Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #349 on Comments
Level 331 Comments: Practically Famous
Send mail to wertologist
Invite wertologist to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 142 Content: Faptastic → Level 143 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress:
Level 331 Comments: Practically Famous → Level 332 Comments: Practically Famous
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
Wertologist or Wert107
What people say about wertologist
latest user's comments
- It always bothered me how that was the ********* gun in the ga…
- Not the same at all. One is taking children with the parents(n…
CNN third graders
Speaking out of experience, conservatives brainwash their children at a higher rate than liberals, since by nature conservatives advocate unquestioning traditionalism while liberalism is tied to experimenting with new ways which relies on critical thinking (with the exception of the authoritarian neoliberalists that just try to censor everyone disagreeing with them)
Maybe in Germanistan, but even in the media it is overwhelmingly done by the left. The content is literally evidence of that. CNN interviewed children because they wanted to get an emotional response.
>... liberalism is tied to experimenting with new ways which relies on critical thinking (with the exception of the authoritarian neoliberalists that just try to censor everyone disagreeing with them)
Which is what is going rampant. Liberals(not saying all, but a lot certainly are) are using children as a way to silence disagreement. Why does your word matter when this 5 year old child is crying? That's what they're doing and that's what I have issue with.
You're also missing what I said. I said I'm against
doing it. It's sickening. However, what you described isn't the same thing. There's a difference between
your kids your values and
them what to think. Many on the left are like that. They tell the kids what to think rather than teach them. It's even happening in schools where teachers(from what I've seen, it's college professors) are just telling the students what to think and then they go parrot what they were told and it just doesn't go anywhere. Often if you confront one of these people on a specific issue, they don't know how to answer or even respond because they don't understand it. That's the difference I'm talking about. They don't
what they are arguing. I'm all for informing people, but that's not what's happening here.
You're very wrong. Conservatives teach their kids only things they believe and not to have an open mind way more often than a non conservative. And any kid is going to parrot what their parents say.
You're the only one getting butt hurt over an interview with kids and if somehow they said pro trump things, this would be number one on fj. Get your head out of your ass
Can you back up the claim in this comment now? >>
And if they do I don't think that's right, but I just haven't seen that much of it to assume even a majority do. However, we have so much evidence of the left-leaning people doing that(as evidenced in the post). If you think a kid is definitely going to parrot their parents then you must have a low opinion on parents in general. I was raised to be open minded, but I guess that just means I'm parroting my mother's views despite us disagreeing on most things, right?
You're also derailing a bit since this discussion was using kids in general. You seem to be trying to drive the focus away from the media/left doing it by trying to only focus on conservatives(which you actually haven't backed up with evidence). My point is that I don't think children should be used as political tools since they don't really even know and are just used as emotional leverage. I can actually back up what I say as it happens in the news all the time. This post is evidence in itself that they do it. Are you denying that they do?
I'm not biased here. I clearly stated I don't want kids to be used in either side, but you're quick to ignore what I said and then claim I'd be for it if kids were used in pro-Trump ways. If I have to say it again so you'll see it then so be it. I don't want
using kids to push any agenda. Instead of stating your assumptions as fact, how about you actually read what I said? How about
get your head out of your ass?
I do have a low opinion of most parents. It seems to be a rare case that kids are actually taught open mindedness, especially being from the south. And I would hope you, and adult now I assume, wouldn't still parrot your parents. Yes both left and right shelter their kids now, but complaining about what kids say is pointless.
You should open your mind and practice what you preach then because I've met plenty of good parents who don't shove ideologies down their kid's throat. I've actually
seen conservatives do it though. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen it. However, I have seen leftist ideals shoved into kids from all angles. From parents, schools, news, TV, etc.
>And I would hope you, and adult now I assume, wouldn't still parrot your parents
Again, why do you claim your assumption as fact? "Still"? I never parroted my mother's views. I even clearly stated that I didn't, but you're saying it as if I did(even though you would have no idea). Again, I was raised with an open mind. Nothing was shoved down my throat. My mother was catholic(as was the rest of my family), but never once tried to shove anything on me. I didn't even
she was Catholic for the longest time because it never came up. She never forced any ideology or anything on me. I never parroted anything. How many times do I have to spell it out here?
