I made that video of myself 37 years ago one day after eating too much sugar and had a *vision*....

In truth, it's not indoctrination...it's education. It's common sense. *IF* you had children, Obi, you would be able to witness to vast intellect of common sense that is prevalent in children.

You know how long it took to teach that 6 year old that taking money from someone that works to give to someone that doesn't is wrong? About 2 seconds. You teach that principle in this manner. Give two children chores....when one does his chores, give him a couple of pieces of candy. When his sibling doesn't do his chores, take a piece of candy from the child that did his chores, and give it to the lazy one. Wait to seconds for scream of outrage.

Likewise, look at the lazy one....smiling his ass off...because he just realized that liberalism works for the fat lazy bastards, which he will surely become...

Other than that....funny post....nice dig.

Oh thats not bad at all. I saw Obama speak back in January 2009 (or 2010) at an event at Northeastern University, and a guy stood up during his speech and heckled him, but worse than that was his son - about 6 years old - who was also shouting that God would judge us and all that sort.

But krellin speaks true. Perhaps his dad just did something as simple the candy trick. It sure as hell would work. Other stuff, yeah he was probably told to say that.

"In truth, it's not indoctrination...it's education."

I'm sorry, but no, it isn't.

I don't care if you are from the Left or Right--NO 6-year old child should have a view on politics, and I would say religion as well.

EVERY great thinker has agreed to that point.

Plato, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, I may give Hitchens from the Far-Atheist side and Dostoyevsky from Far-Christian side...

It is simply illogical to assume that at 6 years of age a child has the capacity to form their own rational beliefs about, well, quite frankly, any large over-arching doctrine, including politics and religion.

ALL A child will do at that age is parrot the beliefs of their parents because we are socially conditioned (and potentially hard-wired genetically to an extent) to copy and imitate our parents in such regards at such an early age, as we defer to age and authority at that age as we are still in the very early stages of growing both a body and brain, and so for our first sources of ideals we look to our protectorates, our parents.

IF I DID ever have children, krellin, I would NEVER instill my Left-of-Center political stance into them at such an age.

They are simply too young to think about it CRITICALLY, and ONLY once you are prepared to think about politics and religion critically may you then be allowed to permissibly hold and express a viewpoint that we might find valid and your own.

Hence the reason we have voting ages, krellin--a 6 year old is in no position to vote against Obama on the basis of "he wants to take money from those who work hard and give it to those who don't"...

The child has no CONCEPT of work! Has never worked a day in his life! Has no understanding of globalization or the economy...he probably can't SPELL "globalization" or "economy" yet, if he's like the 6-year olds I remember!

It is NOT educating someone when they cannot think critically about what you are teaching them--it is indoctrination, it is your telling them something, and expecting them to take it and take it on faith, without any evidence on your part or critical thinking on their part.

And it is NOT OK to do to children. At all.

If I have children, I would not teach them politics; if they grew to be 18 and then chose to join the Tea Party, or whatever equivalent faction may exist by that point, I would obviously disagree with them, but I would have to respect their action as they would have critically thought it over and decided that was where there political ideals lay.

If they grew up and wished to become a Born-Again Christian, and tell me the Rapture was on the way and all the rest of it, I'd still think it was superstitious tripe, but I'd respect their right to believe it having read both sides of the argument and thought about it critically to themselves.

If they grew up and wanted to become a Yankees fan...

Well, that's going too far. ;) But you see what I mean.

"You know how long it took to teach that 6 year old that taking money from someone that works to give to someone that doesn't is wrong? About 2 seconds.

So if I taught my child that spending taxes on, say, the care of those who are invalided--and for the sake of argument, to avoid "Oh, come on, they could work through the pain" type of injuries, let's take, say, those who are paralyzed from the neck down and those in comas--was wrong, I would be right to do so?

Because that's taking money from those who work to those who don't (see: can't) and that would NOT be seen as an immoral action.



When you simplistically frame your scenario, a 6 year old may grasp it--

When you frame it in the complexities of real life in the 21st century, in the context of disabled people and a global economy and unemployment and so on and so forth, it is NOT that simple. At all.

