Why do we respect religious beliefs?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think "child abuse" has a consistent and particular meaning with people. What should I quote for you to accept this?
I haven't quoted the Sun or Fox News. I have quoted the rather less sensationalist wikipedia and dictioary.org (both not for profit I think).

Wikipedia: "Child abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or neglect of children by parents, guardians, or others."

"Emotional" maltreatment covers promises of Heaven and threats of Hell, in my view. Giving someone a distorted view of the world that accepts fantasy as reality constitutes emotional maltreatment, because that fantasy view colours all of the person's subsequent emotional life.

How about a slightly more formal definition? This is from the Act establishing the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse:

1.-(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires-

''abuse'', in relation to a child, means-

(a) the wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on, or failure to prevent such injury to, the child,

(b) the use of the child by a person for sexual arousal or sexual gratification of that person or another person,

(c) failure to care for the child which results in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare, or

(d) any other act or omission towards the child which results in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare,

Points (c) and (d) cover my view of religious indoctrination, whereas you are arguing that only (a) is valid. Of course, they too are "straw manning" you by separating the term "abuse" out!

regards,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't consider is abuse, I consider it bias.

And therefore, you find bias - or at least some forms thereof - acceptable, yes? You are, after all, not campaigning against it, and by your previously-offered reasoning, that means you condone and accept it.

Now you have hit on my point. Why doesn't Dawkins use the version of the same argument like you just have?
Why does he have to use terminology which is associated with some disguisting and indefensible things and is highly offensive to a lot of people?

Because people like him and Myres like being sensationalist, it's part of their business plan, and using certain rhetoric will achieve that.

Or perhaps its because people get righteously incensed rather than just sitting around nodding sage agreement? Perhaps he sees that such outrage can promote further thought and discussion, by forcing people to "circle the truth" and go into far greater depth and clarity of thought then ever would have happened had they just nodded and said "well, that's obviously sensible".

I was talking about "child abuse" not "abuse"

So "abuse of a child" would be different to "child abuse" then?

and here it is from dictionary.com

From that dictionary definition you have chosen, the following count as child abuse :
Neglect of children
The emotional mistreatment of children

Furthermore, if we take the third offered definition (which is offered as a link) we additionaly see that abuse in this terminology can also be understood to mean "improper, unfair, or excessive use", and so we can add to our list :

"improper use of children".

These are all from your offered definition, Tim. I'm wondering how that in any way supports the argument you were using said definition to support?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Tim, please look at what I actually said. I said it's a "poor summary of his position", which is not the same thing as an argument.

The reason it's a poor summary is because it is liable to misinterpretation by those who think in tabloid terms. "Abuse of children" might be clearer, and less prone to causing media-fuelled hysteria, but to be honest, I don't think Dawkins is very good at understanding that he might be misunderstood.

Scofflaw

He doesn't use in summary he uses it regulary in summary and in argument. So do we disagree what a summary is or whether something is invalid in summary but ok in argument...
You say:
"The reason it's a poor summary is because it is liable to misinterpretation by those who think in tabloid terms."

Where previously you gave out about using formal logic! You sound like you are in some unique happy medium where a lot of people may not be able to get to.

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

And therefore, you find bias - or at least some forms thereof - acceptable, yes? You are, after all, not campaigning against it, and by your previously-offered reasoning, that means you condone and accept it.

Yes.

So "abuse of a child" would be different to "child abuse" then?

Not much. The former does have the usual interpretation because it is not used as much. I have never heard the former.

From that dictionary definition you have chosen, the following count as child abuse :
Neglect of children
The emotional mistreatment of children

Furthermore, if we take the third offered definition (which is offered as a link) we additionaly see that abuse in this terminology can also be understood to mean "improper, unfair, or excessive use", and so we can add to our list :

"improper use of children".

These are all from your offered definition, Tim. I'm wondering how that in any way supports the argument you were using said definition to support?

