Do Christian Parents Abuse their Children?

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh fuck Drich is here. What a waste of an interesting thread.

What part? The debate on indoctrination or the imminent girl-on-girl action?

I meant the former. The latter was more stimulating than interesting

---

Your mother never forced you to learn abc's? Child abuse!!! 😋

If you put a child in a position where they were refused the opportunity to education as basic as the alphabet in a country where such education is readily available, yeah, that child would probably be taken away from their parents. Would you seriously be alright with a child not learning the alphabet because their parents didn't want them to?

Better analogy. Miseducation is abuse.

---

Wow you suck at logic. Your first premise includes intention and the other premises don't and you are completely blind to that. It's not logically sound at all, you merely assume that he's intending to cause disruption and argument when he could easily be making a thread arguing that religious indoctrination is child abuse, not because he's intending to provoke, but because he thinks that religious indoctrination is child abuse. I myself hold that view and I'm not a troll either. And I say provocative things all the time, but my intention is not to provoke, my intention is to speak my mind honestly regardless of if it's provocative or not.

And I'm not surprised that a logically unsound argument made by a theist got a bunch of kudos only by other theists. It's failing to detect such subtly illogical missteps that prevents you losing your religions delusions.

What? #1 is a definition from the internet. How much time did you waste on this????

Wow you suck at logic so bad that you STILL don't notice it.

The point is that #1 contains intention and #2 and #3 don't and you conclude that the argument is sound even when you merely assume his actions were intentional. Your conclusion does not follow, making the argument invalid, and your implicit assumption that his actions are intentional makes your argument unsound.

#1 is from the internet, your assumption that #1's part about intention applies to the OP isn't, and yet that misassumption on your part is implicit in your argument, #2 and #3 aren't from the internet either and your conclusion (#4) doesn't follow. If you actually read my post correctly you'd see I've already explained all this. I didn't take issue with #1 I took issue with how you implicitly assume that #1 applies and after making two more premises that still don't demonstrate your unsound assumption you make a conclusion that does not follow.

---

You can't implicitly assume that person X is doing something intentionally and offer a definition of a troll that implies intentional behavior, and then notice that the person has done such a behavior but you still have NOT argued that the person has done that behavior intentionally, and then conclude that that person is a troll. You still merely assumed that the behavior is intentional. You really really suck at logic if you think that argument is sound. Your conclusion does not follow.

---

This is the logical equivalent of your unsound and invalid argument Steve:

"X behavior done twice intentionally Y makes person P a troll.
Person P has done X behavior twice
Conclusion: Person P is a troll."

^ invalid.

The conclusion is false because you're still missing intentionally Y. No wonder you're still a theist when you think unsound arguments are sound. I'm not going to miss your logical mistake, sorry.

Furthermore you say "Logically sound. Conclusion follows from its premises." And not only does your conclusion not follow from your premises, but that itself does NOT make an argument sound. A conclusion following from premises makes an argument valid but not necessarily sound. For an argument to be sound the argument not only has to be valid but all the premises have to be true too

Oh and by the way, not only did I not waste my time by pointing out that your argument was invalid, and not only did you waste your time by making an unsound argument (and embarrass yourself by not only continuing to falsely think your argument is sound, but you also embarass yourself by clearly not knowing the difference between soundness and validity) . . . but how much time did it take me? A few seconds for that post and a few minutes for this one. I hardly have to worry about wasting 'time' when typing anything.

---

Here's an extreme and obvious example of child abuse by religious parents.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016...dical-help

Teaching children primitive iron age mythologies in direct contradiction to modern science and medicine, is indeed child abuse. It leads to the suffering and death of children generation after generation. It perpetuates mentally warped concepts that kill people - children and adults. Teaching children this is child abuse. Because of this, I disagree with you. Parents should not be allowed to teach children doctrines that kill.

Based on your statement I was an abused child. Damn. Know a lawyer who will take up my case? Or yours?

Legally accepted to be abuse and abuse aren't the same thing.

Laws would never need to change if they were always right.