Orwellian use of language: mom pleads guilty in cult starvation death

[Cannuck]

"When I simplify something it's ok.

Not really surprised you don't get it. The quote was..

"You have taken a simplistic view of things just to reinforce your own agenda"

...and of course Scott Free simplified that statement by ignoring the last half..to reinforce his own agenda. If you still don't grasp the issue, PM me and I will try and explain it the best I can. It is enough for now to say that it is agendas. Scott Free has one (as do you apparently) and I don't....other than to point out agendas.

 

[Scott Free]

I do not believe for one second, (just my own personal opinion, based on no other evidence than intuition) that the Mother was out of her senses, yet she was able to stand by and watch her babe's horrific sufferings, and NOT know that she was murdering him? This would not have happened overnight. How could she have been so insensitive and uncaring, or so stupid as to have believed such nonsense as his 'resurrection' after starvation?

And, even in the unlikely event that THIS too was the case, that the Mother was mentally, or emotionally incapacitated; is it being implied that everyone else involved and around her was also? No, I do not believe that either.

Gilbert got it about right, as usual. We should seriously be looking towards some type of psychological examination before people are allowed to have children at all.

My heart bleeds for what that poor little toddler went thro.

I am of the opinion that fallacious thinking almost certainly leads people to psychopathic behaviour. I have seen it first hand. It is the cornerstone of our war and propaganda machines for example. The most common method is to mix kinds, that is, to confuse groups and blur the middle. For example: "When we fight it is for freedom but when they fight it is against freedom."

The law of Identity tells us that a soldier is a soldier.

The Law of Excluded Middle tells us soldiers whether they are from Afghanistan or Canada are still soldiers.

The law of non-Contradiction tells us one of these statements must be false: Killing is good, killing is bad.

The only arguments to be made is of kind, that is, does this group belong to that one or is this group soldiers and that group something else.

There is also the justification argument: is it OK to kill when your country has been invaded?

If it is OK then it must be that killing is good. If it isn't OK then it must be that killing isn't good.

So whether it is good to kill or not is a subjective question depending on desired outcomes and classification:

We want Afghanistan to embrace democracy so it is OK for our soldiers to kill.

It isn't OK for the religious soldiers to kill because we don't like their flavour of religion.

Neither of these statements is true and neither justification is logical, however, after all the double speak is ignored, these are the sort of basic premises used to excuse the ongoing war.

Whatever excuse is used it will be likewise subjective and fallacious. I have not yet heard such an argument that wasn't at any rate nor have I been able to imagine one.

Given that this is the sort of thinking which governs our social norms and behaviour.

Given that such twisted and demented double think is acceptable in some circumstances it is unreasonable to think it shouldn't be in others. In other words, the majority of people could not figure out when subjective irrationality is OK (like in war) and when it isn't (like when trying to save a child's soul).

The very line that you are claiming is in its very nature subjective and irrational because you are saying killing is not good, however, our society clearly says it is.

You have been able to find some line of difference (intersection) it is unreasonable and fallacious to expect everyone to take on your subjective prejudices.

If this woman is guilty so too are the soldiers in Afghanistan. If she is charged so too should they be.

I say this because the notion of guilt in such a deluded and contradictory society as ours can only be determined by intent. Did she knowingly intend to kill the child while knowing killing was wrong?

Did the soldier knowingly drop a bomb on a group of people while knowing that killing was wrong?

Or is it that their fallacious and distorted thinking allowed them to act without knowing they were doing something wrong?

It isn't logic that you are appealing to when you say the lady should be charged. That there is a right and wrong that she should have known. All you are really saying is that it is your subjective opinion that she should have known because you wouldn't have done that yourself.

But you don't know that if you were in her situation you wouldn't have done the same thing.

In all probability, actually, you probably would have.

Because if you are a typical Canadian you already adhere to so many fallacious, contradictory and subjective beliefs that it is absurd for you to claim any kind of capacity for defence. Obviously I don't know you, I only mean if you are typical, and by that is that most Canadians have no defence. Perhaps you do but I doubt it because your condemnation of this lady demonstrates you don't.

Edit: In the interest of not being hypocritical I need to say that I don't actually believe in good and bad. I used those labels only because they are culturally popular not because they hold any actual value. The terms are ancient euphemisms for beautiful and ugly, desired or undesired. IMO, there is no such thing as good and evil.

I realize this would change the entire character of my argument but I intended only to keep it confined within the basic norms of our culture which is so far removed from anything like reality I fear my actual opinion would take several volumes to prove. Non the less this more basic argument has a similar conclusion to one that would take longer to make.