The first one states:
mistreatment of a child by a parent or guardian, including neglect, beating, and sexual molestation.

The second one states:
the physical or emotional or sexual mistreatment of children

The third was is a link to a legal definition for abuse <b>not</b> child abuse.

AS I have asked other posters, please don't straw man, I am talking about "child abuse", not "abuse".

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

He doesn't use in summary he uses it regulary in summary and in argument. So do we disagree what a summary is or whether something is invalid in summary but ok in argument...
You say:
"The reason it's a poor summary is because it is liable to misinterpretation by those who think in tabloid terms."

Where previously you gave out about using formal logic! You sound like you are in some unique happy medium where a lot of people may not be able to get to.

Actually, I rather think the reverse is true, given the way the numbers on this thread stack up.

Dawkins summarises his argument that religious indoctrination of children is a bad thing (argued at length in his books) by terming such actions "child abuse".

The media, on the other hand, by labelling something as "child abuse", or someone as a "child abuser" are not arguing anything - they are simply labelling something as "bad". There are a variety of such labels available, but it is a mistake to see them as arguments - they are mud-slinging.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

(c) failure to care for the child which results in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare, or

(d) any other act or omission towards the child which results in serious impairment of the physical or mental health or development of the child or serious adverse effects on his or her behaviour or welfare,

I don't there is any good objective evidence for (c) and (d) from religious indoctrination.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't there is any good objective evidence for (c) and (d) from religious indoctrination.

That is something you are free to argue on its own terms, once we have sorted out your unwillingness to accept that "child abuse" means the abuse of children.

Do you still value the tabloid definition over that used by the Commission?

regards,
Scofflaw

5uspect

I think "child sexual abuse" is often generalised as "child abuse". Parents beating their children (spanking even) is generally not seen as child abuse by most either, when it most certainly is.

I also came across this:

RichardDawkins.net wrote:

Why do you link religion with 'Child-abuse'?

I link the marking of children as 'Jewish boy' or 'Muslim child' as a child abuse, since, in childhood they are yet to choose their religious views. Not only that, they are brought up in a way that he gets separated from other religious groups and views so that he follows the religious faith of his parents. Obstructing the view of children clearly comes under child abuse.

Also here's an interesting video from the cutting room floor or the Root of all Evil.
No discussion of the abuse as yet.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

That is something you are free to argue on its own terms, once we have sorted out your unwillingness to accept that "child abuse" means the abuse of children.

Do you still value the tabloid definition over that used by the Commission?

regards,
Scofflaw

What tabloid defintion?

Scofflow, I don't like your language here: you say,
"That is something you are free to argue on its own terms, once we have sorted out your unwillingness to accept that "child abuse" means the abuse of children."
Do you think you are part of a hit squad here trying to round up a trouble maker?
Speak with respect to me or don't speak at all to me.
Perhaps you lack of manners has something to do with your more tolerable approach to Dawkins lack of respect to Religious parents.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

I think "child sexual abuse" is often generalised as "child abuse". Parents beating their children (spanking even) is generally not seen as child abuse by most either, when it most certainly is.

I also came across this:

Why do you link religion with 'Child-abuse'?

I link the marking of children as 'Jewish boy' or 'Muslim child' as a child abuse, since, in childhood they are yet to choose their religious views. Not only that, they are brought up in a way that he gets separated from other religious groups and views so that he follows the religious faith of his parents. Obstructing the view of children clearly comes under child abuse.



Also here's an interesting video from the cutting room floor or the Root of all Evil.
No discussion of the abuse as yet.

Yes and I don't consider the aforementioned child abuse. I consider it a conservative bias but not child abuse. He considers it child abuse and sells loads of books talking about it.
Can we wrap this up soon?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

What tabloid defintion?

