APA tells children that asking questions is a form of “disinformation”

[BADecker]

How crazy is this? Somebody in the current administration is fomenting the lie that asking questions is disinformation. And they are teaching it to kids.


American Psychological Association tells children that asking questions is a form of “disinformation”


https://www.naturalnews.com/2024-09-26-apa-children-asking-questions-form-of-disinformation.html
New children's literature from the American Psychological Association (APA) aims to brainwash kids into believing that the simple, innocent act of merely asking a question constitutes intolerable "disinformation" – so stop asking questions, says the APA.

Entitled "True or False? The Science of Perception, Misinformation, and Disinformation," the APA children's book exists to "pre-bunk" the next generation from believing "conspiracy theories" about things like vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and government oppression as a response to a "pandemic."

"This book explores how we think and perceive and why false beliefs, superstitions, opinions, misinformation, or wild guesses can just stick around and mess things up," the book states.

"You'll see how misunderstandings and misuse of scientific findings can lead people to the wrong conclusions. Readers learn how to outsmart their brain to gain critical thinking skills and find ways to identify and correct false beliefs and disinformation."

(Related: Did you know that many state-employed psychological experts are distancing themselves from the APA and other corrupt medical associations due to the behavioral manipulation they pushed during Covid?)

Believing "disinformation" means your brain is "glitchy"

It is an undeniable fact that the human brain is the most advanced "supercomputer" in the universe. Science can barely explain how it works despite thousands of years' worth of inquiry into determining how it works.

The APA recognizes that the human brain is an advanced wonder, however it argues that the human brain has problems that could cause some people to believe things that the establishment does not want them to believe.
...

[Zoomic]

How then do children learn, gain confidence in themselves, satisfy their curiosity and engage in healthy social interactions if they do not ask questions? In their everyday lives, they need to communicate and major aspects of communications involve asking questions to get positive feedback. Asking questions is not only useful to children, it is useful to adults as well. This simple act which is said to be a 'disinformation ' has helped provided solutions to some complex problems. It has helped us understand better how humans and the world in general works. The only disinformation i see here is the one coming from APA because asking questions can never be old fashioned.

[BADecker]

Back 50 to 100 years ago, children were taught to obey their parents and other authorities almost without question. It was a religion thing. If the kids didn't obey, there was the woodshed - behind the wood shed where the parents disciplined their kids with the belt.

When these kids grew up, they had it ingrained in them to obey authority almost without question. Over the years because of this, the Deep State was able to set itself up.

The Deep State harms people. And people are waking up to it. They are casting off their obedience chains. Trump is an example of this... to some extent.

The Deep State controllers are looking to the future... like the WEF (World Economic Forum) leaders. They realize that the people are waking up to freedom. And they don't like it when people ask questions that show that the WEF (Deep State) is corrupt and is harming them. But you can't stop adults from doing what they are going to do.

It's the children that you want to turn into 'zombies'. And this APA activity is part of the way the Deep State is attempting to do it.

[Hispo]

Back 50 to 100 years ago, children were taught to obey their parents and other authorities almost without question. It was a religion thing. If the kids didn't obey, there was the woodshed - behind the wood shed where the parents disciplined their kids with the belt.

I am very curious about it though, because here in my country it was very common to physically discipline children using a belt. I think it still is, but not as used to be.
I thought it was technically ilegal for adults to physically discipline their children, or at least, that is what we were taught about your country here in South America.

I am very curious then what is your idea on correctly raising children and how to get them correctly disciplined, because in one hand I am sure you are the kind of person who would still demand obedience (or some degree of it), because of the political views you have. Trump himself has declared he believes obedience to him is quite important among his staff and his voters. So where are you supposed to draw the line between obedience and independent thinking?

[BADecker]

Back 50 to 100 years ago, children were taught to obey their parents and other authorities almost without question. It was a religion thing. If the kids didn't obey, there was the woodshed - behind the wood shed where the parents disciplined their kids with the belt.

I am very curious about it though, because here in my country it was very common to physically discipline children using a belt. I think it still is, but not as used to be.
I thought it was technically ilegal for adults to physically discipline their children, or at least, that is what we were taught about your country here in South America.

