NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are willing to cough up $40,000..
Sure.

Can't deal with your kids? Send 'em to a cult brainwashing facility! Brilliant. Seriously, most weird-ass cults aren't this strict. I'm sure some other kinds of abuse are going on behind the scenes that haven't been revealed yet. The people running this facility need some discipline themselves. The parents irresponsible enough to send their kids there need to be sterilized with red-hot iron implements and subjected to the same treatment they chose for their kids.

Except this is all illegal and irreversible!

How is the treatment described (a girl lying in OP for 18 months) ever "used appropriately"?

What evidence do you have that this kind of torture works?

How about trying drug rehab (or -- heaven forbid -- parenting) instead?

I was about to say that CT, If the parents did thier jobs in the first place these sort of places would not exist.

However, I can't honestly imagine that a large group of people with PhDs in education and/or child psychology would come up with ideas as stupid as "let's make them all insult each other to build character!"

I couldn't tell what the point of that exercise was, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Ah. To continue with the surgery analogy, that sounds as if it would now be acceptable if a surgeon believed that cutting off your leg would cure your brain cancer, and therefore predictably and consistantly did so. Their "theory" is based on nothing, and such baseless hypotheses have no place being using as "parenting" strategies.

Here the anology no longer serves us. I see it more as you (and others) crying, "No! Don't cut into that kid's head! Can't you see he needs our help, not abuse?"
I think that some of their theories are well placed.

Deliberately inflicting physical, emotional, or mental pain and anguish is abuse. The lines between punishment and abuse really tend to be pretty clear, I think. Being put in time-out for ten minutes is not abuse; being put in time-out for a week is. Being forced to skip a meal is not abuse; being starved for three days is. Lightly swatting a child's bottom is not abuse; whipping them with a belt till they have welts all over their bottom is.

Being put on Time Out causes emotional anguish. That, by your definition, is abuse. Being forced to skip a meal can cause hunger pains. That, by your definition, is abuse.
And so on.

Grounding your kids for dating "the wrong people" or for dressing "inappropriately" is stupid, but is not abuse. Sending them to prison, where they will be forced to lie on their face until they admit that they're horrible people, most certainly is.

That depends entirely on several things:
1. If the people in question ARE horrible people.
2. Whether there is a simpler method of getting them to admit it.

(On "A Clockwork Orange")
Seriously, yes. You appear to have missed the whole point of that tale.

What point is that?

This link is better. (http://www.isaccorp.org/tranquilitybay.html)

Complaints include beatings, brutal physical restraint resulting in broken bones, sexual assault, food deprivation, and excessive use of isolation - known as Observation Placement or OP.
....
ISAC has received reports of staff members providing marijuana and cocaine to students in exchange for sexual favors.

During sworn testimony in the August 2004 case of WWASPS vs PURE, WWASPS President Ken Kay stated that in his opinion, sexual activity between staff members and students is "not necessarily" abuse.
....
Randall Hinton, a former long-time staff member, has reportedly admitted to using pepper spray on students and spraying it in their eyes from a distance of about 2 feet.

At least one student was reportedly hog-tied when he was sprayed by Hinton.

If true, then I'd agree that all THAT qualifies as torture and abuse, and that the place should be shut down.

Being put on Time Out causes emotional anguish. That, by your definition, is abuse. Being forced to skip a meal can cause hunger pains. That, by your definition, is abuse.
And so on.

Godweavers the difference you seem to be oblivious to (or intentionally ignoring) is the line between discomfort and damage. It is discomforting to sit in a corner on a stool staring at the wall for a 15 minutes or to be sent to bed after 2 whole meals and regular snacks during the day, without an evening meal (which considering the energy requirements of sleeping is for the most part superfluous and more about personal comfort than subsistence requirments). It is damaging to be made to lie in an exact position for hours and hours and hours on end (with only absolute minimal nutrician, toilet breaks) for days or weeks or months on end. The difference is between discipline and abuse and frankly it isnt that difficult to spot.

I'm sorry for necroquoting, but as I was reading though this caught my eye as the biggest piece of bullshit I have seen in a while. Those of you who know me will know that I do not resort so swearing easily on this forum, but in this case it is definately justified. If someone is stubborn you have to BREAK THEIR WILL???

Not as a matter of principle, simply because they're stubborn.
Only for people who need their behavior modified and who refuse to respond to other tactics.

That is killing them! That is destroying they're personality, and everything that makes them, them.

Really? Is blind stubborness and rebellion truly all that there is to these kids?
If they're that shallow, then it's a small loss.

You sick son of a bitch. What the fuck is the justification for taking someone's personality apart piece by piece against their will, and rebuilding it in the way you want? So they don't speak at mealtimes any more? So they don't go through teenage anst? Because they like to ingest a certain herb? I'm sorry, but for once I will have to use the smiley that I thought I'd never use. :upyours: wanker!

