What to you is worse abuse to a child? -

[Wraith]

Been thinking about CWC and what could've been.
This is a simple thread. I know a lot of things are abuse, and a lot of abusive things lead to "would-a could-a should-a" mentalities about what a kid could grow up to be. In YOUR opinion, what individual or MULTIPLE things are the grossest violations of a child's trust, even through adulthood.

Spoiler

One reason why I am doing this is I know someone personally who murdered two of their kids, tried to burn away the evidence and then played "I'm crazy." They are wanting back out into society, and then during "recovery" dogged someone else who was betrayed by their own family and mocked that person in a not-too-subtle way that they didn't have a support system like this multiple murderer does. I can't say who this piece of crap is for power-leveling reasons, but thoughts recently have me in a mood about how much I HATE abuse of your kids even through adulthood. Also Chandler.

 

[UselessRubberKeyboard]

Trying to get them to be a troon, especially if it involves shoving them into the media spotlight to prove what a woke parent you are.

Edit: Seriously though, this isn't a question that can be answered with a ticky box. Abuse is often on multiple levels, and the younger it starts and the longer it goes on - whatever type of abuse it is - the worse the effects.

 

[Y2K Baby]

You and these polls, man.

 

[sperginity]

Trying to get them to be a troon, especially if it involves shoving them into the media spotlight to prove what a woke parent you are.

Edit: Seriously though, this isn't a question that can be answered with a ticky box. Abuse is often on multiple levels, and the younger it starts and the longer it goes on - whatever type of abuse it is - the worse the effects.

The troon thing is sorta covered in the trend option, but I don't really care if a trend is "wrong" if there's no permanent alteration involved. It's also different if a kid troons out on their own versus being forced into it when you're three like jazz Jennings. That's a munchausen by proxy situation not covered by the poll. I think MBP is one of the worst forms of child abuse.

 

[NIGGO KILLA]

making the child do homework

 

[ThePurpleProse]

Had to vote Not setting appropriate boundaries because it encase most of the options given

 

[Murmur]

I'd say asking them multiple choice questions with 20 possible answers ranks pretty high.

 

[PsychoNerd054]

Maybe constantly enforcing the idea that they're so damn special into their head. That's how some become lolcows after all.

 

[RG 448]

what individual or MULTIPLE things are the grossest violations of a child's trust, even through adulthood.

Disciplining a child without understanding them or why they do what they do. Are they acting up because they don’t know any better or because they genuinely can’t help themselves? You can’t do right by your gremlin unless you know that.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Trying to get them to be a troon, especially if it involves shoving them into the media spotlight to prove what a woke parent you are.

Edit: Seriously though, this isn't a question that can be answered with a ticky box. Abuse is often on multiple levels, and the younger it starts and the longer it goes on - whatever type of abuse it is - the worse the effects.

I consider trooning out your small child to be sexual abuse, and it scares me how it's become societally acceptable.

 

[ZeCommissar]

I marked every answer because you suck at polls nigga

 

[kinglordsupreme19]

Had to vote Not setting appropriate boundaries because it encase most of the options given

This is important, because rather than just being a feature that just happens to be shared by instances of abuse, this quality of failing to adequately provide boundaries is the shared quality that both defines and is the source of the detrimental outcomes of child abuse. Why so? It comes down, fundamentally, to the fact that abuse subverts the healthy developmental process that allows people to adopt the psychological maxims that are required for functioning in the world.

It's one feature of sanity to have as a psychological maxim something like Hume's Principle of Uniformity in Nature:

"...instances, of which we have had experience, must resemble those, of which we have had experience, and that the course of nature continues always uniformly the same." (Treatise on Human Nature, 1.3.6.4)​

This is because the principle allows us to engage in inductive practice in the first place - and most of our day-to-day interactions with humans and the world are governed by inductive principles. But, as Hume himself noted, the Principle cannot be proved deductively; it can be conceived off that the principle will be falsified and that there will be radical discontinuities in the future to what has been experienced in the past. We may reason that the sun will not rise tomorrow or that we in fact have grue emeralds. If it is not deductively true, then it can only be inductively true - but that would justify the Uniformity Principle from the consequences of its adoption, which is a clear instance of circularity.

