Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thinking the unthinkable

anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#251

Post by shanev »

I never see diet mentioned in articles dealing with mental disorders. Research[1] shows that eating a natural foods ancestral diet free of gluten and casein can reduce symptoms of ADHD and autism. The recent rise in mental disorders seems to be correlated with the rise in diabetes. Could it be all the sugar and processed food we are feeding our children now? Why are we so quick to prescribe drugs with fatal side effects without looking at diet first?

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229105128.ht...

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#252

Post by ForrestN »

ampersandy wrote: post #248
ForrestN wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away." What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents. Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outco…

Beating your children isn't to manipulate them into becoming little slaves, it's to punish them for going against society's expected behaviour (which one might argue is its own form of slavery). Can you back up your claim that beatings produce poor outcomes for children in "highly educated societies?" Or that 'less educated societies" are inferior because they don't have qualms about spanking their kids when they mis…

See the quote from AAP I posted elsewhere. Corporal punishment has been shown to be less effective than alternatives, and probably harmful to children.

Corporal punishment is more common in less affluent/educated societies than it is in wealthy/well-educated ones. This is common knowledge. I never said anything about inferiority. It's not about judging anyone, it's about contradicting bad advice.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#253

Post by 1123581321 »

ForrestN wrote: post #235
ampersandy wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume that submission is the goal of the beating? Or that you know the best way to raise children?

"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away." What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents. Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outco…

The AAP quote is not based on data, just a desire for the world to work a certain way. Do not attempt to cite data to the contrary; while you will find critical studies of corporal punishment you will not find any that supports their use of the polemical word, "only."

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#254

Post by draq »

kc0bfv wrote: post #204
draq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is that humans, like all other animals, have been selective breeding all the time, it's called evolution. We select our mates based on their phenotypes (like aggression, intelligence etc). It was more so in the past than now. People used to abandon infants that are born "defective" (we now have abortions). Parents selected the mates for their children because they are believed to be better judges of "good"…

The benefits that natural selection causes to propagate are those which improve the organism's reproductive opportunities. Those "benefits" aren't necessarily all that great when you've got a civilization. To take it to a ridiculous extreme, if a gene exists which makes you kill all the other men in your village, then impregnate all the women, that gene will be pretty popular in the next generation.

That ridiculous extreme must be quite a popular gene, because it still exists: It's called war and mass war rape. Yet, we are not all warmongers and rapists (I hope). So civilisation is already putting its slow but steady evolutionary pressure onto our genes. Let's hope that it's putting our gene pool onto the right track.

I simply don't share joonix' optimism that genetic screening can eradicate "unbeneficial" traits within next centuries without wrongly removing "beneficial" ones, before we have a better and complete understanding of our biological makeup.

More dangerous than ignorance is half-knowledge.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#255

Post by beefman »

philwelch wrote: post #179
brown9-2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in *District of Columbia v Heller" which found that the 2nd Amendment does give a fundamental right to own firearms might not be as expansive as you think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#... There is probably a lot of room in between what the courts would allow as far as limiting just what type of firearms one can keep in their home for lawful purposes…

Indeed. Which is why fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal for the better part of a century. (They were outlawed during Prohibition due to the notoriety of the Thompson submachine gun.)

To clarify, fully automatic guns can be owned, at least in some States. Current federal law prohibits automatics manufactured after 1984 (IIRC) being sold to civilians. You can buy one manufactured before that. This restriction of course makes the available guns extremely expensive. There is also a demanding series of signoffs, from the ATF down to your local sheriff, that you need to get through. But it can be done.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#256

Post by fatbird »

elpachuco wrote: post #148
unimpressive wrote: post #99

> “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. I remember doing that. > He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work. I remember that. > A few weeks ago, Michael..threatened to kill me I did that too. She forgot to mention the time(s) he threatened to run away. (I'd be surprised if he didn't.) After a marathon of transfers, expulsions,…

> “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. I remember doing that. > He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work. I remember that. > A few weeks ago, Michael..threatened to kill me I did that too. I wonder if a nice beating would have done you any good. I have one anecdotal story. My older brother was uncontrollable at the age of 9…

Another word for "beating" is simply "consequence". Establishing that there are negative consequences for particular behaviours is what's important (and that they're consistently applied and adhered to), and clearly the mother knows that--she punished him effectively by yanking his electronics for a day. There's nothing particular about beating a child that's more effective than other punishments. Show me a child who doesn't respond to punishment, and I'll show you a parent who is inconsistent with consequences, and gives in rather than establishing that consequences happen.

That said, I'm fucking horrified by your story. If your brother is a productive man of society, then your mother got lucky. But for every productive man of society, we have a hundred fathers who beat their children senselessly because "that's how I was raised."

Violence begets violence. Abuse begets abuse. Nothing about proper, strict discipline requires behaviour that would, under other circumstances, get you locked up.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#257

Post by ScottBurson »

ForrestN wrote: post #196
elpachuco wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. I remember doing that. > He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work. I remember that. > A few weeks ago, Michael..threatened to kill me I did that too. I wonder if a nice beating would have done you any good. I have one anecdotal story. My older brother was uncontrollable at the age of 9…

Physical abuse does not solve mental health issues. Ever. Submission is a terrible goal in raising children.

I had the same thought at first, but reading the whole anecdote made me wonder. It's clear that the mother didn't do what she did just to indulge her own anger. She did, in fact, have her son's interests at heart. It was a last resort to get through to him. When you talk about submission as a goal, I think you have to ask, submission to what? If the goal is to get the child to submit to the parent's ego, as it so often is, then I agree with you. But parents have to set limits, and children have to submit to them.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#258

Post by beefman »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #151
elchief wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bubba too. Unfortunately, the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistically, children of single moms fare poorly. I am curious as to the degree that it is different beween single fathers and single moms.

> Statistically, children of single moms fare poorly That doesn't mean there's a causal relationship, of course. It's also possible that third factors (poverty, etc) tend to cause both "single-mothership" and "poorly faring kids." [Indeed, it seems fairly likely.]

No, the correlation persists even at normalized income.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#259

Post by ForrestN »

1123581321 wrote: post #253
ForrestN wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away." What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents. Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outco…

The AAP quote is not based on data, just a desire for the world to work a certain way. Do not attempt to cite data to the contrary; while you will find critical studies of corporal punishment you will not find any that supports their use of the polemical word, "only."

You're over-thinking this, and projecting motives onto an organization of pediatricians that you can't possibly prove.

Their audience here is a general one, especially parents. They are not using "only" to make some kind of absolute claim about human nature. The point is that it's commonly accepted (and supported by research) that hitting your children is unhelpful to them and doesn't work well.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#260

Post by philwelch »

beefman wrote: post #255
philwelch wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Which is why fully automatic assault rifles have been illegal for the better part of a century. (They were outlawed during Prohibition due to the notoriety of the Thompson submachine gun.)

To clarify, fully automatic guns can be owned, at least in some States. Current federal law prohibits automatics manufactured after 1984 (IIRC) being sold to civilians. You can buy one manufactured before that. This restriction of course makes the available guns extremely expensive. There is also a demanding series of signoffs, from the ATF down to your local sheriff, that you need to get through. But it can be done.

The rigamarole is enough that legally purchased fully automatic firearms are never actually used to commit crimes in the United States.
Post reply on HN