When I was in school 25% was not most, and you offered no citation, and are moving the goal posts more than a little from the specific abuse commented on, to pretty generic claims.
Now again I’m no mathematician, but wouldn’t that be a minority? And again the goal posts seem to be moving, and again no citation.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s still a minority, and again these generic terms are not what was being commented on.
Yet you seem to be implying something, either way I’m not sure how it contradicts my assertion, which was a) a comment about very specific abuse, and b) is supported by the figures you mentioned?
I’ve no idea what you’re asking me sorry?
Ah good, I thought perhaps I’d misunderstood what minority and majority meant.
I never claimed that a majority of children are abused and neglected. My point was that the percentage is significant. Run a server farm with 75% up time and see how significant that becomes.
No one is questioning your assertions. I am calling out the dismissive nature of consolations offered to abuse victims. To minimize the issue by stating the majority are not abused is akin to saying because only 1 in 348,000,000 were shot by ICE in Minneapolis, there is no problem.
Yes you did, I asserted that the abuse in question was “not how most parents treat their children”, and you responded by calling that magical thinking. See below:
By calling my assertion that the specific abuse discussed, was not how the majority of parents treated their children magical thinking, and moving to generic claims about abuse and neglect. Those percentages are a) offered without citation, and b) used generic terms like abuse and neglect, and so had nothing to do with my point, which addressed an assertion derived from the specific example of the thread author.
Of course you did, it’s right there, you called it “magical thinking”?
I wasn’t dismissive, at all? Most children don’t, thankfully, suffer the kind of bigotry and abuse at the hands of the parents that the thread author did, and so I asserted that a generic judgment of humanity based on this example would be unreasonable.
Please don’t paraphrase what I said. Are you suggesting it is a) ok to generalise about the entire human race based on this one example, and b) that we shouldn’t be thankful this appalling abuse is not the norm? Neither assertion I made minimalizes the thread authors experience, only challenged a tangential claim about humans.
It has a question mark at the end? I also still have no idea what it means, even if it were rhetorical?
Exactly, the terms are relative as they were offered, and so it was not reasonable to call my assertion magical thinking while offer the (bare stats without citation) using terms like abuse and neglect, and they supported my assertion anyway, as they described a minority. So how was my original claim “magical thinking” and now dismissive of the thread authors trauma, another claim I strongly deny, I described it as appalling bigoted abuse? Which it was and is of course, as far as I am concerned, but this does not justify a claim that all or even a majority of humans are like that.
I see the semantics are important to you. My intention was not to turn this into a competition or a dissection. I feel the message was lost in the deposition.
Well you misrepresented what I’d said, and challenge my claim with unevidenced stats, that actually supported my assertion, while claiming I was using “magical thinking”, so of course I have objected to this dishonesty, what else would I do?
I clarified my assertion right at the start, here:
You responded with this:
And this:
Clearly I did no such thing, I merely stated that the specific abuse the author suffered wasn’t typical parental behaviour, and thus it was not reasonable to make generic claims about all or most people based on that.
Then why assert my claim that the majority of parents don’t treat their children in the way the thread author was, as magical thinking?
Except you clearly did question it by calling it magical thinking, and I never remotely dismissed anything in that way.
That loop would end if you explained why you lied about what I’d said, implying I was somehow diminishing the abuse suffered by the thread author, and why you described an assertion as “magical thinking” based on stats that supported it.
To end this loop, somewhere in this thread a comment was made that the OP’s experience was extreme and most families are good. This struck me as a step to minimize her issues and resembled a “keep a stiff upper lip” tact, which is counter productive for trauma victims. If you took affront or felt slighted I apologize.
I made no comment on how the thread author should or ought to feel about the abuse she described, period. Nor would I.
I disagreed with her post, but only that I didn’t think it was rational to make a negative assumption about most people, based on the abuse she suffered, though I also said it was understandable that she felt that way.
what is “typical” abuse? have you experienced it? I mean, I got beaten as a kid. Is that not typical for someone who is abused? I witnessed kids murder a cat, but they didn’t do it to get a rise out of me; I just happened to be in the same place while they were having their twisted sense of “fun”. is that abuse that i suffered if it’s not directed at me? Also, how “un-typical” is it for bigoted religious family members to spread damaging rumors about people you actually care about?
I tried to shoot myself once. The policeman who rescued me, told me that my problems are small compared to his. He told me he’s in huge debt and his wife just divorced him, taking half his stuff.
You seem to sound like the policeman but without the debt or divorce, you just minimize people’s problems.
I’m not really mad, though. I guess it’s a typical response for normal people. since almost everyone wants to present themselves as “above emotions” that see everything as “quantifiable logic”.
My psychiatrist had a good response when I talked to her about my problems. She was like, “I wish I could help you with that,” and told me that my meds should fix the “chemical imbalances” in my brain. If I don’t see any changes, she’d just prescribe either a bigger dose or another type of meds.
If everything is logically quantifiable, i’d be happy as a dog right now by meds alone.
As I said already, more than once, I meant it’s not typical for most parents to subject their children to this sort of abuse, and therefore it would be unreasonable to base generic assertions on the behaviour of all humans based on that abuse, though I also said it was understandable given the abuse you suffered. That quoted text on it’s own loses the context of my original sentence, so for context here is the full quote:
“Well it might be an unsurprising response, but not a rational one, again my sympathies go out to you, but the abuse you suffered is not typical. If we analysed a larger test sample I’m certain we’d find many caring loving parents, to whom such expressions of bigotry judgment, and violence towards anyone, let alone a child, would be unthinkable.”
You are wrong on just about every claim in that sentence, and whilst I do and have repeatedly offered my sympathy for the abuse you suffered, it does not justify you making snap judgments about others. You were beaten as a child, well this might surprise you but you’re not unique in that, and I am of an age where it was I am sad to say, not uncommon for some children to be beaten, both at home and in school, and yes I was one of them.
I have no idea what “normal people” means, nor what “quantifiable logic” is, and I have neither claimed nor implied any reasoning is above emotions, whatever that means. Like cynical1 you seem to be rather spoiling for a fight, this is a public debate forum, and ideas are allowed to be challenged, which was all I did.
I made no comment or judgement about how anyone should feel about abuse, or event what constitutes it, nor would I, and I should appreciate it if you offered me the same courtesy.
I am not qualified to comment on a psychiatric diagnosis, but in the UK one would be entitled to seek a second opinion if they felt dissatisfied with their medical treatment.
Ironically this is a false dichotomy, happiness is relative and subjective, and logic is merely a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. If you are suffering from gender dysphoria, and it seems from your posts that you might be, then certainly medical opinions have shifted a great deal, and can offer some help, sadly neither logic nor medical science can stop people from bigotry and prejudice, these are things we all endure from others at times, again you have my sympathy, but not all people are like that.