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: 77657054" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>I can understand accepting violence in parents as an abusive belief and parenting but I disgree with the others. For example a parental hierarchal structure with the parents in control over the child rather than the other way around is regarded as a healthy and necessary setup for parents. </p><p></p><p><em><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)">The hierarchy that exists within a family serves as one of the essential building blocks that helps to build the foundation upon which a family is constructed. With a strong foundation that has distinct boundaries between the hierarchical levels, the family can be a stable force with a strong edifice. But, </span><span style="color: rgb(44, 130, 201)"><strong>without clear boundaries and with a weak hierarchical structure, the family unit can crumble and collapse under the pressure of the diffuse boundaries. </strong></span><span style="color: rgb(84, 172, 210)"> </span></em></p><p><a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_280-1" target="_blank">Hierarchy in Family Systems Theory</a> </p><p></p><p>But we don't do it like your saying. The first go to model for understanding behaviour and the beliefs and thinking behind it is the eteological model with is a multilevel view of individual, family, community and the wider societal determinants that influence behaviour. </p><p></p><p>We don't just look at belief. It doesn't tell us anything apart for its a negative belief. It doesn't tell us how people come to believe in these things which is vital to understanding the issues. This can only be done with risk factors or determinants of behaviour. </p><p></p><p>I think we do as parents can hold the same beliefs and not have irrational thinking and not abuse ie both parents hold the belief in CP but one abuses and one doesn't. </p><p></p><p>The abuser distorts the legal restrictions believing that what they are doing is good for the child when in fact its destructive. They are in denial, percieving things as unrealistic. To be seeing things unrealitically requires cognitive distorted thinking and that requires some psychological problem going on ie over anxious making things worse than they really are. </p><p></p><p>Well the evidence clearly contradicts this. Abuse happens in the vast majority of the time where risk factors have gathered. People can hold the same beliefs without the risk factors and not abuse. </p><p></p><p>If the beliefs are about the mindset and psyche then you must agree that the mindset and psyche of abusers is distorted to believe such things. They go hand in hand. </p><p></p><p></p><p>But if they are driven by social norms which everyone follows then how is this abusive. There are no such social norms as abusive CP is acceptable. There is however a norm that we should discipline our kids and CP is part of that. So actual belief of the abuser is taking the social norm and distorting it. </p><p></p><p>So if society has the same norms and abusers are distorting these we cannot say its the norms themselves but rather we can determine abusers by the distortions they make about the norms and acceptable and normal beliefs society holds. </p><p></p><p>Thats why I keep reminding you that it is not good to single out hierarchies or certain setups as abusive themselves but rather qualify things by naming exactly what they are "abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles or whatever the situation is like relationship, marriage ect. </p><p></p><p>Otherwise when you say the structure of a hierarchy is inherently abusive your being misleading because they can also be beneficial and healthy. Its like attributing positive and negative behaviours to a car. The car is just the structure and has no 'will' to abuse. These structures only become a weapon or tool of abuse or of benefit by the humans that occupy them.</p><p></p><p>Yes and we do that, we have internal checks and balances to reduce abuse of power or abuse fullstop like anti descrimination laws. In fact DEI law and policy has become an industry in itself and we have become hyper vigelant regarding equality even to the point of reverse desrimination with affirmative action. </p><p></p><p>But I am saying the systems and setups that we do these checks on are already hierarchal and they are not abusive in themselves but rather a necessary setup to exist and function as a society and even give everyone some sense of who they are and where they fit in to society so they can participate with rights. </p><p></p><p>I think this is the biggest issue facing society today. The determination of what is harm or not and the complex problem of balancing the many conflicting rights of identity politics. One groups rights is another groups abuse. Like I said determining which beliefs are best is not so straight forward. </p><p></p><p>I am not talking about every micro situation. I am talking about the basic idea of a society have law and order which means giving a trained set of law enforcers certain powers. It means giving the department powers. Not just police but also polititians. health professionals, people working in vital industries that run society. </p><p></p><p>But the police have the most power. So what other way but law and order can we run a society. The Woke want to defund the police but are the first to call them when in trouble. Should we have stress vigelantes or maybe turn a blind eye and let people run wild. NOt sure what these many options are.