Why do liberals love to brainwash their children?

Why do liberals love to brainwash their children?

Because children are the only people who could believe in this shit.

honestly nothing is wrong with imparting your beliefs on your children, its just that the beliefs are incorrect and dangerous. im glad my dad "brainwashed" me into his right leaning beliefs, i would have been fucked otherwise.

i cannot fathom how the left has adopted the "nasty woman" line

its just dumbfounding

Even children thing this shit is fucking ridiculous. Or are too young to have a clear grasp on politics in the first place. Fuck parents like the ones in OPs post.
>nothing is wrong with imparting your beliefs on your children
To a certain extent. But at least wait until they're old enough and they're beings with conscious thought and reasoning, not while their shitting their pants and still nursing.

Same reason the Right tries to pushing Jesus down kids' throats.

because the first ideas we receive are not our own and we have to go through a growing process.

you cannot expect a young kid to know about the frankfurt school and that karl marx was jewish at 3.

or that the feminists she is supporting would probably support killing her as post natal abortion up until last year.

wait.. this is a thing?

...

No children really dont care about anything beyond fun and shitting.

I don't get it.

Because if left to their own devices children will always fall into classical gender roles as it is natural.

Thanks for the flag, faggot.

They're hateful and terrible people. To them children are nothing more than propaganda tools and ways to virtue signal.

These kids will eventually rebel against their parents.

Its called having a religion, not "pushing it down your throat"

Liberalism and anti-Trump hats arent anything of the sort, you fucking pervert

If Sup Forums actually somehow managed to breed, they'd likely buy their kids swastika arm bands and a pepe coloring book for their birthday.

Well it was the largest inaugural protest in history, it's pretty cool to have a baby pic of your kid to reflect the moment as a moment in history.

Also Trump is trying to revoke the right to abortion, and is a filthy degenerate toucher.

Why do parents teach their values to their children? How is this a thread?

Just because their on the other side of the isle doesn't turn basic child-rearing into brainwashing.

It's because trump emphasized "woman" when we spoke over her in the debate. Women everywhere can relate to a inderqualified man speaking over her to put her down. It seems pretty straight forward to me

looks like these children have need to visit the bottom of the ocean and save their father

>why do liberals like brainwashing children
Because it's easy. My 6 year old nephews freaked the fuck out on me during the election when he saw my maga hat, saying stupid shit like he's gonna deport all Indians. I know it wasn't his parents who told him this bullshit

Keep telling yourself that bud. Thank goodness Chriatianaty is on the way out

Conservatives brainwash their children by taking them to church before they're old enough to make a distinction between facts and beliefs

mfw this "nasty woman" kills herself at age 30 because no man will go near her

most kids rebel anyway

What? The religion that preaches you shouldn't kill or harm or rob is bad.... It teaches money isn't everything and you say its bad? Trolling or not how can you even say that?

>calling her a nasty woman

Didn't all the money raised by these hats go to ISIS?

Because it's easy and gives them a way to show off their kid and virtue signal at the same time. Liberals feed off attention

Yes.

Shit like this is morally gray. On the one hand, yes, you're right. It's just the mirror image of what people on the right do to their kids. On the other hand, she's filling the child's brain with ideological cancer.
A possible analogy (go nuts if this is a bad one); Parent smokes cigarettes for most of their life, sees no negative side effects. Decides that since they're healthy, what harm could it do the child? Proceeds to start the child smoking at a young age.

Point is, the ideas she is imparting (or, more likely, preparing to impart) to this child are not likely to put the child on a path to a fulfilling life.

He said woman, he was talking about a nasty woman. Women are niggers of course, much like yourself, and extremely self centered as well. So naturally, they begin to act like niggers, I am sure you can relate.

It actually has the opposite effect. Generation X are Hitler youths compared to millennials. It is proven the way your children turn out most like you is by leaving them to their own devices. Attempting to force them one way, or attempting to block another, is what makes that way look all the more tempting.

I can't take all this winning and all these memes!

poor cuck michael

There's nothing wrong with this. Your children are you property and you can do with them as you please, up to and including sucking them out of your uterus and chopping them limb from limb.

can someone explain how those hats are supposed to look like pussies?

...

The little girl probably doesn't know what it means. She probably just likes the hat.

Did you not see Trump's army of singing girls?

>people are property
tell that to the slaves

Because they can't convince by arguing logically or pointing to real-world achievements.

Pussycat probably?? Not sure.

