Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

Because the articles have not demonstrated that the beliefs which underpin abuse are "the symptoms of a controlling mind," at all.

Are you serious. Now I know you are ignoring the articles because thats exactly what they are saying. Maybe you have a blind spot and cannot see this. I don't know but its written in plain english.

Nevermind your narrow restrictions on evidence, you need to take a step back and see that despite these articles not saying specifically what you want they nonetheless are talking about 1) abusive parents, 2) the type of thinking and MIndset an abusive and controlling parent has.

Just because they don't mention the words you want doesn't negate the fact that these articles are talking about parental beliefs and attitudes that cause them to abuse.

The abusive parents have unrealistic expectations of their children and have unrealistic expectations of their children. Abusive parents are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking. Parents who use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment, tend to be over-sensitive to their children’s emotions. They can be overreactive even when the child has not yet been defiant or resistant. Those who abuse children are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline. They tend to experience higher stress levels, depression, self-blame, and social isolation.
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Controlling Parents are Anxious and Paranoid. They have mind-filters that pay selective attention to danger and habitually catastrophise and imagine only worst-case scenarios. They over-analyse everything and assume people have ulterior motives. As a result, they misperceive reality and assume hostility from others when there is none. Their defensive mechanisms are so powerful that complete dissociation from reality can be the result.

For some parents, however, a traumatic past or personality limitations stop them from being the best caregivers they can be. Their unregulated and overwhelming angst will spill over into a tendency to over-control, affecting their children. Under stress, controlling parents with fearful and paranoid tendencies psychologically regress to a black-and-white mode of thinking. The world is split into the good camp and the bad camp; people are divided between the tyrants and the tormented, the blamers and the blamed, the persecutors and the persecuted.

Having a ‘hard shell’ also makes fearful and controlling parents defensive and reactive. Whenever they sense they may be losing power, they react rapidly and forcefully, often with hostile or passive-aggressive means such as belligerence, sarcasm, threats, unreasonable demands, temper tantrums and cold withdrawal.
Controlling Parents Trauma

Break the Cycle of Negative Beliefs without Strife, Struggle, or Stress.
Chronic childhood adversity is a fertile breeding ground for negative beliefs. They can start early and become so ingrained we don't realize they're even there! Not only do they control our thinking and perspectives, but can actually change the structure of the brain itself! But usually, something happens that provokes a negative emotion to which a negative belief is attached.
Break the Cycle of Negative Beliefs without Strife, Struggle, or Stress. | CPTSDfoundation.org!

Cognitive factors refer to the ideas, beliefs, and patterns of thinking that emerge as a result of interactions with the world during a person’s lifetime. Research has revealed that violent individuals have different ways of processing and interpreting that information. “They tend to perceive hostility in others when there is no hostility”. This notable tendency is referred to as hostile attribution bias. Violent people are also less efficient at thinking of nonviolent ways to solve social conflicts and disagreements. They also tend to be more accepting of violence in general and believe it is acceptable to behave that way.
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/24081_Pages_272_273.pdf

 

[Paidiske]

Are you serious.

Quite.

Nevermind your narrow restrictions on evidence,

Really, steve, this is laughable. You want to present sources that don't establish your claims, and then when I point that out, you describe that as my "narrow restrictions."

I know enough about how to read academic literature not to be taken in by a gish gallop.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. We've been over this. There's only a small segment of overlap in the Venn diagram, remember?

So your saying none of those articles are talking about the Mindset, the thinking and beliefs of an abusing and controlling parent.

 

[stevevw]

Quite.

Really, steve, this is laughable. You want to present sources that don't establish your claims, and then when I point that out, you describe that as my "narrow restrictions."

I know enough about how to read academic literature not to be taken in by a gish gallop.

So please explain why those articles are not talking about the Mindset, thinking and beliefs of the actual abusive parent. Explain how these articles which specifically go into the thinking and unreal expectations of parents is not relevant.

Please address the actual articles and what they have said and why this is not about beliefs and attitudes of an abusive parent.You have never once addressed the actual articles and what they say with any arguement that they are irrelevant.

