(April 19, 2016 at 2:09 am)Mathilda Wrote: Drich, if you don't care about your child's life after you raise them, why do you care about disciplining them?

because if you "Train up a child the way he should go, when he gets old he shall not depart far from that training."

(April 19, 2016 at 5:53 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 18, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Losty Wrote: It's funny because that was always my ex husband's excuse for hitting me too. Correction, instruction, and love.

That's real funny why my wife hits me too. Last time I told her some spagetti was not fit to give the dogs and she took the scalding pot off the stove and threw at me. (whole wheat pasta) just missed me with the pot but covered me in 212+*F Pasta and sauce.
A real FSM

I almost wish that were true. Ps. You're an asshole.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 18, 2016 at 2:32 pm)Thena323 Wrote: C'mon, Drich...You know that's Brainwashing 101.

Perfectly fine if you're trying to create a Manchurian Candidate or the next Patty Hearst, btw. I'm guessing that you'd prefer that a child be raised with his or her psyche intact, though. My point was, that there are ways to address the problem that far are less likely to cause such a degree of damage. 

With just a bit of extra thought, time and effort, the same desired result (correcting behavior/ teaching accountability) can be obtained; Without having to wonder if you've done more harm than good down the road.

Train up a child in the way he should Go and when he grows he will not depart from it.

It's all for naught Drich. This parenting style does not work. Ask my parents.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Drich Wrote: Train up a child in the way he should Go and when he grows he will not depart from it.

A further demonstration of your utter lack of competence and sophistication in this regard. Children are not animals to be trained, they are people to be educated. Of course, if you had any basic human empathy, you would know this.

It's clear that no-one should pay any attention to a single opinion you have regarding child-rearing.

(April 19, 2016 at 4:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 2:09 am)Mathilda Wrote: Drich, if you don't care about your child's life after you raise them, why do you care about disciplining them?

Indeed, why is he against abortion, then? If he doesn't care about the child's life after a particular age, why should he care about the child's life before a particular age?

Where does apathy start, or stop?

I will love my son forever -- or at least until I die -- and I will never stop caring about him, his decisions, or the consequences of his decisions.

Nor will I ever say, "Meh, he's eighteen, I don't need to help him out any more." I reckon that love doesn't have an expiry date.

But then again, I'm not a fundamentalist cunt like ole Drich here.

This is Christianity taken to its logical end, folks. Enjoy the show.

When you free range chicken and children you do not know where or how they will end up. When you train a child to be a man or woman. You will always know how they will turn out. To you there are only variables when you look at a child's future. When I look I too see variables, but I also know who he will be in those variables/situations.

So again, I don't care what details of the life my child chooses even if he turns out gay. Because I know and will have comfort in knowing who that man will be no matter his life's circumstances.

I can live with that no matter what happens or doesn't happen.

(April 19, 2016 at 4:59 am)robvalue Wrote: I've suspected for a long time Drich doesn't have empathy.

The thing is, if this is true, it's not his fault. It's not the same as having empathy and choosing to ignore it. If you simply don't have it, you can't learn it. You can learn to mimick it, but that's all.

Being a person without empathy must be very difficult. I've asked before what the point of "objective morality" is, all these rules laid out, and who it is for. The only sensible answer I've had is that it's for people without empathy. So in such cases, religion might be one way of keeping them somewhat in line with society.

I don't think this is a worthy trade-off in general. But some sort of lingering ethereal threat seems to prove effective for those with and without empathy alike. Unfortunately, the kind of morality religion has to offer is generally hundreds of years behind civilised society.

Seriously, I don't have any great answers for how society should deal with those without empathy. And I feel sorry for people in that situation. They literally do not have a moral compass to guide them. I suppose all they have is pragmatism, which can cause them to at least obey laws. I have heard though that psycopaths in particular do very well in business, probably due to being ruthless and unhindered by moral considerations. So there is a kind of place for them... many "top dogs" have been found to be psycopaths, I believe. They have found a somewhat positive outlet, which stimulates their overly developed reward-based brain chemistry.

