comments Below
  • -3
  • -2
  • -1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • off
  • The top 25 christian reactions to #GODISNOTGREAT



    Comment 0
    Cool
  • vote cool
  • vote uncool
  • Terms of Service Violation
  • strike inappropriate
  • not inappropriate
  • Other
  • sunlight
  • kick from thread
  • get permlink
  • Tagged with : beware the jabberwock , insatiable cock lust , phil quixote , remind them that rabb , santic bitches , threadnaught

    What are tags?
    Comments 801 through 900 of 1816 shown. Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:00:52.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Bullshit. The most I've said in terms of sorry is for you being born in communist Ukraine with the soviet emphasis on stark realism. I certainly have not said anything along the lines that a child is worse off for not having been told about santa.

    And fuck that, I openly defy you to find any post where I claim that a child is disadvantaged by not being told about santa. Go on.


    The sympathy you extended my was not the solitary time that this was expressed in this thread. Paranoyd did it as well. And it was equally annoying and condescending.

    A robust imagination and joyful appreciation of the wonders of the world are possible without telling children untruths. This is my position here.

    And if it is not necessary, my position is that I would not do it. There is collateral fallout from lying. No matter what you want to call it. All things being the same, I revert to my primary point in that the truth is worth it.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:02:25.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: And, just so it's understood, we all recognize people have a right to that as well. But I do think that some people who do NOT agree that this is the right approach, should have a right to that position, too.

    Absolutely. Though I do think that when we knowingly tell falsehoods to children we have to wonder whether it is for their benefit or for our own.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:03:01.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Wait. A preschooler does not properly differentiate between reality and fiction. How is 'truth' of any importance?

    Children age now, right? I will look this up.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:03:48.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Absolutely. Though I do think that when we knowingly tell falsehoods to children we have to wonder whether it is for their benefit or for our own.

    And if it is for our own, for the sake of convenience, fear of violating cultural norms or issues of control, does that make it acceptable?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:05:25.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Children age now, right? I will look this up.

    ok. They still do. For those children that age, I think it makes sense to establish a pattern of truth telling and critical thinking. After all, children do have a memory and the "do not lie" moral abstract may hold more water at age 11 if the content of it were recognized by parents themselves at age 4.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:06:36.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: But I do think that some people who do NOT agree that this is the right approach, should have a right to that position, too.

    You submitted that the existence of santa claus should not be taught because it a falsehood. Further you submitted that in reference to Paranoyds 4 year old child. If you are going to submit that something is wrong, well then, in response, be prepared for people justifying why it is and why your objection is completely nonsensical in light of the preschool childs abilities and cultural norms at large. You are not agonist here, you are very much the antogonist.
    sabine 745 2011-12-21 15:06:54.0 login to vote score 0
    I'm starting to fear that this thread is all that Santa's brought for bN this year.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:07:47.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: There is collateral fallout from lying. No matter what you want to call it. All things being the same, I revert to my primary point in that the truth is worth it.

    what is the collateral fallout from teaching your kid about santa claus without including the disclaimer that none of it is actually true?
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 15:07:54.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: However, that's a bit different from knowing that a story is false and then passing it off to others as being true. That's promoting a lie, whether one has well meaning intentions or not.

    I don't intend to teach my children lying is always wrong.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:08:49.0 login to vote score 1
    burntman: Wait. A preschooler does not properly differentiate between reality and fiction. How is 'truth' of any importance?

    I was reading a study that said 3-6 year olds are capable of understanding fantasy and fact, but are guided in what they believe by what parents say and do.

    So when we show pictures of Santa, leave gifts from him, etc., they are disposed to see the fantasy as a fact.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:11:17.0 login to vote score 2
    so vote republican: I don't intend to teach my children lying is always wrong.

    wait, that must mean you intend to teach your children that lying is always right!


    [takes a deep huff of ether and falls back into stupor]
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:12:27.0 login to vote score 1
    burntman: You submitted that the existence of santa claus should not be taught because it a falsehood. Further you submitted that in reference to Paranoyds 4 year old child. If you are going to submit that something is wrong, well then, in response, be prepared for people justifying why it is and why your objection is completely nonsensical in light of the preschool childs abilities and cultural norms at large. You are not agonist here, you are very much the antogonist.

    I didn't. I have a position. And I have a right to it. I DON'T CARE WHAT PARANOYD DOES. This is so frustrating. He, and you by proxy, have worked your collective asses off to make this about him and his daughter. I don't care if he builds a rocket ship with her and flies directly up Manny Patinkin's hairy ass with her. I am presenting a position. I have a right to my position and i made it pretty damn well. The self righteous victimization on your side is ridiculous. Did I ever feel sorry for her for the way she was raised? No? Did you feel sorry for me? Hell yes. Did Paranoyd feel sorry for Jim's kids? Hell Yes.

