Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[The Liturgist]

I did post evidence so you must have either missed it or ignored it. Not all parents get out of control. It may be they are not thinking straight as well.

Child-abusing women also lack self-esteem and strength of will (termed “poor ego strength” by psychologists). They are more likely to be guided by their environment than by their own intentions (referred to as “greater external locus of control”). They are more depressed, feel rejecting of their children more often, withdraw from them often, use anger to control them, and, in general, show less affection toward them.20) Effects of Family Structure on Child Abuse [Marripedia]

Sometimes parents use corporal punishment because they're frustrated with children's behaviour and they struggle to control their own emotions and behaviour.
Corporal punishment including smacking: what you need to know.

Because your emotions create a physical response within your mind and your feelings are conscious, they can impact your behavior. In some cases, people believe behaviors are justified because of the intensity of their emotions. They may struggle to understand that behavior is a choice that does not have to follow an emotion.

If you allow your emotions to control your behavior, you may believe you're "running on autopilot" or making choices you regret later. Because your feelings are based on your perception of certain events, they can lead you astray. Your emotions are real, but your feelings are based on your perception of the situation. For that reason, your feelings could be misplaced. You may perceive a situation opposite to what it is, which could lead to feelings that don't match. Some people may struggle to label their emotions, causing a sense of loss of control.
https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/behavior/behaviors-emotions-and-feelings-how-they-work-together/

Anger explosions – some people have very little control over their anger and tend to explode in rages. Raging anger may lead to physical abuse or violence. Some people who fly into rages have low self-esteem, and use their anger as a way to manipulate others and feel powerful. Bottled anger often turns into depression and anxiety. Some people vent their bottled anger at innocent parties, such as children or pets.
Anger - how it affects people

A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills. Parents who are more likely to maltreat their children have these traits in common: difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed (having a hard time restraining behaviors like yelling, hitting, and throwing when they are upset)

Understanding the Risk Factors of Parental Child Maltreatment: Exploring Emotion Regulation — Curious Neuron

Discover the reasons behind parental child maltreatment and explore the role of emotion regulation deficits. Learn about the common traits that put parents at risk and find out how mindfulness can help prevent child maltreatment. Gain valuable insights and strategies to support at-risk parents in cr

www.curiousneuron.com

Enh, I have to say I agree with @Paidiske on this (as I usually do concerning issues relating to abuse and safeguarding of vulnerable people).

 

[Larniavc]

Jodi Hildebrand on the other hand made a statement which was superficially remorseful, but unlike Ruby Franke, managed via syntactic sleight of hand to not acrually take accountability for the abuse, which disturbingly, according to the prosecution, she continues to blame on the children, which is sick.

Yeah, she’s a wrong ‘un no doubt and should be punished accordingly.

 

[stevevw]

Of course you can. Ethics doesn't have to rest on "objective morals."

What else can ethics rest on.

I would argue that it is irrational in that there is no basis for thinking they are of "less value."

But that is not comparable to decisions about how to discipline children. Pretty much everyone agrees that we need to discipline children; the disagreement is about the methods.

I would argue the same for abusing a child. Sure extermination of Jews is the ultimate abuse but assaulting a child and breaking limbs or burning them has no basis and pretty much everyone agrees thats not ok.

Exactly. It's a choice.

It would vary as to what extent the parents thinking and choices are compromised and deminished. Some may cope or be more resilent thatn others in the same situation. Some may not have been capable in the moment but could have taken responsibility leading up to that when they were not so compromised. Each time someone avoids facing reality their problems compound and they can become more compromised..

Belief may be subjective, but that doesn't put it beyond scrutiny.

I agree and I think this is the key to understanding why people believe what they believe, why they would believe in counter intuitive ideas. So we can ground belief in some real situations may cause people to hold negative beliefs. For example they feel threatened, are paranoid, are resentful about something or have a psychological need to control.

Except that there is no evidence for this. Yes, there are various influences on people's beliefs. But the difference between abusive and non-abusive parents in otherwise comparable situations, is that the abusive parents hold attitudes and beliefs which justify the abuse.

As I mentioned I disagree as with the evidence I linked showing that good people can end up not coping, lashing out, becoming emotionally dysregulated and agressive. Their minds and emotions are in conflict so how their belief has not come into the picture as its one of confusion and hightened feelings. Its a Fight and Flight instinct gone out of whack. Its the emotion that is driving them not their belief.

In fact its their emotional and psychological state that causes them to be volnurable to unreal beliefs. They feel anxious, angry and fearful and want to control things. So they makes them more open to believe controlling behaviour will protect them and keep them in control.

The point is, people who are abusive are not necessarily being "irrational" in their decision to abuse. They're not acting that way because (for example) intense emotion has overwhelmed their reason. They have made deliberate decisions about their parenting in light of their beliefs about what is good and necessary in parenting.

I disagree that for some it is exactly this way. They are thinking irrationally and are being driven by intense feelings that distort their thinking as per the evidence linked.

Sure. But what tends to underpin abuse is a cluster of attitudes condoning violence, insisting on hierarchy and control, and rigid roles. Without that belief in hierarchy and control people are less likely to feel entitled to abuse, to control another (whether violently or otherwise).

People can believe in a hiearchy and not be abusive or controlling. Its the individual or group of people that commit the abuse and controlling to benefit themselves and deny ot harm others.

Well, it depends on context. In the workplace, hierarchy might be neutral. In parenting it's necessary. In, for example, marriage, I don't believe it's ever healthy. But yes, when we're talking about physical abuse it tends to be both; the hierarchy and the acceptance of violence together.

Its not the hiearchy itself though. The hiearchy is just a structure and a structure itself has no intentions or ability to abuse. Its the people in the structure that do the abusing and taking advantage of. A couple could choose a traditional setup so long as they both voluntarily agree to be that way then its not abusive or controlling.

How a person forms their beliefs is complex. But all I'm arguing for is getting to the point where we recognise that abuse is driven by the abusers' attitudes and beliefs; not their life circumstances. Nobody abuses because he is poor, or because she is a single mother, or because he is anxious.

I disagree and as I keep pointing out that belief is one of a number of factors that lead to someone being abusive and violent. So I agree that belief and attitudes drive people to be violent and abuse but I cannot agree that its the only factor.

You also keep repeating the misrepresentation of the Risk fcator model by taking each risk factor in isolation when they work in combination to build to an increased risk of abuse and violence. Until you can get this right you will keep misunderstanding why people abuse.

Well, and more to the point, we need to deliberately form a culture in which the opposite beliefs are nurtured.

Yes, so as you can see just as by promoting supportive networks, gentle and caring relationships, respect, empathy and love can cultivate social capital the promotion of the opposite negative situations such as broken relationships, unsupported families and communities, disrespect and social chaos will cultivate abuse and violence.

I disagree. I would say he always believed that pushing his friend was an acceptable way to cope with his distress. Perhaps his friend just hasn't seen it because he hasn't been that distressed. But people who truly don't believe it's acceptable, don't lash out at others, even when distressed.

As I said this guy was a good natured guy, it wasn't a show. Usually if a person harbours violence and abusive beliefs it will come out in other ways such as their personality, relationships or lack thereof because abusers and controllers usually don't have many friends because they are too controlling.

No this guy was just a genuine good and gentle guy who snapped one day. His emotions got the better of hime. He reacted instead of thinking first and responding.

Exactly the point I was making. The difference between healthy discipline and abuse depends on the value system used to evaluate it.

Yeah but weren't you just saying we cannot tell the difference between a terrorist act and a justified war. This related back to your claim that those who commit obvious abuse and violence are rational in believing they are justified. I said this logic should apply to terrorist so terrorism would be rational.

But if as you acknowledge we can evaluate the two acts and determine that one is clearly damaging human wellbeing then we can say these people who believe that obvious abuse like breaking a childs ribs, or glassing someone in a pub are just mistaken and in fact deluded if they want to say its perfectly rational to behave like that.

And yet some people do use an actual rod and beat kids until they're damaged. Please acknowledge reality enough to not deny that basic fact.

I did not realize some people use an actual shephards rod to beat kids. I thought they used like a paddle or spoon or a stick but not an actual rod.

And a paddle board or a wooden spoon still meet the definition of physical abuse.

Yes in Australia but I think some other countries still have CP in schools for example or allow an implement.

I didn't say they were justified. I said they weren't necessarily irrational. As in, the person with these attitudes may have a completely coherent, logical belief structure and act in a way which is consistent with their beliefs.

I'm still trying to work out how an obvious damage to another let alone a child is classed as a rational belief. To the individual it may be but not to general society, not to the common social norms that tell us its not the right way to think or act when it comes to kids.

We tell the difference by having an agreed standard of abuse, set at a level which has been demonstrated to be harmful (which we do). That is the basis on which we can begin to challenge beliefs which justify abuse, by demonstrating the harm done.

But I have been arguing that believing obvious abuse is ok is a delusion and its a delusion because it denies the "agreed standard of abuse, set at a level which has been demonstrated to be harmful". You keep saying that these poeople are rational and we cannot tell they are irrational.

I can see theres a scenario you have mjade. I like scenarios but I will answer this seperately as I may need to think about it.

 

[stevevw]

Enh, I have to say I agree with @Paidiske on this (as I usually do concerning issues relating to abuse and safeguarding of vulnerable people).

I am not sure what your agreeing to with Paidiske on. I am all for safeguarding volnurable kids. Thats why I am spending a lot of time investigating this, unpacking it to better understand whats going on. If we can't understand the problem then we can't prevent it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yeah, she’s a wrong ‘un no doubt and should be punished accordingly.

Indeed so. By the way I like your kitties.

 

[Paidiske]

What else can ethics rest on.

I'm not turning this into an essay on different approaches to ethics. Grab a text book and do some reading if you're interested.

It would vary as to what extent the parents thinking and choices are compromised and deminished. Some may cope or be more resilent thatn others in the same situation. Some may not have been capable in the moment but could have taken responsibility leading up to that when they were not so compromised. Each time someone avoids facing reality their problems compound and they can become more compromised..

Again, you have not provided evidence that people who physically abuse their children are so cognitively compromised as to not be morally culpable.

