4 ms·

> some students thought it was abusive to require skiing and mountain biking two days per week (I disagree) The question of whether this is abusive or not depe

> some students thought it was abusive to require skiing and mountain biking two days per week (I disagree) The question of whether this is abusive or not depends on the consequences for refusing to go. Do kids lose TV privileges for a day if they refuse to go? Then I'd say it's not abusive. Are kids locked in a room if they refuse to go? Definitely abusive.

Clubber 5y ago
>Are kids locked in a room if they refuse to go? Definitely abusive. I don't disagree, but also consider the entire picture. Some of these people end up being the ones that get raging drunk, and into head on collision with a family of 4 killing them all. How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there? Surely not by preemptive incarceration. GP said: > Do kids lose TV privileges for a day if they refuse to go? Then I'd say it's not abusive. I don't agree. Coercing kids into physical sports is abusive. In general, using coercion (including denial of "privileges" that non-inmates consider a right) is both abusive and probably doomed. This kid was surely troubled; but why? He didn't talk much about how his parents treated him. All we know is that their response to the trouble was to dump him in an institution. My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection.
  - Clubber 5y ago
    >> How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there? >Surely not by preemptive incarceration. You aren't suggesting any solutions. >Coercing kids into physical sports is abusive. You shouldn't dilute the term abusive like that. >In general, using coercion (including denial of "privileges" that non-inmates consider a right) is both abusive and probably doomed. I don't think you have kids, you're looking at it from the child's perspective, not a parent's. You haven't really promoted any solutions, just saying things you shouldn't do, leaving a parent with zero tools whatsoever other than to just let the kid be wild. I've seen the results of that, it's quite destructive as well. It's ultimately the parents' responsibility to raise children, and at least in the US, they get zero help and mostly criticism for how they do it, mostly from people who don't have children themselves. What do you do if you suspect your child is the next Adam Lanza? What do you do if you are as financially constrained and have nearly zero help as a parent in the US? Some variation of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps?"
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      > You aren't suggesting any solutions. I'm not a child psychotherapist (but I was married to one). But I believe that in the case of children, and possibly with adults too, providing a warm, supportive environment for the subject to explore their feelings and behaviour is at least part of a solution. > You shouldn't dilute the term abusive like that. What's your threshold for calling something "abuse"? At my school we had to play Rugby Union. In one year, several kids in my class were hospitalised with gashes caused by metal boot-studs in the scrum. My son had flat feet; running literally caused him pain. > I don't think you have kids I think you think too much. I have two adult kids, and two grandchildren. > just saying things you shouldn't do, leaving a parent with zero tools Well, the subject is the consequences of using incarceration as your parenting tool, so that's not surprising. I'm not suggesting that parenting is easy. And I'm certainly not going to point at some doctrine or methodology, and say "everyone should do it this way". People are people, and they're all different. There's no "right way" of dealing with people. But neglecting children, and then punishing them because they act up, is the "wrong way".
  - rajin444 5y ago
    > My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection. I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us. That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that.
    - mxkopy 5y ago
      Do you have a source for your statistics?
    - hef19898 5y ago
      You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment. Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. If people commit crimes, we have a justice system (no matter how fucked up those can be, not even talking about prisons). For those truly having mental and psychiatric issues, we have corresponding hospitals (again, those can be, and are, pretty abusive themselves). And none of those should be above critical investigations. As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too.
      - rajin444 5y ago
        > We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment? "Dictate" is much too strong. Genetics and environment interact in complex ways, that aren't well understood. I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. It seems to be an idea that attracts religious fundamentalists. I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are. Some kids seem to be able to largely shake off trauma on their own; others need help. My guess is that it's much harder to help a 30-year-old deal with childhood trauma than it is a 12-year-old. But that doesn't mean the 30-year-old is "bad to the bone".
Fertilio 5y ago

