Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77664574" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>Can any control against someone's will (without their voluntary participation) truly be "good"? </p><p></p><p>That is not a dominance hierarchy; that is a prestige hierarchy, unless the strong are using their strength to directly control the weak. </p><p></p><p>That is <strong><em>not</em></strong> a healthy way to organise families. </p><p></p><p>You keep saying that, but you haven't provided any evidence, and there is plenty of reason to think that a military-style chain of command is deeply harmful in most settings. </p><p></p><p>Here's an article on ten different ways to structure teams. This is one example of how hierarchy is not the only way, and often not the best way, to function together efficiently: <a href="https://asana.com/resources/team-structure" target="_blank">Team Structure: 10 Ways to Organize Your Team [2024] • Asana</a></p><p></p><p>A dominance hierarchy is a structure in which one or some people control others. I'd argue that - absent some very particular protections, such as voluntary participation and free negotiation of terms - that is inherently abusive. And definitely something we should at least examine in society. </p><p></p><p>You keep saying this, as if it is true, or indeed as if a change in our social structures is something to be frightened of. I see it as potential improvement. </p><p></p><p>I'm not arguing that we get rid of (for example) marriage; I'm arguing that we remove any dynamic of power and control (hierarchy) from marriage. A marriage without any hierarchy is no problem at all. </p><p></p><p>I think I am, I just think it's completely wrong and, frankly, dangerous. </p><p></p><p>The point is that parental control ought to be minimised to what is necessary for safety and nurture; not seen as a good thing in and of itself, where children are forced to conform to petty or unnecessary demands.</p><p></p><p>Except that's clearly false. I mean, I'm a priest in a parish and I am not "over" my parishioners, just to start with. I have a particular leadership role that I exercise in partnership with others, but I am absolutely not here to control anyone. That would be spiritual abuse. </p><p></p><p>Well, no. Your own links demonstrate that belief formation is complex and influenced by many things, and emotions are only one aspect of that. </p><p></p><p>You are certainly arguing for one aspect of the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse; arguing about how good and necessary relationships of power and control are. </p><p></p><p>I did not. I concluded that you support <strong><em>one belief</em></strong> which contributes to abusive and violent control. On its own this belief is <strong><em>not sufficient</em></strong>, but it is <strong><em>necessary</em></strong>, for an abusive set of attitudes and beliefs. You are, in effect, arguing for one leg of the three-legged stool of acceptance of violence; hierarchy, power and control; and rigid roles. </p><p></p><p>No, you don't. You cannot look at a set of statistics and draw any meaningful conclusion about any one individual. </p><p></p><p>Your links say that many people who are (for example) thinking irrationally have unrealistic expectations. They do not say that everyone with unrealistic expectations is thinking irrationally, or otherwise significantly cognitively impaired. Unrealistic expectations are just a normal part of life for most people. Including those who abuse.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77664574, member: 386627"] Can any control against someone's will (without their voluntary participation) truly be "good"? That is not a dominance hierarchy; that is a prestige hierarchy, unless the strong are using their strength to directly control the weak. That is [B][I]not[/I][/B] a healthy way to organise families. You keep saying that, but you haven't provided any evidence, and there is plenty of reason to think that a military-style chain of command is deeply harmful in most settings. Here's an article on ten different ways to structure teams. This is one example of how hierarchy is not the only way, and often not the best way, to function together efficiently: [URL="https://asana.com/resources/team-structure"]Team Structure: 10 Ways to Organize Your Team [2024] • Asana[/URL] A dominance hierarchy is a structure in which one or some people control others. I'd argue that - absent some very particular protections, such as voluntary participation and free negotiation of terms - that is inherently abusive. And definitely something we should at least examine in society. You keep saying this, as if it is true, or indeed as if a change in our social structures is something to be frightened of. I see it as potential improvement. I'm not arguing that we get rid of (for example) marriage; I'm arguing that we remove any dynamic of power and control (hierarchy) from marriage. A marriage without any hierarchy is no problem at all. I think I am, I just think it's completely wrong and, frankly, dangerous. The point is that parental control ought to be minimised to what is necessary for safety and nurture; not seen as a good thing in and of itself, where children are forced to conform to petty or unnecessary demands. Except that's clearly false. I mean, I'm a priest in a parish and I am not "over" my parishioners, just to start with. I have a particular leadership role that I exercise in partnership with others, but I am absolutely not here to control anyone. That would be spiritual abuse. Well, no. Your own links demonstrate that belief formation is complex and influenced by many things, and emotions are only one aspect of that. You are certainly arguing for one aspect of the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse; arguing about how good and necessary relationships of power and control are. I did not. I concluded that you support [B][I]one belief[/I][/B] which contributes to abusive and violent control. On its own this belief is [B][I]not sufficient[/I][/B], but it is [B][I]necessary[/I][/B], for an abusive set of attitudes and beliefs. You are, in effect, arguing for one leg of the three-legged stool of acceptance of violence; hierarchy, power and control; and rigid roles. No, you don't. You cannot look at a set of statistics and draw any meaningful conclusion about any one individual. Your links say that many people who are (for example) thinking irrationally have unrealistic expectations. They do not say that everyone with unrealistic expectations is thinking irrationally, or otherwise significantly cognitively impaired. Unrealistic expectations are just a normal part of life for most people. Including those who abuse. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Top
Bottom