Civil discussion: Troubled Teen Industry

[Troll Control]

So does having a fiduciary interest in the most abusive programs; ones that maim, rape, mindfuck and kill children, i.e. Aspen Education.

When is this supposed to take place?

Well the  announcement takes place after the lawyers sign off on the deal, but they usually wait until the transfer is ready to take place.
The legal transfer typically takes place at the beginning of the new quarter (or fiscal year).
So based on this I would expect the announcement would come at anytime and the transfer could occur on Tuesday October 1, 2007 or early January 2008.



...

How is it that you are in a position to have knowledge about the acquisition of HLA?

I apologize for being vague, I have a fiduciary duty which prevents me from speaking in any specific terms in this area and can only comment on information which is first made public by either party involved,  this could be misconstrued as Tipping.

 :feedtrolls:

[Awake]

I think one problem you are having at trying to have a civil discussion is that you have already made up your mind.  You may not be willing to open up your mind and consider both sides of the issue or see the other persons point of view.

I have been attacked, also, awake for taking a middle position in that there are programs which are abusive and those which are helpful.  Imagine how badly I would be attacked if I felt all programs were great!

One approach may be to discuss all aspects of the industry (not just the therapy) one at a time.  For instance I think people may more easily agree that a child should be removed from a toxic environment.  Besides therapy the programs offer behavior modification, a structured setting, academics. Etc.

 Forced therapy can happen locally.  Very few children approach their parents and ask for therapy,  one scenario may be that the parents make the appointment twist the kids arm a little and then the child may finally agree to go for one session… this is forced also.  But eventually the child may take to it and it will become helpful.

But to go head on into a discussion and say:  “all programs are abusive” pretty much closes the door to any open minded debate.



...

A couple things, I think if you are generalizing what I’m saying as ‘all programs are abusive’ then that is a misleading statement, one that says I can implicate each program individually of INTENDING to be abusive.  I am not saying that, more the opposite really, that being the current system is so undefined and ambiguous that it precludes us from the possibility of PROVING intent to abuse on any level of the industry, staff, program, or the class of programs the TTI as a whole.  This is not all I would say, but I do think it is enough to question whether they should be operating at all until we do.

As a class the TTI does not have ethical standards that can safely regulate the operations of the individual programs that belong to the class.  There will always be exceptions to the rule, but in some cases the rule is wrong, or incomplete, and that can open the door for ‘accepted’ forms of harm to take place.  This can be intentional or not under the current framework, which also precludes us from the ability to prove, or prosecute, original intent in an abusive situation. I don’t see how it is closed minded to want to examine those possibilities.


I think I have pursued an open minded debate, but what points of view here have I not considered that justifies the TTI’s conduct in its current form, and what gives them the benefit of the doubt that they are  not continuing to propagate  harmful, misleading methodology within it’s culture?

[DannyB II]

I think one problem you are having at trying to have a civil discussion is that you have already made up your mind.  You may not be willing to open up your mind and consider both sides of the issue or see the other persons point of view.

I have been attacked, also, awake for taking a middle position in that there are programs which are abusive and those which are helpful.  Imagine how badly I would be attacked if I felt all programs were great!

One approach may be to discuss all aspects of the industry (not just the therapy) one at a time.  For instance I think people may more easily agree that a child should be removed from a toxic environment.  Besides therapy the programs offer behavior modification, a structured setting, academics. Etc.

 Forced therapy can happen locally.  Very few children approach their parents and ask for therapy,  one scenario may be that the parents make the appointment twist the kids arm a little and then the child may finally agree to go for one session… this is forced also.  But eventually the child may take to it and it will become helpful.

But to go head on into a discussion and say:  “all programs are abusive” pretty much closes the door to any open minded debate.



...

A couple things, I think if you are generalizing what I’m saying as ‘all programs are abusive’ then that is a misleading statement, one that says I can implicate each program individually of INTENDING to be abusive.  I am not saying that, more the opposite really, that being the current system is so undefined and ambiguous that it precludes us from the possibility of PROVING intent to abuse on any level of the industry, staff, program, or the class of programs the TTI as a whole.  This is not all I would say, but I do think it is enough to question whether they should be operating at all until we do.

As a class the TTI does not have ethical standards that can safely regulate the operations of the individual programs that belong to the class.  There will always be exceptions to the rule, but in some cases the rule is wrong, or incomplete, and that can open the door for ‘accepted’ forms of harm to take place.  This can be intentional or not under the current framework, which also precludes us from the ability to prove, or prosecute, original intent in an abusive situation. I don’t see how it is closed minded to want to examine those possibilities.


I think I have pursued an open minded debate, but what points of view here have I not considered that justifies the TTI’s conduct in its current form, and what gives them the benefit of the doubt that they are  not continuing to propagate  harmful, misleading methodology within it’s culture?