Scofflow, I don't like your language here: you say,
"That is something you are free to argue on its own terms, once we have sorted out your unwillingness to accept that "child abuse" means the abuse of children."
Do you think you are part of a hit squad here trying to round up a trouble maker?
Speak with respect to me or don't speak at all to me.
Perhaps you lack of manners has something to do with your more tolerable approach to Dawkins lack of respect to Religious parents.

"We" can be taken there to mean "those involved in this discussion, including you", or even "you and I". In both cases you are included in the "sorting-out" - there is no mention of a lynching party.

"Tabloid" is short for "sensationalist media" here. I believe it's quite a common term.

Again, you seem not to have noticed that this is not your Maths class. You'll get respect when you show respect, and when you earn respect. Currently, you're going the wrong way, as far as I'm concerned.


Scofflaw

pH

While I'm not sure I agree with Dawkins, "Child Abuse" makes a great sound-bite to catch people's attention and make them listen (if only for a minute) to him. And if the reference also conjures up images of paedophile priests in some listeners' minds then surely he cannot be blamed for that?

Also he isn't solely to blame for the widening of the term 'child abuse', here's an excerpt from the BBC's web page on it:

"Emotional - when parents continuously fail to show love and affection to a child. This might include sarcasm, threats, criticism, yelling and taunting. The effects are serious and long-lasting."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/your_kids/safety_abuse.shtml

Here's a quote from Dawkins:

"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252

and another

Which brings me to my point about mental child abuse. In a 1995 issue of the Independent, one of London's leading newspapers, there was a photograph of a rather sweet and touching scene. It was Christmas time, and the picture showed three children dressed up as the three wise men for a nativity play. The accompanying story described one child as a Muslim, one as a Hindu, and one as a Christian. The supposedly sweet and touching point of the story was that they were all taking part in this Nativity play.

What is not sweet and touching is that these children were all four years old. How can you possibly describe a child of four as a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew? Would you talk about a four-year-old economic monetarist? Would you talk about a four-year-old neo-isolationist or a four-year-old liberal Republican? There are opinions about the cosmos and the world that children, once grown, will presumably be in a position to evaluate for themselves. Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

and another:

That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children. They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics, abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-12-30morris_letter.shtml

In general Dawkins chooses his words carefully and normally (well he used to anyway) qualify he was talking about mental abuse.

That religious institutions have been responsible for a lot of child abuse is without question, the last Magdalene laundry closed in Ireland in 1996, but what of other things? What about children being scared with threats of hell and damnation? What about spending hundreds of hours learning sacred texts, prayers and rituals by heart and being beaten for making mistakes? Are they child abuse?

robindch

Just to correct something in one of TR's posts regarding sensationalism -- Dawkins didn't want his telly series called "The Root of All Evil", but he was apparently overruled by the program's producers on C4. I believe that Dawkins got them to add the question mark at the end, but wasn't able to change anything else and has publicly complained about it.

And I didn't see any non-standard church-goers in the series either. Even the first few of the many he interviewed were bog-standard Irish catholics. While Ted Haggard was the boss, up to November last year when he was caught with his trousers down around his ankles, of the largest religious grouping in the USA. All pretty standard stuff really.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

"We" can be taken there to mean "those involved in this discussion, including you", or even "you and I". In both cases you are included in the "sorting-out" - there is no mention of a lynching party.

There is no mention of lynching party and there is no mention of your reference to my unwillingness and that is what you are trying to sort out.
Are you patronizing or a Doctor of some sort?

"Tabloid" is short for "sensationalist media" here. I believe it's quite a common term.

I know that, and I read or pay attention to it so I don't understand the point of your question. What tablod defintion are you referring to?

Again, you seem not to have noticed that this is not your Maths class. You'll get respect when you show respect, and when you earn respect.

Ok De Niro.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

Just to correct something in one of TR's posts regarding sensationalism -- Dawkins didn't want his telly series called "The Root of All Evil", but he was apparently overruled by the program's producers on C4. I believe that Dawkins got them to add the question mark at the end, but wasn't able to change anything else and has publicly complained about it.