Your more or less saying that an article which specifically is explaining the thinking and beliefs of abusing parents is not about the thinking and beliefs of abusive parents which is rediculous when they are specifically talking about the thinking and beliefs of abusing parents.

 

[Paidiske]

So your saying none of those articles are talking about the Mindset, the thinking and beliefs of an abusing and controlling parent.

I'm saying that articles which discuss "irrational beliefs," are not discussing the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.

So please explain why those articles are not talking about the Mindset, thinking and beliefs of the actual abusive parent. Explain how these articles which specifically go into the thinking and unreal expectations of parents is not relevant.

Because we know which attitudes and beliefs underpin abuse, and it's not those being discussed by those articles.

Please address the actual articles and what they have said and why this is not about beliefs and attitudes of an abusive parent.

Nope. I am not going to waste my time going point-by-point through a flood of material which is not relevant to the point at hand. We're up to 80 pages, and my patience for having my time wasted is wearing thin.

Your more or less saying that an article which specifically is explaining the thinking and beliefs of abusing parents is not about the thinking and beliefs of abusive parents which is rediculous when they are specifically talking about the thinking and beliefs of abusing parents.

You claimed that the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse were the "symptoms of a controlling mind."

But your articles are not about that. They are not demonstrating that acceptance of violence is a "symptom of a controlling mind." They are not defining a "controlling mind," and then comparing those minds with other (non-controlling?) minds to see whether they differ on measures of accepting violence. Or belief in hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles, and so on. Much less showing that one is causative of the other. They are mostly not even discussing the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.

So you can post a million articles discussing other matters, but unless they are directly relevant to that claim, they do not show that the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse are the "symptoms of a controlling mind."

 

[stevevw]

Repeating it without providing any evidence really doesn't advance your argument.

Actually repeatedly refuting my arguement without explanation is the issue. You havn't even argued that I am wrong or provided evidence yourself. If you thinking humans are not effected by their negaive environments or that a person within a household where abuse and violence is happening will not be effected then either argue why its not the case and/or provide evidence.

I know I can provide evidence and thats why I am refusing to provide any because its so obvious that denying this shows a bias of some sort. I am just waiting for you to explain yourself as to why this is false. Why commonsense and widely acknowledged basic psychology is wrong.

I'm still not finding anything credible about claims of "naturalness" in social structures. Power, control and abuse might all be natural and still be harmful.

But it might not. So because it won't be harmful shows that its no inherently harmful on its own. Can you show evidence that a hierarchy without any humans in them is abusive.

Humans have choices. In ways that ants and bees etc. do not.

But they also have behaviour without choices or happening in the subconscious which they are not fully aware of that influence on their behaviour just like other creatures. Just like bees organise their world with the Queen bee and different levels of worker bees doing certain jobs so do humans.

I just literally linked evidence showing that we support and believe in hierarchies subconsciously and the thinking is hard wired in us and once again you completely ignore these. Explain how the articles I linked are not showing that nierarchies are natural and normal and hard wired in us rather than ignore them.

If everyone is choosing freely, and can choose to change if they wish, I'd argue it's not really a hierarchy.

Why they are still arranged in a hierarchy. If what you say is true then please exokain how all those articles which were talking about natural human hierarchies and how they are hard wired in our thinking is wrong and not talking about non abusive hierarchies.

If there's a power and control dynamic, I'd say it's a hierarchy. It doesn't have to be highly formalised.

Yes so we can have hierarchies of power and control that are not abusive formal and informal. Each level of organisational hierarchy have a degree of power and control given to them over the level below all the way down to the bottom and its not abusive.

I'd argue that hierarchy - in the sense that we're talking about it here - is about power and control. And abuse is about power and control. These are not entirely separate things.

But power and control can be non abusive. We are controlled at work, within a hierarchy and its not abusive. We are controlled by societal hierarchies through laws, regulations, policies and proceedures and they are not abusive. No one is truely free to do whatever they want.

But they can certainly legitimise, normalise, and even idealise, those dynamics. They can condition both the abusers and the victims to abuse.