"Likewise, look at the lazy one....smiling his ass off...because he just realized that liberalism works for the fat lazy bastards, which he will surely become..."

As much as you and as much as like-minded individuals may try, sir--

You cannot transform liberal or liberalism into a slur or slander.

It is liberal-minded people that first thought to abolish slavery...
It is liberalism that sought to establish The New Deal in FDR's grand presidency...
It is liberal ideology and fair-mindedness that jump-started the Civil Rights Movement...

You can point to failures, krellin, but I, too, may point to successes.

Politics is A LOT more complicated than Red and Blue, Good and Bad, Liberal and Conservative.

And when you teach a 6-year old that an entire half of political thought is entirely and utterly worthless and wrong, when they cannot reason it out for themselves and have not yet had the chance to learn all the facts and history and the present situation that we find ourselves in, you do that child a severe disservice.

@Obi - "ALL A child will do at that age is parrot the beliefs of their parents"

Just like you parrot the beliefs of your professors. :-)

Two feet of text on parenting advice from an asexual twenty something.

"As much as you and as much as like-minded individuals may try, sir--"

The "fuck-you-sir." Someone's been watching a bunch of Christopher Hitchens videos on the Youtube. The recent slide into self-righteous assholery by obiwanobiwan makes so much more sense now.

"I don't care if you are from the Left or Right--NO 6-year old child should have a view on politics, and I would say religion as well.

EVERY great thinker has agreed to that point.

Plato, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, I may give Hitchens from the Far-Atheist side and Dostoyevsky from Far-Christian side..."

Umm, no they didn't, obiwan. Locke believe that young children shouldn't be taught religion? Please. From his "Some Thoughts Concerning Education":

"And consequent to this, instil into him a love and reverence of this Supreme Being. This is enough to begin with, without going to explain this matter any farther; for fear lest by talking too early to him of spirits, and being unseasonably forward to make him understand the incomprehensible nature of that Infinite Being, his head be either fill'd with false, or perplex'd with unintelligible notions of Him. Let him only be told upon occasion, that God made and governs all things, hears and sees every thing, and does all manner of good to those that love and obey Him; you will find, that being told of such a God, other thoughts will be apt to rise up fast enough in his mind about Him; which, as you observe them to have any mistakes, you must set right. And I think it would be better if men generally rested in such an idea of God, without being too curious in their notions about a Being which all must acknowledge incomprehensible; whereby many, who have not strength and clearness of thought to distinguish between what they can, and what they cannot know, run themselves in superstitions or atheism, making God like themselves, or (because they cannot comprehend any thing else) none at all. And I am apt to think, the keeping children constantly morning and evening to acts of devotion to God, as to their Maker, Preserver and Benefactor, in some plain and short form of prayer, suitable to their age and capacity, will be of much more use to them in religion, knowledge, and virtue, than to distract their thoughts with curious enquiries into His inscrutable essence and being."

I sincerely doubt Dostoevsky believed this either, and I doubt your others as well.

Most of these people are too smart to think people should grow up with a vacuum of beliefs and come to them by some purely rational method. It is completely reasonable to teach children all your beliefs. They'll probably reevaluate them when they become teenagers anyway, but they'll have a context for doing it.

LOL +1

Though I actually used the "fuck-you-sir" for a long time before I heard Hitch...

Just another reason I wound up liking him, I guess.

(Could be worse, I could go Trekker nerd and give the fuck-you-Live-Long-and-Prosper the new Spock did to the Vulcan Academy in the last Star Trek movie...) :p

"Just like you parrot the beliefs of your professors."

Surprisingly, no--I always argue with my professors, Draug...

If I parrot anyone, it's an amalgamation of all the characters and authors I've read.

And as no one is, after all original, I'm not upset by that.

Parroting one belief or person is short-sighted,
Parroting many different (and conflicting, as I like Nietzsche and Mill alike) viewpoints...

Not so much, I think.

Sort of how--continuing my theme of being a Star Trek nerd here--Captain Kirk listens to Spock on one shoulder, Dr. McCoy on another, and he's in the middle, and his choices blend the two and his own ideas and take that route, whereas if he just listened to only Spock or only McCoy, he'd be dead dozens of times over.