As I mentioned I disagree as with the evidence I linked showing that good people can end up not coping, lashing out, becoming emotionally dysregulated and agressive. Their minds and emotions are in conflict so how their belief has not come into the picture as its one of confusion and hightened feelings. Its a Fight and Flight instinct gone out of whack. Its the emotion that is driving them not their belief.

You have not provided evidence that this is driving the physical abuse of children. And since it matches neither with my experience nor the research I'm aware of, I find your argument quite unconvincing.

I disagree that for some it is exactly this way. They are thinking irrationally and are being driven by intense feelings that distort their thinking as per the evidence linked.

What you've linked does not support your assertion.

People can believe in a hiearchy and not be abusive or controlling.

Depends what you mean by hierarchy. If you mean, the person higher up the hierarchy gets to control the person or people lower down the hierarchy, that's where the problems come in.

The hiearchy is just a structure and a structure itself has no intentions or ability to abuse.

If the hierarchy is a structure which intentionally limits the agency of some, putting them under the control of others, I'd argue that if it's not inherently abusive, it's certainly highly prone to developing abusive situations.

A couple could choose a traditional setup so long as they both voluntarily agree to be that way then its not abusive or controlling.

It's not that straightforward. If the outcome of the "traditional setup" is the erosion of her agency over time - for example, she has no income of her own and becomes financially dependent so that although she could, in theory, challenge the control of the husband except he has control of the finances and will use that to control her - even if it's voluntarily agreed to in the beginning, it can definitely become abusive over time.

I disagree and as I keep pointing out that belief is one of a number of factors that lead to someone being abusive and violent.

You keep claiming that, but when scrutinised those factors can't be demonstrated to be causing abuse at all.

You also keep repeating the misrepresentation of the Risk fcator model by taking each risk factor in isolation when they work in combination to build to an increased risk of abuse and violence. Until you can get this right you will keep misunderstanding why people abuse.

No, I understand your claim just fine. I just think you're completely wrong. If risk factors worked in combination then we should be able to isolate the contribution individual risk factors make as causative agents. But in many cases there's no causative relationship there at all.

Yes, so as you can see just as by promoting supportive networks, gentle and caring relationships, respect, empathy and love can cultivate social capital the promotion of the opposite negative situations such as broken relationships, unsupported families and communities, disrespect and social chaos will cultivate abuse and violence.

People do not abuse because of broken relationships. They do not abuse because of "social chaos." They do not abuse because of lack of support.

These myths are completely wrong, and all they do is distract from the real problem.

As I said this guy was a good natured guy, it wasn't a show.

And it's easy to be good natured when you're not in distress. But distress can bring out aspects of our character that are normally not visible even to ourselves.

Usually if a person harbours violence and abusive beliefs it will come out in other ways such as their personality, relationships or lack thereof because abusers and controllers usually don't have many friends because they are too controlling.

Actually, they often are very good at presenting as charming, and having positive relationships outside the home. Often they groom people, convincing them that they are such a "good guy" or "lovely woman" who would never do such a thing, so when their victims do speak up they're less readily believed.

Yeah but weren't you just saying we cannot tell the difference between a terrorist act and a justified war.

What I was saying was the difference was in the values we use to evaluate their actions.

This related back to your claim that those who commit obvious abuse and violence are rational in believing they are justified.

That's not what I said. I said they are not acting irrationally, overwhelmed by emotion, out of control; but are often acting quite rationally, in a way which is logically coherent and consistent with their values and beliefs.

But if as you acknowledge we can evaluate the two acts and determine that one is clearly damaging human wellbeing then we can say these people who believe that obvious abuse like breaking a childs ribs, or glassing someone in a pub are just mistaken and in fact deluded if they want to say its perfectly rational to behave like that.

All abuse is damaging to human wellbeing. Not everyone can see that. Mistaken; yes. Deluded? Not the word I would use.

I did not realize some people use an actual shephards rod to beat kids. I thought they used like a paddle or spoon or a stick but not an actual rod.

I don't think even shepherds use actual rods any more. But I myself have personally witnessed a rod (cane); a belt; a wooden spoon; a ruler; a cricket bat; and probably others I can't remember just now. I don't know that there's any meaningful difference between these and an "actual rod." They're all implements significant enough to injure.

Yes in Australia but I think some other countries still have CP in schools for example or allow an implement.

I hope we could agree that that is abusive.

You keep saying that these poeople are rational and we cannot tell they are irrational.

Rational in that, when they are abusing, they have access to and are using the faculty of reason. They are not out of control, overwhelmed with emotion, "just snapped" or otherwise cognitively impaired. They are behaving in a way they have deliberately chosen which is consistent with their particular beliefs and values.

 

[Larniavc]

By the way I like your kitties.

Thank you! They are both now 14. The ginger is a girl called Fletcher and Tuxedo is a boy called Smudge.

 

[Jimmy It]

There is a big difference between discipline and abuse.

https://www.newsmax.com/reagan/parenting-permissive/2024/01/23/id/1150643/

 

[stevevw]

I'm not turning this into an essay on different approaches to ethics. Grab a text book and do some reading if you're interested.

I have already studies ethics. The point was ethics needs some grounding otherwise anyone can claim anything as ethical.

Again, you have not provided evidence that people who physically abuse their children are so cognitively compromised as to not be morally culpable.

I am not saying they are not morally culperable. Do you think an alcoholic is morally culperable for the harm they cause their family and others. Of course they are. But substance abuse causes people to make stupid decisions along the way and they are not capable of being honest with themselves.

But there are times when they could have avoided this ealier on which had nothing to do with the destruction they later caused but which then led to the harm they ended up doing when they became less able to control their will. The same with psychological disorders. Do you think a kid with ADHD is acting that way because he is immoral alone and does not have any impediment to behaving morally as others would deem moral.

You have not provided evidence that this is driving the physical abuse of children. And since it matches neither with my experience nor the research I'm aware of, I find your argument quite unconvincing.

Ok let me put it another way. Do you think as the links have shown that some parents become more emotionally dysregulated (less able to control their feelings) that they are in any way more compromised than someone who say is emotionally intelligent and resilent. Is there any difference in how these two extremes will cope, think, react and behave.

What you've linked does not support your assertion.

But those links say exactly that some parents "think irrationally and are being driven by intense feelings that distort their thinking". To say they don't is just a blantant denial.

They are more likely to be guided by their environment than by their own intentions
they struggle to control their own emotions and behaviour.
They may struggle to understand that behavior is a choice that does not have to follow an emotion.
Some people may struggle to label their emotions, causing a sense of loss of control.
some people have very little control over their anger and tend to explode in rages.

A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills. Parents who are more likely to maltreat their children have these traits in common: difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed (having a hard time restraining behaviors like yelling, hitting, and throwing when they are upset)

This clearly supports what I am saying. All you are doing is making unsupported claims. How about arguing why these articles are wrong rather than pretending they don't say exactly what I have said that some parents find it harder than others to control their emotions and to think clearly due to psychological distress.

Depends what you mean by hierarchy.

A a hierarchy only has one meaning ie a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.

That in itself is not oppressive, or abusive.

If you mean, the person higher up the hierarchy gets to control the person or people lower down the hierarchy, that's where the problems come in.

But a CEO gets to control everyone below them. A supervisor gets to control all the floor staff within their control relating to the work to be done.

If the hierarchy is a structure which intentionally limits the agency of some, putting them under the control of others, I'd argue that if it's not inherently abusive, it's certainly highly prone to developing abusive situations.

That doesn't make the hiearchy itself or a hiearchy that may allow some more control over others as being bad or wrong or abusive. Hiearchies are part of nature and a natural part of any society. Its the peoples intentions within those situations to abuse their position that makes it abuse. Control of others through a hiearchy is a necessary part of human socialisation. Theres micro hiearchies within hiearchies.

It's not that straightforward. If the outcome of the "traditional setup" is the erosion of her agency over time - for example, she has no income of her own and becomes financially dependent so that although she could, in theory, challenge the control of the husband except he has control of the finances and will use that to control her - even if it's voluntarily agreed to in the beginning, it can definitely become abusive over time.

But that will depend on the dynamics of their relationship. They may be aware of all those things and take those into consideration. It doesn't consider the benefits to a persons agency who may be fullfilled as a person in that role.

Your objections seem to come from a certain ideaological assumption about all relations being seen as victim and oppressor and certainly don't make those setups abusive and trying to make out such setups is abuse is itself controlling and abusive of individual rights.

You keep claiming that, but when scrutinised those factors can't be demonstrated to be causing abuse at all.

But you havn't scrutinised them. As I mentioned earlier it seems you skipped most of the evidence and just looking at your most recent effort with the links I posted you did'nt give any scrutiny or arguement or rational for why they are not evidence.

You need to explain why a person with these disordered thinking, beliefs and behaviour are not compromised compared to others who are not. Show that their thinking and emotions are like normal people. Don't just make unsupported refutes using your own opinion.

No, I understand your claim just fine. I just think you're completely wrong. If risk factors worked in combination then we should be able to isolate the contribution individual risk factors make as causative agents. But in many cases there's no causative relationship there at all.
People do not abuse because of broken relationships. They do not abuse because of "social chaos." They do not abuse because of lack of support.

These myths are completely wrong, and all they do is distract from the real problem.

I want to address this seperately so I will finish this post here so we can unpack it a bit as you keep repeating the same logical fallacy of black and white thinking, an either/or fallacy. Like I said its about the combination of risk factors as well as whether there are any protective factors in place that will lead to abuse. It may be that a poor family has protective factors such as the Salvos helping them and they avoid further problems that poverty may cause like homelessness or child neglect.

But it may be that a poor family also has a parent with a mental illness and/or substance abuse and/or they may experience a traumatic or stressful event. Ie child abuse increased during Covid.

So its the dynamical interacting relationship between the risk and protective factors that result in a varied relationship as to which risk factors exactly lead to abuse. Its not necessarily any specific risk factor so you can't say this risk factor or that one will cause abuse. But the basic principle is that the more risk factors and the lack of protective factors will more often than not lead to abuse and violence. If you were to read the links properly you would have read this explanation 3 dozen times at least.