No a hierarchy minus someone to legitimise is just a hierarchy which is neither abusive or controlling as its just a way to categorise.

It depends entirely how you define it, was my point. A set up where two parents split the roles of breadwinning and homemaking isn't abusive by default. But a set up where one person is disempowered and controlled within that, is. It's not about who does what, it's about how much agency they have.

Yes exactly as you said "it all depends". Therefore the setup itself is not abusive or controlling but depends on someone (a human) being injected into the setup tp do the controlling and abusing. The Trad setup is not doing the abusing and controlling but the human in it is.

We could apply that setup where the wife stays home, looks after the house and finances and the husband goes out to work to a business partnership where one person stays in the office and runs things while the other goes out to follow up sales or do the practicle work which is not abusive as a setup itself. But one partner could abuse the situation.

Not relevant to what I was asking for.

Yes it is. You asked for evidence showing the prevelence of belief in hierarchies within society. The articles show that hierarchal thinking is natural and hard wired into us. So we naturally believe in hierarchies because of the fact they are a natural part of how we organise ourselves and society.

We subconsciously believe in that way of thinking about others, we subconsciously rank and categorise people in varying levels of value and status thus categorizing them into hierarchies of competence.

I thought I was very clear. I have already told you multiple times that I am not going to reply to every irrelevant link.

But you replied to none. What is the use of even linking evidence for what I say if you ignore them all. The only way we can sort out the facts is with the evidence and yet you dismiss the evidence. That is not how you hold a debate or arguement.

Imagine having a formal debate and your oppoenent offers evidence for what they say and then the opposing person gets up and completely ignores the point and evidence presented. That is fundementally not how it works and the person would be dismissed for not engaging in proper debate.

I also think its quite rude that a person just dismisses another persons effort to support their arguements as it treats things as nothing when they are something of importance to the person who deserves some explanation as to why their evidnece is dismissed.

I also suspect that when a person does completely ignores the evidence that its usually because the evidence is good and they cannot refute it.

 

[Paidiske]

If you thinking humans are not effected by their negaive environments or that a person within a household where abuse and violence is happening will not be effected then either argue why its not the case and/or provide evidence.

Because neither of those things are my claims, nor am I particularly interested in them. I see that line of discussion as a distraction from the real issues.

I know I can provide evidence and thats why I am refusing to provide any because its so obvious that denying this shows a bias of some sort.

Suit yourself. It doesn't support your argument.

But it might not. So because it won't be harmful shows that its no inherently harmful on its own.

I said, "Power, control and abuse might all be natural and still be harmful."

And now you want to claim that control and abuse are not inherently harmful?

Can you show evidence that a hierarchy without any humans in them is abusive.

That's not my claim.

But they also have behaviour without choices or happening in the subconscious which they are not fully aware of that influence on their behaviour just like other creatures.

I am not buying the idea that all of our social structures are completely subconscious in our forming of them. We exercise conscious choice in forming our social structures.

I just literally linked evidence showing that we support and believe in hierarchies subconsciously and the thinking is hard wired in us and once again you completely ignore these.

I don't believe any thinking is "hard wired" in us.

Why they are still arranged in a hierarchy.

Is it a hierarchy if we take it in turns to take the leading role? Or is that just the convenient distribution of tasks?

But power and control can be non abusive.

Only up to a point, and with very strict limits and boundaries.

We are controlled at work, within a hierarchy and its not abusive.

Sometimes it is abusive. But more to the point, the control at work has a lot of boundaries and limits on it. Your boss can tell you to prioritise this task over that one during working hours. He or she can't control your time outside of work. And you can leave your job at any time.

We are controlled by societal hierarchies through laws, regulations, policies and proceedures and they are not abusive.

In a democracy, as adults, we are part of the process of forming those laws, regulations, etc.

Therefore the setup itself is not abusive or controlling but depends on someone (a human) being injected into the setup tp do the controlling and abusing.

My point is that abuse doesn't lie in the distribution of roles or tasks. It lies in one person controlling another. And if the conditions of the setup allow for that, then the setup itself is abusive.

The Trad setup is not doing the abusing and controlling but the human in it is.

