I'm curious to know more about your thoughts on indoctrination. I'm sure you are aware it is not just a problem confined to religion. There is a far more insidious version of it that most of us here are still under the spell of. Insidious in as much as it is not so obvious and far more thought and resources have been used to promote it.
Indoctrination that has lead us all to believe that our governments in the west are the good guys, who care about us as people and only have our best interests at heart. They continue to invade countries and murder millions of men, women and children all in the name of "democracy"!
Thoughts ?
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I really don't think that is a common view here.
I'm more concerned with the 'indoctrination' taught in educational institutes and within the media.
Especially being British and watching American media, it's quite scary how polarizing the left and right outlets are and how both will spin anything in order to suit a narrative.
I'm very central in my political inclinations and like to think I view most politics objectively, but it's absolutely insane and Britain is heading that way too.
Within colleges, universities and so fourth, the opinion based teaching going on scares me, i'd like to see far more evidence/empirical based courses taught.
This current trend will dumb down the general public and stirs up hatred and feeds the faux outrage culture.
Just my opinion though.
@ Randomhero1982
"I'm more concerned with the 'indoctrination' taught in educational institutes and within the media."
What did you think I was talking about?
You didn't explicitly say and I know better then to make an assumption on this forum lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lJH79-8z5E
People are smart but crowds are dumb.
People are social animals and we are predisposed to bond with our community. In the past it was done for survival, these days it seems to be about rabidly cheering for your home sports franchise. But along with the ingrained support for your community is the flaw that outsiders may be viewed as not friendly. The only good Indian is a dead Indian. Beware the Hun in the Sun. Damn Yankees.
So with these human frailties, politicians and others in power are able to manipulate large masses of people. Other despots have done so in the past, but Hitler raised to into a science and art. And since he let the genie out of the bottle, we are inundated daily with propaganda from all sides.
And yes shiningone, we like to believe that our community is sweet and perfect, we are good people. But that is putting on blinkers, ignoring the harsh truth. There are very few nations that I cannot pin a few travesties on. I am Canadian and although we love to project the image of politeness and respectful conduct, my nation is very guilty of some very bad things.
I could go on for pages, but I will relate something that happened to me many years ago. I once had a border collie named Snickers, darn smart and very well trained. Since I live in Toronto, one day I decided to treat Snickers to a day on the waterfront. The best place for such an excursion was Toronto Island, a short ferry ride. As Snickers and I got on the ferry, we say down besides two couples from the USA. They noticed how smart Snickers was, and I decided to show him off, instructing Snickers just by subtle hints, not direct commands. One lady immediately referred to Snickers as an "all American" dog. I politely corrected her, but a moment later she slipped again,once again stating that Snickers was an "all American". That is how ingrained the conditioning can be.
If you noticed, I do not refer to citizens from the USA as "Americans" because that title is itself very biased and part of conditioning and brainwashing.
David Killens,
"If you noticed, I do not refer to citizens from the USA as "Americans" because that title is itself very biased and part of conditioning and brainwashing."
Only citizens of the United States of America are "Americans". Canadians are Canadians, Mexicans, are Mexicans, French are French, Russians are Russians, etc.
@Diotrephes
You do realize what continent Canada is in right? Or Mexico?
North America. There is also central america and south america. Anyone on the American continents can call themselves American and be correct.
I been to Canada a lot, want to piss of a Canadian? Tell them you are an american and they are not.
Worse still, if you do not have strong native american lineage, an "American" is most likely to be a foreign invader that took advantage that their other white brethren just took the land from the people that used to live there, by force, then wrote the history books to their liking. Don't feel singled out though, humans have been doing this to humans for many thousands of years. It just so happens western europe got ocean crossing ships and things like gunpowder first.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
LogicFTW,
"I been to Canada a lot, want to piss of a Canadian? Tell them you are an american and they are not."
really? There is only one (1) country on this planet that has the name "America" in it and it is the Inited States of America. Only citizens of the United States are properly called "Americans". Everyone else is something else. THEY ARE NOT AMERICANS.