Also many of these risk and prtotective factors don't just apply to abuse and violence but also in a risk for developing other risk factors. So mental illness is a risk factor for substance abuse and homelessness while say homelessness is a risk for mental illness. Poverty is a risk for homelessness while homeless is a risk for mental illness. They feed into each other. Thats becaause the research shows that people with these risks have higher prevelence of those actually happening.

But people can have some of these risk factors and also have protective factors, they are emotionally intelligent, have a supportive family of community or may have money to avoid the bad effects of mental illness and homelessness ect. So just becoming poor or experiencing mental illness is not on its own going to lead to abuse or violence. Its the accumulated risks and the lack of protective factors that will lead to the prevelence or lack there of for any issue not just abuse and violence.

These are not myths but proven through the research, stats and science. I suggect anyone who denies this is creating fake facts and myths and does so because of an ideological belief.

 

[Paidiske]

I have already studies ethics. The point was ethics needs some grounding otherwise anyone can claim anything as ethical.

If you've studied ethics, you shouldn't need me to explain to you that appeal to some "objective" standard is not necessary for ethical reasoning.

I am not saying they are not morally culperable.

How are they morally culpable, if they're not in control of their actions? We cannot be morally culpable in situations where we lack moral agency.

Do you think a kid with ADHD is acting that way because he is immoral alone and does not have any impediment to behaving morally as others would deem moral.

See my point above.

Ok let me put it another way. Do you think as the links have shown that some parents become more emotionally dysregulated (less able to control their feelings) that they are in any way more compromised than someone who say is emotionally intelligent and resilent. Is there any difference in how these two extremes will cope, think, react and behave.

I am willing to believe that some already-abusive parents become more severe in their abuse in such circumstances. I do not believe that parents who did not already hold abusive attitudes and beliefs, become abusive in such circumstances.

But those links say exactly that some parents "think irrationally and are being driven by intense feelings that distort their thinking".

I have no doubt this describes some parents. However, this is not the difference between abusive and non-abusive parents. There are plenty of abusive parents who are not thinking irrationally, driven by intense feelings, and so on. And there are parents who think irrationally, are driven by intense feelings, and yet are not abusive. In other words, this does not account for abusive behaviour.

A a hierarchy only has one meaning ie a system in which members of an organization or society are ranked according to relative status or authority.

However, those systems can operate in different ways, with different levels of power imbalance and control.

But a CEO gets to control everyone below them. A supervisor gets to control all the floor staff within their control relating to the work to be done.

Only within very limited, and agreed, parameters. The supervisor manages the work flow of the floor staff. He or she does not regulate and control every aspect of their lives, and if the supervisor is inappropriate or overreaches, he or she can be held accountable through a formal complaints process.

That doesn't make the hiearchy itself or a hiearchy that may allow some more control over others as being bad or wrong or abusive.

Well, to the degree that abuse is basically about control of others, hierarchies which are about the higher-ups controlling the lower-downs (again, excepting limited and agreed parameters in order to allow a group to function for agreed ends) are pretty much abusive.

But that will depend on the dynamics of their relationship.

Yes, that's my point. If the couple deliberately works to allow both partners full agency despite potential power imbalance, then that's healthy. If power imbalance is used by one to control the other, that's abuse.

But you havn't scrutinised them.

I have. And I have posted sources demonstrated the flawed reasoning behind your claims. You've ignored and dismissed it, so the discussion feels a bit futile, but at this point I'm engaging more for the benefit of anyone who might be reading along, than for your benefit.

As I mentioned earlier it seems you skipped most of the evidence and just looking at your most recent effort with the links I posted you did'nt give any scrutiny or arguement or rational for why they are not evidence.

They don't demonstrate what you claim. You have a pattern where you find a link that's only tangentially related to the claim you want to make, and then post it as if it establishes your point, when it doesn't, at all. And you don't seem to be aware that filling the thread with links that don't support your claims actually only undermines your credibility.

You need to explain why a person with these disordered thinking, beliefs and behaviour are not compromised compared to others who are not.

You were talking about "risk factors." How is poverty an instance of "disordered thinking"? How is living in a non-traditional household an instance of "disordered thinking"? Your own argument is not coherent.

Show that their thinking and emotions are like normal people.

"Normal"? There's an ideologically loaded term...

This is black and white thinking, an either/or fallacy.

No, it isn't. It's just a rejection of an unsubstantiated claim.

It may be that a poor family has protective factors such as the Salvos helping them and they avoid further problems that poverty may cause like homelessness or child neglect. But it may be that a poor family also has a parent with a mental illness and/or substance abuse and/or they may experience a traumatic or stressful event.

Absolutely none of which has anything to do with whether they'll discipline their children in a physically abusive way!

Also many of these risk and prtotective factors don't just apply to abuse and violence but also in a risk for developing other risk factors. So mental illness is a risk factor for substance abuse and homelessness while say homelessness is a risk for mental illness.

I run a food bank. I know this "Bermuda triangle" of interacting needs well; I see clients dealing with it multiple times a week. What I don't agree with, for one second, is that this is what causes the physical abuse of children.

 

[stevevw]

And it's easy to be good natured when you're not in distress. But distress can bring out aspects of our character that are normally not visible even to ourselves.

Well if these aspects of our nature are not even visible to ourselves then how can someone be aware of them prior to losing it. If someone truely believes they are under threat and becomeviolent as a reaction how can they be aware that their belief is unreal when the very nature of belief can cause people to believe in things that are unreal and irrational.

Actually, they often are very good at presenting as charming, and having positive relationships outside the home. Often they groom people, convincing them that they are such a "good guy" or "lovely woman" who would never do such a thing, so when their victims do speak up they're less readily believed.

Is it that people don't become aware or they don't want to know or are not sure so they say nothing. I mean look at Harvey Wienstien where people knew but they chose to say nothing.

But my character in the scenario was genuinely a nice guy and this was testified by his own family. He just lost it one day and his friend happened to be the one he lost it with. Thats the scenario you have to deal with and not the imagined one your trying to create to match your ideological assumptions with.

What I was saying was the difference was in the values we use to evaluate their actions.

And how do we determine whether those values are incoherent or justified as far as social norms and what is considered best, right for human wellbeing. Isn't it the same basis for how we can say certain behaviour is abusive. If thats the case then we can say that any values a terrorist has that allows them to cut the head off a baby is coimpletely incoherent and detached from reality.

That's not what I said. I said they are not acting irrationally, overwhelmed by emotion, out of control; but are often acting quite rationally, in a way which is logically coherent and consistent with their values and beliefs.

Ok but the individuals own thinking and feelings may seem rational and right to the individual but that says nothing about whether it really is rational thoughts or something that is rational to act upon.

Your trying to somehow equate individual thinking and feelings with the social norms we consider rational and the right way to behave. They are not and we can tell the difference.

All abuse is damaging to human wellbeing. Not everyone can see that. Mistaken; yes. Deluded? Not the word I would use.

I think its more than mistaken. Anyone who believes chopping a kids head off is ok and rightous is deluded. Anyone who stubs a cigarette into a babys face and thinks its good is also deluded. The very nature of belief deludes people into believing irrational ideas that oppose our natural human empathy to be kind towards others and just about everything else we have learnt which supports the idea of humanity ie Human Rights.

I don't think even shepherds use actual rods any more. But I myself have personally witnessed a rod (cane); a belt; a wooden spoon; a ruler; a cricket bat; and probably others I can't remember just now. I don't know that there's any meaningful difference between these and an "actual rod." They're all implements significant enough to injure.

Thats what I just pointed out and you objected.

I hope we could agree that that is abusive.

My point was though we can agree that its deemed abusive in Australia how do we say its abusive in another culture. They may have relative circumstances where its more appropriate to use CP in schools. Lets say that some nations are where we were at 20 years ago. 20 years ago we thought caning was an important part of disiciplining.

Why can't those in cultures that think like we did 20 years ago not have the right to implement what they truely believe is best. Who says that we are the holders of all moral truths which should apply to the rest of the world. We don't have a very good track record so we should be the last to dictate morals.

Rational in that, when they are abusing, they have access to and are using the faculty of reason. They are not out of control, overwhelmed with emotion, "just snapped" or otherwise cognitively impaired. They are behaving in a way they have deliberately chosen which is consistent with their particular beliefs and values.

How can you say they have the faculty of reason when the links I gave clearly state they can lose the ability to reason, feelings take over and dictate their behaviour and not reason. I mean this is a basic principle of feelings and reason where feelings can cloud rational thinking.

You are creating some imaginary super parent who is immune from being human and capable to fooling themselves or breaking down.

Numerous studies have established that emotions such as anger, frustration, boredom and anxiety often negatively affect your problem-solving abilities, creativity, reasoning and attention span.

Scientists often use the term emotional intelligence (emotional quotient [EQ]) for a person’s ability to manage their own emotions positively and communicate effectively with others. A person with a high EQ is better equipped to make right decisions in their personal life and workplace. They can empathize with others, diffuse conflict, manage stressful situations better and build stronger relationships at school and work. In short, a person with a high EQ can respond to emotional inputs positively and make better cognitive decisions.
Mental Health: Where to Get Mental Health Help

Emotion has a substantial influence on the cognitive processes in humans, including perception, attention, learning, memory, reasoning, and problem solving. Emotion has a particularly strong influence on attention, especially modulating the selectivity of attention as well as motivating action and behavior.
The Influences of Emotion on Learning and Memory.

Problematic beliefs persist because our psychological and social circumstances don’t situate us appropriately to evaluate issues. This is partly why reasoning alone won’t change people’s minds.
It’s hard to challenge someone’s false beliefs because their ideas come from social networks, not facts

So obviously parents with psychological distress and emotional regulation problems are going to be even more compromised in being able to think straight and not let their feelings get the better of them. They will more likely act first without reasoning.

But as the link above also points out problematic or irrational beliefs persist regardless of reasoning. So how can reasoning make a person who believes irrational ideas when their ability to reason is negated by their belief.

To take on a belief so wholeheartedly without question is because they are psychologically compromised to be open to such beliefs. So their rational brain is being shut out in order to hold the irrational belief.

 

[Paidiske]

Well if these aspects of our nature are not even visible to ourselves then how can someone be aware of them prior to losing it.

