human population should level off and begin to decline around 2030 with complete collapse of modern civilization happening some time around mid century — xraymike79

So 2050, 31 years from now is the end of times? I'll mark it on my calendar along with all the other end of times predictions that have come and gone.

@Noah Te Stroete

It is always a shame when people can't be more like me.

For clarification, is having a vagina a bad thing?

the biggest reason is basically money. — ssu

It's hardy that simple. The example of the Washington DC school system being a good example of heavy spending and poor results: https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/high-public-school-spending-dc-hasnt-produced-desired-outcomes

I don't know the demographics or social economic variations among the various regions of Finland, but I might guess that those more poorly performing schools have students that are from less advantaged families. I wonder if they sent the southern Finnish students to the northern schools and vice versa if you'd really see a decline in the performance of southern Finnish students and an improvement for the northern ones. That is to say, much starts at home. I fully believe that my kids, for example, would have done well even had I not been in a good school district. A real reason my school district is good is because the parents who stress education in the home have sought it out and we've all come together to the same place..

Your African example also makes the point as well. There's abject poverty, war, government instability, disease and all sorts of other things the students are contending with. It's just not reasonable to think that a huge monetary contribution to the educational system is going to put those students on par with Finnish students. It's also not reasonable to think that throwing more money at the inner city schools of Washington DC is ever going to put those students on par with the students within my fairly affluent suburban school system.

So, folks, this is the game I am inviting you to play. Stop finding reasons why the future cannot be known, because you all don't behave like that any other time, you save money you get qualifications, you make plans and buy season tickets. — unenlightened

We all know with certainty we're going to die, so what is it that we do now as we march toward our death? Why should the remote possibility of starvation caused by flooding be more concerning than the real possibility of cancer or being struck by a car?

But should I accept your premises that (1) the end is nigh and (2) it's too late or just impossible to repair, then what I ought to do is stockpile food, fuel, and an arsenal. I should prepare as the preppers do. Since you reject those who treat your concerns as folly, what else would be reasonable? It seems the only solution left the way you've presented it.

They called Noah a fool until the rain started falling, so let's take note and start building now.

The cause of action you'd sue under is referred to as constructive eviction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_eviction

Hanover or Michael I would trust. — S

I didn't read your thread so can't weigh in, but if your thread contained similar insights as this^, I side against your oppressors.

So my question (thanks if you have made it so far) is if this is just an academic red herring or an example of how academic knowledge has fallen? Or am I just a believer in Eurocentrist science that doesn't get the point of decolonization of science? — ssu

Either the rocket makes it to the moon or it doesn't. If a study of nature that rejects the political views of Western society sends rockets straight to the moon, with our rockets meandering and never quite finding their way, or at least doing so less efficiently, I'll subscribe to the anti-West system. Science is the study of the empirical and its verification is based upon empirical observations.

Science is the single most powerful way we have of discovering knowledge about our world. As the oppressed duly note, knowledge is power and without it comes weakness. The solution is not to delegitimize science in order to level the playing field so that those ignorant of science have the same power as those who do not, but it's to educate oneself and gain the knowledge one lacks. The great equalizer is education, not denying one's ignorance and celebrating one's stupidity.

I suspect you agree with all this?

1. Climate change is unstoppable.
2. Social collapse will be worldwide, and in the next 10 years or so.
3. This will involve Flooding caused by sea-level rises displacing huge populations, decline in crop yields leading to starvation even in developed countries, collapse of infra-structure, power, clean water particularly.
4. There's fuck all to be done to stop it.
5. So what might we do or think or discuss in the meantime? — unenlightened

Yawn...

Yes, much has been written on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult

Here's a fairly comprehensive list of predicted apocalyptic events, many made by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

For a walk down memory lane, here are some scientific doomsday predictions made at the time of the first Earh Day in 1970:

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

The more interesting phenomenon is how the adherents react when the prophecy fails and how they attempt to maintain their beliefs in light of them being proven wrong. Yours is particularly troubling for adherents because the date is only 10 years (or so) away. Can we declare the paper wrong in 15 years?

Yes, I get it, all these past examples of failed predictions don't prove that this newest version is also wrong. I also realize that if we make such predictions long enough we might eventually be right. But, my very strong hunch here is that we'll be having this same conversation in 10 years (or so), assuming we don't die from something else.

