I don't know about you, but I am fed-the-fuck-up with seeing carbon-copy children, bred straight from the pathetically aberrant mould of their parents. I will never cease to be angry when I see children being indoctrinated, and never will I be content to see this shepherding when it is at the cost of the child's health; be it their mental well-being, or their physical, or psychological, or intellectual. Wherever you turn you can see this, but there are some choice examples which I feel will be useful for my polemic: you requested it, here is my diatribe against the institutions of childhood deprivation (or, as some would call it: enrichment).
Gluttony: Corpulence breeding corpulence.
There's only one thing worse - in this context - than seeing a morbidly obese person: seeing a morbidly obese person raising a gluttonous, chubby child. You can see it daily, though you are unlikely to be privy to it in such a wonderfully memorable way as I was today: everyone is at home to this photo... are they not? What I saw today, fantastically, horrendously, was that, but twisted beyond all recognition. Like a chronological parade, charting one man's descent into gross obesity, there was a line stretching from here to beyond the horizon (three people, they were fat, see?) My woefully optimistic friends will chastise me for this indictment of lunacy, but this is how I saw it. The first in the March of the 'Crapulents', was the, I assume, father-figure. And, yes, I use the word figure knowing full well the connotations; we could also call them intentions, on my part. Impressive in the same way that the systematic eradication of the Jews was impressive, his stature belied his habits. He was a monolith to indulgence, an idol to non-stop-sitting-and-snacking. I was amazed, jaw-dropping-ly amazed. I'm fairly sure I could have crawled, had I been so inclined, straight up into his butt-cheeks. There I would have perished a martyr: fighting the fat fight. To forestall the needless reaction to my criticism I will say only this: he is entitled to do whatever the hell he likes to his body, as his parents no doubt did to theirs (anyone see a circle developing), however, his habitual laziness should not extend to his children. These children, clearly, had never had a proper education in the nutritional value of food groups outside of saturated fats and trans fats. The mere mention of complex carbohydrates would have ended with brow furrowing and, presumably, not an insignificant amount of sweating. So be it, you will say, but the entitlement of a person to abuse their body does not extend indefinitely. It should not happen at the cost to another person, for instance. A reasoned consequential argument would run something like, "whilst the entitlement is his given right, as a human, this should only extend insofar as giving the children the choice: abuse, or live". Next up, in our shamrade, was the first child (one assumes, although premature ageing is but one of the complications associated with poor diet). Not so impressive in her standing, but gelatinous nonetheless: hydrogen would have been ashamed. Likewise, bringing up the, if you'll excuse me, not insubstantial rear was the youngest (Lord help us if there were others back at the hovel/house). Again, a type-cast in miniature, depressing to behold, if not a little laughable. Now, it would be easy to write this off as merely a circle of poor education, a systemic disavowal of proper diet and a lack of interest to boot. The problem with that would be that we cannot justifiably blame the Monolith's parents, at least not to the degree that we can begrudge his existence. Nutrition is a fast-developing branch of science, and only recently have we started the attempt to curb the ridiculous international predilection for nomnom-excess. The parents - the grandparents to the children - probably used food as a substitute for discipline, or to satiate the father's desires: it's easy to buy children off with food. This man, however, should know better. The children, likewise, should have been having an education in what it means to not ravage themselves from within. If they have had this education, and I highly doubt that, and still choose to eat themselves into an early grave, then that is their prerogative. I smoke. I know it will kill me, but I have made an informed choice. These children have not. Shame on the parents, I say. That is all I will say about this form of stupidity, at least for the meantime - because I will bring in my overarching argument to'rds the end. Not wanting to repeat myself, naturally.
Disenfranchisement: Mediocrity begets Insanity.
