Violence as Deterrent
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Saturday, October 4, 2025 00:35
VIEWED: 6613
PAGE 10 of 12
Hello,
When I was very young, I used to cook ants with a magnifying glass. Then I got a slingshot, and I started hunting lizards in my yard with pebbles.
One day, I actually HIT a lizard. It didn't die right away. It twitched. It bled. It looked awful. I felt awful.
I stopped trying to snipe lizards after that.
Some time later, I got out my magnifying glass with the intention of cooking some ants. I thought of that lizard.
I stopped cooking ants after that.
I'll still kill insects now, of course, if they infest my house. It's just not fun anymore.
I don't recall being counseled against any of my youthful activities. It was just the first realization of many in my life, based on my own experience. My parents taught me a lot of stuff, but it was me that taught me that killing oughtn't to be a pasttime.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Although a bit out of character for me, a hug for you Agentrouka, because you've understood enough already to ask the right questions.
And I fully understand you're not being snarky, but actually interested.
I will answer it here, but if you wish to start a new thread by all means do so - just be prepared for a lot of reading and make time for it, because almost all of this has been explored rather thoroughly by folks way more qualified than me, just that no one seems to want to listen cause they don't like what they're hearing.
The primary thing is getting away from what is "poisonous pedagogy" - a term coined by Katharina Rutschky and brought into sharp focus by Alice Miller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisonous_pedagogy
This is where the parent, in seeking control, winds up treating their own child as an adversary or enemy to be conquered - I referred to it as "Adversarial Parenting" before getting involved in Ms Millers work cause I too saw how obvious the damage was.
The problem is that most parents have no experience or training with being parents, and thanks to a society that no longer allows time for it, wind up grasping at straws in an attempt to find anything that will work.
And then someone with a religious or financial motive directs them to the work of someone like that monster James Dobson, who's entire idea of 'parenting' involves breaking the child to your will, even if it breaks the child utterly - and it DOES NOT WORK.
Liken this to someone getting a doberman puppy, they hear dobermans are mean, so they decide to "show it who's boss" by beating the crap out of it all the time to cow it, to break it to their will...
Sooner or later, that dog WILL bite them - and then people blame the dog!
Or even suggest that the owner wasn't brutal ENOUGH!
And the cycle continues, and worsens.
And yes, we do this to kids, do a little research on what James Dobson claims is good parenting...
And worse, Gary Ezzo, of similar bent, who suggests using this model on INFANTS, a practice which has been linked to failure to thrive conditions and even death.
http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/aneyaap.htm
At it's most heinous, this path leads to the hellcamps, when the kids turn and bite, like the doberman puppy above, or resist a school social environment who's cliques and pecking order bullshit are replicated in only one other place in american society - the penal system, which as the Stanford Prison Experiment revealed, is about as humanly destructive an environment as is possible to create.
And when children face mixed messages of what their own humanity and empathy are telling them crossing up with exactly the opposite demanded of them for social success and acceptance, aberrent behavior is all but gauranteed, especially in so toxic an environment.
And then we call it a disorder and try to medicate it cause admitting the truth would be too painful, cause too much hassle, might involve admitting blame...
And if/when that doesn't work... the camps.
And kids DIE.
Humans are born with certain biological pre-dispositions, and the natural link between a parent and infant/child during the developmental stages is utterly critical to their future development, something researched in explicit detail by Dr Bruce Perry of the Child Trauma Academy.
And if that relationship is positive, no worries - but if due to following stupid advice, frustration or incompetence, that relationship turns negative.... the fuse is lit, you see ?
Now it's possible to defuse that, very much so, but the chances of doing so successfully are much greater the earlier you intervene, and just after puberty is when the childs personality begins to calcify and you run out of time - if you wait till they've already in the juvie court system, your chances are all but gone.
You're right that most folk do not set out to mistreat their kids, far, far, FAR more abuse comes from incompetence, ignorance, bad advice by folk with a financial stake in offering it, simple frustration or even well meaning but inadequate p
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also.... our daughter is brain-damaged, and has at times exhibited extremely ARRGGGGHHHH!!!!! behavior: VERY attention deficit, very oppositional, irrational, autistic. And parents are... well... human... and get frustrated too.