You're an idiot who can't seem to read before responding. That's okay; it's pretty common here.

I have NEVER said, or indicated, that I think it's right to brainwash kids who talk at mealtimes, or who have a bit of angst.
To even accuse me of that is retarded beyond belief.
Do you assume that everybody who advocates the death penalty thinks that it should be applied for traffic violations?
Probably not.
Do you assume that people who are for the concept of imprisoning criminals are advocating the imprisonment of ALL criminals, even jaywalkers and litterbugs?
Probably not.
Yet you come off with this psychotic, knee-jerk reaction that I must be advocating brainwashing for kids who talk at supper?
Brilliant. :rolleyes:

As for intaking "the herb", I'm against it. Pot causes lots of problems, such as inattention to detail and paranoia. Or obsession with certain thoughts, no matter how absurd or trite.
Which, come to think of it, may just explain your post.

But as strong as my stance against pot is, I don't advocate sending a kid to a reform school the first time he smokes it. Or the 5th time.
But if the kid has a problem with it that he refuses to handle on his own, I'd be all for sending him to counseling. After that, to more intense counselling.
After that, then what?
Call the cops on him? Send him to jail? Let him screw himself up?
Depending on the circumstances, I could see sending him someplace that would break him of his addiction. Even if this meant that he had to spend the occasional time out lying on his face if he acted up.
But only as a last resort.

Godweavers the difference you seem to be oblivious to (or intentionally ignoring)...

Let's say "exploring."

is the line between discomfort and damage. It is discomforting to sit in a corner on a stool staring at the wall for a 15 minutes or to be sent to bed after 2 whole meals and regular snacks during the day, without an evening meal (which considering the energy requirements of sleeping is for the most part superfluous and more about personal comfort than subsistence requirments). It is damaging to be made to lie in an exact position for hours and hours and hours on end (with only absolute minimal nutrician, toilet breaks) for days or weeks or months on end. The difference is between discipline and abuse and frankly it isnt that difficult to spot.

I disagree.
I don't really see the damage, if they let the kids take toilet breaks to move around a bit, and they provide them with sustainance.

Now let's examine the "For days or weeks or months on end" bit.
IIRC, they check up on the kid every 24 hours to see if the kid has learned his/her lesson. If the kid has, then the punishment is over.
IF not, then the punishment continues.

IF (and it sounds more and more like this is a big "if") they are fair and accurate in their assessment of the kid's attitude and acceptance of responsibility, THEN it is the kid's fault if they lie there for more than 24 hours.
(Although, as I have said, I think that 24 hours is too much time.)
If they ask the kid, "Do you understand why it was wrong of you to kick that other kid?" and the response is "Bugger your mother with a walrus", or some other response of mindless rebellion and insolence, then I have no problem with keeping the kid there longer.
The kids are hurting themselves with their attitudes, if there is any real harm being done.

Godweavers, minus the abusive aspects of the programe it does not appear to have any content whatsoever that would be remedial with regards to the problems and behaviours of 'troubled' or 'problem' teens.

The abusive aspects work along the lines of the 'identify with the abuser' and/or 'desperate enough to whole heartedly emulate and believe whatever is required to get the frig out of this situation'. Those aspects are akin to torture camps, rededucation camps and cult organisation techniques. Highly effective in achieving (often) longlasting changes in behaviour and even beliefs. Utterly useless in achieving 'good thinking' and/or 'decision making' skills, mentally and physiologically damaging, and utterly counterproductive to the formation of a 'well rounded contributing citizen'.

The only 'good' result is those caused by techniques that have a cost greater than the result. So the apparent effectiveness of these camps is basically that they like a cult can impinge so greatly on the minds of their internees that they can literally circumvent the parts of the brain that think for itself and bring about a physiological state that makes a person very easy to control and can if done a certain way allow long term suggestive states that will 'immunise' the internee against backsliding until they either seek mental health care for the damage inflicted, or come under the sway of someone equally as manipulative as the current brainwashers (aka Tranquility Bay).
Advise, if you child is misbehaving dont send them to join the Moonies, a Chinese Reeducation Camp, a Gulag,Guantanamo Bay or Tranquility Bay. Cult brainwashing is not equivalent to discipline, it is neither acceptable nor effective as a substitute for it either.

Here the anology no longer serves us. I see it more as you (and others) crying, "No! Don't cut into that kid's head! Can't you see he needs our help, not abuse?"
I think that some of their theories are well placed.

There is valid evidence to suggest that cutting into a patient's head is a useful step in removing a brain tumor. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that torturing people helps them grow up to be happy and well-adjusted. There is, however, a whole heck of a lot of evidence suggesting that it does quite the opposite.

