---

I'm talking about lying, not the kids believing in Santa. There's nothing moral or immoral about that.

But basically, tl;dr version? You haven't got an argument. That's cool.

EH...the other thing that calms kids down is "if you don't stop screaming, I'm going to give you a reason to scream." Shut my siblings right up when they were of that age, no Santa Claus needed.

---

---

First, when I made the comment "earning rewards" in relation to children, I wasn't mentioning a Theological mindset of "earning their way into Heaven" nor anything of the sort. I'd argue that if you have children work toward upholding what their parents teach and tell them for what is right [Within reason and overall spirit of morality and obedience of children] in relation to how parents reward their children for good behavior. Although I'd humbly accept any notion where I reward my children solely for the sake of them being my children, I'd want them to at the very least mind me in assumption that disobedience does, in fact, hold certain consequences that they'd dislike or be mindful of.

Second, if you so chose to tell your children any number of fables as to instill a particular set of moral values, I'd say that you still haven't committed any falsehood besides adhering to your particular preference. You and I can argue the differences between upholding the curiousness of child-like wonder, but it'd merely go directly to one's personal philosophy for how to raise children.

Third, I know that you are a proponent of premarital sex, as am I, but my girlfriend will argue tooth-and-nail for how and why premarital sex is not only wrong, but it destroys the religious implications of a positive and beneficial relationship. If you to debate with anyone who believed contrary to your particular adherence, is it not their personal right in order to disagree? People naturally and inevitably disagree over the matter of preference when compared with how we essentially view as morality, and yet, how a particular action might violate a person's conscience is not exhaustive when compared to preference. Not arguing that morality is relative, but one's authority in order to dictate what is acceptable generally hasn't anything to do besides one's ability to interpret for themselves.

Finally, a child doesn't have the same reasoning potential as you and I, because their logic isn't necessarily refined in order to associate the precise logistics of breaking-and-entering, time manipulation, instantaneous [teleportation] travel, etc. besides their imagination in order to process. However, you have yet to fully write anything definitive that states it is morally unacceptable for one to believe in a mythical being that adheres to a purposefully GOOD outlook of morality.

---

2) That child needs to think about who actually was giving him all those presents.

I cannot possibly imagine having felt resentment towards my parents for telling me that santa was the one giving me my presents, only to find out that it was them all along. Just because he doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn't bring joy to kids.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:54 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

I'm talking about lying, not the kids believing in Santa. There's nothing moral or immoral about that.

But basically, tl;dr version? You haven't got an argument. That's cool.

EH...the other thing that calms kids down is "if you don't stop screaming, I'm going to give you a reason to scream." Shut my siblings right up when they were of that age, no Santa Claus needed.

---

And unless there is anything hurtful for parents in order to prolong the overall concept of Santa as necessity, there's certainly nothing wrong with having them believe in a fantasy figure as to look forward to on a particular night of the year.  Tooth fairies are good for whenever your child wants to be rewarded for losing their baby teeth.. whereas I haven't a clue what the fascination is with a massive bunny that hides eggs and has a massive sweet tooth for chocolate and other candies.. And you still have yet to explain to me how it is potentially harmful or hurtful for parents to inform children of fables as to instill morality.  I'm with your fiance on this one, Abby.

---

The only thing Santa/Toothfairy etc are good for is threatening your kids.

Also, there is a difference in telling fables and presenting them as reality.

They do distort a child's perception of what reality is when they're just learning about the world.

There are a lot of angry atheists out there who are upset that they were led to believe that a god was watching and judging their every move, but I think that's understandable because the parents who teach that to their kids are also under the impression that it's true.

The Santa thing though is unforgivable. That's straight up bullshit.

Post edited at 6:18 pm on Dec. 15, 2008 by Bearsy

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

Bottom line:
If any kid resents his parents for lying about santa claus.
1) That child needs to rethink why he resents his parents. [Because they pretended that magic exists?]

2) That child needs to think about who actually was giving him all those presents.

I cannot possibly imagine having felt resentment towards my parents for telling me that santa was the one giving me my presents, only to find out that it was them all along. Just because he doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn't bring joy to kids.

---

It's disturbing not knowing what information you can trust. My own damn parents- who I'd instinctively trusted- had been blatantly deceiving me my entire life.

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

And unless there is anything hurtful for parents in order to prolong the overall concept of Santa as necessity, there's certainly nothing wrong with having them believe in a fantasy figure as to look forward to on a particular night of the year. Tooth fairies are good for whenever your child wants to be rewarded for losing their baby teeth.. whereas I haven't a clue what the fascination is with a massive bunny that hides eggs and has a massive sweet tooth for chocolate and other candies.. And you still have yet to explain to me how it is potentially harmful or hurtful for parents to inform children of fables as to instill morality. I'm with your fiance on this one, Abby.

