(March 14, 2016 at 1:56 pm)robvalue Wrote: You're very welcome emjay, I'm really glad I was able to help

I think society naturally stopping indoctrination is a possibility, as it matures. People will hopefully realize it's not healthy or necessary. It will probably fizzle out and be diluted, as religion loses its grasp. I haven't seen a lot of evidence of it still going on in England, at least where I've been.

Ideally, it should be illegal because it's absolutely disgusting, but I think in practical terms we have to arrive there naturally. So if we keep on promoting rational thought and freedom from dogmatic ideas, hopefully we'll move things in the right direction.

You and a few others are kinda like my role models here... your strength gives me strength, so I can't thank you enough to be honest   It's kind of a case of 'what would rob say?' 

I wish I was as optimistic as you but I think it's battling human nature, so probably not going to change in that regard where religion is present in a household. It may dwindle as religion dwindles overall, especially in our country, but where religion is still present in a household, I think religious parents will just carry on being completely oblivious to the lack of consent and the potential psychological damage that religious teaching can do 

I can't tell you how much that means to me emjay I am overcome that you would consider my opinion on things so highly You make me feel very proud!

I agree, while religion is strong in a house, the crap will probably continue. But I've heard more and more stories of liberal parents who don't presume their children will take their faith. They seem to focus on educating them properly, and allowing them to choose for themselves. I think this is a trend that will continue as religion becomes less and less fundamental, over many generations. I think indoctrinating these days is a lot harder than it used to be. Instant worldwide communications make insular environments much harder to create.

**trigger warning - domestic violence

(March 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: It's not an argument from ignorance it's an argument from common sense. I never said that situation doesn't exist, I said that situation doesn't produce love;

But how would you know that it's love? You've said that you don't care about the reasons why the behaviour exists so you can't possibly know! To use another DV example, think of an abused wife, 'lovingly' attending to her family, hiding the fear & pain for the sake of avoiding reprisals. If you don't care about the reasons why she's 'loving', you'd not even be looking for signs of abuse; you'd just be taking the outward appearance at face value. After all, the results appear the same, right? It appears that your 'common sense' isn't so common or sensical.

Quote: and since you somehow believe that it's demonstrable, point me to that particular study.

There are hundreds in here. Educate yourself.

Quote:I thing the phrase you're looking for is Stockholm syndrome, which has nothing to do with love, but fear.

But you don't care about that, you've said so already. It's enough for you that the end behaviours are consistent with 'loving'. And that's a great example of the problem that I have with your statement.

(March 15, 2016 at 8:28 am)Ben Davis Wrote: **trigger warning - domestic violence

(March 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: It's not an argument from ignorance it's an argument from common sense. I never said that situation doesn't exist, I said that situation doesn't produce love;

But how would you know that it's love? You've said that you don't care about the reasons why the behaviour exists so you can't possibly know!

I know because I have a brain and can discern the difference between acts of love and fear.

(March 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: To use another DV example, think of an abused wife, 'lovingly' attending to her family, hiding the fear & pain for the sake of avoiding reprisals. If you don't care about the reasons why she's 'loving', you'd not even be looking for signs of abuse; you'd just be taking the outward appearance at face value. After all, the results appear the same, right? It appears that your 'common sense' isn't so common or sensical.

*emphasis mine*
That is NOT love, love is unconditional.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. - 1 John 4:18

(March 15, 2016 at 8:28 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: and since you somehow believe that it's demonstrable, point me to that particular study.

There are hundreds in here. Educate yourself.

Look, all I need is one study that shows an instance of child abuse producing love. Your broad google search of "domestic violence child abuse studies" tells me nothing

(March 15, 2016 at 8:28 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I thing the phrase you're looking for is Stockholm syndrome, which has nothing to do with love, but fear.

But you don't care about that, you've said so already. It's enough for you that the end behaviours are consistent with 'loving'. And that's a great example of the problem that I have with your statement.

Oh but I do care, because that isn't love...