>Yes both left and right shelter their kids now, but complaining about what kids say is pointless.
So just because the other guys do it, it's ok? I don't think anyone should do it. Regardless of the situation. But you seem to be saying "just shut up and deal with it" even though it clearly is moronic to accept a child's view as serious when they very often don't have any real idea. You're also derailing the whole issue. You're trying to derail it from "people using kids to push political agendas" to "conservatives only teach what they believe". You're glossing over everything I say and I have to wonder if you're even reading it since you have twice stated I was doing something I clearly stated I was against.
You also haven't backed up your claims, but you still stick by them. Your claims are too vague to really be backed up so they aren't even really viable. Don't make claims you can't back up. Again, I
back up what I'm saying since there is plenty of evidence of the left using children to push their agendas. Again, this post is evidence of them doing just that. They interviewed the children with the hope that they would hate Trump so they could use them as tools for their agenda. Can you back up your claim that conservatives will shove ideologies onto their kids?
I'm glad you were raised in a rare exception. And you had your own opinions on politics and religion formed when you were in the 3rd grade?
And almost every religious child is proof of parents forcing their opinions on their kids. Do you think kids sporting maga hats or Hillary shirts did that on their own?
>I'm glad you were raised in a rare exception.
In my experience, it was pretty common. Can you back up your claim that most(that would imply more than 50% of parents) act like that? I'd be amazed if you can. You're just stating your assumption as if it's fact. Don't do that. It makes you less credible.
>And you had your own opinions on politics and religion formed when you were in the 3rd grade?
No, because they weren't forced on me and they weren't important in education in 3rd fucking grade. Politics should be taught in school on neutral grounds, but not in 3rd grade. High school would be a better place since the kids are more developed and more aware of situations. Kids in 3rd grade are thinking about "what's for lunch today". They aren't thinking about world affairs. Maybe there are a few who do, but generally most kids do not.
>And almost every religious child is proof of parents forcing their opinions on their kids.
Debatable. Not every child is forced into religion. Most parents raise them that way, but not many force it(especially nowadays) since it could potentially be viewed as child abuse for forcing religion on people(which goes against the 1st amendment).
>Do you think kids sporting maga hats or Hillary shirts did that on their own?
Again, you're missing the thing I stated
clearly. I'll say it yet again so you'll see it this time.
I am against any side of anything using children to push their political agendas
Do you see it now? I'm completely against it. You asking or implying that I am ok with it is becoming libel at this point. I am not supporting it in any way. I in fact despise when people do it(as clearly stated in every single comment of mine in this chain).
It's really hard to take you seriously when you ignore what I say, state your assumptions as fact, and gloss over almost everything I point out. I'd really like to take you seriously, but I can't if you keep doing this.
I'm against it too and we can both keep saying "in my experience" over and over. My proof was religion. No you weren't raised catholic, but what does that mean for the countless children who are forced into their religion by their parents. My logic is America is religious by a decent majority, almost all religious parents make their believe in and practice their religion, not by force but out of not teaching reasoning. And with religion dying out, politics is becoming the big controversy newer families are focusing on and are teaching their kids their own beliefs. It's not usually out of force but by not teaching them their are different view points and different ideas.
But you're under the assumption that the religion was forced on them and are stated as fact. How do you know it was forced? How do you know it wasn't just introduced? The parent(s) could have just introduced it to them and given them the option to explore it or not. The point is that you don't
so you can't use it as definitive proof as there are different cases of religious upbringing. It's not really the initial point. You're attempting to derail it because you can't bring up any points on the initial point.
So, before you bring up any response to the paragraph above, I'd like you to first comment on the things you glossed over before? I'm calling you out and you're just derailing and deflecting. The initial point is about using children in political agendas and you're trying to change it to a whole other subject. If you want to have that discussion then fine. We'll have it somewhere else, but this is about the initial point I made. Keep it on subject. If this point is resolved then we can move onto yours. Don't just shove mine aside so you can argue yours.
