Second Nature Wilderness Program

[Anonymous]

I have read the posts, but see no evidence of abuse, please be more specific. There are thousands of kids who went through this program successfully and all you show is a story about having to go back down the hill to put food back in the bag?

You need to do better than that.

As a crazy cult member, you believe that, perhaps. But to people not in your cult, that does it, quite fine.

[TheWho]

I have read the posts, but see no evidence of abuse, please be more specific. There are thousands of kids who went through this program successfully and all you show is a story about having to go back down the hill to put food back in the bag?

You need to do better than that.

As a crazy cult member, you believe that, perhaps. But to people not in your cult, that does it, quite fine.

Let me step in if I may.  Being new here can be confusing to some and it took me awhile to catch onto the lingo also.  If you look at the redefinition of the words used here you will see how the language barrier can pose to be problematic

Abduction – Getting a ride, being told what school they are going to
Incarcerated – being grounded, Having a curfew
Abuse – Cleaning your room, doing chores, any outside work, walking in the woods with non designer clothes
Torture – No cell phone, having to start your own fire, cook your own food.


So considering the terms and their uses we can see how many feel their lives were torturous and abusive.  But when we look from a legal standpoint no records of abuse, torure, abduction or incarceration have been brought towards these programs. (I am sure there are exceptions)

So we can more easily agree with each other when we listen thru translation.



...

[Lain the Odd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

nuff said

[Anonymous]

Lain-  I guess the part we're missing is the "however many others" that you claim are detailing all the abuse.  Just isn't there.  Move on.
Good post, Who.

[Anonymous]

Lain-  I guess the part we're missing is the "however many others" that you claim are detailing all the abuse.  Just isn't there.  Move on.
Good post, Who.

^^^^^ TheWho ^^^^^

Plenty have testified (and some even won) cases of abuse. Quit with the bullshit, Who.

[Lain the Odd]

lulz ^.^

[Anonymous]

Won cases of abuse against Second Nature?  OK- let's see the data.  PROVE to us that there have been allegations of abuse (in this century) against Second Nature, testimony against Second Nature and actual court cases.  What a load of crap.

Lain- were you in Utah or at the softer Georgia program?  Who was your therapist?  When were you there?

[Anonymous]

Won cases of abuse against Second Nature?  OK- let's see the data.  PROVE to us that there have been allegations of abuse (in this century) against Second Nature, testimony against Second Nature and actual court cases.  What a load of crap.

Sorry, I was referring to the industry in general...carry on.

[TheWho]

Won cases of abuse against Second Nature?  OK- let's see the data.  PROVE to us that there have been allegations of abuse (in this century) against Second Nature, testimony against Second Nature and actual court cases.  What a load of crap.

Sorry, I was referring to the industry in general...carry on.

The responses are always "The industry in general".  This allows people to avoid having to name a specific school or program, which could catch them in a falsehood.

If a person was ever truly abused by a Second Nature staff member they would stand up and say it and name the person who broke the law and get his/her butt in jail so they couldnt hurt another person.  They wouldnt allow that person to stay knowing others could be hurt.... but this hasnt happened, instead we get "The industry in general" , so we can safely say no abuse has occured there, just people trying to hurt the program.

This is the same way it occurs in the public school system.  If a teacher abuses a student the kid calls the teacher out on their actions and if proven true the teacher is terminated.  The kids dont say the public school industry abused me.


...

[Anonymous]

The responses are always "The industry in general".  This allows people to avoid having to name a specific school or program, which could catch them in a falsehood....

Always is an absolute and in this case, Who, your assertion couldn't be more fallacious... Are you actually attempting to purport that the people here (survivors and ex-parents alike) have never cited schools in their disclosures of abuse? This has been done diligently again and again here on this goddam forum day in, day out...For you to claim what you did is nothing short of preposterous! You are becoming a caricature of yourself. It's downright absurd sometimes.

[Lain the Odd]

Because if someone does name names, no one 'gets their butt in jail'. In an absolute worst case scenario, they go work at some other program. And usually not even that.

Anonymous angry SN supporter - I'm not going to entertain your arguments in general anymore, they've sort of lost the novelty of feeding the troll.

As a closing note, while I was in Utah, i'm not divulging anything else because I don't care to become some investigation. I will, however, note that I can't make this shit up - and if I could, what reason do I have to? You, on the other hand, are either on some program's payroll or just a straight-up troll. You have to be providing the proof you so exalt, not me. kthnx.

