Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Nihilanthic on May 11, 2006, 04:44:00 AM
-
Seeing as instead of actually providing proof, or reason, or a logical arguement, or even engaging me at all, they instead chose to stick their heads in the sand via banning me, and TSW.
Now, TSW was an acutal counselor in a program, and spoke of his own specific experience of abuse where he worked, and was bootd out. Im an experienced advocate with a lot of facts and information, and a little too much perception into their own pathology, so they booted me becuase they felt threatened.
http://www.strugglingteens.org/cgi-bin/ ... p=2#000040 (http://www.strugglingteens.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001222;p=2#000040)
So, let us look for ourselves! (anon posts with their shit here to make reading easier to follow~)
-
Posted by Leslie6:
Nihilanthic, you said to me above "I dont CARE about your feelings", so I am glad you are moving on. This is a discussion group for parents, who do CARE, and want to help each other and tell about their experiences, with their kids, and with themselves. I think you should find all the information you are looking for, your research, but I am tired of you putting us down and arguing with us. I don't have the time for that, to me, you are waisting our time. Good luck to you, and please move on from this site.
Leslie
-
Posted by Ben1007:
Amen!
-
Ok, Ill make it all one big post here, screw it:
Posted by Leslie6:Nihilanthic, you said to me above "I dont CARE about your feelings", so I am glad you are moving on. This is a discussion group for parents, who do CARE, and want to help each other and tell about their experiences, with their kids, and with themselves. I think you should find all the information you are looking for, your research, but I am tired of you putting us down and arguing with us. I don't have the time for that, to me, you are waisting our time. Good luck to you, and please move on from this site.
Leslie
Posted by Ben1007Amen!
Posted by CarolineYeah...he's gone!
Posted by JeanetteHey Everyone,
I just came home tonight from seeing my daughter at her wilderness graduation. She looked and felt wonderful. To get away from the cell phones, drugs, parties, etc and just get her head together was a blessing let alone all the theraputic progress and figuring out all her emotions. I know she is very thankful for the experience and is getting ready to move on to a second step placement in her recovery. Too bad Nihilthanic didn't hang around for a few more days to hear this.
Posted by Rochelle:To Everyone:
I would like to thank everyone who responded to my post about after care! I wish I would've known about this forum a long time ago. I can't believe how many caring people there are who are willing to share their stories and thoughts.
My daughter is 15 at an RTC. She loved wilderness (didn't want to leave), doesn't like her RTC so much, but seems to recognize the necessity. I already have such a better relationship with her. If only I KNEW what to do after this (which won't be for at least 4 months)...
I'm glad he (NIL) is gone (for now) too, but I think the wisest course (why I should give advice since this is only my second post, I don't know), would be for everyone to ignore him. His behavior is typical verbally abusive behavior, and will only escalate if it receives a response (so I won't respond). No amount of reasoning will work, it only feeds the fire....
Rochelle
--------------------
Rochelle
Posted by Randomwalk:A M E N!!
Posted by heleneb:Rochelle,
Stuggling Teens is a more active group than Family IQ (which primarilly has parents early in the process, usually wc). Also Struggling Teens has parents much further along in the process, and many have grown young adults who have graduated from the programs already. Their input has been really valuable. It lets us see that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
As for your daughter, it is too early to tell what she will need. If she can't come home, she may only need a regular boarding school. It is good to be thinking ahead a little though and explore all of your options.
Nils and wayward willie were banned from this site, I believe, and have moved back to their comfort zone on Fornits. They are a bitter group. I can sort of understand if they were placed in abusive programs, but many of them haven't been in a program at all, they just like to argue and try to make parents who have placed their kids in programs feel guilty.
Wecome to ST and I will see you also on Family IQ! Helene
Clearly, we can see what we're dealing with here.
I especially like heleneb's bullshit...
- Im banned so they dont have to think about what I have to say
- So I went to my 'comfort zone' which is fornits
- Which is 'bitter' (Actually, my beer is called 'bitter', its Bass... good ale!)
- And then insinuate its all about arguing, and making parents feel angry
- And forgot that TSW was actually a counselor in a program
Funny, they keep acting exactly as I thought the more they flap their gums! They DO feel guilty, but want support to cover it all up, and groupthink helps them to go along with thier decision. Its also all about them; their emotions, their feelings, their desire to feel like theyre the victim and can do no wrong, its all their kids fault, this is really the best thing they could possibly do, and it works.
Well, feelings wise. Too bad there exists NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP, yet we have tons of evidence contrary to their assertions that they choose to just ignore, if not outright remove from their presence.
They blatanyly deleted the posts TSW made detailing his own experience AS COUNSELOR IN A PROGRAM of abuse, yet curiously leave what I said and reduce it down to the only thing that matters: their FEELINGS and attack me for 'attacking their feelings to make them feel guilty' isntead of what I was trying to do... bring up facts, details, and the perspective of the CHILDREN instead of the perspective of the parents.
True, I did bring up that to them its all about them and their own perspective, and they do nothing more than just keep convincing themsleves as a group what they want to hear and believe, but thats apparently a personal attack... just like telling a faith healer whose praying instead of taking their child to a hospital they should take the kid to the hospital is a personal attack on the faith healer. :silly:
-
a couple things to 'member
"when have you ever seen a member of the ST crowd admit they fucked their own kids up by sending them to a program?" probably never since they figured their kids were already screwed up, so nothing would hurt and could only help or at worst do nothing
other thing is in-your-face bashing and/or challenging with a monotonous tone and "you show me" first attitude wont' get anybody a lot of welcome at a lot of places and saying "I was there" isn't the same as offering third-party evidence, especially when you are essentially unknown to the audience yourself -- I could claim to have been anywhere and speaking the truth, say about a TBS in GA, and who could tell if I was or not
-
"when have you ever seen a member of the ST crowd admit they fucked their own kids up by sending them to a program?" probably never since they figured their kids were already screwed up, so nothing would hurt and could only help or at worst do nothing
So, bad judgement, or apathy, or both? Thats hardly a good excuse or disclaimer to just sign off on something in the hope that it might fix something they think exists.
A lot of this shit is just their failures as a parent, or thier... naiveté (and memory loss of their own teenage years) to the normal actions and REactions of an adolescent human being being preyed upon by people selling programs, or actual distress in worry over their kids that was taken advantage of.
Or, maybe they just want to abdicate, or just hate the kid, or are afraid of the kid and want to put it somewhere where someone else can 'fix it' but they dont wanna see. Either way, its still not an excuse, a crappy reason, and something they still have to come to grips with. AND THEIR FAULT.
Also, duh, the people who DID all the fooling, trickery, and manipulation to suck in the well intended parents need to be held accountable as well. But we dont really have a lot of vitriol against them, now do we?
other thing is in-your-face bashing and/or challenging with a monotonous tone and "you show me" first attitude wont' get anybody a lot of welcome at a lot of places and saying "I was there" isn't the same as offering third-party evidence, especially when you are essentially unknown to the audience yourself -- I could claim to have been anywhere and speaking the truth, say about a TBS in GA, and who could tell if I was or not
Ok, see, thats a big sticking point. Let me enumerate... with numbers!- "in your face bashing and/or challenging" is EXACTLY HOW THESE FUCKING PROGRAMS OPERATE, THAT THEY ARE SOO SUPPORTIVE OF! WHY CANT THEY TAKE THEIR OWN MEDICINE? ]The burden of proof IS on them, whether they like that or not.
- Yet, there is tons of proof programs dont work and can infact cause detrimental effects
- The abuse, suffering, and long term social, sexual, PTSD and other behavioral problems and panic attacks these programs cause are not a secret either
- Empirical fact, is empirical fact! I dont have to have stepped foot on Jamaica to know that a TBS doesnt work based off of the studies out there saying they do.
- I dont have to even know a god damn thing about them to challenge and ask for proof, Either! Open Criticism and challenging is how science, the modern world, and free societies operate.
- The "who could tell if I was not telling the truth" arguement applies to THEM just as much. If you wanna see someone who I hold Lon to the same regard to, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Bob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Bob)
- TSW was actually a counselor in a program and was talking about what he saw, and THAT, too, was quashed, and he banned
Ok, Im done playing with list tags. Anyway, just how exactly do you expect us to talk to these people? You want us to sugarcoat, whitewash, water down, and put sprinkles over the message to GROWN ADULTS?
Apparently for the struggling parents, we HAVE to, because theyre at least as immature as they accuse their children of being, and just kneejerk about people saying something they dont want to hear instead of checking on the veracity or truthfulness of it.
But, guess what They do have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)
Yet again, we owe a thank you to Stephen Colbert.
So, just what exactly do you propose, except coddling these people shelling out big bucks and blathering misleading vividness and emotional terms and other appeal to emotion nonsense like they just got out of a seminar and trying to spin it around so they are the victim (again) and they were fooled by the program?
I really rather would like them to GROW UP but thats apparently too much to expect.
Regardless, you can see for yourself by how they reacted to what I said, and see what I said, to see what kind of person we're dealing with, and why Jena did what she did.
Im kind of torn between amazement, disgust, anger, sadness, and waryness over this whole thing. I do know Im going to HAVE to figure out how to get through to people sucked into it, if I want to start making headway faster than I am. At least people who have'nt yet been sucked in are open to the FACTS when I present them, and at least Fornits lets me speak my mind and back it up wtih facts when people do their job as free thinkers and challenge it, if they have a reason to.
-
Sorry your feelings are hurt by being kicked off of ST. If anyone wants to hear what you have to say, they will come to this forum and weed through all the crap. You have nothing new to add to the ST forum- your message remains the same. You think all parents who send kids to programs are evil, failed as parents and are ruining their kids. If you have something new to say, have at it.