And I'm not ignoring any of your other statements. I told you we both kept saying in our own experiences and we could keep saying that over and over again. I just gave you the reasoning behind my thoughts.
I still haven't seen you explain why it is you think parents are teaching their children to view the world from an open and logical mind
Did you miss where I said it wasn't by force, it's from keeping them ignorant to every other view
>Did you miss where I said it wasn't by force, it's from keeping them ignorant to every other view
"And almost every religious child is proof of parents forcing their opinions on their kids."
It contradicts your earlier statements. So either you're flip-flopping or you just don't know what you're trying to say. It's also not what the initial point is about, but you're still trying to make it that way since you can't seem to bring anything up for the initial one.
You actually have ignored my earlier statements. You made a claim and I asked you to back it up. You never did and chose to gloss over it. You also kept implying that I was ok with using kids as long as it was pro-Trump despite me clearly stating I was against it so you definitely were ignoring that unless you weren't even reading what I said, so which was it? Did you ignore it or did you just not read it?
It's either you flat out ignored what I said or you just didn't read it. Which is it?
> I just gave you the reasoning behind my thoughts.
You actually didn't. What you did was state your assumptions as fact without backing them up. That's not rational reasoning. If you're stating assumptions as fact then you're foolish. Unless you
it, then don't state it as fact. Burden of proof. It seems to be something people forget about these days. You make a claim and it's your job to back it up.
>I still haven't seen you explain why it is you think parents are teaching their children to view the world from an open and logical mind
I never claimed that all parents do. I said that most parents I've seen will do that. You on the other hand said I was a "rare exception" which implies that the vast majority are different and you still have not backed that up. The big difference between us is that I stated my experience and you stated your experience as if it's irrefutable fact.
I did back it up, religious children are proof of parents ideology being either forced or inadvertently learning a way of life because they're not taught any other way. You can choose to nitpick and ignore what you want but you're still not backing up your claim that parents don't actually influence their children. Just because you say "I've never seen a conservative force their opinions" doesn't mean you're automatically correct. And just because I've seen things different doesn't make me automatically correct. But I'm at least backing my view up with logic. If parents actually taught different ideas, then you'd see a lot less religious children. Feel free to support your thoughts anytime but dissecting my terminology doesn't make you right
And just for an added bonus, I'll leave this quote from your initial comment.
"You're very wrong. Conservatives teach their kids only things they believe and not to have an open mind way more often than a non conservative."
That is your initial claim and it's been changing as the discussion went on. You stated it as a fact and you have not backed it up. I'm asking you to back it up. I actually asked you to back it up multiple ties before, but you either chose to ignore it or you just didn't read it(which is it?). The thing is that now you don't really have an excuse to
back it up since this whole comment is about it.
So, will you back up your claim that conservatives only teach what they believe and to not have an open mind? You made the claim. You back it up. Don't dodge it. Don't derail. If you can't answer it now, I'd be happy to go back to the
. We can finish that one and then come back if you have a response.
Except that's not proof of forcing anything. As I said before, I'm against forcing any ideology on kids so I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish by saying that it can happen? I'm getting confused on what you're trying to say as you're starting to flip-flop.
>You can choose to nitpick and ignore what you want but you're still not backing up your claim that parents don't actually influence their children.
First, how am I nitpicking? Second, I clearly stated that I never said it was a fact so I don't need to back it up. I never made the claim so there is nothing to back up. Any claim I did make, I will back up if you request it. You have not, however. Find a claim I made that you need evidence on and I'd be happy to supply it. You on the other hand keep insisting your claim, but haven't backed it up. Saying "religious kids is proof they are forced" isn't proof as not every single family forces it. You made the claim that most(which again would mean more than 50%) of parents) force ideologies on their children and I want you to back it up. Don't try to flip it on me in an attempt to dodge. I didn't make a claim.
And "forcing" and "influencing" are very different. You switching to "influence" doesn't change what you said earlier. You keep moving the goalposts. Don't. Keep the discussion in a straight line.