"The use of Native American or native American to refer to peoples indigenous to the Americas came into widespread, common use during the civil rights era of the 1960s and 1970s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_name_controversy
American Indians made no significant contribution to the creation of the United States of America. Most did not even become citizens until 1924 ao they are hardly "native Americans". And Canadians are not Americans, they are Canadians.
Nationality: This entry provides the identifying terms for citizens - noun and adjective. Nationality field listing
noun: American(s)
adjective: American
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
A person's nationality is based upon which country he is a citizen of. It is not based on which continent he lives on. Russia spans Europe and Asia. Are Russians Europeans or are they Asians? If people who live in Haiti and Greenland Americans why can't they freely move here?
@Diotrephes
Why is it so important to you anyways that people call themselves or not "americans"
It is not united states america. It is United States OF America. Even the name implies a part of the whole area.
Do you know where "America" came from?
"America (the continent) was named after Amerigo Vespucci (Italian cartographer), whose maps were used back in Europe to create the first map of America with respect to the world (and in fact the first world map)"
People could certainly say in China, we want to call ourselves the United states of Asia if they wanted to. And just the same thing would pop up, they could not suddenly say "we are asians" and you are not because we live in USAsia.
I personally do not really care if people that live in canada or mexico want to call themselves but saying people that live on the continent of america cannot call themselves american does come off as... _________ fill in the blank here.
Very good and well made point Logic. I for one refer to myself as Highlander (86% by DNA) who happens to be living in America. Now if a person wants to assume it the United States, fine. However, they could also assume it is Canada, Brasil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Belize, etc. Most of the time when Diotrephes is going off on that "American" bullshit, I just skip right over the rest of the post.
rmfr
LogicFTW,
"Why is it so important to you anyways that people call themselves or not "americans""
Have you ever heard of the term "naming rights"? It is basically the practice that the creator of an item has the sole right to name it. The creator can sell or assign that right to another person or entity for compensation, if he wants to. A good example is found in the Bible, Genesis 2:19- 20, when God created all of the animals and brought them to Adam so that Adam could name them.
Another example is postage stamps. Great Britain (UK, England) created them so it is the only country in the world, 191 countries, that does not have to put its name on its stamps.
As far as "America" is concerned the United States of America (the country's offifical name) is the only country in the world, 191 countries, with the word "America" as part of its official name. The citizens of the country are called "Americans". No other people in the entire world are refered to as "Americans" because they are not citizens of the United States of America. Canadians, Brazilians, Colombians, Mexicans, Greenlanders, Cubans, Haitians, etc might all live in the Americans (the continents) but they are not citizens of the United States of America and therefore they are not actually Americans.
You have to separate the broad continental name from the national name. For instance, Egyptians, South Africans, Congolese are all Africans but that is not their nationality.
Maybe if Canadians and Mexicans want to be considered Americans they can just rename their countries "the United States of America". Until then they are not Americans.
BTW, Canada is simply named "Canada". Mexico is the "United Mexican States".
Here ya go Diotrephes. A more accurate map.
rmfr
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
arakish,
That's a good one.
Did you know that we could have gotten all of British Columbia in a trade for Maine? They wanted Maine because it juts up into Canada and separates the maritime provinces from Quebec. They said that if we traded that we would land land access to Alsaka. Seward tried to annex British Columbia but the timing was bad.
"Indoctrination that has lead us all to believe that our governments in the west are the good guys, who care about us as people and only have our best interests at heart. They continue to invade countries and murder millions of men, women and children all in the name of "democracy"! "
This sounds paranoid to me. Do you ever have those issues? Just asking. Do you know the fundamentals of our polity? Our type of government is defined by law which prevents the runaway train you are suggesting. Foreign policy is based on what is best for the country and people in it, or what threats we may face, or what humanitarian role we can perform...it is not based on domination of the world.