There are plenty of parents on this site (according to you) who have admitted that program placement was a mistake. Of course, most of them are angry at an ex-spouse who made the placement. There have been some abusive and dangerous programs- in the past, usually the WAY past.
Probably the main reason you aren't welcome on ST is because you have no empathy and won't listen to anyone else's point of view. There ARE different opinions presented on that site, but there is also a maturity to listen and respond with thought instead of foul language and emotion.
-
There ARE different opinions presented on that site, but there is also a maturity to listen and respond with thought instead of foul language and emotion.
This is what is commonly referred to as a "crock of shit."
-
Sorry your feelings are hurt by being kicked off of ST.
Im not.
If anyone wants to hear what you have to say, they will come to this forum and weed through all the crap.
What crap? All these facts everyone seems to have trouble manouvering around when they spew forth their nonsense?
You have nothing new to add to the ST forum- your message remains the same. You think all parents who send kids to programs are evil, failed as parents and are ruining their kids.
No, I dont. That presumption upon what I feel about them is one of my problems with that forum. Its full of a bunch of defensive crybabies who want to be told they're good parents and did the right thing over and over again, and want attention.
I dont care to facilitate that. I DO care about the truth, whats going on, and that those kids arent getting any help, 90% of them dont need any, and theyre all being abused right now.
If you have something new to say, have at it.
Oh, It still has to be said even if its not new. I have fact and evidence too, but thats a no-no there. The holocaust still has to be taught, so that humanity wont make that mistake again. Apparently they've been behind in their studies.
There are plenty of parents on this site (according to you) who have admitted that program placement was a mistake.
Really? Ive yet to see one...
Of course, most of them are angry at an ex-spouse who made the placement.
Because god knows THEY cant make a mistake, oh no, it has to be someone else, the OTHER parent, and the parent posting themself was doing the right thing ALL ALONG, and theyre the victim, either way, right? :roll:
There have been some abusive and dangerous programs- in the past, usually the WAY past.
OOOkkk... These programs in operation right now with the SAME PEOPLE doing things the SAME WAY arent abusive? How so?
This is more reflective of your truthiness than about any facts. Nothings changed between then and now, just marketing, P.R., a few terms, and maybe a few entry level employees, but the model is the same.
Probably the main reason you aren't welcome on ST is because you have no empathy and won't listen to anyone else's point of view.
I have a lot of empathy, but guess what?
ITS FOR THOSE CHILDREN IN RESTRAINT OR LGAT SEMINARS BEING ABUSED RIGHT NOW, NOT FOR SOME GROWN UP CRYBABY WHO WANTS ATTENTION FOR HOW HARD IT WAS TO PUT THEIR OWN KID INTO SUCH A PLACE.
Oh, and points of view dont matter if they're WRONG, moron. You can have the point of view that one plus one makes three, but the day I respect it is the day I drink the same punch you do.
There ARE different opinions presented on that site, but there is also a maturity to listen and respond with thought instead of foul language and emotion.
Uh, really? All theyve responded with EVER is emotion, not thought. Show me someone responding with thought and reason, and Ill read it, and Ill take back that statement.
Oh, and Ive yet to see any maturity - just a desire to reinforce their desire to believe they're good parents, did the right thing, the program works, trust the program, the kids being helped, and theyre the victim in it... but none of them really belive it, so they keep going back to try to make themselves believe it and silence their own doubts.
Anon, its this simple. I dont care to consider a point of view that is inherantly flawed or wrong. Subjective pluralism only works where there is no objective perspective to take - there IS one, they just dont want to take it. Pluralism would be what hair color looks the best, objectivity is how long it actually is. You cant take 15 points of view and have them 'all right' like in your bullshit seminars about how long it is, its as long as it is (though slowly growing), period.
I dont care to empathize with an immature adult who just wants to be coddled, when the truth is coddling them and reassuring them shoving their kid into a van with some escorts and taking them away for a year or more to some behavior modification hellhole is like making Dr. Kellogg feel good and reassuring him that its 'the right thing to do' to make everyone get massive yogurt enemas. It doesnt make squirting yogurt up your ass any more effective a treatment, but for the BELIEVERS it makes them feel better.
Unfortunately, theyre still being abused, not helped, and are going to have some real problems down the line, and the only people you seem to care about are a few check-writing whiners, most of them with adopted kids.
So, you can cry me a river, or go squirt some yoplait up your ass for all I care. Im thinking about the kids and the fact that none of this shit has ever been proven to work, yet theres piles of evidence showing it doesnt, its abusive, makes things worse, or some combination of all three.
Again, read up on the Truthiness. You've got a LOT of it coming out of your mouth!
-
Why even waste your time with those people? Seriously.
-
Im not with them.
Its for the people who come in and see whats going on so they can learn for themselves what kind of people these parents and programmies are!
-
Hey far out!! A parent-flavored Kook-Aid ::cheers::
-
I meant "Kool-Aid" but what the hell, Kook-Aid sounds better! ::cheers:: ::cheers::
-
These freaks of nature known as struggling parents are such control freaks they come over here in groups to try and prove they are not horrible people for locking up their kids. This shows a lot about what kind of people they are, I would hate to be their kid. No wonder they send them away to these godforsaken hell camps, they are dysfunctional themselves!
-
This is so funny! I didn't even know about Stugglingteens.com until after I had been here. The ironic part of your statement is they are "coming over here in groups" when, in fact, ST has only about 3 new posts a day! Get over yourself!
-
Come on, no reason pretending you don?t know why you got banned from ST. It?s a different type of forum. You are use to having full range to control and bully people if they start to make a good point or call you on some of your weak positions. You get put in a corner and then cry foul with ?ad hominem? or ?Truthiness? which gives yourself a reason to invalidate another?s position (and avoid the questions) instead of being open minded and exchanging and recognizing each others positions. They don?t want to put up with the crap there. The type of discussion that goes on here at fornits isn?t normal and would not be tolerated most places.
I think a good point was made that they will come here if they want the fornits perspective.
-
On 2006-05-12 14:06:00, TheWho wrote:
"Come on, no reason pretending you don?t know why you got banned from ST. It?s a different type of forum. You are use to having full range to control and bully people if they start to make a good point or call you on some of your weak positions. You get put in a corner and then cry foul with ?ad hominem? or ?Truthiness? which gives yourself a reason to invalidate another?s position (and avoid the questions) instead of being open minded and exchanging and recognizing each others positions. They don?t want to put up with the crap there. The type of discussion that goes on here at fornits isn?t normal and would not be tolerated most places.
I think a good point was made that they will come here if they want the fornits perspective.
"
Well said!
-
You nailed it, Who. Who's on First!!
-
The only parents that continually post on ST are the ones who are only interested in hearing what they want to hear. They're not looking for actual information, they're looking for a site with like-minded parents that will support and validate their decision to send the kid off.
Period.
-
On 2006-05-12 14:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The only parents that continually post on ST are the ones who are only interested in hearing what they want to hear. They're not looking for actual information, they're looking for a site with like-minded parents that will support and validate their decision to send the kid off.
Period."
Ya know, Julie, you dont need to sign your name anymore. Too obvious.
Anyway , in a sense you are right, they are like minded in that they have similar problems and probably all have only a few options left on the table. Unlike you most are very pragmatic and are seeking a solution which will have a high probability of succeeding for their child and it is annoying having someone like you screaming ?ew,Ew,ew, Mister Kotter, all these people want is a break from their kids, they don?t care,!!
They all care about their kids, we all know they care. You really isolate yourself when you make those statements; you are so out of touch and lose credibility when you say that, why not debate and explain your position and listen to those who had other experiences?
-
On 2006-05-12 15:02:00, TheWho wrote:
"
On 2006-05-12 14:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The only parents that continually post on ST are the ones who are only interested in hearing what they want to hear. They're not looking for actual information, they're looking for a site with like-minded parents that will support and validate their decision to send the kid off.
Period."
Ya know, Julie, you dont need to sign your name anymore. Too obvious.
Anyway , in a sense you are right, they are like minded in that they have similar problems and probably all have only a few options left on the table. Unlike you most are very pragmatic and are seeking a solution which will have a high probability of succeeding for their child and it is annoying having someone like you screaming ?ew,Ew,ew, Mister Kotter, all these people want is a break from their kids, they don?t care,!!
They all care about their kids, we all know they care. You really isolate yourself when you make those statements; you are so out of touch and lose credibility when you say that, why not debate and explain your position and listen to those who had other experiences?
"
Julie didn't write that. You should know by now that she does sign her posts. Hard to believe I know :roll: but there are many of us who feel the same as she does. I've "debated" this issue over and over again. It always comes down to the same thing. Most of the parents don't want to hear what we have to say. They want someone to coddle them and tell them that what they did was Okey Dokey. That's it in a nutshell.
I imagine it would be very hard to admit that maybe you made a mistake and especially when that mistake has the possible fallout that it does. Unfortunately, it'll be your kids paying the price in years to come...not you.
-
I think parents are willing to admit that they made a mistake. However, most of the placements made by the parents on ST, after they have carefully researched the programs, are NOT mistakes. This does that mean that every kid emmerges emotionally healthy or that the kid doesn't struggle again in the future, but very few of the placements made in the last few years by ST parents have been viewed as a mistake. A few kids have had to change programs, and a few parents, including myself, have not been happy with all aspects of a program, but there have been no reports of abuse, contrarty to what you want to believe on this site.