---

Actually, I addressed that point several posts ago. You seem to have ignored it. It's one thing to tell your children stories that you both know aren't true; it's another to tell them things that you know aren't true and lead them to believe those things anyway. The latter is called lying; you've yet to justify lying in any way, shape or form.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after

---

Quote: from fenrir at 4:42 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

First, when I made the comment "earning rewards" in relation to children, I wasn't mentioning a Theological mindset of "earning their way into Heaven" nor anything of the sort.  I'd argue that if you have children work toward upholding what their parents teach and tell them for what is right [Within reason and overall spirit of morality and obedience of children] in relation to how parents reward their children for good behavior.  Although I'd humbly accept any notion where I reward my children solely for the sake of them being my children, I'd want them to at the very least mind me in assumption that disobedience does, in fact, hold certain consequences that they'd dislike or be mindful of.  

 Second, if you so chose to tell your children any number of fables as to instill a particular set of moral values, I'd say that you still haven't committed any falsehood besides adhering to your particular preference.  You and I can argue the differences between upholding the curiousness of child-like wonder, but it'd merely go directly to one's personal philosophy for how to raise children.  

 Third, I know that you are a proponent of premarital sex, as am I, but my girlfriend will argue tooth-and-nail for how and why premarital sex is not only wrong, but it destroys the religious implications of a positive and beneficial relationship.  If you to debate with anyone who believed contrary to your particular adherence, is it not their personal right in order to disagree?  People naturally and inevitably disagree over the matter of preference when compared with how we essentially view as morality, and yet, how a particular action might violate a person's conscience is not exhaustive when compared to preference.  Not arguing that morality is relative, but one's authority in order to dictate what is acceptable generally hasn't anything to do besides one's ability to interpret for themselves.  

 Finally, a child doesn't have the same reasoning potential as you and I, because their logic isn't necessarily refined in order to associate the precise logistics of breaking-and-entering, time manipulation, instantaneous [teleportation] travel, etc. besides their imagination in order to process.  However, you have yet to fully write anything definitive that states it is morally unacceptable for one to believe in a mythical being that adheres to a purposefully GOOD outlook of morality.

---

I did see the problems in that, but was put under the impression that we lived in a world in which magic could solve these problems.

---

---

Quote: from fenrir at 9:00 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

And unless there is anything hurtful for parents in order to prolong the overall concept of Santa as necessity, there's certainly nothing wrong with having them believe in a fantasy figure as to look forward to on a particular night of the year.  Tooth fairies are good for whenever your child wants to be rewarded for losing their baby teeth.. whereas I haven't a clue what the fascination is with a massive bunny that hides eggs and has a massive sweet tooth for chocolate and other candies.. And you still have yet to explain to me how it is potentially harmful or hurtful for parents to inform children of fables as to instill morality.  I'm with your fiance on this one, Abby.

---

Actually, I addressed that point several posts ago. You seem to have ignored it. It's one thing to tell your children stories that you both know aren't true; it's another to tell them things that you know aren't true and lead them to believe those things anyway. The latter is called lying; you've yet to justify lying in any way, shape or form.

---

---

Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:07 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from fenrir at 4:42 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

First, when I made the comment "earning rewards" in relation to children, I wasn't mentioning a Theological mindset of "earning their way into Heaven" nor anything of the sort. I'd argue that if you have children work toward upholding what their parents teach and tell them for what is right [Within reason and overall spirit of morality and obedience of children] in relation to how parents reward their children for good behavior. Although I'd humbly accept any notion where I reward my children solely for the sake of them being my children, I'd want them to at the very least mind me in assumption that disobedience does, in fact, hold certain consequences that they'd dislike or be mindful of.

 Second, if you so chose to tell your children any number of fables as to instill a particular set of moral values, I'd say that you still haven't committed any falsehood besides adhering to your particular preference. You and I can argue the differences between upholding the curiousness of child-like wonder, but it'd merely go directly to one's personal philosophy for how to raise children.

 Third, I know that you are a proponent of premarital sex, as am I, but my girlfriend will argue tooth-and-nail for how and why premarital sex is not only wrong, but it destroys the religious implications of a positive and beneficial relationship. If you to debate with anyone who believed contrary to your particular adherence, is it not their personal right in order to disagree? People naturally and inevitably disagree over the matter of preference when compared with how we essentially view as morality, and yet, how a particular action might violate a person's conscience is not exhaustive when compared to preference. Not arguing that morality is relative, but one's authority in order to dictate what is acceptable generally hasn't anything to do besides one's ability to interpret for themselves.

 Finally, a child doesn't have the same reasoning potential as you and I, because their logic isn't necessarily refined in order to associate the precise logistics of breaking-and-entering, time manipulation, instantaneous [teleportation] travel, etc. besides their imagination in order to process. However, you have yet to fully write anything definitive that states it is morally unacceptable for one to believe in a mythical being that adheres to a purposefully GOOD outlook of morality.