    Is there no way to have a conversation here on this without making it personal? All things being the same, I would like to see a good solid reason to lie to a child before I fell in behind this absurd cultural norm of wholesale fraud for what looks like the purpose of control. You have presented NO reason why I should buy that it's legitimate. So I do not.

    Geez. Why can't i just think it's a bad idea? I do. Aren't people allowed to disagree with you?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:14:17.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: what is the collateral fallout from teaching your kid about santa claus without including the disclaimer that none of it is actually true?

    I contend that there is collateral fallout from ALL lies that have to be juxtaposed and mitigated with the reason for lying. In this case, the lie is potentially acting as a method of control, much like the Jesus mythos does.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:15:37.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: 1. It is rare that the Santa mythos extends only up to the age of 4. It is an ongoing untruth that is perpetrated through, literally, hundreds of small lies over the course of years, often extending past 10 years of age, during periods when childhood cognition is fully capable of discerning the difference between fantasy and reality. At the same time this model- control through untruths- does not end at Santa Claus but is represented across a wide range of other lies i take issue to , some I detailed in this thread. The policy and habit of lying children when no good reason exists to do so is something I disagree with.

    2. If i had not been raised without a Santa Claus myth i would possibly agree. I was told that Santa Claus is something that some kids thought was a real person and that it was okay to let them think that. My boyfriends' kids were taught the same.

    Universally it will be easier to lie to children. It will make their lives, possibly, easier, as they do not have to expend the effort thinking at some times, just blindly follow the weight of imaginary authority. It will give parents more control over children. I think that these are bad reasons to engage in a falsehood and would choose, over and over again, not to. Especially when it appears that a subscription to magical thinking may well be a widespread cultural problem that extends long past the toddler years.


    You have presented zero proof that any of this is true as regards a belief in Santa.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:16:27.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: And if it is not necessary, my position is that I would not do it. There is collateral fallout from lying. No matter what you want to call it. All things being the same, I revert to my primary point in that the truth is worth it.

    Again, a four year old child cannot properly differentiate fact from fantasy. Your objection is based on the fact that santa claus is fantastical and not factual. Do you not see why your objection is misplaced?

    pajamas: The sympathy you extended my was not the solitary time that this was expressed in this thread. Paranoyd did it as well.

    Where is any post other than yours referencing mutilatos children? Sorry, but if your going to accuse us of making a personal remark, please fucking substantiate it.

    And yes you did make just such an accusation:

    pajamas: And you did it yourself, feeling sorry for them:

    If you're going to accuse me of shit like that, you either back it up or you can fuck right off.
    brazil 316 2011-12-21 15:18:03.0 login to vote score 1
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:18:12.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: I contend that there is collateral fallout from ALL lies that have to be juxtaposed and mitigated with the reason for lying. In this case, the lie is potentially acting as a method of control, much like the Jesus mythos does.

    That didn't really answer the question. what specifically is the collateral fallout from teaching the story of santa claus without explaining that it is all made up?
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 15:18:51.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: wait, that must mean you intend to teach your children that lying is always right!

    [takes a deep huff of ether and falls back into stupor]


    If they don't NEED to lie to take the candy from the other child, why should they?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:19:15.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: You have presented zero proof that any of this is true as regards a belief in Santa.

    Well, if we go back through the thread there is a checklist that shows the incredible overlap between the Theistic Jesus myth used to control and the Santa Claus myth. We also discuss the fact that lies are perfectly acceptable in the context of an overriding moral reason to lie. (Even avowed Kantians pretty much have to accept that) along with instances where lying is reasonable and understandable. Then you even agreed that, in other cases, these lies could discourage critical thinking and harm them in some way. The masturbation lie. Etc. and on and on.

    What you have is no proof that the Santa Claus Lie is substantively any different than any other lie that is told to children to control them.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:20:33.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: If they don't NEED to lie to take the candy from the other child, why should they?

    trick question: they always need to. and they always will.
    brazil 316 2011-12-21 15:20:38.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: I'm starting to fear that this thread is all that Santa's brought for bN this year.

    I'm still holding out for another Twitch thread. Maybe a hook up with AJT and a weekend where he thinks they're back together before she goes back to the guy across the street for New Years drugs and sex.

    A man can hope.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:21:30.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: I didn't. I have a position. And I have a right to it. I DON'T CARE WHAT PARANOYD DOES. This is so frustrating. He, and you by proxy, have worked your collective asses off to make this about him and his daughter. I don't care if he builds a rocket ship with her and flies directly up Manny Patinkin's hairy ass with her. I am presenting a position. I have a right to my position and i made it pretty damn well. The self righteous victimization on your side is ridiculous. Did I ever feel sorry for her for the way she was raised? No? Did you feel sorry for me? Hell yes. Did Paranoyd feel sorry for Jim's kids? Hell Yes.

