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: 77640069" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>It's not just what you have presented, but the way you have presented it. It is, at times, very difficult to follow the claims you are making, and the relationship between your presented sources and those claims. </p><p></p><p>Those are just not the same thing. You can't read different sources discussing "stress," "distress," "depression," and whatever else, and decide that they're all discussing the same thing, or that the claims made for one can be transferred to the others. </p><p></p><p>If most parents are stressed, and most parents don't abuse, then you can't claim that stress is causative of abuse. The question then becomes, what is the difference between stressed parents who abuse, and those who don't? We know that it's not stress level or cognitive "compromise," because those are experienced by parents who don't abuse. But we know that the abusive parents have different beliefs and attitudes than the ones who don't abuse. </p><p></p><p>No, I don't misunderstand at all. I just disagree.</p><p></p><p>Take your example of smoking and lung cancer. We can demonstrate the carcinogenic effect of substances in smoke. We can measure the rate of DNA damage. It may not be the sole cause, but we can quantify its causative contribution. We have both a mechanism and a measurement of the damage.</p><p></p><p>We don't have that for most of the things you're discussing as causing abuse, but if they really do contribute, this should be something we can find and measure. </p><p></p><p>But that source is not discussing abuse. It does not say there is any higher abuse in that cohort. Your article is extrapolating beyond what has been demonstrated by the evidence. </p><p></p><p>No, it is not good science to say, "Oh, this thing here says something that sounds vaguely related to this other thing over there, so they must amount to the same thing."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77640069, member: 386627"] It's not just what you have presented, but the way you have presented it. It is, at times, very difficult to follow the claims you are making, and the relationship between your presented sources and those claims. Those are just not the same thing. You can't read different sources discussing "stress," "distress," "depression," and whatever else, and decide that they're all discussing the same thing, or that the claims made for one can be transferred to the others. If most parents are stressed, and most parents don't abuse, then you can't claim that stress is causative of abuse. The question then becomes, what is the difference between stressed parents who abuse, and those who don't? We know that it's not stress level or cognitive "compromise," because those are experienced by parents who don't abuse. But we know that the abusive parents have different beliefs and attitudes than the ones who don't abuse. No, I don't misunderstand at all. I just disagree. Take your example of smoking and lung cancer. We can demonstrate the carcinogenic effect of substances in smoke. We can measure the rate of DNA damage. It may not be the sole cause, but we can quantify its causative contribution. We have both a mechanism and a measurement of the damage. We don't have that for most of the things you're discussing as causing abuse, but if they really do contribute, this should be something we can find and measure. But that source is not discussing abuse. It does not say there is any higher abuse in that cohort. Your article is extrapolating beyond what has been demonstrated by the evidence. No, it is not good science to say, "Oh, this thing here says something that sounds vaguely related to this other thing over there, so they must amount to the same thing." [/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