Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you even reading these posts or just having a conversation with yourself?
When you said this:
...and this:
...and this:
...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.
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.
Sum ergo sum