Perhaps they aren't. Which is why it's so important to do the work of forming healthy attitudes from the earliest age.

If someone truely believes they are under threat and becomeviolent as a reaction how can they be aware that their belief is unreal when the very nature of belief can cause people to believe in things that are unreal and irrational.

I don't know that "unreal" is a helpful category here. It's not like someone believing in pink elephants or pixies at the bottom of the garden. It's more of an ideological problem.

Is it that people don't become aware or they don't want to know or are not sure so they say nothing. I mean look at Harvey Wienstien where people knew but they chose to say nothing.

Often people really don't know. How many times have we heard of those who abuse children, "But he is such a nice guy!"

But my character in the scenario was genuinely a nice guy and this was testified by his own family. He just lost it one day and his friend happened to be the one he lost it with.

The point I'm making is that he was a "nice guy"... in the right circumstances. When his circumstances changed, so did his behaviour.

And how do we determine whether those values are incoherent or justified as far as social norms and what is considered best, right for human wellbeing.

Harm done is not a bad barometer. (Side note: incoherent is not the opposite of justified. Whether one's thinking is coherent or incoherent is a separate question from whether one's actions are justified or unjustified).

If thats the case then we can say that any values a terrorist has that allows them to cut the head off a baby is coimpletely incoherent and detached from reality.

How can we say that of the terrorist, but not the soldier? In that case it's more than just the harm done that's being taken into account.

Ok but the individuals own thinking and feelings may seem rational and right to the individual but that says nothing about whether it really is rational thoughts or something that is rational to act upon.

Well, we can actually evaluate these things externally. Many abusers are not irrational.

Your trying to somehow equate individual thinking and feelings with the social norms we consider rational and the right way to behave.

What I'm trying to do is unpick the equivalence you are making between "rational" and "right." They are not the same thing. A person can be behaving rationally and yet quite profoundly unethically.

Anyone who stubs a cigarette into a babys face and thinks its good is also deluded.

So why are they deluded, but you stop short of saying that the person who uses physical discipline with a cane or belt, to the point of bruising and welting, is deluded? What's the difference, other than that you want to protect some forms of physical abuse?

Thats what I just pointed out and you objected.

You seemed to be denying that people use an "actual rod" to discipline to the point of harm. But they do.

My point was though we can agree that its deemed abusive in Australia how do we say its abusive in another culture.

Because we have the evidence to show that this kind of physical abuse often results in lifelong trauma.

Lets say that some nations are where we were at 20 years ago. 20 years ago we thought caning was an important part of disiciplining.

But "we" were wrong.

Why can't those in cultures that think like we did 20 years ago not have the right to implement what they truely believe is best.

Well, we can't stop them, but we can uphold the evidence that it's not actually "best."

We don't have a very good track record so we should be the last to dictate morals.

I think you might have just broken my irony meter.

How can you say they have the faculty of reason when the links I gave clearly state they can lose the ability to reason, feelings take over and dictate their behaviour and not reason.

You have not provided any link showing this to be the common cognitive situation of those who physically abuse children. You have, at best, demonstrated that this is some people's experience... and you have not shown that that experience correlates with abuse (or, more critically, that lack of that experience means the absence of abuse).

Again, there are plenty of rational people who abuse without being emotionally driven to the point of being unable to reason.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps they aren't. Which is why it's so important to do the work of forming healthy attitudes from the earliest age.

So you agree that some parents are not as aware, are not as capable of thinking straight and acting on reason alone.

To form healthy attitudes means also living out the healthy relationships we want to promote and preventing the toxic situations that breed unhealthy attitudes. These are associated with the risk factors. Disadvantaged, unequal, and oppressed people are prime enviornments for breeding irrational beliefs and unhealthy attitudes.

I don't know that "unreal" is a helpful category here. It's not like someone believing in pink elephants or pixies at the bottom of the garden. It's more of an ideological problem.

I mean unreal in the light of how those beliefs, thinking and behaviour pans out. What we actually find in real life. From a long history of experience and knowledge we know what these beliefs and thinking represent as being unreal in the light of real lived experiences and knowledge of what it does to people, harms wellbeing, disrupts development and actually creates more abuse and violence.

So it is similar to claiming pink elephants or pixies at the bottom of the garden when someone claims that cutting a child head off is morally good or healthy for human wellbeing. In fact I would consider someone who believes in fairies less crazy and a threat than someone who believes in cutting up babies or stubbing a cigarette in their face.

Often people really don't know. How many times have we heard of those who abuse children, "But he is such a nice guy!"

Dr King is known for his non violence approach but even he had pushed a friend out of anger. I don't think King harboured secret beliefs that abuse and violence was ok.

King argued with a female friend and even shoved her across a hotel room bed.

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/691298594

The point I'm making is that he was a "nice guy"... in the right circumstances. When his circumstances changed, so did his behaviour.

Then this would mean the circumstances contributed to his behaviour. Just what I have been saying. Some cannot handle things as well as others due to their circumstances.

Harm done is not a bad barometer.

Yes the law draws the line of when it becomes illegal and wrong to do.

(Side note: incoherent is not the opposite of justified. Whether one's thinking is coherent or incoherent is a separate question from whether one's actions are justified or unjustified).

There are different ways to determine the coherency of thinking and belief. The point is not so much that its a moral issue but that the thiunking or belief does not match the facts and reality of the situation and the more the behaviour is extreme and diverges from those facts and reality or social norms whatever it is we use to determine that reality the more it can be said to be out of touch with the facts and reality.

Justifying that behaviour naturally brings in morals but its the justification of the thinking, the belief that its good to do in light of those facts and reality that makes it irrational.

How can we say that of the terrorist, but not the soldier? In that case it's more than just the harm done that's being taken into account.

Ah the fact its called harm means it must have some basis for why its regarded as harm or not harm or abuse and not abuse. We went through this before. You were qualifying what trauma is. We also discussed how some harm is necessary as part of life and the destinctions. Its about protecting human wellbeing.

Terrorist acts that indescriminately kill innocents are different to some innocents being killed in stopping those terrorist. Just like a mugger who tries to kill or harm your family is different to perhaps killing or harming that mugger to protect your family and innocent life.

We can determine the difference especially when it becomes more obvious like terrorism. If a soldier intentionally cut a babies head off they would be court- marshalled. Thats why we have war crime tribunals.

Well, we can actually evaluate these things externally. Many abusers are not irrational.

How do these two statements cohere in the light of what I just said about abusers believing that say stubbing a cigarette into the face of a child is good for their wellbeing and is actually regarded as coherent thinking outside the individual thinking that. When we do evaluate this externally we clearly find its crazy thinking. Its not coherent to say that cigarette burns are good for a child, that the trauma of this will improve wellbeing.

What I'm trying to do is unpick the equivalence you are making between "rational" and "right." They are not the same thing. A person can be behaving rationally and yet quite profoundly unethically.

There are some grey areas but when it becomes obvious it becomes a lot clearer as to what is irrational or not. As morals are subjective it would be hard to make any arguement either way on morals alone. But we can through say science perhaps psychology know the damage caused by abuse and as positive wellbeing and development is the opposite of abuse we can measure when abuse is obviously damaging human wellbeing.

So this is a fact derived from science and if someone wants to claim that stubbing a cigarette into the face of a kid is good for their development and wellbeing and not abuse we can easily cite that science and say no this this just crazy and unreal thinking. Just as someone who claims the earth is flat and ignored the science that the earth is a sphere.

So why are they deluded, but you stop short of saying that the person who uses physical discipline with a cane or belt, to the point of bruising and welting, is deluded? What's the difference, other than that you want to protect some forms of physical abuse?

Because as mentioned we thought CP in schools was a good thing 5 minutes ago in our history. We did so for good reasons as it worked but we also had strict regulations on controlling how we could discipline and what was not acceptable as harm. So a welt or mark was deemed okj but a broken limb wasn't.

So theres some grey areas in our thinking on this considering we actually believed it was a good thing only recently. The jury perhaps is still out for many as to what extent is harm done and what are the benefits overall.

But when it comes to stubbing a cigarette into a kids face, breaking their limbs, ect this is an obvious wrong no matter which way you look at it. If anyone had tried to claim breaking kids limbs was acceptable school dicipline they would have been deemed crazy and locked up.

You seemed to be denying that people use an "actual rod" to discipline to the point of harm. But they do.

No I was denying that they used a shephards rod. I even explained this when I said that people may use what they think represents a rod like a belt or stick. It is more symbolic of the rod but not an actual rod.

Because we have the evidence to show that this kind of physical abuse often results in lifelong trauma.

I would agree but I am using the relative morality that our society uses which supports the idea that other cultures may do things we think are abusive but are not to them in their relative context. It may be that a culture has a bigger problem with behaviour in some schools and have tried everything. So as a last resort they used CP and it helped reduce bad behaviour that was actually causing trauma for many.

For them it was a good method for their particular context. They had strict rules which controlled when and how that CP was applied so it was rarely used and controlled in a way that caused minimal harm compared to the great harm being caused by people out of control and harming others.

But "we" were wrong.

Perhaps wrong in our context but who says that its the same for every culture. Some nations have completely banned CP who says they are right. Australia allows CP so to other nations who banned it they will think we still allow child abuse. Who says they are right.

I could have sworn you were just arguing that even obvious abuses can be rational even externally. If thats the case then how can we say we were wrong when it was rational and there's no way to tell whats rational from irrational as far as abuse is concerned.

Well, we can't stop them, but we can uphold the evidence that it's not actually "best."

And they could probably hold up evidence that they think shows what we are doing is not the best. It may be just like the research is bias because it lumps abusive CP in with controlled CP where controlled CP can be beneficial. It may be that CP in schools is being lumped with abusive CP and that a certain level of CP in schools is beneficially just like it is at home working on the same principle.

You have not provided any link showing this to be the common cognitive situation of those who physically abuse children. You have, at best, demonstrated that this is some people's experience..

Ah so you have moved from no parents ever being mentally or emotionally compromised to now acknowledging it may happen but is not common. Well thats a start. All I have to do is show that its more common than you think.