Being put on Time Out causes emotional anguish. That, by your definition, is abuse. Being forced to skip a meal can cause hunger pains. That, by your definition, is abuse.
And so on.

Oh, please. In my childhood, I was put in time-out many times, and I was also abused. Being put in time-out for a few minutes caused me to be bored and irritated. Being abused caused me to grow up feeling worthless and wanting to die, to attempt suicide in high school, and to have massive trust issues and severe depression to this day. If you don't see a difference in the degree of pain and anguish there, then you're being deliberately obtuse, and, frankly, pretty offensive.

That depends entirely on several things:
1. If the people in question ARE horrible people.
2. Whether there is a simpler method of getting them to admit it.

I don't believe there is anyone who needs or deserves to feel like a horrible person. Some people do need and deserve to feel like they've done horrible things, so that they can stop doing those things. None of the kids mentioned in that article seem to have done such things, because if they were known to be murderers, rapists, and so forth, they would have been sent to a U.S. prison instead of a Jamaican "school." These kids may need to be taught that their behavior is self-destructive and unacceptable, but they absolutely don't need to believe themselves to be worthless or horrible.

Godweavers, minus the abusive aspects of the programe it does not appear to have any content whatsoever that would be remedial with regards to the problems and behaviours of 'troubled' or 'problem' teens.

The abusive aspects work along the lines of the 'identify with the abuser'

"Identify with the abuser"?
Elaborate.

and/or 'desperate enough to whole heartedly emulate and believe whatever is required to get the frig out of this situation'. Those aspects are akin to torture camps, rededucation camps and cult organisation techniques. Highly effective in achieving (often) longlasting changes in behaviour and even beliefs.

I'm with you so far.

Utterly useless in achieving 'good thinking' and/or 'decision making' skills, mentally and physiologically damaging, and utterly counterproductive to the formation of a 'well rounded contributing citizen'.

I'd settle for "A partially-rounded, non-punk, non-criminal, who doesn't really hurt anybody, even if they don't do much else."

In any case, I'd appreciate more elaboration on the "useless in achieving good thinking and/or decision making skills" part.

The only 'good' result is those caused by techniques that have a cost greater than the result. So the apparent effectiveness of these camps is basically that they like a cult can impinge so greatly on the minds of their internees that they can literally circumvent the parts of the brain that think for itself and bring about a physiological state that makes a person very easy to control and can if done a certain way allow long term suggestive states that will 'immunise' the internee against backsliding until they either seek mental health care for the damage inflicted, or come under the sway of someone equally as manipulative as the current brainwashers (aka Tranquility Bay).

Okay, that's the "good" result.
What's the cost?

Advise, if you child is misbehaving dont send them to join the Moonies, a Chinese Reeducation Camp, a Gulag,Guantanamo Bay or Tranquility Bay. Cult brainwashing is not equivalent to discipline, it is neither acceptable nor effective as a substitute for it either.

What about the marines, or any other acceptable institution that breaks you down and rebuilds you?

Oh, please. In my childhood, I was put in time-out many times, and I was also abused. Being put in time-out for a few minutes caused me to be bored and irritated. Being abused caused me to grow up feeling worthless and wanting to die, to attempt suicide in high school, and to have massive trust issues and severe depression to this day. If you don't see a difference in the degree of pain and anguish there, then you're being deliberately obtuse, and, frankly, pretty offensive.
I don't believe there is anyone who needs or deserves to feel like a horrible person. Some people do need and deserve to feel like they've done horrible things, so that they can stop doing those things. None of the kids mentioned in that article seem to have done such things, because if they were known to be murderers, rapists, and so forth, they would have been sent to a U.S. prison instead of a Jamaican "school." These kids may need to be taught that their behavior is self-destructive and unacceptable, but they absolutely don't need to believe themselves to be worthless or horrible.


Thank you for this. I was wanting to say the very same things, but couldn't come up with anything to say that wouldn't have been considered flaming.

I couldn't tell what the point of that exercise was, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

Ok, I'll tell you what the point of it is. It is an almost text-book method of degrading someone's personality, which is needed to be acomplised before one can replace it with one you want. Brainwashing techniques.

Not as a matter of principle, simply because they're stubborn.
Only for people who need their behavior modified and who refuse to respond to other tactics.

Who are you to decide that they need their behaviour modified? Is it wrong to be stubborn when someone makes unreasonable requests? I am very stubborn, I know that. I stick to my guns no matter what punishment you give me. Does that mean I should be sent there? To 'fix me'?

Really? Is blind stubborness and rebellion truly all that there is to these kids?
If they're that shallow, then it's a small loss.

