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: 77655643" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>But rigid roles and especially hierarchies are natural and normal ways society sets themselves up to run. Including running more effectively and sorting out differences so we have utilise people and systems better.</p><p></p><p>Your effectively saying all situations in life, in the normal carrying out of living together is a foundation for abuse. Which comes back to what I was saying that its not the hierarchies or roles, the relationships or situation humans find themseves in but the abuse of those situations. Take the abuse out and they are not a problem. </p><p></p><p>The important destinction here is "used to control others" in a way that is intended to deny that person the same rights as every human is entitled to in an unjustifed way.</p><p></p><p>But there are many situations where differences lead to people gaining more or less control and its not abusive but rather just the natural result of those diffeences being expressed in society. </p><p></p><p>For example those who work hard or have a natural ability to occupy the top of hierarchies have more control than those at the bottom be it in work, education, sports, trades, politics, social skills, anything. </p><p></p><p>Yes then your agreeing with me that some who gain more power and control through non abusive ways such as hard work or talent is not abusive. </p><p></p><p>Therefore not all differences in outcomes that give more power, control and advantage over others between people based on race, gender, sex ect are because of abusing others. </p><p></p><p>Yes they can be because they are because they are still agreeing to conform to a role, sacrifice their freedom to follow a basic role. Feminist believe that simply being in the role of housewife with a breadwinner husband is abusive even if they volunteer. Thats a belief and not fact. </p><p></p><p>Thats not true. We use ideas about rigid social norms such as behaving in certain ways to be social. Any deviation is frowned upon and condemned and those who dare act differently can be socially, financially destroyed as a result. Thats pretty rigid. </p><p></p><p>But thats like identifying the health issue by the symptoms and not the core problem within the body or mind. Your bound to get things wrong by misdiagnosing based on assumptions about the symptoms.</p><p></p><p>People also hold the same beliefs in the same ideas like hierarchies or Trad marriages and they don't abuse. So having the belief itself is not the same thing as abuse. Just as with all human social behavioural problems we identify the underlying mindset and emotional disturbance which actually causes the symptoms such as wanting to control others through rigid roles. </p><p></p><p>In other words the mind and psyche of a non abuser who believes or naturally uses hierarcies or CP, or Trad marriages is different to the mindset of those who use these situations to abuse. So rather than just simply say hierarchy or rigid role = abusive control. </p><p></p><p>We say people with a clinical diagnosis of a mindset that is volnurable to believe such destructive ideas like abusive control when in positions of hierachy, roles, marriages, relationships are more open to use abusive control. Thus we don't risk misdiagniosing what may be normal good people engaging in normal a good behaviour which happen in societies. </p><p></p><p></p><p>But that very specific belief in CP, hiearchies, rigid roles or Trad marriages ect are not abusive. We can find many people who believe these things and never abuse. We can find entire hierarchal systems within society that don't abuse. I just gave you evidence for this. Many people implicitely promote these setups because they are efficent and beneficial. </p><p></p><p>Beleif as you said is a subjective judgement. What one persons thinks is abuse another thinks is beneficial. There has to be some factual determination to tell which beliefs are exactly causing abuse and violence. </p><p></p><p>I can give you an example of a current belief that is said to be good to prevent abuse and violence and is promoted by health and wellbing sectors especially relating to race, sex and identity through policy and laws which is actually causing abuse and violence.</p><p></p><p>So if we cannot identify which beliefs are negative due to the fact that we use belief itself as the measure and not facts or relaity the only way we can determine what will actually cause abuse and violence is the factual and clinical measures of peoples minds and pysche's as the the factual data as to which people are most supceptible to irrational beliefs.</p><p></p><p>We use this theory and approach for identifying radicalised youth regarding ganng violence and terrorism. Its more or less psychologically profiling abusers and violent people just like we could understand the criminal mind, the addictive personality, the psychopath. Just like we understand juvenile delinquency and the influence of upbringing on the psyche. Its all proven science and works. </p><p></p><p>Social and cultural norms don't come purely from social and cultural norms. Social and cultural norms are variations on innate cognitions, beliefs and behaviours. Abuse is the distorting of this to the point where it harms others by insisting its the only way. </p><p></p><p>It is the only way and its an accurate way because its based in facts, the science and our experience. Whereas using beliefs as the measure has no way of determining whether that belief is actually abusive because its only using unsupported assumptions about those beliefs being abusive in the first place.</p><p></p><p>No its measuring the mindset that will be supceptible to irrational beliefs perse and not specific irrational beliefs. Specific irrational beliefs come from the same mindset as all irrational beliefs. Its the same principle for how we determine anxious mindsets that may be expressed in various behaviour like suicidal ideation, slef harm, destructive behaviour. </p><p></p><p>Or other social problems which all have a certain mindset and psyche behind the behaviour. If it works for all other social behaviour problems it works for abusive and controlling behaviour.