. and you have not shown that that experience correlates with abuse (or, more critically, that lack of that experience means the absence of abuse).

The actual links, the same links that you now agree can happen for some parents experience were actually the same links about how these experiences lead to abuse and violent behaviour. I don't think it matters whether parents without these experiences don't abuse but rather that those with these experiences do often abuse.

The stats bear this out. Child abuse happens more often when parents are suffering mental illness, substance abuse problems, relationship breakdowns, stress ect. I gave the example of how there was a rise in child abuse during the stress of Covid. Those already with risk factors were pushed over the edge with the additional stress and problems Covid brought.

Again, there are plenty of rational people who abuse without being emotionally driven to the point of being unable to reason.

Maybe so but there are many and it seems the majority according to the research are psychologically and eemotionally disordered. So we have to at least acknowledge these factors as a big part of understanding why parents will abuse and why people will become violent. Otherwise we are making invisible aspects of understanding abuse and violence and therefore making abuse invisible.

 

[Paidiske]

So you agree that some parents are not as aware, are not as capable of thinking straight and acting on reason alone.

What I was saying is that we can be unaware of our own character flaws.

But I am not suggesting that anyone acts "on reason alone." That's why I've been talking about whether or not our behaviour, attitudes and so on are coherent; not that there's no emotion involved, but that it's not a case of emotion or distress overwhelming everything else.

To form healthy attitudes means also living out the healthy relationships we want to promote and preventing the toxic situations that breed unhealthy attitudes. These are associated with the risk factors. Disadvantaged, unequal, and oppressed people are prime enviornments for breeding irrational beliefs and unhealthy attitudes.

This is nonsense. People do not form the attitudes that underpin abuse because of the things you've identified as "risk factors."

Then this would mean the circumstances contributed to his behaviour.

No, it means that the circumstances revealed underlying attitudes which were not previously evident.

Terrorist acts that indescriminately kill innocents are different to some innocents being killed in stopping those terrorist.

I didn't specify that the soldier was stopping a terrorist. Only that his violence was state-approved.

If a soldier intentionally cut a babies head off they would be court- marshalled.

Soldiers routinely do far worse things than this, resulting in massive loss of life. The difference is not in the action, but in the way society justifies the action.

How do these two statements cohere in the light of what I just said about abusers believing that say stubbing a cigarette into the face of a child is good for their wellbeing and is actually regarded as coherent thinking outside the individual thinking that.

Whether it's a cigarette burn or a caning or a belting or whatever else, there are rational arguments put forward about the need for discipline, punishment, and so on. The only reason we reject those arguments is because we see that the long term harm outweighs any claimed benefit.

But we can through say science perhaps psychology know the damage caused by abuse ...

Because as mentioned we thought CP in schools was a good thing 5 minutes ago in our history. We did so for good reasons as it worked...

These two statements, standing side by side, demonstrate neatly how your argument seems to shift to fit your preferred positions, rather than being consistent.

So theres some grey areas in our thinking on this considering we actually believed it was a good thing only recently. The jury perhaps is still out for many as to what extent is harm done and what are the benefits overall.

By your own standard, given the demonstrated harm and trauma, this is "unreal" and "irrational" thinking.

It is more symbolic of the rod but not an actual rod.

What does it matter whether it's an "actual" rod or not, if it does equivalent harm?

It may be that a culture has a bigger problem with behaviour in some schools and have tried everything. So as a last resort they used CP and it helped reduce bad behaviour that was actually causing trauma for many.

For them it was a good method for their particular context. They had strict rules which controlled when and how that CP was applied so it was rarely used and controlled in a way that caused minimal harm compared to the great harm being caused by people out of control and harming others.

Got any evidence for this great harm being done by people out of control and harming others such that corporal punishment was the lesser evil as a last resort after having tried everything? Or is that just a totally fabricated scenario?

Perhaps wrong in our context but who says that its the same for every culture.

The evidence of trauma.

I could have sworn you were just arguing that even obvious abuses can be rational even externally.

Yes. Because, again (and you seem to not be able to follow this point) "rational" describes the coherence of someone's thinking, it doesn't describe whether that thinking is ethically oriented or not.

If thats the case then how can we say we were wrong when it was rational and there's no way to tell whats rational from irrational as far as abuse is concerned.

Again. Rational is not the same thing as right. Irrational is not the same thing as wrong. It's entirely possible to mount a completely rational but utterly abhorrently unethical argument for abuse.

Ah so you have moved from no parents ever being mentally or emotionally compromised to now acknowledging it may happen but is not common. Well thats a start. All I have to do is show that its more common than you think.

No. You would have to show that it is the shared factor in all abuse (that held in common by all abusive parents), and absent from non-abusive parenting, in order to demonstrate that this is what is causing abuse. You cannot do that.

I don't think it matters whether parents without these experiences don't abuse but rather that those with these experiences do often abuse.

If people without these experiences also abuse, then these experiences are not what's causing the abuse. And these claims become a distraction rather than a constructive approach.

I gave the example of how there was a rise in child abuse during the stress of Covid. Those already with risk factors were pushed over the edge with the additional stress and problems Covid brought.

Of course, Covid also meant that abusers had more access to their victims (and less external oversight). There was, to put it simply, more opportunity.

 

[stevevw]

What I was saying is that we can be unaware of our own character flaws.

But I am not suggesting that anyone acts "on reason alone." That's why I've been talking about whether or not our behaviour, attitudes and so on are coherent; not that there's no emotion involved, but that it's not a case of emotion or distress overwhelming everything else.

I think what this shows is that understanding why parents abuse or why people get violent is not a simple thing. Its not just because of belief, reason or feelings or particular risks factors but a complex combination that influence peoples perspectives, sometimes distorting things when these factors build and compromising peoples abilities in different ways. Its only by acknowledging these aspects that we will understand and prevent abuse and violence.

This is nonsense. People do not form the attitudes that underpin abuse because of the things you've identified as "risk factors."

If you say that healthy attitudes need work to cultivate them then it logically follows that unhealthy attitudes have also been cultivated by the way society allows these unhealthy attitudes to be cultivated.

So you don't think disadvantaged, oppressed and disenfranchised people and communities are more open to developing unhealthy attitudes about abuse and violence.

No, it means that the circumstances revealed underlying attitudes which were not previously evident.

But if the circumstances never happened then there would be no underlying attitudes to be revealed.

What I would like to know is how you know this. How you know the mind and beliefs of someone you don't know. How you can assume a certain mental state of people that you don't know or understand their situations.

I didn't specify that the soldier was stopping a terrorist. Only that his violence was state-approved.

What do you mean by violence. Are you equating a terrorist act with the right to defend yourself against terror attacks. The right to defend yourself is not terrorism.

I find this ironic as you were that caning and leaving welts is clearly abuse and now your arguing the right to defend with terrorism.

Soldiers routinely do far worse things than this, resulting in massive loss of life. The difference is not in the action, but in the way society justifies the action.

Soldiers routinely do worse than cut babies heads off which results in massive loss of life. That doesn't sound like the military my family have belongs too over the years nor the allied forces.

There may have been individuals or groups who have acted out of line but when we identify this we condemn it and even court marshall those responsible. But we don't have any policies to routinely mass murder innocents by commiting atrocities worse than cutting babies heads off.

But all this is just a diversion away from the actual point which is regardless of whether its terrorist or western soldiers acting in contradiction to the rules of war including war crimes we have a pretty clear value difference between terrorism and the right to defend. I always bring it back to the family situation. Killing a terrorist in self defence who is trying to kill your family are not morally equivelant. There is a clear difference.

I am still finding this ironic that your now trying to blur the line between what is abuse and violence and what is not.

Whether it's a cigarette burn or a caning or a belting or whatever else, there are rational arguments put forward about the need for discipline, punishment, and so on. The only reason we reject those arguments is because we see that the long term harm outweighs any claimed benefit.

You missed the point I was making though. You can't make any rational arguement for something like burning kids faces with cigarettes or breaking their limbs. We don't need to see the long term harm as its obviously wrong as far as a childs wellbeing physically let alone mentally.

But your logic that abusers are rational falls down when we apply it to these obvious harmful acts. So we can say that anyone who claims these acts are rational and good for wellbeing is just deluded in their beliefs and thinking.

Your logic has to also apply to the more obvious abuses if it is correct. That the abuser believes and thinks breaking a childs leg is rational in the light of the evidence which is so obvious that no one can deny it. If they do then its clear that their thinking is effected by something to make them believe in such obvious falsehoods.

These two statements, standing side by side, demonstrate neatly how your argument seems to shift to fit your preferred positions, rather than being consistent.

That is because I was explaining the difference between how some issues like CP in schools is harder to determine back then and even now. Its not as obvious as stubbing a cigarette in a kids face or breaking their limbs. If we did that 20 years ago or even 50 years ago it would still be seen as wrong.

You kept bringing up the grey areas of CP and abuse to refute my arguement that some abusers are irrational to think and believe obvious abuses are rational and good for wellbeing. I was demonstrating as above in saying that we can tell certain beliefs and thinking is irrational because we either can see it (broken limbs) or we can tell through science. Once we have that knowledge and fact then theres no justification that can be rationalised.

Its just that some issues like CP in schools and at home are more divided for good reasons because we just recently made arguements and had evidence that it was ok. So for many the jury is still out and its not so clear. But its blantantly clear when it comes to more obvious abuse like breaking kids limbs. Theres no arguement or evidence 50 years ago and theres none today.

By your own standard, given the demonstrated harm and trauma, this is "unreal" and "irrational" thinking.

Are you even listening to what I have been saying. Perhaps I am not good at explaining things. If so sorry. I just explained that this is less obvious, a grey area for many. The evidence has been mixed over those years. So for grey areas the more evidence we get the better we can confidently say its this case or the other. Look at abortion. Which to some is a case of child abuse and to others a human right.

But as time goes by we are coming to understand better how human life forms and one day we may be able to say one way or another this is clearly right or wrong. I am not disputing that some issues are grey. But they are grey for good reaons because they often about two morals conflicting.

But this is exactly why I was using the more obvious abuses which no one can deny to show that some people must be deluded to believe or percieve that these obvious abuses are a rational and good thing to do for child wellbeing rather than actually admitting its obvious abuse. You trying to muddy the waters to dismiss this point by using issues that are more grey.

