Religion and children.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"I have no trouble calling this institutionalized child abuse:"

[floppit]

I did this to death on RDF, had I not I might have engaged more here. I'd sum up my thinking rather more simply, I don't think that RD's sociology matches his science in terms of evidence base or reasoning.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I don't think that sociology matches science in terms of evidence base or reasoning.

It's not an RD thing at all. Just the folly of calling something as vague and nebulous as human behaviour and interraction an -ology.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think that sociology matches science in terms of evidence base or reasoning.

It's not an RD thing at all. Just the folly of calling something as vague and nebulous as human behaviour and interraction an -ology.

Psychology is an art, not a science.

[Beelzebub2]

"I have no trouble calling this institutionalized child abuse:"

I'm not sure how's it in the west, but here corporal punishment is still one of the major means of raising children, and usually the more religious people are, the more heavily beaten their children are as well. I'm lucky to be small, and my mother is even smaller though significantly larger than me, so I would get punched in the face (especially if i would god forbid laugh at lunch time! ) or something similar that is more humiliating than it physically hurt, but many of my female friends would get really beaten up by their fathers, sometimes even using vacuum cleaner especially if they weren't archetypal "good girls". Needless to say that those very fathers would go to every Sunday mass.

[floppit]

I think corporal punishment is wrong - but that would need a thread in itself.

For now let's say that all study of human behaviour is an art, (animal behaviour study no doubt can remain scientific). But for the sake of argument let's say that complexity of human behaviour means that, whilst observable and even often measurable, it is beyond our means to be use scientific method when considering it or it's meaning. In which case perhaps we should rely on reason? Or perhaps just rant whatever tickles our fancy? Certainly it would suggest that stating anything about human behaviour as factual would be difficult.

So, RD's work (his socioart) is artistic and therefore needs no evidence?

[Trolldor]

Sociology is never a science. It relies on unreliable and constantly fluctuating data.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sociology is never a science. It relies on unreliable and constantly fluctuating data.

But it can be bound by The Science Game, if the practitioners want to be honest. We just don't know enough to get a good grip on the data yet, and may never know enough for that matter. Still, if we try to keep it in the framework of science it will, IMHO, do less damage than if we allow it to descend into chaos. (I had this argument with Eugene Jackson at Purdue one time. )

[Trolldor]

I should amend "is not a reliable science"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I should amend "is not a reliable science"

"is not yet a reliable science".

[Feck]

Not allowed by Law to hit children , up here .(I don't think you are allowed to lock them in the cellar and not feed them either)Teaching children by hurting them is probably as counterproductive as training any animal by pain and fear .

Churches have done work on instilling fear (and sometimes real Hurt) It does not surprise me to find religeous parents using the same techniques.


Ps Please remember to include economics in those areas of study that cannot be considered Scientific ( or even Reliable)

[Trolldor]

I've no problem with someone giving their kid a good smack, but I have a problem when they do it more than once, when they do it too frequently, and when the force is disproportinate to the act.
I saw a kid get the shit kicked out of him because he almost killed his sister by unlocking the breaks on her pram while the mother was loading the groceries. I reckon he deserved it.

[GenesForLife]

Every time I was hit, I hit back...

[floppit]

Baa - the kid you saw get the shit kicked out of him may have behaved like that BECAUSE he gets the shit kicked out of him. I'm all for discipline, I'm one hell of a strict parent, if I say no and it isn't heard then I will make it clear by removing either the child or the temptation but no will mean no. If Munchkin hits - and she's 19 mths, it happens, but it loses her her freedom, she must sit by me and any access to the toy or cause of hitting is lost. Nowhere in this do I withdraw love - it's not about me being angry it's about clear boundaries that are non negotiable. My point being that a consequence should have meaning in the real world, in the child's real world and smacking doesn't cut the mustard, it is just hitting, it carries nothing more than an example of violence and pain.

My kid learned to use a fork without any practice, I bought her her first metal fork and she used it to prong food straight away - funny thing is, that's what she sees Mummy and Daddy do everyday. It made me very glad she isn't seeing us hit her.

It may be that more religious people hit children, hitting kids is wrong but it doesn't make religion child abuse any more than a parent drinking alcohol is child abuse despite drunkeness also being a major cause of assault, one can lead to the other and one can be seen as more prevalent where the other takes place but that is not the same as being one in the same thing. It all depends on how extreme people get, which I think also depends on their own initial outlook, neediness, selfishness, and self control.