Clubber 5y ago

>Are kids locked in a room if they refuse to go? Definitely abusive. I don't disagree, but also consider the entire picture. Some of these people end up being the ones that get raging drunk, and into head on collision with a family of 4 killing them all. How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there?

denton-scratch 5y ago
> How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there? Surely not by preemptive incarceration. GP said: > Do kids lose TV privileges for a day if they refuse to go? Then I'd say it's not abusive. I don't agree. Coercing kids into physical sports is abusive. In general, using coercion (including denial of "privileges" that non-inmates consider a right) is both abusive and probably doomed. This kid was surely troubled; but why? He didn't talk much about how his parents treated him. All we know is that their response to the trouble was to dump him in an institution. My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >> How the heck do you try to prevent something like that when all the warning signs are there? >Surely not by preemptive incarceration. You aren't suggesting any solutions. >Coercing kids into physical sports is abusive. You shouldn't dilute the term abusive like that. >In general, using coercion (including denial of "privileges" that non-inmates consider a right) is both abusive and probably doomed. I don't think you have kids, you're looking at it from the child's perspective, not a parent's. You haven't really promoted any solutions, just saying things you shouldn't do, leaving a parent with zero tools whatsoever other than to just let the kid be wild. I've seen the results of that, it's quite destructive as well. It's ultimately the parents' responsibility to raise children, and at least in the US, they get zero help and mostly criticism for how they do it, mostly from people who don't have children themselves. What do you do if you suspect your child is the next Adam Lanza? What do you do if you are as financially constrained and have nearly zero help as a parent in the US? Some variation of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps?"
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > You aren't suggesting any solutions. I'm not a child psychotherapist (but I was married to one). But I believe that in the case of children, and possibly with adults too, providing a warm, supportive environment for the subject to explore their feelings and behaviour is at least part of a solution. > You shouldn't dilute the term abusive like that. What's your threshold for calling something "abuse"? At my school we had to play Rugby Union. In one year, several kids in my class were hospitalised with gashes caused by metal boot-studs in the scrum. My son had flat feet; running literally caused him pain. > I don't think you have kids I think you think too much. I have two adult kids, and two grandchildren. > just saying things you shouldn't do, leaving a parent with zero tools Well, the subject is the consequences of using incarceration as your parenting tool, so that's not surprising. I'm not suggesting that parenting is easy. And I'm certainly not going to point at some doctrine or methodology, and say "everyone should do it this way". People are people, and they're all different. There's no "right way" of dealing with people. But neglecting children, and then punishing them because they act up, is the "wrong way".
- rajin444 5y ago
  > My guess is that his behaviour was a rational response to being brought up in a home where he was denied love and affection. I wish this were always the case but statistically this would be a miracle. There is a non zero number of humans born that no matter what we do they will not work with the society that works for the rest of us. That’s the root of this issue. How do you help the ones that can be helped, and what do you do with those that can’t be helped. I imagine we’ll need a much more sophisticated understanding of genetics before we can answer that.
  - mxkopy 5y ago
    Do you have a source for your statistics?
  - hef19898 5y ago
    You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics? We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment. Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period. If people commit crimes, we have a justice system (no matter how fucked up those can be, not even talking about prisons). For those truly having mental and psychiatric issues, we have corresponding hospitals (again, those can be, and are, pretty abusive themselves). And none of those should be above critical investigations. As a society we have to accept that some people don't want to cooperate. As long as nobody is harmed (up to the justice system to decide) we have to accept that too.
    - rajin444 5y ago
      > We are as much a product of our genes as we are of our environment Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment?
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        > Don’t our genes dictate how we respond to our environment? "Dictate" is much too strong. Genetics and environment interact in complex ways, that aren't well understood. I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad. It seems to be an idea that attracts religious fundamentalists. I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are. Some kids seem to be able to largely shake off trauma on their own; others need help. My guess is that it's much harder to help a 30-year-old deal with childhood trauma than it is a 12-year-old. But that doesn't mean the 30-year-old is "bad to the bone".

Fertilio 5y ago