 

[Libra Girl]

I am of the opinion that fallacious thinking almost certainly leads people to psychopathic behaviour. I have seen it first hand. It is the cornerstone of our war and propaganda machines for example. The most common method is to mix kinds, that is, to confuse groups and blur the middle. For example: "When we fight it is for freedom but when they fight it is against freedom."

And I am of the opinion that you like the sound of your own voice. I was commenting on the death of a one year old child from your OP, not the Afghanistan war. Nor am I interested in your opinion of fallacious thinking. Start a new thread on both topics, and I am sure that you will get a lot of feedback on either subject.

The law of Identity tells us that a soldier is a soldier.

The Law of Excluded Middle tells us soldiers whether they are from Afghanistan or Canada are still soldiers.

The law of non-Contradiction tells us one of these statements must be false: Killing is good, killing is bad.

The only arguments to be made is of kind, that is, does this group belong to that one or is this group soldiers and that group something else.

There is also the justification argument: is it OK to kill when your country has been invaded?

If it is OK then it must be that killing is good. If it isn't OK then it must be that killing isn't good.

So whether it is good to kill or not is a subjective question depending on desired outcomes and classification:

We want Afghanistan to embrace democracy so it is OK for our soldiers to kill.

It isn't OK for the religious soldiers to kill because we don't like their flavour of religion.

Neither of these statements is true and neither justification is logical, however, after all the double speak is ignored, these are the sort of basic premises used to excuse the ongoing war.

Whatever excuse is used it will be likewise subjective and fallacious. I have not yet heard such an argument that wasn't at any rate nor have I been able to imagine one.

Given that this is the sort of thinking which governs our social norms and behaviour.

Given that such twisted and demented double think is acceptable in some circumstances it is unreasonable to think it shouldn't be in others. In other words, the majority of people could not figure out when subjective irrationality is OK (like in war) and when it isn't (like when trying to save a child's soul).

The very line that you are claiming is in its very nature subjective and irrational because you are saying killing is not good, however, our society clearly says it is.

I never said any such thing! I said, that killing a toddler by any means, let alone starvation, which is a prolonged and agonising death, for not saying amen after a meal, (but for any reason whatsoever) is wrong

You have been able to find some line of difference (intersection) it is unreasonable and fallacious to expect everyone to take on your subjective prejudices.

If this woman is guilty so too are the soldiers in Afghanistan. If she is charged so too should they be.

I say this because the notion of guilt in such a deluded and contradictory society as ours can only be determined by intent. Did she knowingly intend to kill the child while knowing killing was wrong?

Did the soldier knowingly drop a bomb on a group of people while knowing that killing was wrong?

Or is it that their fallacious and distorted thinking allowed them to act without knowing they were doing something wrong?

It isn't logic that you are appealing to when you say the lady should be charged. That there is a right and wrong that she should have known. All you are really saying is that it is your subjective opinion that she should have known because you wouldn't have done that yourself.

Did I say she should be charged? I was under the impression that she had already been charged, and even judged and sentenced. Hmmm, you are so puffed up with conceit for what you believe to be your erudite literacy that you cannot see the words for the page.

But you don't know that if you were in her situation you wouldn't have done the same thing.

In all probability, actually, you probably would have.

Because if you are a typical Canadian you already adhere to so many fallacious, contradictory and subjective beliefs that it is absurd for you to claim any kind of capacity for defence. Obviously I don't know you, I only mean if you are typical, and by that is that most Canadians have no defence. Perhaps you do but I doubt it because your condemnation of this lady demonstrates you don't.

No, you do NOT know me, and I am not Canadian, tho I have the greatest respect for the Canadian nation on the whole, and it is the reason that I come back again and again to this forum.

Edit: In the interest of not being hypocritical I need to say that I don't actually believe in good and bad. I used those labels only because they are culturally popular not because they hold any actual value. The terms are ancient euphemisms for beautiful and ugly, desired or undesired. IMO, there is no such thing as good and evil.

I realize this would change the entire character of my argument but I intended only to keep it confined within the basic norms of our culture which is so far removed from anything like reality I fear my actual opinion would take several volumes to prove.

Good grief!! Not here in CanCon surely? Thanks for the warning. I will be on the lookout and avoid your volumes assiduously.

Non the less this more basic argument has a similar conclusion to one that would take longer to make.[/quote]

Blue font?? Dang! How did that happen? :-?

 

[Vereya]

You could read any book and do something bad. The books don't make you do it. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own actions. Religion didn't make that woman starve her child. She was not powerless. She was stupid and gullible and weak willed.

There aren't many people who started burning witches after reading "The Forsyte Sage", for instance. Or "War and Peace".

 

[Vereya]

What specific examples are you speaking of? There are very few mothers who murder their children.

