Hatfort

Sorry, but no. I can agree that religious upbringing may not be the ideal, it's just the best some people can do, but from there to abuse, there's a big leap. Parental abuse can happen in both religious and secular households.

It makes it not wrong though, or acceptable in the lack of any way that doesn't involve mass scale prohibitions or similars, which would be worse. If you wanna put in question some of the harmful approaches of religions, I don't oppose those, and probably agree to some degree. But with that scale, anything that is bad for a portion of people should be put into question, not only religions.

Yeah, misusing power over people could be abuse. But there are literally millions of people with religious upbringings that turn out well as adults, regardless of whether they put aside those beliefs for others or not once adults, which a lot do, and a lot don't. Globally speaking, there's a big chunk of the population that has put religion behind them, which I think is a trend that is going to continue and increase, and that's fine. But living in the current reality, acceptance of those who are not there yet is necessary, and also not pointing them out as things they are not, in this case, abusive.

I understand things better than you, you don't even understand the meaning of words, basic communication. Then you twist other people's comments, saying they what say or mean, which they have not, so stop that too. Your biggest flaw in this discussion is the expanded meaning of abuse. Parents deciding on a certain education for their children may be good or not, and there may be better ways, but is not abuse. Which brings us to the second flaw in your approach? What's your alternative? Kidnap the kids from all religious parents? Forbid religions? I can agree to a certain degree that religious upbringing has flaws, but that's not abuse, and I put value in the freedom of parents to raise their children as they think is best in society, all within reason of course, as long as there is not abuse or neglect, in which case I think it's fine we act as society and protect children.

Stop the personal remarks now. People make mistakes, I don't have any objection to trying to make fewer of them. I'm not saying what you said I said, you can read what I said in my comments above, so don't put your words in my lips. You call abuse sending a kid to school, of course I don't agree with you, that's nonsense. The word abuse has a meaning, you are the one expanding it in your head, but the rest don't have to go through with that.

Okay, calm down. Those personal remarks are out of place, and not truthful. I'm not a religious man, and I don't think religious education is ideal, but I know in what world I live in. I take the freedom of people raising their children as they think is good, as the alternative would be what? Taking the children from them to be raised by whom? By you? As said, parents make mistakes, every single one of them. Telling them about an eternal torture for stealing candy, you exaggerated a bit, but I understand what you say, it's not the best approach. There are better ways to teach a child not to steal.

No, I'm not narrowing the word, it has a meaning, and I'm all about being flexible, but up to a reasonable limit. Church is boring as fuck for children, I went to it, but that's not abuse. Sending kids to school is not abuse either, as you said in another comment. Kids not only don't choose how they are raised, but they can't. You can't just leave a baby in the forest and let it raise itself. Parents will make the decisions for him, and hopefully raise him to be an independent adult one day. Obviously parents make mistakes too, but when it goes too far, like neglect or abuse, society and the system usually punish them. Of course, you can question what you were taught, you should. Most men do that once an adult, revise which things taught by their parents work for them, and which not. That's kind of the natural process.

Sounds like stretching the word abuse too much. Abuse would be to inflict physical or psychological damage on them, like hitting them or insulting them. Parents raising their children, let's say, in the stage they are in, doesn't need to be harmful per se. You could argue that it's better to raise children in more advanced stages. But what's the solution to that? To steal the children from those in lower stages? That's nonsense, and it goes against very basic freedoms as well. Let everyone be where they are, and run their course. Something great the American Constitution brought was the separation between church and state, which doesn't revoke citizens' freedom to follow any religion they believe in, or to be without one.

