Starise
Take single parent children for example- as a general rule children from a single parent home might struggle more than others do but they usually get through it and function in society. OTOH there is a small PERCENTAGE of children who are affected by it in a serious way that follows them the rest of their lives. Most kids who play video games know they are only games, but a few of them might be seriously influenced by these games and start to role play in a more substantial way.
Star, I'm sorry but I see this as a total non-sequitor, unless of course you have statistics to back it up.
I would argue that how a child eventually conducts him or herself as an adult has very little to do with how many parents they had around when they were growing up. What really matters is how loving, caring and supportive their home environment was, and how attentive their parents (or parent) and extended family were in encouraging them.
I would also argue that a child who is brought up by two parents who are constantly arguing and fighting with each other, or who don't spend any time with their offspring, is at a disadvantage compared to a child who is well looked after by one loving parent.
It is the assumption that 'single-parent family' = 'broken home' that I find hard to agree with.
I am in full agreement that there is most likely a link between a broken home and a
broken child though.
The educational system now teaches children the theory that we came about over billions of years by nothing more than chance. A PERCENTAGE of these kids indoctrinated with this theory will think that they are merely animals who have no moral directive and therefore free to invent their own set of rules or lack thereof. Most kids will comply with what is viewed as sane moral and safe but a PERCENTAGE of these kids might look at things differently.
I don't know where to start on this. Would you advocate that we lie to our children?
And I fail to see how you can
indoctrinate anyone with knowledge.
And I am an animal, and 'merely' an animal at that. So are you. If not, what
would you
call yourself?
I may be wrong (and please feel free to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick) but I'm guessing that by saying "
The educational system now teaches children the theory that we came about over billions of years by nothing more than chance. A PERCENTAGE of these kids indoctrinated with this theory will think that they are merely animals who have no moral directive and therefore free to invent their own set of rules or lack thereof" you're actually implying that our children's moral well being would be better served by being taught that the word of the bible is to be taken literally?
I'm sorry, but I find it hard to think of any current problem around the world that would benefit from throwing a bit more religion at it. Over the years, more soldiers, more civilians and more children have been killed, maimed, tortured and imprisoned in the name of religion than for any other reason. The only thing that's probably killed more people is malaria - and if that rather insidious micro-organism hasn't come about as the result of "
billions of years" of evolution, I'm guessing it must have been part of some creator's plan. Almost a clean sweep then.
To be honest, I'm saddened and also quite insulted by your implication that I need some divine (i.e. not 'merely' animal) guidance to possess a moral directive. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I don't need 10 Commandments to
know that 'murder', 'stealing' and 'perjury' are, under most circumstances, morally wrong. I'm not so sure about the other seven so-called 'most important' sentences ever written though. If I'd composed them, I'd have included something along the lines of 'not allowing slavery' and 'not raping choirboys'.
Apologies to all for any TOS violations.