(June 11, 2014 at 10:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 11, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Children don't seem to be worth the trouble sometimes.

They are. Children are beautiful; it takes adults to fuck them up.

It's not that simple. Genes can play a role as well.

(June 11, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(June 11, 2014 at 10:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: They are. Children are beautiful; it takes adults to fuck them up.

It's not that simple. Genes can play a role as well.

Well, sure. When I speak generally, though, you may safely assume that I am referring to the average set, and that special cases such as genetically-induced behavioral issues, which aren't normal, are not in consideration.

I'm surprised I have to explain that; it seems obvious to me.

(June 12, 2014 at 12:15 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 11, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Irrational Wrote: It's not that simple. Genes can play a role as well.

Well, sure. When I speak generally, though, you may safely assume that I am referring to the average set, and that special cases such as genetically-induced behavioral issues, which aren't normal, are not in consideration.

I'm surprised I have to explain that; it seems obvious to me.

How do you know what you're referring to is the average set?

(June 12, 2014 at 2:10 am)Irrational Wrote:

(June 12, 2014 at 12:15 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, sure. When I speak generally, though, you may safely assume that I am referring to the average set, and that special cases such as genetically-induced behavioral issues, which aren't normal, are not in consideration.

I'm surprised I have to explain that; it seems obvious to me.

How do you know what you're referring to is the average set?

I'm not sure what you're getting on about. Using the idea of 'average set' to indicate normal behavior is quite fair in my opinion since Antisocial Personality Disorder only affects about 1% of the population. Further still, there is much nature/nurture debate as to the cause in the affected 1%.

(June 12, 2014 at 8:42 am)Cato Wrote:

(June 12, 2014 at 2:10 am)Irrational Wrote: How do you know what you're referring to is the average set?

I'm not sure what you're getting on about. Using the idea of 'average set' to indicate normal behavior is quite fair in my opinion since Antisocial Personality Disorder only affects about 1% of the population. Further still, there is much nature/nurture debate as to the cause in the affected 1%.

What about ADHD, autism, conduct disorder, and several other developmental disorders that are not due to parenting faults?

The debate is still ongoing among developmentalists as to how much parenting plays a role in how their children turn out compared to genetics.

By the way, the nature/nurture debate has pretty mch been settled these days. It's no longer a vs. thing, rather it's often a combination of both. The current debate among experts is more on the degree of influence from each.

(June 12, 2014 at 9:28 am)Irrational Wrote: What about ADHD, autism, conduct disorder, and several other developmental disorders that are not due to parenting faults?

The debate is still ongoing among developmentalists as to how much parenting plays a role in how their children turn out compared to genetics.

By the way, the nature/nurture debate has pretty mch been settled these days. It's no longer a vs. thing, rather it's often a combination of both. The current debate among experts is more on the degree of influence from each.

The nature vs. nurture debate has rarely ever been proposed as an either/or scenario and those that do make this proposition aren't taken seriously. Generally speaking, the nature vs. nurture debate almost exclusively deals with flushing out which is more dominant. Invoking an either/or proposition to score a cheap point is ridiculous and a straw man argument.

You can also drop in as many disorders as you like into the discussion. Keep in mind that the term disorder presupposes what is deemed normal, the concept that seems to have your panties twisted. Thumpalumpacus also explained that the references were general and not technical, relying on a charitable reading and understanding of what is meant by normal. The fact that you continued to nitpick the meaning of well known terms in general use suggests you are intentionally being a pain in the ass rather than wanting to participate in the discussion.

You are of course free to continue to state your case; however, I will be compelled to conclude that you don't know the meaning of 'normal' or 'average set'. Is this your goal here?

(June 12, 2014 at 10:05 am)Cato Wrote:

(June 12, 2014 at 9:28 am)Irrational Wrote: What about ADHD, autism, conduct disorder, and several other developmental disorders that are not due to parenting faults?

The debate is still ongoing among developmentalists as to how much parenting plays a role in how their children turn out compared to genetics.

By the way, the nature/nurture debate has pretty mch been settled these days. It's no longer a vs. thing, rather it's often a combination of both. The current debate among experts is more on the degree of influence from each.

The nature vs. nurture debate has rarely ever been proposed as an either/or scenario and those that do make this proposition aren't taken seriously. Generally speaking, the nature vs. nurture debate almost exclusively deals with flushing out which is more dominant. Invoking an either/or proposition to score a cheap point is ridiculous and a straw man argument.

You can also drop in as many disorders as you like into the discussion. Keep in mind that the term disorder presupposes what is deemed normal, the concept that seems to have your panties twisted. Thumpalumpacus also explained that the references were general and not technical, relying on a charitable reading and understanding of what is meant by normal. The fact that you continued to nitpick the meaning of well known terms in general use suggests you are intentionally being a pain in the ass rather than wanting to participate in the discussion.

You are of course free to continue to state your case; however, I will be compelled to conclude that you don't know the meaning of 'normal' or 'average set'. Is this your goal here?

No need to be touchy. It has not been established that, in general, children are difficult because of their parents.

Remember that Thumpalumpacus was quoting another member complaining about children being troublesome. Antisocial children are just a small subset of these troublesome children anyway.

And even if it is a small percentage of children that are temperamentally difficult, a logical error is being committed by concluding that, therefore, it must be a big enough percentage that parents cause their children to be difficult or "fucked up". Maybe it's also a small percentage, thereby not constituting what you are referring to as "average" or "general".

I recall a few years back I was attempting to leave the grocery store, and between the doors, mom was dealing with a toddler in full meltdown mode. It was a busy day, and pretty quick, there were several of us waiting to leave, and the brat wasn't letting up on the screaming.

I turned and said to the man behind me, "Looks like we are going to be hear till mom develops some parenting skills"

Mom GLARED at me.

When I was a kid, the inconvenient meltdown problem was handled with a quick swat to the behind and lasted all of 1 second, nowadays, the meltdowns must be handled with consultations, medications, and is fraught with the peril of lifetime psychological trauma.

I would have at least pulled the kid to an out of the way corner, or just hauled him to the car, if I was the dad. Though I suppose the act of dragging a child if they refuse to walk might be considered abuse.

(June 12, 2014 at 2:10 am)Irrational Wrote: How do you know what you're referring to is the average set?

Numbers ... by definition.