What is a son? A human being created from a mother and a father that had sex, was conceived, or maybe in vitro, then born. Fine enough, we can all agree. But what about adoptive sons? They were biologically conceived by other parents, but they were then adopted for whatever reasons, and raised by another set of parents. So everyone accepts these adoptive sons as sons raised by the non-biological parents. I don't see anyone telling those adoptive parents that they can't call these adoptees their sons, because only biological sons are real sons. We could say that the word son can be applied to both biological sons, and also adoptive ones. I think this can also apply to trans people, more or less. Even if what we call biological sex does not align with the gender, and they adopt the other one, because that's what feels good and authentic to them, and they socially fit more in the other gender group, generalizing quite a lot. So the word woman can be applied to both biological women, and also trans women. You don't need to do the distinction all the time, but in some contexts could be. So that's pretty much it. You can move on now.

People are asking to boycott the series The Boys because one of its regular cast members was part of the IDF, and one of his interviews done in Hebrew has now resurfaced translated, where he admits to crimes like kidnapping an 18-year-old girl from his family in Nablus, West Bank, blowing up someone, and others. Just showing how it must be to live in Palestine, like a bunch of soldiers can get into your home, and take your daughter. Imagine being the parent there, not to speak of being the girl.

IDF soldiers smashing a statue of Jesus Christ in Lebanon. The soldier posted it himself in his circles, but it leaked out. It's just another example of many, they also destroyed the 2000-year-old mausoleum of Simon Peter days ago. https://www.planet-today.com/2026/04/israel-destroys-2000-year-old-mausoleum.html

Statement by survivors in response to Melania Trump: A reminder that the administration has not fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

With all the Iran war stuff, the Epstein affairs passed to a secondary place in the news. To a percentage, we can say it's one of the reasons it was in Trump's interest to launch the war, it has indeed been a multifactoral big event, as most are. However, we have our good Melania Trump having a press conference about the issue, to remind us about his pedophile husband and his good friend for a decade in crimes, Jeffrey Epstein. She says she didn't know Epstein, but the pictures say otherwise, and it's not believable, given the friendship her husband had with him.

I don't think anybody has mentioned this on the forum, but there are huge rumors that an important part of the Israeli leadership may have been eliminated during the strikes. Includes Netanyahu and his close family members, the head of Mosad David Barnea, more generals, the nefarious Ben Gvir, and others. There have been video images of Netanyahu, but they seem to be generated by AI, that make mistakes like sometimes not showing the ring in his finger and similars, that in a real video wouldn't happen. So two options, they are dead and trying to hide it with these fake videos, or the leadership is alive and hidden, but they still choose to show this fake videos so their people don't panic. It's strange, at first I didn't believe the rumors, but as time goes by, not having an undeniable proof of life, well it's starting to be a possibility A video of Kulinsky of two days ago about this:

Iran is not out of missiles yet, as the US leaders were claiming they would be very soon. The war continues, the escalation that the US and Israel are carrying out by attacking civilian and economic infrastructures and leaders, is being responded by the same way by Iran, which I think they'll keep up doing as long as it needs to. There's also the war in Lebanon, which Israel has been trying to conquer since the 80s, thanks to Hezbollah they have not been able to do it. Remember that some IDF soldiers wear insignes of what's the Greater Israel that includes Lebanon, the US ambassador said that it's okay if they take all between the Nile and the Euphrates, and they even have children books that literally say that Lebanon belongs to them. Lebanese people should wake up because their land is next for the Israeli expansionist colony, and they won't like to live what the Palestinians have lived for the last 80 years. They attempt to gradually displace them to the North, and once they are confined in a small piece like Gaza, they will level it, and tell them to go somewhere else or be killed. That's the playbook. Iran has total control over the Strait of Hormuz, and it doesn't seem that the US and Israel are able to do anything about that. It's open for countries not hostile to Iran, like China or Russia, and from what I've heard some of the new conditions for countries like India that need the oil are to pay in Yuan instead of Dollar, to hurt US economy. Can't blame Iran for that, the US is bombing them. Europeans have rejected to participate in attempting to open it, not that they could any way, but there's that. They are quite fucked too, because they are energy dependent, and by following the US foreign policy like good vassals, now they have problems from what they were getting from the Middle East, and can't expect anything from Russia either.