    Is there no way to have a conversation here on this without making it personal? All things being the same, I would like to see a good solid reason to lie to a child before I fell in behind this absurd cultural norm of wholesale fraud for what looks like the purpose of control. You have presented NO reason why I should buy that it's legitimate. So I do not.

    Geez. Why can't i just think it's a bad idea? I do. Aren't people allowed to disagree with you?


    Bullshit again. This conversation is about you saying that the existence of santa claus should not be expressed as fact to preschoolers because it is not true.

    The rebuttal to that is that you are applying adult concepts of truth and morality that are simply not applicable to a four year old child.

    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:23:52.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: That didn't really answer the question. what specifically is the collateral fallout from teaching the story of santa claus without explaining that it is all made up?

    1. Adults make a habit of lying to children so as to control them. I presented a couple of instances regarding drug use and masturbation. There are a range of studies that show that young people who have been controlled in this manner tend to reject the "imprinting" once they reach a certain age of cognition and don't have other realities to back them up. "Just say no, abstinence only education, the culture is filled with these. Lying to children is a bad habit, One I wish we , as a culture, would break.

    2. The Santa Myth is a dry run for theism. The correlations are spectacular and for people concerned with the ability of their child to critically assess situation, I would imagine this is important.

    3. Children age. And when they do it is possible that how we behave to them will become their model. This is why "don't smoke (although I do)", "Don't hit your brother (smack)" and "Never lie to me (Be good or Santa won't come)" could potentially backfire as methodologies.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:25:27.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Bullshit again. This conversation is about you saying that the existence of santa claus should not be expressed as fact to preschoolers because it is not true.

    The rebuttal to that is that you are applying adult concepts of truth and morality that are simply not applicable to a four year old child.


    I think that children of any age should not be lied to unless there is some dramatic reason and that there is an age appropriate truth that can communicate what you are saying.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:29:32.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Well, if we go back through the thread there is a checklist that shows the incredible overlap between the Theistic Jesus myth used to control and the Santa Claus myth. We also discuss the fact that lies are perfectly acceptable in the context of an overriding moral reason to lie. (Even avowed Kantians pretty much have to accept that) along with instances where lying is reasonable and understandable. Then you even agreed that, in other cases, these lies could discourage critical thinking and harm them in some way. The masturbation lie. Etc. and on and on.

    What you have is no proof that the Santa Claus Lie is substantively any different than any other lie that is told to children to control them.


    Why should I have to prove that Santa and masturbation are different?

    Beyond that, since you've not proved that a belief in Santa is harmful, I have no need to prove otherwise. You've simply made a spurious claim and stuck with it.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:29:42.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Bullshit again. This conversation is about you saying that the existence of santa claus should not be expressed as fact to preschoolers because it is not true.

    The rebuttal to that is that you are applying adult concepts of truth and morality that are simply not applicable to a four year old child.


    Whether it is bad or good is subjective. Many of us were told that Santa was real when we were kids and weren substantively scarred by it.

    But as an intellectual exploration, particularly when compared to religion, I think that it can be extrapolated to more devious issues.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:30:17.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: Why should I have to prove that Santa and masturbation are different?

    Beyond that, since you've not proved that a belief in Santa is harmful, I have no need to prove otherwise. You've simply made a spurious claim and stuck with it.


    So your position is that lying is bad, except this lie?
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:31:00.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: Why should I have to prove that Santa and masturbation are different?

    Beyond that, since you've not proved that a belief in Santa is harmful, I have no need to prove otherwise. You've simply made a spurious claim and stuck with it.


    Since when did proof make any difference to you?
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:35:38.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: So your position is that lying is bad, except this lie?

    I'm not even sure I've specifcally said that lying is bad. You've even stated some are necessary or good. I'm not quite the absolutist.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:35:50.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: I think that children of any age should not be lied to unless there is some dramatic reason and that there is an age appropriate truth that can communicate what you are saying.

    Yeah, see this: "children of any age"? That is completely ignorant of a childs development and their differing cognitive abilities at different stages in that development. It is grotesquely wrong to submit that a preschooler be subject to your adult normative structures. A child is not an adult. A child cannot think like an adult. You are submitting that interactions with children, regardless of age, be based on adult precepts. It is wrong, and thankfully, largely futile.
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 15:36:20.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: trick question: they always need to. and they always will.

    I'm sorry, but if my child is simply bigger and can take the candy by force, I'm not going to have them be deceptive simply for the sake of it.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:36:49.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Since when did proof make any difference to you?

    And that was a necessary swipe why?
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:37:57.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Yeah, see this: "children of any age"? That is completely ignorant of a childs development and their differing cognitive abilities at different stages in that development. It is grotesquely wrong to submit that a preschooler be subject to your adult normative structures. A child is not an adult. A child cannot think like an adult. You are submitting that interactions with children, regardless of age, be based on adult precepts. It is wrong, and thankfully, largely futile.

