Amadd wrote on Oct 14
th, 2011 at 7:20am:
Yadda wrote on Oct 13
th, 2011 at 1:58pm:
Kytro wrote on Oct 13
th, 2011 at 1:06pm:
I'd say the most important thing to teach children is critical thinking skills along with moral reasoning.
Most situations in life don't deal with complicated moral situations usually it's just the straightforward stuff like not killing or hurting other people or taking their stuff.
Good one, Kytro.
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment.
I'd say that it all means nought unless you act upon your convictions.
Kids mimic actions, they don't usually try to decifer and philosophise the inner thoughts, purpose and being of the parent. Especially when the parent can't even do it themselves.
Most parents overrate themselves IMO. Essentially, a parent's thoughts and intentions are useless to a child.
Those things are personal and individual developments where the parent should rejoice and relax upon their lack of influence in that department.Eventually, the child will realise that you are full of sh!t.
People who lack moral direction [i.e. ppl who lack 'moral reasoning'] exhibit confusion in their lives, imo.
Such people often commit suicide, imo.
'Humanists' are 'empty people', imo.
'Humanist' 'professionals' teach us, and our children, that for us to [seek to] discern between good and evil, is a social crime.
That is what 'humanists' are teaching us, and our children.
And it is crap. <---- that is a technical term.
+++
THINK!
Quote:
Do the immoral and perverted have a strongly held philosophy?
Yes. These days you hear their philosophy all the time. It is
epitomized in a single word: "tolerance". Tolerance is their
watchword, their slogan. They repeat it and repeat it over
and over. They know that by the constant repetition they
influence people, influence the masses. It is a really great
sounding word, a great sounding idea. But what they really
mean is tolerance of their own outlooks and conduct, tolerance of
their own gross immorality and depravity.
http://solitaryroad.com/a1016.htmlTHINK!
Do we need to extend any special effort, to be "tolerant" of those who exhibit commendable, and good behaviour ???
Do we need to extend any special effort, to be "tolerant" of the upright, the moral, the good person ???
Do we need to extend any special effort, to be "tolerant", towards those who exhibit;
integrity in their dealings with others, ???
fidelity and faithfulness towards others [who have placed trust in them], ???
honesty in their dealings with others, ???
justness in their dealings towards others, ???
fairness in their dealings with others, ???
No.
It is only those whose behaviour could be deemed to be bad, and contemptible, and immoral, who need to seek to engender the tolerance of others, towards themselves.And this is what 'humanists' are teaching us, and our children, that we [society] should be tolerant of wickedness.
+++
And, it is only those who are immoral and depraved, who would seek a society
where the 'norm' is, that others must, or should, accept their immoral behaviour.
And for the morally wicked person, a "socially just" society, is one without 'bias' or 'discrimination'.
Dictionary;
discrimination = =
1 the action of discriminating against people.
2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. good judgement or taste.
To obtain "social justice" the morally wicked will push for anti-'discrimination' laws.But a society which has abandoned all discernment between, what is morally good behaviour, and what is morally evil behaviour, is not a superior society, imo.
The depraved and the wicked want a society where;
It is no longer socially acceptable to discern between, what is morally good behaviour, and what is morally evil behaviour.
It is no longer socially acceptable to publicly express "intolerance" towards what is morally evil behaviour.
It is now only socially acceptable and 'politically correct' to publicly express "tolerance", towards what was once deemed to be morally unacceptable behaviour.
The depraved and the wicked want a society where everyone must be counted as equal,
no matter their individual merit, or lack of, no matter their individual good behaviour, or lack of.
They agitate, not [particularly] against real injustice, but [particularly] against the 'injustice' of the advancement of those who have achieved their advancement through personal merit.Today, in our society, "tolerance" of what would normally be seen as morally unacceptable behaviour, is acceptable behaviour.
Whereas, anyone who expresses support for the moral code which is promoted in the Bible, is an intolerant 'bigot', and a bad and 'intolerant' person.
Does anyone recognise that some sort of moral inversion has happened here ?
Today, "tolerance" is the watchword, the slogan, of the morally corrupt.
+++
I'm thinking of giving the OzPol forum a miss for a while, and have a break for a while.
And i think that will please some people.