No, but brainwashing is a crude implement. You need a psycologist working hard on someone day after day for maybe a couple of months to get that amount of change safely. And much longer if you don't have their cooperation. Brainwashing by definition is like doing brain surgery with a hammer, doing perminant damage to the mind. They are likely to lose nigh on everything.

You're an idiot who can't seem to read before responding. That's okay; it's pretty common here.

I have NEVER said, or indicated, that I think it's right to brainwash kids who talk at mealtimes, or who have a bit of angst.
To even accuse me of that is retarded beyond belief.
Do you assume that everybody who advocates the death penalty thinks that it should be applied for traffic violations?
Probably not.
Do you assume that people who are for the concept of imprisoning criminals are advocating the imprisonment of ALL criminals, even jaywalkers and litterbugs?
Probably not.
Yet you come off with this psychotic, knee-jerk reaction that I must be advocating brainwashing for kids who talk at supper?
Brilliant. :rolleyes:

You are supporting the program, yes? Well people were sent there for those reasons. And at the time of writing I had not seen any indication that you disagreed with this aspect of the system. Be clearer next time, if you don't want to be misunderstood. Of course, then I ask why you are so naive that you think that parents won't abuse this system.

As for intaking "the herb", I'm against it. Pot causes lots of problems, such as inattention to detail and paranoia. Or obsession with certain thoughts, no matter how absurd or trite.
Which, come to think of it, may just explain your post.

I don't take any drugs, apart from a few minor ones like asprin when I am unwell. But I support anyone's right to intake whatever herb they want. It's their body.

But as strong as my stance against pot is, I don't advocate sending a kid to a reform school the first time he smokes it. Or the 5th time.
But if the kid has a problem with it that he refuses to handle on his own, I'd be all for sending him to counseling. After that, to more intense counselling.
After that, then what?
Call the cops on him? Send him to jail? Let him screw himself up?
Depending on the circumstances, I could see sending him someplace that would break him of his addiction. Even if this meant that he had to spend the occasional time out lying on his face if he acted up.
But only as a last resort.

Ok, I am glad you put in the comment about a last resort. However I still have a few problems with this. Let us use an example. What if I started taking cannabis. Wouldn't be difficult, my cousin takes it. I get caught, go through rehad etc. I still have it. Whatever you try to do to stop me I still take it. Now it has become with me a matter of principle. I disagree with you stopping me taking it, so I will continue because you are pressuring me to stop. Whatever you do, I still continue to take this small, non-lethal, not even really dangerous amount everyday, in definace. What do you do? If you could answer that, I would be grateful. :)

Let's say "exploring."
Call it what you like, if you tried it out on your own kids in most if not all civilised countries and the child health and welfare services found out, I doubt you'd be a custodial parent for much longer.

I disagree.
I don't really see the damage, if they let the kids take toilet breaks to move around a bit, and they provide them with sustainance.
The amount of movement being offered is barely if enough to combat bed sores for goodness sake. This is an extreme imposition for human beings of any age, for young teens wired up to be active it is cruel. Further at this age certain physiological changes are occuring in the bodies of teens and for these to proceed as they should teens need to be active.

Now let's examine the "For days or weeks or months on end" bit.
IIRC, they check up on the kid every 24 hours to see if the kid has learned his/her lesson. If the kid has, then the punishment is over.
IF not, then the punishment continues.
Utterly unacceptable. I know from experiance that for many teens this is just egging them on. Resistance in my case would have occured before capitulation and this would have required I be restrained which would have placed me at risk of physical injury. That is not exactly acceptable either.

The only reason the whole lying face down bit works it because of it's abusiveness. It is more than discomforting. After a time it is unbearable, it is physiologically damaging - that's why eventually people capitulate. Like other forms of torture people can only take so much. The OP is cruel and unusual - it's torture!

IF (and it sounds more and more like this is a big "if") they are fair and accurate in their assessment of the kid's attitude and acceptance of responsibility, THEN it is the kid's fault if they lie there for more than 24 hours.
No it is not the kid's fault because the kids should not be there in the first place. Kids are not the best people to decide on issues effecting their immediate safety and their long term well being - that's why they have parents...it's not necessarily a fair decision to ask from them.

(Although, as I have said, I think that 24 hours is too much time.)
No kidding! But it's what makes it effective. Much less than that and you head back into discomfort rather than torture, and many teens can easily withstand discomfort indefinately. This is where you seem to not be getting it. The only things that have any effect on the childrens' behaviour within this camp (as described in the report) are all examples of child abuse and or cultism/re-education camp brainwashing techniques. If you took out all the aspects that were physiologically damaging, there'd be nothing left.

24 hours is extreme, that's why it 'works'. Beating a kids head against a concrete wall is also extreme, and if I only beat their head against the wall again if they wont capitulate, that's still abuse - their 'choice' or not.

