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: 77654402" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>I suggest calling these abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles exactly what they are 'abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles'. Don't seperate the structure from the abuse. Just like abusive relationships and not just relationships are abusive.</p><p></p><p>The problem is there is ambiguity in what exactly is abusive when it comes to power differences. There can be power differences as a natural result of competency differences. If people gain power over others due to compentency then this is not abusive power. </p><p></p><p>Their compentency may put them in a more powerful position and make a difference in employment status, income, standard of life, maybe better health and education for family ect. The incompentent end up at the bottom of the hiearchy with no job, little income, poor health ect. Some will say they are priviledged especially if they are white and male. But if its based on merit then its not abusive. </p><p></p><p>The point is the roles can still be rigid and negociable and they are not abusive. So in that sense rigid roles themselves are not abusive. It takes crossing a certain line to turn them into abusive. Until they do they are not abusive.</p><p></p><p>The danger is where ideologues assume these setups are abusive perse because of their ideological beliefs. </p><p></p><p>You missed the point. The point is we should be able to understand belief enough to be able to identify the mindset and not the specific belief examples like belief in rigid roles or hierarchies. </p><p></p><p>By understand how minds develop irrational beliefs we have a clinical measure of the Mindset which is more volnurable and primed to believe negative and unreal ideas about parenting. Otherwise we are left with identifying the mindset by the particular expressions it applies like with rigid roles. We are left guessing until they actually abuse. </p><p></p><p>There could be right now people of influence who are cultivating negative beliefs which will end up leading to abuse. So the only way to identify the potential abusers is by grounding the measure in facts, in clinical measures of the type of cognitions and emotional dysfunction that is more volnurable to irrational and unreal beliefs that are condducive of supports abuse and violence. </p><p></p><p>But this is a subjective measure, open to interpretation. You were earlier arguing that abusers beliefs are rational. We cannot just say that certain beliefs are abusive when they are not always abusive. But we can know the clinical measure of an abusers mindset that is more likley to believe in such idead. Not just about roles and hierarchies but about everything. </p><p></p><p>Then you are a social constructivist. Especially that you don't believe there is any such thing as natural beliefs. Natural beliefs can be for example when someone says "its only natural that we should know or to do". A commonsense or self evident truth. Like that stealing is wrong. We steal and we feel guilty, we have something stolen and we are upset. This is not learnt but certain moral truths come natural as we have a moral sense.</p><p></p><p>Then there is natural talen at the individual level. Some people are natural athletes, some artist and others good with people. </p><p></p><p>Then there is nature itself which is sort of linked to natural talent sometimes as for example certain races like Africans and Indigenous peoples are good at sports generally. Males maybe better at certain sports due to the natural differences. </p><p></p><p>But there are also natural processes like evolution which have a bearing. We formed societies from hunter gatherers and in doing so we evolved certain thinking and behaviours to enable us to get along and function better. But also on a social level some aspects of society are a natural conscequence of how humans think and behave.</p><p></p><p>Going back to natural hierarchies. We structure society in competency hierarchies because it helps society function better. We naturally place more competent people in higher positions because it works, we get better results. Its not a social construction because its like the law of avergaes. If something works, it works. Its like an unwritten law of nature that no other way will work because it will not benefit for survival. </p><p></p><p>Hum I don't like how this tars natural hierarchies are part of abuse when they are not inherently part of abuse and rather only made abusive by humans. Like I said its like saying a car is abusive, is the vessel, the structure that abuses when its just a vessel that an abuser uses. Anyway I said this many times.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77654402, member: 342064"] I suggest calling these abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles exactly what they are 'abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles'. Don't seperate the structure from the abuse. Just like abusive relationships and not just relationships are abusive. The problem is there is ambiguity in what exactly is abusive when it comes to power differences. There can be power differences as a natural result of competency differences. If people gain power over others due to compentency then this is not abusive power. Their compentency may put them in a more powerful position and make a difference in employment status, income, standard of life, maybe better health and education for family ect. The incompentent end up at the bottom of the hiearchy with no job, little income, poor health ect. Some will say they are priviledged especially if they are white and male. But if its based on merit then its not abusive. The point is the roles can still be rigid and negociable and they are not abusive. So in that sense rigid roles themselves are not abusive. It takes crossing a certain line to turn them into abusive. Until they do they are not abusive. The danger is where ideologues assume these setups are abusive perse because of their ideological beliefs. You missed the point. The point is we should be able to understand belief enough to be able to identify the mindset and not the specific belief examples like belief in rigid roles or hierarchies. By understand how minds develop irrational beliefs we have a clinical measure of the Mindset which is more volnurable and primed to believe negative and unreal ideas about parenting. Otherwise we are left with identifying the mindset by the particular expressions it applies like with rigid roles. We are left guessing until they actually abuse. There could be right now people of influence who are cultivating negative beliefs which will end up leading to abuse. So the only way to identify the potential abusers is by grounding the measure in facts, in clinical measures of the type of cognitions and emotional dysfunction that is more volnurable to irrational and unreal beliefs that are condducive of supports abuse and violence. But this is a subjective measure, open to interpretation. You were earlier arguing that abusers beliefs are rational. We cannot just say that certain beliefs are abusive when they are not always abusive. But we can know the clinical measure of an abusers mindset that is more likley to believe in such idead. Not just about roles and hierarchies but about everything. Then you are a social constructivist. Especially that you don't believe there is any such thing as natural beliefs. Natural beliefs can be for example when someone says "its only natural that we should know or to do". A commonsense or self evident truth. Like that stealing is wrong. We steal and we feel guilty, we have something stolen and we are upset. This is not learnt but certain moral truths come natural as we have a moral sense. Then there is natural talen at the individual level. Some people are natural athletes, some artist and others good with people. Then there is nature itself which is sort of linked to natural talent sometimes as for example certain races like Africans and Indigenous peoples are good at sports generally. Males maybe better at certain sports due to the natural differences. But there are also natural processes like evolution which have a bearing. We formed societies from hunter gatherers and in doing so we evolved certain thinking and behaviours to enable us to get along and function better. But also on a social level some aspects of society are a natural conscequence of how humans think and behave. Going back to natural hierarchies. We structure society in competency hierarchies because it helps society function better. We naturally place more competent people in higher positions because it works, we get better results. Its not a social construction because its like the law of avergaes. If something works, it works. Its like an unwritten law of nature that no other way will work because it will not benefit for survival. Hum I don't like how this tars natural hierarchies are part of abuse when they are not inherently part of abuse and rather only made abusive by humans. Like I said its like saying a car is abusive, is the vessel, the structure that abuses when its just a vessel that an abuser uses. Anyway I said this many times. [/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