Labelling children and the campaign not to.

[floppit]

I am frankly bewildered that you seem to advocate that atheists should not try to put their point across to children, leaving the field totally to the religious.

So I take it you missed all the bits where I said critical thinking should be taught to every child? See, that's MY point, to develop reasoning, that reasoning excludes faith is merely a side effect.

And for the record I didn't suggest anyone was trying to close schools it was just an example of something that would be dumb.

If you bring up children as atheists will they grow into teenagers that sneak around giving each other side- hugs and quoting from the bible to upset their parents?

If you bring them up with solid reasoning I suspect the odds of this go down, if alternatively there's some other point to atheism, one that does not include reason I reckon it's as likely they'd rebel against that point as any other.

And yep - side hugs are scary!!

[Clinton Huxley]

If you bring up children as atheists will they grow into teenagers that sneak around giving each other side- hugs and quoting from the bible to upset their parents?

And loiter outside the Xtian bookshop, being all meek and stuff. Doesn't bear thinking about.

[Clinton Huxley]

I am frankly bewildered that you seem to advocate that atheists should not try to put their point across to children, leaving the field totally to the religious.

So I take it you missed all the bits where I said critical thinking should be taught to every child? See, that's MY point, to develop reasoning, that reasoning excludes faith is merely a side effect.

I'm in favour of critical thinking and anti-labelling. I don't see them as exclusive.

If society encourages labelling or merely allows labelling to go unchallenged then it has failed the child, IMO. Labelling corrals children and acts to limit their options.

[floppit]

*IF* it were plausible to remove the labels I would agree, but as yet you haven't followed through with any possible means by which that can be achieved, and I have asked repeatedly. Perhaps if we change what is possible what is impossible now will become plausible in the future.

[Clinton Huxley]

*IF* it were plausible to remove the labels I would agree, but as yet you haven't followed through with any possible means by which that can be achieved, and I have asked repeatedly. Perhaps if we change what is possible what is impossible now will become plausible in the future.

I think you are missing the point of the exercise here. As Charlou and I have both said, its a consciousness-raising exercise. It will make people think about what they are doing. It's not intended to become a law or something. You aren't going to have labelling police carting away parents or teachers in the dead of night. It's. Merely. For. Awareness.

Seems to have worked,too, as you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about it.

[floppit]

I think you are missing the point of the exercise here. As Charlou and I have both said, its a consciousness-raising exercise. It will make people think about what they are doing. It's not intended to become a law or something. You aren't going to have labelling police carting away parents or teachers in the dead of night. It's. Merely. For. Awareness.

Seems to have worked,too, as you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about it.

Nope - that just leads us back to whether it's a circular (or spiral?) argument. Raise consciousness about emissions and people may drive less (plausible outcome), might accept state intervention (plausible outcome), might even buy products that have travelled less (plausible outcome). But there's still no plausible outcome for this campaign, no likely result even IF the consciousness has been raised. If getting in the media is all that counts why not just climb a telegraph pole nude and shout - it would work.

And as for my posting meaning it has worked - ok, but then you would have to accept that a tiny minority of posters have joined the thread so wouldn't that mean the opposite? Or is it that you only attend to what supports an a priori end point? Added to that is the reality that this post arose from my seeing another post here about the ad campaign using children who's family labels them as christian - so perhaps posting does raise awareness, hence my post!

[Clinton Huxley]

I think you are missing the point of the exercise here. As Charlou and I have both said, its a consciousness-raising exercise. It will make people think about what they are doing. It's not intended to become a law or something. You aren't going to have labelling police carting away parents or teachers in the dead of night. It's. Merely. For. Awareness.

Seems to have worked,too, as you clearly have a bee in your bonnet about it.

Nope - that just leads us back to whether it's a circular (or spiral?) argument. Raise consciousness about emissions and people may drive less (plausible outcome), might accept state intervention (plausible outcome), might even buy products that have travelled less (plausible outcome). But there's still no plausible outcome for this campaign, no likely result even IF the consciousness has been raised. If getting in the media is all that counts why not just climb a telegraph pole nude and shout - it would work.