What does it matter whether it's an "actual" rod or not, if it does equivalent harm?

Because an actual rod is massive and would seem rediculous if someone actually went and got a shephard rod.

Got any evidence for this great harm being done by people out of control and harming others such that corporal punishment was the lesser evil as a last resort after having tried everything? Or is that just a totally fabricated scenario?

Fabricated but loosely based on reality. The point is potentially that is what relative morality entails that each culture has a right to order their society according to their cultural beliefs. We already allow this. That we don't experience another culture or see things from their relative position so we cannot apply our perspective to other cultures to say they are wroing even based on the science as this is said to be westernised as well.

So it stands to reason that if even the majority in the west believed CP in schools was ok 10 years ago then its logical that nations less advanced than us will believe as we did 10 years ago. Or had a completely different experience where they came to believe andf value things differently.

There are examples though of some south American cities maybe in Columbia which had a very bad drug problem and were actually rounding up addicts and executing them on the streets. Thailand executes drug criminals whereas the west doesn't. But in each case they claim its reduced the problem of drugs and restored order.

We do know that Asian nations support CP in schools so I would assume they have their reasons and they believe its doing the right thing.

The evidence of trauma.

First if they don't have the evdience then they don't know so to them their belief is justified based on the limited knowledge they have. Second even if they had the evdience they may disagree and have their own evidence to counter. They may not trust western science as they think its bias to begin with. If they base their views about CP on belief how can the evidence refute that belief. Belief is not about science or logic.

Yes. Because, again (and you seem to not be able to follow this point) "rational" describes the coherence of someone's thinking, it doesn't describe whether that thinking is ethically oriented or not.

Actually that is wrong and that is why I am not following your point. As I said
Rational thinking is a process. It refers to the ability to think with reason. It encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking.

So its actually testing your subjective thinking and beliefs against objective facts outside your self. So it can reveal when a persons thinking and feelings are irrational when they don't cohere with the objective facts.

Again. Rational is not the same thing as right. Irrational is not the same thing as wrong. It's entirely possible to mount a completely rational but utterly abhorrently unethical argument for abuse.

Not when it comes to obvious abuses. If there are facts that the action does cause abuse then we then we can show its irrational to believe otherwise. If no facts are clear or cannot be determined then its still not rational thinking because there is no objective way to determine if it is rational. We are only left with subjective opinions and beliefs which are not based on rationality and facts.

No. You would have to show that it is the shared factor in all abuse (that held in common by all abusive parents), and absent from non-abusive parenting, in order to demonstrate that this is what is causing abuse. You cannot do that.

No thats not how the risk and protective model works. A person may have a mental or emotional disorder but also have some protective factor that helps them avoid falling into a situation where they abuse. So this is an an example where a parent with mental illness doesn't abuse.

But then they may not have that support and instead risk accumulate and they perhaps fall into addiction as well and then isolate themselves. That increases the chance of abuse. But the mental illness alone didn't cause the abuse but the accumulation.

It could also be that there is no mental illness but instead its poverty. Now poverty alone won't lead to abuse so there will be poor parents that don't abuse. So we cannot just look at a single factor like poverty. But then some may also have other stresses like a traumatic event and a job loss or risk of homelessness and family breakdown.

Any of these combinations may lead to abuse but no specific combination or singl factor can be said to lead to abuse. Its a a multifaceted influence of the combination of risk and protective factors which either build or are reduced as to whether it will lead to abuse. So you cannot measure it by saying this should happen or that should not happen in every single situation. Thats a false analogy of the situation.

If people without these experiences also abuse, then these experiences are not what's causing the abuse. And these claims become a distraction rather than a constructive approach.

I think just about everyone who abuses will have some of these risk factors. We already know that the risk is far greater and even up to 70 times greater in soime situations. We can determine that for certain situations 8 out of 10 kids are abused compared to 1 or 2. So how far do you want to wait, until we know for sure its 100% risk or is maybe a 3 or 4 or 70 times risk enough to take notice.

I cannot see how this is not well known. We determine the risk for say youth crime on broken families, poor neighbourhoods and substance abuse and this is widely accepted. Suddenlt you want to dismiss the same method because its connected to abuse and violence. Much of the same risks are involved in a number of social issues.

It doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside these situations but like with anything the risk means that it happens more often and it is something we should take into consideration just like if the risk is too high for some medical procedure. Or the risk is too high for driving under the influence ect.

Of course, Covid also meant that abusers had more access to their victims (and less external oversight). There was, to put it simply, more opportunity.

Yes that was part of it and thats a risk factor as well (isoltaion and lack of support). But the article also talks about how it brought increased stress, financial stress, and for those already suffering mental illness or stresses or family instability this added to the risk and increased abuse for some.

That you choose to highlight the one aspect isolation and keep completely quiet on the other aspect the added stresses shows your selective in how you see things. You cannot acknowledge this other important aspect because it contradicts your ideological assumptions. But this really is actually making an important part of why people abuse invisible when we need to acknowledge it.

 

[Paidiske]

I think what this shows is that understanding why parents abuse or why people get violent is not a simple thing. Its not just because of belief, reason or feelings or particular risks factors but a complex combination that influence peoples perspectives, sometimes distorting things when these factors build and compromising peoples abilities in different ways. Its only by acknowledging these aspects that we will understand and prevent abuse and violence.

You haven't provided evidence for these claims. It's not what the research shows. People don't abuse because their abilities are compromised or their thinking is distorted.

If you say that healthy attitudes need work to cultivate them then it logically follows that unhealthy attitudes have also been cultivated by the way society allows these unhealthy attitudes to be cultivated.

Sure; and we talked about that up thread. About acceptance of violence, hierarchy and control, and rigid roles.

So you don't think disadvantaged, oppressed and disenfranchised people and communities are more open to developing unhealthy attitudes about abuse and violence.

No, I don't. We can see plenty of evidence that privileged people given power over others come easily to feel entitled to abuse.

But if the circumstances never happened then there would be no underlying attitudes to be revealed.

Of course there would. It's a bit like... say you happen to work in a workplace where everyone is of the same race. Race is not discussed because it's just not a feature of the social life of that group. If someone in that group had underlying racist tendencies, you might never know; but given the right situation or the right topic (perhaps a new employee is of a different race and this provokes comment) the underlying racism is revealed.

What I would like to know is how you know this. How you know the mind and beliefs of someone you don't know. How you can assume a certain mental state of people that you don't know or understand their situations.

It's a hypothetical, so in this case, we're both hypothesizing. But in real life, we know a lot about how and why people behave the way they do. We know - from research done with actual abusers - what sorts of beliefs and attitudes they hold. We know about their sense of entitlement to abuse. We know that they didn't one day "just snap," but that their behaviour was consistent with those beliefs and attitudes.

What do you mean by violence. Are you equating a terrorist act with the right to defend yourself against terror attacks.

Again, I'm not talking about defending oneself. I'm talking about a soldier fighting a war.

I find this ironic as you were that caning and leaving welts is clearly abuse and now your arguing the right to defend with terrorism.

No, I am not. I am arguing that the only difference between the person who blows up a building with people in it, because they're a terrorist, and a person who blows up a building with people in it, because they're a soldier at war, is in the values we place on their actions.

Soldiers routinely do worse than cut babies heads off which results in massive loss of life...
But we don't have any policies to routinely mass murder innocents by commiting atrocities worse than cutting babies heads off.

Soldiers kill people. It's what they do; go and kill the people their government tells them to kill. On a mass scale. Whether or not they're "innocents" or whether that killing amounts to "murder," again, are value judgements in the eyes of the beholder.

But all this is just a diversion away from the actual point which is regardless of whether its terrorist or western soldiers acting in contradiction to the rules of war including war crimes we have a pretty clear value difference between terrorism and the right to defend.

I'm not talking about defence, though. And what you've just said there - "pretty clear value difference" - was exactly my point. The difference between the mass killing of a terrorist, and the mass killing of a soldier, lies in the value difference.

I am still finding this ironic that your now trying to blur the line between what is abuse and violence and what is not.

I am not; I am holding up two instances of abhorrent violence and saying, the difference between these two acts is in the value we place on it. Similarly, whether or not we view a particular instance of corporal punishment as abuse or not, is a matter of the value we place on it.

You can't make any rational arguement for something like burning kids faces with cigarettes or breaking their limbs. We don't need to see the long term harm as its obviously wrong as far as a childs wellbeing physically let alone mentally.

And I would say that this is exactly as true for any other instance of physical abuse.

But your logic that abusers are rational falls down when we apply it to these obvious harmful acts. So we can say that anyone who claims these acts are rational and good for wellbeing is just deluded in their beliefs and thinking.

If you can say it for the broken limb, why can't you say it for the bruises and welts? Why do you want to protect those abusers from the same accusation of delusion?

Your logic has to also apply to the more obvious abuses if it is correct.

And your logic would have to apply to the less severe abuses if it is correct. If someone who believes abuse can be justified is irrational, deluded, and so on, then that needs to be just as true of the person who takes a belt to their kid and leaves bruises.

That is because I was explaining the difference between how some issues like CP in schools is harder to determine back then and even now. Its not as obvious as stubbing a cigarette in a kids face or breaking their limbs.

Well, shouldn't it be? Given all the evidence we have about trauma and long term harm?

You kept bringing up the grey areas of CP and abuse to refute my arguement that some abusers are irrational to think and believe obvious abuses are rational and good for wellbeing.

I keep bringing up clear instances of physical abuse. They're not grey areas at all, and that anyone would seek to describe them that way is deeply disturbing.

I was demonstrating as above in saying that we can tell certain beliefs and thinking is irrational because we either can see it (broken limbs) or we can tell through science. Once we have that knowledge and fact then theres no justification that can be rationalised.

Again, this has to be equally true for all physical abuse. If you want to claim it for a broken limb, then you need to be willing to stand up for it on the cane or the belt (or forfeit whatever tattered shreds of credibility you might still have in this discussion).

Are you even listening to what I have been saying. Perhaps I am not good at explaining things. If so sorry.

I think your position is clear. I just think it's clearly inconsistent and wrong.