If they ask the kid, "Do you understand why it was wrong of you to kick that other kid?" and the response is "Bugger your mother with a walrus", or some other response of mindless rebellion and insolence, then I have no problem with keeping the kid there longer.
Your principal is 'if the kids are given a choice to capitulate and dont, knowing they will be punished if they dont, then it's the kid's choice and their own fault and you have no problem with it. Apply your principal to rape - we rape the kid once and if they capitulate and agree not to set fire to the library again we dont rape them again, otherwise you're fine with raping them again (purely for discipline reasons of course) or how about just banging their head against a brick wall? Or whipping them to they bleed a little, always giving them the choice of capitulation of course....

I'm sorry but the notion that 'they had a choice' is actually a very common idea in the heads of child abusers. It doesnt excuse putting kids' hands on lit elements, throwing them about the room, or having them lie face down on concret in a particular position for 24 hours...child abuse is defined by the acts and their effects on a child, not on whether or not the child had some means of forestalling it.
The kids are hurting themselves with their attitudes, if there is any real harm being done.
No the kids are not choosing to lie face down on concrete for hours. Further many of these kids are probably in fact being punished for having the misfortune to be ill or to have inadequate parents.

There is valid evidence to suggest that cutting into a patient's head is a useful step in removing a brain tumor. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that torturing people helps them grow up to be happy and well-adjusted. There is, however, a whole heck of a lot of evidence suggesting that it does quite the opposite.

I'll remind you that we seem to disagree on the definition of "torture" and how it applies to the situation.

Oh, please. In my childhood, I was put in time-out many times, and I was also abused. Being put in time-out for a few minutes caused me to be bored and irritated. Being abused caused me to grow up feeling worthless and wanting to die, to attempt suicide in high school, and to have massive trust issues and severe depression to this day. If you don't see a difference in the degree of pain and anguish there, then you're being deliberately obtuse, and, frankly, pretty offensive.

Oh, I see a difference in the degree of pain and anguish.
You simply failed to list that as one of the requirements.
At what degree does something damaging to the child cease to be punishment and start to be abuse?

I don't believe there is anyone who needs or deserves to feel like a horrible person. Some people do need and deserve to feel like they've done horrible things, so that they can stop doing those things.

We're close to agreement here.
I think that if somebody actually IS a horrible person, that the only way for them to change is to face up to that fact and to decide to become somebody else.

None of the kids mentioned in that article seem to have done such things, because if they were known to be murderers, rapists, and so forth, they would have been sent to a U.S. prison instead of a Jamaican "school."

Uh, no. Mommy and Daddy may well have prevented it by getting them off with high-priced lawyers, or by helping cover up their actions.
Or they may not know about the actions.
Or they may see that the kids are on the way to becoming a murderer or rapist or whatever, IF something drastic is not done.

These kids may need to be taught that their behavior is self-destructive and unacceptable, but they absolutely don't need to believe themselves to be worthless or horrible.

Not as a permanent state, no.
But as a temporary recognition of "Wow! Bad things keep happening to me because I'm a bad person who constantly screws up and who alienates the people who love me by lashing out against them!" that results in a desire to change, that can be quite helpful.

Or they may see that the kids are on the way to becoming a murderer or rapist or whatever, IF something drastic is not done.

Guilty until proven innocent strikes again :rolleyes:

Thank you for this. I was wanting to say the very same things, but couldn't come up with anything to say that wouldn't have been considered flaming.

Trust me, answering without flaming isn't too easy here either...but I'll keep doing my best. :)

Really? Is blind stubborness and rebellion truly all that there is to these kids?
If they're that shallow, then it's a small loss.

Actually that would mean they are less shallow than most of the worlds population. They at least are not sheep.

"Identify with the abuser"?
Elaborate.

Stockholm syndrome, Battered Spouse Syndrome...surely you know of these conditions...?

I'm with you so far.

I'd settle for "A partially-rounded, non-punk, non-criminal, who doesn't really hurt anybody, even if they don't do much else."
There is no way of knowing this is what you will get. Having been subjected to 'cultist' technology and sucumbing to it such persons often have heightened vulnerability to manipulation. They are easy prey for instance for neo-nazi punk groups and other such undesirables. Because of the physiological damage they have suffered it can actually be discomforting and even painful to think for oneself. A strong leader and group identity that they can follow and blend into can be tempting and since they have no or little ability to think for themselves and to make decisions, the chances of them thinking 'the idea of killing all non-whites is a bad one', and deciding that no matter how much easier and better it feels to go along than to go along, are slimer than I would put money on.