Please talk about climate change with reference to the paper and the evidence within or elsewhere for its claims along with counterevidence, for those who disagree, from other scientific sources. Everything beyond that will be subject to deletion unless there's a very good reason for its inclusion. — Baden

This would be a fair suggestion if scientists had a proven past of avoiding bias and had the ability to divorce themselves from this odd pessimistic psychological phenomenon that leads them to find evidence of eventual final death and destruction. That it is to say, this is not just ad hom mud slinging, nor is it an anti-scientific stance, but it's clear evidence that scientists go horribly wrong when they attempt such future extrapolations. Pretending that scientists are just objective apolitical folks sorting through facts and crunching out numbers is just that - pretending.

Let us also be clear that the paper itself admits to a high degree of speculation and conjecture:

"It is a truism that we do not know what the future will be. But we can see
trends. We do not know if the power of human ingenuity will help
sufficiently to change the environmental trajectory we are on.
Unfortunately, the recent years of innovation, investment and patenting
indicate how human ingenuity has increasingly been channelled into
consumerism and financial engineering. We might pray for time. But the
evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and
uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction,
migration, disease and war.
We do not know for certain how disruptive the impacts of climate change
will be or where will be most affected, especially as economic and social
systems will respond in complex ways." pp 13-14.

This comment is fraught with political ideology, concluding as if fact that patent law, capitalistic consumerism, and financial engineering (whatever that is) are interfering with human ingenuity. That certainly sounds like a thesis unto itself, and one hardly universally accepted as true. He then speaks of how me might pray, which I understand is for effect (as if that's all we can now do), but are these the words fitting for a serious scientific discussion or is this more a call to arms?

The author then goes on to say:

"These descriptions may seem overly dramatic. Some readers might
consider them an unacademic form of writing. Which would be an
interesting comment on why we even write at all. I chose the words above
as an attempt to cut through the sense that this topic is purely theoretical.
As we are considering here a situation where the publishers of this journal
would no longer exist, the electricity to read its outputs won’t exist, and a
profession to educate won’t exist, I think it time we break some of the
conventions of this format." p. 14

He doesn't even pretend to be scientific, citing to nothing really, and admitting it's just time to stop being so damn scientific. He then goes on after this to discuss the various psychological forms of denial and other unhelpful ways he thinks people are dealing with this real problem. That is simply not science, but just a lament that people don't accept his claims and are finding ways to thwart our saving of the planet..

I don't even believe this prediction:

"If all the data and analysis turn out to be misleading, and this
society continues nicely for the coming decades, then this article will not
have helped my career." p. 24

Should society continue nicely in the coming decades (and now we moved to decades and not just the next 10 years), his career will be fine. From the citations above, it seems clear that damnation cults will always have a role to play in our world.

I voted no. My fear would be that pinned rules would not appear as helpful and educational, but they would be viewed as pedantic rules that must be adhered to or face the consequences of being chastised for failing to read and understand the fundamental rules of logic this board apparently is prioritizing.

What say you? Yay or nay? — S

I vote yay. It's like you opened up my soul and read the very words that described my being. Thank you for that. Thank you.

If they arrested those who hired illegal immigrants, there wouldn't be any.

The wall is pretty much stupid, but I prefer it to another war. To those who think that's a false choice, like maybe we could choose something other than war or a wall, I say you're wrong.

You've gone off on a few different tangents there, but it should be clear my moral perspective on economic issues is utilitarian-based. — Baden

I didn't go off on a tangent. It was directly responsive to your post. My point was that your Utilitarian approach could equally apply to the right, with the argument being that allowing uncontrolled wealth could result in overall societal benefit. This means that your amazement is unjustified. The billionaires haven't tricked the poor into supporting the unjust wealth of the rich. The poor just realize they'd be poorer under a different system.

What always amazes me is that billionaires and the super-rich in general have managed to create not only a system that funnels more and more money to them, but a prevailing ideology whereby a significant proportion of those who have relatively no wealth in comparison feel obliged to protect them and their billions on the basis that somehow nothing could possibly work properly without them. Now that's social engineering. — Baden

So those with significant wealth ought advocate for laws to protect their wealth and those without significant wealth ought advocate for wealth distribution?

