Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!


DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here
66 Philosopher King files - 73 Gold files - 47 Silver files - 51 Bronze files


One new Silver podcast has been added to the donator section: Is a lack of empathy immoral?.

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Photo

The Facts about Spanking


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

The shocking science about the long-term effects of corporal punishment, essential viewing for every parent! Sources http://pediatrics.aa.../4/723.full.pdf http://www.stopspank...ics You Need to http://www.themoneyt....com/node/85300 http://www.repeal43.org/research.html http://www.utexas.ed...zabeth_gershoff http://latimesblogs....panking-iq.html http://www.nospank.net/johnson2.htm http://www.neverhita...rg/unspar1.html http://nospank.net/straus15.pdf http://www.stophitti...factsvsopinions http://www.naturalch...nt/spanked.html http://www.time.com/...1926222,00.html


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#2
Torres9

Torres9
  • 291 posts

Excellent vid.  The sources link on the yt video, http://www.fdrurl.com/spanking, is directing to the fdr homepage.


  • 0

"The unexamined life is not worth living."  - Socrates


#3
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

thanks, fixed


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#4
andyissemicool

andyissemicool
  • 28 posts

Fantastic video. I wonder what effect spanking can have on memory development or to what extent bad memories (like those of being spanked) can become foggy or hazy over time as a defense mechanism. For example, I know I was spanked as a young child until I was about 10 or so, but I can only remember a very few particular incidents of it happening whereas I remember quite a bit from ages 7-10 otherwise.

Thanks for the video.


  • 0

#5
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

you might want to check out the series below, which talks about childhood trauma and memory loss:

http://www.fdrurl.com/bib


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#6
andyissemicool

andyissemicool
  • 28 posts

Have seen that and remember that section. I don't think (at least I don't recall if) it answered whether or not the memory loss was a physical event of memory loss (like a major blow to the head might cause) or if it was a psychological trick played by the brain to defend against and avoid having to recall previous trauma.


  • 0

#7
J-William

J-William
  • 1285 posts

Wow, how many things can you say that people do that 85% would rather not do? or to put it more bleakly, only 15% of the people doing it want to continue doing it.

Probably 50% of people on crack or other hard drugs want to continue doing it. I honestly can't think of something... oh I betcha 0% of people on chemotherapy would want to keep doing it if they could stop chemo and live. Probably 95% of people would stop using sunscreen if there was a better alternative. :)


  • 0

Please check out my game "Hungry Blob", it's a pleasant time-waster. https://itunes.apple...d923740806?mt=8    :thanks:

“Good men don’t serve in the army.  Good iron doesn’t get turned into nails.”- Chinese saying

 
 

#8
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

Stefan, thanks for all you do.  You are a much appreciated voice.

I saw this piece referenced on Facebook and commented there as well.  My problem with the piece was the somewhat shifty boundaries between "spanking" and "slapping".  I think even among those who never spank their children (I am among this number), we still acknowledge a difference between ostensibly corrective behaviors and purely abusive ones.

I have no trouble at all believing that in the net, these things achieve analogous results with perhaps minor differences in degree.  But I also believe that the sort of person that defends corporal punishment for children is similar to the slaveholder of 150 years ago who assured outsiders of their benevolence.  I am not sure they can be reached by lumping them in logically with the "bad slaveholders" (i.e. "abusive parents").

I imagine that the collected research runs the gamut from studies about mild physical correction to wanton abuse, but I am curious if the same findings could be as eloquently presented if restricted to studies of only the most benign corporal disciplinary practices.  I further question if studies would show similar results from parents who solely emotionally abuse or belittle their children, but I suppose that is a different show.


  • 0

#9
Cody Hall

Cody Hall
  • 319 posts

Fantastic video and it will be of great use in spreading the truth of childhood trauma (via spanking) to many people I come in contact; people who would not otherwise understand this connection to many of their personality issues in their adult life.

Thank you and keep up the great work! [:)]


  • 0

"Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive."