Hillary is a nasty woman

I hope she grows up to become a stay-at-home mom to a family of white protestant kids.

>conservatives are all bible thumping Christians
>also not understanding the metaphysical and moral truths religion imparts on people

Make sure you remember to clean out your obese otherkin life partners folds before going to bed. You wouldn't want xer to get an infection because of her body choices

>the metaphysical and moral truths religion imparts on people
When you're brought up in a church as a kid you learn to believe things without evidence and not question it. That's not beneficial. It's possible to teach the morals christianity encourages without signing your kids up for something they're too young to comprehend

>you shouldn't kill or harm or rob
Christianity doesn't do that. Legal ethics does that.

Christianity is absolutely fine with all of those things as long as it's against unbelievers or sanctified by divine revelation.

"Religion of Peace" garbage applies to all the Judaism derivatives.

Both the right and left brainwash their kids with mysticism.

That really depends on the church but more importantly your family

Your family tells you not to question Jesus or the Bible, Protestants too.

Catholics do not frown on questioning

I'm not even catholic but I always feel the need to defend religions from retards who don't know the history dogma or even the actual lessons of the texts

Try reading them as an adult and see what you think

Our moral system is based off judeo-Christian values

Our modern western morals derive from Christianity, Christ-Cucks are wrong about a lot but they are not wrong about how western legal and moral systems evolved over the last 2 millennia

Actually reading the Bible should be the best evidence for why it's just a bunch of crazy, delusional, made-up bullshit

>I read a book designed to teach morals through lessons to ancient farmers and took it literally

Try being less obtuse

>Catholics do not frown on questioning
Please man, don't lie. Even read the Council of Trent.

>christianity encourages
Christianity does not promote modern ethics and morals. Just read the bible.

>Our moral system is based off
Greek philosophy. Christianity is what caused all the immorality and corruption of the middle ages.

I used to think so as well until I went back and studied Ecclesiastical thinkers and the history of the early-modern church

Protestant reformation etc. you like to assume the people of the past were steeped in some bizarre mysticism and that's it's all nonsense to keep you from getting off

But it's not, as Jordan Peterson said in an interview "you've made the observations any bored 13 year old does about church"

It hasn't been around for 2000 years and influenced so much of history, peopleand art because everyone is a fucking immature retard.

Try again

Also >Christian dark ages

Just fucking no that's not a thing that occurred

>any bored 13 year old
I've studied scripture in detail, and can see objectively how it brainwashed people into immorality through removing their ability to use evidence-based reason.

All modern ethics are based implicitly on evidence-based understanding, 'informed consent', 'innocent until proven guilty', etc.

Because you are the one with the inadequate understanding of religion due most likely to indoctrination, you cannot see the inherent immorality in working to appease a fictional creature over actually saving lives.

Let alone getting into the Christian conception of an 'afterlife' objectively causing nihilism through preaching that the material world doesn't matter.

Christianity caused the "dark ages", they're real, and you have only to see that they directly or indirectly destroyed the works of Democritus and the Atomists to realize it.

Because they're degenerates and because only a child could believe in their worthless bullshit.

>Why do liberals love to brainwash their children?

because liberals are slaves to fashion.

and brainwashing their children is the latest trend.

leftists.... slaves to media indoctrination.

Got a 5 year old cousin who hated me for voting Trump. Reason being, "he will kick out all the Mexicans".
Surely this fact was brought upon his own knowledge and analysis of Trump's words. God do I hate SoCal.

>5 year old

I can tell by the way you are discussing this that you haven't studied the faith you've read the Bible and gone to church

I don't neccesarily think what goes on in a Sunday mass is ideal, and as I said I'm
Not even a Christian but just in the way you call god an imaginary creature shows that you fail to understand the greater concept of "god" as it's actually described

All of your evidence based reasoning derives from concepts that all me. Are equal in the eyes of God.

You are reading the book and taking it a face value and not trying to understand the message behind it and why it is important to the development of a moral society.

I'll think you'll find most very religious people like priests and scholars don't consider god to be an actual literally being in any sense that a human could comprehend

But I'm getting ahead of myself, it doesn't appear that you actually know muh about the church and also said you are still stuck on the revelations any half cognitive teenager figures out sitting j. Sunday school

I enchourage you to keep going it's actually all quite fascinating

Andyou are 100% wrong about he dark ages

Historians won't even use the term dark ages anymore because it isn't true and it isn't accurate

>you haven't studied
Oh but I have. Including Tertullian. I've just drawn different conclusions than you.