Hume despairs, argues that the Uniformity Principle can only be upheld through reversion to 'custom and habit' and accepts that the problem of scepticism is an eternal dog that philosophy will never quite get past. In day-to-day life, by acting in the world, Hume saw that man acted as though the Uniformity Principle is true - human action is predicated upon hopefully assuming it is true. This seems to have worked well for mankind, so far. Let this practice of acting as though something were true (without considering whether it is true or not) be called adopting a principle of action.

To adopt the Uniformity Principle as a principle of action need not be a conscious decision, and it is possible for one to be the most robust philosophical sceptic and still hold the Uniformity Principle as a resoundingly solid principle of action. All that is required is a means of perceiving the world as steady and continuous in nature. The benefits from this are myriad. From this, you are able to operate using an inductive system that does not continually question the nature of reality. You are able to assume that agents around you have consistent natures that you can do business with. You are capable of acting as though you believe - taking it as a given - that present effort may correspond into future benefit.

This is the root of conscientiousness and confidence; the ability to not fear the future as chaotic and protean (as it very well may be), but to enjoy the possibility that it resembles the past and present.

Now, what's this word salad got to do with child abuse?

Consider these two premises:

1. The brain is maximally plastic and malleable during childhood.
2. Abuse provides a disincentive to adopt the Uniformity Principle as a principle of action

The first premise isn't disputable, if you go with any of the empirical evidence. The second premise seems somewhat obvious to myself, as well; child abuse (whether physical or psychological) is predicated upon not assigning consistent punishments or rewards to a child and thus undermining the idea that the future will resemble the past. Whether it be arbitrary beatings, sudden emotional manipulations, or borderline oscillations of temperament, parents who exhibit abusive behaviour are characterised by behaviour that is unpredictable and inconsistent. Parents who create rules and consistently implement them - even if said rules are harsh - tend to not be characterised as abusive by their offspring; it is those that do not cultivate an order which allows future continuity to be assumed that are the abusive ones.

In short, my thesis is the following: the defining characteristic of child abuse and the source of its dis-utility in both the short or the long term is that it deprives the child of the belief that there exists continuity. What we call boundaries are the embodiment of such continuity; they are rules and roles that allow a child to see their surroundings and the future as fixed and continuous.

 

[UselessRubberKeyboard]

I consider trooning out your small child to be sexual abuse, and it scares me how it's become societally acceptable.

Absolutely this. It's forcing a child to deal with sexuality way earlier than is in any way necessary, and exposing the child to the trans community when said community is full of people like those in the Sisterwood board just compounds it.

 

[Slap47]

Kinda hard to answer the question since all the answers have varying scales.

 

[hambeerlyingnreed]

Poll is fucked up.

Not as fucked up as sexual abuse though. That's the worst. Then I'd say physical abuse that leaves marks, and then the kind that doesn't. I can't decide whether verbal abuse or neglect is worse. I guess it depends on the severity of it.

 

[Oglooger]

Letting them read harry potter.
It's current year, so we know better and see what happens to those who grow up on it.

 

[lameandgay]

When I look at things like teen pregnancy, abuse, suicide, all these things kinda play into a cycle. Once it happens within a family, it's highly likely to happen again and again.

I find narcissistic abuse to be the most damaging.

Sexual abuse leads to low self esteem and a lot of other things, but it doesn't lead to the child then going on to diddle their own children. Narcissistic abuse on the other hand can cause a child to then become a narc parent themselves, and the cycle just continues. And I guess anyone who has experienced narc abuse understands????

 

[Piss Clam]

When they point the gun at me and I already know it is unloaded?

Seriously, killing your child is the worst abuse. Second only to abusing the English language.