References The Bomb in the Brain - The Effects of Child Abuse Part 1



https://acestudy.org/









stop-stifling-me--its-damaging-my-brain

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/philosophical-parenting-series/id355547040

Child abuse now?
settle petal.

Let's get out there and burn all the works of fiction as well just to be sure.

Gilly wrote:
And you need to lie to your children to be able to have "harmless fun"?

So it is "nefarious when the government lies to you so that they control what you believe, your perspective, and therefore your 'reactions', yet it isn't when you lie to your children to control what they believe, their perspective and therefore their reactions?

The government does it to get you to act in a specific manner. Are you saying that is in no way similar to lying to children about Satan Claus?

If you aren't lying to get (read control) a specific reaction, why are you lying?

Why is it the one that does the lying that makes the claim of it being harmless?

Is it a case of self-justification?

That's quite a leap!

Do elaborate Reptired....

Gilly wrote:
By what right do you claim to impose your will on another?

Funny how many think that they own the child and have the right to remove the Childs freedom whenever they feel like it.

Maybe the child is defying you because they realise that you lie and may well be lying to them when you warn them of a dangerous situation.


Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott


I am struggling to comprehend how anyone thinks that deceiving someone is a loving act.

feather wrote:
A sister, two years older.

Gilly wrote:
This is not aimed at anybody on this forum but procreating doesn't automatically qualify somebody to be good at parenting as we all know.

Plenty of news articles on the internet informing us of disgusting vile behaviour to general lack of respect for other people caused by parents and parenting which gives the above statement validity.

Was it okay for Sean to lie about reading PM'S?

After all, it was for the good of the forum, wasn't it?

Do you see the correlation?

It is the one doing the lying that claims it is for the others good/benefit, etc.

Reptired wrote:
What rubbish! An environment that a child can't hurt themselves in is a padded cell. Is that where you'd put them? I think you've probably never even met any children from the way you're talking.

But you'd make a great dad. Child's being unco-operative coz is the wrong way out, so you leave them causing mayhem while you seek professional help because you fear you'll damage your relationship if you take control! Let's hope that help arrives lickety split, eh.

Gilly wrote:
Gilly, you appear to have missed the part where Reptired states ...

"... and in an emergency situation you would physically move the child if it were in danger."

I'm not even looking at the brain abuse vid's, because they've got sweet FA to do with this thread.
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Who said that? Show me please, as I must have missed it.

There are hundreds of ways we have harmless fun with our kids. Just because one of them can be going along with the myth of Father Christmas for a bit when they're tiny doesn't suggest that anyone's saying you 'need to lie' to have harmless fun.
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying, since the motives and results are poles apart. I thought that was obvious.
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
That's already been answered.
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Because I've yet to meet an adult who thinks their lives have been blighted by realising Father Christmas wasn't real after all.
Watch some drama-queen on here claim to have been traumatised by it now!
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
That's a silly question, since naturally people wouldn't do it in the first place if they didn't think it was justified.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
I think you missed the bit about a padded cell being the only place where a determined nipper can't damage themselves.

And it can be curiosity rather than naughtiness that leads a little un into danger - you might remove them immediately, say if they're trying to investigate your electric sockets. But if they're determined, they'll be back poking pencils in it later when you take your eyes off them. You can't remove them permanently, and you can't remove your sockets, generally speaking, so the solution might be to shout at them, to drive home that they've to leave it alone (assuming, obviously that they're not responded to reason / coaxing). You have to get over the fear of destroying your relationship, and take control. Because, believe it or not, that is the role of a responsible parent.

You really have to impose your will over a child at some point otherwise it's highly unlikely that they'll survive and even if they do they won't develop language or any social skills.

So if harmless fun can be achieved without lying, why lie?

I disagree Gilly. As I pointed out, lying to another is for the purpose of controlling their reaction. Same motive, same result.

Ah, so long as you justify it to yourself then it's okay. One wonders at what point does self justification becomes unacceptable?

humanspirit wrote:
That's quite true - but I wouldn't be including the indulging in the fantasy of Father Christmas as one of those disgusting behaviours.

And it doesn't negate the fact that it's very easy for those who aren't parents to think they know it all, when the reality is, they usually don't.

I AM ALL I AM wrote:
You're quite at liberty to disagree, but to my mind, lying to keep people downtrodden and ignorant of things that adversely affect them is entirely different from the Father Christmas thing.

However, while I'll happily agree to disagree, comments like this...

"One wonders at what point does self justification becomes unacceptable?"

...seem designed to goad. So in recognition of that stance, I'll add that comparing the two scenarios is actually laughable in its illogic, imo.

Gilly wrote:
I wouldn't say Father Christmas was one of those disgusting behaviours also.

For anybody to think they know it all whether parent or non parent is ridiculous but ideas from both parties are just as valid.

Would you say someone who has five children has more valid ideas on how to parent than somebody who just has two children,is there a hierarchical system that merits more wisdom.

Also if i had created children but had no input in their upbringing would i be more qualified to offer an opinion than somebody who hadn't created children?

humanspirit wrote:
No, I need to clarify.

People's ideas are valid whether they're parents or not.

What I was meaning was that often people speak like they're experts on the subject, despite having no experience at all. Doesn't necessarily mean their ideas are wrong.

But having said that, you often encounter the type of assertions from those childless people, such as the ones (no offence intended) expressed by Rep, who thinks that if a child is being willful, it's because you have a damaged relationship - and any form of sanctioning is scorned, so professional help is needed. And (honestly, no offence intended ) that's just ridiculous.

Gilly wrote:
My intent in asking the question is to find out at what point does self justification become unacceptable.

For instance, it was obviously unacceptable to you that Sean lied about reading PM's no matter his self justification for doing so.

Why can't you get it?

Sean's intention behind prying in my private messages were never good to start with - his motivation was malice. Telling tiny tots that Father Christms is real is motivated by the opposite, and also done in the knowledge that when they're a bit older, they'll know it was just a game.

Sean's 'justification' was purely a lame attempt to blacken my character in the hope that it would deflect from his twattishness.

Again, I don't see those 2 scenarios as being akin in any way, shape or form.