>Just because you say "I've never seen a conservative force their opinions" doesn't mean you're automatically correct
It actually does if you actually read what I said. I said I've yet to see it happen. That's a true statement. I've yet to see it. I never claimed it never happens. You're either trying to twist my words or you just aren't reading what I'm saying. I'm leaning on the later since I've had to repeat myself numerous times in order for you to even see what I said.
>And just because I've seen things different doesn't make me automatically correct.
But that doesn't stop you from stating them as facts. You made it a claim rather than specify that it was just your experience. You said both eventually, but they weren't the same. You started with using it as a claim and stuck with it.
>But I'm at least backing my view up with logic
You actually have not. None of your claims have been backed up. I'm still waiting for you to do so.
> If parents actually taught different ideas, then you'd see a lot less religious children.
I'm pretty sure there has actually been a drop in religious people throughout the past hundred years so that's a little silly to say. You're also saying that the kids would immediately disavow their parents beliefs
because they saw another belief. Did it occur to you that maybe the kid(s) just believe their parents religion more than others? Just because windows and doors open up does not mean you have to or will go through them.
>Feel free to support your thoughts anytime but dissecting my terminology doesn't make you right
First, I'm asking you to stick to the
fucking discussion. You seem to have refused to do so since I have asked in every reply and you have not so much as even responded to it. Second, I'm asking you to back up your claims. You made claims and did not back them up. Instead, you decided to say I need to back up my claims even though I only made one and you haven't even refuted it since you won't even fucking talk about it despite me asking you multiple times in every comment. Do you not understand basic debate?
To humor you, I'd like you to list the "claims" I made that I have not backed up. I will gladly do so.
Maybe then you'll actually go back to the initial fucking discussion instead of dodging it because you have nothing to add say.
I've said multiple times it's by force or by not teaching any other way. You're the one whose only seeing the word force. I don't understand what you're even arguing for anymore. You said you both don't know if parents force ideas and no they don't force ideas in one comment. Because you've apparently never seen it also doesn't make it false. I've never seen a tsunami in person yet I don't claim they're fake. And yes I'm claiming them my statements as facts because I'm providing the evidence for why I see it that way. No I don't expect a child do disavow their parents but I expect a kid who's taught more than one religion to know not devoutly follow only one. You're claiming parents don't influence their kids. Influence and force aren't mutually exclusive. I haven't been dodging anything. I've been stating both sides do it, just because you choose to focus on the comment about conservatives doesn't mean I'm dodging, it means you're very selective about what you get from my comments.
>You can "tackle" all my points while still being selective about what you see.
I don't see how that's even possible when I directly reference everything you said. Name one thing I didn't talk about.
>Not once did I claim it was only conservatives...
And I never said you claimed it was only conservatives. Not once. Show me where I even implied that's what you said. What you did was make a claim about conservatives and
what I want you to back up. Don't try to dodge it. Back up your claims or they aren't viable.
>nor have I tried arguing for using kids in politics but you still keep trying to get me to defend it like I have.
Maybe because that's what the whole discussion was initially about until you tried to change it. All I asked was to keep it on subject, which you did not.
> Yes I'm aware of what religion is. You essentially proved my statement.
Evidently you don't since you claimed it was evidence that it
forced. You also expected the kids to follow multiple religions as if that somehow "proves" your point.
>A child taught about multiple religions tends to not believe any of them to be 100% true
Or they believe one above the others? You're implying that they
or have to believe other religions just because they know about them. I've met plenty of religious people who only believe theirs, but still know about others. It's really not uncommon. It's called being educated. They don't have to take the other religions gospel as....well gospel. If they think their religion is right, then why would learning about others
to change that?
>Me saying they wouldn't devoutly follow one does not mean they'd follow multiple.
It actually does with the the way you worded it. "...not devoutly follow only one. ". Basic grammar dictates that the "only" part in it means you said that you expect them to follow multiple.
> Conservative parents are much more likely to teach their children their own religion and to reinforce that it's the only one.
Oh, but that's pretty different from your initial statement. You see, initially, you the way you said it meant that conservatives DO force it(the way it's worded is in a claim that all conservatives do it since you didn't specify the amount. If you don't specify the amount, then it encompasses all), but now this one is different. You changed it since then so you could actually have a chance at backing it up. It's funny when you keep moving the goalposts. It's also funny that you made yet another claim and haven't actually backed it up. So will you back up this claim or will it go unbacked like the others? You just made a claim about conservatives so I'd like to know where you got your information.
> I'm sorry if you choose to not believe that because you don't see it happening, but it's a fact.
said or implied it doesn't happen. I clearly stated that multiple times. It seems like you're being the "selective reader" here. It's either you're being selective or you're just flat out ignoring me at this point. The funny part of this quote is that you again claim your assumption as a fact and yet you still have not backed it up? I'd really like to know where you're getting this information on all conservatives and their family decisions.
Just so you don't forget again, >>
I'd still like you to respond to it. Don't ignore it like you have the entire discussion. I've given you so many opportunities to back up your claim and you have not even acknowledged it. So to save some time:
DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS COMMENT UNTIL YOU RESPOND TO >>69
I gave you numerous chances to answer and you just ignore it or flip-flop your statement. Respond to it and we will move on
>I've said multiple times it's by force or by not teaching any other way.
And where is your proof that it has to happen those ways? You're stating it as a fact, but not even backing it up.
>You're the one whose only seeing the word force
Maybe because you keep saying it and it was only in your latest statements that "influence" was added? You initially claimed it was forced. Then you stuck by it for a while until you added "influence". You're changing your claims without admitting the initial one was wrong.
>I don't understand what you're even arguing for anymore.
I've stated what I've been arguing from my very first comment in this chain. It's been in every single comment of mine in this chain. Are you ready for it, kiddo?
I'm against using kids to push political agendas
Are ya seeing it now, chief? I stated this in every single comment so I hope you do see it. That's what I'm trying to argue, but you keep trying to change it into a whole other discussion for some reason and I don't know why.
>You said you both don't know if parents force ideas and no they don't force ideas in one comment. Because you've apparently never seen it also doesn't make it false.
I actually didn't say that parents didn't. I said that I never saw it happening like you
it did. I also clearly stated that I never said it doesn't happen. Need proof?
" I've actually never seen conservatives do it though. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen it." -First paragraph of >>
So how did I claim it doesn't happen?
>I've never seen a tsunami in person yet I don't claim they're fake.
Again, I never said it doesn't happen. You made the claim that it happens in the large majority of conservatives and I asked you to back it up. You still have not done so. Will you back it up now or will you concede that your claim has no ground?
>And yes I'm claiming them my statements as facts because I'm providing the evidence for why I see it that way.
I've asked you numerous times to back your initial claim up and you have only offered "because religious kids exist". Not only is that not even proof, it's actually laughable since there are numerous other ways to explain why a child could be religious. Again, there is a difference between making a claim and stating your personal experience as a claim. You claim to have seen most conservative families you know to only teach what they believe and to not have an open mind, but then you use that as "evidence" to say that every other(or even half) conservative is just like that. You actually claimed that the majority of conservatives were like that and that would literally mean more than 50%. So how can you know that? How can you back up that claim? The short answer is that you can't because you don't know how every single conservative family operates so don't make a claim that implies you do.
Just for good measure, I'd like to remind you about this comment again >>
Wouldn't want you dodging it again.
>No I don't expect a child do disavow their parents but I expect a kid who's taught more than one religion to know not devoutly follow only one.
Do you not understand what a religion is? All religions are different, but most involve specific beliefs regarding the creation of the universe. Realistically, you can't believe in multiple ones since they tend to contradict each other. So why/how do you expect anyone to believe contradicting things? Are you implying that any devout follower was forced to believe rather than choosing to?
>You're claiming parents don't influence their kids
I never did. I'd like you to show me where I said this.
>Influence and force aren't mutually exclusive
But you specified force from the get-go and only added "influence" later on.
>I haven't been dodging anything
Oh you most certainly have and I've pointed out which things you dodged multiple times. I'm trying to focus on the
, but you chose to try to derail it. Then you made a claim that was specifically about conservatives. I'm trying to get you to back up that claim. Once you do, I'd be happy to put more focus on your other comments.
>it means you're very selective about what you get from my comments.
