>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?
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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".
>I detest the idea that some people are just bad, and were always going to be bad.
I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad, but it can be corrected. When and how it's corrected has a lot to do with success. It has to be worked on early and properly, or it could make the problem worse. Like you I'm not comfortable with the idea that any child is irredeemable.
>I struggle with the idea that literally all psychological problems are the result of trauma; but I do think most of them are.
I agree, much of it is trauma, but some of it isn't. I think drug and alcohol dependence seems to be passed down quite a bit, which is also a significant source of detrimental behavior. I have it in my family but it seems to have dodged me.
>I think some people (children really) have a propensity to be bad
That's... incredibly simplistic. When you're describing actions as good or bad you've already lost the truth.
A child can have poorly informed priorities. They can be sociopathic. But if your local government is experiencing an armed revolution, you're going to envy that lack of care for society.
Blanket characterizations like 'bad' and 'good' might have been useful in the third grade, but accurate and specific diagnoses that bring accurate and specific treatments are the only way to solve this problem.
>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics?
Jesus, a Hitler reference? Lots of organizations that aren't Hitler diagnose behavior based on genetics, including alcohol and drug abuse prevention and modern medicine. Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program.
>Nothing justifies any of those measures described in the NYYT article and by others in this thread. Nothing, period.
Nobody is justifying it, read what you are replying to.
>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.
Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion.
>> Most of the time people are harmed, not just the troubled individual but the family of 4 they crash into and kill on a drunken joyride. What tools do parents have to prevent that? That's the whole point of the discussion.
Answer: None. Because it can happen, all the time. Whether those kids are 16, 18, 25 or 53. Also, it is a pretty specific example...
EDIT: Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society. Don't even think of comparing those. The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing".
>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society.
>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics?
Both can be predicted genetically. You insinuated predicting outcomes in genetics was bad somehow because Hitler did it. It wasn't a great argument, you should just own up to it.
≥Don't even think of comparing those.
You ain't my daddy. You think you're the only person with experience with cancer? Everybody, and I mean everybody has a cross to bear.
>The former is your body turning on you, the latter is society deciding you are "troubled" and need "fixing".
You shouldn't minimize mental health issues, many of these troubles can be the result of that, at least in part. Killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride isn't just society deciding you are troubled, it has real world consequences. You seem to have some emotional block to thinking about this rationally.
For risking a pointless dispute on forum, I'll comment one more time. No, I didn't make a Hitler comparison. Owning up to it? Sure, look up the history eugenics, its use through history and you'll find that the Nazi's use of it was the worst but by no means the only or first occasion where this approach (it doesn't matter that we can analyze genomes now) utterly failed.
And no, future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics, hell we have hard times predicting stuff like cancer and other diseases based on genetics. And those are much more driven by genetics than behavior. Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.
I have no emotional block whatsoever, at least none that I'm diagnosed with. Drunk driving happens, reckless driving happens, people die in accidents. The solution there is driver training, strict rules around legal alcohol and drug limits. None of these will prevent those accidents from happening. Because you don't have to be "troubled" (how I hate that attribute...) to drive drunk and kill a family of 4 (or whatever number you can think of). One bad decision is enough.
Generally speaking so, if Hitler thought something is a good idea I think it is fair to assume it wasn't until deliberate analysis showed otherwise.
Why did you even bring it up then? Nobody from my comment down was talking about eugenics that I can see, until you introduced it to the discussion. It's like you are arguing against an imaginary person in your head.
This is the comment you replied to with your eugenics/not-Hitler argument:
>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.
What does eugenics have to do with that comment?
>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics
Nobody said this but you.
>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.
Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with?
>Because you don't have to be "troubled" (how I hate that attribute...) to drive drunk and kill a family of 4 (or whatever number you can think of). One bad decision is enough.
No, but I would argue people with "troubled" childhoods have a much higher propensity to cause societal damage like killing a family of 4 in a drunken joyride.
You are either trolling, or not mentally present. Either way, please refrain from commenting further.
In case of the latter:
>What does eugenics have to do with that comment?
rajin444 is stating that an understanding of genetics would allow us to rehabilitate people that "will not work with the society that works for the rest of us." This implies that socially desirable behavior can be genetically coded, which has been debunked by the failure of eugenics.
>>future compatibility with society cannot be judged on genetics
>Nobody said this but you.
You had said in a previous comment:
>>Just because it hits home, genetic prevalence of cancer is something completely different from behavior and how people work in a society.
>>You know who else tried to predict future compatibility of certain people based on genetics?
>Both can be predicted genetically.
Which implies that you think future compatability can be judged by genetics.
>>Using proven things like cancer to justify BS theories like "eugenics" is, IMHO, unacceptable.
>Nobody said this either. Who are you even arguing with?
You commented this earlier:
>Your parents have cancer? Well predictively you might have a higher chance of getting it too. Your parents are smart? We should test you for the gifted program.
In this comment, you explicitly compare the use of genetics in a.) cancer and b.) screening for intelligence.
I am inclined to think that you are trolling, especially considering that you are repeatedly using an appeal to emotion in the form of a hypothetical traumatic event. Please stop.
>> 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?"
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".
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?