Replace that paranoid thought, with facts. Take nobody else's word as gospel(excuse the pun). Did you ever think that your proposition of government indoctrination is someone else's propaganda? IMHO you should search for facts on this one shiningone.
@ doG
You are now displaying the exact indoctrination I was describing. I have been studying those "facts" for the last 30 years. Accusing me of paranoia is a text book response, of those who have been indoctrinated. What's next, accusation of being a conspiracy theorist?
We all know what your government is, supposed, to stand for. The trouble is, it's actions speak far louder than it's words. Whether, you, see it or not, it's actions do in 'fact' display a desire to dominate the world. All in the best "interest of the people" of course /s
"Accusing me of paranoia is a text book response, of those who have been indoctrinated"
I did not accuse you...I asked you. You have yet to respond. One of the traits of paranoia, is dissonance, that pushes rational thought to the background and reinforces the topic. It is hard to be skeptical of a belief when this occurs. Therapy includes focus on the facts, and more so the process of validating information.
For a government to be purposefully intent on world domination, as you suggest, there would have to be a covert power, with said plans, directing efforts. What proof of this do you have? 30 years of research surely should have revealed some significant evidence. I would be happy to read it when presented.
@ doG
"I did not accuse you...I asked you. You have yet to respond. One of the traits of paranoia, is dissonance, that pushes rational thought to the background and reinforces the topic. It is hard to be skeptical of a belief when this occurs. Therapy includes focus on the facts, and more so the process of validating information."
Well you kind of actually did. You may of asked me that ridiculous question but later you assumed it to be the case.
"Replace that paranoid thought, with facts." Not only that, but now, even without a response to that ridiculous question, you are telling me how to get "therapy" for it. You just CONFIRMED my statement.
"For a government to be purposefully intent on world domination, as you suggest, there would have to be a covert power, with said plans, directing efforts. What proof of this do you have? 30 years of research surely should have revealed some significant evidence."
Sure, I'll just condense 30 years of research into a couple of paragraphs that will convince you of your indoctrination /s
If you can not see the absurdity in that then anything I tell you will be a waste of time. If you truly are interested in it, it is up to you to investigate it. My position has nothing dependant on whether or not you believe it or not. I am willing to give you some starting points for research if that helps at all, but what you are asking is like someone asking a university teacher to condense a three year course into a few paragraphs so he can pass the degree without any effort.
You seem to have a massive disconnect to what your country has actually done recently in the last 20 years? I don't know how old you are of course. Regardless of which party has been in power just over the last 20 years your country has invaded several countries. None of whom has been a direct threat. All in the name of a "war on terror" and "spreading democracy".
Are you aware that more people have died from peanut allergies than have died from terrorist attacks? Deaths from drink driving FAR out number deaths from terrorist attacks, why has your government not spent 5 TRILLION on that issue?
These are just a couple of issues that make it obvious that what is happening is not based on what's best for the people or humanitarian good will.
I'll leave it there for now.
"Sure, I'll just condense 30 years of research into a couple of paragraphs that will convince you of your indoctrination /s"
I actually agree with you! Same way I feel when an atheist says "Show me evidence that God exists". Bravo.
@HumbleThinker
"Same way I feel when an atheist says "Show me evidence that God exists". Bravo."
How asking evidence for something is displaying indoctrination?
@HumbleThinker
All the major religions of the world with their billions of followers have had 1000's of years and nearly unlimited money, human resources etc to prove their case.
All that time and resources and what have they got? Shroud of Turin? HAH! They won't even let that piece of evidence be properly investigated and paraded around as "proof."
They struggle to even convince other people of different religions that their particular religion is correct. Let alone an atheist that has realized:
"Absence of evidence = evidence of absence."
Just like everything else in life. Also: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Those 2 lines alone destroy the entire religion con. Just the con is stuck in their like a tick so hard that even these powerful, common sense, child like easy and simple conclusions is not enough to dig the tick out.
30 years of research and you cannot summarize it into a couple of paragraphs? My atheist position reasoning can be described in 2 words.