So if you have a kid who's oppositional and just gets under your skin, the temptation is to hit them. Which breeds more opposition. Of, if your kid is attention-deficit and extremely demanding of YOUR attention, when they're (for once) happily occupying themsleves, the temptation is to ignore them. Which means they'll act up just to get your attention. Or if your kid gets "stuck" because of a sudden change and starts to slow down, the temptation is to hurry them along... which confuses them even more, and causes MORE delay.
Most kids can be raised by most parents, but SOME kids require a very... throughtful.. approach. The parents MUST be grownups, and sometimes hold their first (emotional, automatic) responses in check.
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Perhaps your talking about the developmental process of becoming aware of others as separate beings--can't have empathy if you don't realize there are other feeling beings in the world. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that you're an automatic tyrant without training. It means that there is a developmental period when empathy is beyond you and then some months later it's not."
That's part of it - but the other part is that it's not automatic. One has to have the right inputs - whatever they are. (And I don't think anyone knows.)
There are studies on that kind of development, but they are just starting.
So, I thought I'd offer some information that's decades old, about much more primitive systems like the visual system.
Did you know that if animals are raised in an environment with all vertical lines for a few weeks they will never, ever be able to see a horizontal line no matter how old they get ? No matter how many times they fall down the step ?
If something that basic is subect to skewed development, how much more so the fuzziness of personality ?
Anyway, I didn't mean to offend, though apparently I did.
It's just that with 10% of the US population testing out as sociopathic (by some figures) it seems to me that empathy isn't automatic, nor is it extended universally even in those who have it. That's why a lot of people cringed when they saw the picture of the office-worker falling head-first to the pavement from the Twin-Towers, but will show disgust or contempt for the homeless dude on the sidewalk. So I see it more as a potential, not as a basic human trait.
At the same time, I don't think people are 'born bad' either. I think that having so MANY people with empathy even in this society means that there is an overall tendency to it.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's just that with 10% of the US population testing out as sociopathic (by some figures) it seems to me that empathy isn't automatic, nor is it extended universally even in those who have it. That's why a lot of people cringed when they saw the picture of the office-worker falling head-first to the pavement from the Twin-Towers, but will show disgust or contempt for the homeless dude on the sidewalk. So I see it more as a potential, not as a basic human trait.
I'd say that the example with the homeless person isn't a very good one, since a lack of empathy for a homeless guy on the street, or walking past people seeking donations for good causes, etc.. is really a very specifically learned behavior, for many reasons.
I'd say people stopping to gawk at accident sites, enjoying pictures or video clips of people getting hurt, or ignoring very obvious signs of violence or abuse in their own neighbors (ignore - not fail to notice) are better examples for a lack of empathy that are much harder to explain.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'd say people stopping to gawk at accident sites, enjoying pictures or video clips of people getting hurt, or ignoring very obvious signs of violence or abuse in their own neighbors (ignore - not fail to notice) are better examples for a lack of empathy that are much harder to explain.
And look at how successful television shows that exploit that are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Although a bit out of character for me, a hug for you Agentrouka, because you've understood enough already to ask the right questions.
Wow, that's a shock!
I'm glad you took my questions in the inquisitive spirit with which they were intended. And thank you for taking the time.Quote:
This is where the parent, in seeking control, winds up treating their own child as an adversary or enemy to be conquered - I referred to it as "Adversarial Parenting" before getting involved in Ms Millers work cause I too saw how obvious the damage was.
I see what you mean. It seems like a particularly easy trap to fall into these days, since parenting is such an isolated activity, one compartment in life that has to be fitted into everything else. Parents have to juggle so many loads that they get overwhelmed and feel vitimised by the demands of their own child, and end up fighting it like an enemy, because it's the one "thing" they can most easily access and try to change.
Ouch.
I hadn't thought of that, but it really is a widespread problem, I suspect. To change the situation of parents, you'd have to make larger changes in society and its attitude toward children and parenting.
Quote:
And when children face mixed messages of what their own humanity and empathy are telling them crossing up with exactly the opposite demanded of them for social success and acceptance, aberrent behavior is all but gauranteed, especially in so toxic an environment.