But if the "trad setup" is deliberately setup to disempower someone - by removing financial agency, by compelling a vow to obey, and so on - then the setup is part of the problem.

Yes it is. You asked for evidence showing the prevelence of belief in hierarchies within society. The articles show that hierarchal thinking is natural and hard wired into us.

Showing that hierarchies are a common way to organise, a) does not show that "hierarchical thinking is hard wired into us," and b) does not show that people who don't abuse commonly value hierarchy within the domestic sphere.

What is the use of even linking evidence for what I say if you ignore them all.

It has to be actual evidence for what you claim. Not vaguely related ideas which don't speak to your point at all.

Imagine having a formal debate and your oppoenent offers evidence for what they say and then the opposing person gets up and completely ignores the point and evidence presented.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you how your sources don't establish the claims you make, and made some suggestions for what more robust evidence would look like. The fact that you apparently can't find more robust evidence ought to tell you something.

 

[stevevw]

I'm saying that articles which discuss "irrational beliefs," are not discussing the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.

Yes but your ignoring the articles that did. You seem to take certain links as the only links I posted and then misrepresent them as all the posts I link. I clearly said that the articles that only spoke about linking distress with irrational thinking and beliefs were just that. To show how distress is linked to unreal and irrational beliefs about parenting in general.

But I also linked articles showing the link between distress, irrational and unreal thinking and beliefs and abuse. But you chose to single those out from the others that were actually the most important evidence that linked the distress, beliefs and abuse as though they were not even there.

The articles are actually about the mindset of abusive parents. So when they speak about the thinking and beliefs of those parents they are talking about the thinking and beliefs behind why parents abuse. You seem to keep missing this simple fact as though because the articles don't say what you want them to say that they must be dismissed as not relevant to abusive parents when that is exactly what they are about..

Because we know which attitudes and beliefs underpin abuse, and it's not those being discussed by those articles.

Yet the articles I just posted, not the ones you chose to focus on but the others, they specifically talk about beliefs and attitudes about harsh and controlling discipline which is exactly the beliefs related to abusive and controlling children.

Also when your link and mine speak about inappropriate attitudes about parenting or unreal expectations about children they are talking about the beliefs and attitudes about using abuse and control. Many of the articles I linked including yours mention these inappropriate and unreal thinking and beliefs about abuse and control. So you either not understanding them or your blind to what they are actually saying.

Nope. I am not going to waste my time going point-by-point through a flood of material which is not relevant to the point at hand.

How do you know the articles are not relevant if you have not read them. Your dismissing them out of hand without even reading them which shows a disregard for the evdience. It would be like not bothering to take into considering the evidnece in court and dismissing it without even looking at it properly.

See for me and any fair and reasonable understanding of this issue I think it requires a hell of a lot of reading and research as human thinking, emotions, beliefs and behaviour are a very complex interaction of all these aspects. Then add in the different levesl of influence by individual, family and society wide which will include upbringing and personal experiences.

I don't think anyone can truely say these are not relevant in understanding why people behave the way they do. Refusing to consider these aspects only shows a disregard for the complexity of the issue and is in danger of misunderstanding and assuming things. So just the fact that you are resistent to even discussing these aspects to ensure they are not relevant shows your disregard for properly investigating and researching the issue.

We're up to 80 pages, and my patience for having my time wasted is wearing thin.

Time wasted. I am glad you think my effort and time to research and understand the issue better is a waste of time. I happen to disagree and so do the many articles I linked.

I am not asking you to give a detailed rebuttal of each and every link. But at least the summary of some of the links which i went to the trouble of seperating. They are only a few lines long. You can't even respond to those. For example here are just 3 lines from 3 articles that sum up the articles about the mindset of an abusive parent which is clearly about parental beliefs and attitudes about abuse and deserves some explanation as to why you think this is not relevant.

