Challenge- Argue the Opposite Position 2010

sky

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 10:57 am

hadasa wrote:

sky wrote:

Everyone should own a buggaboo

A stroller is something that will be used for all of your children and on a daily basis. A parent should invest into the comfort of their baby and the ease of their own commute. A buggaboo perfectly fits that bill like no other carriage. It accomadates babies in a carrycot, the most comfortable and safest position for a newborn and then grows with your child allowing the child to face the parent, allowing for bonding during errands, and to face the world, allowing you child to see clearly all that is going around. It provides the easiest push for parents and easily allows them to bump up and down stairs. The basket is large enough for typical errands.
If you are the type that has a defined sense of style then the bugaboo can be customized to your preference. The interior, exterior, and sunshade fabrics can be chosen to your specification.
some may argue that the price of a bugaboo is too steep for a carriage. But if you calculate how much a new carriage would cost for each of your children then the cost of the bugaboo is definetly the better value. The company will stand behind the product and replace any piece that may break so that it will last you for years to come. '

Are you getting paid for this?

I personally would never buy a bugaboo. My $60 graco has lasted me through 3 kids (truth is at this point it is going and will not make it to a 4th iy'h).

Mrs. XYZ

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 12:17 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

Isramom8 wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

"There are some premises that cannot be defended, either intellectually or due to one's conscience."

PinkFridge - Argue against this.

I can't. I was hoping someone else would and open my mind.

There is always another side. For example: (warning, this is gross)

A child molestor was usually molested themselves. We learn by example more than anything (if you tell your children not to swear but swear like a sailor, they are going to swear also). So a kid is molested learns that its proper behavior. That's how they relate to others. Therefore, why would you punish them when its the way they have been taught?

Also, if you leave $100 outside on a public bench and someone takes it, that's not called stealing. So if you leave your child in a position where you aren't watching them, like that $100, another person has the ability to take it.

Life is about power. A molestor is just making use of his/her strengths to gain power over others. Some people use speech or money or influence. Others use complex feelings in the victims.

Finally, the "victims" often enjoy the "molesting" - if someone enjoys it, is it really wrong? Its like arresting a 17 year old boy for sleeping with his 15 year old girlfriend as "statutory rape"!

OK now I want to vomit.

You are being dan lkaf zchus, you are not supporting it or finding the advantages in it. Big difference.

amother

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 12:33 pm

Why One Should Never Post as Amother

Imamother was designed to give frum women an opportunity to connect with each other. The more "real" that a person seems, the easier it is to connect with her. Using Amother detracts from the feelings of connection on the board.

Additionally, using Amother makes it difficult to tell who is posting and to respond appropriately. Sometimes many Amothers post on one thread which often leads to misunderstandings.

While one may say that the use of Amother is necessary to preserve privacy, in reality that is not the case because screen names are anyway somewhat anonymous.

Therefore, one should never post as Amother.

PinkFridge

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 12:35 pm

amother wrote:

This was great!!!
(So curious who you are but I guess taiku, not that he won't have more important things to take care of.)

ora_43

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 1:11 pm

PinkFridge wrote:

Isramom8 wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

"There are some premises that cannot be defended, either intellectually or due to one's conscience."

PinkFridge - Argue against this.

I can't. I was hoping someone else would and open my mind.

It depends what you mean by "cannot be defended."

Obviously even the views that we would see as most immoral are defended by at least some people. Otherwise we wouldn't have abuse and rape and murder and genocide and all other kinds of horrible things on earth. For the most part, the people who commit those crimes aren't committing them while thinking "I'm such an awful person for doing this." On the contrary, many think they are complete justified, or even believe that what they are doing is a positive thing.

So it is possible to defend any position? Clearly, yes. Should it be done is a different question...

I think that attempting to defend such positions can be very helpful. Saw50st8's post is a good example. If someone looks at a molester and just thinks "eww ewww sick evil," that's a fine reaction, but won't help change anything. It's those who are able to look at a molester and think, "I wonder what makes him tick, I wonder how he justifies his acts" - and can actually come up with answers - who are able to find ways to stop the cycle of abuse, or prevent criminals from reoffending.

But OTOH, it would be immoral (albeit intellectually possible) to offer a convincing argument in favor of abuse or any other crime. That is, to say "Abuse is fine because.... " as opposed to "abusers might be thinking like this (now let me go vomit)." Especially in a forum where it could get out and end up actually encouraging someone to do evil.

PinkFridge

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 1:18 pm

ora_43 wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

Isramom8 wrote:

PinkFridge wrote:

"There are some premises that cannot be defended, either intellectually or due to one's conscience."

PinkFridge - Argue against this.

I can't. I was hoping someone else would and open my mind.

