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: 77657939" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>OK so what if they believe in Trad marriages or that males should only hold positions as priests or authority in certain positions. Are their beliefs abusive. </p><p></p><p>There has to be a degree of cognitive distortion because the belief is unreal, its distorting what is really going on. That is a common mindset with abusers in the literature that they "have unrealistic expectations of their child".</p><p></p><p>Firs your acknowledging what I have been saying that positive or negative experiences cause the beliefs. So if its negative beliefs about abusing then those experience must be negative from negative experiences which also effect the thinking. </p><p></p><p>Second anyone may form these unreal beliefs but not everyone has the ability to recognise this due to their better emotional maturity and not abuse. Some persist with the beliefs to the point they abuse. </p><p></p><p>Its not just stats. The articles also explained how an abusers mind works. What sort of thinking it takes to control and abuse and what causes people to think that way.</p><p></p><p>Its simple psychology and logic. An abuser cannot have the same thinking as a non abuser because if behaviour is linked to thinking and beliefs then logically the different behaviour means there is different beliefs and thinking behind the behaviour. We don't say a thief has the same mindset as a non thief. There is something different in the thinking that causes the different behaviour. </p><p></p><p>As the behaviour is negative, anti social and destructive as opposed to someone that behaves socially appropriate, positive and constructive. Its simple psychology. You are (behave) what you think and believe. </p><p></p><p>Then it logically follows that saying someone scores high on subjective scales of belief itself as potential abusers is misplaced. Except the clinical scales as opposed to subjective determinations is more accurate.</p><p></p><p>Remember the clinical scale is measuring 'Parental beliefs and attitudes' about how to parent their child. The beliefs or I should say the MIndset that holds the belief is directly linked to abuse. They give the clinical definition of the type of mindset that holds controlling and abusive beliefs about parenting which includes abusive and controlling behaviour.</p><p></p><p>To say that the most widely used clinical measure for parental beliefs does not include the beliefs underpinning the most important behaviours relating to parental behaviour and beliefs about their child is rediculous. </p><p></p><p>It only tells us who is abusive according to a belief, a subjective value judgement about what is abuse or not. Remember some societies completely ban CP and others like Australia don't. Who is right. How do we tell. What we think is acceptable such as 3 lights smacks on a padded bottom they say is abuse. </p><p></p><p>As I said right now within society there are beliefs that are causing abuse and violence and yet they are promoted to health and wellbeing law and policy. </p><p></p><p>Not really. Not unless its linked to the thinking. Its the cognitive distortions, unreal expectations that the belief is based on. Because the abusers thinking and perceptions of their child, the situation and the world is unreal they believe stuff thats unreal. </p><p></p><p>If you believed monsters were in your house and you refused to go in there while others thought this is unreal then your thinking, perhpas some bad experience you had about the house is causing the belief. But a rational person with insight will realise there no such thing as ghosts and see through this. </p><p></p><p>And if there is something different about their beliefs from the norm what exactly is it. If they both believe in CP or hierarchies how do we tell which one will be the potention abuser before they behave. </p><p></p><p>Like I said linking abuse to behaviour or beliefs doesn't explain why people abuse because others have the same beliefs and don't abuse. </p><p></p><p>But the same beliefs may be non abusive. There has to be more than that. That is why we need the risk factors and the clinical diagnosis. Otherwise your linking and condemning people who believe in the same ideas who are not abusive. </p><p></p><p>No it doesn't. Valuing or believing in hierarchies is not one of them. You have tp qualify that the belief is abusive and violent by linking it to abuse and violence. But the belief itself is not abusive. The belief is normal and natural. The abuser takes these natural beliefs and distorts it. This simplistic and narrow view is dangerous and unhelpful. </p><p></p><p>I have debated you on these lines before and from what I see your a hard social constructivist because whenever or whatever natural factors that are suggested you shoot them all down. You may pay token acknowledgement like you have just done. But if any evidence is given you deny it.</p><p></p><p>The fact is that brain sex hormones influence thinking between genders, this is a proven fact. Males are stronger and more agreesive naturally and thats why they have the vast majority of violence, crime, successful suicides, dangerous risks and end up in jail. This is also why they are more competitive and like to compete in work, sports, achievements just about everything.