That seems to be a morality based upon self-interest. I think you'd advocate for greater wealth distribution even if it meant personal loss to your own wealth, arguing that societal well being is overall increased even if it means you personally might suffer in the short term. So, assuming the right is as righteous as the left, we might also assume their ideology allows for their own personal suffering for better overall societal success.

That is, the billionaire who advocates for greater income distribution is as logical as the working class guy who wants less income distribution as both believe their respective ideologies (whether libertarian, socialist, or whatever) lead to a more overall prosperous society.

It's as fair to call a rich socialist a product of social engineering as it is to call a poor libertarian one.

When there is a will, there is a way. — ssu

Then go earn your billions.

If their influence is impenetrable, then we can't pass laws increasing their tax burden either.

If your primary goal in eliminating billionaires is to eliminate their corrupting influence, then pass laws controlling their influence, as opposed to increasing their tax burden to eliminate their billions. That would seem to address the problem without striking a blow to the underlying ideology of the entire capitalistic system.

That's fucked up. I certainly wouldn't go along with killing all the blond haired babies. Proper be damned. — S

You hypothesized that killing blonde haired babies was moral, so therefore it is.

It's like if I asked you if you would say it was moral to kill blonde haired babies if you subjectively thought it was moral.

You would, you just don't because the hypo is contrary to fact.

Because I trust my moral judgement more than yours. You would have to give me greater reason to trust your moral judgement over mine. Good luck with that. — S

Is it based on reason?

Here's a question for you: if it was proper to kill all the blond haired babies, would you go along with that? — S

Sure, if hypothetically 1+1=3, then it does. You've stipulated the impossible, so the impossible occurred.

But obviously that's merely a hypothetical, and one which doesn't reflect my actual moral judgement about killing blond haired babies. — S

I get it, but why give your moral judgements higher regard than mine?

It's a misunderstanding of moral relativism because it leaves out the relativism part! Approval relative to who or what? I don't approve. He does. I don't approve of his approval. Approval in this context comes under the broader category of moral feeling. Examples of other moral feelings are guilt, shame, outrage, righteousness, vindication, and forgiveness. — S

If all the world believes it proper to kill all the blond haired babies, is it wrong? In this hypothetical, you too believe it's proper.

Yes.I'm glad you agree. Not the end of the increase in knowledge, but past the peak. The internal combustion engine dates from just before 1800, 220 years later, we have improved on it a good deal; likewise the electric motor, 1830s. Jet engine and rocket engine, 1940s and since then - improvements, but no new engines. — unenlightened

The distinction you make to support your pessimistic viewpoint is unclear (as all innovation takes advantage of other known technologies) and irrelevant (whether the life saving drug was founded on wholly new concepts or advancements of existent ones, it's no less important).

With regard to some 100 amazing innovations in 2018 alone, see: https://www.popsci.com/best-of-whats-new-2018.

If the best criticism you have is that they're "tweaks," and not innovations, that doesn't really make me lose any confidence in the continued ability of humans to substantially improve their situation.

Quantum computing will not solve the problem of too many people, not enough jobs, too little money for the price of bread, global warming, and other such existential matters. — Bitter Crank

This is end of times talk, just from the left. Modern misery exists to be sure, but it doesn't hold a candle to ancient miseries.

I am speaking loosely, but the first useable computer was during WW2, and since the transistor made them ubiquitous, I don't see an equivalent novelty in the last 70 years. Nuclear physics, relativity, electromagnetism, evolution are all old stories that are being tweaked, nothing more. — unenlightened

In the 1970s, I'd dispute your claims by flipping through my Encyclopedia Britannica and hand writing you a well thought out letter that you'd get in a few weeks.

It's not just a matter of revolutionary discoveries, but also in novel ways of using existing knowledge. Innovation and genius resulted in the phone in my hand, a far different use of the transistor that powered the AM/FM radio I had as a kid.

The game of monopoly was intended to be an unplayable illustration of the self-destructive nature of capitalism. — unenlightened

Applying existing anti- monopoly laws to the game of Monopoly would dramatically change the game, making the game not analogous to anything in real life.

The end has been delayed by economic expansion and 'revolution', but we have reached peak stuff and peak knowledge, and either we are going to start plying a different game, or the world is going to play it without us. — unenlightened

We haven't reached peak knowledge. Your trust in human creativity is pessimistic. I trust our continued adaption as wells begin to dry.