And I didn't see any non-standard church-goers in the series either. Even the first few of the many he interviewed were bog-standard Irish catholics. While Ted Haggard was the boss, up to November last year when he was caught with his trousers down around his ankles, of the largest religious grouping in the USA. All pretty standard stuff really.

That's correct it was C4 who came up with the name, but I heard he was delighted they decided to call it that.
The Muslim was definetly not bog standard, as for Ted Haggard you can find any nut in want in America.
It would have been really good if he had some Jesuit priests in there or some world class Scientists who both believe in God and have a passion for Science.

His program was simply sensationalist. Another good example would be the editing where he put freaky haunting Music over the Religious parts and then real trendy uplifting electro music over his cool sciency parts. In fact some of the electro tunes were excellant and if you know the names to any of them please let me know.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

"We" can be taken there to mean "those involved in this discussion, including you", or even "you and I". In both cases you are included in the "sorting-out" - there is no mention of a lynching party.

There is no mention of lynching party and there is no mention of your reference to my unwillingness and that is what you are trying to sort out.

Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? I really can't tell.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Are you patronizing or a Doctor of some sort?

I've no special qualification in being patronising, no. I prefer to think of myself as a gifted amateur in the art.

On the other hand, I'm rather surprised by the way you've taken "sort out your unwillingness" as patronising. I assure you it was not deliberately patronising (but probably all the worse for that).

Tim Robbins wrote:

I know that, and I read or pay attention to it so I don't understand the point of your question. What tablod defintion are you referring to?

Oh come on! You were the one who said that "child abuse" is defined by the media to mean something other than "abuse of children"! If you've forgotten it already I suggest you read back over your posts.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Ok De Niro.

Funny you should say that...

regards,
Scofflaw

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's correct it was C4 who came up with the name, but I heard he was delighted they decided to call it that.

In post 88 I said this:

me wrote:

Only the God Delusion deals directly with religion and in the introduction he laments the title "Root of all Evil" given to the TV show and points at Channel 4 for the decision to call it that. He also defends his decision to use the title "God Delusion" and discusses letters he received from Psychologists that didn't like his use of the term.

Where does he say otherwise?
BTW that video I posted above is quite refreshing and its a shame it didn't make it into the final show.

Dades

robindch wrote:

Dawkins didn't want his telly series called "The Root of All Evil", but he was apparently overruled by the program's producers on C4.

Tim Robbins wrote:

That's correct it was C4 who came up with the name, but I heard he was delighted they decided to call it that.

Jeez we can't even agree on this. It's gonna be a long night.
Somewhere else.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? I really can't tell.

Agreeing and pointing out.

I've no special qualification in being patronising, no. I prefer to think of myself as a gifted amateur in the art.

On the other hand, I'm rather surprised by the way you've taken "sort out your unwillingness" as patronising. I assure you it was not deliberately patronising (but probably all the worse for that).

Yes because your implication is that you think you are some silly errand to sort out some behavioural problem I have.

Oh come on! You were the one who said that "child abuse" is defined by the media to mean something other than "abuse of children"! If you've forgotten it already I suggest you read back over your posts.

Not defined by the media but used by the media.
I don't see your point vis a ve "abuse of children"

Funny you should say that...

regards,
Scofflaw

No worries De Niro.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

In post 88 I said this:

Where does he say otherwise?

I read it somewhere once, can't remember where.
Apologies for not being able to produce it. I have gone through every single Dawkins youtube club over the last few months and tonnes of medai interviews about his god Delusion book so I could find it difficult to sight.
I will look for it again.

BTW that video I posted above is quite refreshing and its a shame it didn't make it into the final show.

Will have a look at it later, thanks for the link.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Agreeing and pointing out.

Yes because your implication is that you think you are some silly errand to sort out some behavioural problem I have.