It is impossible to have a moral system based on belief without evidence. Impossible. This is a basic of modern secular ethics.

And the result is what we observe in the manifest historical corruption of so-called "believers".

Even examining the manipulations of the Medici Popes will reveal how the religion objectively causes immorality by disabling human skepticism.

The case has already been made against subversive salvationist cults, you just haven't caught up.

>Christianity creates immoral men because of not allowing skepticism

But that's not what the church teaches, it has preached blind faith at certain times but not at all times. That's a lazy and unlikely conclusion

It's more likely that amoral men use the power of institutions like the medieval to their advantage not because their belief turned them bad.

And that fact that you insist on the "dark" ages and worse "Christian dark ages" shows you don't know what you are talking about on these topics in general.


How does a secular society conclude that all people are afforded equal protection and rights when it is plainly obvious in nature that some are superior and some are inferior

How is that moral basis defined without beliefs that we are inherently equal beyond the physichal reality

>But that's not what the church teaches
>at certain times but not at all times
Yes it is. Do not lie about the dogma that is plain and within your holy texts.

>that some are superior
This is what your religion teaches, based upon their belief in immaterial characters.

Evolutionary biology derives ethical structures from the survival advantage they confer in maintaining a society.
You cannot do that with a religion, you did not do that with your religion, because you have no evidence-based contact with your deity.
Your religion is simply that you make up an opinion, and claim it is your deity's opinion. That's it.

Following that, any system can make up an opinion, and test to see if it works. Consequently the modern experiment of ethical systems is based upon evolutionary biology, wherein claiming it "comes from a deity" is pointless arrogance.

>insist on the "dark" ages
I call it that for the factual truth of its deficiency of innovation.

I don't care if Christian historians don't want to call it that.
Their entire goal is to make their cult seem to be responsible for everything good and nothing bad.

Clear indication of immoral reasoning: They believe they are infallible at core.

I haven't been following, what is this pussy hat shit all about? Pic related is the only thing it makes me think of.

Nice word salad

>Christian historians
No just historians

>modern morality is based on evolutionary biology

What YouTube did you find that from because that is competely false, evolutionary biology is an emerging science modern moral structures are derived from catholic teachings developed under enlightenment thinkers

If we did base morals off of evolutionary biology we would conclude that all people aren't equal and therefore not deserving of equal rights and protections.

>your religion
I've said this like 9 times I'm not catholic

>your oppinion claiming it's your deities oppinion

No you fail to understand how these things develop. These stories aren't new, some asshole in 211 ad didn't just shit it out one afternoon hey are the continuation of stories repeated through religions throughout the world for thousands of years. Some of the oldest myths like the great flood are indeterminatly old maybe tens of thousands because it's present in almost all human societies.

You are claiming religion is arbitrary and it is not it is an agglomeration of teaching designed to give you a moral and social framework on how to behave

And it continues to develop.

And last but not least

MODERN ETHICS ARENT BASED ON ECOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY YOU MADE THAT SHIT UP

>You are claiming religion is arbitrary
Based upon the fact that it utilized non-evidence claims as supportive, it is the objective definition of "arbitrary".

This is, again, why it can be used to turn so many people to evil.
They are indoctrinated to 'believe', not 'reason', in what their overlords tell them.
This is why all the aristocrats of the dark ages were crowned 'with the authority of the church'.
This is where "divine mandate" comes from.

You are just taking SECULAR improvements to ethics, and claiming your cult is responsible.

>YOU MADE THAT
Are you seriously defending a specific religion while claiming other people "made things up"?
And then actually running the false flag that you're not religious, you just happen to be pumping out the cult's party line constantly?

I didn't make evolutionary biology up, and you can easily look up the evolution of social organisms.

Other animals have their own ethical and social systems, well studied. Humans ones evolve just the same. Religion objectively detracts from that process through introducing non-physical beliefs.

Through the purely physical system in which we all live, creatures evolve systems to preserve their lives and health, including ethics and society.

Non-physical concepts are the tribalist musings of people who didn't know what the brain did, and believed your feelings literally came from your heart.
Who believed electric fish were proof of magic.

It's time to move on to something more sensible, and more moral.

Almost everybody passes their beliefs onto their children. In this case, they are just beliefs that we disagree with. However, I do have a problem with them using their child as a prop for their own political beliefs.

>I didn't make evolutionary biology up, and you can easily look up the evolution of social organisms.