---

I did see the problems in that, but was put under the impression that we lived in a world in which magic could solve these problems.

---

Having you to be a spokesperson for morality is along the same lines of having a troll become a moderator.. Weren't you the one advocating killing elderly women and distributing their wealth if they knowingly committed unethical, but legal proceedings?

---

The question was, could a man still be considered a good person if he killed a rich, dying woman who'd pawned a poor town's money and was planning to take her money to her grave, so that he could redistribute her wealth to the poor people she'd stolen from in starving eighteenth century Russia?

Yes, he could still be considered a good person was my answer.

EDIT: It wasn't really legal what she did, there was just no proper law enforcement at the time. What she was doing was a violation of human rights given the setting.

Even if she hadn't, the guy clearly had good intentions rather than selfish ones, and thus could still be considered a good person.

Post edited at 6:30 pm on Dec. 15, 2008 by Bearsy

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

Quote: from fenrir at 6:23 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:07 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from fenrir at 4:42 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

First, when I made the comment "earning rewards" in relation to children, I wasn't mentioning a Theological mindset of "earning their way into Heaven" nor anything of the sort. I'd argue that if you have children work toward upholding what their parents teach and tell them for what is right [Within reason and overall spirit of morality and obedience of children] in relation to how parents reward their children for good behavior. Although I'd humbly accept any notion where I reward my children solely for the sake of them being my children, I'd want them to at the very least mind me in assumption that disobedience does, in fact, hold certain consequences that they'd dislike or be mindful of.

  Second, if you so chose to tell your children any number of fables as to instill a particular set of moral values, I'd say that you still haven't committed any falsehood besides adhering to your particular preference. You and I can argue the differences between upholding the curiousness of child-like wonder, but it'd merely go directly to one's personal philosophy for how to raise children.

  Third, I know that you are a proponent of premarital sex, as am I, but my girlfriend will argue tooth-and-nail for how and why premarital sex is not only wrong, but it destroys the religious implications of a positive and beneficial relationship. If you to debate with anyone who believed contrary to your particular adherence, is it not their personal right in order to disagree? People naturally and inevitably disagree over the matter of preference when compared with how we essentially view as morality, and yet, how a particular action might violate a person's conscience is not exhaustive when compared to preference. Not arguing that morality is relative, but one's authority in order to dictate what is acceptable generally hasn't anything to do besides one's ability to interpret for themselves.

  Finally, a child doesn't have the same reasoning potential as you and I, because their logic isn't necessarily refined in order to associate the precise logistics of breaking-and-entering, time manipulation, instantaneous [teleportation] travel, etc. besides their imagination in order to process. However, you have yet to fully write anything definitive that states it is morally unacceptable for one to believe in a mythical being that adheres to a purposefully GOOD outlook of morality.

---

I did see the problems in that, but was put under the impression that we lived in a world in which magic could solve these problems.

---

Having you to be a spokesperson for morality is along the same lines of having a troll become a moderator.. Weren't you the one advocating killing elderly women and distributing their wealth if they knowingly committed unethical, but legal proceedings?

---

I didn't advocate killing anyone.

The question was, could a man still be considered a good person if he killed a rich, dying woman who'd pawned a poor town's money and was planning to take her money to her grave, so that he could redistribute her wealth to the poor people she'd stolen from in starving eighteenth century Russia?

Yes, he could still be considered a good person was my answer.

---

---

Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:25 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from fenrir at 6:23 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from Its Bearsy Bitch at 8:07 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Quote: from fenrir at 4:42 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

First, when I made the comment "earning rewards" in relation to children, I wasn't mentioning a Theological mindset of "earning their way into Heaven" nor anything of the sort.  I'd argue that if you have children work toward upholding what their parents teach and tell them for what is right [Within reason and overall spirit of morality and obedience of children] in relation to how parents reward their children for good behavior.  Although I'd humbly accept any notion where I reward my children solely for the sake of them being my children, I'd want them to at the very least mind me in assumption that disobedience does, in fact, hold certain consequences that they'd dislike or be mindful of.      

  Second, if you so chose to tell your children any number of fables as to instill a particular set of moral values, I'd say that you still haven't committed any falsehood besides adhering to your particular preference.  You and I can argue the differences between upholding the curiousness of child-like wonder, but it'd merely go directly to one's personal philosophy for how to raise children.      

  Third, I know that you are a proponent of premarital sex, as am I, but my girlfriend will argue tooth-and-nail for how and why premarital sex is not only wrong, but it destroys the religious implications of a positive and beneficial relationship.  If you to debate with anyone who believed contrary to your particular adherence, is it not their personal right in order to disagree?  People naturally and inevitably disagree over the matter of preference when compared with how we essentially view as morality, and yet, how a particular action might violate a person's conscience is not exhaustive when compared to preference.  Not arguing that morality is relative, but one's authority in order to dictate what is acceptable generally hasn't anything to do besides one's ability to interpret for themselves.      