You do realize that I've been tackling pretty much every sentence you've said through either direct reference or quote? I don't see how you can even spin it as me being "selective". Pretty much your entire comment was dissected and responded to word for word in this comment. Don't give me that bullshit. This comment is proof that I'm not being "selective". I just tackled every single thing you brought up. I did so in other comments too.
By the way, will you back up your initial statement now? >>
You can "tackle" all my points while still being selective about what you see. Not once did I claim it was only conservatives nor have I tried arguing for using kids in politics but you still keep trying to get me to defend it like I have. Yes I'm aware of what religion is. You essentially proved my statement. A child taught about multiple religions tends to not believe any of them to be 100% true. Yet their are countless kids who would argue for their religion being the correct one. Me saying they wouldn't devoutly follow one does not mean they'd follow multiple. Conservative parents are much more likely to teach their children their own religion and to reinforce that it's the only one. I'm sorry if you choose to not believe that because you don't see it happening, but it's a fact. It's because of this sheltered upbringing that a lot conservative raised children tend to grow up to be more left leaning.
has deleted their comment.
- I don't really care about the "political" angle you …
Wholesome James Fridman
- It's likely not going to be on the same scale though. 4 had a …
Great response to the "all...
- Is she full blown crazy? Is she "simple"? Try showin…
Great response to the "all...
I don't think very highly of Tucker Carlson. I don't think he's particularly smart or intellectually honest. I did recommend Ben Shapiro to her, though I doubt she'll watch him.
No, she's not crazy and she's not simple. She's one of the smarter people I know, actually, with a particular gift for languages and geography, and she's doing a Fulbright right out of college. When I met her she was a sweet Christian girl with left-wing political views, but now she's going full-blown Queer Feminist/anarchist (?) with dyed hair and everything, and those are also the sorts of people she hangs out with. I do think she'll grow out of it eventually, and in the meantime I think that I'm best-equipped to convince her of anything because we're friends, I more or less know how to talk to her, and she's willing to engage with me. And also most of my views are relatively palatable and moderate, I think.
The fact that she's anarchist or almost anarchist actually gave me an an interesting avenue of argument that I normally don't use with leftists. She thinks borders are inherently violent, which seems retarded until you realize they have to be enforced by violence, so it's technically true - that is, if someone is absolutely determined to cross the border, the only way to stop them is with force, and similarly deportations also require force or a threat of force.
But of course that applies to all laws. And if you consider that all law (enforcement) is inherently violent, then you get very very close to hardcore libertarian "taxation is theft" territory. Or anarchism, in this case. So then I get to argue that the best policies for change have to come from the individual or purely voluntary level when possible, not from the government.
For example I pointed out that the one of the biggest statistical factors correlating with poverty and income immobility - which definitely applies to black people - is single motherhood (a favorite Ben Shapiro talking point). It's pretty hard even for a leftist to argue that single motherhood in black communities is caused by white oppression or racist police or whatever, because it's clearly an individual decision to have kids out of wedlock or to abandon your child.
She said that single motherhood is not nearly as big a disadvantage in countries that have strong social safety nets and support for single mothers. But an obvious problem is that these programs require taxes, which need to be collected with government violence, so it's a much better solution to change individual behavior or cultural values in a noncoercive when possible. Plus, that's a much more direct solution than taking single-parent families for granted and mitigating its effects with government welfare policies.
I even got to concede (I think) that leftists in general are too focused on blaming "oppressors" and have a blind spot when it comes to "underprivileged" people's responsibility for their own problems (i.e. black people who go to prison mainly because they made shitty choices and not because they were unfairly targeted), much in the same way libertarians have a blind spot for corporate wrong-doing because they're so focused on government.
And she even agreed with my logic on a lot of things, though she disagreed with the factual premises. So I think it's totally possible to get through to her.
- Saw the Korra fanart. Had to make sure it wasn't you-know-who.
You just have to pick the...
- For the exact same job, they should be equal. If they aren't, …
- I barely touch it anyways. I only have it in case I need to co…
- That's pretty much what Rewind is. It's a remaster of all 3 ga…
Myth vs Fact
Show Comments (29)