Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Alricaus on September 01, 2012, 11:57:41 PM



Title: Creationism
Post by: Alricaus on September 01, 2012, 11:57:41 PM
Hi there,

I posted a similar question in another forum, but I want to ask it here too. Since it was on a more leftist website than here, I will adapt my question slightly.

If a group of individuals want to learn creationism at school and that multiple conditions are met (e.g. they are ready to pay for it, a teacher wants, without coercion, to teach them creationism, they do not force other to pay for it, etc.), will you be ok with that?

I donít say more for now; I want to hear your thoughts on that first, and I will respond after.

Alricaus


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Seth King on September 02, 2012, 01:06:38 AM
I have no problem with people teaching creationism, to their young or otherwise. I mean, what's the alternative? Violence?


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: ff42 on September 02, 2012, 09:34:04 AM
You might want to define "ok with that". 

My first reaction is that I would probably not use violence to stop them (however I might use shunning, education, etc.).   Alricaus asked specifically about individuals so I perhaps should stop here.  However Seth King extended the example to parent/children. So...

But now that I stop to think about it I have to wonder about the principle "Do not initiate force OR fraud".  If I interpret that statement correctly I can use force (or fraud I suppose) as a defensive mechanism against those that initiate.  Additionally I am justified in extending this shield to my neighbors, especially those that have no power to defend themselves.  So in theory if a person initiates a fraud against a child I am ethically justified (and maybe morally compelled?) to intervene.   

Does this principle change just because there is a parent/child relationship?  Can/should I intervene to stop a big person from hitting a small person?  From lying to them?  I don't know.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Alricaus on September 02, 2012, 11:08:06 AM
I have no problem with people teaching creationism, to their young or otherwise. I mean, what's the alternative? Violence?

That was my first impression too but

You might want to define "ok with that".  

My first reaction is that I would probably not use violence to stop them (however I might use shunning, education, etc.).   Alricaus asked specifically about individuals so I perhaps should stop here.  However Seth King extended the example to parent/children. So...

But now that I stop to think about it I have to wonder about the principle "Do not initiate force OR fraud".  If I interpret that statement correctly I can use force (or fraud I suppose) as a defensive mechanism against those that initiate.  Additionally I am justified in extending this shield to my neighbors, especially those that have no power to defend themselves.  So in theory if a person initiates a fraud against a child I am ethically justified (and maybe morally compelled?) to intervene.  

Does this principle change just because there is a parent/child relationship?  Can/should I intervene to stop a big person from hitting a small person?  From lying to them?  I don't know.


that was my second thought!

HOwever, I am a little bit confused about it.  You know, science has not be neutral in any sence. Just look, for example, the medicalization of homosexuality which was based on cultural stereotype. Science itself, is an institution of power, while maybe not as religious one. Another example would be what it is called (I don't remember the name in English), but it is a technic that consist of creating, for example, mental health problem, so one can sell drugs to "cure" this so-called mental health.

EDIT: And, by the way, when I said "ok with that", I mean should we stop it by other means than discussion, showing results from science, etc.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: macsnafu on September 02, 2012, 11:45:58 AM
You might want to define "ok with that". 

My first reaction is that I would probably not use violence to stop them (however I might use shunning, education, etc.).   Alricaus asked specifically about individuals so I perhaps should stop here.  However Seth King extended the example to parent/children. So...

But now that I stop to think about it I have to wonder about the principle "Do not initiate force OR fraud".  If I interpret that statement correctly I can use force (or fraud I suppose) as a defensive mechanism against those that initiate.  Additionally I am justified in extending this shield to my neighbors, especially those that have no power to defend themselves.  So in theory if a person initiates a fraud against a child I am ethically justified (and maybe morally compelled?) to intervene.   

Does this principle change just because there is a parent/child relationship?  Can/should I intervene to stop a big person from hitting a small person?  From lying to them?  I don't know.

I question your use of the term "fraud".  Generally, when libertarians talk about force or fraud, they mean in the sense that it is used to compel someone to do something that would normally be against their will.  Obviously, an armed robber is compelling you to give him your money against your will.  But a con man who sells you a lemon of a car is also compelling you to do something against your will, because you would not willingly pay his price if you knew that the car was not in as good a shape as he claims it is.

With something like the teaching of Creationism, I think you'll have a harder time saying that this is fraud, because you have to answer the question, what is a child being compelled to do against their will?  You have to make the case before you can justify forcefully acting against it.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: helio on September 02, 2012, 12:51:48 PM
I was taught young earth creationism by my parents and church.   If possible, they would have sent me to a christian school.  If the choice is public schools versus private, indoctrination is inevitable.  I ended up questioning both of my faiths, political and religious in the end, despite indoctrination.  So, I wouldn't dare initiate force for a bunch of creationists teaching their kids whatever nonsense they want because the kids can still grow up and choose for themselves what to believe, like I did.  Violence used to stop that could lead to unknown consequences and perhaps drive them further towards the nonsense of their parents. 

Be careful what violence you advocate for, because once unleashed can cause uncontrollable consequences.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Hanzo on September 02, 2012, 09:24:15 PM
Freedom is freedom to say 2+2=5.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Alricaus on September 02, 2012, 10:55:56 PM
Quote
I question your use of the term "fraud".

I agree that it is questionable.