Read it again. That was just an example he gave as to how we should handle teaching gender-neutrality to children. — Harry Hindu

Nice cross post.

Nobody is suggesting teaching socialism the subject as Hanover implied. — Baden

I did not suggest that. I suggested that gender neutrality issues were ideological issues, and like socialism (another such example), should not be taught from an advocacy perspective.

Right, I see, so you thought this conversation was about teaching Karl Marx to toddlers. — Baden

I've not mentioned Marx, but usually Marx isn't far behind in these conversations about gender. It usually goes down as some argument that the existing power structure is wanting to maintain its control over its resources to subjugate the masses, all having been brought about by capitalist greed. Removing gender based pronouns is somehow the first step in pushing against the power structure. No longer will I be benefited by having a penis, and so I fight viciously to protect my power position.

I didn't see that bit where someone, anyone at all, said gender neutrality only applies to preschool. Remind me. — unenlightened

The Swedish study as described in the NY Times article I cited above seemed to relate to 1 and 2 year olds. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/world/europe/sweden-gender-neutral-preschools.html.

An anecdote. When my family visited Portland, Oregon some time ago, we encountered a 6 foot tall guy walking his dog, wearing a skirt and a bikini top walking down the street. My youngest son said, "Dad, did that guy lose a bet?" Seeing it as a teachable moment, I explained to him, "Son, you're a long way from home." Then we got some ice cream.

Nor does anyone else in the whole wide world. That's why it's so silly. — unenlightened

Alright, so we leave math alone in a gender neutral society. The only thing I've seen that's in need of change is how we are to let our kids play in preschool when they are 1 and 2 years old. Most 1 and 2 year olds are pretty limited in their conversations and understandings of things, and many haven't yet mastered such skills as walking and not spitting out their Cheerio's, let alone understanding the differences among the genders.

What un said, plus — Baden

What I said.

About the first thing that's done when designing a curriculum is that the underlying ideological basis is decided on. You will be pained to know, I'm sure, that these days that is usually some form of liberal humanism (which is why teachers are not supposed to hit your kids, scream at them or force boring rote-learned work down their throats). — Baden

This isn't what I'm referring to. If screaming at kids and using rote learning worked, I'd be in favor of it. When my son was young, I would slap his head as he did his math homework, explaining that if he could work under such conditions, real life would be a breeze. I'll have you know, he's a straight A physics major right now. My results have even been published. I mean I'm right now publishing them here, so I think that counts.

What I'm referring to is having teachers teach a political ideology like it's fact. A teacher can teach socialism, but not that socialism is good. Once she does that, kids start getting taught at home that their teachers are idiots. This assumes every home is like mine, and that seems a safe assumption.

in a myriad of small ways, ignoring, ridiculing, one sex, and encouraging the other. By simply assuming that girls aren't usually as good at maths, or that they're not as interested, or that they won't need it, by not challenging such expressions when they are expressed by pupils. Again, one does not put the dominant ideology on the curriculum because it pervades the ethos of the school. One does not teach gender stereotypes because they pervade everything one teaches. Your maths question is silly, and I have given it far more notice than it deserves. — unenlightened

This is uncontroversial. No one is supportive of ignoring, ridiculing, and discouraging anyone, and no school I know of believes girls should be excluded from math class. So what is it that we're disagreeing about? I was assuming there'd be some rule in some administrative handbook that would be changed after we instituted our gender neutrality polices, but it doesn't sound like there is one.

To the extent that girls are being treated like second rate citizens, I'm as concerned as anyone. I just don't know what real life rule will be affected by this.

Your maths question is silly, and I have given it far more notice than it deserves. — unenlightened

If you say so. My objection remains though, and I don't see how we'll change the math curriculum in a gender neutral society, not do I see how adding and subtracting numbers enforces gender bias. I get how excluding girls from such enterprises would, but I am opposed to such things.

I don't know. Do they have different uniform requirements, maybe? But roles can be supported without being enforced, by simply treating the genders differently. — unenlightened

Most private schools wear uniforms, but few public school do (and I have been previously informed that public and private are used in the reverse in the UK than in the US. Public means government run in the US). I'd think though that a boy could wear a skirt in today's climate.