The abusive parents have unrealistic expectations of their children and are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking, use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment. They can be overreactive even when the child has not yet been defiant or resistant and are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline. They tend to experience higher stress levels.
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Under stress, controlling parents with fearful and paranoid tendencies psychologically regress to a black-and-white mode of thinking. The world is split into the good camp and the bad camp; people are divided between the tyrants and the tormented, the blamers and the blamed, the persecutors and the persecuted and are defensive and reactive. Whenever they sense they may be losing power, they react rapidly and forcefully, often with hostile or passive-aggressive means.
Controlling Parents Trauma

Research has revealed that violent individuals have different ways of processing and interpreting that information. “They tend to perceive hostility in others when there is no hostility”. Violent people are also less efficient at thinking of nonviolent ways to solve social conflicts and disagreements. They also tend to be more accepting of violence in general and believe it is acceptable to behave that way.
https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/24081_Pages_272_273.pdf

These are speaking about the very beliefs and attitudes you are talking about.

You claimed that the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse were the "symptoms of a controlling mind."

But your articles are not about that. They are not demonstrating that acceptance of violence is a "symptom of a controlling mind."

Yes they do in that you cannot accept and believe in violence and control unless you first think that way. Unless your mindset is also about controlling others. You cannot believe in rigid roles to control others unless your thinking is rigid in the first place. Thats why rigid roles are the symptom of rigid type thinking in the first place.

The specific examples of rigid roles, controlling hierarchies are conjured up by a Mindset that thinks in controlling and rigid ways about everything not just roles and hierarchies before its applied to those specific examples in society. The articles such as the ones above speak exactly about "that acceptance of violence is a "symptom of a controlling mind."

They are not defining a "controlling mind,"

Yes they are, please refer to above articles. But the other articles also speak of the same controlling Mindset and how its related to iraa=tional beliefs and inappropriate and harmful parenting.

If your thinking is flexible then your flexible in how you see and treat others and find ways to act flexibly. You are what you think so to speak. This is a proven connection between thinking and behaviour that 'however you think' is how you will see and treat the world.

The article states this here when it says Abusive parents are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking. Its talking about "abusers" right not just anyone. So it is speaking about the controlling mindset behind the belief about rigid roles. Thats why they apply rigidity to roles because their mindset thinks rigidly.

Then the same article goes on to mention the same abusive parents "are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline". So its linking the rigid thinking with coersive disciplinary methods and the belief in harsh punishment. Which is the same thing as saying "belief in using violence (harsh discipline) to control is ok". You just have to understand the thinking behind why people believe in violence and control as a means to cotrol peoples behaviour.

This also aligns with the 'Irational and Rational Parental Belief Scale' of 'Demandingness' ie Demandingness: This category of irrational beliefs contains absolutist, rigid beliefs which include should, ought, have to statements.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ936304.pdf

The IRPBS is widely used scale for measuring parental beliefs including those associated with inappropriate beliefs about dicipline and abuse.

and then comparing those minds with other (non-controlling?) minds to see whether they differ on measures of accepting violence. Or belief in hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles, and so on. Much less showing that one is causative of the other. They are mostly not even discussing the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse.

Yes they do. They actually say the controlling Mindset they describe as being rigid and controlling is what is behind abusive dicipline as stated above from the articles.

So you can post a million articles discussing other matters, but unless they are directly relevant to that claim, they do not show that the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse are the "symptoms of a controlling mind."

All the articles I linked are relevant because they either explain how humans develop irrational thinking and beliefs generally which includes abusive and controlling beliefs, explain how distress effects thinking to prime people to have unreal thinking and beliefs and/or directly link these to actual abuse and control such as beliefs in harsh controlling disiciplinary or abusing children.

You just refused to acknowledge this because you want specific wording to match your preconcieved and unfounded assumptions that the beliefs must only be about this narrow representations you have created and you don't l;ike that the articles I linked also talk about distress being connected or the other determinants your link clearly states associated with why people develop unreal and inappropriate beliefs about parenting.

 

[Paidiske]

How do you know the articles are not relevant if you have not read them.

I can look at what they are about, what they are measuring, see that it is not relevant to the point being made, and move on.

You just refused to acknowledge this because you want specific wording ...

I am refusing to concede your points because I don't find that you have provided adequate supporting evidence for them. Repeating the same flawed claims doesn't make them any more convincing.

