Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Thayer Learning Center
ex employees
tlcrescue:
--- Quote ---On 2006-02-13 20:35:00, AtomicAnt wrote:
"
--- Quote ---i'm not into all those psychology crap...when eidsor did what she should have, we didnt get smoked and when she didnt, we did. it was her fault, not my parents, or stupid loser adults...it was cheryl eidsor.
--- End quote ---
Simple logical question. Why should you have been smoked for another cadet's misbehavior? You can never be responsible for another's actions. The reason is solely that those in charge said so. That is all. Nothing more to it. The 'group consequences rule' is just a stupid rule and the only people who buy it are stupid people, or those with a sadistic agenda. It does not help any individual grow. It only helps to break an individual's will.
Here's a news flash. 'Smoking' children is flat out child abuse. Period. No exceptions. No excuses. No responsible adult would ever engage in this sort of behavior."
--- End quote ---
I do agree that it is wrong, it is one of many reasons I chose to pull my son out But, as I clearly outlined above, one's actions can determine whether the rest of the group gets smoked as a result of their actions/choices. My son's situation is a prime example. If he went to the bathroom, the group got smoked, if he urinated on himself, he got smoked alone. So, what did he do? He chose to urinate on himself so that the others would not have to endure a smoking because of his physical ailment. So, it is blatantly obvious that one can make a "choice" when it comes to involving the group as a whole in the smoking session.
Other instances that cause a smoking session for the entire group is a cadet arguing with a DS, or refusing to exercise. This is how Thayer works. They try to use peer pressure. If you don't do what you are supposed to do, they punish the others so that the others get mad at the non-performing cadet and make the non-performing cadet work. I don't agree with that method, but that is the method they use. So, if the non-performing does not want the group to get smoked, they are expected to perform. Again, that is a CHOICE. The cadet can either (1) not perform and allow the others to be smoked or (2) perform and the others dont get smoked. Like it or not, that is the policy at Thayer, and the cadets DO have a choice when it comes to that. Now, it may not be a choice they like, but it is a choice nonetheless.
I AM IN NO WAY ENCOURAGING OR ADVOCATING SMOKING SESSIONS! I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM! I THINK THEY ARE WRONG! I AM SIMPLY TRYING TO POINT OUT HOW ONE'S ACTOINS CAUSES OTHERS TO BE SMOKED.
tlcrescue:
--- Quote ---On 2006-02-16 04:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
--- Quote ---
On 2006-02-14 06:33:00, tlcrescue My son had a CHOICE to either go to the bathroom and allow the other cadet's to be smoked, or to urinate on himself and subject only himself to being smoked.
--- End quote ---
That's not a choice. At all.
"
--- End quote ---
it may not be a choice that someone agrees with but, yes it is a choice. Per Websters, the definition for choice: The act of choosing; selection.
Selection:
(1) go to bathroom, team gets smoked; or
(2) urinate on myself, I get smoked
THAT is a choice. Maybe it isn't a choice that you like, but it is a choice. So based on the selection you make either the individual or the team gets smoked.
tlcrescue:
--- Quote ---On 2006-06-13 13:59:00, Anonymous wrote:
"O.k. I think this is lame with you two arguing about this...How bout this, your both right.
A cadet is put into a place by thier parents without a choice. (so that makes it the parents fault.) The smoke sessions are orginized by TLC. (so that makes it TLC's fault)The cadet could not control the situation, so thus the parents and TLC are to blame. We see your piont.
On the other hand when the cadet is placed in that situation they then have a limited number of options but then agian there are options still the same. so they make a CHOICE They can do what they are told and deal. Or they disobey and get everyone else smoked until they deside to participate.
So all in all it is everyone's fault.
The parents for sending them their in the first place. TLC's for making up the stupid rules. And then the Cadet's for not following them. No matter how unreasonable they may be.
And by the way I would rather pee on myself then get everyone else smoked and be hated by the intire bootcamp...being hated in that invirnment is not the wisest place to be."
--- End quote ---
thank you. that was my exact point. my son agreed with you, he chose to urinate on himself so the team wouldnt get smoked. i admire him for that.
tlcrescue:
--- Quote ---On 2006-06-14 03:25:00, cadet_cheung wrote:
"we only went to the bathroom like 6 times a day and drink like 4 shitload canteens of water, majority of the girls pee-d on themselves anyways and at the point we'd rather pee on ourselves then get everyone smoked, it was like they were all you got there. Oh yea those brown couches and stupid cushions with owls on them( if you still had them) were pee-d on by god knows how many people. "
--- End quote ---
so this was pretty much the norm? kids having to urinate on themselves? I thought maybe they used it as a tactic with my son because they were aware that he had a bladder condition.
Oz girl:
if the choice is between urinating on yourself (a punishment in itself)& then being punished, or being hated by your peers, How grotesque is that. I am beginning to think that the reason why kids are not believed when their teachers (or whoever those people who call the parents are) say they are lying is because what is done to them is so outlandishly horrible it does not seem believable. To be honest if my kid told me that they made him urinate on himself I would have a hard time believing it.
Dont kids who are disrespectful (whatever that is exactly) need adults who are firm but fair. Most of these BTS sites talk about consequences for misbehaviour but the consequences are so illogical anyway that if your kid is in for something genuinely awful, i cant see how he would associate the consequence with whatever it is that he or she did. I also can not see how a kid with anger management issues would not be seething with rage if he is forced to do something as base and disgusting as urinating on himself!
The irony to me is that american kids are statistically no more drug addled, pregnant ot "troubled" than their peers in other western countries. They are also more likely to be church going. This makes me wonder if the kids who are even slightly outside of the box are seen by society as more "out of control" than they really are. Moreover having worked with mainstream American kids (and i am aware that they are not the "troubled" category that is spoken of in this industry)I foung that in some ways they are more polite and respectful to grown ups than their Australian counterparts. I can't tell you for instance, how much i had to bite back laughter the first time a kid called me maam! If a kid did that at home it would be laced with sarcasm!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version