Not sure what the justification for this atrocity is. It never ceases to both amaze and horrify me when I hear the audacity by which some people write off suffrage. The wilful disinterest in politics has always been something that gets me riled: it is my bête noire. That people of the elder generations do not venerate their entitlement to vote astounds and shocks me in equal measure. That people they might have known died for the right to vote matters not a jot; that in places like Kuwait women were not allowed to vote until 2006 has no impact on these people: it's not there life; politics doesn't affect them. Ignorance, shocking ignorance. But fine, stupidity notwithstanding, that does not give you the right to instil a sense of political apathy in your children. What on earth do you think you are playing it? YOU, the armchair snob, perpetuate the very problem that you spend hours belligerently lamenting to everyone who can spare you a second. Read thus: society's ills can be blamed on children; children are lazy; children are aggressive; children cannot be controlled: you are to blame. This disengagement is merely indicative of the root cause here: you. Why aren't you handing your children the tools by which they could conceivably succeed? Yes, perhaps, on an individual level, politics is never going to be of grand significance in your day-to-day life, but apathy breeds apathy breeds disinterest breeds idiocy. It's the top of a steep incline, 'Flight 203: non-stop to madness, now descending to land'. Characterised wonderfully as, 'I'd be more apathetic if I weren't so lethargic' you are the intellectual equivalent of malcontent balloon-man discussed above. He's just fat: you're an idiot. Yours is pathological, his is physical. Who is worse?
Religion: Propaganda in moderation is manipulation in disguise.
I hate this whole, "I give my child the knowledge and they can decide what to do with it." No, you really don't. Giving your child the knowledge would be tantamount to giving them the evidence; which, if you are giving your offspring a religious-'education' (and it pains me to distort this word so), you are committing an hilarious sin: you are a walking paradox, and you are breeding a thoughtless robot of a kid. Sick, in short. Ah, so your particular brand of intellectual debauchery is dressed up as 'moderate', well, guess what: moderation breeds fanaticism, you idiot. Know what fanaticism breeds? Fundamentalism. Know what fundamentalism breeds? Death. Fucking hell, how hard is that to watch? Any way, it would be a grand hypocrisy for me to disapprove of your being religious, but I am well within my right to shout myself hoarse over your ruining of a child's life, and their innocence to boot. Dawkins has it right when he says, 'there is no such thing as a Christian child, or a Catholic child [ad infinitum.]': there is merely a vassal in which you have stored your maladroit thoughts. People with even a piddling knowledge of psychology will be at home to the thought of cognitive dissonance, and yet these people don't seem to acknowledge the irony, and the stupidity. Good intentions are that, intentions, just as good motives are just good motives: actions speak a hundredfold louder than words. Bring your child up to be religious if you so please, but not by instilling your thoughts in their minds at an age when they are unable to resist. A child respects authority: that is biological programming at its most basic. This is tantamount to child abuse, and as far as I am concerned, should be a crime. Just like infant circumcision, you should not be allowed to channel your idiocy through other people without them giving informed consent. Therein lies the crux: informed. You aren't giving your children the choice, and you are ruining their lives because of it. You are ruining the lives of others as well, like a meme-pool (again, thanks, Dawkins); ripples of your lunacy are spreading out and infecting others. It is a horrible, never-ending cycle of insanity. I respect your right to practice religion, I do, but only if you practice it privately - and by this, I don't mean only in your own home, but I mean something which is inherently personal to you, not others. Yes, unlike you, who would gladly see me burn in eternal hellfire for my private homosexuality, I believe you are entitled to do whatever you please as long as it does not encroach on the freedoms of others. What you have done, however, is indoctrinate, and I know exactly why. You're not stupid, like your religion would lead us to believe, no, you are just aware. It is cowardice that begets this behaviour, because if you don't get your children young you realise they will see the thinness of your beliefs. If you cannot get them onboard before they have a choice, you won't get them at all: their inherent rational brain will defy your emotionally charged threats. You're smart, I see what you're doing, and you're leading me to my conclusion.
It is fear that drives these things. It is a fear of isolation and of ridicule. A fat man will want a fat woman because they will make each other feel better about themselves; they will happily munch their way through buckets of food, blithely ignoring the world screaming out in pain at their gluttony. Similarly, a disenfranchised parent will attempt to instil the same apathy in their child, because heaven forfend the child starts to think for itself: no, we want drones, please. And now. There you go: you are afraid that your child will question you. You use your beliefs as a form of discipline; to cow, to subvert, to indoctrinate, and to punish your child. It is morally, ethically, humanitarianly (yeah, I'm just gonna make up words now), philosophically, politically, intellectually abhorrent to the nth degree. It is the worst kind of unilateralism, and if it were a psychological experiment, you would fail because of a lack of informed consent. Religion, food, disenfranchisement - merely the tip of the whole disgusting iceberg - these are merely the infamous conditioning experiments of Zimbardo and Milgram played out on the grand stage: the world. It is wrong, heinous, and should be punishable by death (if I believed in corporal punishment; which I don't, because I'm not a moron). By all means bring your children up aware of your lifestyle, but don't ever dare to shape them to what you want them to be. I castigate you for your crimes against humanity, and condemn you to the depths of Hell. Even though it's not real. You. The religious one (this is the one that gets me the most): you don't believe evolution because you hold it is irreducibly complex. How about I take our religious fanaticism, wouldst not I then be able to watch your whole fallaciously compiled, child-endangering, world-manipulating, bigoted, xenophobic, immoral, disgustingly infantile sham of a lifestyle crumble? Think about it.