Mothers, who merder their children. Parents, who dosown their children for not believing what they do. Fathers, who stone their daughters to death for loving a man of different religion. Godly and religious people, who make someone's life unbearable, because they think that this someone is a sinner. Even if you browse this forum alone, you will find lots of examples like these, and there are lots of other sources where to look for information, if want to get it, though. If you prefer not to question your beliefs and authorities, that's quite another thing.

 

[tracy]

Mothers, who merder their children. Parents, who dosown their children for not believing what they do. Fathers, who stone their daughters to death for loving a man of different religion. Godly and religious people, who make someone's life unbearable, because they think that this someone is a sinner. Even if you browse this forum alone, you will find lots of examples like these, and there are lots of other sources where to look for information, if want to get it, though. If you prefer not to question your beliefs and authorities, that's quite another thing.

My personal beliefs are completely non-religious. I don't go to church and don't believe in God and Jesus, so it's not about me defending my religion or anything. I just have to acknowledge the reality. I've see more child abuse than most people on this forum thanks to my job. Most often, it's just abuse for abuses' sake. In this country anyways, it's rarely religion. It's a lack of patience, sleep deprivation, drugs, alcohol, boyfriends who don't like their girlfriends' kids, people who just can't control their own tempers.... The cult story will make the news cause it's sensational, but for every baby like this I bet there are hundreds who were abused and neglected for much less exciting reasons. What's their excuse? Religion is a convenient receptacle for blame since it's easier than wondering if people can be violent for no real good reason.

 

[PerVirtuous]

I have read this entire thread. I am not going to comment on all of it, only the more incredibly silly points. As for the news report abusing the word "cult":

Ramkissoon's attorney, Steven D. Silverman, said Ramkissoon believes the resurrection will occur. She agreed to plead guilty only after prosecutors said they would drop the charges if the child comes back to life, Silverman said.

"This is something that she absolutely insisted upon, and this is indicative of the fact that she is still brainwashed, still a victim of this cult," he said. "Until she's deprogrammed, she's not going to think any differently."

If you notice her own lawyer is the one who says she is under the brainwashing of a cult. Since he officially speaks for her, your being offended about this is quite silly. The news story taking his quote and making it part of the headline is certainly reasonable. Your conspiracy theory does not hold water.

Now let's take a look at your "critical thinking".

I am of the opinion that fallacious thinking almost certainly leads people to psychopathic behaviour. I have seen it first hand. It is the cornerstone of our war and propaganda machines for example. The most common method is to mix kinds, that is, to confuse groups and blur the middle. For example: "When we fight it is for freedom but when they fight it is against freedom."

Firstly, A fallacy is a component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, renders the whole argument invalid. There is no logical connection between fallacious thinking and psychopathic behavior. That is the fallacy of non-sequitur. You have NOT seen it first hand.

The law of Identity tells us that a soldier is a soldier.

The Law of Excluded Middle tells us soldiers whether they are from Afghanistan or Canada are still soldiers.

The law of non-Contradiction tells us one of these statements must be false: Killing is good, killing is bad.

The only arguments to be made is of kind, that is, does this group belong to that one or is this group soldiers and that group something else.

There is also the justification argument: is it OK to kill when your country has been invaded?

If it is OK then it must be that killing is good. If it isn't OK then it must be that killing isn't good.

So whether it is good to kill or not is a subjective question depending on desired outcomes and classification:

We want Afghanistan to embrace democracy so it is OK for our soldiers to kill.

It isn't OK for the religious soldiers to kill because we don't like their flavour of religion.

Firstly, these are not actual arguments, they are your personal perverted interpretations of arguments. That is called the strawman fallacy. When you show me one elected official saying "...because we don't like their flavor of religion." Then I will believe you. Until then, I think you make stuff up.

Neither of these statements is true and neither justification is logical, however, after all the double speak is ignored, these are the sort of basic premises used to excuse the ongoing war.

Your post is nothing but doublespeak. You complain about fallacious thinking then indulge in it yourself.

Whatever excuse is used it will be likewise subjective and fallacious. I have not yet heard such an argument that wasn't at any rate nor have I been able to imagine one.

Unsupported wild conjecture.

Given that this is the sort of thinking which governs our social norms and behaviour.

Given that such twisted and demented double think is acceptable in some circumstances it is unreasonable to think it shouldn't be in others. In other words, the majority of people could not figure out when subjective irrationality is OK (like in war) and when it isn't (like when trying to save a child's soul).

Your comparison of military strategy and rhetorical spin with a cult member's pathological behavior is incredibly far from being critical thinking. First of all, subjective irrationality is never OK. Secondly, your completely arbitrary claim that "the majority of people could not figure out when subjective irrationality is OK." Is unsupported wild conjecture.

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make.