User:AD/Probably

Few exchanges have more clearly and perfectly illustrated Andrew Schlafly's thinking than the one below from here. One of the most reasonable and articulate users of Conservapedia, HsMom, takes the time to post a well-thought out criticism of one of the front-page blog items of Conservapedia. She is polite, logical, and backs up her points. But then Andy replies, and it goes downhill from there. My comments are in bold.

Holocaust Item
This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell either, claiming "her daughter was so upset [after a Holocaust visualization that] she never wants to go back into that classroom." From the linked article:  ''"Beverly Reynolds says her 11-year-old daughter Shelby enjoyed going to Westlake Christian School for seven years. But that changed after a lesson on the Holocaust.  Reynolds says 6th grade students wore armbands that said Jude and sat on the floor.  "They were told to close their eyes and visualize things that were implications that their family was harmed that they would never see their family again, they were given graphic details on the gas chambers, they were given graphic details on what were done with the bodies," said Reynolds.  Reynolds says her daughter was so upset she never wants to go back into that classroom. "When Shelby gave us the graphic details it just chilled us to the bone so we have been quite upset over this and gone to the administration," said Reynolds.''

I think that this item is in very bad taste, and should be removed. The child in question was 11, going to a Christian school. Without knowing the details of what the teacher discussed, it's hard to judge whether the material was inappropriate in general, but clearly the teacher showed little sensitivity to the impact material was having on this particular child, and perhaps on other young innocent children in the classroom. I am horrified that Conservapedia would be so insensitive to the parent's concerns. In my experience (and I have a daughter this age), most girls of this age and culture have had little awareness of violence of the depth and scale of the Holocaust. The material should be introduced at an age-appropriate level. Academically, the subject is usually introduced slowly, with novels that tell of children hiding things from the Nazis (Snow Treasure), hiding people from the Nazis (Twenty and Ten), working up to The Diary of Anne Frank (in its traditional edited-for-kids version). Graphic descriptions of details of methods of killing and mass burial can wait. By high school, they may be reading more detailed material. In college, I had a film class in which the teacher showed a movie about the liberation of a concentration camp. He made it absolutely clear that the movie would be disturbing, that we did not have to view it, and that if we did come to class that day, we were welcome to leave at any time. I appreciated this attitude, though I chose to see the movie. As a young mother, I saw an exhibit in a British museum of concentration camp photos. Again, there were clear signs explaining that the exhibit was disturbing, not for young children, and that parents should use their own judgement as to whether their child was ready to see it. We know this material can be very disturbing for adults - why would we assume that no sensitivity is needed when sharing it with someone else's child? I'm not suggesting that we shy away from teaching the Holocaust - quite the contrary. But it can be handled in an age-appropriate, gradual way, giving the individual child (and parent) some leeway in choosing how much they can handle at a given age. Frankly, I would have been livid if this had happened to my daughter, especially without giving me a "heads up" that such disturbing material would be discussed. Bottom line, what's important for Conservapedia, is that it is not our place to second-guess a parent's judgement about what material is appropriate for their child. I strongly suggest we remove this item from our front page. --Hsmom 10:15, 9 November 2008 (EST)


 * Of course the parent has every right to complain and pull her child out of the school, as she did. And she has every right to embarrass and criticize the school in the newspapers.  Likewise, we have every right to criticize parents who mislead their children into thinking there is no Hell or that evil does not really exist.  They do exist and bad things happen when people are misled into thinking they don't exist.


 * Children far younger than this child heard terrifying sermons about Hell in prior generations. Today, many children and society are done a disservice by being misled into thinking that evil and Hell do not exist.  They do exist.


 * Typically it is the more liberal parent who complains about this sort of teaching, perhaps because he or she really objects to admitting that Hell and evil exist.--Aschlafly 10:33, 9 November 2008 (EST)

'''Andy has been questioned. Notice his immediate reaction is to begin assuming information that helps his argument. He was already making the conjecture that the woman may not teach her daughter about Hell, but now it's cleverly implied to be almost fact. "We have every right to criticize parents who mislead their children" is a very lawyerly way of claiming that the woman is doing so, without actually being burdened with proving that.'''