~ Ragnar Danneskjöld - "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand ~


#10
Dave Bockman

Dave Bockman
  • 2849 posts

I think even among those who never spank their children (I am among this number), we still acknowledge a difference between ostensibly corrective behaviors and purely abusive ones.

There is no difference when violence is employed. It doesn't matter what the intent is to the child-- the nerve endings, the developing brain, the amygdala.... they don't register the abuser's intent, only the shock, pain, embarrassment, rage, guilt, fear.

 


  • 0

"Use the flame of knowledge to light candles, not peoples' hair"-- S. Molyneux


#11
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

I disagree.  Spanking, speaking of relatively mild reproof, is a bad outcome.  Wanton abuse is egregious.  There is a distinction of degree that is undeniable.  It is the difference between bombing Dresden and fire-bombing Dresden.

Moreover, I think you missed my point.  I am not the person that needs to be sold to the science that all spanking is bad.  That audience is comprised of people who issue what they consider mild reproof to their children.  They do not wantonly abuse, meaning deliver hard trauma.  The people who do the latter are not that audience because they likely do not care.

So how best to reach those people that do comprise the audience?  Structure the scientific proof strictly around the most benign forms of spanking which we at least agree are bad outcomes.  A collateral benefit of such a presentation is that it implicitly puts all more extreme forms of abuse into a taboo category.


  • 0

#12
JamesP

JamesP
  • 3902 posts

Moreover, I think you missed my point.  I am not the person that needs to be sold to the science that all spanking is bad.  That audience is comprised of people who issue what they consider mild reproof to their children.  They do not wantonly abuse, meaning deliver hard trauma.  The people who do the latter are not that audience because they likely do not care.

So how best to reach those people that do comprise the audience?  Structure the scientific proof strictly around the most benign forms of spanking which we at least agree are bad outcomes.  A collateral benefit of such a presentation is that it implicitly puts all more extreme forms of abuse into a taboo category.

Can you specifically point out where Stef could have done this better?  Please provide specific examples so we can understand your criticism, possibly by citing what Stef said and then providing an alternative way of phrasing it, or pointing out how it's negative in the way you describe.

Alternatively, perhaps you can share with us a scenario in your life where your approach has worked with other parents?


  • 0

Connect with me: @jamesapyrich, Facebook, james-a-pyrich on Skype


Meetup with fellow local Freedomainers!

 

I accept BTC: 1DGcCf52Tnyc6pJbyQUwbiLj6Pkt6qHa3Y


#13
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

Certainly.  For instance, in the section "Substance Abuse/Mental Health", it points out that "children who are spanked and slapped are twice as likely to develop alcohol addiction and other drug abuse".  But I highly doubt that people of, say, a religious ilk who spank their children will relate to "slapping" them, and so I believe this immediately alienates this group.  To them, this grouping of spanking (connotation: mild reproof) and slapping (connotation: wanton abuse) amounts to a conflation.

I believe you avoid this alienation by restricting the studies (and dialog) to the most mild forms of spanking which we all seemingly agree are harmful behaviors.  It is just my opinion, but it seems best to make it clear that even these "mild" forms are damaging and win those people over.

So your next question is probably, "Why would some one see it this way?"  My own experience provides an example.  I grew up in a house with a religious mother and a secular father.  My mother believed in spanking, my father did not.  As a child, my mother occasionally spanked my siblings and me.  My father appealed to reason from earliest childhood.  My parenting style (and my wife's) completely reflect my father's reasoned approach, but I promise you I know how my mother would see the argument.  She would immediately turn this off if you implied that her "spanking" was "slapping", period.  You would have lost her, and that would be a shame.

The bottom line is that people get defensive about their ideas when they are challenged forcefully.  People on this forum are showing defensiveness with my well-meaning posts, so you are possibly guilty of this too.  I am not suggesting you have to agree with me, but merely consider how effective the presentation would be if tailored for that audience that is most likely to be swayed to its point.

Lastly, I cannot share a scenario from life (other than the above) where "my approach" has worked.  I do not spank/slap/hit/belittle - never have - and I have always had faith this approach produces the best outcomes.  I am biased, but I believe my daughter is a wonderful example of someone who is not violent, questions things objectively, and believes in the power of discussion and negotiation.  My father wins, as I see it.


