Teach children about Jesus at a young age,

[Ben Davis]

First of all, I already addressed the issues you posted in a previous post, you just refuse to listen.

No you didn't. You pointedly avoided answering.

So I'll ask again: if you don't care about the motivations behind indoctrination, how can you tell the difference between sincere and mimicked emotions? Further, do you recognise that morally bankrupt methods of indoctrination can result in sincere, 'positive', emotions which psychologists would consider as symptoms of metal health issues (e.g. Stockholm Syndrome)?

[Huggy Bear]

First of all, I already addressed the issues you posted in a previous post, you just refuse to listen.

No you didn't. You pointedly avoided answering.

So I'll ask again: if you don't care about the motivations behind indoctrination, how can you tell the difference between sincere and mimicked emotions? Further, do you recognise that morally bankrupt methods of indoctrination can result in sincere, 'positive', emotions which psychologists would consider as symptoms of metal health issues (e.g. Stockholm Syndrome)?

Fine, lets review.

So you haven't been reading the posts then. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

What I CLEARLY stated was in the context of Ideology, seeing how were talking about indoctrination.

Well, I've certainly not been talking about anything else. I'm trying to break you out of your quasi-Boolean thinking. A suitably manipulative person, when not framed by any ethical concerns, can use a variety of indoctrinative techniques can get anyone to believe, sincerely, anything. That's been the thrust of my criticism of your initial position (which you still haven't cleared up for me yet - Do you care about the motivations or not?!).

As I have already stated, you cannot produce Love out of fear, they reside on opposite ends of the spectrum, the same way that you cannot produce white from black.

Being motivated out of love and being motivated out of fear are two completely different things, how can you not see this?

"which is why I refered to the Nazi example.
Do you agree with the above statement?

I'm sure most Nazis were good, kind & loving, to their mothers, to friends & colleagues, maybe even to broader society on the whole. Just don't ask them about Jews or Gypsies. So I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve using this example, other than to highlight the continues failure of your quasi-Boolean thinking.

Again I addressed this, I'll refer back to an earlier post.

---

Also you do realize there are different designations for "love" right? What we are talking has nothing to do with sexual attraction, were talking about brotherly love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

The Greek language distinguishes at least four different ways as to how the word love is used. Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words when used outside of their respective contexts. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are as follows:

   Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē) means "love: esp. brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God." Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one's children and the feelings for a spouse, and it was also used to refer to a love feast. Agape is used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God for his children. This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."
   Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion." The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love." Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." In the Symposium, the most famous ancient work on the subject, Plato has Socrates argue that eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth, the ideal "Form" of youthful beauty that leads us humans to feel erotic desire – thus suggesting that even that sensually based love aspires to the non-corporeal, spiritual plane of existence; that is, finding its truth, just like finding any truth, leads to transcendence. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth through the means of eros.
   Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals." It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Furthermore, in the same text philos denotes a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
   Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children" It's the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

Now that you know what context were using, show me an example of abuse causing love.
[/quote]

---

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?
— Matthew 5:43-46,

The Nazis clearly did not love their enemies, as even you yourself acknowledged, therefore that is not Agape love. If the Nazis followed the above advice, like i said before, no one would of had a problem with them.

You cannot produce love with hate, you cannot "indoctrinate" people with hateful ideology and produce love, It's common sense.

Yes you can. Stockholm syndrome is a perfect example as are cases of DA.

No you can't, this means the person is mentally unstable.

A young girl suffering sexual abuse and turning into a nymphomaniac is not considered a positive outcome (no matter how much her significant other may seem to think so), that's a clear sign of psychological damage.

There is an "insanity" plea for a reason, people who aren't of sound mind aren't held to the same standard as people that are.

Therefore I am comfortable in saying that any ideology (no matter what it is) that causes one to love their fellow man, I'm ok with.

Well, I'm not. Do you think that North Koreans love each other any less than any other society?

Once again, Agape, remember?

You on the other hand choose to make it about abuse, and anyone with a brain knows that abuse causes fear, not love.

You're wrong. Please see above.

No, YOU see above.

Either it's love or it isn't, to "mimic" love means it's NOT love.

And yet again, if ou don't care about the motivations behind it, how can you tell the difference? I'm going to keep asking this until I actually get an answer and not a dodge.

Whether or not I can tell the difference is irrelevant, If someone truly exhibits love for everyone, what do I care how it got there? If a Doctor, for instance volunteered to help people for free, are you telling me you're worried about his motivations?

So if you saying that Abuse does not in fact cause love, then I agree.

Jesus fucking wept...

That was in reference to...

You claimed that you can make a child "love" through abuse, even going so far as to say it was demonstrable, you have yet to provide the evidence of that.

No I didn't. I stated that if you don't care about the motivations behind behaviour, you can't differentiate between someone who is actually loving and someone who is mimicking love. I used domestic abuse as an example.