Oh, and obi -- six year olds DEFINITELY have a concept of work. Or I certainly did. Maybe you were raised in a far more privileged scene than I.

"The child has no CONCEPT of work! Has never worked a day in his life! Has no understanding of globalization or the economy...he probably can't SPELL "globalization" or "economy" yet, if he's like the 6-year olds I remember!"

What does spelling have to do with it? Do you really think you need to get a university degree in something before you can start to form your opinions on it? There is nothing wrong with learning common sense early, obi, and you don't have to be able to spell all the words you use to use it, either.

@semck:

"Umm, no they didn't, obiwan. Locke believe that young children shouldn't be taught religion?"

I was referring not to teaching children religion, but children having views and holding them accountable--

In "A Second Treatise on Government," he uses that very analogy, parents to children, to show that while liberty is indeed important for all, total liberty cannot work, as some--ie, children--are dependent upon their parents and not yet cognizant enough or strong enough to either form their own opinions or support themselves, and thus cannot be demanded to work the same as an adult, but also cannot therefore have all the freedoms of an adult.

THAT is what I am saying here.

You can teach kids religion and politics, but the key word is TEACH, not PREACH.

Teaching gives both sides to someone capable of analyzing both sides and reaching their own, PERSONAL conclusion,

Preaching says "This is X, now, what is this?"
"X."
"X is good and Y is bad."
"X is good and Y is bad."

"What does spelling have to do with it?"

I'm implying a 6-year old cannot, in all likelihood, even spell "economy" or "globalization" yet, and thus it is extremely unlikely that they will understand such concepts, and thus cannot be said to have a valid opinion on them.

Do you deny political liberals were the ones to abolish slavery?

Do you deny political liberals were the ones at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement?

Do you deny that the conservatives fought both of those things tooth and nail (and to the knife in the former case)?

So you can change the subject and attempt an ad hominem attack on Obi, but it only reveals the bankruptcy of your position.

Obiwan,

Yes, and what you just said is nonsense. Locke is CLEARLY advocating teaching young children a SPECIFIC point of view, not "let them know and tell them to think for themselves." Obviously you did not read the quote. Please do.

As for spelling -- again I ask, what does being able to spell something have to do with anything? A three year old probably can't spell "mother." Does that mean he doesn't know quite a lot about her?

If it makes it easier, you can substitute "political progressive" and "political reactionary" instead of liberal and conservative... before you go on about how they're different now.

"There is nothing wrong with learning common sense early, obi, and you don't have to be able to spell all the words you use to use it, either."

As "common sense" has come up again, I suppose I'll respond to that--

There is a difference between common sense and complex rational thought.

Common sense says that you don't do something that will injure yourself.
A child can understand that--I don't disagree.
By 6, at least, they should have such common sense.

However, common sense is just that--common, and in many cases, basic.

It is common sense, again, to not harm someone else.
It's also common sense to punish according to punishment.

But that's just the start of that conversation--suppose you asked a child their feelings on the death penalty?

Common Sense says "Don't Harm Others," but it also says "Punish According to Crime."

Does Death warrant Death?

We AS ADULTS would have a long, LONG debate about that...

Via Complex Rational Thought.

We'd cite philosophers.
We'd cite facts.
We'd cite learned logic.
We'd cite legal precedent.

These are NOT common and basic, but rather, complex and learned over time.

To return to Locke again, it's somewhat like the idea of Simple and Complex Knowledge in his (and to a degree, Hume's) epistemology.

Simple Knowledge = Round, Gold Shiny...these are ideas that are as basic as they come.
Complex Knowledge = Coin, as Round+Shiny+Gold=Coin, a collection of simple ideas forming a complex one...

From there, we build Complex ideas upon other Complex ideas--

From Coins we get Currency, from Currency we get Trade, from Trade we get Value Theory, from Value Theory we get Economics, and so on.

A 6 year old DOES NOT posses Complex, Rational Ideas, just common sense.