In any case, I'd appreciate more elaboration on the "useless in achieving good thinking and/or decision making skills" part.
Read the artical. The interns are being trained to not think thier own thoughts. They are being trained to believe what they are told, to obey and to expect others around them to behave likewise. This is in essence training them to not make decisions and training them to lack the skills required for clear thinking and good decision making. You do not get good at thinking for yourself and making good decisions by blindly obeying someone else, anymore than you get good at running lying on your backside hearing about someone else's race.


Okay, that's the "good" result.
What's the cost?
That's not a good result, that is a mediocre result at best. The negative costs are vulnerability to cult mind-manipulation (from all comers including say a suicidal religious fringe group or a terrorist group). Long term and possibly life long physiological damage which could stem from the mildly dysfunctional through to the violent such as self damage, harm to others, suicide or homocide (mass homocide included). We know that child abuse can often result in a violent and even pathological adult, so count all the costs we know can stem from child abuse and add in all the costs of exposing citizens to re-education camp/cult style mind-manipulation techniques and you have the costs being born by these vulnerable children and by the society they will eventually be let out loose in....

What about the marines, or any other acceptable institution that breaks you down and rebuilds you?
The Marines is something people agree to enter. Further they can actually get out. I know of no treatment in any socially accepted organisation that matches the treatment these children suffer. Any society worthy of the name civilised would not treat convicted criminals as cruelly and unusually as these children are being treated.

Ok, I'll tell you what the point of it is. It is an almost text-book method of degrading someone's personality, which is needed to be acomplised before one can replace it with one you want. Brainwashing techniques.

Effective techniques?

Who are you to decide that they need their behaviour modified?

Who do I need to be?

Is it wrong to be stubborn when someone makes unreasonable requests?

By definition, it would not be wrong to refuse an unreasonable request.

IF you read my initial post, I think you'll find that part of my condition for sending somebody to this camp is if they constantly refuse reasonable requests.

I am very stubborn, I know that. I stick to my guns no matter what punishment you give me. Does that mean I should be sent there? To 'fix me'?

That all depends on who you've been shooting with your guns, and why.
I don't mind stubborness; I'm pretty stubborn myself.
(But let's not get into a contest to see who's worse)

Stubborness is a trait that can be good, or it can be bad, depending on what other behavior it is backing.

No, but brainwashing is a crude implement. You need a psycologist working hard on someone day after day for maybe a couple of months to get that amount of change safely. And much longer if you don't have their cooperation. Brainwashing by definition is like doing brain surgery with a hammer, doing perminant damage to the mind. They are likely to lose nigh on everything.

Define "everything" in this context.

You are supporting the program, yes?

No.

Well people were sent there for those reasons. And at the time of writing I had not seen any indication that you disagreed with this aspect of the system. Be clearer next time, if you don't want to be misunderstood. Of course, then I ask why you are so naive that you think that parents won't abuse this system.

Try re-reading my initial post.
Where I express my concern that parents would abuse this system.
Then try reading the rest of my posts, and actually thinking about things instead of simply reacting emotionally.

I don't take any drugs, apart from a few minor ones like asprin when I am unwell. But I support anyone's right to intake whatever herb they want. It's their body.

So hemlock is okay in you book?

Ok, I am glad you put in the comment about a last resort. However I still have a few problems with this. Let us use an example. What if I started taking cannabis. Wouldn't be difficult, my cousin takes it. I get caught, go through rehab etc. I still have it. Whatever you try to do to stop me I still take it. Now it has become with me a matter of principle. I disagree with you stopping me taking it, so I will continue because you are pressuring me to stop. Whatever you do, I still continue to take this small, non-lethal, not even really dangerous amount everyday, in definace. What do you do? If you could answer that, I would be grateful. :)

(Assuming that I'm the parent)
First, I'd try to figure out what your root problem is that you're trying to self-medicate for, and why you're so rebellious.
Failing that, I'd try to determine the amount of impact that pot was having on your life and I'd learn all I could about the local drug laws.
Then I'd weigh the two and come to a decision between:
a) Turning you in to the cops, IF the drug was doing more harm than the penal system would.
b) Letting the issue drop.
c) Booting you out of the house.
d) Moving someplace where you could not access pot or dangerous peer groups, homeschooling you if necessary. (Not likely to be an affordable option)

If none of those solutions were viable, then I'd do what I could to send you off to a brainwashing organization designed to fix you.
Preferably the US military, but if that was unworkable and if there was an acceptable alternative institution (and if I could afford it), then I would ship you off there.

Trust me, answering without flaming isn't too easy here either...but I'll keep doing my best. :)


I know what you mean. When people downplay abuse, I feel like they're minimizing what I went through, and I tend to take it very personally.

Oh, I see a difference in the degree of pain and anguish.
You simply failed to list that as one of the requirements.
At what degree does something damaging to the child cease to be punishment and start to be abuse?