 

[stevevw]

I can look at what they are about, what they are measuring, see that it is not relevant to the point being made, and move on.

So what was the articles I just posted measuring. What about it was irrelevant exactly.

I am refusing to concede your points because I don't find that you have provided adequate supporting evidence for them. Repeating the same flawed claims doesn't make them any more convincing.

And yet you still refuse to even address a mere 10 lines of evidence from the articles that clearly shows a link between distress, unreal beliefs and attitudes and abuse.

Your silence is deafening.

 

[Paidiske]

Your silence is deafening.

I haven't been silent. But I've made my arguments, and you just repeat the same flawed claims (for example, that "irrational beliefs" as measured by clinical scales are directly relevant to abuse). So what more is there to say?

 

[stevevw]

I haven't been silent. But I've made my arguments, and you just repeat the same flawed claims (for example, that "irrational beliefs" as measured by clinical scales are directly relevant to abuse). So what more is there to say?

Your repeating the same logical fallacy of a strawman by using the article I specifically acknowledged was only talking about irrational beliefs related to distress as though its the only link I posted. Your clearly misrepresenting what I have linked by making a big deal out of that link to distract attention away from the important ones.

I clearly seperated those links just showing the connection between distress and irrational beliefs and stated this ie "Here are the links I supplied earlier showing the link between stress and distress and irrational and unreal beliefs and expectations". I never said that it included abuse because I had linked a further 5 articles above the two linking distress and irrational beliefs that showed the evidence for the link between distress, irrational and unreal beliefs and abuse.

But what you keep doing is ignoring the articles that do link irrational and unreal beliefs with distress and actual abuse. Look at the title of the article its about abusive parents and their distress and beliefs about abusing their kids.

I further reduced this to just 10 lines to make it easier for you understand and to address but you can't even acknowledge the articles are even there let alone address what they clearly say in linking distress, irrational and unreal beliefs and abuse. They even name the beliefs ie belief in harsh dicipline which is the same thing as saying belief in abuse. That is directly linking distress and beliefs in abuse against children.

 

[Paidiske]

Your clearly misrepresenting what I have linked by making a big deal out of that link to distract attention away from the important ones.

No. I am pointing out that you can't pile up a heap of unrelated studies and say they amount to your preferred position.

They even name the beliefs ie belief in harsh dicipline which is the same thing as saying belief in abuse.

Not the way that very source defines it.

 

[stevevw]

No. I am pointing out that you can't pile up a heap of unrelated studies and say they amount to your preferred position.

The 5 links I seperated above the one you chose to focus on link distress, belief and abuse so they are directly related.

Not the way that very source defines it.

So your saying belief in harsh punishment is not talking about belief in abuse. That particular link covers all the thinking and beliefs of an abusive parent ie

Here is the irrational belief
The abusive parents have unrealistic expectations of their children
Here is the rigid thinking behind belief in rigid roles and control
and are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking, use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment
here is the belief in abuse
and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline.
and here is the stress and distress behind their abuse
They tend to experience higher stress levels.

This is clearly talking about belief in control and abusive parenting.

 

[Paidiske]

So your saying belief in harsh punishment is not talking about belief in abuse.

That source gave a list of what they meant by harsh discipline, and most of it was completely unrelated to physcial abuse. So someone could be engaging in significant harsh discipline, as defined by that source, yet not committing any physical abuse of their child, and therefore be irrelevant to this thread.

 

[stevevw]

That source gave a list of what they meant by harsh discipline, and most of it was completely unrelated to physcial abuse. So someone could be engaging in significant harsh discipline, as defined by that source, yet not committing any physical abuse of their child, and therefore be irrelevant to this thread.

Are you really going to dig in and still refuse to acknowledge that its not about physical punishment. They refer to harsh punishment in the same sentence as coercieve and physical punishment ie use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline.

So you cannot discount that its also about harsh physical punishment.

 

[Paidiske]

Are you really going to dig in and still refuse to acknowledge that its not about physical punishment. They refer to harsh punishment in the same sentence as coercieve and physical punishment ie use coercive disciplinary strategies, such as physical punishment and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline.