    For the sake of discussion, does a chikd's lack of comprehension support the idea of telling them fantasies? It doesn't seem to say anything besides the fact that thy just wouldn't know the difference anyway.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:38:59.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: And that was a necessary swipe why?

    I didn't say it was necessary. But your prior douchebaggery has left you wide open for criticisms like that.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:41:17.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: I didn't say it was necessary. But your prior douchebaggery has left you wide open for criticisms like that.

    Pot, kettle.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:41:21.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Whether it is bad or good is subjective. Many of us were told that Santa was real when we were kids and weren substantively scarred by it.

    But as an intellectual exploration, particularly when compared to religion, I think that it can be extrapolated to more devious issues.


    Santa Claus is taught to preschoolers. Indeed society at large will frown on a 16 year old who still believes in santa. Santa is an authority figure presented to children who are at that stage when the need authority figure. A preschooler has a heteronomous morality, the need constructs like santa claus. Autonomous morality comes in when the child starts being able to properly differentiate between reality and fantasy, that more or less when we ship them to school. Until then you have to use concepts that are accessible to the child. Santa Claus is one such concept
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:43:04.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: Pot, kettle.

    Really? I don't recall making up false claims about things you said and then ignoring your refutations while calling you a liar, fucknuts.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:43:04.0 login to vote score 2
    pajamas: 1. Adults make a habit of lying to children so as to control them. I presented a couple of instances regarding drug use and masturbation. There are a range of studies that show that young people who have been controlled in this manner tend to reject the "imprinting" once they reach a certain age of cognition and don't have other realities to back them up. "Just say no, abstinence only education, the culture is filled with these. Lying to children is a bad habit, One I wish we , as a culture, would break.

    That applies to relevant manipulative ruses, but not necessarily the Santa mythos. It is entirely possible for a parent to deliver the story of santa to their child in a manner that has no aspect of control. And I would venture that the control aspect ingrained into the story (the naughty & nice list) isn't ever applied in reality by the vast majority of parents that teach it (unless you are of the belief that parents actually withhold gifts from young children they've deemed to be "naughty" by some completely arbitrary methodology. I would counter that it is less of a manner of control and more a tool of positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior.


    pajamas: 2. The Santa Myth is a dry run for theism. The correlations are spectacular and for people concerned with the ability of their child to critically assess situation, I would imagine this is important.

    Increasingly less so as time goes on. It is entirely possible to have a completely non-theistic Christmas, hence the whole outrage from theists who feel that the increasing secularism tied to the holiday is somehow "destroying" it.


    pajamas: 3. Children age. And when they do it is possible that how we behave to them will become their model. This is why "don't smoke (although I do)", "Don't hit your brother (smack)" and "Never lie to me (Be good or Santa won't come)" could potentially backfire as methodologies.

    This is probably the strongest argument of the three. But, if we simply teach the story of santa without emphasis or even mention that only "nice" kids receive gifts, then there isn't really much of a chance that they will sense the paradoxical lessons you mention.


    In sum, there is the chance that all of these things could result from this, but certainly far from it being an inevitability and can be averted through fairly minimal due diligence in how the tale is conveyed.

    On another note, out of curiosity are you also averse to teaching children fables (Aesop, etc)?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:44:26.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Yeah, see this: "children of any age"? That is completely ignorant of a childs development and their differing cognitive abilities at different stages in that development. It is grotesquely wrong to submit that a preschooler be subject to your adult normative structures. A child is not an adult. A child cannot think like an adult. You are submitting that interactions with children, regardless of age, be based on adult precepts. It is wrong, and thankfully, largely futile.

    This is annoying. Really. I am not ignorant to the cognitive abilities of children. You know kids grow up, right? It is one of the innate functions of humans. We age. And the Santa mythos is not just something told to 4 year olds. My investigations across parenting sites revealed that from birth to age 9 is about the ordinary subscription to Santa.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:44:30.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Santa Claus is taught to preschoolers. Indeed society at large will frown on a 16 year old who still believes in santa. Santa is an authority figure presented to children who are at that stage when the need authority figure. A preschooler has a heteronomous morality, the need constructs like santa claus. Autonomous morality comes in when the child starts being able to properly differentiate between reality and fantasy, that more or less when we ship them to school. Until then you have to use concepts that are accessible to the child. Santa Claus is one such concept

    I would think that their parents would properly fulfill the role of authority for them.

    Do children without religion or Santa Claus suffer?
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:45:14.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: For the sake of discussion, does a chikd's lack of comprehension support the idea of telling them fantasies? It doesn't seem to say anything besides the fact that thy just wouldn't know the difference anyway.