-
Niles, I banned you on my site because you are a non tolerant person towards other people's problems. I think you should leave all the program stuff to the people who have first hand experiences with the programs. I feel you are also too young to understand. Hopefully, you will eventually understand at a later time in your life.If you do, I will welcome you back to my forum with open arms.
-
Okay Julie, I?ll bite.
Most of the parents don't want to hear what we have to say.
I think they would if it was presented without anger and presumptions. You have been here long enough and so have I to know that a parent is jumped on as soon as they get get here (yeah I know boo hoo, lets not cry now that Johnny is gone).
The world is changing and so are the schools and most here at fornits are arguing from a point of view formed 30 plus years ago and as these schools evolve and improve the conversation stays still, the fences are coming down, the communication is being opened, the LGAT are being abandoned or phased out, diplomas are being handed out, extremely high percentage of (previously at-risk kids) are moving on to college at a rate higher than any local high school!!
We are down to the ?TBS?s are ineffective because we found 2 teachers who are not licensed or a counselor doesn?t have an advanced degree in psychology etc.?
Why not start recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the industry and work towards helping this kids and adding value by improving these places instead of trying to tear them down?
Lets try to help the kids, not just winning an argument.
-
last one was mine.
-
On 2006-05-12 15:30:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Okay Julie, I?ll bite.
Most of the parents don't want to hear what we have to say.
I think they would if it was presented without anger and presumptions. You have been here long enough and so have I to know that a parent is jumped on as soon as they get get here (yeah I know boo hoo, lets not cry now that Johnny is gone).
The world is changing and so are the schools and most here at fornits are arguing from a point of view formed 30 plus years ago and as these schools evolve and improve the conversation stays still, the fences are coming down, the communication is being opened, the LGAT are being abandoned or phased out, diplomas are being handed out, extremely high percentage of (previously at-risk kids) are moving on to college at a rate higher than any local high school!!
We are down to the ?TBS?s are ineffective because we found 2 teachers who are not licensed or a counselor doesn?t have an advanced degree in psychology etc.?
Why not start recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the industry and work towards helping this kids and adding value by improving these places instead of trying to tear them down?
Lets try to help the kids, not just winning an argument.
"
- For one, confrontational, angry, and in your face is how these programs work on the kids. Cant take your own medicine? Also, you know what? No matter HOW you present it, if it involves them being wrong or the program being wrong, they act as if you are 'attacking them' because this stupid program is so important to them. And anyone wonders why we call it culty? :roll:
- Really, theyre changing because "the world is changing"? Wheres the proof of that? Thats just your assertion!! Communication is not being improved, LGATs are not being phased out, FAKE diplomas are sure being handed out at the least, and you know what else? You cant say jack shit about program kids going to college any more than highschool kids unless you had a control group with the same demographics as your program kids and did a study, which you didnt. LEARN STATISTICS
- No, we're NOT down to ?TBS?s are ineffective because we found 2 teachers who are not licensed or a counselor doesn?t have an advanced degree in psychology etc.?, we're down to "in 30 years of operation not one can prove its effective for a god damn thing, and when psychological and medical professionals examine programs they find out its ineffective for treatment and is merely coersive (abusive) behavior modification)
- The "strenghts and weaknesses" arguement is a fake duality. You dont keep a kid locked up in some program because it has the 'strength' of keeping them from drugs (to a point, but even that isnt a sure thing) or whatever when as a whole its abusive and inefffective. The coersive BM model itself is flawed and needs to be rejected. This is just sophistry and defence of programs for the sake of keeping them, instead of looking for what works. You have a forgone conclusion and a very thick skull.
- "Lets try to help the kids, not just winning an argument." SURE! Get over yourself, get over your programs, use what works, and stop defending something because of your stupid emotional attachments to it, grow up, and get real.
-
Oh, and so you dont keep blocking it out from the conversation by putting on the act of mental density and keep saying your bullshit assertions when we've presented proof on our side (yet the burden of proof is STILL ON YOU, which youve ben utterly unable to fulfill) ill post it here for easy clicking:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 620#195262 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=1620#195262)
BTW, sources are cited... all you have are vacuous or just bullshit assertions and arguementative fallacies, aka truthiness.
So grow up or GTFO, ok?
-
***the communication is being opened, the LGAT are being abandoned or phased out, diplomas are being handed out, extremely high percentage of (previously at-risk kids) are moving on to college at a rate higher than any local high school!!
Moving on to college is not such a monumental feat, given that the vast majority of program kids are white/middle class and have had a college fund since they were born. Provided of course their parents didn't cash it in to pay for their private incarceration.
If you read MySpace survivor sites you'll find many are flunking out- and/or determining that academia is not the path they want to persue.
Seriously, on what do you base the above statements? Kinda like your claim that there is a 'Skyrocketing Suicide Epidemic" amongst teens?
-
On 2006-05-12 15:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I think parents are willing to admit that they made a mistake. However, most of the placements made by the parents on ST, after they have carefully researched the programs, are NOT mistakes. This does that mean that every kid emmerges emotionally healthy or that the kid doesn't struggle again in the future, but very few of the placements made in the last few years by ST parents have been viewed as a mistake. A few kids have had to change programs, and a few parents, including myself, have not been happy with all aspects of a program, but there have been no reports of abuse, contrarty to what you want to believe on this site."
Depends on how you define abuse. IMO, sending a kid to that kind of an environment to have his behavior changed against his will does lasting damage no matter how pretty the package is wrapped up. If more parents would really look into the seminars/LGATs etc. they'd run far and fast from those places. Hell, even corporations are waking up to it. The "team building" seminars that are so often referred to here by program supporters as some kind of a sign that it's OK and accepted (and which are supposedly a watered down version of what the kids experience), have come under fire as of late for being emotionally abusive and cult-like. Hopefully the rest of America won't be far behind. The emotional scars arent' realized for years after sometimes.
-
On 2006-05-12 18:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-05-12 15:16:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I think parents are willing to admit that they made a mistake. However, most of the placements made by the parents on ST, after they have carefully researched the programs, are NOT mistakes. This does that mean that every kid emmerges emotionally healthy or that the kid doesn't struggle again in the future, but very few of the placements made in the last few years by ST parents have been viewed as a mistake. A few kids have had to change programs, and a few parents, including myself, have not been happy with all aspects of a program, but there have been no reports of abuse, contrarty to what you want to believe on this site."
Depends on how you define abuse. IMO, sending a kid to that kind of an environment to have his behavior changed against his will does lasting damage no matter how pretty the package is wrapped up. If more parents would really look into the seminars/LGATs etc. they'd run far and fast from those places. Hell, even corporations are waking up to it. The "team building" seminars that are so often referred to here by program supporters as some kind of a sign that it's OK and accepted (and which are supposedly a watered down version of what the kids experience), have come under fire as of late for being emotionally abusive and cult-like. Hopefully the rest of America won't be far behind. The emotional scars arent' realized for years after sometimes."
:nworthy: :nworthy:
Good to know. Hate to think Id have to deck a facilitator in a future career... not that I wouldnt thurougly enjoy getting that pink slip :lol:
-
On 2006-05-12 18:42:00, Deborah wrote:
"***the communication is being opened, the LGAT are being abandoned or phased out, diplomas are being handed out, extremely high percentage of (previously at-risk kids) are moving on to college at a rate higher than any local high school!!
Moving on to college is not such a monumental feat, given that the vast majority of program kids are white/middle class and have had a college fund since they were born. Provided of course their parents didn't cash it in to pay for their private incarceration.
If you read MySpace survivor sites you'll find many are flunking out- and/or determining that academia is not the path they want to persue.
Seriously, on what do you base the above statements? Kinda like your claim that there is a 'Skyrocketing Suicide Epidemic" amongst teens?
"
Doesn?t have to be moving on to college, but just that the lions share are accepted to a good college is a reflection on the work the kids have done while at the TBS. Many had dropped out to sit at home or get involved in risky behavior. Most parents just want their kids to be happy and know that some paths are not going to lead them there and need help choosing a new one it?s the parents job and responsibility.
Seriously, on what do you base the above statements? Kinda like your claim that there is a 'Skyrocketing Suicide Epidemic" amongst teens?
When I first joined Fornits, Deborah, I thought you were one of the ones that was fair and balanced, engaged in fair debate. We have been thru this, show me where I ever said ?Skyrocketing Suicide Epidemic? . You lost credibility when you presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there because you started to see that the numbers were starting to show that the suicide rate at TBS?s is far below the national level and these schools are making a difference. You could have dropped it but you had to fudge the numbers instead. Its not right and your statement isn?t right.
-
Do you have proof to back that up?
Do you also have any proof that someone who is OUT of a TBS, but previously went to one, is less likely to commit suicide than someone who never has to begin with?
See, the national rate is... 10.7/100,000 or 0.01%.
Considering there are about 10,000 to 20,000 teenagers in programs right now, uh... one or two per year would be THE SAME.
-
Do you also have any proof that someone who is OUT of a TBS, but previously went to one, is less likely to commit suicide than someone who never has to begin with?
I don?t think this has been studied. What Deborah was trying to compare was kids at TBS?s vs the national average.
See, the national rate is... 10.7/100,000 or 0.01%.
Considering there are about 10,000 to 20,000 teenagers in programs right now, uh... one or two per year would be THE SAME.
This was my original point, it is an uncontrolled study. How many kids attended (population)? You should also consider that the kids in TBS?s are a ?select group? and may be at a higher risk, much, much higher. How would we equate the 2 populations? If they had not gone to a TBS would we expect say 1%? And seeing .5% is considered a great improvement?
All these questions need to be taken into consideration. We cant compare them straight out, we need to consider the ?select groupings?
