RMA staff I remember from RMA, you post yours from CEDU

[Awake]

So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?



.

That’s actually a really good question, Awake.  I guess they would be viewed as abusive.  But would they know it themselves?  Maybe they feel they are doing good.  

Take the girl at the pharmacy counter who gives you the morning after pill. Does she know what she is giving you?  Is she considered complicit in the murder of an unborn child?  Is the Pharmacist that fills the prescription?  Or just The doctor who prescribed it?



...

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

I think one needs to decide what the vantage point is before the answer can be attained.

For example if we looked at the staff administering chemotherapy and watched the child slowly get sick, start vomiting, watch her hair fall out, watch her cry and become too embarrassed to have her friends see her.  It is clearly abusive(short term) but we accept it because the abuse may make her better long term.

The same may be true with the staff at these programs that you describe.  You also might consider that very few people could maintain a job where they wake knowing they are going to abusing children.  I couldn’t imagine that any of them feel that way.



...

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why? We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?




...

[Whooter]

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why?

I am not saying we need to develop a vantage point anywhere.  What I meant is if you just saw the Chemo effects and that was all you were exposed to then you may conclude that the child was being abused.  If you stepped back and saw the sick child walk into the hospital and then visited her a year later (without seeing the process she went through) and saw her healthy you would conclude that the process was not abusive or hurtful to the child.

We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?

I don’t think we are going to skip any step.  I am not aware of any Defined standards for Therapeutic schools as far as their modalities or processes go.



...

[Awake]

So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?



.

That’s actually a really good question, Awake.  I guess they would be viewed as abusive.  But would they know it themselves?  Maybe they feel they are doing good.  

Take the girl at the pharmacy counter who gives you the morning after pill. Does she know what she is giving you?  Is she considered complicit in the murder of an unborn child?  Is the Pharmacist that fills the prescription?  Or just The doctor who prescribed it?



...

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

I think one needs to decide what the vantage point is before the answer can be attained.

For example if we looked at the staff administering chemotherapy and watched the child slowly get sick, start vomiting, watch her hair fall out, watch her cry and become too embarrassed to have her friends see her.  It is clearly abusive(short term) but we accept it because the abuse may make her better long term.

The same may be true with the staff at these programs that you describe.  You also might consider that very few people could maintain a job where they wake knowing they are going to abusing children.  I couldn’t imagine that any of them feel that way.



...

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why? We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?




...

You’re previous answer is an example of transactional disqualification Whooter. It takes our conversation out of its original context without answering the question.

I won’t waste my time picking over the flaws in your statement, but I will pose the question to everyone else.



.

[DannyB II]

My conversation with Antigen is none of your business.

Dano it was fair game when it was posted in the said forum.  It was open season on you, learn from it and never send another message like that to the mods again.  You still got that target on your back Danny.   :rofl:

It is open season on me, never send another message like that, I have target on my back.
Joel read this thread it is so apropos to what you are posting here.
So you felt I was abusive so therefore you come back with abuse. Your rallying with other staff members here to attack me. You purposely acknowledge this too.
 
Joel I will send whatever message to the mods I feel like. You really can't be serious with this message. Why do I feel I am constantly dealing with kids here........lol.

Danny

[Awake]

So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?



.

That’s actually a really good question, Awake. I guess they would be viewed as abusive. But would they know it themselves? Maybe they feel they are doing good.

Take the girl at the pharmacy counter who gives you the morning after pill. Does she know what she is giving you? Is she considered complicit in the murder of an unborn child? Is the Pharmacist that fills the prescription? Or just The doctor who prescribed it?



...

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

I think one needs to decide what the vantage point is before the answer can be attained.

For example if we looked at the staff administering chemotherapy and watched the child slowly get sick, start vomiting, watch her hair fall out, watch her cry and become too embarrassed to have her friends see her. It is clearly abusive(short term) but we accept it because the abuse may make her better long term.

The same may be true with the staff at these programs that you describe. You also might consider that very few people could maintain a job where they wake knowing they are going to abusing children. I couldn’t imagine that any of them feel that way.



...

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why? We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?




...

You’re previous answer is an example of transactional disqualification Whooter. It takes our conversation out of its original context without answering the question.

I won’t waste my time picking over the flaws in your statement, but I will pose the question to everyone else.



.

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why?

I am not saying we need to develop a vantage point anywhere.  What I meant is if you just saw the Chemo effects and that was all you were exposed to then you may conclude that the child was being abused.  If you stepped back and saw the sick child walk into the hospital and then visited her a year later (without seeing the process she went through) and saw her healthy you would conclude that the process was not abusive or hurtful to the child.

We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?

I don’t think we are going to skip any step.  I am not aware of any Defined standards for Therapeutic schools as far as their modalities or processes go.



...

Just so we're clear

[Whooter]

You’re previous answer is an example of transactional disqualification Whooter. It takes our conversation out of its original context without answering the question.

