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="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77656813" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>Yes, and in which measures of beliefs were highly relevant. </p><p></p><p>No, not really. All religious communities need to have their own discussions about how they receive traditions around things like power, hierarchy, authority, gender and familial roles, and so on. </p><p></p><p>No, I'm just refusing to assume that there is a one-size-fits-all mind behind holding particular beliefs. </p><p></p><p>There is no evidence for this claim. Any of us might form such beliefs, depending on the various experiences and influences we have. </p><p></p><p>Your evidence did not demonstrate that all abusers are irrational. You are taking a statistical correlation and applying it as an absolute, and inferring a causal relationship where none has been demonstrated. </p><p></p><p>Then suggesting that people who score highly on clinical scales of irrational beliefs are potential abusers seems misplaced. </p><p></p><p>Well, no. Observed behaviour tells us who is abusive. Beliefs tell us who is most likely to engage in those behaviours, since we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs. </p><p></p><p>By studying abusers and their beliefs. Your off-topic hobby horse is irrelevant, as it is not at all the same sort of behaviour.</p><p></p><p>Not at all. We tell which beliefs underpin abuse by observing which beliefs are held by the people who abuse. </p><p></p><p>I have never said that a person's belief is abusive. Behaviour is abusive, not beliefs. But behaviours arise out of beliefs, and we can study which beliefs are most likely to give rise to abusive behaviours. It turns out that valuing hierarchy and relationships of power and control is one of them. </p><p></p><p>I mean biological differences in our bodies. Sure, some people are bigger than others, stronger than others; women bear children and men don't, that kind of stuff. Sure. But I don't particularly believe in biologically determined differences in behaviour or thinking or feelings; I think that is mostly on the nurture side of the nature/nurture ledger. </p><p></p><p>Because otherwise it's far afield from the topic of this thread. </p><p></p><p>Correct. Not all religions hold these as core beliefs. </p><p></p><p>But the point is that they often did (do) not hold personal or private property within the small group. </p><p></p><p>No, I'm pointing out the holes in your claims. </p><p></p><p>Well, no, sorry, this doesn't wash. I don't agree that people who don't hold your particular view about something are just in denial about the truth. People do actually, really, hold different beliefs on these points. </p><p></p><p>I can't remember whether it was this thread or another one, but I'm sure we've discussed this point before. Our conscience develops and is formed through our experiences. It is not a perfect, infallible knowledge of divine morality. </p><p></p><p>You certainly seemed to be claiming that all differences in outcome were due to differences in either natural talent or hard work. Which is blatantly, demonstrably false. </p><p></p><p>No; but I'm saying that most people who are very prominent or successful have had significant privilege which has helped them obtain their prominence or success. I'm not saying they don't also work hard and demonstrate high commitment and talent, but that there are many other things besides that which help people get ahead. </p><p></p><p>If you want to claim that all social hierarchies are the natural outcome of the distribution of talent and hard work, then it kind of is the point. </p><p></p><p>I've seen plenty of fools and idiots in high positions, who are there for reasons other than merit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77656813, member: 386627"] Yes, and in which measures of beliefs were highly relevant. No, not really. All religious communities need to have their own discussions about how they receive traditions around things like power, hierarchy, authority, gender and familial roles, and so on. No, I'm just refusing to assume that there is a one-size-fits-all mind behind holding particular beliefs. There is no evidence for this claim. Any of us might form such beliefs, depending on the various experiences and influences we have. Your evidence did not demonstrate that all abusers are irrational. You are taking a statistical correlation and applying it as an absolute, and inferring a causal relationship where none has been demonstrated. Then suggesting that people who score highly on clinical scales of irrational beliefs are potential abusers seems misplaced. Well, no. Observed behaviour tells us who is abusive. Beliefs tell us who is most likely to engage in those behaviours, since we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs. By studying abusers and their beliefs. Your off-topic hobby horse is irrelevant, as it is not at all the same sort of behaviour. Not at all. We tell which beliefs underpin abuse by observing which beliefs are held by the people who abuse. I have never said that a person's belief is abusive. Behaviour is abusive, not beliefs. But behaviours arise out of beliefs, and we can study which beliefs are most likely to give rise to abusive behaviours. It turns out that valuing hierarchy and relationships of power and control is one of them. I mean biological differences in our bodies. Sure, some people are bigger than others, stronger than others; women bear children and men don't, that kind of stuff. Sure. But I don't particularly believe in biologically determined differences in behaviour or thinking or feelings; I think that is mostly on the nurture side of the nature/nurture ledger. Because otherwise it's far afield from the topic of this thread. Correct. Not all religions hold these as core beliefs. But the point is that they often did (do) not hold personal or private property within the small group. No, I'm pointing out the holes in your claims. Well, no, sorry, this doesn't wash. I don't agree that people who don't hold your particular view about something are just in denial about the truth. People do actually, really, hold different beliefs on these points. I can't remember whether it was this thread or another one, but I'm sure we've discussed this point before. Our conscience develops and is formed through our experiences. It is not a perfect, infallible knowledge of divine morality. You certainly seemed to be claiming that all differences in outcome were due to differences in either natural talent or hard work. Which is blatantly, demonstrably false. No; but I'm saying that most people who are very prominent or successful have had significant privilege which has helped them obtain their prominence or success. I'm not saying they don't also work hard and demonstrate high commitment and talent, but that there are many other things besides that which help people get ahead. If you want to claim that all social hierarchies are the natural outcome of the distribution of talent and hard work, then it kind of is the point. I've seen plenty of fools and idiots in high positions, who are there for reasons other than merit. [/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