It means the "compromise" is not the reason. "Compromised" people will only abuse if they also hold beliefs which justify abuse.
Its doesn't follow that compromised parents only abuse if they have a belief in abuse. Like I said the evidence shows that when compromised parents are taught to handle their feelings and irrational thinking they no longer abuse. Its addressing the reason they are compromised which stops them abusing.
You will have to explain why all the evidence shows that addressing the parents psychological problems actually stops them abusing. Whether they have belief or not its addressing the psychological dysfunction that prevents them abusing.
Yes; the beliefs and attitudes they hold.
No the evidence shows that the reason parents don't abuse is because they have protective factors in place. They either have emotional intelligence to not allow their feelings and thinking to over ride them or they have someone in their life who they can talk to and come to their senses.
If they have any beliefs or attitudes about abuse its because of their psychological profile where they have a need to believe such stuff. So its dealing with the psychological issues is what changes their thinking and beliefs.
No; they don't abuse because they don't hold beliefs and attitudes which justify abuse. You can give a person who does hold those beliefs every support in the world and they will still abuse.
I will do your trick, Evidence please. The simple fact they have support, and this gives them some insight into themselves is what dispels they irrational beliefs. People need to reason to believe such negative stuff.
They don;t just wake up one day and believe what they see and here. They are primed to believe it. So no amount of trying to convince them their belief is wrong. They will only see the irrationality when they look inside themselves to see their irrational thinking.
Only if you reject the reality that some people of sound mind choose to abuse.
But how can this be of sound mind when they are acting against their own natural instinct to care and protect their child. Its like going out to your car and smashing it up. Thats just plain crazy doing that to yourself or to a loved one especially if its the child you birthed into the world.
If any mother were to reject their baby and beat it they would immediate be referred to a psychologist. That is the case with all abusers, they are sent for psychological evalutation and therapy.
No; you were arguing that the harsher behaviours were not necessarily abuse.
Please show me where I was arguing that the harsher behaviours are not necessarily abuse. You have misunderstood what I said. Go and re read it. I said that the harsher punishments don't fall under the traditional understanding of abuse such as having a set method such as spanking that goes overboard.
But they are still abuse in every way. Why wouldn't kicking a child or breaking their ribs not be abuse. I have been arguing its abuse the entire threat.
I am arguing that they are abuse, but that there is not necessarily a clear difference in the cognitive and affective capacity of the parents using those behaviours, than those who do not.
Yes there is by the fact that the parents who use CP and don't abuse are in control of themselves. THis is self evident in that they are able to stop at the legal limit and not cross that line. But those who cross the line have little self control.
I gave you a dozen links supporting this. How about instead of making their unsupported claims and explain why the articles contradict you. Oh thats right you claims that all the experts are ignorant and don't know what they are talking about.
I said theres a clear difference between 6 or 10 smacks and the more extreme examples like 6 smacks and broken ribs. You then used the same analogy between 6 and 10 slaps to argue that I am wrong. But you used the exact same anaology I was disputing which the the false anaology I refuted. Your just repeating the false anology because its about the more extreme differences that cannot be rationalised as ok.
Except that ten is over the threshold for abuse.
Yes but its only over slightly compared to broken ribs. Someone who goes over by 1 or 2 smacks which we can understand that its not so clear. But boken ribs is obvious and theres no way to rationalise that its ok or borderline ok or more obviously abuse then 1 smack over the limit.
We can make an argument for why it is wrong, even while recognising that all such arguments are based in subjective values.
What does that even mean. It doesn't change the fact that its obviously wrong. I don't mean wrong ethically but wrong as in the parents claim that it is good for their health and wellbeing is wrong scientifically. You keep using this logical fallacy of a false analogy.
No. My point is that your whole argument that abusers abuse because they are so cognitively and emotionally compromised that they are being irrational is just wrong. It's a false explanation for abuse, and therefore an unsound starting point for prevention work.
No its the basis for prevention and even your link stated this when it says that we must restructure the conditions abuse happens in and give therapy and financial support to parents who are having problems with childrens behaviour.
Well, those are exactly the cases with which we need to be concerned. If we want to build a culture in which abuse is not tolerated, we need to deal with those instances. Most abusers aren't breaking legs. For every broken limb there are thousands of kids dealing with bruises or punishment with an implement. That's where we need to be aiming our attention, and that will, by default, deal with the more severe end of abuse as well.
No this is false again. The majority of abuse does not happen with an implement. That may have ben the case years ago when traditional forms were more popular. But now its just hands on abuse, hitting all over the body, biting, pinching, grabbing viciously leaving bruises, burning, cracking ribs which is the majority of abuse. Parents don't plan out their methods they just react when their kids plays up.