And just as you don't jump straight from "Gold, Round, Shiny" to "Globalized Economic Practices," so too can you therefore not take simply common sense as being the fore-bearer of a valid opinion in matters requiring Complex, Rational Thought such as Politics and Religion.

Ironically, while it is called "Common Sense," Paine's work is an exemplar of the Rational, Complex Thought Process at work, and not merely just some common sense precepts that are instinctual or close to it that even a 6 year old may grasp.

"So you can change the subject and attempt an ad hominem attack on Obi, but it only reveals the bankruptcy of your position."

I'm sorry--perhaps I am dense, but you yourself just acceded to liberals being at the forefront of positive change...

All I am saying with that statement is that you cannot make "liberal" into a dirty word the way it is often hurled today.

Liberals have done good and bad things alike, I am not claiming all liberals are angels (I certainly am NOT) but rather that the viewpoints are, indeed, more complex than "Good" or "Bad" and to teach a 6 year old that liberals=bad and conservatives=good is taking advantage of the fact that a 6 year old is, generally, not so questioning and will believe what you say at face value.

I tend to think that sort of exploitation is wrong, be it on the side of the Left OR Right.

So you should wait till you've mastered philosophy before you start discussing these things? No, obiwan. The mind just DOESN'T WORK that way.

Sure, we have these nuanced conversations now. And we do because we started with a certain opinion, simply supported. And then we heard apretty good argument, and had to struggle with it more, etc., and as we got older, we reasoned better and better.

You assume that a six year old should only have an opinion if he can support it as well as a 30 year old with the same opinion would. THAT is what is absurd. The six year old should have an opinion, so that he will learn to support it (or a different opinion) well by the time he is thirty.

@semck:

From the "Second Treatise on Government"

"Sec. 54. Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.

Sect. 55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it."

It doesn't seem to ME that Locke thinks children should be thought of as capable of forming an opinion and voting alongside the rest of us, he seems to be saying that they are born to that liberty but do not get it until they have a certain "excellency" or "merit" that comes with, among other things, "age."

"So you should wait till you've mastered philosophy before you start discussing these things? No, obiwan. The mind just DOESN'T WORK that way."

No, but you must have an adequate understanding of something if you are to discuss it adequately--

Agreed?

I do not prattle on about my views o physics here--I do not have the adequate knowledge for that.

Likewise, a child who doesn't know how an economy works, let alone a globalized economy, can hardly be listened to with any seriousness or be thought to understand the matter and, thus, cannot criticize Obama, Bush, or anyone else on those points.

Obiwan,

Yes, obviously Locke was aware that children can not reason at the same level as adults. He was not, after all, a moron.

Equally obviously, he thought that they should be taught SPECIFIC abstract concepts by their parents. Let me quote again. Obviously you still haven't read my quote:

" [Y]ou will find, that being told of such a God, other thoughts will be apt to rise up fast enough in his mind about Him; which, as you observe them to have any mistakes, you must set right. "

So Locke realized that, even though children cannot yet reason fully correctly, they should be taught to have opinions on such things as religion.

Your fallacy is believing that children should have opinions on such things only if they can fully and philosophically defend them on the level of a 30 year old. This is absurd. Your Locke quotes do suggest that he thought they cannot do the latter; but my Locke quotes show that he thought they should still do the former. Since your initial claim was that they should "not have a view," and that Locke believed this, I have demonstrated that you are wrong.

"You assume that a six year old should only have an opinion if he can support it as well as a 30 year old with the same opinion would."

Yes--there is a reason we allow 30 year old non-felons to vote and not 6 year olds.

I'm sorry, but again--

If your argument against gun control is "Obama wants to take guns away from good guys!" you do not have a rational, reasonable, worthwhile argument!

And before I get the NRA-esque folks here riled up--

You CAN argue against gun control.
We just did a week or so ago.
But you must have facts, and you must have an understanding of it...
"No guns for good guys, Obama is mean!" is not an adequate, mature understanding.

"" [Y]ou will find, that being told of such a God, other thoughts will be apt to rise up fast enough in his mind about Him; which, as you observe them to have any mistakes, you must set right. "

I did read your quote the first time.

