Following the sentence "no politics" with one equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is a bit hypocritical.
It does show why stories that intersect with politics are dangerous though; the topic seems to bring out the most irrational in people.
I think it's important that he knows reasonable people consider that article anti-semitic. If you saw a post you considered anti-semitic, would you want to quietly omit that?
I did not "equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism". That is not my reasoning. That is a political interpretation that you have made.
"I think it's important that he knows reasonable people consider that article anti-semitic."
I don't think anyone who is reading this places you in the category of reasonable people. For some reason you think it's okay to throw out accusations without justification. That is unreasonable.
The article is hacker news because it shows an example of waging a PR campaign via YouTube.
He didn't say that criticism of Israel is anti-semitism. He just said 'No Politics. No anti-semitism.' I agree with him that HN should have no politics and no anti semitism or any racism for that matter. Don't you?
You assert 'no politics' and also imply that anti-semitism is a type of racism. Some people think anti-semitism is different; that's a political issue. Therefore, according to pg, you are a hypocrite. And also irrational, if ivankirigin's interpretation is correct.
Suppose you're right. He is trying to give himself permission to not use lisp, so he feels better. Then writing this helps him use ruby (as you advise). so it's good that he wrote it. (but no need for you to read it).
I upvoted you, but one thing: if you wanna be unbiased, show not tell it! Saying you're not biased isn't much good at all. Just say stuff that isn't biased.
For most things I agree that showing is better than telling, but bias is different. If someone is in a position to judge whether my point of view is biased, then they already have a clearer idea of the truth than I do, so they don't benefit from reading my expression of that point of view. It's the people who don't already know what I have to say (or don't already know that it's false, if I am in error) who need to know how biased I am.
So I gave some information about my background, which I hope will give readers a better chance of forming an accurate idea of my state of objectivity and ignorance.
Not hurting children, including not making them do things they don't want to do. (If it's good, convince them of that first.) This applies to school attendance, yes.
It has been shown that children under the age of about 9 / 10 have extremely poor risk assessment and decision making skills [1]. We are animals and logic is learned over many years. Logical appeals on a young child would work as well as on a dog.
Parents are meant to make decisions for their children and children are meant to do things they don't want to do if it's ultimately advantageous. That people think otherwise scares the bejesus out of me, but perhaps explains why kids are so pampered and spoiled nowadays.
You ask him why not. Try to find out what his misconception is, so you can explain about that particular issue. Then he'll learn about the specific area he doesn't know.
If things are going right, sometimes he'll want to have a discussion. Other times he'd rather just do what you said without understanding it, so he can proceed now (nothing wrong with that if it's voluntary). And other times, just let him do it his way, if it won't be a huge disaster, and he can learn something from his mistake, and about how good your advice is.
You ask him why not. Try to find out what his misconception is, so you can explain about that particular issue. Then he'll learn about the specific area he doesn't know.
If you substitute in someone with the same level of rationality and decision making skills as a young child.. let's say.. a meth addict, does it still work?
Sure, there are some kids - especially older ones - who can take part in discussions and come to logical conclusions, but this is a learned skill over many years. The ability to take control of yourself and be rational is very much part of the definition of being an adult.
Asking a 4 year old kid if he wants to go to school or not is not rational parenting and a child should not make those sorts of decisions.
I remember thinking a lot of things were unfair as a kid and thinking I could make better decisions than my parents - and I was considered a pretty smart kid. Now I'm of my parents' age, I know I was mostly wrong. Adults and parents are there for a reason. They can make skilled judgments, and kids can't.
No you don't know anyone raised like this. If you give me a comprehensive statement of what they did, I will point out ten ways they hurt their kids. You may say I am wrong on every count, but you won't be able to dispute that what I advocate is different than what was done.
People all the time come up and say they already do the stuff on the TCS website. So far the rate of that being true is exactly zero.
What's this, you say? A novel, ideologically extreme child rearing philosophy that's so rarely applied that I couldn't conceivably know someone raised under it? Sold!
Your attitude would reject all new ideas about parenting without any regard for their merit.
The reason the things I'm advocating are especially worth consideration is that they are in line with long standing traditions our society already places very high value on, such as individual freedom and happiness, and control over one's own life.
No, in fact most new ideas about parenting are not ideologically extreme. Uncomfortable, perhaps --- like attachment parenting, which put our kids in our bed for a year --- but not extreme.
Humans are not always rational. If their decision making skills are poor they don't stop making decisions. If you have poor judgment, you're likely to make a lot of poor decisions.
Sure I am. For example, children who don't like a given set of homework problems are made to do it anyway. Doesn't matter if they have something else productive they want to do, it's outside of their interests, they have reasons (which have not been addressed) to think it's a waste of time, etc... That hurts.