I am very curious then what is your idea on correctly raising children and how to get them correctly disciplined, because in one hand I am sure you are the kind of person who would still demand obedience (or some degree of it), because of the political views you have. Trump himself has declared he believes obedience to him is quite important among his staff and his voters. So where are you supposed to draw the line between obedience and independent thinking?

Using the belt to discipline should be the final measure. In the Bible OT, an obstinate child was to be stoned (executed) by the whole Israelite community - approximately 2.5 million people at the time.

As far as illegal in the US, it is only that way because of the way most parents have set themselves and their children up in relation to the US government. Originally in the US, the people did not have a relationship with the Federal Government except for elections. It was a State thing back then. Gradually people used the Right to Contract to set themselves up with the Federal Government, without realizing what they were doing, and what their rights still are.

Independent thinking is available to all children. Obeying is what counts regarding punishment. Until they turn 18 - 21 (depending on the State), they are under the authority of their parents. However, a parent harming his child in a seriously bad way can be disciplined by the State or Federal Government... except for killing them through abortion, of course. Abortion killing is allowed, and has produced at least 60-million deaths in the US by now.

[Hispo]

Back 50 to 100 years ago, children were taught to obey their parents and other authorities almost without question. It was a religion thing. If the kids didn't obey, there was the woodshed - behind the wood shed where the parents disciplined their kids with the belt.

I am very curious about it though, because here in my country it was very common to physically discipline children using a belt. I think it still is, but not as used to be.
I thought it was technically ilegal for adults to physically discipline their children, or at least, that is what we were taught about your country here in South America.

I am very curious then what is your idea on correctly raising children and how to get them correctly disciplined, because in one hand I am sure you are the kind of person who would still demand obedience (or some degree of it), because of the political views you have. Trump himself has declared he believes obedience to him is quite important among his staff and his voters. So where are you supposed to draw the line between obedience and independent thinking?

Using the belt to discipline should be the final measure. In the Bible OT, an obstinate child was to be stoned (executed) by the whole Israelite community - approximately 2.5 million people at the time.

As far as illegal in the US, it is only that way because of the way most parents have set themselves and their children up in relation to the US government. Originally in the US, the people did not have a relationship with the Federal Government except for elections. It was a State thing back then. Gradually people used the Right to Contract to set themselves up with the Federal Government, without realizing what they were doing, and what their rights still are.

How does any of that have anything to do with the legal status of one physically punishing one's children in the United States, though?
I am not talking about stunning one's children because they misbehaves, under the current state of policies that would be murder and it would be outside of the scope of what is acceptable to do.
I just wanted to know whether it was a federal or state level thing whether was one allowed to use a belt to punish a child who does not behaves as they are supposed to.

Popular culture here in my country is that in the United States, in some jurisdictions one as a parents cannot physically harm their children in any way shape or form, to the extreme I recall some news of children being told to call police if they suspect their parents were about to use the belt against them

[BADecker]

~

Using the belt to discipline should be the final measure. In the Bible OT, an obstinate child was to be stoned (executed) by the whole Israelite community - approximately 2.5 million people at the time.

As far as illegal in the US, it is only that way because of the way most parents have set themselves and their children up in relation to the US government. Originally in the US, the people did not have a relationship with the Federal Government except for elections. It was a State thing back then. Gradually people used the Right to Contract to set themselves up with the Federal Government, without realizing what they were doing, and what their rights still are.

How does any of that have anything to do with the legal status of one physically punishing one's children in the United States, though?
I am not talking about stunning one's children because they misbehaves, under the current state of policies that would be murder and it would be outside of the scope of what is acceptable to do.
I just wanted to know whether it was a federal or state level thing whether was one allowed to use a belt to punish a child who does not behaves as they are supposed to.

Popular culture here in my country is that in the United States, in some jurisdictions one as a parents cannot physically harm their children in any way shape or form, to the extreme I recall some news of children being told to call police if they suspect their parents were about to use the belt against them

It's both, a Federal and a State thing. The 4th Amendment upholds private property throughout the country. The child of a parent is the parent's private property. However, if the parent signs a contract/agreement that government has control, then it is a government thing.

