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="stevevw" data-source="post: 77648841" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>We can and I have linked the evidence for showing each risk factors role in contributing to distress and abusive and controlling behaviour ie I linked seperate evidence for how low socioeconomic status, past abuse, DV, substance abuse, stressors, psychological distress, family structure ect can all contribute. I then linked evidence showing their combined contribution in various mixes of risk factors.</p><p></p><p>Your making another strawman in saying the risk factors must be causes. I never said that. I said their contribute, are linked, and combine to increase risk to the point of actual abuse for some who cannot handle things.</p><p></p><p>I have shown that the risk factors combine and are directly associated with abusive behaviour. No single risk factor causes abuse. Rather its the combined risk factors minus any protective factors. This approach is reflected in the evidence of most if not all professionals who deal with child abuse.</p><p></p><p>Its not vague, your making it vague to avoid the clear implications of the evidence. I said I have provided evidence for how these risk factors contribute individually and as a combined effect to increase the likelihood of abuse.</p><p></p><p>Right here</p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">Numerous factors were </span><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong>consistently related to more positive parenting attitudes</strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)"> (i.e., more appropriate parenting expectations, greater empathy, and valuing non-physical punishment), including</span><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong> lower levels of caregiver depressive </strong></span></em><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/symptoms" target="_blank"><em><u>symptoms</u></em></a><em> and less severity of stressful </em><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/life-events" target="_blank"><em><u>life events</u></em></a></strong><em><strong> .</strong></em></span></p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong>Parental attitudes</strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)"> are thought to be the by-product of these factors, </span><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong>parenting: parents own personal and psychological resources</strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)"> such as their own prior family experiences and functioning, and </span><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong>contextual sources of stress </strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">and support such as quality of their social relationships and </span><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong>degree of outside stressors</strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">. Consequently, </span><span style="color: rgb(147, 101, 184)"><strong>the environmental context is important to consider as a determinant of parenting attitudes and behavior</strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">.</span></em></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594</a></p><p></p><p>Yes it does. You even referred to this scale as the measure for abusive attitudes and beliefs. The PRIBS is a comprehensive measure of all parental beliefs including the unreal beliefs and expectations about abusive and controlling punishment.</p><p></p><p>No your creating strawmen fallacies. I am not saying that a specific risk factor cause abuse. I forget now how many times I have said this. That abuse is the result of many factors that combine minus the protective factors.</p><p></p><p>I mean that abuse was not referred to in the content in passing. Are you claiming you know for sure that abuse is not mentioned in that article.</p><p></p><p>The point is the legal limit is socially acceptable if we are talking about norms within society. It is itself not deemed as abuse but rather a legitimate and perhaps beneficial part of bring up well behave children.</p><p></p><p>It doesn't matter as the same belief stems from non abusive CP. So the belief in CP itself is not abusive and becomes abusive with the distortion of the belief in CP and making this into abuse.</p><p></p><p>Yes so the belief stems from the same basis but is distorted into something more severe.</p><p></p><p>So what differentiates the abuser from the non abusers. Its the distortion of the belief due to a distortion in thinking and perceptions of the world, of the childs behaviour and the situation being percieved as worse than it really is. Something within the person has caused them to distort things.</p><p></p><p>First it is not my personal opinion or beliefs that I base what I say regarding this matter. It is the expert opinion and research data that does. So your making a false comparison and an <em>Ad hominem</em>.</p><p></p><p>Second you don't know my qualifications and experience to make such claims. Put it this way I have qualifications and many years of experience including working within child protection and family case work.</p><p></p><p>Even your own link mentions this when it talks about restructuring the conditions within society to empower the disadvantaged and create an equal society. These are the practical applications of prevention programs.</p><p></p><p>What your doing is narrowly focusing on one aspect at the societal level and forgetting the individual, family and community levels which are all interwoven with the societal level. This narrow view will distort any prevention approaches and do more harm than good.</p><p></p><p>As I have been saying over and over why people abuse and are violent is a complex multifaceted and level problem that requires a multipronged approach. The go to theory on understanding human cognition, beliefs and behaviour is the socio-ecological framework which considers influencing factors on the individual, family, community and societal levels which also overlap. The Risk and Protective factors are based on the socio-ecological framework.</p><p></p><p>Then according to your logic we should see most people engaging in some sort of violent and abusive behaviour. But we don't the majority of people just get on with life and caring for their families.</p><p></p><p>Then your logic would have it that the majority of people are controlling and abusive.</p><p></p><p>But of course your conflating what is a natural and even beneficial belief in roles and hierarchies and the like as being abusive in itself. Another non sequitor.</p><p></p><p>The why object and resist the idea that part of cultivating those beliefs are the personal and family experiences abusers have that causes them to see the world in such destructive and hurtful ways towards others.</p><p></p><p>Like the evidence shows if a person experiences examples of destructive and harmful behaviours then they will believe in that negative stuff. If a person experiences love and kindness then they will believe in love and kindness. Its basically how human thinking and behaviour works.</p><p></p><p>Already supplied. Tell me why is the vast majority of abuse and violence happens in the the most disadvantaged and distressed communities. Distress and destruction breed distress and destruction.</p><p></p><p>No we can clearly dismiss them as nut cases. They believe in some delusional ideology that wants to destroy others no matter what justification people want to use to rationalise this away. </p><p></p><p>If we cannot stand on some clear truth, some facts to condemn certain beliefs and behaviour as detrimental to others and society then we are in big trouble.