Dr. Foster: Would you please tell your son to stop?
Ned's Dad: We can't do it, man! That's discipline! That's like
tellin' Gene Krupa not to go [starts banging on the desk]
"boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom bam bam bam, boom boom
boom bam ba ba ba ba, da boo boo tss!"
Ned's Dad: We don't believe in rules, like, we gave them up when we
started livin' like freaky beatniks!
Dr. Foster: You don't believe in rules, yet you want to control Ned's
anger.
Ned's Mom: Yeah. You gotta help us, Doc. We've tried nothin' and
we're all out of ideas.
I don't want people to be hurt. You present a situation where people are being hurt. I am not happy with that situation either. Something has gone wrong. A solution is needed. The difference is that I don't take it for granted the solution must or should be unpleasant for the child. Solutions should be good things that all people are glad to have.
Thanks for giving me a message board thread to geek out on while waiting for dinner to cook, and, I suppose, for inducing me to consider TCS; have a happy new year.
not so much being a pessimist, but being a realist. hope is nice and all, but are you seriously going to invent a new vaccination mechanism before your child needs her MMR shots? you may not mind injections, but I've never seen an infant or toddler that was much of a fan. given that, will you spare your child the discomfort of the needle and expose her to the risk of catching an easily preventable (and dangerous) infection? measles are far less pleasant than an injection. life is punctuated by the occasional unpleasantness and protecting your child from that entirely until adulthood does her a great disservice.
My daughter is 7 and she will take your eyes out before she lets you poke her with a needle --- and that's after the inevitable well-reasoned, polite, non-patronizing conversation about why vaccinations are important, which she of course understands and appreciates.
Vaccinations are easy. just offer topical anesthetic and be nice about it. the reason people have problems with them is they don't think about the kids at all, and don't give the kid any control over the situation, and scare them.
Each of your three reasons is presumptive, mildly insulting, and ultimately incorrect --- is what I'd say if I was insisting on being a message board geek.
Today there are all sorts of simple solutions, such as anesthetic, or just the doctor being nice is usually good enough. Why did you bring up vaccinations? They are easy!
well that's great that you know how to get rid of bad doctors and find nice ones, and consider that worth the effort just to help your kid be happier! what do you disagree about then?
You must be doing something else wrong then. Because in fact vaccinations are good, and not very painful especially with anesthetic.
I don't say this to insult you. I say it because problems have solutions. That is what you seem to be trying to deny. You want to say this thing went wrong, and therefore children must be hurt, it's inevitable, and trying to prevent it is crazy. I take the view that when people are hurt, someone has made a mistake, and we can try to do better.
thanks qqq. thanks for inflicting yet another monster on society, who thinks the world needs to justify itself to her.
Hopefully the creature's teenage years will be a punishment enough for you.
nazgul, you are recognising a stereotype of teenagers, who 'think the world needs to justify itself to them'. You see these kinds of adolescents all the time, which is why you recognise that stereotype.
You have never met a TCS-raised child. Why do you think that TCS, which you have never encountered, will without doubt produce this stereotype of teenager, which you have encountered often?
I'm not talking about teenagers. I've seen the results of this in people in their 20's and early 30's.
I live in one of the richest counties in the US. (formerly #1 actually). I see children raised like this ALL THE TIME. It is far more common to see a parent explaining themselves to a child who is throwing a tantrum than it is to see a parent putting their foot down. These children grow up totally unprepared for a world that does not make every concession to their current mood. With the exception of the ones who have trust funds (quite a lot around here) and thus don't ever have to face the real world, these kids almost universally wind up as only semi-functioning adults.
I'd go so far as to say that it is inflicting environmental retardation on your child. You job as a parent isn't to be your child's friend. It is to socialize them and prepare them for life.
If you want to be friends, you'll have to wait until they're an adult.
I guarantee you have never met a TCS-raised child. A TCS child wouldn't throw such a tantrum. When you throw a tantrum you are already in a state of coercion, of being hurt or frustrated. A TCS child trusts their parent to help them out before it gets to that stage, and a TCS parent helps their child out before it gets to that stage. Both parent and child are interested in, and have always been interested in, problem-solving. Not fighting or revenge or huring each other, but finding mutual preferences and both being happy with the outcome.
I don't think I'd want to be friends with a person who had hurt and coerced me all my life. As for socializing, 'no man can use his brain to think for another man'. A parent can't socialize their child. The child must socialize themselves. The parent can only either persuade their child, trying to help them, or else coerce them, that is, harm them.
One of these is the attitude of a human, the other of a monstrous tyrant. It is always alarming to hear a person say that for the individual, tyranny is the only way to a successful outcome, when time and time again it has wrecked whole societies who together were unable to withstand its corrosive effects.