Here is one point, your lazy as most intellectuals. Get on the road and stop at each and every treatment center, throughly study and research them, then come back here and expound on and on about what you find out.
Point two when you want to make a point about abuse make sure Pile is not someone you are supporting in one of your arguments.
Thanks.......

[Whooter]

I think one problem you are having at trying to have a civil discussion is that you have already made up your mind.  You may not be willing to open up your mind and consider both sides of the issue or see the other persons point of view.

I have been attacked, also, awake for taking a middle position in that there are programs which are abusive and those which are helpful.  Imagine how badly I would be attacked if I felt all programs were great!

One approach may be to discuss all aspects of the industry (not just the therapy) one at a time.  For instance I think people may more easily agree that a child should be removed from a toxic environment.  Besides therapy the programs offer behavior modification, a structured setting, academics. Etc.

 Forced therapy can happen locally.  Very few children approach their parents and ask for therapy,  one scenario may be that the parents make the appointment twist the kids arm a little and then the child may finally agree to go for one session… this is forced also.  But eventually the child may take to it and it will become helpful.

But to go head on into a discussion and say:  “all programs are abusive” pretty much closes the door to any open minded debate.



...

A couple things, I think if you are generalizing what I’m saying as ‘all programs are abusive’ then that is a misleading statement, one that says I can implicate each program individually of INTENDING to be abusive.  I am not saying that, more the opposite really, that being the current system is so undefined and ambiguous that it precludes us from the possibility of PROVING intent to abuse on any level of the industry, staff, program, or the class of programs the TTI as a whole.  This is not all I would say, but I do think it is enough to question whether they should be operating at all until we do.

As a class the TTI does not have ethical standards that can safely regulate the operations of the individual programs that belong to the class.  There will always be exceptions to the rule, but in some cases the rule is wrong, or incomplete, and that can open the door for ‘accepted’ forms of harm to take place.  This can be intentional or not under the current framework, which also precludes us from the ability to prove, or prosecute, original intent in an abusive situation. I don’t see how it is closed minded to want to examine those possibilities.


I think I have pursued an open minded debate, but what points of view here have I not considered that justifies the TTI’s conduct in its current form, and what gives them the benefit of the doubt that they are  not continuing to propagate  harmful, misleading methodology within it’s culture?

I dont see any harm that is systemic within the TTI or I would agree with you.  Daycare facilities had many problems when they first opened and gained popularity.  There were little to no laws governing them and little by little they closed the gap with regulation.  They didnt close them down and deny parents the support they needed.  I think if there are holes in the TTI system then they should be identified and plugged up.

We have all read the studies and I have witnessed first hand that the programs are capable of helping young children through their difficulties.  I have also read stories of kids who were abused in certain facilities also.  The areas of concern need to be uncovered and improved.  The abusive facilities are being closed down as they should be.




...

[bc21junsan]

Is that true? Well, we don't know about it because we're not working in the fast food restaurant like McDonald. However, we must be careful with that. It is better for us to cook and eat in our home.

[Ursus]

I don't see that I am taking it out of context.  It actually amazes me that people actually believe this.  Companies work Extremely hard to define and build a solid bases for their product and control the quality of their output. A couple of people and their screwy ideals will not change or jeopardize this design.

Do you think a guy working at McDonalds can just show up one day and say "Hey I picked up these Turkey Burgers on the way in tonight, lets try them out on the Big Macs and see how people like them?"

Is that true? Well, we couldn't know about that if we're not working at the fast food restaurant like McDonald. However, we must be careful with that. It is not for us to eat always at the fast food, it is better for us to cook and eat in our home.

:roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:
Poor Whooter. Even the spambots reject his analogies!

[Pile of Dead Kids]

....owned.

The title of this thread is still a joke, because the discussion really isn't about efficacy, or whether it is or is not morally right to send your own children to isolation for years, or anything real. Anyone with a modicum of sense would have weighed the very real risks versus the illusory benefits, and GTFO'd long ago. But you can't have a discussion with irrationality. Doesn't work. In a very real sense they simply don't care about what makes sense or what's the best thing to do. They care about imposing what they already believe, what they were taught to believe, on what's going on in their lives; sanity comes second.

You see the same thing in Christian Scientist and other cults. Kid's entire fucking left lung fills up with pus while they pray instead of taking him to a doctor. Do they, once, say "Hey this isn't working I think he might need to go to a hospital?" If it crosses their minds they dismiss it as Satan's influence. They've been taught to pray, and so they will pray.

Whooter gave himself away when he talked about what he could make himself believe. Because he's not really concerned with winning the argument in any conventional sense. He's concerned with quieting the phantoms in his own head, repeatedly trying to overwrite reality with his inculcated views of the way the world works, and has chosen Fornits as the place to do it. Which is why he'll keep posting until banned.

Same way the programs work. They'll keep doing what they do until they run out of customers or get forcibly shut down permanently. Even the existing shutdowns just send them scurrying off to the next program. They simply don't know how to do anything else. One uncommon exception is Randall Hinton, but he brought the program home to his own three-year-old.