</p><p></p><p>Which ones are these. I cannot find any. </p><p></p><p>This is a non sequitor that because they held things in common they did not regard stealing as wrong. If it was held in common and someone took it for their own that it could not longer be held in common it would be recognised as wrong in some way. I am sure these people also had their own personal belongings like necklace or something senitimental that is someone took they would be unset. </p><p></p><p>No your creating a non sequitor again. Your saying that because people have different beliefs about say murder or rape or stealing that there is no such moral truth that murder, rape and stealing are wrong. </p><p></p><p>The differences in beliefs around what murder, rape and stealing doesn't mean that they are right. A terrorist or extremist can have a belief that raping women or stealing is ok against certain people or in certain situations. But the minute you rape, murder or steal from the extremist or to his immediate circle of friends and family they will react like its wrong. </p><p></p><p>We all have the moral sense that these things are wrong because of the simple fact we are humans who can empathise and we don't want that to happen to us. If we don't then we are either mentally ill or have denied these truths to the point our hearts are hardened. </p><p></p><p>Then tell me why do we impose Universal HUman Rights on everyone, all cultures. We recognise these rights as inalienable meaning they are are above cultural beliefs and any belief that is in contradiction is regarded as a breah of human rights. </p><p></p><p>That is how we held the Nazi's accountable when they claimed they were just following orders in gassing the Jews. We held these truths that taking an innocent life unjustly is a crime against humanity above any cultural belief or view. We did this because we recognised the universal truth of these rights as humans. </p><p></p><p>We are born with a natural sense of empathy, justice, kindness and fairness. We can lose touch with this in life but its in all humans. This has been verified scientifically througfh studies across different cultures. </p><p></p><p>No I have alwaaays maintained that behaviour is a complex combination of factors. I didn't even mention the biological aspects until now. But this is another area of influence. It is you who want to reduce everything down to one factor 'Belief'. </p><p></p><p>It is you who are denying the biological, natural influence, merit, hard work, individual talent and characteristics, risk and protective factors and the negative experiences which cause disordered thing and beliefs and simplying things into one unreal view of the world. </p><p></p><p>Like what. What are these "many other things". I think its more about ideology than reality. The truth is most ideologues who complain about priviledge and inequality complain about the successful and hard workers like they got there through disadvantaging others. Thats their mentality, their world view that all differences are the result of oppression.</p><p></p><p>I am losing count of the number of fallacies you come up with. Show me where I said that all social hierarchies are the result of natural outcomes. I have been painstakingly explaining this. A hierarchy is just a vessel, often natural or believed and supported due to the beneifs it brings (not the abuse). But a hierarchy being a vessel can be used to abuse, just like a car, a belt, a relationship ect. </p><p></p><p>Ok but there are qualifications, and competencies in place. Your personal beliefs that some people should not be in those positions doesn't negate the fact that we try to put people of competence in those positions because we regard and value having people knowing what they are doing in these positions as important. </p><p></p><p>You always refer to these outliers and exceptions as though they are the rule. If they were then society would be in chaos. It seems to me though there are problems we manage to run cities with millions of people fairly well. We could do better but then that would require better people which is what I am saying that we naturally want the best and most competent people running things.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77657939, member: 342064"] OK so what if they believe in Trad marriages or that males should only hold positions as priests or authority in certain positions. Are their beliefs abusive. There has to be a degree of cognitive distortion because the belief is unreal, its distorting what is really going on. That is a common mindset with abusers in the literature that they "have unrealistic expectations of their child". Firs your acknowledging what I have been saying that positive or negative experiences cause the beliefs. So if its negative beliefs about abusing then those experience must be negative from negative experiences which also effect the thinking. Second anyone may form these unreal beliefs but not everyone has the ability to recognise this due to their better emotional maturity and not abuse. Some persist with the beliefs to the point they abuse. Its not just stats. The articles also explained how an abusers mind works. What sort of thinking it takes to control and abuse and what causes people to think that way. Its simple psychology and logic. An abuser cannot have the same thinking as a non abuser because if behaviour is linked to thinking and beliefs then logically the different behaviour means there is different beliefs and thinking behind the behaviour. We don't say a thief has the same mindset as a non thief. There is something different in the thinking that causes the different behaviour. As the behaviour is negative, anti social and destructive as opposed to someone that behaves socially appropriate, positive and constructive. Its simple psychology. You are (behave) what you think and believe. Then it logically follows that saying someone scores high on subjective scales of belief itself as potential abusers is misplaced. Except the clinical scales as opposed to subjective determinations is more accurate. Remember the clinical scale is measuring 'Parental beliefs and attitudes' about how to parent their child. The beliefs or I should say the MIndset that holds the belief is directly linked to abuse. They give the clinical definition of the type of mindset that holds controlling and abusive beliefs about parenting which includes abusive and controlling behaviour. To say that the most widely used clinical measure for parental beliefs does not include the beliefs underpinning the most important behaviours relating to parental behaviour and beliefs about their child is rediculous. It only tells us who is abusive according to a belief, a subjective value judgement about what is abuse or not. Remember some societies completely ban CP and others like Australia don't. Who is right. How do we tell. What we think is acceptable such as 3 lights smacks on a padded bottom they say is abuse. As I said right now within society there are beliefs that are causing abuse and violence and yet they are promoted to health and