'''Notice also how he immediately leaps to finding another reason to blame the woman, by implying that she was embarrassing and criticizing the school on purpose and that this is somehow wrong. There's no reason to believe she pushed the story or was seeking publicity, especially since the article says she is "done talking about it," implying the very opposite. But if she is doing this wrong, then in Andy's mind it's okay to say other bad things and assume other bad things about her. This is the heart of Andy's worldview: he sees it as "us versus them," and anything he does to the hated other is fine, as long as his side wins.'''


 * I agree with the points Hsmom made (and please consider for Sysop status on Conservapedia Day - her quality insights and measured temperament are a credit to this site), and have to ask a question about the headline. If there is agreement about the parent's judgment in protesting the Holocaust material being inappropriate for her age, what is the need or justification to make assumptions abut what these specific parents are teaching their child about Hell?  The mother and child are explicitly named in the article, so it seems like an unfounded attack on the Christian faith of these individuals to assert that "This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell either".  Please consider removing this unjustified comment, because I'm sure most Christians here would object to people who don't know them personally making statements about their faith.  Thanks.  --DinsdaleP 11:22, 9 November 2008 (EST)


 * DinsdaleP, you echo a recurring liberal theme that objects to observing probabilities and likelihoods in people's behavior. That theme is illogical and we will continue to observe likelihoods in human behavior just as in other areas of life.  Smokers are more likely to develop lung cancer, promiscuous people are more likely to develop sexually transmitted diseases and resultant infertility, and people who complain about telling kids about evil are unlikely to be teaching those kids about Hell.  Sure, there are counterexamples to almost anything but in no way do they disprove the correlation.--Aschlafly 13:57, 9 November 2008 (EST)

'''Andy is right in certain ways, here. Smokers are certainly more likely to develop lung cancer, and people who have a lot of sex are likely to catch STDs. But he makes two rather grievous mistakes: he thinks that his own opinions have the same validity as medical research, and he thinks that a generality can be applied to an individual.'''

'''Clearly, he is already stretching the truth when he has begun treating it as fact that this woman doesn't teach her daughter about Hell. There's precious little information in the article; this mother could be the most devout of fundamentalists. But she did something he didn't approve of, so now she's one of them. And in his opinion, they don't teach their children about Hell. Somehow, in his mind he believes that his unsupported and vague prejudices are as solid a fact as a study by the American Lung Association.'''

'''As to the generality, we can try an interesting experiment. The rate of crime among black people is much higher than among white people. And what's more, this is actually a known and agreed-upon fact, unlike Andy's "insight." So using his logic, we can observe a pattern of behavior and see a likelihood. Thus, if you meet a black person, they are likely to be a criminal. Hide your wallet.'''

Ain't that swell?


 * I have no issue with people talking in generalities about beliefs, but in this case stating that "This parent probably doesn't teach her children about Hell" is making a statement about the faith and practices of Beverly Reynolds. I consider that to be inappropriate out of civility, and out of respect for her faith & privacy - it's not a liberal bias, it's just the way I was raised. --DinsdaleP 14:21, 9 November 2008 (EST)


 * It's a statement of probability about someone who injected herself into public debate and embarrassed a school. She made her views an issue, and others should not be censored in drawing conclusions about her approach that she publicized herself.--Aschlafly 14:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

'''When people think Andy is wrong, he leaps to accuse them of censoring him. He's not a stupid man, just a fundamentally dishonest one, so ordinarily one would be tempted to say that he's using the wrong word on purpose. But it happens continually. The real truth seems to be that Andy regards his own views and unsupported opinions as certainties, so anyone trying to call them into question or take them off the front page must be trying to censor him. It's not that they think he's wrong, they're just trying to hide the truth.'''

Because they're one of them.


