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: 77654434" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>It's not that simple. Hierarchies and rigid roles <em>in themselves</em> are providing the foundations for abuse. </p><p></p><p>Not really. Any power differential used to control others (with some necessary caveats for the immaturity of small children) is abusive. </p><p></p><p>It's not <em>having</em> power that's abusive. Power - at its most basic, the ability to do things - is not the problem. It's power <em>used to control others</em> that's the problem. </p><p></p><p>If they're negotiable, and open to flexibility and change, by definition they're not rigid. </p><p></p><p>Rigid roles - as social prescriptions used to limit and control people - are abusive. </p><p></p><p>But it's the specific beliefs which underpin abuse that are the problem. Someone could have high levels of demandingness in their psychological mindset, but as long as they don't accept the use of violence, and feel justified in controlling others, then that's not really a problem from the point of view of abuse prevention. </p><p></p><p>Well, not necessarily. Rather than screening using a vague measure of "irrational beliefs," we could screen for the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse. That would be far more accurate. </p><p></p><p>Of course there are. The examples are legion. That's part of what makes these beliefs cultural and social norms. </p><p></p><p>Well, no. That's not the only way, and it's by no means the most potentially accurate way. </p><p></p><p>No more subjective than measuring people's propensity to irrational beliefs. It's just measuring the very specific beliefs which are relevant for this issue. </p><p></p><p>Not exactly. I was saying that we cannot accurately characterise all abusers as irrational. </p><p></p><p>So, instead of screening for the actual beliefs which drive abuse, you want to take a step back and screen for the mindset that (you claim) makes it more likely that people might hold such ideas. And you think that will be more accurate? That makes no sense. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure I'd accept that label. </p><p></p><p>I am rejecting the idea of "natural" beliefs, as opposed to learned and socially imparted beliefs. I don't believe we have an inborn propensity to believe certain things. </p><p></p><p>Of course it's learned. There are cultures where property is held in common, and there's no such concept as "stealing" at all. </p><p></p><p>You can only speak of "evolving" thinking and behaviours as "natural" if those things are genetically determined. But they aren't. They are social and cultural. </p><p></p><p>Except, clearly, we don't. I mean, you and I live in a constitutional monarchy. Our king is king not because he is the most competent person to be king, but because he was the previous monarch's firstborn son. And I'd say there's very little evidence of true meritocracy in just about any area of life. </p><p></p><p>Insofar as they are structures of control, then they are inherently part of abuse.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77654434, member: 386627"] It's not that simple. Hierarchies and rigid roles [I]in themselves[/I] are providing the foundations for abuse. Not really. Any power differential used to control others (with some necessary caveats for the immaturity of small children) is abusive. It's not [I]having[/I] power that's abusive. Power - at its most basic, the ability to do things - is not the problem. It's power [I]used to control others[/I] that's the problem. If they're negotiable, and open to flexibility and change, by definition they're not rigid. Rigid roles - as social prescriptions used to limit and control people - are abusive. But it's the specific beliefs which underpin abuse that are the problem. Someone could have high levels of demandingness in their psychological mindset, but as long as they don't accept the use of violence, and feel justified in controlling others, then that's not really a problem from the point of view of abuse prevention. Well, not necessarily. Rather than screening using a vague measure of "irrational beliefs," we could screen for the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse. That would be far more accurate. Of course there are. The examples are legion. That's part of what makes these beliefs cultural and social norms. Well, no. That's not the only way, and it's by no means the most potentially accurate way. No more subjective than measuring people's propensity to irrational beliefs. It's just measuring the very specific beliefs which are relevant for this issue. Not exactly. I was saying that we cannot accurately characterise all abusers as irrational. So, instead of screening for the actual beliefs which drive abuse, you want to take a step back and screen for the mindset that (you claim) makes it more likely that people might hold such ideas. And you think that will be more accurate? That makes no sense. I'm not sure I'd accept that label. I am rejecting the idea of "natural" beliefs, as opposed to learned and socially imparted beliefs. I don't believe we have an inborn propensity to believe certain things. Of course it's learned. There are cultures where property is held in common, and there's no such concept as "stealing" at all. You can only speak of "evolving" thinking and behaviours as "natural" if those things are genetically determined. But they aren't. They are social and cultural. Except, clearly, we don't. I mean, you and I live in a constitutional monarchy. Our king is king not because he is the most competent person to be king, but because he was the previous monarch's firstborn son. And I'd say there's very little evidence of true meritocracy in just about any area of life. Insofar as they are structures of control, then they are inherently part of 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