Oh for heaven's sake. I have never met anyone who has claimed that being put in time-out for ten minutes caused them pain, let alone "anguish." Nor have I have ever heard anyone claim that being put in time-out for ten minutes causes permanent physical or emotional damage. You've had "abuse" defined for you at least twice now in this thread. Please stop claiming that the difference between making a child sit in a corner feeling bored for ten minutes and forcibly shoving a child face-down on the floor and making them lie there for days, weeks, or months is just a trivial variation in degree. It's a specious argument, and I really think you know that.

We're close to agreement here.
I think that if somebody actually IS a horrible person, that the only way for them to change is to face up to that fact and to decide to become somebody else.

No one is entirely perfect, and no one is entirely horrible. People need to remedy inappropriate behaviors; they don't need to loathe themselves to do so - especially when the "inappropriate behaviors" in question seem largely to be things like experimenting with drugs, wearing clothes their parents disapprove of, having a mental disorder, or generally being a teenager.

Uh, no. Mommy and Daddy may well have prevented it by getting them off with high-priced lawyers, or by helping cover up their actions.
Or they may not know about the actions.
Or they may see that the kids are on the way to becoming a murderer or rapist or whatever, IF something drastic is not done.

- Not only is it pretty hard to get anyone out of doing some jail time for crimes like murder if there's evidence to convict them, even with a fabulous lawyer, but also, what sort of parent wants to save their child from the hardships of prison by sending them to what is effectively a prison? That doesn't make a great deal of sense.
- Then neither do the people running Tranquility Bay, and those actions won't be the ones being addressed.
- This is absurd. Why not just punish everyone in the world in advance, since all of us might someday kill somebody? Let's all go lie on our faces for a while, just in case!


Not as a permanent state, no.
But as a temporary recognition of "Wow! Bad things keep happening to me because I'm a bad person who constantly screws up and who alienates the people who love me by lashing out against them!" that results in a desire to change, that can be quite helpful.

No. No, no, no, no, no. I have spent a large portion of my life thinking, "I am a bad person who constantly screws up," and there is absolutely no thought in the world less helpful to becoming a better, happier, more functional person. Talk to any psychologist or anyone who's ever been depressed, and I'd bet an awful lot that they'd agree. "I suck" doesn't result in a desire to change. It results in a desire to give up.

I know what you mean. When people downplay abuse, I feel like they're minimizing what I went through, and I tend to take it very personally.

Yeah, it's very hard not to do so. I had a conversation with a casual acquaintance some years ago in which he declared that people who were abused have no one but themselves to blame, and that they probably deserved to be hit or berated anyway, since they were clearly being "bratty" if they were kids or "bitchy" if they were adults. It took a heck of a lot of willpower to calmly tell him he was a moron and walk away rather than kicking him in the balls and saying, "You probably deserved that! You have only yourself to blame!"

Call it what you like, if you tried it out on your own kids in most if not all civilised countries and the child health and welfare services found out, I doubt you'd be a custodial parent for much longer.

Uh, what?
If I tried "Ignoring", "oblivious to", or "exploring" my own kids....?
You're not making sense here.

The amount of movement being offered is barely if enough to combat bed sores for goodness sake.

Note the word "enough".

This is an extreme imposition for human beings of any age, for young teens wired up to be active it is cruel.

So's homework.

Utterly unacceptable. I know from experiance that for many teens this is just egging them on. Resistance in my case would have occured before capitulation and this would have required I be restrained which would have placed me at risk of physical injury. That is not exactly acceptable either.[/quote]

So don't resist.

The only reason the whole lying face down bit works it because of it's abusiveness. It is more than discomforting. After a time it is unbearable, it is physiologically damaging - that's why eventually people capitulate. Like other forms of torture people can only take so much. The OP is cruel and unusual - it's torture!

I agree that it would [i]feel[/]i unbearable.
But obviously it is NOT unbearable, or the kids would not bear it. They would avoid it, even if it meant admitting that they had done something wrong.
And I still don't think it's that psychologically damaging.

No it is not the kid's fault because the kids should not be there in the first place.

This is the main sourse of disagreement. You see the little angels unjustly imprisoned, I see the spoiled and dangerous bastards who feel a deep and stupid need to cause other people trouble.

Kids are not the best people to decide on issues effecting their immediate safety and their long term well being - that's why they have parents...it's not necessarily a fair decision to ask from them.

So if a kid decides for himself what to do, that can cause him damage.
And it's a parent's responsibility to decide for them what is best?

No kidding! But it's what makes it effective. Much less than that and you head back into discomfort rather than torture, and many teens can easily withstand discomfort indefinately. This is where you seem to not be getting it. The only things that have any effect on the childrens' behaviour within this camp (as described in the report) are all examples of child abuse and or cultism/re-education camp brainwashing techniques. If you took out all the aspects that were physiologically damaging, there'd be nothing left.