    I wrote the post above this before I read this, so sorry if I'm repeating myself :)

    The child needs authority figures. Until about 6 the child is wholly incapacitate of deriving morals autonomously, to this end you provide the child with fantastical concepts that are both accessible to them and indeed wondrous cos that's fun. Santa is one such construct.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:45:44.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: I'm sorry, but if my child is simply bigger and can take the candy by force, I'm not going to have them be deceptive simply for the sake of it.

    yeah, but when they are called out for taking it by force, it makes sense to have a convenient lie ready to avoid consequences. For example "I have evidence that he was using that candy to build a gingerbread house of mass destruction".
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:46:17.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Really? I don't recall making up false claims about things you said and then ignoring your refutations while calling you a liar, fucknuts.

    I'd like to say that came out of nowhere, but your ass is an actual place.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:46:29.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: That applies to relevant manipulative ruses, but not necessarily the Santa mythos. It is entirely possible for a parent to deliver the story of santa to their child in a manner that has no aspect of control. And I would venture that the control aspect ingrained into the story (the naughty & nice list) isn't ever applied in reality by the vast majority of parents that teach it (unless you are of the belief that parents actually withhold gifts from young children they've deemed to be "naughty" by some completely arbitrary methodology. I would counter that it is less of a manner of control and more a tool of positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior.




    Increasingly less so as time goes on. It is entirely possible to have a completely non-theistic Christmas, hence the whole outrage from theists who feel that the increasing secularism tied to the holiday is somehow "destroying" it.




    This is probably the strongest argument of the three. But, if we simply teach the story of santa without emphasis or even mention that only "nice" kids receive gifts, then there isn't really much of a chance that they will sense the paradoxical lessons you mention.


    In sum, there is the chance that all of these things could result from this, but certainly far from it being an inevitability and can be averted through fairly minimal due diligence in how the tale is conveyed.

    On another note, out of curiosity are you also averse to teaching children fables (Aesop, etc)?


    Why does this continually have to be said. There really is a difference between teaching something as a story and teaching that it is actually true.

    The santa claus myth is actually hundreds of discrete lies told over years of the parent child relationship, by parents and other family members, cultural connections and schools alike. It's told as a truth. This is different than a story expressed as a story.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:46:43.0 login to vote score 1
    burntman: I wrote the post above this before I read this, so sorry if I'm repeating myself :)

    The child needs authority figures. Until about 6 the child is wholly incapacitate of deriving morals autonomously, to this end you provide the child with fantastical concepts that are both accessible to them and indeed wondrous cos that's fun. Santa is one such construct.


    Sure, but why make up fantastic authority figures which do not actually provide any objective feedback and reinforcement?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:47:13.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: I would think that their parents would properly fulfill the role of authority for them.

    Do children without religion or Santa Claus suffer?


    It seems not.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:47:32.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: I would think that their parents would properly fulfill the role of authority for them.

    Do children without religion or Santa Claus suffer?


    I don't know.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:48:13.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: I'd like to say that came out of nowhere, but your ass is an actual place.

    That exactly what you did, dipshit. You made up a claim, called me a liar over and over again. I told you that you were wrong, and you refused to even try to back up your claim.

    Fuck yourself. You have no integrity whatsoever.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:48:17.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: I'm not even sure I've specifcally said that lying is bad. You've even stated some are necessary or good. I'm not quite the absolutist.

    Yes, they are good when they happen for a reason. I put forward a few. The Ann Frank Lie is a famous example. But the reason is important, right?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:48:34.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: I don't know.

    I see no evidence they do.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:49:13.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: It seems not.

    I don think they suffer either. I think objective reality is more than enough.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:49:26.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Sure, but why make up fantastic authority figures which do not actually provide any objective feedback and reinforcement?

    Objective feedback is lost on a four year old, since they do not have the faculties to be objective. As for reinforcement, well, at the end of the year, gettin presents for being good, is pretty much positive reinforcement.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:50:30.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Objective feedback is lost on a four year old, since they do not have the faculties to be objective. As for reinforcement, well, at the end of the year, gettin presents for being good, is pretty much positive reinforcement.

    Which is why my parents made it clear that they would be more inspired to buy me presents if I could behave. Seemed sensible.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:50:57.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Why does this continually have to be said. There really is a difference between teaching something as a story and teaching that it is actually true.

    The santa claus myth is actually hundreds of discrete lies told over years of the parent child relationship, by parents and other family members, cultural connections and schools alike. It's told as a truth. This is different than a story expressed as a story.


    So it's not one lie, it's hundreds of lies? Wouldn't that make the purveyor of these hundreds of lies a liar? How can you be this disingenuous?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:51:16.0 login to vote score 1
    Also, let's say this. Objective feedback is lost on most four year olds and will progressively become more important and vital as a child ages.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:51:47.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: Objective feedback is lost on a four year old, since they do not have the faculties to be objective. As for reinforcement, well, at the end of the year, gettin presents for being good, is pretty much positive reinforcement.

    Actually, research I've seen has shown that 3-6 year olds are surprisingly adept at picking up on objective feedback. They are not adults in any way, but they have many tools available which help them to understand right from wrong and fantasy from reality.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 15:52:48.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Why does this continually have to be said. There really is a difference between teaching something as a story and teaching that it is actually true.