Just because you cannot imagine a plausible outcome for the campaign doesn't mean one doesn't exist. People are talking about the campaign and some will alter their behaviour because of it. You can claim it won't, I can claim it will.

And as for my posting meaning it has worked - ok, but then you would have to accept that a tiny minority of posters have joined the thread so wouldn't that mean the opposite?

We had 7 pages of posts about pizza toppings and 2 about the latest results from the Rosetta space probe. This is Ratz.

[devogue]

[We had 7 pages of posts about pizza toppings and 2 about the latest results from the Rosetta space probe. This is Ratz.

I managed to use the term pachyderm spunk today. That's good, I think.

[Clinton Huxley]

[We had 7 pages of posts about pizza toppings and 2 about the latest results from the Rosetta space probe. This is Ratz.

I managed to use the term pachyderm spunk today. That's good, I think.

You've certainly raised my consiousness re elephantine gametes

[floppit]

Just because you cannot imagine a plausible outcome for the campaign doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

No, but if when I ask anyone else if they can imagine an outcome the stumptness is universal it might be fair to say that while it could exist no-one here knows what it is or was meant to be - yet you think it's still possible to evaluate success?

People are talking about the campaign and some will alter their behaviour because of it. You can claim it won't, I can claim it will.

But you can't even imagine HOW they will alter their behaviour, what behaviour will alter or what difference that might make. Also you misrepresent me as I didn't suggest it would have no outcome rather that it would make atheists look a bit like tits - the Times article would certainly suggest there's some evidence for that.

So what evidence is there of any positive changes?

We had 7 pages of posts about pizza toppings and 2 about the latest results from the Rosetta space probe. This is Ratz.

Ummmmm... so let me get this right - someone posts about the topic so it shows the campaign succeeded, someone doesn't and it's because anyone posts about anything here? You don't possibly suspect you may have a little double standard going there? One which would support what you already believe?

[Clinton Huxley]

Just because you cannot imagine a plausible outcome for the campaign doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

No, but if when I ask anyone else if they can imagine an outcome the stumptness is universal it might be fair to say that while it could exist no-one here knows what it is or was meant to be - yet you think it's still possible to evaluate success?

Firstly, you seem to want some other measure of success other than what is expected. The raising of an issue in the public mind IS a success in itself. Secondly, you seem qualified to call the campaign a failure based solely on your adverse opinion of it.

But you can't even imagine HOW they will alter their behaviour, what behaviour will alter or what difference that might make. Also you misrepresent me as I didn't suggest it would have no outcome rather that it would make atheists look a bit like tits - the Times article would certainly suggest there's some evidence for that.
So what evidence is there of any positive changes?

"It will make atheists look a bit like tits" is just your opinion, you are welcome to it. I'd take anything I read in the Times with a pinch of salt, BTW. As to what difference it might make, de-labelling might make officialdom more likely to investigate things like the disappearance of "muslim" girls from schools, as detailed in this article. At the moment, it seems, this is not investigated too closely in the interests of "race relations".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 19082.html

Ummmmm... so let me get this right - someone posts about the topic so it shows the campaign succeeded, someone doesn't and it's because anyone posts about anything here? You don't possibly suspect you may have a little double standard going there? One which would support what you already believe?

I'm saying the campaign succeeded with you...

[floppit]

Firstly, you seem to want some other measure of success other than what is expected. The raising of an issue in the public mind IS a success in itself. Secondly, you seem qualified to call the campaign a failure based solely on your adverse opinion of it.

Ok - fair enough - I should have added the word 'risks', I cannot call it a certain failure and will fully accept that point, however, while I certainly take the Times with a pinch of salt - it is actually there and by your own standards all media is good media.

As to what difference it might make, de-labelling might make officialdom more likely to investigate things like the disappearance of "muslim" girls from schools, as detailed in this article. At the moment, it seems, this is not investigated too closely in the interests of "race relations".