Sooner or later Chuck Darwin will sort this all out- having the mental makeup to get involved in cults is swiftly becoming a huge reproductive disadvantage, particularly when they involve your existing children- but before then this'll just continue until it's made illegal as Washington State has done and a lot of other states have effectively done through regulation.

But attempting to have anything approaching a rational discussion with these people is a waste of time. There's just nothing you're going to get out of the argument but the same standard bullshit. Their own kids can even pay somebody to shoot them in the back of the head, blinding them permanently with the destruction of the occipital lobes, and it won't change their tune.

[DannyB II]

"Pile of Dead Kids"....owned.

The title of this thread is still a joke, because the discussion really isn't about efficacy, or whether it is or is not morally right to send your own children to isolation for years, or anything real. Anyone with a modicum of sense would have weighed the very real risks versus the illusory benefits, and GTFO'd long ago. But you can't have a discussion with irrationality. Doesn't work. In a very real sense they simply don't care about what makes sense or what's the best thing to do. They care about imposing what they already believe, what they were taught to believe, on what's going on in their lives; sanity comes second.

Jeesh, Awake empowered you with her last post. I beg to differ, this thread does at it's essence relate to a very important social inadequacy here. The inability for two separate opinions both with real value and passionate convictions to coexist in a mutually respective enviroment.  

You see the same thing in Christian Scientist and other cults. Kid's entire fucking left lung fills up with pus while they pray instead of taking him to a doctor. Do they, once, say "Hey this isn't working I think he might need to go to a hospital?" If it crosses their minds they dismiss it as Satan's influence. They've been taught to pray, and so they will pray.

This is a grossly "out of context" example of the protestations and/or different analogies Whooter and others are presenting here.

Whooter gave himself away when he talked about what he could make himself believe. Because he's not really concerned with winning the argument in any conventional sense. He's concerned with quieting the phantoms in his own head, repeatedly trying to overwrite reality with his inculcated views of the way the world works, and has chosen Fornits as the place to do it. Which is why he'll keep posting until banned.

Ya know Pile, this smells more of a "projection" on your part, of a small insecurity, you just opened for us to see, "Your Latent Hostility".

Same way the programs work. They'll keep doing what they do until they run out of customers or get forcibly shut down permanently. Even the existing shutdowns just send them scurrying off to the next program. They simply don't know how to do anything else. One uncommon exception is Randall Hinton, but he brought the program home to his own three-year-old.

The bad ones do seem to do this. Your right.

 

Sooner or later Chuck Darwin will sort this all out- having the mental makeup to get involved in cults is swiftly becoming a huge reproductive disadvantage, particularly when they involve your existing children- but before then this'll just continue until it's made illegal as Washington State has done and a lot of other states have effectively done through regulation.

We can only hope this will happen sooner then later.

 

But attempting to have anything approaching a rational discussion with these people is a waste of time. There's just nothing you're going to get out of the argument but the same standard bullshit. Their own kids can even pay somebody to shoot them in the back of the head, blinding them permanently with the destruction of the occipital lobes, and it won't change their tune.

and there is are immature hostile Pile back to who we know. Pile you had me fooled, I thought your intellect would win out over your emotions....NOT. Your emotions still "own" you, sign of being inexperienced.
You can have a conversation with the people who don't share all your opinions. How else would this life work.

[Whooter]

Is that true? Well, we couldn't know about that if we're not working at the fast food restaurant like McDonald.

None of us know about the details of the processes except those who developed them.  What we do know is each business has their own business plan and a developed process which will define success.  Employees cant just decide to start serving onion rings if it is not on the menu.
Ask a guy at McDonalds if he will whip you up a quick tuna salad, if its not on the menu.

However, we must be careful with that. It is not for us to eat always at the fast food, it is better for us to cook and eat in our home.

I think most people would rather eat at home as a family.  But if a child isn’t eating at home and the options have been changed several times to accommodate the child to no avail then feeding the child off site for a period of time would be an option to help stabilize the child’s weight loss and get him/her healthy again.

But to sit by and watch the child wither away and just hope things will get better on their own, I think we can all agree, would be neglectful.  



...

[Awake]

Guess the date; this is from a description of "group" or "seminar" or what have you, emphasis added:

Many of the boys are shrewd and wily. They know how to tell pathetic stories to win sympathy. But among themselves, when someone tries to sell such a story, the others won't buy it. And they tell him. These boys are trying to unearth truths, about themselves and others. For it is the meeting that measures a boy's progress. The basic decision for his release depends on the other boys' judgment of his improvement.

While XXXX or XXXXX conduct the group psychotherapy sessions, they are not psychiatrists, nor do they play such a role. The boys are their own psychiatrists. They go at it as though the best way to find out what's inside a boy's head is to split it open with an axe.[/list]

Can I still guess? Redl? Gilcrease? Highfields? Provo? Silverlake? (Is this on the internets somewhere? NTL?)