    The santa claus myth is actually hundreds of discrete lies told over years of the parent child relationship, by parents and other family members, cultural connections and schools alike. It's told as a truth. This is different than a story expressed as a story.


    It can be, but not necessarily. My parents never to my knowledge actually stated that everything they told me was the gods honest truth. however at a young age a child simply doesn't have the ability to discern reality from fiction and essentially believes it by default. Once the child is old enough to figure out that it is fictional, they will. I didn't need to be told it wasn't real, I just figured it out. Lots of people do. In other words, there's no reason it *can't* be told as a story (and I would imagine it often is).
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:52:53.0 login to vote score 1
    paranoyd: So it's not one lie, it's hundreds of lies? Wouldn't that make the purveyor of these hundreds of lies a liar? How can you be this disingenuous?

    God, I fucking hate this. I wish you would go back and read. No one called you a liar. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT LIARS.

    This is meant to be a discussion in a reasoned space. There is a connotation to the word "liar" that is not applicable. That is why I didn't invoke it.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:53:56.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: It can be, but not necessarily. My parents never to my knowledge actually stated that everything they told me was the gods honest truth. however at a young age a child simply doesn't have the ability to discern reality from fiction and essentially believes it by default. Once the child is old enough to figure out that it is fictional, they will. I didn't need to be told it wasn't real, I just figured it out. Lots of people do. In other words, there's no reason it *can't* be told as a story (and I would imagine it often is).

    It seems to be the cultural norm here to create elaborate fictions to support the "truth" of Santa Claus. I've seen quite a few occasions of this.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:54:07.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Also, let's say this. Objective feedback is lost on most four year olds and will progressively become more important and vital as a child ages.

    True. I don't mean to portray very young children as being fully developed, but it's important to note that as they develop, they learn based on previous experiences. If those experiences are lies and falsehoods, there could be negative unanticipated outcomes.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:54:08.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Yes, they are good when they happen for a reason. I put forward a few. The Ann Frank Lie is a famous example. But the reason is important, right?

    Of course. But none of my reasons are good enough for you. You're entrenched in your belief the same way, I guess, that I am.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 15:55:41.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: I don think they suffer either. I think objective reality is more than enough.

    The child is going to construct a fantastical world anyway. Providing characters such as santa claus, and the boogey man and the implicit moral teachings that come with that is a way to teach the child basic moral concepts in a manner accessible to them. You can try explain the categorical imperative to a four year old. It's not going to do much. Santa Claus and the idea that good deeds get presents, bad deeds get coal, well, that they get.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:55:45.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: Of course. But none of my reasons are good enough for you. You're entrenched in your belief the same way, I guess, that I am.

    It seems that none of your reasons showcase a need. There is no need to present Santa Claus as real to a child, is there?
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:56:52.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: It seems that none of your reasons showcase a need. There is no need to present Santa Claus as real to a child, is there?

    Not for the child. But for the adult, I'd say yes.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:57:41.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: The child is going to construct a fantastical world anyway. Providing characters such as santa claus, and the boogey man and the implicit moral teachings that come with that is a way to teach the child basic moral concepts in a manner accessible to them. You can try explain the categorical imperative to a four year old. It's not going to do much. Santa Claus and the idea that good deeds get presents, bad deeds get coal, well, that they get.

    It would be great if there were SOMETHING somewhere between the Kantian Deontological model of the categorical imperative and a pervasive elaborate perpetuation of hundreds of lies reinforcing an imaginary moral gatekeeper from age 1 to 9 years old. But oh well.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 15:58:16.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Not for the child. But for the adult, I'd say yes.

    Exactly.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 15:58:41.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: The child is going to construct a fantastical world anyway. Providing characters such as santa claus, and the boogey man and the implicit moral teachings that come with that is a way to teach the child basic moral concepts in a manner accessible to them. You can try explain the categorical imperative to a four year old. It's not going to do much. Santa Claus and the idea that good deeds get presents, bad deeds get coal, well, that they get.

    What of poor children who get no presents. Ecsuse their parents can't afford it? I think that there is potential trouble that "Santa doesn't love me".
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 15:59:29.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: God, I fucking hate this. I wish you would go back and read. No one called you a liar. THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. AND IT'S NOT ABOUT LIARS.

    This is meant to be a discussion in a reasoned space. There is a connotation to the word "liar" that is not applicable. That is why I didn't invoke it.


    I'm not making it about me. I'm trying to understand how there's a difference between a liar, who we all agree routinely tells lies, and a parent that tells hundreds of lies to support a belief in Santa.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 16:00:50.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: I'm not making it about me. I'm trying to understand how there's a difference between a liar, who we all agree routinely tells lies, and a parent that tells hundreds of lies to support a belief in Santa.