Sorry, Awake, but I don’t agree with you.  I think it is a good discussion and clearly on topic of determining if staff can be considered abusive if the process is abusive.  
I think you are having a difficult time understanding what I mean by the vantage point.  I think you could break any process down and find pieces to be abusive.  But does that mean the person is abusive or the process itself is abusive?

If the child is helped in the end then can we look back and say the program/process was abusive?  Was it helpful?  If it saved his life can the process be viewed as negative?

So I think it is helpful to view the topic from many vantage points.

I won’t waste my time picking over the flaws in your statement, but I will pose the question to everyone else.

 I usually don’t pick apart peoples posts myself for flaws unless there is some value in the clarification which would lead to a better discussion.  If there is something you think I am missing then please clarify.



...

[Awake]

I’m not arguing with you. People are free to decide whether you have any merit in this conversation or not. This was the original context of the conversation that you don't have an answer for.

So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?



.

That’s actually a really good question, Awake.  I guess they would be viewed as abusive.  But would they know it themselves?  Maybe they feel they are doing good.  

Take the girl at the pharmacy counter who gives you the morning after pill. Does she know what she is giving you?  Is she considered complicit in the murder of an unborn child?  Is the Pharmacist that fills the prescription?  Or just The doctor who prescribed it?



...

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

I think one needs to decide what the vantage point is before the answer can be attained.

For example if we looked at the staff administering chemotherapy and watched the child slowly get sick, start vomiting, watch her hair fall out, watch her cry and become too embarrassed to have her friends see her.  It is clearly abusive(short term) but we accept it because the abuse may make her better long term.

The same may be true with the staff at these programs that you describe.  You also might consider that very few people could maintain a job where they wake knowing they are going to abusing children.  I couldn’t imagine that any of them feel that way.



...

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why? We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?




...

[Paul St. John]

Joel I will send whatever message to the mods I feel like.

And Joel, I, or anyone else will respond to it however we like

You really can't be serious with this message. Why do I feel I am constantly dealing with kids here........lol.

Danny

Perhaps, because in your mind, people doing what they actually believe to be right, actually caring about things, and even the mere idea of having a genuine liking and respect for others that last more then a half hour, is very childish notion.

You also seem to think that making sense is a very naive idea reserved for the young.

If I wanted to, there were many times where I think that I could have had you crying, right where you sit, with the least amount of effort.  So many times, I resisted going in for the kill.
Stop being a dick!

Paul

[Paul St. John]

If the child is helped in the end then can we look back and say the program/process was abusive?

Only if it was....

Did it involve abuse?  then "Yes.  It was abusive."
You do not need to look any further then that.
If I attack you one day, and it changes your life, and makes you a stronger person, I still attacked you.  

Was it helpful? If it saved his life can the process be viewed as negative?

The process can be and would be viewed as negative, so long as it was.  If it somehow, on occasion bears positive results, of course, we view the results, as positive, but the process, if negative, is still negative.

I think one of the most basic concepts in the American culture, is the realization that the ends do not justify the means.

Would you agree with the statement that the end do not justify the means?


Paul

[Whooter]

I’m not arguing with you. People are free to decide whether you have any merit in this conversation or not. This was the original context of the conversation that you don't have an answer for.

Sometimes there are no defined answers to questions in conversations.  If there were then the conversation would be short.  In situations where there are many viewpoints there is an opportunity to learn something new and forge into new territory.  Listening to others point of view is one way to grow and learn.
You shouldn't sit back and wait for people to provide you with answers, awake, you should express your own opinions and hope people learn from them and that you learn something in return from others.
I think you made a few good points on the subject and it is an interesting topic which I would hope others would state their opinion also.



...

[Samara]

Process and people, Whooter.  There were staff I liked, mainly because I almost identified with them as residents, they were put through an "induction" process that was completely therapeutically unsound.  The nicer, less threatening staff were just a relief for me. But. They still upheld a bad program. And I didn't need to hear their cop outs about rubbing fecal matter all over themselves, among other things.  (Seriously, when I went to CEDU, I had never even heard of bestiality etc.)  Many of the young staff who came weren't healthy emotionally. Nice, maybe, but not healthy. Many came straight out of EST and Lifespring - promoting experientials and "modalities" that are completely inappropriate for teens.

New staff were forced to cop out and share every part of their history to a group of students. They had to share everything from painful experiences, such as rape, to deviant or criminal acts, to abuse to total strangers. "Sharing your story" did not include happy or positive aspects of your life. It was all about the painful or the negative. Everything outside of Cedu was "bad."  It was not done in a "I overcame it and so can you" fashion. It was done with shame and pain. I don't think it is appropriate for staff to give detailed mastubatory histories to kids, much less the other tales.... (At least masturbation is normal. But it is NOT normal to sit down with people you don't know and talk about masturbating.)

I needed people to look up to and respect and act as mentors.  