Maybe this is part of Drich's "business", trying to win over hardened atheists to his cause. Sadly for him, he has less chance than most, because his whole idea of morality does not correspond in any way to the average atheist. Or indeed theist. Most of them seem to believe morality is about doing what God says and being a good person, even though that doesn't make any sense.

what a western douche. Your not even in the majority, yet you speak that your societal philosophies are right and all others are wrong? This may surprise you "round eye" but many eastern societies down play or even shun empathy all together. Theirs is a philosophy not of the individual but the greater good or community. In places like that you are the monster who only seeks to focus and serve self. Many societies built on 'less empathy' than yours would point to yours and say your use of empathy and self serving, in all your desision making is the very reason it is failing.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:12 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm)Drich Wrote: However I have made the decision not to be some primate level human being who is lead around by his emotions or what he feel, or feel for others nor will i be manipulated in compromising my value system because of what others may 'feel.'

Just the same as deciding not to be gay. Face it, man, you try passing for human, since you don't know the first thing about human emotions and empathy.

I've said it before, I'm saying it now, I'm going to keep on saying it until that happy day when saying it becomes obsolete:

Drich and anyone who thinks as he does have spent so much time and effort into being good, well-behaved drones for their cult, they no longer remember how to be human.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:18 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 4:44 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Indeed, why is he against abortion, then? If he doesn't care about the child's life after a particular age, why should he care about the child's life before a particular age?

Where does apathy start, or stop?

I will love my son forever -- or at least until I die -- and I will never stop caring about him, his decisions, or the consequences of his decisions.

Nor will I ever say, "Meh, he's eighteen, I don't need to help him out any more." I reckon that love doesn't have an expiry date.

But then again, I'm not a fundamentalist cunt like ole Drich here.

This is Christianity taken to its logical end, folks. Enjoy the show.

Drich talks a lot about obligation and he has demonstrated in this thread that he doesn't have, or even understand the concept or importance of empathy. He is quite literally a sociopath. The world must be a very strange place for him and he probably can't understand why people don't follow the same rules that he does or listen to what he has to say. This is why people like him believe in objective morality and need to believe in a higher power. It's the only way that they can function in society. Otherwise, why even try fulfilling your obligations? It's why he believes that other people follow a pop morality that can be dismissed. Because he can't understand it.

He is living in a better world because other humans have empathy. Society has been getting better for everyone, including animals, over the course of recent history. He cannot understand that what he is advocating is regressive, not progressive because he does not understand the role of empathy in society. So not only is he freeloading on the gains made by countless generations before him, he's trying to revert the progress that has been made.

We are a successful species precisely because we have empathy. If a predator kills one of us, we all gang up and kill the predator. If we look after everyone then everyone looks after us when we need it. Society can only improve if no one is left behind. Empathy is ingrained into the very essence of what it means to be human, and in this regard, Drich is sorely lacking.

meh...

Or I mean how do you think saying something like that makes me feel???

You feel nothing. That's the point.

(April 19, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(April 19, 2016 at 4:34 pm)Drich Wrote: Maybe you should start an empathy thread, or take this discussion where it can be topical and focused on. Empathy has no business here in this thread.

And you would have no business holding the position of doctor, policeman judge or lawyer with that attitude. Empathy is what gave rise to western secular law, not your bible. Empathy is why we don't have the problems the theocracies of the Middle East do. 

My dad thought like you, thought hitting me was tough love. One day at the Marina when I was 6 or 7, I got into a pick up game of "smear the queer" which is where you throw a football up and whomever catches it everyone else tackles. Problem was these boys were much bigger, had to be 9 and up, and pummeled me beyond what friends do teasing each other, I was an easy target. It didn't take me long to  realize I was in over my head. I left and went back to the boat. 

My dad with an irritated voice asked me why I came back, I told him the other boys were hurting me. You know what he did? My dad punched me in the stomach and told me to go back out and play. Oh yea, I left, but simply hid from the other kids. I hated him for doing that to me. I needed comfort at that point, or to have him go back out with me and tell them to not be so rough. Nope, he thought he was making me tough. Now, if he were alive today I'd kick him in the nuts for doing that to me. 

NOW FUCK YOU you don't have any psychological understanding what hitting and pain can do to a kid.

so to you this is the same as the none emotional objective driven single paddle on the behind found in the OP video?