    Well, when you make up shit about another and repeat it over and over again while refusing to support it, then you're probably liar.

    Aka, you.
    sockpuppet 2985 2011-12-21 16:00:52.0 login to vote score 0
    After reading this thread, I am heading to Toys R Us and screaming Obama killed Santa Claus.
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 16:00:59.0 login to vote score 2
    untrustworthy: True. I don't mean to portray very young children as being fully developed, but it's important to note that as they develop, they learn based on previous experiences. If those experiences are lies and falsehoods, there could be negative unanticipated outcomes.

    I see it this way... if my kids grow up and decide that my telling them Santa was real until 1st or 2nd grade was the worst thing I did to them, then, well, fuck...


    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:01:38.0 login to vote score 0
    paranoyd: I'm not making it about me. I'm trying to understand how there's a difference between a liar, who we all agree routinely tells lies, and a parent that tells hundreds of lies to support a belief in Santa.

    There is an emotional connotation to the word liar that gives it an added weight. It does NOT include the idea that a lie may be harmless or innocuous. It is an accusatory term no one here used but you.
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 16:01:50.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: What of poor children who get no presents. Ecsuse their parents can't afford it? I think that there is potential trouble that "Santa doesn't love me".

    No one said the story was required. Just that it was available. If you can't afford Santa presents, you're probably not going to go with the story either.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 16:02:35.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: It seems to be the cultural norm here to create elaborate fictions to support the "truth" of Santa Claus. I've seen quite a few occasions of this.

    well yeah. principle tenet of story-telling, acting and advertising: the better you can sell it, the better it sticks. If harry potter (which for the record also has clear theistic undertones) wasn't written so elaborately, it would make it less believable and people wouldn't be interested in seeing new installments year after year. So why did they? Because they could suspend their disbelief. Clearly it's easier to do this with children than adults, but sooner or later it becomes evident that it's fiction (unless you are like SVR's sister and go overboard doing everything in your power to postpone that inevitability).
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 16:03:02.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: It seems that none of your reasons showcase a need. There is no need to present Santa Claus as real to a child, is there?

    In your opinion. In mine, there is. It's fun, she enjoys it, and yes, I get something out of it, too. It's Santa. I don't need huge philosophical reasons, just small fun ones.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 16:03:12.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: I see it this way... if my kids grow up and decide that my telling them Santa was real until 1st or 2nd grade was the worst thing I did to them, then, well, fuck...

    Pretty much.

    But then extrapolate that to religion. Most kids don't stop believing in it when they get to the first grade, yet there's about the same level of evidence to support the stories.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:03:54.0 login to vote score 1
    Maybe I should make up a new myth about a fantasy character that doesn't promote materialism in the way he manages the morality of children and accounts for the gifts of spirit and good will. His elves don't make presents. They make long evenings in the embrace of the people you love. But out of wood, maybe.
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 16:04:03.0 login to vote score 1
    willywanka: (unless you are like SVR's sister and go overboard doing everything in your power to postpone that inevitability).

    She had issues with not having a childhood herself.

    It's odd I turned out so well in comparison.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 16:04:32.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: No one said the story was required. Just that it was available. If you can't afford Santa presents, you're probably not going to go with the story either.

    An, but it still happens.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:04:56.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Pretty much.

    But then extrapolate that to religion. Most kids don't stop believing in it when they get to the first grade, yet there's about the same level of evidence to support the stories.


    And the overlap between the two whimsical methods of moral management is intense.
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 16:05:01.0 login to vote score 0
    untrustworthy: Pretty much.

    But then extrapolate that to religion. Most kids don't stop believing in it when they get to the first grade, yet there's about the same level of evidence to support the stories.


    I'm specifically teaching the kids that religion isn't real (or that different people believe significantly different things).
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 16:05:04.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Well, when you make up shit about another and repeat it over and over again while refusing to support it, then you're probably liar.

    Aka, you.


    You need help.

    sabine 745 2011-12-21 16:05:17.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Most kids don't stop believing in it when they get to the first grade, yet there's about the same level of evidence to support the stories.

    I don't think most parents make their kids dress up and go listen about Santa weekly, or bow their heads before eating and thank Santa for the food they are about to eat, or kneel and pray to Santa before bed.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 16:05:29.0 login to vote score 1
    untrustworthy: Actually, research I've seen has shown that 3-6 year olds are surprisingly adept at picking up on objective feedback. They are not adults in any way, but they have many tools available which help them to understand right from wrong and fantasy from reality.

    If you could find any such research, I would be most interested in reading it. It would pretty much undermine Piaget description of the preoperative stage, and by extension most of what is commonly understood regarding developmental psychology.
    paranoyd 6555 2011-12-21 16:06:22.0 login to vote score 0
    so vote republican: I'm specifically teaching the kids that religion isn't real (or that different people believe significantly different things).