Could we conclude that people in Florida make better decisions because they have less occurrences of frost bite than those people in Maine? or should we consider other factors?
-
So your spin on this is somehow a kid sent to a TBS should be more likely to commit suicide, but have no evidence why, just a hunch, becuase the suicide rate is more or less the same as the national average?
:lol: Do horses sniff your hands for grasping at straws so much?
Considering there are no hard facts about TBSs AT ALL regarding their effectiveness, or the population of children going in (and why they are) except they tend to be white, adopted, and have rich or wealthy parents, all your assertions, hunches, and inductive reasoning to try to explain your forgone conclusions are what the laymen call "bullshit".
Get some proof or GTFO, please.
-
On 2006-05-13 19:46:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"So your spin on this is somehow a kid sent to a TBS should be more likely to commit suicide, but have no evidence why, just a hunch, becuase the suicide rate is more or less the same as the national average?
:lol: Do horses sniff your hands for grasping at straws so much?
Considering there are no hard facts about TBSs AT ALL regarding their effectiveness, or the population of children going in (and why they are) except they tend to be white, adopted, and have rich or wealthy parents, all your assertions, hunches, and inductive reasoning to try to explain your forgone conclusions are what the laymen call "bullshit".
Get some proof or GTFO, please. "
Niles, you finally admit that there is no evidence which supports TBS's are ineffective. This is a big step. Now if we can just tilt the scale and show you how effective it has been for many families I think you will begin to see some of the benifits.
-
On 2006-05-13 21:08:00, TheWho wrote:
"
On 2006-05-13 19:46:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"So your spin on this is somehow a kid sent to a TBS should be more likely to commit suicide, but have no evidence why, just a hunch, becuase the suicide rate is more or less the same as the national average?
:lol: Do horses sniff your hands for grasping at straws so much?
Considering there are no hard facts about TBSs AT ALL regarding their effectiveness, or the population of children going in (and why they are) except they tend to be white, adopted, and have rich or wealthy parents, all your assertions, hunches, and inductive reasoning to try to explain your forgone conclusions are what the laymen call "bullshit".
Get some proof or GTFO, please. "
Niles, you finally admit that there is no evidence which supports TBS's are ineffective. This is a big step. Now if we can just tilt the scale and show you how effective it has been for many families I think you will begin to see some of the benifits."
How Do Behavior Modifying Schools and Camps Work?
II. History of behavior modifying techniques
Behavior modification is the use of outside stimuli to alter behavior. When stimuli are used repetitively to encourage or discourage behavior, behavior gradually changes. For example, when a puppy is trained not to jump on the couch, the owner responds to the puppy?s bad behavior of jumping on the couch in a authoritative voice: ?No, bad puppy?. Then, the owner picks up the puppy, and puts it on it?s puppy bed. The owner gives the puppy a biscuit when it settles down, pats it?s head and says lovingly: ?Good puppy?. The owner continues to encourage the good behavior of the puppy, sleeping on it?s puppy bed, and discourage the bad behavior of jumping on the couch. The owner repeatedly does the aforementioned until the puppy?s original behavior changes, and she learns the owner?s idea of good behavior and bad behavior.
During the 1960?s, trendy behavior modifying techniques were ?widely taught in colleges and universities, and widely practiced in schools, prisons, hospitals, homes for the developmentally disabled, businesses, and in private practice offices? (1) By 1970 behavior modifying techniques were being challenged on ethical and legal grounds. (2) Depending on the type of behavior control used, techniques may raise concerns about the dehumanization of people, denial of human rights, and manipulation. Some techniques such as coercion, are a threat to persons regarded as autonomous. Coercion often involves a tight control of a person?s environment, and aversive procedures. (3)
III. Types of behavior control used in behavior modifying techniques
In behavior modifying schools and camps, techniques are used to modify the teenager?s perceived inappropriate behavior to a more desired one. Because the location of the school or camp is remote, and the environment is controlled, questions have arisen concerning the ethics of the behavior modification used. The use of behavior modification at these institutions may be against the wishes of the teenager who did not consent to be escorted to the school. This was the case when David van Blarigan was involuntarily escorted to Tranquility Bay, a behavior modification school in Jamaica: ?Just past midnight, David van Blarigan,16, woke up in Oakland, Calif., home to find his parents at his bedside with the two burly strangers they had called to take him away. ?Why are you doing this?? the teenager cried out. ?Because you?re unhappy here,? his mother replied. ?If you don?t cooperate,? one of the escorts said, ?we?ll have to put you in handcuffs.? (4) If a teenager like David van Blarigan is coerced to attend a behavior modifying school or camp, then the application of behavior modifying techniques is coercive treatment (5)
There are many strategies for getting a person to act in a desired way. Strategies can be grouped into three types of behavior control: rational persuasion, manipulation, and coercion.
The type of behavior control that is called rational persuasion is when the authority figure?s communicative approach is straightforward. This encourages the person ?to reevaluate his intentions toward a certain act without bringing to bear any pressures of incentives extraneous to the rational evaluation of the likely consequences of that act from the point of view of the self-interest of the person being asked to act?. (6) An example of rational persuasion being employed is when a young kid is caught by his adult neighbor, smoking a cigarette. The adult neighbor asks the kid why he smokes. The kid shrugs. The adult tells the kid that smoking is bad for your health-- that it causes lung damage and turns your teeth and fingernail?s yellow. The kid is left to evaluate his action of smoking a cigarette on his own.
According to Berghman, manipulation is being employed if a person trying to influence the behavior of another, through communicative means, and is not straightforward or open. The manipulator deliberately uses pressure on his subject?s ?motivational system? that is to be manipulated in an attempt to obtain the needed assent from his subject. (7) Such a manipulative technique can be seen at home: two boys, Jack and Ryan are trading Pokemon cards at Jack?s house. Jack has the desired Pokemon card that Ryan desperately wants. Ryan tells Jack that unless Jack gives him the envied Pokemon card, he(Ryan) will go home. Jack, not wanting Ryan to go home, agrees and gives Ryan the coveted Pokemon card.
With coercion, the absence of freedom to refuse or assent can take the form of an offer or a threat. In the form of a coercive offer, strong incentives to act are given. Therefore, any reasonable person would be expected to act. Using rational persuasion and manipulation in behavior modification, the subject has a choice to refuse or consent to the attempted behavior control. In coercion, freedom of choice is absent. This is a threat to persons regarded as autonomous. (8)
In these schools and camps teenagers have to move up in the level system in order to leave the program. This is a coercive threat and it offers an unattractive result: If the teenager does not want to cooperate with the authoritative figure or comply to the rules of the level system, he will remain at level one and cannot leave the program. Desiring his freedoms, he will appear to comply with the coercer, the authority figure, in order to leave the program.
In behavior modifying schools and camps, coercion is the primary method used to behavior modify the teenagers into conformity with the goals and purposes of the program. In the majority of these programs, levels systems, systems of rewards and punishments based on propriety are used and are perceived as a coercive offer. The teenagers cannot refuse participation in the level system. Therefore, it is coercive treatment because the behavior modifying technique of level systems used is against the will of the teenager. Rather than staying at the bottom level where all personal freedoms are relinquished, a teenager will participate in the level system in an attempt to move up and get out. Moving up in the level system is desirable because there are privileges, and any reasonable teenager will act in order to obtain more of their personal freedoms that have been denied. This use of coercion is unjust because our society respects the autonomy of persons: ?In societies stressing the values of respecting the autonomy of persons, from a moral point of view coercion is prima facie wrong?. (9) At some point, trying to modify someone?s behavior forces him to act in a certain way, and this ?forcing? can be defined as coercion. (10) Forcing a person to act in a certain way is different from rationally persuading or manipulating him.
IV.History of behavior modifying institutions
Behavior modifying programs came into existence during the birth of behavioral psychology in the 1960?s. Investigators in the behavior research area first began these programs with institutionalized adult and juvenile offenders, hoping to deprogram their criminal behavior. At the time, criminal behavior was believed to be ?a learned phenomena?. In such a closed environment, the behavior modification system of punishments and rewards could be stringently controlled.
In the late 1960?s and early 1970?s, these behavior modifying programs flourished. Studies show statistically short-term improvement in the reduction of undesirable inmate behavior for more desirable behavior. These changes in behavior were associated with the reinforcement contingencies of reward and punishment . However, in the late 1970?s, some problems were found in these institutions that led to reduction of many institutional behavior modification programs. The problems identified were: ?institutional constraints,? ?external political and economic pressure,?, ?limited supplies and personnel,? and ?the often deleterious methodological compromises caused by these influences?. Also staff resistance to adherence in the behavior modification procedures, and ?staff perceptions that experiments were inflexible and dictatorial?. These institutions? problems seem to stem from the use of coercion and lack of funding which may have sparked fear into the hearts of many--behavior modification programs gone bad.
In response to this trend, popular books and movies such as A Clockwork Orange, The Manchurian Candidate, Brave New World, and 1984 further amplified people?s fear of being controlled through ?exaggerated fictional presentations said to portray some version of behavior modification?. (11) People?s fear of being controlled stems from the far-reaching abilities to control other?s behavior through behavior modification. Since the birth of behavior modification, words such as ?brainwashed? and ?mind control? have become part of the American vocabulary. These words also played upon the idea that people are afraid of losing their autonomy and dignity--of having their minds controlled by another. In a nation that respects the autonomy of persons, behavior modification could have negative effects when used on society as a whole. Heldman, a law review critique, ?argued that behavior modification could be used to ?impose an orthodoxy of ?appropriate conduct? on the community and thus to silence social and political dissent?. (12) Heldman?s hypothesis may have ignited some of the attacks on behavior modifying institutions.