You trying to muddy the waters to dismiss this point by using issues that are more grey.

No. My concern in this thread are exactly the sorts of abuses which you are describing as "grey." The everyday physical abuse that happens in so many homes, not the rare extremes. And I am pointing out to you that if you want to describe abusers as deluded and irrational, as unable to think clearly, as overwhelmed with emotion, and so on, what you say has to be true of those sorts of abuse. And it has to hold up as a narrative which is consistent with all the evidence and which actually explains what it purports to explain, in terms of causative relationships.

And your argument doesn't do that.

Because an actual rod is massive and would seem rediculous if someone actually went and got a shephard rod.

An "actual rod" doesn't have to be massive. And the point remains; people use implements which do just as much damage, so there's no material difference in the argument. (Ah; you've just reminded me. Add "broomstick" to the list I gave above, of implements I have personally seen used for physical abuse).

First if they don't have the evdience then they don't know

We all have the evidence, though. I mean, apart from a few very isolated tribes, we're all part of a world in which knowledge sharing does happen.

If they base their views about CP on belief how can the evidence refute that belief.

It's not so much that evidence refutes belief, as that evidence can invite beliefs to be reconsidered.

Actually that is wrong and that is why I am not following your point. As I said
Rational thinking is a process. It refers to the ability to think with reason. It encompasses the ability to draw sensible conclusions from facts, logic and data. In simple words, if your thoughts are based on facts and not emotions, it is called rational thinking.

Sure. But again, this says nothing about whether the chain of reasoning involved is, in any way, ethical. It can be highly unethical.

For example, there is a famous hypothetical which apparently can help to identify people with psychopathic tendencies. “While at her own mother's funeral, a woman meets a guy she doesn't know. She thinks this guy is amazing — her dream man — and is pretty sure he could be the love of her life. However, she never asked for his name or number and afterwards could not find anyone who knows who he was. A few days later the girl kills her own sister – but why?”

The answer which the person with psychopathic tendencies might give is that the woman hopes to see this man again at her sister's funeral.

And it demonstrates a perfectly rational process by which the woman decided to commit the murder. It drew conclusions from facts, logic and data; the likelihood of a relationship between this man and another family member, the likelihood of him attending another funeral, and so on.
Cold-bloodedly unethical, of course, but perfectly rational.

(Note: I am not claiming that abusive parents are psychopaths. I am simply trying to illustrate the difference between "rational" and "ethical").

Not when it comes to obvious abuses.

Having read the rationales offered by abusers, I wouldn't agree with that.

No thats not how the risk and protective model works.

I know. But I am rejecting that model as an explanation of what causes people to abuse.

no specific combination or singl factor can be said to lead to abuse.

Because they are not what is causing it.

You know what one single factor every single abuser has in common? Beliefs and attitudes which justify their abusive behaviour.

We already know that the risk is far greater and even up to 70 times greater in soime situations. We can determine that for certain situations 8 out of 10 kids are abused compared to 1 or 2. So how far do you want to wait, until we know for sure its 100% risk or is maybe a 3 or 4 or 70 times risk enough to take notice.

Wait for what, precisely?

If we know there are families struggling with particular issues - poverty, mental health issues, whatever else - we should support them, regardless of any perceived risk of abuse.

But it's not like we're going to remove their kids from their care because "Oh, well, there's no abuse now but you've got too many risk factors." We only intervene in that kind of way when we have evidence of abuse.

Meanwhile, alongside the social supports people should be offered anyway, potential abuse aside, we can continue to do the work of primary prevention which will make people in every demographic, "at risk" or not, less likely to abuse.

It doesn't mean it doesn't happen outside these situations but like with anything the risk means that it happens more often and it is something we should take into consideration just like if the risk is too high for some medical procedure. Or the risk is too high for driving under the influence ect.

Well, again, but what are you advocating for here? It's not like we're going to say to people, "Your risk is too high, you're not allowed to get pregnant!" No. People are allowed to become parents. And receive support in their various needs, parents or not, high risk for abuse or not.

Meanwhile, we need to do the preventative work that reaches everyone, including those outside "these situations." Because far too much abuse happens outside the households with what you want to identify as "risk factors."

But this really is actually making an important part of why people abuse invisible when we need to acknowledge it.

People don't abuse because they're stressed. Abusers may intensify their abuse under stress, but it's not the cause.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't provided evidence for these claims. It's not what the research shows. People don't abuse because their abilities are compromised or their thinking is distorted.

Your once again creating a misrepresentation of what the evidence shows. Its pointing out that that the persons ability to think rationally and be in control of their feelings is what increases the risk for abuse and not that these cause abuse themselves. You keep side ssstepping this fact by making an either/or logical fallacy its saying its a particular risk rather than its a build up towards greater risk.

If you claim that I have not provided the evidence or that that its not what the research shows then please explain what the research means when it says
A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills. Parents who are more likely to maltreat their children have these traits in common: difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed (having a hard time restraining behaviors like yelling, hitting, and throwing when they are upset)

How is a deficit in emotion regulation skills or difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed not being compromised.

Controlling parents are nonresponsive to their children’s emotional and psychological needs, are anxious and paranoid, they misperceive reality and assume hostility from others when there is none. Controlling Parents cannot regulate their emotions. Their defensive mechanisms are so powerful that complete dissociation from reality can be the result.

So how is this not a compromise for a parent to be completely disassociated from reality or be non responsive, assume hostility, and cannot regulate their emotions compared to a health mother without such issues.

Child-abusing women also lack self-esteem and strength of will (termed “poor ego strength” by psychologists). They are more likely to be guided by their environment than by their own intentions (referred to as “greater external locus of control”). They are more depressed, feel rejecting of their children more often, withdraw from them often, use anger to control them, and, in general, show less affection toward them

How are these parents not compromised if they lack strength of will, are guided by their environment rather than their intentions, feel like rejecting their kids and withdrawing from them more often and use anger to control them as a result. How is this not reducing their ability to care for their kids and increasing the risk of them getting angry and abusing them.

You need to either come up with an arguement that shows that these compromises don't influence the parents thinking or emotional control or that the actual article itself is lying. But you can't just make unsupported refutes based on youir personal opinion as they carry no weight. We are now dealing with the facts, the science and not personal beliefs or opinions.

There are more articles like this literally dozens and dozens. I find it hard to believe that you can honestly refute this. But if you can then lets here the reasoning as to why these parents who suffer these conditions are more or less the same as parents who don't. That their mental and emotional disorders are nothing that will make any difference to their ability to parent positively.

 

[Paidiske]

You keep side ssstepping this fact by making an either/or logical fallacy its saying its a particular risk rather than its a build up towards greater risk.

It's not a fallacy; it's just rejecting your unsubstantiated claims.

If you claim that I have not provided the evidence or that that its not what the research shows then please explain what the research means when it says

A very common reason that maltreatment occurs in the home, whether towards a child (child abuse/maltreatment) or a partner (intimate partner violence) is that there is a deficit in emotion regulation skills.

I would like to read that in context of the source material, rather than taking your interpretation of two sentences devoid of context. Because I have made a specialty of IPV in particular, and that does not match what I have read, or what any of the prevention programmes are based on, at all.

Without reading the source material, I would argue that of parents with a deficit in emotion regulation skills, some will be abusive and some not. The ones who are, will have the beliefs and attitudes which justify the abuse.

You need to either come up with an arguement that shows that these compromises don't influence the parents thinking or emotional control or that the actual article itself is lying.

No, I don't. My argument is that being compromised in this way will likely mean that someone who already holds beliefs and attitudes which justify abuse, abuses more intensely than they might without being compromised in that way. But it is not the underlying cause of the abuse, and there will be others compromised in this way who never abuse.

But if you can then lets here the reasoning as to why these parents who suffer these conditions are more or less the same as parents who don't. That their mental and emotional disorders are nothing that will make any difference to their ability to parent positively.

There are millions of parents with these conditions who never abuse. And millions of parents without these conditions who abuse. These conditions are not the cause of abuse.

That doesn't mean that their parenting won't be less ideal than it might otherwise have been. But we are not concerned here with the degree to which parenting is "positive." We are only concerned with the very narrow question of abuse.

 

[stevevw]

Sure; and we talked about that up thread. About acceptance of violence, hierarchy and control, and rigid roles.

You just literally dismissed my arguement and the same logic and now you agree. Ok so if you now agree that unhealthy attitudes are cultivated by society then how are these unhealthy attitudes cultivated.

I will give you a hint, its not the acceptance of violence, control and rigid roles. They are the unhealthy attitudes and not why the unhealthy attitudes are cultivated. I want to know why and how unhealthy attitudes are cultivated.

Are there certain situations where they are cultivated more than others. Do certain situation prime people to be more open to hold these unhealthy attitudes. This is getting at the root cause and not the symptons (attitudes themselves) but what causes the attitudes.

No, I don't. We can see plenty of evidence that privileged people given power over others come easily to feel entitled to abuse.

But you cannot then assume that everyone with priviledge is an abuser. So therefore you cannot know whats in a persons mind as to whether they are the abusive type like my friend. Your also asuming he is priviledged.

Though priviledge may be a contributing factor using your logic just like you dismiss risk factors as not causes priviledge itself is not a cause as people with priviledge will also not abuse. Or are you saying 'priviledge' is a risk factor.

It's a hypothetical, so in this case, we're both hypothesizing. But in real life, we know a lot about how and why people behave the way they do. We know - from research done with actual abusers - what sorts of beliefs and attitudes they hold. We know about their sense of entitlement to abuse. We know that they didn't one day "just snap," but that their behaviour was consistent with those beliefs and attitudes.

But now your making an arguement for using the risk factors for abuse by saying we can look at people and groups and determine that certain behaviour is consistent with abusers.

Again, I'm not talking about defending oneself. I'm talking about a soldier fighting a war.

If we cannot determine why the solder is fighting then we have nothing to say about whether their behaviour is rational or justified or not because we don't know what the circumstances are. Its like saying a family man is in a fight and then giving no further information. It becomes just a statement without meaning.

No, I am not. I am arguing that the only difference between the person who blows up a building with people in it, because they're a terrorist, and a person who blows up a building with people in it, because they're a soldier at war, is in the values we place on their actions.