 * Her objections and issues were with the way the Holocaust was taught by a school, not with the teaching of religion. That was added in the CP News Headline, and had nothing to do with her stated cause.  That's all I have to say about this, though.  --DinsdaleP 14:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)


 * My concerns are 1) That Conservapedia's reaction to the concerns this mother raises is to assume the worst about her parenting and get snarky about it. What does that say about us?  We could instead have an thoughtful and informative debate page about the issues parents face in deciding how much detail to include in teaching their children about the Evil in the world.  It's not all or nothing, after all.  Since the vast majority of parents would withhold some of the details of the Holocaust from an 11 year old girl (just as the majority of us withhold some details of other sinful things that happen in our world until we feel our children are ready for them), Conservapedia comes off sounding judgmental of all parents who would be selective in this regard.  2) I share DinsdaleP's concerns that this is a particular (presumably) Christian mother, and without knowing her, her child, or their situation, we are publicly criticizing the choices she has made for her daughter.  This sounds a lot like gossip to me.  If I wouldn't say it in real life without having more information about the situation, then I don't think it's appropriate to say it here. (I don't know the details of how it got into the press, so I don't want to assume the parent was the one who initially brought them into it (even though there is a quote from her in the article).) 3) The argument sounds a bit "slippery slope" to me.  Does it mean that we should allow children to read whatever they want about the Evil Things that can happen to people in this world?  Personally, I don't think so - I keep an eye on what my children are reading and steer them away from things I think would be inappropriate for their age.  There are things they don't need to worry about yet.  4) If we are to be an educational site, then we should keep an educational tone.  A snarky and judgmental tone means that we end up preaching to the choir, rather than helping people who may not at first agree with us to find the Truth. It may feel good to be snarky, but it doesn't actually reflect well on the site or do a good job of promoting our point of view. (Minor additional point: I know a number of Christians who object to yoga-like "visualization" exercises (which this may have been) on the grounds (as I understand it) that they are too similar to prayer and not appropriate for Christians.  I don't know if this was part of the situation or not.)  All this is just my two cents - I don't expect everyone to agree, and if most others are OK with this article as-is and don't think it reflects poorly on Conservapedia, well then, so be it. --Hsmom 15:58, 9 November 2008 (EST)


 * Hsmom, there is nothing "snarky" about the observation concerning the parent's claims and attitude. The parent put her views into the newspaper for public consideration, and debate should be welcomed rather than censored.


 * No one said that she is a kook, for example. But she apparently objected to a graphic visualization of evil in the Holocaust, and it is reasonable to conclude that she would also object if a Sunday sermon concerned a graphic visualization of Hell.  It is reasonable to infer that the parent (and you also?) would object to teaching children about Hell in a similar way.  You and the outspoken parent are more than welcome to your views that the nature of pure evil should be concealed or distorted for 11-year-olds.  Many, including many parents at that school, disagree.  Censorship of strong criticism of the parent's aberrant view is not appropriate.--Aschlafly 16:31, 9 November 2008 (EST)

'''Andy is interesting here, because he's right. If this mother's preacher had begun going into graphic detail about disembowelments and the tearing of viscera during a sermon, she probably would have been just as displeased and switched churches. And yet he immediately conflates this extremely reasonable objection with "object[ing] to teaching children about Hell." In order to support his point, he is trying to slide in the insinuation that any teaching of Hell without gore and horror is the same as not teaching about Hell at all.'''

'''Immediately thereafter, he goes even further to say that Hsmom, herself and personally, wants to "conceal or distort" the "nature of pure evil" for children. Needless to say, Hsmom has become one of them. It's okay to begin assuming things and splashing muck onto her.'''

'''The mistake made by those who try to argue with Andy in an honest fashion is to think he's actually interested in discussion, much less the "open and honest" discussion he so lauds. If you're criticizing something he's said, even politely, in his mind you're attacking him and his world. As he has made clear explicitly so many times, Andy thinks that the world is black and white. And to Andy, his side is always white. So he just wants to win, no matter what he has to accuse or label or sneer to do it. Memento mori, Andy. Memento mori.'''--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 05:53, 10 November 2008 (EST)