I may think it's a silly position, but I certainly wouldn't extend that to "behavioural problem"! I think you have inferred far more than I meant.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Not defined by the media but used by the media.

The definition you wish to use is the definition used by the media.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh come on! You were the one who said that "child abuse" is defined by the media to mean something other than "abuse of children"! If you've forgotten it already I suggest you read back over your posts.

I don't see your point vis a ve "abuse of children"

Well, that's pretty much all of it right there. You claim that "child abuse" means something different from "abuse of children".

Tim Robbins wrote:

No worries De Niro.

Actually, you're much more annoying when you don't try!

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I may think it's a silly position, but I certainly wouldn't extend that to "behavioural problem"! I think you have inferred far more than I meant.

Where is your logic that silly and behavioural problems are two different things ?

The definition you wish to use is the definition used by the media.

Which media? there's a huge difference between tabloid media and reputable media. There's a huge difference between fox news, the star and wikipedia and dictionary.org.

Well, that's pretty much all of it right there. You claim that "child abuse" means something different from "abuse of children".

Yes, I think there is difference but not much.
"child abuse" is the common terminology just "science fiction" is the common terminology not fiction of science is not common terminology.

I don't see what "abuse of children" has to do with it what we are debating which is Dawkins use of "child abuse" not abuse of children.

I think abuse of children is a tangential argument.

Actually, you're much more annoying when you don't try!

Take it easy De Niro.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Which media? there's a huge difference between tabloid media and reputable media. There's a huge difference between fox news, the star and wikipedia and dictionary.org.

I don't know, Tim, it's your claim, not mine.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes, I think there is difference but not much.
"child abuse" is the common terminology just "science fiction" is the common terminology not fiction of science is not common terminology.

Again, those aren't comparable terms. "Substance abuse" is "abuse of substances". "Animal rights" are "rights of animals". "Science fiction" actually is a compound term - it has never meant anything but the literary genre, and was specifically coined for that genre.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't see what "abuse of children" has to do with it what we are debating which is Dawkins use of "child abuse" not abuse of children.

I think abuse of children is a tangential argument.

Your position appears to be that "child abuse" has only a narrow interpretation (physical/sexual abuse) - the term as commonly used in the media. Therefore Dawkins is incorrect in using the term to describe religious indoctrination. Since he is incorrect, it follows that he is probably being sensationalist, which is your original claim.

We, on the other hand, say that the phrase "child abuse" is exactly the same as the phrase "abuse of children" - that the terms means neither more nor less than it says. Dawkins, we say, believes that religious indoctrination is an abuse of children, and in debate uses the shorter term "child abuse" indifferently, and is entirely correct to do so, albeit he thereby opens himself up to misunderstanding.

The discussion about terminology is in fact at the heart of this discussion, because only your assertion that Dawkins is deliberately misusing the term "child abuse" leads on to the inference that he is being deliberately sensationalistic.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

We, on the other hand, say that the phrase "child abuse" is exactly the same as the phrase "abuse of children" - that the terms means neither more nor less than it says. Dawkins, we say, believes that religious indoctrination is an abuse of children, and in debate uses the shorter term "child abuse" indifferently, and is entirely correct to do so, albeit he thereby opens himself up to misunderstanding.

The discussion about terminology is in fact at the heart of this discussion, because only your assertion that Dawkins is deliberately misusing the term "child abuse" leads on to the inference that he is being deliberately sensationalistic.

regards,
Scofflaw

Q.1. Do you consider parents who bring their children to Church or mass child abusers?
Q.2. Do you think that most people consider people who bring their children to mass etc. child abusers?
Q.3. Do you think a good argument should be in terminology that is in common to most people?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.1. Do you consider parents who bring their children to Church or mass child abusers?

Going to church or Mass because your parents are going doesn't constitute indoctrination, so usually no.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.2. Do you think that most people consider people who bring their children to mass etc. child abusers?