wellbeing law and policy. Not really. Not unless its linked to the thinking. Its the cognitive distortions, unreal expectations that the belief is based on. Because the abusers thinking and perceptions of their child, the situation and the world is unreal they believe stuff thats unreal. If you believed monsters were in your house and you refused to go in there while others thought this is unreal then your thinking, perhpas some bad experience you had about the house is causing the belief. But a rational person with insight will realise there no such thing as ghosts and see through this. And if there is something different about their beliefs from the norm what exactly is it. If they both believe in CP or hierarchies how do we tell which one will be the potention abuser before they behave. Like I said linking abuse to behaviour or beliefs doesn't explain why people abuse because others have the same beliefs and don't abuse. But the same beliefs may be non abusive. There has to be more than that. That is why we need the risk factors and the clinical diagnosis. Otherwise your linking and condemning people who believe in the same ideas who are not abusive. No it doesn't. Valuing or believing in hierarchies is not one of them. You have tp qualify that the belief is abusive and violent by linking it to abuse and violence. But the belief itself is not abusive. The belief is normal and natural. The abuser takes these natural beliefs and distorts it. This simplistic and narrow view is dangerous and unhelpful. I have debated you on these lines before and from what I see your a hard social constructivist because whenever or whatever natural factors that are suggested you shoot them all down. You may pay token acknowledgement like you have just done. But if any evidence is given you deny it. The fact is that brain sex hormones influence thinking between genders, this is a proven fact. Males are stronger and more agreesive naturally and thats why they have the vast majority of violence, crime, successful suicides, dangerous risks and end up in jail. This is also why they are more competitive and like to compete in work, sports, achievements just about everything. Which ones are these. I cannot find any. This is a non sequitor that because they held things in common they did not regard stealing as wrong. If it was held in common and someone took it for their own that it could not longer be held in common it would be recognised as wrong in some way. I am sure these people also had their own personal belongings like necklace or something senitimental that is someone took they would be unset. No your creating a non sequitor again. Your saying that because people have different beliefs about say murder or rape or stealing that there is no such moral truth that murder, rape and stealing are wrong. The differences in beliefs around what murder, rape and stealing doesn't mean that they are right. A terrorist or extremist can have a belief that raping women or stealing is ok against certain people or in certain situations. But the minute you rape, murder or steal from the extremist or to his immediate circle of friends and family they will react like its wrong. We all have the moral sense that these things are wrong because of the simple fact we are humans who can empathise and we don't want that to happen to us. If we don't then we are either mentally ill or have denied these truths to the point our hearts are hardened. Then tell me why do we impose Universal HUman Rights on everyone, all cultures. We recognise these rights as inalienable meaning they are are above cultural beliefs and any belief that is in contradiction is regarded as a breah of human rights. That is how we held the Nazi's accountable when they claimed they were just following orders in gassing the Jews. We held these truths that taking an innocent life unjustly is a crime against humanity above any cultural belief or view. We did this because we recognised the universal truth of these rights as humans. We are born with a natural sense of empathy, justice, kindness and fairness. We can lose touch with this in life but its in all humans. This has been verified scientifically througfh studies across different cultures. No I have alwaaays maintained that behaviour is a complex combination of factors. I didn't even mention the biological aspects until now. But this is another area of influence. It is you who want to reduce everything down to one factor 'Belief'. It is you who are denying the biological, natural influence, merit, hard work, individual talent and characteristics, risk and protective factors and the negative experiences which cause disordered thing and beliefs and simplying things into one unreal view of the world. Like what. What are these "many other things". I think its more about ideology than reality. The truth is most ideologues who complain about priviledge and inequality complain about the successful and hard workers like they got there through disadvantaging others. Thats their mentality, their world view that all differences are the result of oppression. I am losing count of the number of fallacies you come up with. Show me where I said that all social hierarchies are the result of natural outcomes. I have been painstakingly explaining this. A hierarchy is just a vessel, often natural or believed and supported due to the beneifs it brings (not the abuse). But a hierarchy being a vessel can be used to abuse, just like a car, a belt, a relationship ect. Ok but there are qualifications, and competencies in place. Your personal beliefs that some people should not be in those positions doesn't negate the fact that we try to put people of competence in those positions because we regard and value having people knowing what they are doing in these positions as important. You always refer to these outliers and exceptions as though they are the rule. If they were then society would be in chaos. It seems to me though there are problems we manage to run cities with millions of people fairly well. We could do better but then that would require better people which is what I am saying that we naturally want the best and most competent people running things. [/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