  Finally, a child doesn't have the same reasoning potential as you and I, because their logic isn't necessarily refined in order to associate the precise logistics of breaking-and-entering, time manipulation, instantaneous [teleportation] travel, etc. besides their imagination in order to process.  However, you have yet to fully write anything definitive that states it is morally unacceptable for one to believe in a mythical being that adheres to a purposefully GOOD outlook of morality.

---

I did see the problems in that, but was put under the impression that we lived in a world in which magic could solve these problems.

---

Having you to be a spokesperson for morality is along the same lines of having a troll become a moderator.. Weren't you the one advocating killing elderly women and distributing their wealth if they knowingly committed unethical, but legal proceedings?

---

I didn't advocate killing anyone.  

 The question was, could a man still be considered a good person if he killed a rich, dying woman who'd pawned a poor town's money and was planning to take her money to her grave, so that he could redistribute her wealth to the poor people she'd stolen from in starving eighteenth century Russia?  

 Yes, he could still be considered a good person was my answer.

---

Which is entirely your right in choosing so, Bearsy, but opinions of morality aren't necessary exhaustive or definitive declarations for what is right besides mere preference. Preference cannot and shall not be a prerequisite for a moral act beyond one's ability to interpret for themselves whatever is direly necessary.

---

I plan to tell my children about Father Christmas, I plan to tell them there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, as well as all sorts of other exciting, magical things that only children can truly comprehend. Believing in Father Christmas as a child enhanced my enjoyment of Christmas, and my belief in magic enhanced my enjoyment of imaginative play.

If you don't want to tell your children about Father Christmas because it's 'lying', you don't want to tell your children about Father Christmas for basically semantic reasons, because 'lying' is bad, which is really silly.

-------
- لورين

Love, all alike, no season knows nor clime,
Nor hours, days, months, which are the rags of time.

---

Quote: from Event Horizon at 6:10 pm on Dec. 15, 2008

---

Bottom line:  
 If any kid resents his parents for lying about santa claus.  
 1) That child needs to rethink why he resents his parents. [Because they pretended that magic exists?]  

 2) That child needs to think about who actually was giving him all those presents.  

 I cannot possibly imagine having felt resentment towards my parents for telling me that santa was the one giving me my presents, only to find out that it was them all along. Just because he doesn't exist doesn't mean he doesn't bring joy to kids.

---

I have always hated being lied to, it's as simple as that. Ever since I was a young kid.

It's disturbing not knowing what information you can trust. My own damn parents- who I'd instinctively trusted- had been blatantly deceiving me my entire life.

---

It's SANTA CLAUS.
I can understand if your parents told you that it was them who was giving you the presents but then you found out that it was your neighbor, Bill.
Then I could see how you might feel betrayed --though, still, I have trouble seeing that.
But it is fucking Santa.
"Oh gosh, if they lied to me about that immortal obese guy who can distribute gifts to a billion people in one night --on his sled of flying reindeer-- by sliding down their respective chimneys; What else have they been lying to be about? My real father?"

Come on now. The story is absurd to begin with. If anything you should feel resentment towards yourself for believing in it as long as you did. I know when I found out it was a sort of, "Yea, that makes sense" moment.

did you get mad at your grandfather for pretending to pull off his thumb too? Or the magician that came to your elementary school lying to you about knowing what card you chose?

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

If you want to be pedantic, you could call telling children about Father Christmas 'lying' (of course, this word is only being used for emotive value since it has negative connotations), but really, it's story-telling. If you want to label it lying, then fine, in this case I don't think a lie is always a bad thing.

I plan to tell my children about Father Christmas, I plan to tell them there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, as well as all sorts of other exciting, magical things that only children can truly comprehend. Believing in Father Christmas as a child enhanced my enjoyment of Christmas, and my belief in magic enhanced my enjoyment of imaginative play.  

If you don't want to tell your children about Father Christmas because it's 'lying', you don't want to tell your children about Father Christmas for basically semantic reasons, because 'lying' is bad, which is really silly.

---

Will you tell your kids that Santa is just a make-believe story, or will you lead them to believe that he's real?

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

---

Or it wasn't a good enough argument either way, Abby? Could that have been an option, as well?

---

"There's a difference between giving your children a story that you both know is false to teach them a lesson and leading them to believe something that is false in order to get them to shut up" is a bad argument?

What's a good enough argument to you? "Yes, O Man, I bow down to your superior wisdom and judgment"?

Bitch, pls.

-------
Let yourself be enchanted,
You just might break through
To ever ever after