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: 77655981" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Like I said you may have been involved in a particular aspect of the overall approach which was associated with cultural beliefs especially religiously. That shows how complex the issue is as we can have professionals specialising in a number of aspects. </p><p></p><p>But the risk and proetctive model is what will identify that religious communities have certain thinking that is associated with that community in the first place. They may also identify that perhaps controlling mariages may happen in certain religions more for example. </p><p></p><p>Your dismissing the mind behind those beliefs though. The point was it takes a different mind to believe in such destruction of self and others and society as opposed to the majority who do not think this way as evidence that they don't behave this way. </p><p></p><p>We find that youth who commit crime the vast majority come from problem backgrounds, often with psychological issues and disadvantage. </p><p></p><p>I have. I linked evdience showing that abusive parents have unreal expectations and beliefs. I linked evdience showing that the controlling mindset behind abuse and violence is linked to psychological distress.</p><p></p><p>But its also logical. If abuse is destructive and we know it is due to the damage it does to children, to women and society then holding a belief in such destruction is irrational. Its irrational to believe that such a destructive belief in reality, not in the rationalisations of the abuser, but in reality how abuse actually permeates out onto children and society. </p><p></p><p>To believe that this is actually good or not abuse is delusional. Its not recognising or seeing the actual destruction their behaviour is causing. Therefore the abusers thinking and beliefs have been distorted to the point where they detach their thinking from what is really going on. </p><p></p><p>This was reflected in many of my links that speak about the unreal expectations, parents reading stuff into things that were not there like thinking their child was behaving worse than they really were. Percieving threat where there was none and as one link even said </p><p></p><p>But I am not saying abuse is caused by any particular factor but rather a combination of factors that build towards abuse. In that way we do not attribute abuse to any particular belief, single risk factor or situation but take all into consideration as the the higher risk and liklihood that abuse is more likely to accur. </p><p></p><p>Whereas your view is that only belief can tell us who is abusive and all other factors are irrelevant. Any idea that narrows behaviour down to one reason or cause should immediately be regarded as simplistic and narrow minded and misrepresenting the problem. </p><p></p><p>The point was, how do we tell which beliefs lead to abuse if we can't tell that current beliefs which lead to abuse are happening. This shows that we cannot use subjective judgements about which beliefs are abusive. They don't have a good track record of proving themselves. </p><p></p><p>I suggest the only way we can tell which beliefs are abusive is by grounding them in the thinking that breeds these beliefs. Its the only sure way to tell is the belief is irrational and likely to involve destructive or anti social behaviour. But saying that a persons belief in say hierarchies is abusive without any solid evidence grounded in facts is unreal and unfair. </p><p></p><p>So for example you mean biological differences in behaviour or thinking or in feelings. Your saying you don't believe in these differences. Like say males are generally stronger and more powerful. Or males think more spacially in terms of things and females more socially in terms of people and relationships. That type of stuff.</p><p></p><p>Why related specifically. All life experiences whether related to abuse or not can influence peoples psyche and behaviour. I have already given ample evidence for this. </p><p></p><p>As far as specific biological ones we have plenty of evidence of neurological, hormonal and genetic influences and anomelies on propensity to abuse and be violent. Anxiety and depressive orders have a neurological and brain chemical basis. More generally males are more prone to violence partly due to higher testosterone. </p><p></p><p><strong>The Neuroscience of Violence</strong></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">Violence, like all human behavior, is controlled by the brain. From everyday road rage to domestic violence to a suicide bombing, the biology of anger and <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/anger" target="_blank">aggression</a> is the root cause of most violent behavior.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)"></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">The circuits of aggression are part of the brain’s threat detection mechanism embedded deep in the unconscious region of the brain where sex, thirst, and feeding are also controlled.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)"><a href="https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/emotions-stress-and-anxiety/2016/the-neuroscience-of-violence" target="_blank">The Neuroscience of Violence</a> </span></em></p><p></p><p>I'm talking about the core beliefs of all religions. Your saying that they don't include some sort of revelation of a moral code. a divine source of life, a creative entity or aspect for life, and an afterlife or some sort of soul or spirituality. They may express these ideas in different ways, call these afterlife or gods different names and descriptions but they all have the same core idea as a creative being or power. </p><p></p><p>Actually hunter gatherers were tribal, they formed smaller groups and were consumed by food to survive. If another group came and took their stuff they would be upset after all that hard work lol. </p><p></p><p>I know I would, I am starving and just got back from a week long hunt to only get a small prey that may just keep the group from dying and then some outsider comes along and takes your food which could mean the difference between whether your family survives. It would not be good. If someone in the tribe ate all that food for themselves it would not go down well. </p><p></p><p>Your conflating the exceptions as the rule. Just because we had changing beliefs about what counts as murder doesn't mean we did not have knowledge of what murder is when it happens. Your thinking because some aspects are relative that there is no knowledge that murder is objectively wrong sometimes or often.