I'm not saying anything is difficult to determine. But I am saying that it is in this area that the majority of physical abuse is occurring, and needs to be dealt with.
Not in many, many households.
Not in many, many households.
And I am saying this is false. I just gave you links that show that abuse happens a number of ways. The majority come from biting, kicking, strangling, throwing, pushing ect and not the traditional methods. Parents rarely stop and think.
I
Yes. And I'd stand by that.
How can it be rational when the evidence shows their thinking is in error. They may rationalise that breaking ribs is good for their wellbing and health but the science says this thinking is in error, its a cognitive error in thinking.
Just like if someone believes that eating rat poison is good for your health the science shows this is irrational as in reality rat poison is bad for your health.
If it was rational for the abuser to break ribs or burn a child then the abuser would have to come up with a rational arguement that is objectively true beyond their own thinking to prove that breaking ribs and burning kids is good for their health and wellbeing.
By definition, in Australian law, discipline with an implement is physical abuse.
Ok so just using an implement is abuse. BUt that doesn't answer the point which was that we can tell a clear difference between going slightly over the limit which or using an implement when using controlled CP is completely different to hitting all over the body around the head, kicking, strangling, throwing that cause much more damage is obvious and therefore cannot be rationalised in any coherent way.
It's not necessarily about "need." It's about what they've been raised to believe is good and normal, what they've seen in their homes, in their community and society and culture, what they've heard in church (or other faith settings) and seen modelled. It's all the messages they've received about what is normal and ideal. All those messages about violence, about hierarchy, about rigid roles, about power and control, that tell them what good and decent parents and authority figures do.
But using your own logic not all people who are subject to those messages and examples go on to abuse. This shows that those who do have some need within them that relates to those messages and examples, they have a mind filter that is selective of those negative messages and examples. As opposed to those who hear the messages and see the examples and don't take on that belief or attitude.
Thats because those who don't are not primed, they have emotional intelligence to see the thinking and beliefs as being negative and not the solution to life, to how to behave. So these beliefs don't resinate with them.
What it tells us is that focussing on all the other so-called causes is false.
No it tells us that they are real and factual because there has to be a reason within the person to take on those beliefs. Saying the cause if belief doesn't tell us why they believe.
Saying its because they have been shown that abuse is ok to do doesn't explain why most people hear the same message and don't choose to believe it. There has to be something in the person that attracts them to those beliefs and way of thinking. Its just simple logic.
All of us will weigh our own experience and draw our own conclusions. Some of us even change our minds. But people don't come to hold these beliefs just due to some cognitive or affective deficit.
Being able to change our minds is the result of our thinking, our emotional intelligence or not because we see the reasons why we should change our minds. We see the unreality and change our minds or don't go there in the first place.
Again, that's a subjective value judgement.
Why do you repeat logical fallacies when I have pointed them out. I explained that these negative feelings have a physical reaction so they are not subjective. Negative thinking and perceptions effect your health and positive ones are linked to good health. If negative feelings have a physical effect on bodies and in the real world then they are beyond subjective determinations and objectively real.
So abuse is associated with negative feelings like aggression, anxiety, unreal threat, depression, poor self esteem ect. Parents lose controll when negative emotions like aggression are allowed to fester or when their anxiety creates an unreal perception of threat and their fight response is warped so they physically lash out due to a lack of emotional regulation.
I keep repeating this and have linked the evidence but you still persist with this false claim.
Note: "Aggression does not always involve violence." "Violence is more likely to refer to an extreme form of aggression," which means there is aggression which is not expressed in violence. That resource does a nice job of disambiguating aggression, anger and violence.
But agression always involves causing physical harm which is exactly what physical abuse against a child is. Your own link supports my claim.
Aggression is generally considered a behaviour that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another person.
Violence is just the extreme end of aggression. But aggression itself is the negative feeling. Violence is just that negative feeling taken to ahigher level. It doesn't matter because my point was that abuse involves negative feelings like aggression and yourt links supports that.
Part of the problem, I think, is that some literature seems to use the word "aggression" when they mean violence.
(Eg: here: 9.1 Defining Aggression – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International H5P Edition. where they define aggression as behavior that is intended to harm another individual).
But aggression is a psychological trait first, not a behaviour.
But behaviour is motivated by the psychologicalm trait or feeling. They cannot be seperated. That is what I have been saying with abusers that it takes a certain kind of person to want to control, abuse and be violent. Something in them motivates them to be this way.
Again, a subjective value judgement. I prefer the APA's description of aggression as a "multidimensional phenomenon that may be parsed by cognition, affect, and behavior."
OK I will rephrase this to be more specific. Negative aggression is linked to abuse and violence. The anger has turned into agression and the aggression has turned negative and into violence and abuse.
lol. You keep changing goal posts and misrepresenting things that its pinning my head lol.