Yes, Locke was a Christian, of course he felt that way.

I am not saying that everything Locke ever said was correct--after all, it's in the Second Treatise, right after he talks of freedom and equality, that Locke justifies slavery.

He thought that we should teach kids about God because he felt that was a universal, moral good, and would awaken other ideals of goodness in them.

That is a view that does not go uncontested today, however.

Things have, in fact, changed since the 1600s.

If you wait until a child is old enough for abstract reasoning to teach them values - of all kinds - you have waited twelve years too long. If you don't have values you care about deeply enough to pass on to your children, you are to be pitied, and so are your children. You will model a vapid and insipid life and they will likely adopt it. And of course you should teach your children to think critically - if you do they will most likely take much greater ownership of the values you have passed on. Also, when their professors tell them to question authority and reject their parents' teaching your children will think critically about the professor's words and wonder why they should reject the authority of someone who bore, fed, clothed, nurtured, and educated them for 18 years and accept the authority of a stranger. (For the record, FlemGem is a father of three, with one on the way.)

*long long sigh*

This is my final post on this. There is no point posting the same argument again and again.

Nobody is saying that a six year old should able to vote. Nobody is saying their opinions are well reasoned. What I am saying is that they should HAVE opinions --- and NOT be able to vote -- so that they learn better to develop and think about opinions.

Do you really want the person who votes at 18 to be thinking about politics for the first time in his life that day?

As for Locke, you completely changed the subject. I never suggested you should agree with Locke's quote. I'm merely pointing out that YOU SAID HE BELIEVED THE OPPOSITE, and that this disproves that.

Eye on the ball, Obi. Eye on the ball.

"So Locke realized that, even though children cannot yet reason fully correctly, they should be taught to have opinions on such things as religion."

I don't think that's quite his angle--

Again, I don't think he's advocating teaching religion so much as teaching "God," which sounds the same, but really, for Locke, and most in his time, I'd submit "God is here being used in place of "morality."

So I don't think he's saying "You should teach kids Leviticus and Mark and Matthew and Exodus and all the rest."

He may have felt that way himself--and he was Christian, so he probably did, in all fairness--but I don't think that's what he's saying here...

He's not saying kids can comprehend dogmas and doctrines like Christian dogma or serious political thought at 6...

He's saying that it's a good idea to teach kids of/about "God," ie, here in place of "morality," because from THOSE basic moral teachings, he argues, we can derive our more complex ideas of moral dealings and, ultimately, for him, equality politically and personally.

And that I am not arguing--

A 6 year can understand "Treat Others the Way You Wish to Be Treated," and, IN TIME, they can over many years of learning come to understand the full meaning and nuances of republics and democracies and liberalism and conservatism and equality and inequity and so on and so forth.

THEY CANNOT, however, go straight from The Golden Rule to that.

You teach basic moral precepts (for Locke, it's God, for most of us, it's The Golden Rule, which everyone from Jesus to Confucius to the Greeks managed to figure out in their own way and time) and they work their way up from that, they do not go one directly after the other, it takes time.

Again, 30 year olds vote and not 6 year olds; we expect (sadly to be disappointed sometimes) that by 30, you'll have learned enough about the real world and economics and how the nation functions and the competing ideas within democracy to make informed, rational choices...

6 year olds are neither informed not (in many cases) rational, certainly not to that extent.

"If you wait until a child is old enough for abstract reasoning to teach them values - of all kinds - you have waited twelve years too long."

1. They cannot grasp economics at 6...if they are, we need them in the government...NOW.

2. As for ideologies and faiths, I'm saying teach them BOTH sides of the matter, without bias, whatever your personal bias is yourself, and let them work it out for themselves; clearly, this kid's parents have not done that.

"If you don't have values you care about deeply enough to pass on to your children, you are to be pitied, and so are your children."

Surely anything that valuable should be taught to your child at an age where they can understand it critically?

"And of course you should teach your children to think critically - if you do they will most likely take much greater ownership of the values you have passed on."