"No evidence."
Does that not worry you? Even a little bit?
Occam's razor anyone?
@HumbleThinker
"I actually agree with you! Same way I feel when an atheist says "Show me evidence that God exists". Bravo."
If someone does not ask that question, then they are indoctrinated.
You initially sounded paranoid to me, this is why I asked you if you have any history. You still haven't answered that question. It is not unreasonable for me to ask.The conversation still sounds paranoid to me.
You put forth a proposition that is paranoid in nature...but none the less a proposition. You should back up that proposition with evidence if you would like for people to believe or take you seriously, as I have previously suggested...instead you sidestep and pull a theist favorite by flipping the burden of proof on me, for your proposition.
Do my own research on your topic?
No thanks...I have better things to do than chase down someone else's paranoia.
@ doG
lol
"You initially sounded paranoid to me, this is why I asked you if you have any history. You still haven't answered that question. It is not unreasonable for me to ask.The conversation still sounds paranoid to me."
NO I AM NOT PARANOID. Is that better? Does that make you feel more secure? How do you know I'm telling the TRUTH? What if I said, paranoia is just another name for heightened awareness?
Really? The conversation sounds paranoid to you? May I suggest the possibility of projection going on here? Do you really think the concept that our governments can lie to us is paranoid?
If you really feel this way doG, the only thing I can suggest to you is, do NOT investigate anything I have suggested. Stay away from it completely. If you are that insecure now, I do not want to be responsible for doing any more damage to you.
Just ignore everything I have said.
@shiney
Do you believe that the doctrine of, or powerful of certain religions, purposefully indoctrinate children, to knowingly establish a belief system, prior to an age of analytical thinking?
yes.
@ Shiney
Any proof to warrant your belief?
Listen doG, if you are interested in whether or not your governments are corrupt, look into it. If not, don't bother. It's no skin of my nose.
"Any proof to warrant your belief."
Yes of course there is, that's why you feel the same way. I can show you thousands of pages that can convince or not convince you. It all depends on whether or not you give a shit.
why are you asking me to prove something to you that you already know is true. That's being dishonest.
I'm off to bed, it's late here. See ya tomorrow.
@ Shiney
Ok, ok. Off to bed eh...i'm still doing dictation.
I was going to post this route:
Do you believe that parents, purposefully indoctrinate their children, to knowingly establish a belief system, prior to an age of analytical thinking?
And then ask if you see the difference.
I believe that our country has issues, as the parents have an issue by believing in religion. I believe our polity/executive, believe they are doing the right thing...as the parents feel they are doing the right thing. I do not believe there is a covert hidden illuminati attempting to take over the world...there is no evidence for this...it has more to do with manipulation of process than anything else. I believe that the process is broken, but that our polity is repairable. It is presently undergoing changes through legislation to correct and alter executive power. These changes are painfully slow...even for me. As mentioned, the flaws appearing in our polity, are noticed, and have more to do with manipulation of present outdated and vague law, than any organized concerted effort. Realizing the issue is half the battle.
You think that Americans are not interested or active in their own government?...that is just not true. Any bastardization of our country, way of life or institutions, from outside or within, will be met by patriot passion...and all Americans are patriots.
"Listen doG, if you are interested in whether or not your governments are corrupt, look into it. If not, don't bother. It's no skin of my nose."
Actually No. It's not on DoG. You made the claim. You back it.
The burden of proof is the responsibility of the one who makes the claim.
I lean towards shiningone.
There is a very good reason why the US government is set up with so many checks and balances. In a recent survey "Currently, 22% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they can trust government, compared with 15% of Democrats and Democratic leaners." http://www.people-press.org/2017/12/14/public-trust-in-government-1958-2...
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes. Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.
Quote from George Santayana
Here is a little tidbit that does keep me on edge. Both Hitler and Mussolini entered politics as basically firebrands, each voted into a democratic government. But after a few years, each of them undermined the government so much they eventually became supreme leaders and led their nations down the road of tragedy.
Pages