It's a new science, it hasn't been used in the justification of any morals or ethics.

That's what you made up

>Other animals have their own ethical and social systems, well studied. Humans ones evolve just the same. Religion objectively detracts from that process through introducing non-physical beliefs.

>Through the purely physical system in which we all live, creatures evolve systems to preserve their lives and health, including ethics and society

How can you take this evolutionary look and not see that religions were designed to make sense of a word that humans had no understanding of and a model of how to behave to bear help their communities survive and thrive? It's almost as if religions are as natural to human evolution as our melinine content and hair coverage

You assume if we take a full objectivist view to humans removing all of our past history and biases and moral teachings we would come to the same conclusions on moral values as we have today. I fundamentally disagree

If you look st things trough a straight biological survival of the fittest end all sorts of moral "evils" would take place. Why protect he weak and disabled? They don't help us survive! Why protect he stupid? They don't help us survive! "Why care about the individual when the species survival is all that matters"

Great evils derive of the moral basis you claims is our modern system (it's not)

>It's time to move on to something more sensible, and more moral.

So you're just a fedora

As I said before falling your idea on how to base a new moral system wouldmland is im a place close to North Korea, or some sort of bizarre hive mind society where the individual is crushed in the name of survival

Because hat is the natural world, its brutal

>it hasn't been used in the justification
It is used in the the development of all morals, since humans are social animals.

Religions are just ways that humans use to make their opinions seem more powerful, by associating them with aspects of nature like thunder.

>Why protect he weak and disabled?
Just study real science. Humans are more likely to contribute to a society where they know they will be protected, no matter their condition.

"Survival of the fittest" includes "survival of the nicest person with the most friends".
You're using an ignorance and disproven definition of "Darwinism".
We have already objectively proven that humans are subject to evolution, and all their social systems including altruism are derived from it through neurological substructures.

If humans had no history or knowledge, they would just develop it again from first principles, like they obviously did in the first place.
Unless you don't believe in evolution at all, you're a creationist, in which case you have given yourself to immoral delusions of solpisitic arrogance.

>So you're just a fedora
And there it is. The use of a pedantic image meme to defend a belief in magic and a morality derived from easily manipulable fictional characters.

Secular Ethics understand the physical reality of systems like the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the factual benefit on social cohesion that affording people universal rights and protection confers.

Your religion was declaring kings and queens to be "divinely superior" to "peasants" all in ignorance of the secular truth of equal potential under evolution.

You compress all times of religious teachings and act as if they are all equal in modern senses to disprove the whole of religion, they are not. Yes the church declared emperors and kings 1000 years ago, just like organisms over thousands of years he chcurch developed as a system to what it became

in one way you are correct modern science has affirmed things supported by the church (like monogomy) which for a long time atheists claimed was just an evil religious bound placed on us, turns out it's not and probably evolutionarily the best for raising kids.

The problem is you are working backwards, modern ethics exsisted before the science of evolution you are describing and you are working backwards with modern science to say "hey see, if we were just rational secularists we would have gotten to the same place". But that's only because you are aiming to get to the moral groundwork that already exsisted largely due to religious teachings, in particular when it comes to the enlightenment period (which is what or modern society is based on)

The only reason you can point to your evolutionary biology and show how it can be used to justify our current moral system is because thar moral system was already in place

I'm sorry tha you like to assume you are a super smart guy and nobody ever questioned if religion was valid or real before (the actually have you'll find humans have always been as smart as yourself).

Once again it's not my religion but if you think we would have gotten to where we are today without the modern church just look at Islam, look at Asia and how they treat human life

Look at sub Saharan African tribe and pre-Colombian American cultures

Look at Greeks and romans and the atrocities they committed

I have faith in evolution, trial and error, survival of the fittest. Like an organism western culture and Christian values developed through trial and errors and has produced the most succefull and effective society yet

>modern ethics exsisted before the science of evolution
No it didn't. Evolutionary biology is a persistent inherent part of the genetic structure of humanity that predates all religion.

Human awareness and study of it only came about through the removal of religious dogma which denied the truth of it.
Just as religious dogma denied the truth of the earth orbiting the sun and the value of skepticism in 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Monogamy predated religion, and religion stole the idea of it to claim as their own. Not the other way around.

Biology came first, religion claimed responsibility for it. Pure and simple.
We can objectively see that empiricism, based upon biological materialism, is more effective for preserving society.
Science cures disease where religion 'prays' and fails to.