  • 0

#14
Nathan

Nathan
  • 13064 posts

She would immediately turn this off if you implied that her "spanking" was "slapping", period.  You would have lost her, and that would be a shame.

That is a shame that she is so defensive and unapproachable that she wouldn't consider the arguments being made, own up and apologize. I'm truly sorry about that.

The problem with this is that when you fail to make this point, they always come back with "but this is spanking, not hitting or beating or slapping, it's totally different because I agree that beating is abuse".

That's a catch 22 and it's not Stef's problem to manage their defenses around this.  I mean, you can be gentle to some degree, but seriously, I would not mince words and giving them an out by playing into their language game of euphemisms. People like this are beyond reproach and beyond any negative feedback whatsoever.


  • 0

#15
Dave Bockman

Dave Bockman
  • 2849 posts

She would immediately turn this off if you implied that her "spanking" was "slapping", period.  You would have lost her, and that would be a shame.

That is a shame that she is so defensive and unapproachable that she wouldn't consider the arguments being made, own up and apologize.

The problem with this is that when you fail to make this point, they always come back with "but this is spanking, not hitting or beating or slapping, it's totally different because I agree that beating is abuse".

That's a catch 22 and it's not Stef's problem to manage their defenses around this.  I mean, you can be gentle to some degree, but seriously, I would not mince words and giving them an out by playing into their language game of euphemisms. People like this are beyond reproach and beyond any negative feedback whatsoever.

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be
maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his
method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”--Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

 


  • 0

"Use the flame of knowledge to light candles, not peoples' hair"-- S. Molyneux


#16
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

I mean, you can be gentle to some degree, but seriously, I would not
mince words and giving them an out by playing into their language game
of euphemisms.

I am not talking about being gentle per se, and I am talking about the opposite of playing into their thinking.  Tailor it to exactly what they do, and specifically that.  Speak only to the ideas they hold sacred without inclusion of more abusive behaviors.  If you conflate their behavior into something more extreme, they turn off.  So attack their base with science and without anger.

Bottom line, the science is there against even the most mild forms of spanking.  So speak just to that.  Do not try to imply that they are the same as the guy who just yesterday beat his 7 year-old and threw him off a boat.  Show them their own life in a mirror, then show them why they should rethink it.  You are not going to convert a wanton abuser anyway, at least not so easily.  You can absolutely convert people like my mother (who, btw, has rethought much of her former practices anyway) with the sort of sound evidence that is available today.

Ultimately, I would say it is all about anger.  It is anger that drives physical punishment, yes.  But it is also anger that makes you want to group a well-intentioned (if misguided) spanker in with someone who hospitalizes their children with headblows.  We need to abandon our anger too in favor of the sort of rational discourse that the subject requires.


  • 0

#17
nine_owl

nine_owl
  • 60 posts

I can vouch for the fact that at least some of those parents who spank their children do not approve of their own of spanking/beating (how many of them get help and change their behavior is another question).

I recently had an incident where a 4 year old pushed over my daughter in a public play area here in China.  I immediately came to my daughters side to help comfort her while I watched in horror as the child who pushed my daughter was beat very hard in front of me. Unfortunately, I did not act calmly at all and confronted this women loudly by yelling, "No wonder your daughter has learned to push others when you set an example like that!".  The little girl immediately came to her Mother's defense and began calling me a "bad man".  It was difficult because the entire time my daughter was crying and everyone's emotions were running high.  My wife came over and as we calmed down we took the time to explain things better and in the end it tuned out that this women agreed with us that hitting is setting a poor example and she even admitted to "not liking herself" after she hits her own daughter.  It was a very revealing situation and really speaks to the spiritual/psychologic death that occurs when you employ violence against the innocent.

Thankfully I don't think that my daughter was seriously damaged by the incident.  She is too happy and full of energy to be significantly bothered by such a one-time event...

 

 

 


  • 0

"Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone."