I guess it's also a case of mixed messages from parents. Control and insecurity on one hand, and affection and closeness on the other, which would make it very difficult to separate the harmful from the nourishing.
Dang, this makes me very proud of my half-sister's mother. The little one is two and a half and is growing up on a steady diet of dialog. It can be extremely exhausting to listen to them talk things over the tenth time one evening, when it would theoretically be easier to just pull parental rank, but three days later, the little one will be explaining that very reasoning back to her and do the right thing.. so it works. My sister is an extremely bright, well-behaved and articulate toddler and I attribute this to her mother's patience and respect.
Quote:
We need to make support of parents a PRIORITY, instead of stigmatising them, HONOR them, instead of penalising them.
(and let's not lie, most workplaces in the US *WILL* penalise you for it, if not outright try to be RID of you as unproductive deadweight for it!)
No kidding, and not just in the U.S.
I work at a company that's a pretty big exception, because the environment is extremely supportive of parents, flexible about work time, supportive of parental leave.. and it pays. People work hard to stay with the company and make it thrive because it's more compatible with their lives than they could get it elsewhere.
It pays to accomodate parents, more companies should do it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'd say people stopping to gawk at accident sites, enjoying pictures or video clips of people getting hurt, or ignoring very obvious signs of violence or abuse in their own neighbors (ignore - not fail to notice) are better examples for a lack of empathy that are much harder to explain.
And look at how successful television shows that exploit that are.
Not really arguing with that.
I say, while I find it questionable either way, obviously fictional violence is still a different animal from violence in real life.
But in general, yes, it's a darn disturbing thing that we celebrate and promote lack of empathy in our media. Firefly is just as guilty of it as anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We've not come a very long way since the Roman arena, you ask me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanna chime in here.
I, personally, put my kids first in 95% of the cases we face. They are the first to get new clothes, new shoes, a haircut, whatever. I've got a couple pairs of shoes, but they're falling apart. I need new ones, but the kids needed some first. I often go months between haircuts because by the time the kids and my wife get their's done, there's no money left (as little money as it take to get a basic cut these days) for me to get mine done. We'll go shopping and I'll have something in mind I want to get for myself, but if the kids end up wanting or needing something, guess what? I put my stuff back so they can get what they want/need. I'm just saying there ARE parents out there who do give a darn about their kids. I would say the only time I'm neglectful is when I get caught up playing my silly computer games.
At any rate, I wanna chime in on the "everyone needs to learn to be a parent first" (that's not a direct quote, I know, but in genral). I would agree with that, but for the most part I just don't think it works. Yes, people having children NEED to be prepared for a very challenging time and they NEED to be aware of what they're getting themselves into. At times I certainly DO think the should be a liscensing bureau for parents
Each child is very different and very unique. What works on one child probably won't work on another. There's a reason they say that kids don't come with an instruction manual. For example, when my oldest son was very young he needed some music playing and a nightlight in order to go to sleep at night. My middle child wanted it pitch black and quiet. My youngest is a mixture of both (sometimes dark, sometime a nightlight, sometimes some music, etc.). I know that most of you probably are aware of these things and I may be reading some of these posts wrong, but we can't expect to follow a set "blueprint" for every child because each child is born very, very different. A discipline for one child won't work on another. Spanking for example. We give our kids ONE swat when needed (we don't needlessly beat them senseless I assure you) and they know it's a punishment for bad behavior. But my sister's kids? That doesn't even phase them. They think it's funny.
On another note related to this thread . . .
I will say that I'm one of the people who romanticized the Old West. It seemed the majority of people owned guns and that put them on equal footing with everyone else. If you were threatened with a gun, you at least had a fair shot at defending yourself in the same fashion as your aggressor. These days, most people are at the mercy of the one holding the gun. The criminal. And there is no way to defend oneself.
On the other hand, I think Anthony mentioned the liked the idea of carrying a sword. Would that work? I don't know. They say that swords are more "personal" because you actually have to face your opponent up close. A gun? Heck, you can be quite a ways off and still kill someone. But with a sword, you've got to have skill and face someone else who may be your match or even better, so you'd better be sure you know what you're doing before you go around threatening people with one.
Okay . . . so a lot of wide and varied views there. Sorry.
Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME