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: 77659320" data-attributes="member: 342064"><p>Your still thinking in either/or terms. Human thinking is a dynamic process, cognition, emotions, feelings and beliefs and the psyche operating more like an intwining dance. So each individuals mix will be different, though some basic thinking patterns, emotions and beliefs can be determined especially for negative affect and cognitive distortions.</p><p></p><p>So people can't have different psychological states and the same positive or negative beliefs as far as negative behaviour. Negative and distorted thinking goes with unreal beliefs whether in fairies or terrorism. Rational or realistic thinking will go with rational and realistic beliefs even if thats about God or diets.</p><p></p><p>The important point is that the beliefs are grounded in rational or irrational thinking and the result behaviour.</p><p></p><p>But when people say hierachies and certain fixed roles are abusive perse by the language they use it gets confusing and is misleading.</p><p></p><p>I know the ideology that wants to paint this picture. Its the same one that once said marriage itself was an absuive institution, that mascullinity is interently toxic, that whites are inherently racist. We need to be clear on whats actually abusive and not within such a biased social narrative at present.</p><p></p><p>Yes but the one ingredient that qualifies it as abuse is as you say <em>"still not believe they should enforce this with violence". </em>The belief in violence and abuse full stop. Add that ingredient to any human interaction, not just hierarchies or roles but business partnerships, and relationships in general wherever they may form even on a deserted island with no hierarchies, marriage institutions or societal institutions.</p><p></p><p>But take that ingredient away then all these situations are not violent abuse. Yet up until the point that someone chooses to control with violence everyone believes in the same institutional and societal setups of non violent and abusive control as its part of society. So basically people believe in the same ideas but some abuse that. The only different belief they have is the one about using violent control.</p><p></p><p>But they share the same beliefs in the basic idea of control in those situations. They just took advantage and exploited this.</p><p></p><p>Yes but its the same basic belief that children's behaviour should be controlled. In that sense we all share the same belief. The only destinction for the abusing parent is that they take this social norm and they add 'violence and abusive control' to the control we all agree is necessary.</p><p></p><p>So saying that belief in control itself is wrong. Its belief in violent and abusive control of what is normal control that is the problem. Some get all political that society cannot have a hint of anyone controlling others like its a virus to the point that we have allowed our children and society to become poorly behaved.</p><p></p><p>No I was arguing that belief alone is not how we understand behaviour. Belief is part of human cognition. Why would I be making many arguements about the stages of cognition leading up to belief. Why would I be arguing that cognitive distortions is what causes irrational beliefs if not including belief in the processes If I was arguing against belief being part of how humans behave.</p><p></p><p>Once again your now supporting my case that beliefs are more complex that just beliefs and involve cognitions, emotions, experiences ect. Its the mental state due to experiences is what colours the world for which beliefs are based on in the first place.</p><p></p><p>Its also personality, temperament, and others factors. That humans believe in metaphysical and transcedent ideas in the first place is based on natural cognitive states.</p><p></p><p>And we can see how beliefs can be unreal due to negative experiences. A person traumatised by an event depending on their consssitution and emotional ressilence will see the world distorted to varying degrees until they overcome the experience and in some ways will never and will carry some aspects that effect their views and beliefs about the world and others.</p><p></p><p>So scary, negative, oir at least percieved that way as some are more sensitive than others. But this will influence their perceptions and beliefs are based on perceptions. Unreal and distorted perceptions brred unreal and distorted beliefs about the world.</p><p></p><p>I thought I asked you a question first. I am not sure I have seen the answer because this may avert the need to show evidence as what I am saying is commonsense and accepted science.</p><p></p><p>Before I post evidence I will ask again. Do you think that human behaviour should be understood on a multilevel of individual, family, community and the wider society.</p><p></p><p>So doesn't that tell you something about their mindset, their psyche compared to others that don't accept and tolerate even promote destruction of others. I know that a kind and gentle heart and mind would not think this way. Someone who had the insight into themselves to see through this destructive view of the world.</p><p></p><p>But your faulty reasoning is causing you to think in either or terms that because non abusers experience risk factors the risk factors don't built to inappropriate behaviour like abuse or other negative behaviours.</p><p></p><p>People can experience the same risk factors where some due to protective factors don't go on to abuse. While others who don't have the protective factors (don't have insight and are unrealistic) can go onto abuse as the culminative effect builds towards unreal thinking to the point it effects behaviour.</p><p></p><p>Abuse is the culmination of risk factors minus any protective factors.</p><p></p><p>I just literally gave you several links stating that abuse is the result of the unreal expectations of the parent.</p><p></p><p>Ok so I have provided evidence for belief in 2 of the 3 core beliefs you are on about ie belief in hierarchies and rigid and fixed roles such as in Trad marriages or in chain of command and control such as institutions like the law and family and in society more generally.</p><p></p><p>As I keep repeating that just leaves the belief in violent control and abuse. But there is no such evidence for showing normal societal beliefs of violent control and abuse because the very language used leaves no ambiguity. Its definitely a belief in violence and abusing others. So its self evident in its language.</p><p></p><p>But the other two beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive and most people support these ideas, believe in them and are not abusive. So if someone believes in say a family hierarchy of control this is not automatically abusive. Yet it can be the same belief that abusers use to by then farcing things beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable.</p><p></p><p>So two of your cluster of beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive and can be actually health and beneficial. What would you say if someone said belief in hierarchies is healthy and should be promoted.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="stevevw, post: 77659320, member: 342064"] Your still thinking in either/or terms. Human thinking is a dynamic process, cognition, emotions, feelings and beliefs and the psyche operating more like an intwining dance. So each individuals mix will be different, though some basic thinking patterns, emotions and beliefs can be determined especially for negative affect and cognitive distortions. So people can't have different psychological states and the same positive or negative beliefs as far as negative behaviour. Negative and distorted thinking goes with unreal beliefs whether in fairies or terrorism. Rational or realistic thinking will go with rational and realistic beliefs even if thats about God or diets. The important point is that the beliefs are grounded in rational or irrational thinking and the result behaviour. But when people say hierachies and certain fixed roles are abusive perse by the language they use it gets confusing and is misleading. I know the ideology that wants to paint this picture. Its the same one that once said marriage itself was an absuive institution, that mascullinity is interently toxic, that whites are inherently racist. We need to be clear on whats actually abusive and not within such a biased social narrative at present. Yes but the one ingredient that qualifies it as abuse is as you say [I]"still not believe they should enforce this with violence". [/I]The belief in violence and abuse full stop. Add that ingredient to any human interaction, not just hierarchies or roles but business partnerships, and relationships in general wherever they may form even on a deserted island with no hierarchies, marriage institutions or societal institutions. But take that ingredient away then all these situations are not violent abuse. Yet up until the point that someone chooses to control with violence everyone believes in the same institutional and societal setups of non violent and abusive control as its part of society. So basically people believe in the same ideas but some abuse that. The only different belief they have is the one about using violent control. But they share the same beliefs in the basic idea of control in those situations. They just took advantage and exploited this. Yes but its the same basic belief that children's behaviour should be controlled. In that sense we all share the same belief. The only destinction for the abusing parent is that they take this social norm and they add 'violence and abusive control' to the control we all agree is necessary. So saying that belief in control itself is wrong. Its belief in violent and abusive control of what is normal control that is the problem. Some get all political that society cannot have a hint of anyone controlling others like its a virus to the point that we have allowed our children and society to become poorly behaved. No I was arguing that belief alone is not how we understand behaviour. Belief is part of human cognition. Why would I be making many arguements about the stages of cognition leading up to belief. Why would I be arguing that cognitive distortions is what causes irrational beliefs if not including belief in the processes If I was arguing against belief being part of how humans behave. Once again your now supporting my case that beliefs are more complex that just beliefs and involve cognitions, emotions, experiences ect. Its the mental state due to experiences is what colours the world for which beliefs are based on in the first place. Its also personality, temperament, and others factors. That humans believe in metaphysical and transcedent ideas in the first place is based on natural cognitive states. And we can see how beliefs can be unreal due to negative experiences. A person traumatised by an event depending on their consssitution and emotional ressilence will see the world distorted to varying degrees until they overcome the experience and in some ways will never and will carry some aspects that effect their views and beliefs about the world and others. So scary, negative, oir at least percieved that way as some are more sensitive than others. But this will influence their perceptions and beliefs are based on perceptions. Unreal and distorted perceptions brred unreal and distorted beliefs about the world. I thought I asked you a question first. I am not sure I have seen the answer because this may avert the need to show evidence as what I am saying is commonsense and accepted science. Before I post evidence I will ask again. Do you think that human behaviour should be understood on a multilevel of individual, family, community and the wider society. So doesn't that tell you something about their mindset, their psyche compared to others that don't accept and tolerate even promote destruction of others. I know that a kind and gentle heart and mind would not think this way. Someone who had the insight into themselves to see through this destructive view of the world. But your faulty reasoning is causing you to think in either or terms that because non abusers experience risk factors the risk factors don't built to inappropriate behaviour like abuse or other negative behaviours. People can experience the same risk factors where some due to protective factors don't go on to abuse. While others who don't have the protective factors (don't have insight and are unrealistic) can go onto abuse as the culminative effect builds towards unreal thinking to the point it effects behaviour. Abuse is the culmination of risk factors minus any protective factors. I just literally gave you several links stating that abuse is the result of the unreal expectations of the parent. Ok so I have provided evidence for belief in 2 of the 3 core beliefs you are on about ie belief in hierarchies and rigid and fixed roles such as in Trad marriages or in chain of command and control such as institutions like the law and family and in society more generally. As I keep repeating that just leaves the belief in violent control and abuse. But there is no such evidence for showing normal societal beliefs of violent control and abuse because the very language used leaves no ambiguity. Its definitely a belief in violence and abusing others. So its self evident in its language. But the other two beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive and most people support these ideas, believe in them and are not abusive. So if someone believes in say a family hierarchy of control this is not automatically abusive. Yet it can be the same belief that abusers use to by then farcing things beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable. So two of your cluster of beliefs are not inherently violent or abusive and can be actually health and beneficial. What would you say if someone said belief in hierarchies is healthy and should be promoted. [/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