"Reward and punishment are the lowest form of education."

    - ZhuangZi , Ancient Chinese Philosopher -369 BC - 286 BC


#18
Kowalski

Kowalski
  • 302 posts

To them, this grouping of spanking (connotation: mild reproof) and slapping (connotation: wanton abuse) amounts to a conflation.

No,
the arbitrary non-grouping of "spanking" and slapping amounts to
euphemising physical assault. These people are well aware that they
could be jailed at least overnight and maybe for months for "spanking"
an adult stranger in the street so the inability to connect that with
their behavior towards their own children is down to their wanton
denial, not anyone's poor delivery of the truth.

Do you honestly think it's
a sane argument to say "don't group people who slap their wives (well
intentioned and just don't know it's wrong!) in with people who beat them up (bad!), you'll alienate the good wife assaulters."?


  • 0

#19
Kowalski

Kowalski
  • 302 posts

I am not talking about being gentle per se, and I am talking about the opposite of playing into their thinking.  Tailor it to exactly what they do, and specifically that.  Speak only to the ideas they hold sacred without inclusion of more abusive behaviors.  If you conflate their behavior into something more extreme, they turn off.  So attack their base with science and without anger.

If someone said the same thing stef did without (correctly) grouping together spanking and slapping, they would still be met with the same rage and defensiveness so what's the point in sugar-coating to someone that they are being abusive? Some people are simply not going to admit they are child abusers because they don't want to and are in denial, period. There's no argumentative strategy of grouping or non-grouping that will change this


  • 0

#20
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

Do you honestly think it's
a sane argument to say "don't group people who slap their wives (well
intentioned and just don't know it's wrong!) in with people who beat them up (bad!), you'll alienate the good wife assaulters."?

I believe degree matters, yes.  Let's not conflate my point into excusing anybody - that is *your* anger talking.  You should ask yourself whether your true goal is to educate people and change them for the better, or to indict them for your emotional benefit.

But let me counter with this question:

Are you saying there is *zero* difference between someone who swats their child on the bottom (again, bad) with somebody who hospitalizes their child with head blows (egregious)?

If so, it is my opinion you are being irrational.  You can typically reason with the former, but not the latter.  If you want an analogy, there is one in the drug world.  You can often pull someone back from the brink before they have gotten into "hard drugs".  Once they have crossed over that line though, you will have a very difficult time pulling them back.  The statistics are substantially different for the two categories.

Degree matters, and not just to me.  Law distinguishes between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter.  Perhaps you would like to say, "It is all murder".  Great, but for law to make this distinction, it must necessarily mean to many people that the circumstances mandate different approaches.


  • 0

#21
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

If someone said the same thing stef did without (correctly) grouping together spanking and slapping, they would still be met with the same rage and defensiveness so what's the point in sugar-coating to someone that they are being abusive? Some people are simply not going to admit they are child abusers because they don't want to and are in denial, period. There's no argumentative strategy of grouping or non-grouping that will change this

Exactly, "some people" will not admit it.  But if the message is properly tailored, some will.  Sugar-coating?  Again, I think you miss the point.  Tailoring, so that deniability becomes low and there is no anger in the message.

Argumentative approach matters in any area of life.  If you believe differently, try going into every disagreement with a combative or insulting demeanor.  See if you have results better than someone who, without anger or passion and with sound logic, presents their best argument.  I think it is disingenuous to believe you would.

Bottom line, winning hearts and minds is a margin game.  You will never reach everyone.  You have to take the greatest measure of "some people" you can get.  It may make you feel better to call all villains out, but converting some would be a better outcome.


  • 0

#22
Lowe D

Lowe D

    Lion King

  • 861 posts

So your next question is probably, "Why would some one see it this way?"  My own experience provides an example.  I grew up in a house with a religious mother and a secular father.  My mother believed in spanking, my father did not.  As a child, my mother occasionally spanked my siblings and me.  My father appealed to reason from earliest childhood.  My parenting style (and my wife's) completely reflect my father's reasoned approach, but I promise you I know how my mother would see the argument.  She would immediately turn this off if you implied that her "spanking" was "slapping", period.  You would have lost her, and that would be a shame.