And isn't it the values that we use to determine whether its justified or not. How do we determine the difference between say harm caused by abuse by a controlling parent for not justifiable reason and say

Soldiers kill people. It's what they do; go and kill the people their government tells them to kill. On a mass scale. Whether or not they're "innocents" or whether that killing amounts to "murder," again, are value judgements in the eyes of the beholder.

Did not Joshua kill many when he attacked the Canaanite cities like Jericho. Didn't God tell him to kill just like governments tell soldiers to kill.

I'm not talking about defence, though. And what you've just said there - "pretty clear value difference" - was exactly my point. The difference between the mass killing of a terrorist, and the mass killing of a soldier, lies in the value difference.

But its the same logic you are using to determine child abuse. If we take that away then we can never say that child abuse is ever wrong.

I am not; I am holding up two instances of abhorrent violence and saying, the difference between these two acts is in the value we place on it. Similarly, whether or not we view a particular instance of corporal punishment as abuse or not, is a matter of the value we place on it.

So if we can say that certain treatment of a child is abuse or not why can't we say that certain killing is murder or not.

And I would say that this is exactly as true for any other instance of physical abuse.

Yes so we can determine what is abuse or not. Its just that we can more confidently claim that anyone who claims the more obvious abuses like breaking limbs or burning a child are rational and ok is deluded because there is no way for them to rationalise their justification.

If you can say it for the broken limb, why can't you say it for the bruises and welts? Why do you want to protect those abusers from the same accusation of delusion?

I don't, and we can say it. But you were using these examples to claim that people justify that harm as being rational and ok because its less obvious because we recently believed that it was ok.

That shows that we have held both contradicting views in recent times making it less obvious than say breaking kids limbs. I was trying to give an obvious example to avoid the grey areas to make the point. As I said your logic should apply to the obvious abuses as well if its correct.

And your logic would have to apply to the less severe abuses if it is correct. If someone who believes abuse can be justified is irrational, deluded, and so on, then that needs to be just as true of the person who takes a belt to their kid and leaves bruises.

Yes I agree but like I said to avoid the grey area and complications of people objecting that its hard to tell or we only recently believed it was ok ect ect which then deflates the arguement. So making the same arguement by using obvious examples cuts all the objections and gets straight to the point.

But we can use the less obvious ones but it will take more effort and time to go through all the objections. Why go through that when an obvious example will make the point easier.

And thats really where your logic falls down because I can say yes we can apply it too the grey areas with a bit of work but you cannot say we can apply your logic to the obvious examples because it starts to break down. Its harder to argue that obvious abuses are rational thinking and for the purpose of making my point thats all I have to do is show examples where your logic doesn't apply.

Well, shouldn't it be? Given all the evidence we have about trauma and long term harm?

Yes but that requires more reasoning, citing that evidence, countering opposing evdience for which there is some like I said. But citing an obvious example cuts to the chase and job is done. I only need to show one example where your logic doesn't apply and it doesn't matter what example it is.

I keep bringing up clear instances of physical abuse. They're not grey areas at all, and that anyone would seek to describe them that way is deeply disturbing.

No that is not why you brought up the examples of caning and belting and leaving welts. You just recently were claiming that people who believe abuse like caning that leaves welts think its rational externally. That a good case can be made for the abusers rationality so therefore they are not irrational.

So I used the obvious examples to refute that logic as it should apply to obvious examples as well. But when we use obvious ones theres no way anyone can make any rational for it. So it quickly proves the point that some abusers are irrational for thinking obvious abuses are rational and good for kids.

Again, this has to be equally true for all physical abuse. If you want to claim it for a broken limb, then you need to be willing to stand up for it on the cane or the belt (or forfeit whatever tattered shreds of credibility you might still have in this discussion).

I am quite willing to apply that logic and perhaps it would be a good exercise. But theres a big difference and you acknowledged that it can take time to establish trauma, some kids may not be as traumatised than others. So its a lot harder to go through all that and even then it may leave doubt in some peoples mind. Certainnly if someone claimed that a one off caning would cause trauma which is doubtful but possible.

But with broken limbs and burnt faces, the obvious physical abuses we can tell right away and theres not doubt, theres no way anyone can rationalise such abuses as being ok and even good for a child wellbeing.

I think your position is clear. I just think it's clearly inconsistent and wrong.

Well I disagree its inconsistent as I have been arguing the same thing all the way through this thread. I think you keep misrepresenting things and bringing up logical fallacies which are complicating things. Like the fallacy that my arguement has to apply to the harder to determine examples. Even though I am willing to try and apply it to those situations I don't have to to make the arguement as I only have to show that there are some examples no matter what they are that apply.

No. My concern in this thread are exactly the sorts of abuses which you are describing as "grey." The everyday physical abuse that happens in so many homes, not the rare extremes. And I am pointing out to you that if you want to describe abusers as deluded and irrational, as unable to think clearly, as overwhelmed with emotion, and so on, what you say has to be true of those sorts of abuse. And it has to hold up as a narrative which is consistent with all the evidence and which actually explains what it purports to explain, in terms of causative relationships.

It doesn't matter whether its a grey area or not for the purposes of the point I was making. Its making no judgements about the examples. Its just for the purpose of showing the mind set of an abuser. I am quite willing to go through the more grey examples but like I said they will take more effort and I am not sure we will get as clear an outcome as using the obvious ones.

But wer can apply my point to the grey areas anyway. If you say that the evdience for the more grey examples is now obvious just as it is for more obvious examples then we can also say that anyone who believes and thinks that these examples are rational and good for a childs wellbeing is also deluded.

But then this all started by me saying exactly that and you were disputing this saying we can't tell and the abusers think its rational. So thats why I used the obvious examples to cut to the chase to make the point.

And your argument doesn't do that.

Well it does, it's just that I was trying to avoid doing the hard yards when I didn't have to.

 

[stevevw]

An "actual rod" doesn't have to be massive. And the point remains; people use implements which do just as much damage, so there's no material difference in the argument. (Ah; you've just reminded me. Add "broomstick" to the list I gave above, of implements I have personally seen used for physical abuse).

What about feather duster. The Nuns use to use that because it was soft at one end for them to hold but with a cane stick on the other to hit with. Sister Mary Agnus Francis use to scare the daylights out of the kids.

We all have the evidence, though. I mean, apart from a few very isolated tribes, we're all part of a world in which knowledge sharing does happen.

Not really, many Asian nations are well behind in education and tech. But like I said they may be skeptical of the evidence because it comes from westernised science and many less developed nations think westernised science is biased anyway.

The same science tells them that their cultural beliefs are a load of rubbish so they tend to switch off when it comes to westernised ideas and truth claims. They are more fundemental in their beliefs and thinking.

It's not so much that evidence refutes belief, as that evidence can invite beliefs to be reconsidered.

Really tell that to the Flat earthers who must have seen pictures of the curvature of the earth from satelites or space telescopes or even from a plane. Their belief is so strong that they think even the evidence, the science is faked. How do you get around that. Do you think the evdience and science will change a Christians belief in a supernatural God.

Sure. But again, this says nothing about whether the chain of reasoning involved is, in any way, ethical. It can be highly unethical.

For example, there is a famous hypothetical which apparently can help to identify people with psychopathic tendencies. “While at her own mother's funeral, a woman meets a guy she doesn't know. She thinks this guy is amazing — her dream man — and is pretty sure he could be the love of her life. However, she never asked for his name or number and afterwards could not find anyone who knows who he was. A few days later the girl kills her own sister – but why?”

The answer which the person with psychopathic tendencies might give is that the woman hopes to see this man again at her sister's funeral.

And it demonstrates a perfectly rational process by which the woman decided to commit the murder. It drew conclusions from facts, logic and data; the likelihood of a relationship between this man and another family member, the likelihood of him attending another funeral, and so on.
Cold-bloodedly unethical, of course, but perfectly rational.

(Note: I am not claiming that abusive parents are psychopaths. I am simply trying to illustrate the difference between "rational" and "ethical").

Actually this example is a false analogy. If you remember I was talking about the facts about whether the abusers beliefs and thinking were coherent with the facts and not the morality. Or not just the morality. That someone who thought breaking kids limbs was rational and good for a childs wellbeing. So we are using the facts and not morality just as we would say to prove abuse causes trauma.

So to apply this to your scenario it would be the case that the women thought it was rational to murder others to get what she wants. But we can show through the facts and science that this is not rational as it would create chaos and fear and distrust and trauman for many people. Anyone who claims this was a rational idea generally for society is bonkers and locked up so that could not do more damage.

It may be rational and logical to the women having the delusions but as soon as she tests that thinking beyond her make believe world she will be exposed as a nut case.

I know. But I am rejecting that model as an explanation of what causes people to abuse.

Its not meant to be an explanation for what causes abuse. Its meant to help identify when abuse is more likely to happen so we can prevent it.

Because they are not what is causing it.

Like I said there is no single factor or specific combinations of factors that cause abuse. Its a complex dynamical relationship between a number of factors and circumstances at the individual, family and relations and societal wide influences.

You know what one single factor every single abuser has in common? Beliefs and attitudes which justify their abusive behaviour.

I think there are varying situations where abuse happens. Some may have cultivated a belief and its a conscious belief and they live that out in just about everything they do. They protest, defy, control, use agression more often. But then there are those who havn't thought about it, are not agressive by nature but may occassional get angry and violent due to circumstances. I don't think its a one size fits all.

But even so the belief and attituide is just the symptom of some underlying motivation brought on by experience and conditions. Belief especially negative belief doesn't come out of thin air. People don't just think violence is good without something that has caused them to think violence is good. So really belief is not the root of the problem but whatever causes people to believe in negative and destructive beliefs.

Thats usually stems from experience, negative experience where people become angry, resentful, and violent at what they percieve is unfair, a threat or injustice even if they are mistaken. They have been primed to believe what they believe and no amount of reason is going to change their mind. It is these condistions and situations that we need to prevent to stop people becoming volnurable to such beliefs. If people are tossed on the rubbish heap of life and treated like dogs they will eventually start to bark and bite people like a mistreated dog.