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: 77651852" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>A hierarchy itself is not always about control. For example hierarchies of competence such as strength, social skills, or any human talent. </p><p></p><p>Natural hierarchies are formed due to competence. The more competent individuals, groups or organisations sit at the top and have advantages because they are more popular due to their competencies. They are in demand. As opposed to less competent who may occupy the middle levels and then the least competent at the bottom who struggle to get a foothold or don't benefit as much or not at all. </p><p></p><p>Society is full of cometency hierarchies which are not controlling or abusive and even beneficial in that we get access to the most competent people to get the job done properly and keep society in order while weeding out the imcompetent which will cause chaos. </p><p></p><p>What about rigid roles in company or even military hierarchies of command from the top to the bottom. Even hierarchies of command within sections, hiearchies within hierarchies. All controlling others with rigid roles to conform to in getting the job done. What about natural taxomony hiearchies of the animal kingdom are these controlling or abusive.</p><p></p><p>But what I find difficult to get my head around is how we could even know which beliefs are the inappropriate ones unless we can measure the harm they cause due to the risks for the harm they cause. In other words its hard to tell whether a belief is linked to abuse unless it actually causes abuse. </p><p></p><p>The only way I can see in knowing this is actually looking at where abuse happens on the ground and then tracing backwards as to why, what the experience and circumstances that have led to this. What are the individual, family, community and societal wide reasons for this. </p><p></p><p>But we can't as a society be saying "all beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles and the like" are bad and lead to abusive control because they don't. Like you said its a subjective value judgement. Without some ground to prove and link the belief to actual abuse which can only be done by grounding it in actually abuse happening then we have no right. </p><p></p><p>Nor do we have the right to themn say this set of beliefs and attitudes or behaviours and societal conditions are best to prevent abuse unless we also ground this in actual evidence that its linked to abuse. </p><p></p><p>So your going to tell the disadvantaged parent who feels that disadvantage that it has nothing to do with he situation for how she got where she is. That the stress and distress she experiences has no influence on how she percieves things and acts. When society recognises that for every other social problem past experiences influence why they behave that way. </p><p></p><p>When all the sciences tell us that past experiences influence cognition and beliefs. Your going to come in their with your ideological beliefs and assumptions and dismiss all that as irrelevant., I think this is unreal and will do more harm than good. </p><p></p><p>Your creating another either and or fallacy. Its not a case of my way or the highway, either you challenge the belief or your allowing abuse. I think challenging beliefs is not actually about challenging beliefs. As beliefs can be so ingrained, have become a part of the person, a need, a defence mechanism that they have come to rely on then challenging the belief itself can only scare people away.</p><p></p><p>Challenging the belief is getting to know and understand why the belief. Why the parent thinks this and how they percieve things. Often you will find worries, resentments, insecurities, unreal expectations and getting to the bottom of these is the key to changing the person from within and not trying to make them conform to something they are not ready to acknowledge. </p><p></p><p>Look at substance abuse or any belief thats destructive. You can't make someone change those beliefs without changing their insides, their thinking and perceptions that caused them to believe in those destructive ideas in the first place.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77651852, member: 342064"] A hierarchy itself is not always about control. For example hierarchies of competence such as strength, social skills, or any human talent. Natural hierarchies are formed due to competence. The more competent individuals, groups or organisations sit at the top and have advantages because they are more popular due to their competencies. They are in demand. As opposed to less competent who may occupy the middle levels and then the least competent at the bottom who struggle to get a foothold or don't benefit as much or not at all. Society is full of cometency hierarchies which are not controlling or abusive and even beneficial in that we get access to the most competent people to get the job done properly and keep society in order while weeding out the imcompetent which will cause chaos. What about rigid roles in company or even military hierarchies of command from the top to the bottom. Even hierarchies of command within sections, hiearchies within hierarchies. All controlling others with rigid roles to conform to in getting the job done. What about natural taxomony hiearchies of the animal kingdom are these controlling or abusive. But what I find difficult to get my head around is how we could even know which beliefs are the inappropriate ones unless we can measure the harm they cause due to the risks for the harm they cause. In other words its hard to tell whether a belief is linked to abuse unless it actually causes abuse. The only way I can see in knowing this is actually looking at where abuse happens on the ground and then tracing backwards as to why, what the experience and circumstances that have led to this. What are the individual, family, community and societal wide reasons for this. But we can't as a society be saying "all beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles and the like" are bad and lead to abusive control because they don't. Like you said its a subjective value judgement. Without some ground to prove and link the belief to actual abuse which can only be done by grounding it in actually abuse happening then we have no right. Nor do we have the right to themn say this set of beliefs and attitudes or behaviours and societal conditions are best to prevent abuse unless we also ground this in actual evidence that its linked to abuse. So your going to tell the disadvantaged parent who feels that disadvantage that it has nothing to do with he situation for how she got where she is. That the stress and distress she experiences has no influence on how she percieves things and acts. When society recognises that for every other social problem past experiences influence why they behave that way. When all the sciences tell us that past experiences influence cognition and beliefs. Your going to come in their with your ideological beliefs and assumptions and dismiss all that as irrelevant., I think this is unreal and will do more harm than good. Your creating another either and or fallacy. Its not a case of my way or the highway, either you challenge the belief or your allowing abuse. I think challenging beliefs is not actually about challenging beliefs. As beliefs can be so ingrained, have become a part of the person, a need, a defence mechanism that they have come to rely on then challenging the belief itself can only scare people away. Challenging the belief is getting to know and understand why the belief. Why the parent thinks this and how they percieve things. Often you will find worries, resentments, insecurities, unreal expectations and getting to the bottom of these is the key to changing the person from within and not trying to make them conform to something they are not ready to acknowledge. Look at substance abuse or any belief thats destructive. You can't make someone change those beliefs without changing their insides, their thinking and perceptions that caused them to believe in those destructive ideas in the first place. [/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