The most problematic attacks on behavior modification programs were legal challenges in court and in the House of Representatives. The most prominent of these was when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the notorious Special Treatment and Rehabilitative Training (START) program for the use of coercive strategies to achieve inmate compliance(U.S. Congress, 1974a). Congress was involved because ?members of Congress...criticized behavioral technology and expressed concern about the treatment of research subjects and infringements on freedoms in therapy and research in general, as well as specifically in behavior modification?. (13) Ultimately, START was shut down by the Federal Bureau of Prisons during litigation. Questions remain as to whether or not the behavior modification that replaced it post-litigation, was more coercive. (14)
As a result of the legal challenges and ethical issues pertaining to these institutions, by the 1980?s behavioral approaches to crime and delinquency were almost nonexistent. Behavioral approaches to crime and delinquency are referred to by Milan and Long as ?the last frontier of behavior psychology?. (15)
V. When did these privately funded schools come into existence?
Behavior modifying schools and camps, known as boarding schools, had been established during the late 1960?s, early 1970?s and 1980?s. Privately funded boarding schools that had behavior modifying programs such as Cedu (est. 1967), Provo Canyon School (est.1971), Oak Creek (est. 1972), DeSisto (est. 1978), and Rocky Mountain Academy (est. 1982) were not well known. (16) As shown through the growth of the teen help industry, these behavior modifying schools and camps did not become popular until the 1990?s. Now the aforementioned schools are well known among other newly founded behavior modifying schools and camps such as Tranquility Bay, Cascade, Cross Creek Manor, New Hope, and Red Rock Springs, to name a few. Recently, an alarming trend has been occurring in the teen help industry. Parents nationwide have been sending their troubled teenagers to behavior modifying schools or camps across the country, some to places as remote as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and Samoa. This explosive growth in the teen help industry is apparent in the mid-July 1999 web rankings ranked by the Alexa program at strugglingteens.com of behavior modifying/camps and sites related to them: 169,394 Intrepidnet Reporter, 240,383 Cascade School, 283,540 ASI, 417,337 SUWS, 566,957 WWASP, 592,368 CEDU, 660,723 Catherine Freer Wilderness Therapy, 673,273 DeSisto School, 900,894 Natl. Assn. Of Therapeutic Wilderness Camps, 970,730 Arizona Boys Ranch, 1,040,931 Cross Creek Manor, 1,043,904 Adolescent Guidance Services, 1,254,308, Red Rock Springs, and 1,781,847 Spring Creek Lodge. (17)
Since then, behavior modifying schools and camps, nearly 2,000 of them, have become the subject of controversy and have been brought to nationwide attention through the media. These schools and camps have gotten wide exposure in the last 3 years: in newspaper articles in major dailies throughout the country; magazines such as Time, Outside, and Seventeen; television shows such as CBS?s 48 hours; internet sites such as ?Intrepidnet? and ?Teen Liberty?; and Alexia Parks? book, An American Gulag.
These schools and camps are the subject of controversy for three reasons. One, because they appear to be an improper response by ?new breed? parents to place the parenting duties on a school because the parents lack the ability to parent or because they fear their teenager. Two, because claims of abuse have been brought to attention by teenagers that have been escorted to these schools. These teenagers are either suing or planning to sue the schools and their parents. (18) Sergio Alva, a teenager who was escorted to Paradise Cove in Samoa, plans to file a lawsuit against Paradise Cove on charges of abuse. (19) David van Blarigan, a teenager who was escorted to Jamaica Bay, is in the process of filing a lawsuit against the school and his parents. (20) There are many other lawsuits in process. And three, ethical questions about the denial of the civil and human rights of teenagers have been raised. Teen-rights activists such as Alexia Parks have responded through various forms of media in an attempt to have these schools and camps regulated by the government or terminated.
VI. Why did these schools come into existence?
Many of these schools and camps originally came into existence to respond to the needs of the truly disturbed teen. Now it appears that more of these schools are supplying the demand of apprehensive parents wanting to help their so-called ?troubled? teen. By their standards their teen is angry, defiant and also, may have committed juvenile status offenses.
Parents now have their teens escorted to these schools and camps in an attempt to keep them away from drugs, violence, sex or homosexuality. Moreso, parents want to keep their kids away from the seductive youth culture that has ?it?s own music, drugs, precocious sexual mores and values?. (21) They want to mold their children into happy, healthy, individuals who have a better set of values and are grateful to their parents. Are these schools and camps just an expensive alternative to deal with teenage angst--to place the parenting duties on a school when a parents lacks the ability to parent their teen in a time of crisis? Or are teenagers today really that troubled that they need to be imprisoned in a remote school or camp and behavior modified so that they may have the values they need to achieve their society?s perceived notion of success?
It is apparent that more of these schools are coming into existence to meet the need for a set of values that the ?new breed? teenagers lack and that in their parents view need to be inculcated. ?New breed? parents seem to ?prefer self-fulfillment and duty to self above worldly success and duty to others--including their own children?. (22) ?New breed? teenagers live in a separate world. A world that is isolated from respected adults, this may be due to the fact that many parents are divorced and working full-time, or have little time to teach (through example) values to their children. Teenagers rely on their peers and popular culture-- not respected adults. (23) This absence from respected adults ?subjects children to a multitude of powerful, contradictory pressures? (24). These pressures cause ?new breed? children to do worse in school, have negative views of themselves and others, hurt others more often without feeling guilty about having done so, and to be prone to violence, to delinquency, and drug use. (25) These schools not only meet the need for a new set of values for teenagers but also are a weapon in the war against drugs--they straighten out the drug and alcohol addicted adolescent. (26)
These behavior modifying schools and camps are similar to residential treatment centers for teenagers because they also help to straighten out the teen. But these schools have much more in common with prisons than residential treatment centers. While residential treatment centers only treat patients for a maximum of 90 days--what insurance will cover, behavior modifying schools and camps can ?treat? their ?patients? year-round for two to three years. These ?patients? are teenagers who were parent-sanctioned kidnapped to the school or camp, which is very similar to an arrest--but without the due process. These teenagers, incarcerated in the school or camp, have to follow a level system in order to move up and get out. Are these behavior modifying schools really ?schools? and are the camps really ?camps?--or are they cleverly disguised parent-funded prisons for teenagers?
1 Encyclopedia of Bioethics, Behavior Therapy p.75
2 Ibid
3 Ibid.
4 Time Magazine, January 26, 1998
5 Berghmans, Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry p.535
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
8 Berghmans, Coercive Treatment in Psychiatry p. 537
9 Ibid
10 Ibid
11 Stolz, Ethical Issues In Behavior Modification p. 9
12 Ibid
13 Stolz, Ethical Issue In Behavior Modification p.12-13
14 International Handbook of Behavior Modification and Therapy p 527
15 International Handbook of Behavior Modification and Therapy p 526
16 Peterson?s Guide to Private Secondary Schools 1999-2000 p.1070,1071,1054, 1075
17 internet: http://www.woodbury.com/news/webrank.html (http://www.woodbury.com/news/webrank.html)
18 internet:http://www.teenaid.org- California attorney Thomas M. Burton is preparing 10 individual lawsuits against Teen Help and its related companies..
19 CBS 48 Hours ?Breaking Point? 9/15/99
20 Time Magazine, January 26, 1998
21 Welsh, Tales Out of School p. 6.
22 Purdy, In Their Best Interest p. 116
23 Purdy, In Their Best Interest p. 119
24 Ibid
25 Ibid
26 Sunset Magazine
-
Who,
Show me where I "presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there" and I'll drudge up your comments on suicide. Please show where I "fudged the numbers".
I certainly was not comparing TBS suicides to national suicides.
You harped on and on about TBSs being safer than public schools, which was clearly not the case.
Have you forgotten the study you posted which stated that 1 in a million kids died at public schools? While the same year 1 in 2,300 died in programs?
You say I lost credibility... I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a few bricks short of a full load or just a habitual liar and manipulator. If you have a faulty memory or selective memory. Either way, I'm getting bored with restating my comments everytime you misquote me, or state that we've reached consensus when no such thing has ocurred. It's like trying to debate with a two year old.
I just had the wildest thought. Is Who a human being or actually a computer that spits out programmed responses.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-14 00:07 ]
-
Hes definitely following the programmie argumentative ploy-go-round, but I really think he's either the best troll we've ever had, or just a programmie ass.
-
On 2006-05-13 23:58:00, Deborah wrote:
"Who,
Show me where I "presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there" and I'll drudge up your comments on suicide. Please show where I "fudged the numbers".
I certainly was not comparing TBS suicides to national suicides.
You harped on and on about TBSs being safer than public schools, which was clearly not the case.
Have you forgotten the study you posted which stated that 1 in a million kids died at public schools? While the same year 1 in 2,300 died in programs?
You say I lost credibility... I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a few bricks short of a full load or just a habitual liar and manipulator. If you have a faulty memory or selective memory. Either way, I'm getting bored with restating my comments everytime you misquote me, or state that we've reached consensus when no such thing has ocurred. It's like trying to debate with a two year old.
I just had the wildest thought. Is Who a human being or actually a computer that spits out programmed responses.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-14 00:07 ]"
This is his default defense to losing every single argument on merit. "You have no credibility." But a customer service worker who's kid went to a TBS in the mid-90's is an expert on both psychology and the application thereof. Right.