</p><p></p><p>Totalitarianism basically takes peoples rights away, opportunities away. Basically most totalitarian nations the people live in poverty and are oppressed. Some more than others like certain political or religious beliefs. Thats sort of happening in western nations today. </p><p></p><p>I mean apart from the obvious I think this is impossible because much of the differences in power and control are just a natural consequence. If we start policing nortmal behaviour which is sort of happening now then this is only going to make matters worse by dividing people are making then resentful towards each other. </p><p></p><p>Well actually my main basis for supporting hierarchies as not inherently abusive is the general use of hierarchies, hierarchies as a concept and not in any particular example. If anything I have focused on society itself, hierarchies in organisations, Insitutions to help society function. Or in social settings in how we generally rank others in hierarchies of competence.</p><p></p><p>What hierarchies in marriages. </p><p></p><p>Its not about being heard but about engaging in debate, arguing against evidence with evidence rather than just making unsupported claims. Its hard to even have a debate if there is no way to determine facts from personal opinion or beliefs. </p><p></p><p>I have forgotten how many times you have just skipped over evidence I have linked, without a word about them. I mean whats the use of even providing evidence if its ignored. </p><p></p><p>No we don't. Acceptence of hierarchies is not violence or abusive. Acceptence of rigid roles is not inherently violent or abusive. You keep conflating these neutral setups as abusive when they can also be normal, beneficial and healtthy. I have given you the evidence. </p><p></p><p>LIke I said acceptence of violence and abusive control, power and rigid roles yes as it qualifies that its abusive. But hierarchies and even rigid roles as in chain of command and organisations is not violence or abusive.</p><p></p><p>Therefore beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles like CP is not inherently abusive if it doesn't meet the legal definition of abuse.</p><p></p><p>That is not a sign of abuse. All parents see the need to control their childs behaviour, to point out the misbehaviour and discipline when necessary to teach a child to be a responsible adult. </p><p></p><p>The authoritarian styleparenting is also not abusive. I mean this was one of the accepted parenting methods on that parenting show so its obviously a recommended alternative and successful form of parenting. Like anything its the management and maturity of the parents to use these methods properly. You can even make a case that non disciplinary method is abusive in that it causes poor behaviour and problems. </p><p></p><p>No they havn't as we have seen the line between what is abuse or not is blurred. You were even arguing that abusers have a rational basis for their beliefs. I have just shown that the difference between someone who believes in CP and doesn't abuse and someone who does have similar beliefs in CP. Its just a matter of distorting the same belief. </p><p></p><p>I have also said that there are current examples of beliefs which are abusive which are being promoted right now in policy which shows as a society we are incapable of identifying potential beliefs that will lead to abuse and violence. I have also shown that beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles or Trad marriages which may have rigid roles are not inherently abusive. So the same beliefs about the same things can be both abusive and not abusive. Theres not clear stock standard determination of the core belief itself as to be abusive or not. </p><p></p><p>You asked for natural beliefs in hierarchies. If people naturally behave in ways that promote and support hierarchies then they believe in them. Otherwise they would not behave that way. </p><p></p><p>What did you mean then. </p><p></p><p>BUt that is what most hierarchies are, thats how they are formed based on differences in competence, accomplishments and being successful. Successful people occupy the top of the hierarchy and they accumulate advantages over others. </p><p></p><p>These differences in competencies is how we structure society, our institutions, systems of law, health education into hierarchies of competence. This helps make things run smoothly but also ensures effeciency and sorting out problems better and quicker and not ending up in chaos. </p><p></p><p>OK I thought prevention, well at least your article on prevention was talking about prevention as in equalizing society. By equalizing society we reduce the imbalances where some rise above others which presents opportunities for people to take advantage and control and abuse others. </p><p></p><p>Therefore womens rights, improvements in % of work, equal pay, gender, race and sex equality, improving the power of the disempowered such as the disadvantaged so they have more say, more control over their lives and are not in a position where they are subject to others, to the law, the system. </p><p></p><p>I mean we know when abuse happens, we know the end result but the idea is to nip it in the bud before it develops into abuse. So prevention is about equalizing society, changing beliefs that deny the equalization of society regardless of differences. Restructuring society where those situations of inequality and more equalled out including the insitutions and systems within.