You clearly are not interested in anything deMause has to say, believing you are already in possession of all parenting truth - and religious truth - and he is not.

Since he advocates stateless society, one could hardly call him a social engineer, yet you manage to, along with the other unsavory terms you use to describe the people whose ideas you don't like.

If you are interested in deMause's work, rather than asking me to explain it to you, you can visit his site:


deMause

Btw, your pretensions to Christianity are remarkable considering the antipathy you express toward anyone and everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you. And you use this education forum to express that antipathy in endless tirades.

>>>>You clearly are not interested in anything deMause has to say, believing you are already in possession of all parenting truth - and religious truth - and he is not.<<<

A lame dodge. I posted specific questions in response to this article you linked and you choose not to respond to the questions.

>>>>>Since he advocates stateless society, one could hardly call him a social engineer, yet you manage to, along with the other unsavory terms you use to describe the people whose ideas you don't like.<<<<<

Sorry, but his theory scapegoats a religious group just as his Nazi example scapgoated Jews.

>>>>If you are interested in deMause's work, rather than asking me to explain it to you, you can visit his site:
deMause<<<

Why would I be interested in that?

>>>>>Btw, your pretensions to Christianity are remarkable considering the antipathy you express toward anyone and everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you.<<<<<

Eye to eye??? Blaming traditionally religious people for causing all the violence and wars of the world is scapegoating and ESPECIALLY in view of the FACT that atheist commies kill far more and just as atrociously. In your view I am supposed to "consider" this preposterous and evil smear, actually "dialogue" about it and arrive at some kind of mutually acceptable and intellectually driven compromise about it, thus beginning the dialectical destruction of ttraditional religion. What you call "antipathy" is simply the refusal to agree that this groundless smear be discussed at all, any more than I would "dialogue" over whether all Jews were the cause of Germanys problems and needed to be eradicated to perfect "society". This is such an obvious attack on who you refer to as "religionists" you should be ashamed.

>>>> And you use this education forum to express that antipathy in endless tirades.<<<<

Again with the "hate" rhetoric. I point out issues, I ask questions, you refuse to respond to them or defend your postings and accuse me of "tirades" because I object to your persecution of traditionally religious parenting. We are seeing more of this kind of thing. I read in San Francisco, an area where people routinely have themselves radically surgically mutilated they are trying to outlaw infant circumcision, no word yet on infant ear piercings. This is truly the bizzarro world.

You posed specific questions such as why he didn't focus on Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. I don't know, but I imagine it's because he is more familiar and has more knowledge about German child-rearing practices.

It is not scapegoating, as you insist, because you refuse to examine ideas that conflict with your own in anything but the most kneejerk superficial manner.

What about Flogging for God?


Flogging for God

Do you believe this is some kind of aberration, religious cultists run amok? Where in the New Testament does Jesus ever recommend violence or hitting children?

Also, deMause is not saying that poor child-rearing practices are restricted to people of religious faith. These practices, as he makes clear on his site, are nearly universal. But you go into fits and tizzies over it because of your newfound religiosity and believe it is an attack on you specifically.

You're wrong about that and too blind to see you're wrong.



No, I think you should be ashamed for your near constant antipathy and endless smears toward people who are actually doing things in the world to help kids and families, people like Mitch Hall, whom you referred to as a nutjob.

You constantly smear with names such as slimebag and nutjob and commie creep, etc., then turn around and accuse other people of smears. You have so little knowledge of your own speech, your own blind defenses, that you make it nearly impossible to reason with you. You are against dialogue, believing it is some form of Hegelian dialectic, so you talk at people not with them, as you smear them and call them names.



Considering the trauma newborns males suffer as a result of the practice, that's probably a good idea. If someone wants to be circumcised, they can always make that decision when they are 18 or 21 years old. It is a barbaric practice that sends infants into shock.

>>>>>>You posed specific questions such as why he didn't focus on Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. I don't know, but I imagine it's because he is more familiar and has more knowledge about German child-rearing practices.<<<<

How convenient to ignore the NON-traditional religious violence against children and families and quote anecdotes supporting the scapegoat of the religious. How convenient that a huge hole in his theory troubles you not.

>>>>>It is not scapegoating, as you insist, because you refuse to examine ideas that conflict with your own in anything but the most kneejerk superficial manner.<<<<

Yes, it is.