Popular culture doesn't have anything to do with it in the US. The US thing that controls is the parent's ability to understand his position, understand the government, understand the thing that he says in the courts, and possibly a few other things like this.

In the US, most people don't really understand. The few who do mostly win in court. The ones that lose would have won if they had backing of friends who understood.

The US is a PROPERTY country, where private property rules in almost everything. The child of a parent is his private property. Why? Simple. Who is there that can legally claim any right over something that belongs to somebody else? Show where there was anybody else involved in making the child other than the parents. Show the paperwork how government people can mess with a parent's private property... except that the parent gave them the right by signing some paperwork.

[Hispo]

The US is a PROPERTY country, where private property rules in almost everything. The child of a parent is his private property. Why? Simple. Who is there that can legally claim any right over something that belongs to somebody else? Show where there was anybody else involved in making the child other than the parents. Show the paperwork how government people can mess with a parent's private property... except that the parent gave them the right by signing some paperwork.

I understand private property is an important part of the economy and culture within the United States and it has shaped the way of life for centuries there. But what about social property? Or federal property?.
For example, when someone breaks into the US capitol, they are charged with destruction of federal property. To whom belongs the building itself? In theory it belongs to you, because you are a citizen of the country, right? But still, you would be arrested in the spot if you tried to enter without credentials.

Is there any room within the constitution of the United States for the existence of property which is belonged by all and can be accesses by all? I believe it is already applied, for example, when people can enjoy national parks and tourist attractions which are keep up by tax payers, isn't it?

[franky1]

all badecker quoted were things to say that blindly believing things lead to disinformation,
all badecker quoted were things to say that misunderstanding/misusing things lead to disinformation,

he also quotes
Readers learn how to outsmart their brain to gain critical thinking skills and find ways to identify and correct false beliefs and disinformation

so it suggests to stop blindly believing things and instead to question things and find correct information

..
seems yet again badecker misunderstood and was not using critical thinking and instead just believed something he read from natural news

[OgNasty]

I don’t think there’s anything we can do about the 1984 style censorship headed our way. With AI now, we can’t even believe our eyes and ears. Even if Trump wins, it will only be temporary. You can’t stop demographics and trends. It is only a matter of time before America is bankrupt. Both morally and financially.

[BADecker]

The US is a PROPERTY country, where private property rules in almost everything. The child of a parent is his private property. Why? Simple. Who is there that can legally claim any right over something that belongs to somebody else? Show where there was anybody else involved in making the child other than the parents. Show the paperwork how government people can mess with a parent's private property... except that the parent gave them the right by signing some paperwork.

I understand private property is an important part of the economy and culture within the United States and it has shaped the way of life for centuries there. But what about social property? Or federal property?. - It's your property right that allows you to manipulate yourself to play dumb. So I don't try to stop you. But consider all the people who invite friends and neighbors onto their property for a shindig or birthday party. You don't invite them and then arrest them for trespassing.
For example, when someone breaks into the US capitol, they are charged with destruction of federal property. To whom belongs the building itself? In theory it belongs to you, because you are a citizen of the country, right? But still, you would be arrested in the spot if you tried to enter without credentials. - So, not only were they on their own property, but there are videos that show many of them being invited and walked through by Capitol police. This means that the arresting officers, and those who ordered the arrests, were the trespassers. Trespassers how? By trespassing on the body property of those who were invited in.

Is there any room within the constitution of the United States for the existence of property which is belonged by all and can be accesses by all? I believe it is already applied, for example, when people can enjoy national parks and tourist attractions which are keep up by tax payers, isn't it?

Very few people use the parks, even though they are there for all. Same with the Capitol.

If somebody did damage to the Capitol grounds or buildings, etc., let them pay for the damage. Don't make them sit in prison just for being at the Capitol... on their own property, the Capitol, which they jointly own.

Then why were most of the J6 people convicted and sent to prison? It works like this. If I say that you owe me $1,000,000, and you don't fight me the right way in court, you might wind up owing me the $million, even though you never really owed it to me. That's all that happened to get prison sentences for most of the J6 people.

Now, what does all that have to do with the APA telling kids that their questions are a form of disinformation?