The only reason you can have your gold idols and giant cathedrals is because you have taken from the science that provides your architecture and farming techniques.

It is you who has done this backwards.

because if they don't their kids might be able to think for themselves

Same reason atheists exist.

KEKD

Just a hat

You are not correct

You are under some allusion that religion was created to shield humanity from the truth when it is simply an outgrowth of humanities desire to find the truth

You also seem to believe in these historically inaccurate myths about the church trying to suppress scientific advancement which is not true

Just like your claim that the dark ages "lacked innovations". Which is simply untrue

You believe in some inherint nature of man, you have religion you just don't like to call it god or Catholicism but you are just as reverent and trusting in the divinity of man.

Keep going. You'll get there eventually

The hat doesn't even look like a vagina.

>was created to shield humanity from the truth
No, it developed from the institutionalization of wrong opinions which were protected by the demonization of doubt.

They were wrong about the sun orbiting the earth, but they had the authority to kill or imprison in order to protect that wrongness.

All of the "atrocities" you may cite were certainly not prevented by Christianity during the dark ages.
Modern ethics are based upon SECULARISM, the separation of church and state.
Before secularism, defying the local lord got you executed for "blasphemy" or all manner of immorality that religion causes.

We KNOW they suppressed scientific advancement to protect their own power and arrogance.

Just consider how many people died of plague and disease because they banned medical autopsy as "immoral".

You only see the historical message they feed to you, not the immorality of their blind beliefs and what it brings.

Know that the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 under Alaric were Christians.
All the destruction of pagan art and philosophy?
All the Christian graffiti desecrating pagan temples and mob-murdering hypatia?

No, no, it is SECULAR values you laud, developed IN SPITE OF Christianity.

Christianity is what takes the Stoic philosophies of Jesus, and perverts them with violent superstition.

It has long abandoned any goodness in the physical world.

There are no dark ages you keep just going on and on like there is a battle between science and religion and there is none

>like there is a battle between science
There was a battle, and science has won.

Science is simply a better description for reality than religion.

Science relies on skepticism, and the lack of arrogant dogma and scripture, to progress.

Science is anathema to religion, and it is religion that seeks to inveigle itself into science, solely to preserve its own mythology as the ruling narrative of earth.

For it is in science that there shall be no belief without proof, and thus religion is rendered invalid and past.

You are simply incorrect I have no idea how else to explain it to you

I don't think it's any different than the right adopting "deplorables" honestly. It's them mocking the opposite candidate for saying something retarded.

>I have no idea how else to explain it
I know. That is the defining characteristic of the religiously indoctrinated:

Absolute inability to explain their deeply held opinions using tangible evidence.

In reality, you've proved my point.

I wish I was in the Bahamas right now.

Is it supposed to? I always just assumed it was a random little hat, and they call it that to associate it with feminism.

I'm not religious you dense faggot you believe in some persecution complex and you think you've discovered a great truth when you are just as blindly indoctrinated as the zealots you claim to dislike

>years later

>Mom, why do I have this weird beanie on in all these baby pictures from 2017
>Oh, that's called a "pussy hat". We had you wear it all the time when you were little because a horrible racist, sexist, transphobe was not-my-President
>Wait, when I was 1 year old, you made me wear something called a "Pussy hat" and took me out in public with it?

And thus another Sup Forumslack is born.

>you think you've discovered a great truth
I'm just relating to you a basic description of Dawkins-style evolutionary biology.

I mean you continually prove my points by devolving solely to insults and superficialities:
Which is exactly what religion causes in the world at large.

There's a difference between beliefs held upon tangible demonstrable evidence that have a material benefit to society...
And ones held because a parent demanded you literally believe in magic or get punished.

Fact is, science would always have been a better belief system, saving move lives, and developing better ethics faster.
Rather than, you know, all the "holy wars" over scraps of sand in the desert.

So they can be like conservatives, brainwashing their kids?

if it wasnt for the damn monks to write down a whole bunch of stuff to find god who would know how science started right ?

...

I try to put on a good show.

There's this really weird phenomenon of people who claim they "aren't religious", yet vehemently defend a certain religion, and claim it's "required for modern morality".

To be honest, I'm tempted to say it's professional false flag shilling.
Where they say they aren't religious just to try to seem more credible.

They don't even discuss Neoplatonism or the Mos Maiorum, so maybe they're just buying the media propaganda about "how great religion is" and "religions of peace".