That's terrible.  Your father sounds like a truly foolish and cowardly person, probably because of trauma he sustained himself.

No,
the arbitrary non-grouping of "spanking" and slapping amounts to
euphemising physical assault. These people are well aware that they
could be jailed at least overnight and maybe for months for "spanking"
an adult stranger in the street so the inability to connect that with
their behavior towards their own children is down to their wanton
denial, not anyone's poor delivery of the truth.

This is a
great point that cannot be emphasized enough.  I would add, though,
that this action would generally be acknowledged as a sexual attack, and
lead to appropriate consequences.  Society does not appear ready to offer children the same courtesy.


  • 0

If we have souls, they are made of the love we share. Undimmed by time, unbound by death.

Oblivion


#23
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

That's terrible.  Your father sounds like a truly foolish and cowardly person, probably because of trauma he sustained himself.

Thank goodness you are not the sort of person who says insensitive and thoughtless things, Lowe.  I knew I could reach someone here, LOL.

I will not rise to your bait.  My father ran a psychiatric clinic in the inner city for many years and was much beloved, so I think I know better.  He worked passionately in places where most medical professionals would dare not even venture, and did so for relatively little reward.

It is intriguing that there is so much defensiveness and rage on a site that purports to be about rational discourse.  But I guess people here take out their anger in more productive ways than striking people, so that much is good.  Still, I wonder at the indifference over those people who do spank but could otherwise be helped.  It is easiest if one remembers that they are victims first, and that this is causal.

 


  • 0

#24
Lowe D

Lowe D

    Lion King

  • 861 posts

So your father was a great guy, who married a religious woman and gave her children, whom she hit, apparently repeatedly, despite his arguments she not.  Is that right?  Maybe you can explain it better, because it doesn't seem consistent to me.

Especially considering you've said your father had some psychiatric expertise, and was a compassionate person.  Did he become an expert and develop compassion only after he married?  I ask, b/c I don't understand how someone with those qualities could marry someone who could hit her own children, or someone who believes that a ghost controls the universe.

I realize this is your history, and you definitely have a better idea of how things were and are, than I ever will.  Maybe you can help me understand it better, though, b/c at this point I don't much at all.


  • 0

If we have souls, they are made of the love we share. Undimmed by time, unbound by death.

Oblivion


#25
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

People are always consistent?  No, people have unique psychologies, each and every one.  People are myopic, superstitious by nature, and full of inconsistencies that they seldom even consider.  Yes, even you and I.  Insisting that people are all internally one thing is disingenuous and will ultimately leave you confused quite often.

My father worked - a lot.  He was cause-oriented, and that kept him busy.  Often a person is so captivated by what they are doing that they lose awareness of the places in life they neglect, and this goes double for people who are passionate about something.  This is to suggest that my father was a compassionate person, a rationalist, and a decent father, but ultimately a flawed person as all people are.

For the record, my mother did not believe a "ghost controls the universe".  She has a more deistic belief system, believing that humans exhibit free will.  In her view (I am speculating a bit here), God is still a personal force, but one that "allows" human behavior and the movement of probability.  "We make our own bed", she says sometimes.  I do not believe that religion affected her choices in discipline so much as her upbringing did; her father and mother were of the sterner sort.  Worth mentioning, the corporal punishment that my brother and I "enjoyed" was not experienced by my much younger sister.  I like to think that was a result of experience, but I honestly cannot swear to it with other variables being present (e.g. gender, behaviors, etc).

People can learn, and that is really my point.  Treat them all as cruel despots?  Well, okay, but do not expect them to change their ways.  Treat them as victims who need help, give them a factual and spiteless mirror to look into?  I think you can better spark a change.  So that leads to the question, is the goal to indict people or change them?  I hear a lot of indictment going on.