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77657054, member: 342064"] I can understand accepting violence in parents as an abusive belief and parenting but I disgree with the others. For example a parental hierarchal structure with the parents in control over the child rather than the other way around is regarded as a healthy and necessary setup for parents. [I][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)]The hierarchy that exists within a family serves as one of the essential building blocks that helps to build the foundation upon which a family is constructed. With a strong foundation that has distinct boundaries between the hierarchical levels, the family can be a stable force with a strong edifice. But, [/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(44, 130, 201)][B]without clear boundaries and with a weak hierarchical structure, the family unit can crumble and collapse under the pressure of the diffuse boundaries. [/B][/COLOR][COLOR=rgb(84, 172, 210)] [/COLOR][/I] [URL="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_280-1"]Hierarchy in Family Systems Theory[/URL] But we don't do it like your saying. The first go to model for understanding behaviour and the beliefs and thinking behind it is the eteological model with is a multilevel view of individual, family, community and the wider societal determinants that influence behaviour. We don't just look at belief. It doesn't tell us anything apart for its a negative belief. It doesn't tell us how people come to believe in these things which is vital to understanding the issues. This can only be done with risk factors or determinants of behaviour. I think we do as parents can hold the same beliefs and not have irrational thinking and not abuse ie both parents hold the belief in CP but one abuses and one doesn't. The abuser distorts the legal restrictions believing that what they are doing is good for the child when in fact its destructive. They are in denial, percieving things as unrealistic. To be seeing things unrealitically requires cognitive distorted thinking and that requires some psychological problem going on ie over anxious making things worse than they really are. Well the evidence clearly contradicts this. Abuse happens in the vast majority of the time where risk factors have gathered. People can hold the same beliefs without the risk factors and not abuse. If the beliefs are about the mindset and psyche then you must agree that the mindset and psyche of abusers is distorted to believe such things. They go hand in hand. But if they are driven by social norms which everyone follows then how is this abusive. There are no such social norms as abusive CP is acceptable. There is however a norm that we should discipline our kids and CP is part of that. So actual belief of the abuser is taking the social norm and distorting it. So if society has the same norms and abusers are distorting these we cannot say its the norms themselves but rather we can determine abusers by the distortions they make about the norms and acceptable and normal beliefs society holds. Thats why I keep reminding you that it is not good to single out hierarchies or certain setups as abusive themselves but rather qualify things by naming exactly what they are "abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles or whatever the situation is like relationship, marriage ect. Otherwise when you say the structure of a hierarchy is inherently abusive your being misleading because they can also be beneficial and healthy. Its like attributing positive and negative behaviours to a car. The car is just the structure and has no 'will' to abuse. These structures only become a weapon or tool of abuse or of benefit by the humans that occupy them. Yes and we do that, we have internal checks and balances to reduce abuse of power or abuse fullstop like anti descrimination laws. In fact DEI law and policy has become an industry in itself and we have become hyper vigelant regarding equality even to the point of reverse desrimination with affirmative action. But I am saying the systems and setups that we do these checks on are already hierarchal and they are not abusive in themselves but rather a necessary setup to exist and function as a society and even give everyone some sense of who they are and where they fit in to society so they can participate with rights. I think this is the biggest issue facing society today. The determination of what is harm or not and the complex problem of balancing the many conflicting rights of identity politics. One groups rights is another groups abuse. Like I said determining which beliefs are best is not so straight forward. I am not talking about every micro situation. I am talking about the basic idea of a society have law and order which means giving a trained set of law enforcers certain powers. It means giving the department powers. Not just police but also polititians. health professionals, people working in vital industries that run society. But the police have the most power. So what other way but law and order can we run a society. The Woke want to defund the police but are the first to call them when in