Rabbi Noah Weinberg, zt"l, spoke about this, and how even terrible people can rationalize their actions (did he use the example of someone who kicked his mother in the stomach? for some reason I'm thinking of this). But on an objective level, it is clearly wrong.

Oh, and as far as the benefits of attempting to defend such positions: absolutely. I agree 100%.

But let the games continue. It's entertaining and edifying. If I had time now I'd tackle why computer filters aren't a good idea, or something like that.

Isramom8

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 1:25 pm

Seraph wrote:

Isramom, argue against co-sleeping.
Or, argue why you shouldn't live in an OOT community to do kiruv.

Why Not To Go OOT To Do Kiruv

A young avreich should be in an insular frum community to develop in ruchniyus. A young couple should be in an insular frum community to build their marriage on a basis of Torah only. A family with young children should raise them in an atmosphere of purity. Teenagers are very easily influenced by their peers around them – if they see others dressing and behaving improperly, they will desire to do the same.

If you live in a place where a child may see a Jew driving a car on Shabbos and the child asks you why, how will you answer? There is no answering this.

How can you allow your child to walk on a street where there are stores selling immodest clothing, and there may even be samples in the windows?

If your child knows there is a public library, he or she will eventually frequent it, and could read secular books, from which they will pick up wrong hashkafos.

We don't have to do Hashem's work. Hashem will make the chilonim do teshuva. Our job is to serve Hashem in purity and stay as far away as possible from outside influences. This will impact the chilonim for good.

If you really want to do kiruv, you can live in a frum community and travel twice a week to give a shiur in a chiloni community.

It is also improper to raise a pure child in a place where there are many dogs.

Isramom8

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 1:40 pm

Against Cosleeping

The goal of raising a child is to foster independence. A conscientious parent will begin granting his or her child freedom from birth. Every newborn human is entitled to this basic human right.

Parents are entitled too. A parent is not a slave, and the sooner a child learns this, the better behaved he or she will be.

Children deserve to be provided with the skills to self-soothe. Only lazy or uncaring parents would deny their child this opportunity.

Parents cosleep with their children because they aren't getting enough s ex. How sad it is when those responsible for children use their bodies for their own physical comfort. How can a child who was forced to cosleep be expected to form normal physical relationship as an adult? How can such a child grow up to trust?

If the child grows up at all, that is. Because chances are he or she will be smothered to death.

This is why the Bible warns us against cosleeping. A religious person would never consider sinning against a child in this way.

hadasa

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 2:37 pm

Birth control

Taking a break between pregnancies is beneficial for everyone concerned. The kids get more individual attention and a longer chance to be the baby of the family. Parents often have unrealistic expectations of an older sibling, e.g. demanding that he always give in to the baby, forgetting that the older child is really still a baby himself. Longer breaks between pregnancies also ensures the possibility of nursing for at least two years, as recommended by our Sages.
For the mother, the endless cycle of pregnancy and nursing takes a toll on her health, making her old before her time. Many women put on extra pounds with each pregnancy, which they then find hard to lose. Frequent pregnancies can cause pelvic floor problems, leading to incontinence later in life. Mothers of large families often cannot find the time to exercise, not even Kegels. They often find that twenty or more years of their lives have passed by in a blur of diapers, meals and laundry, without their ever having had a life for themselves. The continuous pregnancies and nursing affect the woman's desire for physical relations, which can lead to Shalom Bayis problems.
Certain complications in pregnancy and childbirth, as well as some birth defects, are more common in woman who have had several children. So if a woman already has a few healthy children, there's no reason why she should rock the boat and put herself and her entire family at risk of needing to deal with a complicated pregnancy or birth, or ch"v a child with special needs.

HindaRochel

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 3:22 pm

ora_43 wrote:

But OTOH, it would be immoral (albeit intellectually possible) to offer a convincing argument in favor of abuse or any other crime. That is, to say "Abuse is fine because.... " as opposed to "abusers might be thinking like this (now let me go vomit)." Especially in a forum where it could get out and end up actually encouraging someone to do evil.

I agree. But it is important to know that the argument has been raised by at least one organization.

HindaRochel

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 4:10 pm

saw50st8 wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

saw50st8 wrote:

The last part (about the victim enjoying it) - why deny them both the enjoyment? Is an actual "pro" (if you can call it that).

The basic argument of NAMBLA...

I never heard of them before. That's really gross. And so sad.

I worked, well volunteered really, in a protective movement for awhile. Google and be sickened...but yes. That's the argument...which I don't need to go into.

marina

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 7:44 pm

hadasa wrote:

I'm really impressed. Blown away actually.

hadasa

Tue, Oct 19 2010, 8:13 pm

marina wrote:

hadasa wrote:

I'm really impressed. Blown away actually.

This one was easy, actually. I just let you hear one side of the conversation that goes on occasionally in my own mind. The other side is still winning, though.