No, I don't think they do - as above, neither do I. The majority of people wouldn't regard religious indoctrination as child abuse, come to that.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.3. Do you think a good argument should be in terminology that is in common to most people?

I think it should be held in a commonly agreed terminology. If you like to look at it this way, the same terms on each side of the equation should be the same, and should be openly stated. Obviously, that is not the same as "common to most people", which I think is irrelevant - if we were to agree to hold a conversation in Spanish, we would do better to agree that we mean Castilian (not Catalan, or Basque) rather than wrangling over who used the term "Spanish" more correctly, or whether common usage was correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Going to church or Mass because your parents are going doesn't constitute indoctrination, so usually no.

Well it is usually does mean indoctrination has already happened.
So can you answer on that basis?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well it is usually does mean indoctrination has already happened.
So can you answer on that basis?

Well, no, because it doesn't. Even I went to Mass from time to time - visiting relatives in Dundalk usually. I sat when everyone sat, stood when everyone stood, much like any other child - until I turned atheist (about 7/8), and just sat there instead.

You could say it's part of the indoctrination process, but frankly it's more like an inoculation process...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, no, because it doesn't. Even I went to Mass from time to time - visiting relatives in Dundalk usually. I sat when everyone sat, stood when everyone stood, much like any other child - until I turned atheist (about 7/8), and just sat there instead.

You could say it's part of the indoctrination process, but frankly it's more like an inoculation process...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well your argument is falling apart.
You argue indoctrination is child abuse but the people who instigate it are not child abusers?
Would you have a problem with Dawkins calling them child abusers then? But allow him call the actualy act child abuse! Seems a contradiction.

Scofflaw and others, put it this way. I checked the Oxford dictionary last night:
Child abuse: noun [mass noun] physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of children.
Page 300 of the second edition (revised) published 2005.

It is ridiculous to think that all you people have been getting into a tizzy with me for questioning Dawkins' inaccurate use of "child abuse".
A very reputable dictionary is on my side. Dawkins is either using it completly inaccurate or in some sort poetic sensationalist context. But I suppose all you people know better than the Oxford dictionary.

It is ludicrous that you Scofflaw give out for people's typos and you go to such great lengths to defend such a gross misuse of a word.

Wicknight, The Atheist, Zillah, Ph, 5uspect, do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

The least you could do is campaign to that dictionary to update its entry if you are prepared to give me so much hassel.

However, I doubt it's going to happen.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Wicknight, The Atheist, Zillah, Ph, 5uspect, do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

The least you could do is campaign to that dictionary to update its entry if you are prepared to give me so much hassel.

However, I doubt it's going to happen.

It probably will happen, much as I hate to get into pedantic 'define the word' debates you need to understand how dictionaries work. Dictionaries reflect common usage of words, they don't define them. If enough people use a word with a common understanding of what it means then that word goes in the dictionary - simple. The idea that you campaign to get a dictionary definition changed is simply ludicrous - though you're in good company here, McDonalds and the British Potato Council have both tried to campaign for a change in a dictionary definition. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1628391,00.html


I've already given you 3 direct Dawkins quotes where he qualifies the term 'child abuse' with the word 'mental', and linked you to the BBC site on child abuse which reflects the (now common) widening usage of the term to include emotional maltreatment. I really have no idea what you're so worked up about - the phrase 'child abuse' is in common usage meaning emotional/mental abuse (see the BBC link I provide) and Dawkins usually qualifies and is careful when throwing the term around (again see the LINKS I provided).

robindch

TR wrote:

do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

I never added my name to the list, but yes, the OED definition is inaccurate and doesn't cover the specific case of mental abuse, which is what we're talking about after all.

As much as one would like to, one can't define the problem into non-existence -- scaring or cajoling kids into believing stories of devils and gods is a gross and unpleasant abuse of a child's trusting nature, however you wish to define 'child abuse'.