</p><p></p><p>This doesn't negate that humans have knowledge that rape is wrong. A violation. All this is showing is that some denied this truth. God tells us that we all have knowledge of His laws through our conscience. When someone kills another even if justified or rationalised as justified when its not there is a deep imprint on the soul. We sense something very wrong just happened. </p><p></p><p>Those in the past who raped and pilagged were acting on animal instinct gone wild. Their hearts were hardened as God says as theey reject God. But this does not negate that wronging another, doing to them what we don't want done to ourselves is something we all sense as part of being human. </p><p></p><p>If we don't them there is some sort of problem, delusion, unrealness, denial going on which is in itself a fallen state of being which brings its own problems ie you reap what you sow. Live by the sword, die by the sword so to speak. </p><p></p><p>No one is saying that. Its you who keep conflating things and make strawmen and red herrings. I say that hierarchies are a normal part of society, not the only part and you turn that into some meritocracy. I say that the risk factors and determinants are important to understanding abuse and you turn that into a witch hunts sterotyping people. </p><p></p><p>Are you saying all people in positions of government are there because of their parents. Now your ideology is really slipping out. I just had a friend gain a position in local government who I worked with. He is highly skilled in community development, very socially orientated and has done his apprenticeship working with the community for years.</p><p></p><p>In fact he was head hunted from our community centre by another local member who happens to have been in the Nursing field for years and also skilled in what she does, Many people working thoughout government are good hardworking people with knowledge and skill and are at least up there with others when it comes to the best. </p><p></p><p>Often the leader is just the figure head and this involves marketing and public relations and all that. But I am sure he is quite capable and an intelligent man who has the ability to lead. Whether hes the best is not the point. He is of a certain clibre, within a certain standard we expect and not someone who doesn't know what they are doing. </p><p></p><p>But the bigger point is if polititians or company CEO's or whoever are not up fgor the job, are not perceived to be capable or good enough we get rid of them for someone we think is better. Its the natural inclination that we seeks the best or better and competence generally and not idiots or imcompentents who we know will stuff everything up. </p><p></p><p>Lol on that note I think I will try and recover from just praising Albernese who I don't like anyway lol.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77655981, member: 342064"] Like I said you may have been involved in a particular aspect of the overall approach which was associated with cultural beliefs especially religiously. That shows how complex the issue is as we can have professionals specialising in a number of aspects. But the risk and proetctive model is what will identify that religious communities have certain thinking that is associated with that community in the first place. They may also identify that perhaps controlling mariages may happen in certain religions more for example. Your dismissing the mind behind those beliefs though. The point was it takes a different mind to believe in such destruction of self and others and society as opposed to the majority who do not think this way as evidence that they don't behave this way. We find that youth who commit crime the vast majority come from problem backgrounds, often with psychological issues and disadvantage. I have. I linked evdience showing that abusive parents have unreal expectations and beliefs. I linked evdience showing that the controlling mindset behind abuse and violence is linked to psychological distress. But its also logical. If abuse is destructive and we know it is due to the damage it does to children, to women and society then holding a belief in such destruction is irrational. Its irrational to believe that such a destructive belief in reality, not in the rationalisations of the abuser, but in reality how abuse actually permeates out onto children and society. To believe that this is actually good or not abuse is delusional. Its not recognising or seeing the actual destruction their behaviour is causing. Therefore the abusers thinking and beliefs have been distorted to the point where they detach their thinking from what is really going on. This was reflected in many of my links that speak about the unreal expectations, parents reading stuff into things that were not there like thinking their child was behaving worse than they really were. Percieving threat where there was none and as one link even said But I am not saying abuse is caused by any particular factor but rather a combination of factors that build towards abuse. In that way we do not attribute abuse to any particular belief, single risk factor or situation but take all into consideration as the the higher risk and liklihood that abuse is more likely to accur. Whereas your view is that only belief can tell us who is abusive and all other factors are irrelevant. Any idea that narrows behaviour down to one reason or cause should immediately be regarded as simplistic and narrow minded and misrepresenting the problem. The point was, how do we tell which beliefs lead to abuse if we can't tell that current beliefs which lead to abuse are happening. This shows that