Therefore you'd presumably argue that labelling re race is valid and the campaign has drawn an important distinction? Actually, I don't see how an ad campaign re children being unable to choose is more effective than the many campaigns re not abducting kids! It's a pure and blatant straw man to provide evidence for child abduction as my argument in no way rests on it not existing and yours in no way rests on it being the case. But I guess there's was a gaping hole and a linky plugged it.

I'm saying the campaign succeeded with you...

Eh? I already knew about children abducted for marriage, I already believe fervently that it's despotic, I'm also aware that while the world turns inside out to find a missing middle class kid, hundreds of kids in care go missing year after year with NO media attention, less than the abducted child brides get by a long way. I write regularly to the Children's Commissioner, I've never had a response but I write and rewrite - next it will be my MP, I ask why the 7 outcomes for adults includes being treated with dignity and respect where as the 5 outcomes for children doesn't. If the campaign was meant to make someone switch actions - I have not. What I do campaign over is unchanged by two happy looking kids and an utterly implausible suggestion, a song to the choir.

[Clinton Huxley]

Therefore you'd presumably argue that labelling re race is valid and the campaign has drawn an important distinction? Actually, I don't see how an ad campaign re children being unable to choose is more effective than the many campaigns re not abducting kids! It's a pure and blatant straw man to provide evidence for child abduction as my argument in no way rests on it not existing and yours in no way rests on it being the case. But I guess there's was a gaping hole and a linky plugged it.

I would argue that the tacit acceptance of labelling contributes to this kind of thing happening in the the first place. That was the purpose of the link. I would argue there was far more straw in your rebuttal than my presenting of it.

Eh? I already knew about children abducted for marriage, I already believe fervently that it's despotic

Did I anywhere suggest you were a fan of it?

, I'm also aware that while the world turns inside out to find a missing middle class kid, hundreds of kids in care go missing year after year with NO media attention, less than the abducted child brides get by a long way. I write regularly to the Children's Commissioner, I've never had a response but I write and rewrite - next it will be my MP, I ask why the 7 outcomes for adults includes being treated with dignity and respect where as the 5 outcomes for children doesn't. If the campaign was meant to make someone switch actions - I have not. What I do campaign over is unchanged by two happy looking kids and an utterly implausible suggestion, a song to the choir.

Your criticism of the media exposure of the Madeleine McCann case is a world of straw, I'm afraid.

[floppit]

I would argue that the tacit acceptance of labelling contributes to this kind of thing happening in the the first place. That was the purpose of the link. I would argue there was far more straw in your rebuttal than my presenting of it.

Ok - I'll play, how? If there is a real link beyond religious fundamentalism being dangerous I'll accept that it was relevant. It's illegal, has little support in the public, and is already being campaigned against in it's own right, so what does the happy kids poster add?

Did I anywhere suggest you were a fan of it?

No - but you suggested it was a potentially successful outcome of the campaign that it changed people's view of child abduction, and you claimed the campaign succeeded with me. If you claim the ad campaign has succeeded with me surely you must allow me to say it has not changed my own view? Or is it that your premise cannot be disproved?

our criticism of the media exposure of the Madeleine McCann case is a world of straw, I'm afraid.

So it doesn't count that there's no awareness of hundreds of kids that go missing while in care, and yet one should support an ad campaign dealing with a far lower number of muslim kids abducted (which already has publicity in it's own right) even where the possible positive effect of the campaign is dubious at best? Oh come on.

I'll happily accept abducted kids have sod all to do with it but not that you can say they do and then pick and choose which ones, not to mention discussing alternative campaigns that could actually have a potentially positive result like recognising children also need dignity and respect.

[floppit]

I have an apology to make - I thought the article was about girls abducted for marriage, far smaller number, slightly different issue as it's illegal. My fault - please realise my responses stemmed from that mistake.

In light of actually reading the link (I don't stay bad too long - or try not to!), yeah I get it as far more relevant but I'm still unsure where the direct links would be. Wouldn't it have been easier to raise the issue of equal access to education in it's own right? Personally I think that would have gained support and could lead to positive action such as lobbying to have a 'proper' level of investigation when children get lost from the school system.