 


  • 0

#26
Lowe D

Lowe D

    Lion King

  • 861 posts

People are always consistent?  No, people have unique psychologies, each and every one.  People are myopic, superstitious by nature, and full of inconsistencies that they seldom even consider.  Yes, even you and I.  Insisting that people are all internally one thing is disingenuous and will ultimately leave you confused quite often.

People are shortsighted and superstitious by nature?  Could you explain to me what that means, specifically the phrase by nature?

There are many sides to one person, but that hardly means one can't make an accurate statement about the character of a person, based on his actions.  Given what you've written here, I don't see how it's accurate to call your father a great guy (not that you said that explicitly).  He doesn't sound like one, at least as far as you were concerned.  From what you say, he must've been excellent in the role he played in the psychiatric facility, and I'm sure there are many patients who would now thank him for his services.  I'm not clear on what that has to do with you, though.  Presumably you weren't one of his patients.

My father worked - a lot.  He was cause-oriented, and that kept him busy.  Often a person is so captivated by what they are doing that they lose awareness of the places in life they neglect, and this goes double for people who are passionate about something.  This is to suggest that my father was a compassionate person, a rationalist, and a decent father, but ultimately a flawed person as all people are.

Could you explain what you mean by he worked a lot?  Does that mean he wasn't around the house, leaving you with your mother most of the time?  That's the picture that I'm getting, but maybe that wasn't the case.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by cause-oriented.  Weren't you a cause?  Why would the cause of his work have been more important to him than you?

As for him being a rationalist, isn't being a rationalist is contingent on placing a high value on rationality, both in oneself and in others?  What does it say about your father's value for rationality, that he married a deeply irrational person?

For the record, my mother did not believe a "ghost controls the universe".  She has a more deistic belief system, believing that humans exhibit free will.  In her view (I am speculating a bit here), God is still a personal force, but one that "allows" human behavior and the movement of probability.  "We make our own bed", she says sometimes.  I do not believe that religion affected her choices in discipline so
much as her upbringing did; her father and mother were of the sterner
sort.

It doesn't make a difference whether someone believes the universe is controlled by a ghost, or just created by one.  Either way it's unempirical, irrational, and betrays some serious personal problems, which should have set off alarm bells in your father's head, if he were a rationalist with any sort of compassion for his future children.

I don't think religion ever affects anyone's choices.  People only believe in ghosts because of the painful, terrifying, and humiliating experiences they were subjected to as children, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation by cults.  By the sterner sort I assume you mean intensely physically abusive.  My guess is your mother's religion and her treatment of you and your siblings were both the result of an abusive upbringing, which isn't to say, though, that she wasn't responsible for both.

People can learn, and that is really my point.  Treat them all as cruel despots?  Well, okay, but do not expect them to change their ways.  Treat them as victims who need help, give them a factual and spiteless mirror to look into?  I think you can better spark a change.  So that leads to the question, is the goal to indict people or change them?  I hear a lot of indictment going on.

I don't think I was treating your father as a cruel despot.  I called him truly foolish and cowardly, which isn't nearly the same thing.  As for him changing his ways, what would that entail now, and what would it mean for you?  You're an adult, I assume.

Yes, those who victimize others were always themselves victims at one point, and this holds for your father as well as anyone else, I imagine.  As for treating him as a victim, though, I'm not sure what the goal is.  He may be a victim, but you're also his victim.  Is it your responsibility to change him?


  • 0

If we have souls, they are made of the love we share. Undimmed by time, unbound by death.

Oblivion


#27
lbrlove

lbrlove
  • 9 posts

People are shortsighted and superstitious by nature?  Could you explain to me what that means, specifically the phrase by nature?

I certainly can, but better to go with greater authorities like microbiologist Dean Hamer ("The God Gene"), and follow the argument from there.  To summarize briefly, human genetics show evidence that our biochemistry is positively reinforced for irrational thoughts and actions that may have contributed to survival in the harsher world of the distant past.  Unless you are arguing that we are somehow different than our 20,000 year ancestors genetically, that is a good starting point.