But I do think we need to figure out specifically what we're asking be changed, else we really don't know what we're arguing about. I

That is ridiculously naive. Education has always been about social engineering, you are simply using it as a negative because it might engineer change. What do you think nuts and bolts are used for? — unenlightened

I'm referencing the misuse of schools to teach a particular ideology. How does teaching math, for example, do that?

So, the debate we're having is about education policy, which changes all the time, and characterizing it as a novel attempt to put the government in charge of ideology and morality is just an attempt to wiggle out of the responsibility to actually think about the issues at hand. — Baden

No, here's what actually happens. The schools stop teaching the basic nuts and bolts about the world and decide their role is social engineering. This results in the election of officials who decide to either teach us the world were created in 6 glorious days and then others who wish to teach us that boys and girls are all the same but for a few anatomical variations. That then results in explosions of home schooling, church based schools, tuition vouchers, and school choice allowances so that society can further segregate. What you get when you enforce these ideas isn't harmony, but just reassurance by the right that the left has gone off the deep end and reassurance by the left that the right is committed to living in the dark ages. Then you get Trump. Congratulations. Trump is your fault, not mine. You made me vote for him.

That sounds good to me. But is it not also possible to discuss together why you each think your way is the best? — unenlightened

I suppose if the topic came up, as it did here, in a generally open discussion format, there would be value to such discussion. I'm not sure how the subject is broached among neighbors about what might be the best way to raise one another's respective children. I also don't think the topic would generally arise in a benign educational context, but it would arise by those who wished to alter public policy.

Well public education has to lean one way or another. It cannot be trying to be gender neutral and support gender stereotypes, and my guess is that you want it to go on with the way it is, which is enforcing government ideology, more or less by definition. If I was playing hard ball, I would suggest that gender neutrality as described is rather refraining from imposing an ideology of what character is appropriate to each sex. — unenlightened

What are the schools doing now to enforce gender roles? I see it in sports for obvious reasons, but within the educational environment, where do you see it? I also don't concede the point of necessary bias, as in the schools must either be enforcing gender neutrality or gender role play. They could accept a neutral role (the very topic of this discussion is neutrality after all), meaning they don't care what the kids do. The question of how boys ought to be is just not something the schools even need to address.

This is a misrepresentation of the debate we're having. Education is ideological one way or the other. Separating boys and girls is as ideological as mixing them; gender non-neutral schools are as ideological as gender-neutral schools. Getting kids to sing the national anthem at school is enforcing an ideology. Banning it in every school would be enforcing a different one. If your contention is that the prevailing ideology is not an ideology because you're blind to it then you're a classic victim of ideology. So, the debate we're having is about education policy, which changes all the time, and characterizing it as a novel attempt to put the government in charge of ideology and morality is just an attempt to wiggle out of the responsibility to actually think about the issues at hand. — Baden

Well, let's properly represent things. The grand Swedish experiment appears to be limited to a handful of pre-school schools comprised of 1 to 2 year olds where the teachers let boys dance and play with dolls and girls were encouraged to yell "NO!" and be boisterous. It also looks really cold there. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/world/europe/sweden-gender-neutral-preschools.html.

I find it very hard to believe those schools had any lasting impression on the kids, but I'd assume the parents who choose to send their kids to such schools did. If the Baden kids went to school in rural Mississippi, despite however backwards their views might be, I'd suspect they'd come out sounding a whole lot like papa Baden, largely because years of attempted indoctrination through the schools can be unraveled with a single well timed eye roll from dad.

In terms of what gender enforcement is occurring in our schools today, it certainly isn't through a formalized effort. I'm sure the schools are reflective of society in general and there's de facto gender role enforcement, but I can't recall a class where the teachers taught boys how to be proper boys and girls proper girls. Had a girl wished to take wood shop in highschool, she could have. We had one such pioneer in my woodshop class.

So what exactly do you propose we change here? Are you proposing some formalized indoctrination class?

And, for the record, American students don't sing the national anthem each morning. They say the Pledge of Allegiance. I suppose that is indoctrination, enforcing the controversial idea that Americans be American.

Are you saying rather than change things for the better, we should do the stupid thing because the stupid people won't listen to us anyway? Seems you sorely lack the—how you say?—American can-do attitude. :victory: — Baden

It's a good tactic, but being on my A game today, I won't fall for the tactic of changing my mind for fear of being called unAmerican.