Who just makes things up to support his argument. We argued about teachers at ASR having no degree at all and Who jsut says "They'll graduate in a month or so and the point will be moot." He just left out the fact that they were teaching with no degrees for some period of time and then just totally FABRICATED "degrees in a month." He's basically just a dogmatic liar like GW Bush. He says the same factually incorrect things over and over and over and when nobody buys that he just makes up some new material to support his position.
He has no evidence to support his position and the one study he keeps referencing shows a 70% FAILURE RATE at ASR.
-
He's a douchebag that gives a good band a bad name.
-
Niles,
Where did you get the article? I don't see credits.
There is a factual flaw in it:
In response to this trend, popular books and movies such as A Clockwork Orange, The Manchurian Candidate, Brave New World, and 1984...
Brave New World was published in 1932.
1984 was published in 1948.
These books were not 'responses' to something in the 1960s.
Personally, I think we are already in the Brave New World. Have you read it?
[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-05-14 14:18 ]
-
On 2006-05-13 23:58:00, Deborah wrote:
"Who,
Show me where I "presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there" and I'll drudge up your comments on suicide. Please show where I "fudged the numbers".
I certainly was not comparing TBS suicides to national suicides.
You harped on and on about TBSs being safer than public schools, which was clearly not the case.
Have you forgotten the study you posted which stated that 1 in a million kids died at public schools? While the same year 1 in 2,300 died in programs?
You say I lost credibility... I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a few bricks short of a full load or just a habitual liar and manipulator. If you have a faulty memory or selective memory. Either way, I'm getting bored with restating my comments everytime you misquote me, or state that we've reached consensus when no such thing has ocurred. It's like trying to debate with a two year old.
I just had the wildest thought. Is Who a human being or actually a computer that spits out programmed responses.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-14 00:07 ]"
Deborah says:
The report you provided claimed that of the 52 million kids attending public school, there was less than 1 suicide/homicide per million, while at school or in transit.
Compared to:
Programs 1 per 2,308- very rough guess.
And Nationally, which would include all the kids in both sets:
1 per 31,859 suicides and 1 per 27,403 homicides.
Who asks: Did all 13 of these children commit suicide on campus or while at residence?
Deborah says:
1 Suicide, at home, resulting from a threat to be returned to the program. The others were homicides. That?s ?my? judgment. No legal convictions.
Which means those deaths would not be included in the national ?homicide? number. They?ll be chalked up to accidents.
So when you tried to compare national statistics to TBS?s for the year 1999 ? 2000
There were ?Zero? suicides and ?Zero ?Homicides? but you decided to change the numbers based on your personal judgment and pick the number 13. The national numbers did not track ?Accidents? you cant use these numbers.
So the real statistic is no homicides or suicides occurred at a TBS during the year June 1999 ? thru June 2000. I called you on this and then let it go ?as you can read in the link provided?
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 960#182398 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=960#182398)
[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-14 16:31 ]
-
On 2006-05-13 19:46:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"So your spin on this is somehow a kid sent to a TBS should be more likely to commit suicide, but have no evidence why, just a hunch, becuase the suicide rate is more or less the same as the national average?
:lol: Do horses sniff your hands for grasping at straws so much?
Considering there are no hard facts about TBSs AT ALL regarding their effectiveness, or the population of children going in (and why they are) except they tend to be white, adopted, and have rich or wealthy parents, all your assertions, hunches, and inductive reasoning to try to explain your forgone conclusions are what the laymen call "bullshit".
Get some proof or GTFO, please. "
so why do we keep readiing that there is tons of PROOF that programs don't work and actually do harm [and i agree some programs will harm - but hardly all] but dont see ANY proof, much less proof of the same standard u demand???????
-
Re: the bit about making kids change their ways against their will: I work in a treatment program. I'm not here to FORCE anyone to change their mind about anything. The kids are given some basic goals to work on that will help them at camp but mostly at home (focused on the behaviors that got them here) and whether they choose to or not is up to them. Just like no one can make you change your mind. It would be stupid to think so. We work on a total non-punitive system focusing on internal motivation: no running laps because ya didn't do what you were told, starve ya to cooperation, isolation rooms bullshit - not even the "positive" imposed consequences like rewards or working your way out being going through some levels system (I actually had an internship at a place like that before working here at EYA). The kids work their way out by achieving their goals - and well, if they choose not to - that's up to them.
-
On 2006-05-14 17:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The kids work their way out by achieving their goals"
Contradiction in terms.
-
Call it that if you like if you don't first hand know the industry.
-
On 2006-05-14 16:30:00, TheWho wrote:
"
On 2006-05-13 23:58:00, Deborah wrote:
"Who,
Show me where I "presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there" and I'll drudge up your comments on suicide. Please show where I "fudged the numbers".
I certainly was not comparing TBS suicides to national suicides.
You harped on and on about TBSs being safer than public schools, which was clearly not the case.
Have you forgotten the study you posted which stated that 1 in a million kids died at public schools? While the same year 1 in 2,300 died in programs?
You say I lost credibility... I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't a few bricks short of a full load or just a habitual liar and manipulator. If you have a faulty memory or selective memory. Either way, I'm getting bored with restating my comments everytime you misquote me, or state that we've reached consensus when no such thing has ocurred. It's like trying to debate with a two year old.
I just had the wildest thought. Is Who a human being or actually a computer that spits out programmed responses.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-14 00:07 ]"
Deborah says:
The report you provided claimed that of the 52 million kids attending public school, there was less than 1 suicide/homicide per million, while at school or in transit.
Compared to:
Programs 1 per 2,308- very rough guess.
And Nationally, which would include all the kids in both sets:
1 per 31,859 suicides and 1 per 27,403 homicides.
Who asks: Did all 13 of these children commit suicide on campus or while at residence?
Deborah says:
1 Suicide, at home, resulting from a threat to be returned to the program. The others were homicides. That?s ?my? judgment. No legal convictions.
Which means those deaths would not be included in the national ?homicide? number. They?ll be chalked up to accidents.
So when you tried to compare national statistics to TBS?s for the year 1999 ? 2000
There were ?Zero? suicides and ?Zero ?Homicides? but you decided to change the numbers based on your personal judgment and pick the number 13. The national numbers did not track ?Accidents? you cant use these numbers.
So the real statistic is no homicides or suicides occurred at a TBS during the year June 1999 ? thru June 2000. I called you on this and then let it go ?as you can read in the link provided?
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 960#182398 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=960#182398)
[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-14 16:31 ]"
Semantics.
I don't consider heat stroke and suffocation resulting from restraint to be 'accidents'. And if your daughter had been a victim of one of these 'accidents', I doubt that you would either. But then, 'Who' knows... perhaps you would.
Kids in public school are not routinely physically restrained or marched to death.
-
Deborah wrote:
Semantics.
I don't consider heat stroke and suffocation resulting from restraint to be 'accidents'. And if your daughter had been a victim of one of these 'accidents', I doubt that you would either. But then, 'Who' knows... perhaps you would.
Kids in public school are not routinely physically restrained or marched to death.
So if you want to change the definitions you have to change it across the field and include national data (i.e. kids who died of heat stroke and suffocation etc.) and then compare the two so that you are comparing apple and apples or have the classifications changed. There are probably many kids who are forced to run extra laps and die of heat stroke etc. you have to include these numbers.
Until that is straightened out the only numbers we have, for TBS?s are 0 Homicides and 0 suicides (as defined by NECS), which is an order of magnitude lower than national averages, which makes TBS's a much safer place to be.
You should be very clear what your boundary conditions are: You stated a child committed suicide at home because he didn?t want to go to a TBS school, how is that documented? If a child dies at a TBS but was afraid to go home how is this classified and how do you document and get consensus?
This is why there are standards and classifications so that numbers can be compared, Deborah, you can?t change the rules to suit a preconceived out come. It is a clear case of fudging the data
-
On 2006-05-14 17:56:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-05-13 19:46:00, Nihilanthic wrote:
"So your spin on this is somehow a kid sent to a TBS should be more likely to commit suicide, but have no evidence why, just a hunch, becuase the suicide rate is more or less the same as the national average?
:lol: Do horses sniff your hands for grasping at straws so much?
Considering there are no hard facts
about TBSs AT ALL regarding their effectiveness, or the population of children going in (and why they are) except they tend to be white, adopted, and have rich or wealthy parents, all your assertions, hunches, and inductive reasoning to try to explain your forgone conclusions are what the laymen call "bullshit".
Get some proof or GTFO, please. "
so why do we keep readiing that there is tons of PROOF that programs don't work and actually do harm [and i agree some programs will harm - but hardly all] but dont see ANY proof, much less proof of the same standard u demand???????"
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/m ... /sec7.html (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec7.html) THIS IS A PARTIAL LIST OF THE STUDIES. READ IT AND WEEP.
-
There is virtually no evidence finding TBS's to be effective because there are virtually no studies that include a control group.
But there is tons of evidence that nearly every individual technique used by the "tough love" ones is ineffective and/or harmful.
For example, the boot camp model-- Justice Department has a nice 1998 meta-analysis showing it to be no more effective than prison. Same study finds no evidence to support use of wilderness.
And don't go citing the later OBHIC study-- no control group, doesn't count. there is a very nice review on their site or one that links to their research showing that the better the methodology of a wilderness program study, the less likely it is to show effectiveness. Not a good sign!
Let's look at the "personal growth" seminars-- the research on this is that they get high grades from participants for satisfaction afterwards. however, if you use a control group, you see no actual psychological or behavioral change. and, there are numerous case reports of psychological damage-- some of which have involved completed suicides and some of which lead to massive legal judgments.