There are many sides to one person, but that hardly means one can't make an accurate statement about the character of a person, based on his actions.  Given what you've written here, I don't see how it's accurate to call your father a great guy (not that you said that explicitly).  He doesn't sound like one, at least as far as you were concerned.  From what you say, he must've been excellent in the role he played in the psychiatric facility, and I'm sure there are many patients who would now thank him for his services.  I'm not clear on what that has to do with you, though.  Presumably you weren't one of his patients.

Are you suggesting that any one of his actions would disqualify him from being a "great guy"?  I am not sure anybody could rise to that standard, ever.

Could you explain what you mean by he worked a lot?  Does that mean he wasn't around the house, leaving you with your mother most of the time?  That's the picture that I'm getting, but maybe that wasn't the case.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by cause-oriented.  Weren't you a cause?  Why would the cause of his work have been more important to him than you?

Yes, worked extraordinary hours at his career, so consequently I was with my mother much of the time.  As to me being a "cause", I am not sure what you mean by that.  Your implication is that I needed to be, but I am not certain that is true.  Neither I nor any of my siblings has done anything in life to give someone else an extraordinary lien on our life, health, wealth, or labor.  We are all three successful by normative measures.  I posit that to the outside observer, he provided for us whatever nurture we required to be content, productive, and logical.

As for him being a rationalist, isn't being a rationalist is contingent on placing a high value on rationality, both in oneself and in others?  What does it say about your father's value for rationality, that he married a deeply irrational person?

Yes, to the first question, but why do you assume that my mother typically behaved irrationally?  Yes, she was guilty of corporal punishment, but how can you be sure that she was not possessed of an overwhelming preponderance of good and rational traits otherwise?  Ah, right, the one action disqualifies her from any chance of being a "great guy".  I find it very hard to believe that my siblings and I could be the sorts of academic people we are without her influence, particularly given limited "face time" from my father.

It doesn't make a difference whether someone believes the universe is controlled by a ghost, or just created by one.  Either way it's unempirical, irrational, and betrays some serious personal problems, which should have set off alarm bells in your father's head, if he were a rationalist with any sort of compassion for his future children.

It was your statement about a ghost controlling the universe that I responded to, so be aware that you are shifting the dialog.  Even so, I am not sure that I agree with your logic, at least with regard to deterministic outcomes.  My mother's faith versus my father's reason gave me an excellent window on the world in my youth.  I learned how either camp saw the world, and that knowledge has been of great benefit.  For myself, I chose a rational path, but it taught me to have a lot of empathy for those of a religious nature.  "Serious personal problems"?  You would probably need to detail what you mean by that, but I think we agree it is about nurture at its root.

I don't think religion ever affects anyone's choices.  People only believe in ghosts because of the painful, terrifying, and humiliating experiences they were subjected to as children, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation by cults.  By the sterner sort I assume you mean intensely physically abusive.  My guess is your mother's religion and her treatment of you and your siblings were both the result of an abusive upbringing, which isn't to say, though, that she wasn't responsible for both.

That may be true about religion and choices as a sole determinant, but it is certainly one variable.  But I do know a number of religious people from my youth, and some found their way into religion based upon experiences they consider wholly uplifting.  Many of them were far more content under that veil.  Again, read Hamer and others.  If there is a genetic component to belief in "ghosts", then it seems likely that some people have more such potential than others.

I don't think I was treating your father as a cruel despot.  I called him truly foolish and cowardly, which isn't nearly the same thing.  As for him changing his ways, what would that entail now, and what would it mean for you?  You're an adult, I assume.

He actually died a dozen years ago, so I am a bit removed from an answer.  But by the most objective measure I can give, he was never foolish or cowardly.  He came from a much harsher, physically-abusive home than my mother did, yet he never succumbed to any of those behaviors.  That may very well explain why he found attraction in my mother, and that is an important point: subconscious emotion does not often lead even the most self-dubbed rationalist into purely rational behavior.  The brain holds too many variables for pure reason - we simply cannot control them all.  The amygdala has power over us that the neocortex could never dream of (wink).

Yes, those who victimize others were always themselves victims at one point, and this holds for your father as well as anyone else, I imagine.  As for treating him as a victim, though, I'm not sure what the goal is.  He may be a victim, but you're also his victim.  Is it your responsibility to change him?