I have no doubt we could force everyone to believe as the liberals, the conservatives, the Jews, the Christians, or even the Muslims. My objection is fairly consistent here, and that is the government really needs to butt out of such things, and maybe pay attention to the fact that Johnny can't read or add. Let's leave to the Baden household how to raise his rugrats and the Hanover house how to raise his. I trust some, probably most, of our educators to educate, but I'm not so trusting in their ability (or really their right) to indoctrinate. You seem very open to the idea that public education ought to be in charge of enforcing government ideology and morality, and I have a bit more of a problem with that. I cringe equally at the idea of my kids being morally advised by Obama as I do Trump.

Beyond this specific argument, in any case, looms the issue of how culture, even namby-pamby culture, imprints sexual identity and where do we go to get an objective a view as possible on what's desirable in that field? The psychologist? The biologist? The philosopher? — Baden

The question isn't where we ought get our direction on how kids ought be raised, but who ought be deciding how one should raise one's kids. What I ought to eat for breakfast is a question all sorts of people might best answer for me, but I ought be the one who ultimately decides, even if you think I'm wrong. As long as I'm not clearly causing damage and my decisions not overwhelmingly dangerous, I get to decide how to raise my children. I am quite certain I am a better parent than most, and if my parenting decisions could be imposed on many young families, their children would be propelled to far greater success than they would relying upon the backwards working class values of their parents. I submit that it's far better however to allow others to do as they may, despite the idiocy of their not adhering to the Hanoverian principles of parenting. In fact, I daresay the world would be better off had you been raised by my principles. We'd be spared so much nonsense, and your income would be far greater..

So, if the fears that gender-neutral schools are a damagingly disruptive form of socialization that perverts our children's genetically programmed understanding of sex differences are wrong, and this form of education merely serves to undermine socialized stereotypes that are a hangover from a less enlightened past, should we not all get on board? — Baden

It seems that everyone turns to Sweden to prove whatever liberal proposition they need to, which leads me to believe that it's pretty hard to fuck anything up in Sweden. They live in a homogeneous utopia, where everyone is responsible and hard working and washes and dries their own plates. I think they could remove the locks from their prisons and no one would leave, proving once and for all that locks aren't needed to keep people in.

My issue is that I don't see a problem with boys being boys and girls being girls, so I don't really care to change things. If my boy wanted to play with dolls, and assuming my beating the hell out of him daily didn't adequately deter him (a joke), I'd be fine with it. In truth, I don't care, and I'd love and support my kids just the same, but I don't see any issue with me buying him fire trucks, punching gloves that make explosion sounds, and Nerf guns and not giving him tea sets and dolls. He seems to get along with boys and girls just fine today.

Since we're speaking about politics, we also have to be sensitive to other people's views, even if we think they're scientifically unsupportable. Societal harmony is a goal I'd think, and I don't think that would be achieved by informing all those with religious leanings who find designated male/female roles highly significant that they are to abandon those views and come in tune with the times. As I've said, the issue isn't pressing and the harms not so significant that it requires a marching out of experts to right the ways of the primitive traditionalists once and for all. Why wage this culture war? What do you expect to gain other than polarization? Can you not just let the stupid be stupid? You'll be afforded ample opportunity to smugly declare their stupidity if that's what you need. They're not listening to you anyway.

They're not, they're making policy for psychological practice, i.e. for psychologists, which is what they're supposed to do. Why can't you let them have their cake and you eat yours? Why the defensiveness? — Baden

The APA isn't a self contained group, interested in staying only in its own lane. They wish to exert political influence.

Not so. Do you suppose that one of the foremost thinkers that ever inhabited this planet would espouse a system that permitted that? There's an art to identifying the correct categorical imperative to apply in a given situation, and once found, any other falls away. If there should exist no CI such that it would prevent the universe from burning to the ground, then just maybe.. — tim wood

I disagree. If you avoid a moral judgment based upon the negative consequences, you're not Kantian.

Americans seem to sometimes exhibit a particular psychosis concerning government involvement, but the APA is not a government agency. So I wonder what the issue is with a group of private citizens providing their view? — Echarmion

I'm not trying to censor their beliefs, but more so just trying to relegate them to the role of jeering from the sideline. They can say whatever they want, but I don't want them making parenting policy for the masses.

And no, there's no psychosis in questioning government. Do you need examples of why that is so?