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77655643, member: 342064"] But rigid roles and especially hierarchies are natural and normal ways society sets themselves up to run. Including running more effectively and sorting out differences so we have utilise people and systems better. Your effectively saying all situations in life, in the normal carrying out of living together is a foundation for abuse. Which comes back to what I was saying that its not the hierarchies or roles, the relationships or situation humans find themseves in but the abuse of those situations. Take the abuse out and they are not a problem. The important destinction here is "used to control others" in a way that is intended to deny that person the same rights as every human is entitled to in an unjustifed way. But there are many situations where differences lead to people gaining more or less control and its not abusive but rather just the natural result of those diffeences being expressed in society. For example those who work hard or have a natural ability to occupy the top of hierarchies have more control than those at the bottom be it in work, education, sports, trades, politics, social skills, anything. Yes then your agreeing with me that some who gain more power and control through non abusive ways such as hard work or talent is not abusive. Therefore not all differences in outcomes that give more power, control and advantage over others between people based on race, gender, sex ect are because of abusing others. Yes they can be because they are because they are still agreeing to conform to a role, sacrifice their freedom to follow a basic role. Feminist believe that simply being in the role of housewife with a breadwinner husband is abusive even if they volunteer. Thats a belief and not fact. Thats not true. We use ideas about rigid social norms such as behaving in certain ways to be social. Any deviation is frowned upon and condemned and those who dare act differently can be socially, financially destroyed as a result. Thats pretty rigid. But thats like identifying the health issue by the symptoms and not the core problem within the body or mind. Your bound to get things wrong by misdiagnosing based on assumptions about the symptoms. People also hold the same beliefs in the same ideas like hierarchies or Trad marriages and they don't abuse. So having the belief itself is not the same thing as abuse. Just as with all human social behavioural problems we identify the underlying mindset and emotional disturbance which actually causes the symptoms such as wanting to control others through rigid roles. In other words the mind and psyche of a non abuser who believes or naturally uses hierarcies or CP, or Trad marriages is different to the mindset of those who use these situations to abuse. So rather than just simply say hierarchy or rigid role = abusive control. We say people with a clinical diagnosis of a mindset that is volnurable to believe such destructive ideas like abusive control when in positions of hierachy, roles, marriages, relationships are more open to use abusive control. Thus we don't risk misdiagniosing what may be normal good people engaging in normal a good behaviour which happen in societies. But that very specific belief in CP, hiearchies, rigid roles or Trad marriages ect are not abusive. We can find many people who believe these things and never abuse. We can find entire hierarchal systems within society that don't abuse. I just gave you evidence for this. Many people implicitely promote these setups because they are efficent and beneficial. Beleif as you said is a subjective judgement. What one persons thinks is abuse another thinks is beneficial. There has to be some factual determination to tell which beliefs are exactly causing abuse and violence. I can give you an example of a current belief that is said to be good to prevent abuse and violence and is promoted by health and wellbing sectors especially relating to race, sex and identity through policy and laws which is actually causing abuse and violence. So if we cannot identify which beliefs are negative due to the fact that we use belief itself as the measure and not facts or relaity the only way we can determine what will actually cause abuse and violence is the factual and clinical measures of peoples minds and pysche's as the the factual data as to which people are most supceptible to irrational beliefs. We use this theory and approach for identifying radicalised youth regarding ganng violence and terrorism. Its more or less psychologically profiling abusers and violent people just like we could understand the criminal mind, the addictive personality, the psychopath. Just like we understand juvenile delinquency and the influence of upbringing on the psyche. Its all proven science and works. Social and cultural norms don't come purely from social and cultural norms. Social and cultural norms are variations on innate cognitions, beliefs and behaviours. Abuse is the distorting of this to the point where it harms others by insisting its the only way. It is the only way and its an accurate way because its based in facts, the science and our experience. Whereas using beliefs as the measure has no way of determining whether that belief is actually abusive because its only using unsupported assumptions about those beliefs being abusive in the first place. No its measuring the mindset that will be supceptible to irrational beliefs perse and not specific irrational beliefs. Specific irrational beliefs come from the same mindset as all irrational beliefs. Its the same principle for how we determine anxious mindsets that may be expressed in various behaviour like suicidal ideation, slef harm, destructive behaviour. Or other social problems which all have a certain mindset and psyche behind the behaviour. If it works for all other social behaviour problems it works for abusive and controlling behaviour. [/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