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77648841, member: 342064"] We can and I have linked the evidence for showing each risk factors role in contributing to distress and abusive and controlling behaviour ie I linked seperate evidence for how low socioeconomic status, past abuse, DV, substance abuse, stressors, psychological distress, family structure ect can all contribute. I then linked evidence showing their combined contribution in various mixes of risk factors. Your making another strawman in saying the risk factors must be causes. I never said that. I said their contribute, are linked, and combine to increase risk to the point of actual abuse for some who cannot handle things. I have shown that the risk factors combine and are directly associated with abusive behaviour. No single risk factor causes abuse. Rather its the combined risk factors minus any protective factors. This approach is reflected in the evidence of most if not all professionals who deal with child abuse. Its not vague, your making it vague to avoid the clear implications of the evidence. I said I have provided evidence for how these risk factors contribute individually and as a combined effect to increase the likelihood of abuse. Right here [I][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)]Numerous factors were [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B]consistently related to more positive parenting attitudes[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)] (i.e., more appropriate parenting expectations, greater empathy, and valuing non-physical punishment), including[/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B] lower levels of caregiver depressive [/B][/COLOR][/I][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B][URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/symptoms'][I][U]symptoms[/U][/I][/URL][I] and less severity of stressful [/I][URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/life-events'][I][U]life events[/U][/I][/URL][/B][I][B] .[/B][/I][/COLOR] [I][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B]Parental attitudes[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)] are thought to be the by-product of these factors, [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B]parenting: parents own personal and psychological resources[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)] such as their own prior family experiences and functioning, and [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B]contextual sources of stress [/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)]and support such as quality of their social relationships and [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B]degree of outside stressors[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)]. Consequently, [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(147, 101, 184)][B]the environmental context is important to consider as a determinant of parenting attitudes and behavior[/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)].[/COLOR][/I] [URL]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594[/URL] Yes it does. You even referred to this scale as the measure for abusive attitudes and beliefs. The PRIBS is a comprehensive measure of all parental beliefs including the unreal beliefs and expectations about abusive and controlling punishment. No your creating strawmen fallacies. I am not saying that a specific risk factor cause abuse. I forget now how many times I have said this. That abuse is the result of many factors that combine minus the protective factors. I mean that abuse was not referred to in the content in passing. Are you claiming you know for sure that abuse is not mentioned in that article. The point is the legal limit is socially acceptable if we are talking about norms within society. It is itself not deemed as abuse but rather a legitimate and perhaps beneficial part of bring up well behave children. It doesn't matter as the same belief stems from non abusive CP. So the belief in CP itself is not abusive and becomes abusive with the distortion of the belief in CP and making this into abuse. Yes so the belief stems from the same basis but is distorted into something more severe. So what differentiates the abuser from the non abusers. Its the distortion of the belief due to a distortion in thinking and perceptions of the world, of the childs behaviour and the situation being percieved as worse than it really is. Something within the person has caused them to distort things. First it is not my personal opinion or beliefs that I base what I say regarding this matter. It is the expert opinion and research data that does. So your making a false comparison and an [I]Ad hominem[/I]. Second you don't know my qualifications and experience to make such claims. Put it this way I have qualifications and many years of experience including working within child protection and family case work. Even your own link mentions this when it talks about restructuring the conditions within society to empower the disadvantaged and create an equal society. These are the practical applications of prevention programs. What your doing is narrowly focusing on one aspect at the societal level and forgetting the individual, family and community levels which are all interwoven with the societal level. This narrow view will distort any prevention approaches and do more harm than good. As I have been saying over and over why people abuse and are violent is a complex multifaceted and level problem that requires a multipronged approach. The go to theory on understanding human cognition, beliefs and behaviour is the socio-ecological framework which considers influencing factors on the individual, family, community and societal levels which also overlap. The Risk and Protective factors are based on the socio-ecological framework. Then according to your logic we should see most people engaging in some sort of violent and abusive behaviour. But we don't the majority of people just get on with life and caring for their families. Then your logic would have it that the majority of people are controlling and abusive. But of course your conflating what is a natural and even beneficial belief in roles and hierarchies and the like as being abusive in itself. Another non sequitor. The why object and resist the idea that part of cultivating those beliefs are the personal and family experiences abusers have that causes them to see the world in such destructive and hurtful ways towards others. Like the evidence shows if a person experiences examples of destructive and harmful behaviours then they will believe in that negative stuff. If a person experiences love and kindness then they will believe in love and kindness. Its basically how human thinking and behaviour works. Already supplied. Tell me why is the vast majority of abuse and violence happens in the the most disadvantaged and distressed communities. Distress and destruction breed distress and destruction. No we can clearly dismiss them as nut cases. They believe in some delusional ideology that wants to destroy others no matter what justification people want to use to rationalise this away. If we cannot stand on some clear truth, some facts to condemn certain beliefs and behaviour as detrimental to others and society then we are in big trouble. [/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