Yup, those are anecdotes-- but they appear regularly enough that it would be unethical to do the controlled trials needed to absolutely prove causality since there is no evidence of positive benefit. The promoters of these seminars for regular people, in fact, now try to dissuade people on meds or with any psychiatric history from participating voluntarily which is a tacit acknowledgment of the danger-- and yet they are mandated by these programs for both troubled kids and their parents.
Now, let's look at the core of therapy even in some of the "best" programs-- the confrontational group in which teens attack each other's flaws in an attempt to "break" denial and push positive change. Guess what-- huge literature on how this backfires in the addictions field. See William Miller, see Phoenix House's own most recent manuals which discourage it based on their own internal findings, see the original Synanon study by Liebermann et al. which found Synanon was linked with the highest number of bad outcomes. 9.1% had lasting psychological damage.
Oh, and if you're still not convinced that there's more evidence against TBS's than in favor of them, look at the whole inpatient v. outpatient debate in the addictions (solidly in favor of outpatient for all but the most extreme cases), the literature on how aggregrating troubled kids tends to produce bad outcomes (see Dishion, When Interventions Harm for review-- more recently, see Szcaponik and Liddle) and the NIH consensus statement on what works best to fight teen violence and delinquency. It's community based care like various evidence-based family therapies, not inpt that has research support.
And btw, even if TBS's were effective than ordinary schools at suicide prevention, you would expect them to have a higher than normal suicide rate afterwards because you would HOPE that they were seeing a population that was far more troubled than the general school population, and that being the case, unless the intervention was more powerful than any known intervention in psychiatry, the suicide rate in that group without any treatment effect, positive or negative, would be higher than the general high school rate and only the most massively successful result would be able to return it to the level of average risk.
-
Who, it is impossible to compare apples to apples because kids in the real world are not force marched in austere weather and denied water, nor are they routinely restrained for the convenience of staff or denied medical attention. As a matter of fact, around here, teacher can't even touch a child.
Over 100 kids have died in residential care. And yes, there have been suicides. I quoted the data for one year. The 'suicide' was a kid who was home from a program and killed himself when his mother threatened to send him back- took the gun from 'on top of the refrigerator' and shot himself. In addition, there have been untold numbers of suicide attempts, molestations and rape, all manner of hazing, broken bones and death from suffocation during restraints, amputations from frostbite, digestive problems, ... the list goes on.
I know of atleast two deaths that were not covered by the media. 'Accidents' and injuries are also not covered, and we won't have any 'firm' numbers until all facilities that warehouse kids 24/7 are required to be licensed and report such incidents to the authorities. If you care about the kids, then support any legislation that would make this a requirement.
The 'data' wasn't 'fudged'. Thirteen kids dead that year alone. We simply have different definitions of homicide dear. I don't agree with you, the national averages are not higher. TBSs are not safer. We'll have to agree to disagree.
-
Until that is straightened out the only numbers we have, for TBS?s are 0 Homicides and 0 suicides (as defined by NECS), which is an order of magnitude lower than national averages, which makes TBS's a much safer place to be.
You are insane... I knew people at SCL a few years ago when a girl hung herself. I have friends who were at TB when a girl chucked herself off the balcony. You live in a delusional world... it's because of parents like you these places are in business.
-
Sounds like they are trying hard to keep that acceptable window of loss acceptable, no matter how many fall through it.
ST parents - how many will need to die in the care of a program before you will recognize there is indeed a problem?
Why do kids have to die of exposure; and dehydration, and suffocation and trauma?
How many must die such callous and needless deaths, before you'll acknowledge there is a problem with the philosophy; a problem with the therapeutic administration of pain and suffering?
-
I think part of the problem is that it's a NON-therapeutic admission process, done by friends & family of Lichfield on a for-profit commission basis.
-
On 2006-05-15 17:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Until that is straightened out the only numbers we have, for TBS?s are 0 Homicides and 0 suicides (as defined by NECS), which is an order of magnitude lower than national averages, which makes TBS's a much safer place to be.
You are insane... I knew people at SCL a few years ago when a girl hung herself. I have friends who were at TB when a girl chucked herself off the balcony. You live in a delusional world... it's because of parents like you these places are in business."
He is talking June 1999 thru June 2000
-
On 2006-05-15 14:03:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
There is virtually no evidence finding TBS's to be effective because there are virtually no studies that include a control group.
But there is tons of evidence that nearly every individual technique used by the "tough love" ones is ineffective and/or harmful.
For example, the boot camp model-- Justice Department has a nice 1998 meta-analysis showing it to be no more effective than prison. Same study finds no evidence to support use of wilderness.
And don't go citing the later OBHIC study-- no control group, doesn't count. there is a very nice review on their site or one that links to their research showing that the better the methodology of a wilderness program study, the less likely it is to show effectiveness. Not a good sign!
Let's look at the "personal growth" seminars-- the research on this is that they get high grades from participants for satisfaction afterwards. however, if you use a control group, you see no actual psychological or behavioral change. and, there are numerous case reports of psychological damage-- some of which have involved completed suicides and some of which lead to massive legal judgments.
Yup, those are anecdotes-- but they appear regularly enough that it would be unethical to do the controlled trials needed to absolutely prove causality since there is no evidence of positive benefit. The promoters of these seminars for regular people, in fact, now try to dissuade people on meds or with any psychiatric history from participating voluntarily which is a tacit acknowledgment of the danger-- and yet they are mandated by these programs for both troubled kids and their parents.
Now, let's look at the core of therapy even in some of the "best" programs-- the confrontational group in which teens attack each other's flaws in an attempt to "break" denial and push positive change. Guess what-- huge literature on how this backfires in the addictions field. See William Miller, see Phoenix House's own most recent manuals which discourage it based on their own internal findings, see the original Synanon study by Liebermann et al. which found Synanon was linked with the highest number of bad outcomes. 9.1% had lasting psychological damage.
Oh, and if you're still not convinced that there's more evidence against TBS's than in favor of them, look at the whole inpatient v. outpatient debate in the addictions (solidly in favor of outpatient for all but the most extreme cases), the literature on how aggregrating troubled kids tends to produce bad outcomes (see Dishion, When Interventions Harm for review-- more recently, see Szcaponik and Liddle) and the NIH consensus statement on what works best to fight teen violence and delinquency. It's community based care like various evidence-based family therapies, not inpt that has research support.
And btw, even if TBS's were effective than ordinary schools at suicide prevention, you would expect them to have a higher than normal suicide rate afterwards because you would HOPE that they were seeing a population that was far more troubled than the general school population, and that being the case, unless the intervention was more powerful than any known intervention in psychiatry, the suicide rate in that group without any treatment effect, positive or negative, would be higher than the general high school rate and only the most massively successful result would be able to return it to the level of average risk."
This is a great explanation with strong references. I have posted this information several times before while arguing the point with The Who.
He will just ignore this and go on to the next subject or will say "Valerie Shapiro and Dave Marcus say otherwise," or "The proof is in the pudding. I know several kids who are doing great after ASR," but can provide not a solitary shred of corroborative evidence other than "Because I said so."
You see, scientific evidence means nothing to the "faith crowd." These are the same people who advocate abstinence-only sex education and intelligent design. No amount of of scientific proof can dislodge them from their postions because they don't rely on evidence or logic to form their opinions.
-
On 2006-05-15 17:12:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Who, it is impossible to compare apples to apples because kids in the real world are not force marched in austere weather and denied water, nor are they routinely restrained for the convenience of staff or denied medical attention. As a matter of fact, around here, teacher can't even touch a child.
Over 100 kids have died in residential care. And yes, there have been suicides. I quoted the data for one year. The 'suicide' was a kid who was home from a program and killed himself when his mother threatened to send him back- took the gun from 'on top of the refrigerator' and shot himself. In addition, there have been untold numbers of suicide attempts, molestations and rape, all manner of hazing, broken bones and death from suffocation during restraints, amputations from frostbite, digestive problems, ... the list goes on.
I know of atleast two deaths that were not covered by the media. 'Accidents' and injuries are also not covered, and we won't have any 'firm' numbers until all facilities that warehouse kids 24/7 are required to be licensed and report such incidents to the authorities. If you care about the kids, then support any legislation that would make this a requirement.
The 'data' wasn't 'fudged'. Thirteen kids dead that year alone. We simply have different definitions of homicide dear. I don't agree with you, the national averages are not higher. TBSs are not safer. We'll have to agree to disagree.
"
Yes, you can define it anyway you want, but one needs to be consistant, all I am saying is if you are counting kids who died due to heat exhaustion, kids who were thinking they may have to go to a TBS, you have to consider the same population on the other end. Kids who were at a TBS and commited suicide because they didnt want to go back to the hell hole they came from, kids who died of heat exhaustion, Kids in public school who died at home because they did not want to go back to school etc.
Define the boundary conditions and apply it across the board to the public sector as well as the private. Otherwise you cannot compare, you can ask anyone, it is not valid data. Until your new conditions are established we need to stay with the National results.
I understand your point but you cant just make it up as you go,Deborah, everybody would have a different result. You have no one to back up your data except yourself
-
You're a bullshit artist Who. Your user name should be Con.
-
On 2006-05-15 18:06:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2006-05-15 17:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
Until that is straightened out the only numbers we have, for TBS?s are 0 Homicides and 0 suicides (as defined by NECS), which is an order of magnitude lower than national averages, which makes TBS's a much safer place to be.
You are insane... I knew people at SCL a few years ago when a girl hung herself. I have friends who were at TB when a girl chucked herself off the balcony. You live in a delusional world... it's because of parents like you these places are in business."
He is talking June 1999 thru June 2000"
How do you know what he's thinking? He doesn't know what he's thinking.