    As am I.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 16:06:56.0 login to vote score 1
    so vote republican: She had issues with not having a childhood herself.

    It's odd I turned out so well in comparison.


    [awkwardly glancing at shoes]...yeah...I've been meaning to talk to you about that...


    i keed i keed. and sorry to hear about that with your sister. so it's an overcompensation issue?
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:07:43.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: I don't think most parents make their kids dress up and go listen about Santa weekly, or bow their heads before eating and thank Santa for the food they are about to eat, or kneel and pray to Santa before bed.

    There are overwhelming similarities between the two. Kids may not pray but they write letters. They may not thank santa for food but they consider what he wants. They may not get dressed up and go to church to see him, but the mall is just down the block from there.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 16:07:57.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: It would be great if there were SOMETHING somewhere between the Kantian Deontological model of the categorical imperative and a pervasive elaborate perpetuation of hundreds of lies reinforcing an imaginary moral gatekeeper from age 1 to 9 years old. But oh well.

    It's 2 to 6 years, and you can have whatever model you want. The simple fact is the child will not be able to understand it. A child is a child, a child is not a small adult.
    sabine 745 2011-12-21 16:08:40.0 login to vote score 1
    pajamas: There are overwhelming similarities between the two.

    I think there are about seven orders of magnitude difference in terms of conditioning.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:09:11.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: It's 2 to 6 years, and you can have whatever model you want. The simple fact is the child will not be able to understand it. A child is a child, a child is not a small adult.

    Honestly, the Santa myth is pervasive after the age of 6 and There are age appropriate truths.

    we will, I suppose, have to disagree.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:10:17.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: I think there are about seven orders of magnitude difference in terms of conditioning.

    The case can be made easily that Santa Claus is a dry run for theism. I can tell you that many of the parents whose posts I read online use both of these characters for the same purpose of control.
    so vote republican 6688 2011-12-21 16:11:18.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: [awkwardly glancing at shoes]...yeah...I've been meaning to talk to you about that...

    i keed i keed. and sorry to hear about that with your sister. so it's an overcompensation issue?


    That's my guess. She's not a bad person by any stretch, but there does seem to be an over-attention to maintaining an idealized family and record in her adulthood.

    As I said, the kids are turning out fine so far, so I believe they'll live through it.

    Probably because they have me as an awesome uncle.
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 16:12:01.0 login to vote score 2
    pajamas: Honestly, the Santa myth is pervasive after the age of 6 and There are age appropriate truths

    How can there be age-appropriate truths for an age that cannot discern truth?

    sabine 745 2011-12-21 16:12:09.0 login to vote score 3
    pajamas: The case can be made easily that Santa Claus is a dry run for theism.

    I'll give you "can be used as", but not "is". As I mentioned last night, Santa is huge in Japan where 90% of the population has nothing to do with monotheism.
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:13:57.0 login to vote score 0
    burntman: How can there be age-appropriate truths for an age that cannot discern truth?

    I wish we could say things like "in an age range where, toward the beginning, they cannot discern truth"

    It might help you understand part of my point better.
    willywanka 274 2011-12-21 16:15:51.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: I'll give you "can be used as", but not "is". As I mentioned last night, Santa is huge in Japan where 90% of the population has nothing to do with monotheism.

    santa as a marketable brand or as an actual story told to japanese kids by their parents? (or both?)
    pajamas 7950 2011-12-21 16:18:35.0 login to vote score 0
    sabine: I'll give you "can be used as", but not "is". As I mentioned last night, Santa is huge in Japan where 90% of the population has nothing to do with monotheism.

    This is a much longer conversation and would include the Shinto commitment to magical thinking as well.
    untrustworthy 1 2011-12-21 16:20:10.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: Maybe I should make up a new myth about a fantasy character that doesn't promote materialism in the way he manages the morality of children and accounts for the gifts of spirit and good will. His elves don't make presents. They make long evenings in the embrace of the people you love. But out of wood, maybe.

    I have a feeling that if scientologists created their own Christmas tradition and myth, people would be up in arms about how they were hurting their kids.
    sabine 745 2011-12-21 16:20:18.0 login to vote score 0
    willywanka: santa as a marketable brand or as an actual story told to japanese kids by their parents? (or both?)

    I'd say both. Kids write letters to him, and there's a "Captain Santa" clothing line that is pretty popular (and a bit surreal).
    burntman 1528 2011-12-21 16:21:19.0 login to vote score 0
    pajamas: I wish we could say things like "in an age range where, toward the beginning, they cannot discern truth"

    It might help you understand part of my point better.


    Well you can say just that. That statement is pretty central to developmental psychology as a whole. Specifically to answer you the age range where they learn to discern truth is 6/7, and it carries on from there. Again, that is not a novel concept, I don't think anyone has really contested that assertion.
    Comments 801 through 900 of 1816 shown. Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    If you logged in, you could post here.