>>>>>What about Flogging for God?<<<<

What about the Duke homo perv pimping his “adopted son”??? Would you find it credible if I scoured the internet for homosexual and violence against children perpetrated by NON- traditionally religious people? Listed instances of it and then claimed that NON-traditional parenting MUST be the cause of all violence?? Your equating a judicious parental spanking with “flogging” (for God, yet!!!) is just an attempt to tar all religious people as violent child beaters. The anti-traditionally religious agenda of this site is filled with hate and intolerance of religion in its attempt to paint traditionally religious people as child abusers (as opposed to state worshippers who perform THEIR violence in government schools against GENERATIONS by “molding” their minds to suit the needs of the ruling elites and their power seeking toadies…..AND schools are frequently the sites of worse than spankings….also the fault of evil parents, I‘m sure!). The “traditionally religious” tend to HOMESCHOOL, they tend to obey God rather than the edicts of whatever crat is selected to rule us, and they do not worship the eco-dogma, multiculturalism and “dialogue” trap that would inevitably assimilate them into YOUR religion. And THAT is what this is all about. When YOU start condemning the far greater government school violence and intellectual damage with HALF the froth and spittle you condemn traditionally religious people you might get an ounce of credibility. The Quiverfull women must have REALLY scared you! Think of it, all those traditionally religious women (possibly even DOBSON listeners!), just having baby after baby and being homemakers and deferring to husbands instead of having careers and expecting Uncle Sam to be their protector! The selfish child abusing pigs! The insanity of it! Everyone knows you are supposed to skip the marriage and just go on the dole having baby after baby (by whatever sperm donor happens to “do it” for you) for the gov school gulag to swallow up and train into a herd animal.

>>>>>Do you believe this is some kind of aberration, religious cultists run amok? Where in the New Testament does Jesus ever recommend violence or hitting children?<<<<

I believe it is a LOT of aberrations and people selected out for the purpose of smearing traditionally religious people. Now what is YOUR excuse for the Duke “perv dad for fun”?? Is he REALLY secretly traditionally religious?

>>>>>Also, deMause is not saying that poor child-rearing practices are restricted to people of religious faith. These practices, as he makes clear on his site, are nearly universal. But you go into fits and tizzies over it because of your newfound religiosity and believe it is an attack on you specifically.<<<<<

Funny. I missed his concern for the violence committed by atheistic collectivists. Who are THEY “flogging” and murdering for? Please direct me to that portion/article. On second thought, never mind. I steer clear of “hate” sites, especially ones that claim it is “for the children”.

>>>>“because of your newfound religiosity”<<<<

Please enlighten me as to how long I must believe in God in order to satisfy your requirement? I have been “religious” all my life. I simply was deprogrammed from YOUR religion to another. Your opinions on my personal religious faith and it’s quality are irrelevant here. Unless of course you want to start discussing YOUR childlessness, your apparently poor parenting that has caused this crusade against parents.

>>>>>Quote:
Sorry, but his theory scapegoats a religious group just as his Nazi example scapgoated Jews.XXXXXX
You're wrong about that and too blind to see you're wrong.<<<<

No, you are wrong. I have explained why and you think that all you have to do is say I am “blind”. You are unable to defend this terrible smear and scapegoating.

>>>>>>Quote:
In your view I am supposed to "consider" this preposterous and evil smear, actually "dialogue" about it and arrive at some kind of mutually acceptable and intellectually driven compromise ……….eradicated to perfect "society". This is such an obvious attack on who you refer to as "religionists" you should be ashamed.XXXXXX
No, I think you should be ashamed for your near constant antipathy and endless smears toward people who are actually doing things in the world to help kids and families, people like Mitch Hall, whom you referred to as a nutjob.<<<<<

Yes. Yes! They are HELPING the traditionally religious by explaining how evil they are! They are HELPING open their eyes to the evil that they do so that they may understand that Riane Eisler and Lloyd de Mause are the TRUE “Way, Truth, and the Life”…..at least until some other lame social theorist comes along with designs on their kids and families! They are ALWAYS such DO-GOODERS, aren’t they?? They are ALWAYS just brimming with concern for their fellow man and ESPECIALLY children! These social planners and theorists, the Margaret Sangers who just want to stop so many of the poor unfortunate substandards from being born to the Deweys who just want to keep them intellectually stunted so they won’t mind their servitude to “society” so much to the Eislers and YOU who just KNOW that their demented religion is causing all the violence in the world (just ignore the millions slaughtered en masse by atheists)!

>>>>You constantly smear with names such as slimebag and nutjob and commie creep, etc., then turn around and accuse other people of smears. You have so little knowledge of your own speech, your own blind defenses, that you make it nearly impossible to reason with you.<<<<<

You think I don’t know what I am posting? What do YOU think of people who use Nazi tactics and ideology?

>>>>>You are against dialogue, believing it is some form of Hegelian dialectic, so you talk at people not with them, as you smear them and call them names.<<<

WRONG! I have REPEATEDLY posted that “dialogue” and your dialectic are perfectly fine for those who want to live under that paradigm. I see no need for it nor is it morally acceptable to force people to live as I say they should, even if I do happen to be part of a majority. YOU are welcome to this worldview as are those who don't mind being ruled by engineered consensus of mini gods posing as social "scientists". We have seen the dismal results of 100 plus years of social theories and "helping".

Misses the point so many times it can't be answered without taking hours I don't have.

Enjoy your insult and hate festivals here. Thanks to you, the new reason the education forum is here, so you can vent, insult and misunderstand every word that's written.

....you can't so you call it a "rant" to attempt to marginalize ME personally, instead. Leninist "debate" tactics, yawn.

First one would have to unravel all you've misconstrued and distorted in the original message. I don't have time for that.

I hope someday you overcome your penchant for pandiculating here - and likening my debate tactics to Lenin's.

You are marginalized. No one has to TRY to marginalize you.

As I posted above.