Love and fear exist on a much deeper spiritual/emotional level, you're focused on the "actions" of a person and not the state of their inner being. Love and fear are not actions.

for instance, feeding the poor out of love is one thing, and feeding the poor of of fear is a completely different thing, but the act of feeding the poor itself is not love.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing. - 1 Corinthians 13:3

Now you're completely contradicting yourself. Previously, you stated that you don't care about the motivations. Now you're saying that you do.

Which is it?

(March 16, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Now you're completely contradicting yourself. Previously, you stated that you don't care about the motivations. Now you're saying that you do.

Which is it?

What contradiction? Love and fear are on the opposite sides of the spectrum, Making someone fear you does not equate to making someone love you, It's pretty simple, you cannot force anyone to love.

Therefore whatever reason causes someone to be a 'loving' person (i'm pretty sure we can go out on a limb and say that negative influences don't result in love), I'm ok with, got it?

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.

Stockholm Syndrome

Quote:On August 23rd, 1973 two machine-gun carrying criminals entered a bank in Stockholm, Sweden. Blasting their guns, one prison escapee named Jan-Erik Olsson announced to the terrified bank employees “The party has just begun!” The two bank robbers held four hostages, three women and one man, for the next 131 hours. The hostages were strapped with dynamite and held in a bank vault until finally rescued on August 28th.

After their rescue, the hostages exhibited a shocking attitude considering they were threatened, abused, and feared for their lives for over five days. In their media interviews, it was clear that they supported their captors and actually feared law enforcement personnel who came to their rescue. The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had “bonded” emotionally with their captors.

While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as “Stockholm Syndrome” due to the publicity, the emotional “bonding” with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:

   Abused Children
   Battered/Abused Women
   Prisoners of War
   Cult Members
   Incest Victims
   Criminal Hostage Situations
   Concentration Camp Prisoners
   Controlling/Intimidating Relationships

In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The “Stockholm Syndrome” reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing “Stockholm Syndrome” will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It’s important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it’s easier to understand why victims support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you even reading these posts or just having a conversation with yourself?

When you said this:

(March 11, 2016 at 5:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If "indoctrination" makes a child a good human being, how is that a bad thing?

...and this:

(March 11, 2016 at 8:17 am)Huggy74 Wrote: If the ideology a person is being "indoctrinated" into results in that person being as Stimbo puts it, "good and kind and loving"... I don't have a problem with that, no matter what religion they belonged to

...and this:

(March 11, 2016 at 8:47 am)Huggy74 Wrote: And my point was the REASONS for one being a "loving person" is irrelevant, the fact that they are a loving person is all that matters, hence the Nazi example.

...you were clearly stating that you don't care about the motivations behind behaviour, only about the behaviour itself. You then did a complete u-turn by saying that not only should we care about the motivations but that the motivations are more important than the behaviour. You contradict yourself.

(March 16, 2016 at 6:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 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.

(March 16, 2016 at 6:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Stockholm Syndrome

Quote:On August 23rd, 1973 two machine-gun carrying criminals entered a bank in Stockholm, Sweden. Blasting their guns, one prison escapee named Jan-Erik Olsson announced to the terrified bank employees “The party has just begun!” The two bank robbers held four hostages, three women and one man, for the next 131 hours. The hostages were strapped with dynamite and held in a bank vault until finally rescued on August 28th.

After their rescue, the hostages exhibited a shocking attitude considering they were threatened, abused, and feared for their lives for over five days. In their media interviews, it was clear that they supported their captors and actually feared law enforcement personnel who came to their rescue. The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had “bonded” emotionally with their captors.

While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as “Stockholm Syndrome” due to the publicity, the emotional “bonding” with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:

   Abused Children
   Battered/Abused Women
   Prisoners of War
   Cult Members
   Incest Victims
   Criminal Hostage Situations
   Concentration Camp Prisoners
   Controlling/Intimidating Relationships

In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The “Stockholm Syndrome” reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing “Stockholm Syndrome” will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It’s important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it’s easier to understand why victims support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.

*emphasis mine*
I think I've already addressed that.

Are you saying Stockholm syndrome = love?

Quote:The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had “bonded” emotionally with their captors.

Are you even reading these things or just skimming them to pick out the bits you like? Because if that's all you want to do, it's going to be rather pointless bothering with you.