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: 77648967" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>You haven't even linked convincing evidence that distress causes abusive behaviour. So, your argument is pretty flimsy.</p><p></p><p>Well, if they're not causes, frankly I'm not particularly interested in them. If you want to claim that something doesn't cause abuse, but somehow erodes our resilience to what <strong><em>does</em></strong> cause it (or the like), that's an interesting side argument, but it's not the main point, which is to actually deal with what causes abuse. </p><p></p><p>But it certainly seemed to me that you were arguing that the risk factors combined to directly cause people to abuse. </p><p></p><p>It might be clear in your mind, but that is not being communicated clearly. </p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594" target="_blank">T</a>he aim of that study was to "investigate correlates"! They're not even making any claims about a causative relationship at all. </p><p></p><p>No, I didn't, and no, it isn't. </p><p></p><p>No, it isn't a "comprehensive measure of all parental beliefs." It measures very specific things. And most of those things are not related to abuse. And the beliefs which underpin abuse are not all represented in the PRIBS. </p><p></p><p>But for this claim to make any sense, each risk factor must be contributing something to cause abuse. And that's what you haven't demonstrated. </p><p></p><p>I am claiming to know for sure that that article was not about abuse. That is clear from what we can see of it. </p><p></p><p>However, acceptance of violence up to the legal limit is part of acceptance of violence more generally. Which is one of the attitudes which underpins abuse. Someone who is happy to hit up to the limit, is much more likely to be happy to hit over the limit, than someone who will not hit at all. </p><p></p><p>No; it's not the "distortion" of the belief. It is the same belief that corporal punishment is good, but also with ignorance of or willingness to ignore legal limits. </p><p></p><p>It's very clear in this discussion that they are not the same as mine. As I pointed out before, I had to explain to you what primary prevention was. </p><p></p><p>No; they might also be very good things to do, but they are not really what primary prevention programmes are about. Those programmes are targeted at challenging the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>Only if they hold all of the requisite beliefs and attitudes. I am not claiming that most people hold all three to a significant degree. I am simply pointing out that all three are, to some degree, normalised within our society. </p><p></p><p>I have never claimed that our experiences do not shape our beliefs. On the contrary, I have pointed out that the full range of our experiences shape our beliefs. What I am rejecting is the simplistic construction that says "negative experiences -> stress and distress -> affective and cognitive impairment -> abuse." That's your model, and from what I can see, it is flawed at every single point. </p><p></p><p>Where is your "evidence" that people are "primed to want to abuse"?</p><p></p><p>I don't agree. Plenty of abuse and violence happens in every demographic. </p><p></p><p>Well, I think that the refusal to truly make an effort to understand someone else's perspective only undermines your own credibility.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77648967, member: 386627"] You haven't even linked convincing evidence that distress causes abusive behaviour. So, your argument is pretty flimsy. Well, if they're not causes, frankly I'm not particularly interested in them. If you want to claim that something doesn't cause abuse, but somehow erodes our resilience to what [B][I]does[/I][/B] cause it (or the like), that's an interesting side argument, but it's not the main point, which is to actually deal with what causes abuse. But it certainly seemed to me that you were arguing that the risk factors combined to directly cause people to abuse. It might be clear in your mind, but that is not being communicated clearly. [URL='https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213419304594']T[/URL]he aim of that study was to "investigate correlates"! They're not even making any claims about a causative relationship at all. No, I didn't, and no, it isn't. No, it isn't a "comprehensive measure of all parental beliefs." It measures very specific things. And most of those things are not related to abuse. And the beliefs which underpin abuse are not all represented in the PRIBS. But for this claim to make any sense, each risk factor must be contributing something to cause abuse. And that's what you haven't demonstrated. I am claiming to know for sure that that article was not about abuse. That is clear from what we can see of it. However, acceptance of violence up to the legal limit is part of acceptance of violence more generally. Which is one of the attitudes which underpins abuse. Someone who is happy to hit up to the limit, is much more likely to be happy to hit over the limit, than someone who will not hit at all. No; it's not the "distortion" of the belief. It is the same belief that corporal punishment is good, but also with ignorance of or willingness to ignore legal limits. It's very clear in this discussion that they are not the same as mine. As I pointed out before, I had to explain to you what primary prevention was. No; they might also be very good things to do, but they are not really what primary prevention programmes are about. Those programmes are targeted at challenging the beliefs and attitudes which underpin abuse. Only if they hold all of the requisite beliefs and attitudes. I am not claiming that most people hold all three to a significant degree. I am simply pointing out that all three are, to some degree, normalised within our society. I have never claimed that our experiences do not shape our beliefs. On the contrary, I have pointed out that the full range of our experiences shape our beliefs. What I am rejecting is the simplistic construction that says "negative experiences -> stress and distress -> affective and cognitive impairment -> abuse." That's your model, and from what I can see, it is flawed at every single point. Where is your "evidence" that people are "primed to want to abuse"? I don't agree. Plenty of abuse and violence happens in every demographic. Well, I think that the refusal to truly make an effort to understand someone else's perspective only undermines your own credibility. [/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