I don't walk up to strangers and say, "Hello. My name is Samara, and I was raped when I was 15. Before that.... and then there was the time that... and my uncle... by the way, my favorite way to masturbate is... "

[Awake]

I’m not arguing with you. People are free to decide whether you have any merit in this conversation or not. This was the original context of the conversation that you don't have an answer for.

Sometimes there are no defined answers to questions in conversations.  If there were then the conversation would be short.  In situations where there are many viewpoints there is an opportunity to learn something new and forge into new territory.  Listening to others point of view is one way to grow and learn.
You shouldn't sit back and wait for people to provide you with answers, awake, you should express your own opinions and hope people learn from them and that you learn something in return from others.
I think you made a few good points on the subject and it is an interesting topic which I would hope others would state their opinion also.



...

I never expected you to have a defined answer for the topic we are discussing, just be truthful. There is no defined answer, and that constitutes a reason these institutiions should not ethically be able to operate.  We don't have an acceptable standard for what constitutes abuse, and therefore who to prosecute in the abusive action, and if we can't enforce it we should not act. This was the context we were discussing, what is your excuse for why we are 'operating'  before we have clear standards for what is considered a proper, ethical application?

I’m not arguing with you. People are free to decide whether you have any merit in this conversation or not. This was the original context of the conversation that you don't have an answer for.

So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?



.

That’s actually a really good question, Awake. I guess they would be viewed as abusive. But would they know it themselves? Maybe they feel they are doing good.

Take the girl at the pharmacy counter who gives you the morning after pill. Does she know what she is giving you? Is she considered complicit in the murder of an unborn child? Is the Pharmacist that fills the prescription? Or just The doctor who prescribed it?



...

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

What if the pill isn't a pill but a direct action that controls the behavior and autonomy of another? Holding someone to the ground, insulting them, telling to 'fight for their life'. I'm really not going to go into the whole of Cedu with you, but I'll assert right now that the entire context was abusive, and I'll defend that statement if you want. I think it's a good question too.

If the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?

I don't society has enough insight into these programs to make a clear, ethical judgement for how we should prosecute abuse in the troubled teen industry, and it can't operate ethically until we do.



.

I think one needs to decide what the vantage point is before the answer can be attained.

For example if we looked at the staff administering chemotherapy and watched the child slowly get sick, start vomiting, watch her hair fall out, watch her cry and become too embarrassed to have her friends see her. It is clearly abusive(short term) but we accept it because the abuse may make her better long term.

The same may be true with the staff at these programs that you describe. You also might consider that very few people could maintain a job where they wake knowing they are going to abusing children. I couldn’t imagine that any of them feel that way.



...

So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why? We have standards in the health industry that clearly define how chemotherapy is to be applied. If the doctor misuses it, he will be prosecuted. The therapy itself is not applied without extremely thourough testing that proves it to be safe for use.

Why are we going to skip this step to let these institutions ‘practice’?




...

[Awake]

Process and people, Whooter.  There were staff I liked, mainly because I almost identified with them as residents, they were put through an "induction" process that was completely therapeutically unsound.  The nicer, less threatening staff were just a relief for me. But. They still upheld a bad program. And I didn't need to hear their cop outs about rubbing fecal matter all over themselves, among other things.  (Seriously, when I went to CEDU, I had never even heard of bestiality etc.)  Many of the young staff who came weren't healthy emotionally. Nice, maybe, but not healthy. Many came straight out of EST and Lifespring - promoting experientials and "modalities" that are completely inappropriate for teens.

New staff were forced to cop out and share every part of their history to a group of students. They had to share everything from painful experiences, such as rape, to deviant or criminal acts, to abuse to total strangers. "Sharing your story" did not include happy or positive aspects of your life. It was all about the painful or the negative. Everything outside of Cedu was "bad."  It was not done in a "I overcame it and so can you" fashion. It was done with shame and pain. I don't think it is appropriate for staff to give detailed mastubatory histories to kids, much less the other tales.... (At least masturbation is normal. But it is NOT normal to sit down with people you don't know and talk about masturbating.)

I needed people to look up to and respect and act as mentors.  

I don't walk up to strangers and say, "Hello. My name is Samara, and I was raped when I was 15. Before that.... and then there was the time that... and my uncle... by the way, my favorite way to masturbate is... "

Seriously.... it was a major concern of staff that we didn't mastrubate before or after propheets and people copped out to it all over the place.    This was an accepted therapeutic institution her in the good ol U S of A?  


This question involves U2 Whooter, who do we sue for abuse? The staff, or the program?



.

[Whooter]

This question involves U2 Whooter, who do we sue for abuse? The staff, or the program?



.

My opinion:

If the abuse was defined in the process then you would sue the program.  The staff would be free to walk.

If the abuse was done outside the defined process (staff member took it upon him/herself) then you would sue the staff.  But since the staff worked for the school you would always include the school on the lawsuit because they are the ones with the money and since they were the employers they could be held liable.



...

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010