If I want a world more free of abusers, it is my responsibility to do my best to change anyone who practices abuse.  But this is a sufficiently large number of people as to suggest that it is more than them just "being irrational".  It is systemic, a trade in ideas and ideals.  If you want to live in an elitist nitch that eschews everyone outside, I suppose that is fine for you.  I just intuited that the goal of making the information public and general was to educate and enlighten.  It is not much enlightenment if you are just "preaching to the choir".


  • 0

#28
Justus Ranvier

Justus Ranvier
  • 161 posts

The first link listed in the references no longer works when I try to access it.


  • 0

#29
allinkim80

allinkim80
  • 1 posts
There are several links that do not work anymore. My wife and I are trying to learn more about this. Thanks. Allin
  • 0

#30
corpus mentium

corpus mentium
  • 123 posts

Stef or Mike,

Would it be possible to update some broken links here? I am gearing up for spreading the anti-spanking message and I have been sharing this video and I think it would be helpful to still have the sources available to anyone that might jump aboard. Thanks!

Broken links:

http://aappolicy.aap...s;101/4/723.pdf http://www.stopspank...ics You Need to

http://www.repeal43.org/research.html


  • 0

Help FDR save on bandwidth costs by using torrents to download podcasts. I am currently seeding these torrents.


#31
Wesley

Wesley

    Self-Excavator

  • 1412 posts

Stef or Mike,

Would it be possible to update some broken links here? I am gearing up for spreading the anti-spanking message and I have been sharing this video and I think it would be helpful to still have the sources available to anyone that might jump aboard. Thanks!

Broken links:

http://aappolicy.aap...s;101/4/723.pdf http://www.stopspank...ics You Need to

http://www.repeal43.org/research.html

After some brief poking around:

1.This one is a broken link by the AAP website, not by FDR's fault so they wouldn't be able to fix it.

Going to this page: http://www.aap.org/e...l-Articles.aspx

and clicking the AAP Policy option on the left leads you to nowhere.

2. I am pretty sure this one should be stopspaking.org , not stopspanking.com

Other than this, I can't find what page was being referenced.

Even if stopspanking.com used to be a site, it is not anymore.

3. http://www.repeal43.org/research/ should fix the last link


  • 0

donate-bitcoin.png

1WeseFAK4zBx6EmMVa7Fk7WwbCifgmncC

msg-15999-0-69214900-1403872028.jpg    header_logo.png   podcasts_icon.png.original.png


#32
corpus mentium

corpus mentium
  • 123 posts

I've been posting the link to the youtube video, not the sources. I know links change and the new link information could probably be found by doing a google search. I was just hoping that the broken links could be updated in the OP for anyone who chooses to watch the vid and look into the sources. I think it just makes it that much easier and more likely for people to dig deeper if the OP is maintained.

I tried changing .com to .org for stopspanking. It only takes me to the main page, not the specific article. That could be a problem on my end though.


  • 0

Help FDR save on bandwidth costs by using torrents to download podcasts. I am currently seeding these torrents.


#33
corpus mentium

corpus mentium
  • 123 posts

After some brief poking around:

 

1.This one is a broken link by the AAP website, not by FDR's fault so they wouldn't be able to fix it.

Going to this page: http://www.aap.org/e...l-Articles.aspx

and clicking the AAP Policy option on the left leads you to nowhere.

 

2. I am pretty sure this one should be stopspaking.org , not stopspanking.com

Other than this, I can't find what page was being referenced.

Even if stopspanking.com used to be a site, it is not anymore.

 

3. http://www.repeal43.org/research/ should fix the last link

 

It looks like StopSpanking.com was an actual website that went down a few months after Stef posted the video. http://www.screensho....com/2011-12-08

 

I found another link that looks like it should be the right one for the AAP. http://pediatrics.aa.../4/723.full.pdf


  • 0

Help FDR save on bandwidth costs by using torrents to download podcasts. I am currently seeding these torrents.