The children are the future - however platitudinous that is - and it's a bleak one with you at the helm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@John: I'm going to reply a bit more in here, because the formatting is nicer - and it's easier to see what it is that I'm writing. I was actually using cognitive dissonance as a throw-away description, just because it sounded nicer than 'contradictory' or 'oxymoronic' (esp. given that the latter isn't a word). Whilst I think your argument makes theoretical sense, it has no implications when you shove it through any kind of possibility/scrutiny. What I mean by that is that my example is unlikely, but yours is even more unlikely. It seems counter-intuitive that my brain would be smart enough to forestall cognitive dissonance, and in doing so attempt to stop feelings of guilt, or fear. I know yours was meant to be a purely academic hypothetical, but I feel that it is unlikely to apply to a lot of people.
I see your point, however, that I perhaps shouldn't have bandied the term around quite so flippantly. I stand by what I say about religion, but will concede that it was a poor choice of words.
Let me just play devil's advocate in a literal sense, and represent those who believe in Hell. I’m not sure what your precise example of cognitive dissonance was, but I suppose you’re saying that any religious belief is an example of it, as they all entail ‘rationalizing’ to oneself that there is an afterlife, even though one must logically state that they cannot be sure either way. Holding a religious belief is a common method employed to circumnavigate the terror of the unknown/death. Here is a purely academic postulation: one could argue that you are in fact merely attempting to prevent cognitive dissonance, through your belief that the Christian religion is false, for the simple reason that Christianity is incompatible with homosexuality. To reduce your terror of the unknown, you have subscribed to atheism. So if we create a synthesis between Terror-management theory and cognitive dissonance, we will see that your refutation of the Christian belief-system, stems from your sexuality resulting in a terror of the Christian afterlife, which in turn leads to a dissonance between the possibility of holding Christian values alongside your sexuality, and results in the necessity to refute one side of the dissonance; either homosexuality or Christianity. Since you cannot choose your sexuality, you have only one option; the refutation of the Christian religion. Thus, your atheism is not a conclusion drawn from an impartial analysis of the phenomena and issues at hand, and consequently, cannot be deemed valid. I am of course, writing from a positivistic stance.
ReplyDeleteFor more information on Terror-management theory and cognitive dissonance please see, Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). Handbook of experimental existential psychology. Guilford Press.
My example of cognitive dissonance was meant to demonstrate the irony between holding both a Christian view, and a view that your child is a Christian. The two are, as far as I can see, incompatible. Your example, however, is equally valid. I see your point, but would argue that homosexuality isn't actually in opposition to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, my brain, I think, if it were so inclined to believe, would take the bible as allegory, not literal truth. There is also no explicit reference to the thought of homosexuality: just that you cannot practice. I would like to get on board with your idea, because it sounds hirarious, but the problem is that as soon as you start to analyse the /evidence/ for and against 'God', you cannot help but draw one conclusion.
The difference between my argument here is that someone /a posteriori/ should have been educated enough to draw the conclusion that there is nothing, no immortality, no eternal damnation. Most theologians think the bible is a set of moral guidelines (which, if it is, that horrifies me nonetheless), and thus we see that even leading religious thinkers go for natural selection, evolution, the origin of species: so my argument is why are the parents allowed to indoctrinate their children with what can only be described as lies?
I have no qualms with someone practising their religion (though I do think the world would be better off without it) but I take issue with forcing it on someone else, especially someone who cannot consent. I would never tell my child to be an atheist: I would present the evidence and see what the child wanted to do.
tl;dr: allegory, not incompatible, indoctrination. As one of my gay friends said, "If Hell is real, and that's where I'm surely headed, I don't mind: all the gays are down there, it's going to look FABULOUS!"