we cannot use subjective judgements about which beliefs are abusive. They don't have a good track record of proving themselves. I suggest the only way we can tell which beliefs are abusive is by grounding them in the thinking that breeds these beliefs. Its the only sure way to tell is the belief is irrational and likely to involve destructive or anti social behaviour. But saying that a persons belief in say hierarchies is abusive without any solid evidence grounded in facts is unreal and unfair. So for example you mean biological differences in behaviour or thinking or in feelings. Your saying you don't believe in these differences. Like say males are generally stronger and more powerful. Or males think more spacially in terms of things and females more socially in terms of people and relationships. That type of stuff. Why related specifically. All life experiences whether related to abuse or not can influence peoples psyche and behaviour. I have already given ample evidence for this. As far as specific biological ones we have plenty of evidence of neurological, hormonal and genetic influences and anomelies on propensity to abuse and be violent. Anxiety and depressive orders have a neurological and brain chemical basis. More generally males are more prone to violence partly due to higher testosterone. [B]The Neuroscience of Violence[/B] [I][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)]Violence, like all human behavior, is controlled by the brain. From everyday road rage to domestic violence to a suicide bombing, the biology of anger and [URL='https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/anger']aggression[/URL] is the root cause of most violent behavior. The circuits of aggression are part of the brain’s threat detection mechanism embedded deep in the unconscious region of the brain where sex, thirst, and feeding are also controlled. [URL="https://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/emotions-stress-and-anxiety/2016/the-neuroscience-of-violence"]The Neuroscience of Violence[/URL] [/COLOR][/I] I'm talking about the core beliefs of all religions. Your saying that they don't include some sort of revelation of a moral code. a divine source of life, a creative entity or aspect for life, and an afterlife or some sort of soul or spirituality. They may express these ideas in different ways, call these afterlife or gods different names and descriptions but they all have the same core idea as a creative being or power. Actually hunter gatherers were tribal, they formed smaller groups and were consumed by food to survive. If another group came and took their stuff they would be upset after all that hard work lol. I know I would, I am starving and just got back from a week long hunt to only get a small prey that may just keep the group from dying and then some outsider comes along and takes your food which could mean the difference between whether your family survives. It would not be good. If someone in the tribe ate all that food for themselves it would not go down well. Your conflating the exceptions as the rule. Just because we had changing beliefs about what counts as murder doesn't mean we did not have knowledge of what murder is when it happens. Your thinking because some aspects are relative that there is no knowledge that murder is objectively wrong sometimes or often. This doesn't negate that humans have knowledge that rape is wrong. A violation. All this is showing is that some denied this truth. God tells us that we all have knowledge of His laws through our conscience. When someone kills another even if justified or rationalised as justified when its not there is a deep imprint on the soul. We sense something very wrong just happened. Those in the past who raped and pilagged were acting on animal instinct gone wild. Their hearts were hardened as God says as theey reject God. But this does not negate that wronging another, doing to them what we don't want done to ourselves is something we all sense as part of being human. If we don't them there is some sort of problem, delusion, unrealness, denial going on which is in itself a fallen state of being which brings its own problems ie you reap what you sow. Live by the sword, die by the sword so to speak. No one is saying that. Its you who keep conflating things and make strawmen and red herrings. I say that hierarchies are a normal part of society, not the only part and you turn that into some meritocracy. I say that the risk factors and determinants are important to understanding abuse and you turn that into a witch hunts sterotyping people. Are you saying all people in positions of government are there because of their parents. Now your ideology is really slipping out. I just had a friend gain a position in local government who I worked with. He is highly skilled in community development, very socially orientated and has done his apprenticeship working with the community for years. In fact he was head hunted from our community centre by another local member who happens to have been in the Nursing field for years and also skilled in what she does, Many people working thoughout government are good hardworking people with knowledge and skill and are at least up there with others when it comes to the best. [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)][/COLOR] Often the leader is just the figure head and this involves marketing and public relations and all that. But I am sure he is quite capable and an intelligent man who has the ability to lead. Whether hes the best is not the point. He is of a certain clibre, within a certain standard we expect and not someone who doesn't know what they are doing. But the bigger point is if polititians or company CEO's or whoever are not up fgor the job, are not perceived to be capable or good enough we get rid of them for someone we think is better. Its the natural inclination that we seeks the best or better and competence generally and not idiots or imcompentents who we know will stuff everything up. Lol on that note I think I will try and recover from just praising Albernese who I don't like anyway lol. [/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