Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > CEDU / Brown Schools and derivatives / clones
RMA staff I remember from RMA, you post yours from CEDU
Awake:
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?
.
--- End quote ---
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?
...
--- End quote ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
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.
...
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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’?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?
.
--- End quote ---
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?
...
--- End quote ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
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.
...
--- End quote ---
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’?
...
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote ---
--- Quote from: "Joel" ---
--- Quote ---My conversation with Antigen is none of your business.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
So if the program is abusive by nature, and the staff are implementing it accordingly, that does not make the staff abusive?
.
--- End quote ---
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?
...
--- End quote ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
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.
...
--- End quote ---
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’?
...
--- End quote ---
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.
.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Awake" ---So we need to develop a vantage point AFTER they operate? Why?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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’?
--- End quote ---
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.
...
--- End quote ---
Just so we're clear
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version