No child of mine would take all my ideas with greater ownership if I properly encouraged them to think critically--I'd hope they'd reject some of my ignorant oversights (I'm sure I have them, and I bet you no one here would disagree or think I'd be rid of all of them by the time I'd have kids) and say "You are wrong, Father Obi, I disagree" and improve upon what I passed down to them by correcting my errors for themselves.

"1. They cannot grasp economics at 6...if they are, we need them in the government...NOW."

And you cannot grasp English at age 20. How many times do you have to have it pointed out explicitly that nobody is saying they will grasp these things fully or reason carefully about them at 6? Why should we bother to respond to any of your posts if you will not bother to understand what we are saying?

Obi, you clearly value critical thinking. One might even say you have a bias in favor of critical thinking. Either you will pass that value on to your children or you won't. If you do, you'll be passing on your bias. Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

"Surely anything that valuable should be taught to your child at an age where they can understand it critically?"

Do you really want to wait until your child can understand love from a critical, intellectual standpoint before you start to pass that value on? Do you really want to wait that long to teach your child to empathize, to work hard and take pride in their work, to be thrifty, to apologize when they've done wrong (which of course assumes some standard of right and wrong), to protect the weak, to love learning and yes, to love a good game of Diplomacy?

Those are a few of my biases, and I'm not ashamed to want to pass them on to my children.

"The six year old should have an opinion, so that he will learn to support it (or a different opinion) well by the time he is thirty."

Agreed in principle with this, but I'd say obi has a point in stating that six is too early. Maybe around 10-11 or so would be a good starting point; that's a few years' prep to adolescence (which is probably the best point to start getting a serious understanding of the issues).

^I would agree with 10-12 being a good starting point, yes.

At 6, you're barely getting past kindergarten and Sesame Street...

When Sesame Street stops being brought to you by "The Letter M" and is brought to you by "Neo-Conservatism" or "Liberalism," then you can teach your 6 year old those things...until then, at least wait until they've reached double digits.

"Do you really want to wait until your child can understand love from a critical, intellectual standpoint before you start to pass that value on?"

Yes. I'd rather my child think critically than love me, to be honest--if he did, great, if not, then there are others I'm sure he would find he could love instead...

I don't want him to love me blindly or unconditionally, he should decide for himself whether he thinks I'm worthy of love, to decide what around him is deserving of his attention and love and care and what isn't worth it.

I'm not much of a family person, and my dad and I don't get along, at all--that being said, I'd rather have the determination he passed onto me than his love...and I'd rather the emphasis on thinking I found for myself.

I'm more the type that builds a group around me I care about, rather than care about the group I'm built into...I care for a great many friends like I assume most would care for family, and there are family members I care little for at all, or even dislike.

Blood may be thicker than water, but I'm more a tea person anyway, and it's best to have a wide selection of flavors rather than the single, solitary taste of blood (which isn't very refreshing, anyway.)

"Do you really want to wait that long to teach your child to empathize, to work hard and take pride in their work, to be thrifty, to apologize when they've done wrong (which of course assumes some standard of right and wrong), to protect the weak, to love learning..."

ALL of that can be taught to them in a basic form at age 6, there is a difference between teaching my hypothetical child about working hard and worker's compensation and tax reform and the pros and cons of wellfare.

Again--

I'd rather a child that could think for themselves and be the best at whatever they chose to apply themselves to, sports, music, art, literature, speaking, whatever it was, than an idealized Leave It to Beaver child who loves me and I him.

If I'm cold for that, then so be it--

Sherlock Holmes never had a child in canon, and there's a reason why.

And I'd rather a son like Sherlock who was excellent if cold and even cold towards me than a son who was another Billy Joe.

I'd want a son who could be proud of his accomplishments and stand out from the pack and be recognized above them...

That he could be proud of his unparalleled excellence, and I'd be proud of him as well for that, even if he detested me.

(As you can tell, though, I'll likely NEVER have kids...why, as I've said here before, I'm not even one for dates--and you all wonder why. Well...maybe no one wonders...)