He's so apathetic on the topic, he has no clue about the deaths in programs- how many or the circumstances. Perhaps he would benefit from reading the gruesome details.
-
On 2006-05-15 10:10:00, TheWho wrote:
"
Deborah wrote:
Semantics.
I don't consider heat stroke and suffocation resulting from restraint to be 'accidents'. And if your daughter had been a victim of one of these 'accidents', I doubt that you would either. But then, 'Who' knows... perhaps you would.
Kids in public school are not routinely physically restrained or marched to death.
So if you want to change the definitions you have to change it across the field and include national data (i.e. kids who died of heat stroke and suffocation etc.) and then compare the two so that you are comparing apple and apples or have the classifications changed. There are probably many kids who are forced to run extra laps and die of heat stroke etc. you have to include these numbers.
Until that is straightened out the only numbers we have, for TBS?s are 0 Homicides and 0 suicides (as defined by NECS), which is an order of magnitude lower than national averages, which makes TBS's a much safer place to be.
You should be very clear what your boundary conditions are: You stated a child committed suicide at home because he didn?t want to go to a TBS school, how is that documented? If a child dies at a TBS but was afraid to go home how is this classified and how do you document and get consensus?
This is why there are standards and classifications so that numbers can be compared, Deborah, you can?t change the rules to suit a preconceived out come. It is a clear case of fudging the data
"
Who, I was referencing deaths when you brought in your studey on Suicide/Homicides in public schools. When that didn't pan out for you, you go off on a tangent claiming that I'm fudging the numbers and making it up as I go.
You're an impossible imbicile.
-
On 2006-05-13 17:32:00, TheWho wrote:
"You lost credibility when you presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there because you started to see that the numbers were starting to show that the suicide rate at TBS?s is far below the national level and these schools are making a difference. You could have dropped it but you had to fudge the numbers instead. Its not right and your statement isn?t right."
Where's that link, Who? To the list of kids who committed suicide at TBSs containing names that shouldn't have been there.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-15 19:32 ]
-
On 2006-05-15 19:20:00, Deborah wrote:
"
On 2006-05-13 17:32:00, TheWho wrote:
"You lost credibility when you presented a list of kids who committed suicide at TBS?s and there were names on the list that should not have been there because you started to see that the numbers were starting to show that the suicide rate at TBS?s is far below the national level and these schools are making a difference. You could have dropped it but you had to fudge the numbers instead. Its not right and your statement isn?t right."
Where's that link, Who? To the list of kids who committed suicide at TBSs containing names that shouldn't have been there.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-15 19:32 ]"
We were talking about suicide and homicide rates, national vs. TBS and you responded with 1 suicide (which turned out to be someone not at a tbs at the time) and 12 Homicides all of which were never proven, these where just your personal opinion, you later admitted they would be considered categorized as accidental deaths. Timeframe June 1999 thru June 2000
Here is your link:
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 960#182398 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=960#182398)
Here is a recap:
Who asked:
Did all 13 of these children commit suicide on campus or while at residence?
Deborah responded:
1 Suicide, at home, resulting from a threat to be returned to the program. The others were homicides. That?s ?my? judgment. No legal convictions.
Which means those deaths would not be included in the national ?homicide? number. They?ll be chalked up to accidents.
So none of them were Homicides or suicides at a TBS for that time period.
[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-15 20:30 ]
-
Oh, so there was no list of kids who committed suicide at TBSs containing names that shouldn't have been there.
I knew that. Just wanted to confirm that you did too.
-
On 2006-05-15 20:28:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Oh, so there was no list of kids who committed suicide at TBSs containing names that shouldn't have been there.
I knew that. Just wanted to confirm that you did too."
Read it Deborah. You said 13 kids.
You counted a child who committed suicide at home.[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-15 20:34 ]
-
On 2006-05-15 20:24:00, TheWho wrote:
"So none of them were Homicides or suicides at a TBS for that time period.
[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-15 20:30 ]"
Depends on who you ask, Who.
That's the crux of 'one' of the ongoing debates here, and elsewhere.
At the very least, they were unnecessary deaths, 100+ to date. What are you doing to prevent unnecessary deaths in teen residential warehouses?
You're a business man, or so you say. Why would you think facilities avoid licensing and the reporting of deaths, 'accidents', injuries, attacks, rape?
That should be public knowledge, like Consumer Reports... we need a Program Reports.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-15 20:39 ]
-
BTW, I originally wrote:
Read the report you posted, dude. You?re the one who?s still confused.
To repeat: Suicide/Homicide ocurring AT SCHOOL leveled off. Nationally, suicide/homicide declined.
Further, the report you cited claims:
that ?this translates into less than 1 homicide or suicide of a school-aged youth at school PER MILLION students enrolled during the 1999-2000 school year.? 52,000,000 were enrolled.
1 per MILLION.
The report you cited didn't address the issue we were discussing, but it did provide some good info- Kids are 70 times more likely to die while NOT in school.
Now let?s compare that to deaths in residential programs for the same time period:
13 deaths between June 99 and July 2000. We?ll have to ?guess? at the population of kids in programs. Let?s say 30,000, which is probably high.
That?s 1 per 2,308.
That should answer your ongoing musing about whether there is more violence/death in public schools than programs- in general.
Nationally 1 per 31,859 Suicides
1 in 27,403 Homicides
--------------------------------------------
Post URL: http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... 945#182369 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2826&forum=9&start=945#182369)
Focus on the next to last paragraph. I referenced 'Deaths' and whether TBSs were safer than public schools. YOU are the one who made this about, and keeps bringing it back to suicide.
I do not believe the kid would be dead if it hadn't been for a program. Nor do I believe the other twelve would be dead, based on national data. The odds are slim to none.
Those are my 'boundaries' Who. What are the odds those kids would be dead today?
1 in a million? I'd say a damn sight better than the odds at a warehouse/wilderness.
BTW, did you ever find out what source Marcus cited for "Skyrocketing Suicide Rates"?
Perhaps he was punked by Teen Screen as well.
-
On 2006-05-15 20:36:00, Deborah wrote:
"On 2006-05-15 20:24:00, TheWho wrote:
"So none of them were Homicides or suicides at a TBS for that time period.
[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-15 20:30 ]"
Depends on who you ask, Who.
That's the crux of 'one' of the ongoing debates here, and elsewhere.
At the very least, they were unnecessary deaths, 100+ to date. What are you doing to prevent unnecessary deaths in teen residential warehouses?
You're a business man, or so you say. Why would you think facilities avoid licensing and the reporting of deaths, 'accidents', injuries, attacks, rape?
That should be public knowledge, like Consumer Reports... we need a Program Reports.
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2006-05-15 20:39 ]"
I agree it is a problem and I would be the first to support the database of those kids names and protect the list, but people just cant add names to it because they "Feel" they were murdered or killed themselves because they were going back to a TBS, maybe they just got dumped by their girlfriend.
The most important part of a list is its integrity and boundary conditions. If it isnt clear it doesnt mean anything, you can add a 1,000 names a day. If 1 name is bogus it discredits the entire list and the people who keep and protect it.
If you wanted to compare, say, total number of deaths, that may work. But the national data was Suicides and Homicides, you cant include those numbers.
-
Deborah wrote:
Focus on the next to last paragraph. I referenced 'Deaths' and whether TBSs were safer than public schools. YOU are the one who made this about, and keeps bringing it back to suicide.
No, the national data was Suicides and Homicides (it wasnt my data).
The data did not include death by dehydration, heat exhaustion, natural death, accidents etc. Just Suicides and homicides. Your numbers can not be compared to this, it is very simple. You would need to find a different study as a comparison. (But you would still have to leave the "suicide at home" out of your set)
-
On 2006-05-15 22:12:00, Three Springs Waygookin wrote:
"That last post almost sounded like well as long as the poor little darlings don't hang themselves or their counselors hold their heads underwater for 45 minutes or so then all those program deaths are ok.
Force marching a kid through the desert until they die of dehydration is MURDER.
Smothering a kid to death in a restraint that ends up with the death of a child is MURDER.
Why are you so eager to protect abusers and murders?
You are strange puppy TheWho. Speculations on the Origin of Human Intelligence: "In defense of the Pygmies, perhaps I should note that a friend of mine who has spent time with them says that for such activities as the patient stalking and hunting of mammals and fish they prepare themselves through marijuana intoxication, which helps to make the long waits, boring to anyone further evolved than a Komodo dragon, at least moderately tolerable. Ganja is, he says, their only cultivated crop. It would be wryly interesting if in human history the cultivation of marijuana led generally to the invention of agriculture, and thereby to civilization.
Carl Sagan - The Dragons of Eden - 1977
"
I am not. Data is data. I am not saying they are not valid deaths, they just cant be compared to the national data "Suicides" and "Homicides". (They could be compared to "Total deaths" data). If a child is told to run 20 extra laps in football parctice because his coach hates him and he dies then this is a tragic death but is not included in the national numbers unless it was viewed as a homicide. So these kids that were run to death would have to be compared to kids that were run to death in the public sector in order to get a comparison. I am sure in this category the TBS would be much higher, but it is the only way to get a true picture.
I am not protecting anyone. I think everyone would agree that the deaths need to be clearly classified so they can be tracked properly.[ This Message was edited by: TheWho on 2006-05-15 22:23 ]
-
On 2006-05-14 17:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
Just like no one can make you change your mind. It would be stupid to think so.
No, not really. It's actually quite easy to "make" someone change their mind. Doesn't really take that much time either. With proper isoaltion and a system of reward and punishment, confrontation and love bombing, it's unbelievably easy to do.