[Anonymous]

You guys can't keep making assumptions that sending a kid to WT or TBS is the first thing a parent does the first time their kid smokes a joint or snorts a line.

I've only gone by what you said.  I haven't assumed anything really.  I've read what you wrote and commented on what you said.



In any case, I think you are quick to insult others due to what you perceive to be an attack on you when people ask questions and ask you to justify what you say with facts.  It's a touchy subject and people don't like to go into details.  I understand that to an extent.



I have said it before that I'm glad that your kid is doing better.  Who could be upset with a happy, functioning child?



What I object to is that places that use these types of "programs" don't tell the truth about their approach to "treatment."  Now. I'm not saying that your program has done this - I wouldn't know.  What I do know, however, is that they advertise that they can treat various psychological/social disorders.  They advertise that they are successful, yet there is not a single shred of evidence to support this claim.



I can say this universally about all of these programs simply because I stay current on the research being conducted and there is not a single, solitary clinical trial for "wilderness programs" that indicates that they can successfully treat anything whatsoever. Current research indicates that these programs are at best ineffective and at worst damaging.  



Mental health treatment must always be conducted under the least restrictive conditions possible.  This is a general rule of the discipline.  Sending a child to one of these programs against their will is counterintuitive the "least restrictive" philosophy.  



Their going voluntarily is rare and is usually coerced or in some cases the children are "kidnapped" from their beds in the middle of the night by paid "escorts" who handcuff your kid and drag him/her from the house in handcuffs, against their will, to be forcibly transported to the program - for a fee, of course.



My point about this has been that if your kid required out of home placement (dangerous to self or others - well below 1% of all cases) then he/she is in need of a level of care that a WP simply cannot deliver.



I'm not saying that there aren't some people in this industry who have good intentions and are trying to help kids.  



What I'm saying is that these places, based on the least restrictive care model, are accepting children whose placement there is unwarranted (many) or even dangerous (very few).  I'm saying that they're in business to sell a product - like every business sells a product to make profit - and the product they're selling isn't therapy for the kids, it's hope for the parents and it's wrong.

Let's get this discussion back to FACTS and away from TheWho's and the single anon parent who has defended SN for two years in this thread.

There is no evidence that shows these programs work, period.  You can't spin it, you can't deny it.  It's as obvious as the nose on your face and TheWho and the AnonAngryDisrespectfulSingleSNSupporter know this.  This is precisely why they try to drag the dialogue into the gutter and drail the thread.  They have nothing to stand on in a fair, level, grounded discussion.  

This is why AnonAngryDisrespectfulSingleSNSupporter resorts to name calling and TheWho resorts to fictitious "data."  They're logically cornered and would have to admit that the only evidence that SN is effective is their feelings.  

TheWho has exactly zero experience with SN; knows nothing of it whatsoever.  Never been there, kid never went there, yet he tries to speak as if he's an authority on the subject.  It's ridiculous at best, desperate manipulation and prevarication at worst.

We still haven't got past the fact that the premise that this place was built upon is faulty (to say the least).  This parent and TheWho are just spewing the party line - the same old hackneyed tripe.  "Prove it doesn't work!"  "We don't need studies, just stories!"  (But, curiously, not the stories of the abused or the studies of mainsteam professionals...how...odd :roll: )

These two are shills and a cursory examination of their handiwork reveals this inescapable fact.  A pair of bunk artists, nothing more.

Captcha: "imperative posted"

[TheWho]

So it seems we may be at an impasse.  Clinical studies are not automatically performed in all areas.  They are great to have but the lack of them doesn’t dictate a conclusion either way.  To say a program is ineffective because of a lack of studies is ludicrous.  If the parents and kids that pass through the programs find them to be effective then they are!!  The parents and kids that find them to be ineffective are also correct (wilderness doesn’t work for everyone).

As far as abuse goes, we haven’t seen any evidence.  Lain gave us a story about a person who had to walk back down the trail and place a sausage into the food bag, which didn’t seem to be anything to call the police on.

So to recap:  The effectiveness of Second Nature wilderness varies based on the individual from extremely effective to not effective at all, with no evidence of abuse (or negative effects).




...

[Anonymous]

The jury is out, Who.

[Anonymous]

Unless you're Randall Hinton.