;)

Thanks for engaging my questions so candidly. I appreciate and respect that a lot.
I think there's actually plenty of room for agreement here. I certainly don't want my 6 year old (I do have a 6 year old) chanting political slogans. I especially don't want them being rude or obnoxious about whatever opions they have, from "I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla" to "I prefer Obama to Romney".

"Age appropriate learning" is a key phrase I think we can agree on, although I think you underestimate children's ability to learn profound values at an early age, but then I probably did too before I had kids. I pretty much never thought about kids until I had them, ha ha. It becomes even more obvious when you have multiple kids, since the younger ones pick up stuff you're teaching the oldest. We gave our 11 year old a book on logical fallacies and he loved it, and his little sisters picked some up too. It's pretty funny to hear an 8 year old pointing out her older brother's red herrings. And we all like to sit around and point out propaganda techniques in TV commercials.

But I'm going to go back to love, which I see much less as an emotion and much more as an enduring commitment to give of oneself for someone else's sake, regardless of return. That's something I grew up receiving from my parents. I had their enduring love whether I succeeded or failed or even *gasp* announced that I was registering as a Republican - mom and dad were pretty concerned about that, but when I pointed out that they taught me to think for myself they had to accept it :-) So now I can sit around and disagree fiercely with my dad about politics and it's cool because at the end of the day it's about caring enough to spend time together - and really we both share the same basic values, we just express them differently in the political arena. So that's something I want to pass on to my kids.

I don't see why everybody is coming down so hard on old Obi here... I mean his main point is that Krellin is indoctrinating his little one in a good old boy conservative way of thinking. By his own admission, this is patently true; though Krellin takes issue with the word indoctrination, that's exactly what it is. In Krellin's well established narrow viewpoint (not saying wrong, but definitely narrow), conservatism IS right and and liberalism IS wrong - that's why it's "common sense," to him, and it's "education," not "indoctrination."

I also love how Draugnar has the audacity to accuse Obi of parroting his teachers - I don't always agree with Obi, but I definitely don't find him guilty of spewing well rehearsed soundbytes.

Wait, I watched the video, is that really your kid Krellin? Yeah you are fully brainwashing him. Well done.

"I don't care if you are from the Left or Right--NO 6-year old child should have a view on politics, and I would say religion as well.

Bull. 6 year olds can think as they want. There is nothing wrong with having their own mind.

This whole debate is retarded.

Everyone teaches their 6 year-old religion (OK, you may call it "worldview" or something, but that's what it boils down to) just by how they live. You think 6 year olds don't notice their parents crossing themselves when they hear bad news? Or mocking the Mormons who come to the door after they've left? Or the Buddha statue on the shelf?

Whatever your worldview is, I guarantee your child is picking it up from the time they are 2. You may object to someone passing along a worldview that's different from yours and call it "indoctrination," but you're doing the same thing to your kids, just with your worldview instead.

As for politics, a lot of the same principles apply (your kids are absorbing your beliefs, consciously taught or subconsciously), although specifics like politicians' names and parties and things like that are things you have to go out of your way to teach them.

This entire thread proves my primary point: Obi has **zero** common sense, because he is so wrapped up in trying to impress people with his (false) intellectualism.

I gave him credit for an amusing point...and then went on to point out that *any* six year old has enough common sense to understand conservative financial principles...like to you don't away from someone that works to give to someone that refuses to work. I really didn't listen to much else in the video - it was boring and forced and, frankly, incredibly trite. Seen it before, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. The idea of using children in politics is *hardly* a new concept, and the Democrats are *masters* of it....but I doubt we'll ever see Obi criticize them...

But...again...it's about the ability of a child, unfettered with Obi so-called intellect, to see basic truths, to understand common morality and common sense. Obi, and his ilk, have long-ago given up on morality and common sense in favor of some contrived version of liberal justice that any 6 year old can easily see is, at it's heart, not fair, not just and makes no sense.

I wonder if Obi has ever argued to his professors that he was graded too high on the curve, because some poor shmuck in his class didn't have the advantages he had - either social or genetic - and therefore should be given some of his grade.... I doubt Obi's since of justice goes that far...but he doesn't mind the government reaching into my check book...