trouble. Should we have stress vigelantes or maybe turn a blind eye and let people run wild. NOt sure what these many options are. Totalitarianism basically takes peoples rights away, opportunities away. Basically most totalitarian nations the people live in poverty and are oppressed. Some more than others like certain political or religious beliefs. Thats sort of happening in western nations today. I mean apart from the obvious I think this is impossible because much of the differences in power and control are just a natural consequence. If we start policing nortmal behaviour which is sort of happening now then this is only going to make matters worse by dividing people are making then resentful towards each other. Well actually my main basis for supporting hierarchies as not inherently abusive is the general use of hierarchies, hierarchies as a concept and not in any particular example. If anything I have focused on society itself, hierarchies in organisations, Insitutions to help society function. Or in social settings in how we generally rank others in hierarchies of competence. What hierarchies in marriages. Its not about being heard but about engaging in debate, arguing against evidence with evidence rather than just making unsupported claims. Its hard to even have a debate if there is no way to determine facts from personal opinion or beliefs. I have forgotten how many times you have just skipped over evidence I have linked, without a word about them. I mean whats the use of even providing evidence if its ignored. No we don't. Acceptence of hierarchies is not violence or abusive. Acceptence of rigid roles is not inherently violent or abusive. You keep conflating these neutral setups as abusive when they can also be normal, beneficial and healtthy. I have given you the evidence. LIke I said acceptence of violence and abusive control, power and rigid roles yes as it qualifies that its abusive. But hierarchies and even rigid roles as in chain of command and organisations is not violence or abusive. Therefore beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles like CP is not inherently abusive if it doesn't meet the legal definition of abuse. That is not a sign of abuse. All parents see the need to control their childs behaviour, to point out the misbehaviour and discipline when necessary to teach a child to be a responsible adult. The authoritarian styleparenting is also not abusive. I mean this was one of the accepted parenting methods on that parenting show so its obviously a recommended alternative and successful form of parenting. Like anything its the management and maturity of the parents to use these methods properly. You can even make a case that non disciplinary method is abusive in that it causes poor behaviour and problems. No they havn't as we have seen the line between what is abuse or not is blurred. You were even arguing that abusers have a rational basis for their beliefs. I have just shown that the difference between someone who believes in CP and doesn't abuse and someone who does have similar beliefs in CP. Its just a matter of distorting the same belief. I have also said that there are current examples of beliefs which are abusive which are being promoted right now in policy which shows as a society we are incapable of identifying potential beliefs that will lead to abuse and violence. I have also shown that beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles or Trad marriages which may have rigid roles are not inherently abusive. So the same beliefs about the same things can be both abusive and not abusive. Theres not clear stock standard determination of the core belief itself as to be abusive or not. You asked for natural beliefs in hierarchies. If people naturally behave in ways that promote and support hierarchies then they believe in them. Otherwise they would not behave that way. What did you mean then. BUt that is what most hierarchies are, thats how they are formed based on differences in competence, accomplishments and being successful. Successful people occupy the top of the hierarchy and they accumulate advantages over others. These differences in competencies is how we structure society, our institutions, systems of law, health education into hierarchies of competence. This helps make things run smoothly but also ensures effeciency and sorting out problems better and quicker and not ending up in chaos. OK I thought prevention, well at least your article on prevention was talking about prevention as in equalizing society. By equalizing society we reduce the imbalances where some rise above others which presents opportunities for people to take advantage and control and abuse others. Therefore womens rights, improvements in % of work, equal pay, gender, race and sex equality, improving the power of the disempowered such as the disadvantaged so they have more say, more control over their lives and are not in a position where they are subject to others, to the law, the system. I mean we know when abuse happens, we know the end result but the idea is to nip it in the bud before it develops into abuse. So prevention is about equalizing society, changing beliefs that deny the equalization of society regardless of differences. Restructuring society where those situations of inequality and more equalled out including the insitutions and systems within. [/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