So you cannot discount that its also about harsh physical punishment.

That is not the article you previously linked discussing harsh discipline, to which I was responding.

But this is what I mean when I say you use sources which don't establish your claims. You cited an article which is speaking of a whole cluster of parenting strategies, all but one of which are not physical abuse. And then you want to claim that everything it says is about physical abuse. But that is blatantly and obviously not substantiated.

And tellingly, the source you've now linked doesn't discuss what the underlying beliefs are of abusive parents, but puts the remedy for physical abuse in parents "adjusting" their beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

That is not the article you previously linked discussing harsh discipline, to which I was responding.

Its the only link I posted that mentions harsh discipline. But that doesn't matter you need to deal with this particular link which I have posted 5 times now and you still refuse to address it but rather continue to make logical fallacies ie "it may not be about abuse because harsh could also mean non physical dicipline".

As though this means its not about physical abusive punishment when it could also mean exactly that. Thus your objection doesn't exclude the fact that it can also and actually is about physical abuse considering it has all the factors for a physical abusive parents ie unreal beliefs, control and rigid thinking and belief in coercive physical punishment.

But this is what I mean when I say you use sources which don't establish your claims. You cited an article which is speaking of a whole cluster of parenting strategies, all but one of which are not physical abuse.

First I can go back and break down the other articles and do the same if you wish. It seems your refusal to even acknowledge them has brought things to a point where I have to go to such lengths. Second even if its just that one links you need to deal with it and stop creating logical fallacies.

And then you want to claim that everything it says is about physical abuse. But that is blatantly and obviously not substantiated.

Many of the articles are actually about physical abuse. They name it in the heading or the section, they name it within the articles. How could you know when you have not even looked at them.

And tellingly, the source you've now linked doesn't discuss what the underlying beliefs are of abusive parents, but puts the remedy for physical abuse in parents "adjusting" their beliefs.

It does discuss the underlying beliefs, ie unreal expectations, thinking and believing in control and rigidity and coersive physical punishment.

 

[Paidiske]

Its the only link I posted that mentions harsh discipline.

No, your previous link went to a different page. I just went back and checked to make sure I wasn't confused.

But that doesn't matter you need to deal with this...

Let's get something straight. I don't "need" to do anything in this thread. I don't owe you any particular response. I have indulged your arguments for about 80 pages now, and have been more than patient in responding to what you've brought. But when you keep presenting arguments which I have previously shown to be flawed, I have absolutely no obligation to respond in any particular way.

It does discuss the underlying beliefs, ie unreal expectations, thinking and believing in control and rigidity and coersive physical punishment.

The source you've most recently linked does not even mention any of those except control and physical punishment.

 

[stevevw]

No, your previous link went to a different page. I just went back and checked to make sure I wasn't confused.

I just clicked into it and it goes straight to the link that mentions 'belief in harsh punishment'. Are you saying this link you went into also mentions harsh punishment. Here is the link again. Notice its title so it is referring to harsh physical punishment.

Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Abuse from parents can take many forms. The five types of abuse are physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and medical neglect.

www.parentingforbrain.com

It even lists each aspect such as "coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment" comes under the heading "Disciplinary beliefs".

Let's get something straight. I don't "need" to do anything in this thread. I don't owe you any particular response.

Yes you do. If you claim something its only fair and reasonable in any discussion trying to establish the facts and truth to then back up that claim with evidence. To give arguements and reasons with evidence to refute the other persons claims and not just ignore them or create fallacies and misrepresentations.

I have indulged your arguments for about 80 pages now, and have been more than patient in responding to what you've brought. But when you keep presenting arguments which I have previously shown to be flawed, I have absolutely no obligation to respond in any particular way.

No you have not. All you have said about these recent links to evidence is to first completely avoid them and then offered some fallacy that its not really talking about physical abusive dicipline when the title of the article states its talking about physically abusive dicipline.

The source you've most recently linked does not even mention any of those except control and physical punishment.

Yes it does, ie "unreal expectations, rigid and controlling thinking and beliefs in coercive, harsh and abusive physical dicipline.