However, in some sense, school sells a product (in that case, knowledge). In that case, if they sell you something based on false facts, can this be considered, somehow, like lying when somebody try to sell a product?

Of course, in saying this, I "impose" my own vision of the world, my own theories of the world, and so on.

 
Freedom is freedom to say 2+2=5.


I agree. Similarly, I have the right to tell people that cigarettes are good for health. But do I have the right to sell cigarettes and saying that there is clear evidence that cigarettes are good for health to those who buy the product ?

I was taught young earth creationism by my parents and church.   If possible, they would have sent me to a christian school.  If the choice is public schools versus private, indoctrination is inevitable.  I ended up questioning both of my faiths, political and religious in the end, despite indoctrination.  So, I wouldn't dare initiate force for a bunch of creationists teaching their kids whatever nonsense they want because the kids can still grow up and choose for themselves what to believe, like I did.  Violence used to stop that could lead to unknown consequences and perhaps drive them further towards the nonsense of their parents. 

Be careful what violence you advocate for, because once unleashed can cause uncontrollable consequences.


Interesting point of view.

But since you are an anarchist, do you think it is possible that it was your personality. In other words, is it possible that most childrens who are raised in that type of environment will not been able to get out of it? Just take an easy example; statist lol!



Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: MAM on September 03, 2012, 09:32:57 AM
Are lying and being wrong to be met with force?


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: macsnafu on September 03, 2012, 12:16:55 PM
Are lying and being wrong to be met with force?

Only in some cases, where, for example, a fraudulent exchange has taken place, or where someone has been compelled to do something against their will because of the lying.  Lying and being wrong do not inherently justify force by themselves.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: kunkmiester on September 03, 2012, 01:47:24 PM
When fraud has been perpetrated, sue for reparations.  Insurance and protection companies would have lists of acceptable arbiters, if he refuses to "come to court" he looses the protections, and your company would take action against him, likely with cooperation of banks holding his assets and such.

For other cases, I could see you going to several arbiters, laying out your case, and also pointing out that he's not defending himself.  They would rule against him, and off you'd go to get your money back.  Likely if he has money in a bank, the bank would accept a reputable arbiter's council's word that he owes you, and would cooperate in transferring assets.  Something like that.

Creationism is valid so far as people take facts and interpret them a certain way.  At it's most basic--God started evolution--there's little to debate.  It does get trickier to argue as you get to the young earthers and such, but if you sued a school teaching that, they'd likely have a number of PhDs and the like arguing their case, and it would be much less cut and dry as you'd think.  I don't look that stuff up on a regular basis, but there are some interesting things out there.  Proving that they're deliberately lying would be a lot harder than you might think.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: macsnafu on September 03, 2012, 09:09:05 PM
Proving that they're deliberately lying would be a lot harder than you might think.
And if they believe what they're saying, then deliberate intent doesn't exist, no matter how false or absurd it might be.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: MAM on September 03, 2012, 10:03:31 PM
Are lying and being wrong to be met with force?

Only in some cases, where, for example, a fraudulent exchange has taken place, or where someone has been compelled to do something against their will because of the lying.  Lying and being wrong do not inherently justify force by themselves.


All lies are fraud. By definition...


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on September 03, 2012, 10:40:40 PM
Freedom is freedom to say 2+2=5.
True. But is it freedom for the child, who, upon counting on his fingers and discovering it's actually 4, to be threatened with eternal whipping by demons in lava for saying otherwise? It's debatable. For adults, it's not so bad, because they should know that demons etc don't exist. But children don't know otherwise, so they perceive it as a credible threat against them.

Putting the fuzzy ethics/morality aside, it's not worth using force to stop creationism, because it's too expensive.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Coltan L. on September 04, 2012, 02:48:06 AM
Putting the fuzzy ethics/morality aside, it's not worth using force to stop creationism, because it's too expensive.

I'm only so rarely motivated to step into discussions, and I read the whole string and see you've done a better job than I could have.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Tom J on September 04, 2012, 03:35:38 AM
Freedom is freedom to say 2+2=5.
True. But is it freedom for the child, who, upon counting on his fingers and discovering it's actually 4, to be threatened with eternal whipping by demons in lava for saying otherwise? It's debatable. For adults, it's not so bad, because they should know that demons etc don't exist. But children don't know otherwise, so they perceive it as a credible threat against them.
...

For it to be a lie, the adults teaching it would have to know or believe it's not true.


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: Disengage on September 04, 2012, 09:46:27 PM
Quote
So in theory if a person initiates a fraud against a child I am ethically justified (and maybe morally compelled?) to intervene.   

Suppose parents teach their kids about Santa Claus for the sole purpose of making them behave during the month of December.      Does that mean you get to scam the parents out of their property now?     Or break down their door to rescue the kids?   

Why is it that people... even anarchists... keep trying so hard to justify interfering with other people?    Why is it that people are SO dead-set opposed to minding their own damn business?

Seriously.   Why.



Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: BobRobertson on September 05, 2012, 09:46:43 AM
Why is it that people... even anarchists... keep trying so hard to justify interfering with other people?    Why is it that people are SO dead-set opposed to minding their own damn business?

If you ever figure that out, let me know. 'Cause I ain't got a clue how to convert the polypragmatoi from their love of being eternal busybodies.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
  --  C.S. Lewis


Title: Re: Creationism
Post by: MAM on September 05, 2012, 10:14:03 PM
Frankly I just don't care any-more.