You're making a good case for their methods.

24 hours is extreme, that's why it 'works'. Beating a kids head against a concrete wall is also extreme, and if I only beat their head against the wall again if they wont capitulate, that's still abuse - their 'choice' or not.

Would you rather lie on the floor for 24 hours, or have your head beat against a wall?
I'd take the floor.

Your principal is 'if the kids are given a choice to capitulate and dont, knowing they will be punished if they dont, then it's the kid's choice and their own fault and you have no problem with it.

No.
My principle is: If the kids have done something wrong, then it is in their best interest to face up to that fact and to learn and grow. This goes against the nature of most kids, so they will resist as long as possible. The more stubbornly a kid insists on clinging to ego over virtue, the longer it will take to help them. But the kid is the one deciding each time that he/she would rather mindlessly rebel than to help himself/herself become a better person.

IF, on the other hand, the kids did nothing wrong and are being hassled for no reason, then of course things are messed up.
Just like if an innocent person is sent to jail, then things are messed up.
That is not a problem with the punishment, it is a problem with the determination of guilt.
You seem to be assuming that the determination of guilt is always faulty, that none of these kids have done anything to merit such drastic measures.
I disagree, and say that under certain circumstances there is merit to such tactics.

I'm sorry but the notion that 'they had a choice' is actually a very common idea in the heads of child abusers. It doesnt excuse putting kids' hands on lit elements, throwing them about the room, or having them lie face down on concret in a particular position for 24 hours...child abuse is defined by the acts and their effects on a child, not on whether or not the child had some means of forestalling it.

I agree, except with the idea that making them lie on the floor constitutes abuse.

No the kids are not choosing to lie face down on concrete for hours.

Yes, they are. They are given two options, and they choose the option that they find less hateful.

Scenario:
You have a child and you catch the kid playing with the oven. You tell the kid not to play with the oven or you will have to put the kid on time out.
The kid hears you, and keeps playing with the oven.
You put the kid on time out.

Did the kid have a choice?

Further many of these kids are probably in fact being punished for having the misfortune to be ill or to have inadequate parents.

They're not put on OP for that.

Actually that would mean they are less shallow than most of the worlds population. They at least are not sheep.

Blind rebellion and blind obedience are equally bad.

I hate to burst your bubbles, folks, but these methods are not so uncommon in the US. Point/Level systems defining privilege are very common. The difference here seems to be that the Tranquility system is more strict, and because it is not regulated and the staff not licensed or certified, there is more potential for abuse. It seems to be a cross between a detention center and a group home.

The staff of most facilities are trained in restraint techniques. If you didn't know better, you'd think the kids were being abused.

In reading the original article, I understood it to mean that the girl who laid on the floor for 18 months had a choice to get off of "OP," but instead chose to be stubborn about it. If you think that no kid can be that stubborn, you've never worked in juvenile corrections.

Don't kid yourself: the kids minimized their behaviors (what they did before being sent to Tranquility) because they knew they were speaking to media, and exaggerated their complaints about the staff and conditions. Still, I'm not so sure that the Tranquility system is the most effective.

The concerning things about the wiki article are the unsanitary conditions, and the use of humiliation. Humiliation is not good practice.

Perhaps the worst thing about all this is the cost. $40k US? You can get much the same thing in the US for much cheaper and in less time. Some jurisdictions can do it for under $20K, and even have a sliding scale to make it affordable. Even private facilities can achieve the same results for less time and money.

The rest of the complaints are crap.

So's homework.

Okay, you're quickly approaching the limit of what I'm willing to listen to. Stop it. Now. You're clearly reasonably literate and capable of understanding simple ideas. Therefore, you are not nearly stupid enough to consider "homework" and "lying on the floor face-down for 18 months" even remotely equivalent. I'm happy for you that you've never encountered anything more painful than "homework," but a lot of people aren't that lucky. Please knock it off, because it's offensive as hell.


They're not put on OP for that.

No, they're put in OP for truly horrible offenses like "looking out the window," and "treating others with some modicum of respect rather than obeying orders and ridiculing them." Those little bastards!

Yeah, it's very hard not to do so. I had a conversation with a casual acquaintance some years ago in which he declared that people who were abused have no one but themselves to blame, and that they probably deserved to be hit or berated anyway, since they were clearly being "bratty" if they were kids or "bitchy" if they were adults. It took a heck of a lot of willpower to calmly tell him he was a moron and walk away rather than kicking him in the balls and saying, "You probably deserved that! You have only yourself to blame!"


See, that's where you and I differ. I'd have gone ahead and done it.

Stockholm syndrome, Battered Spouse Syndrome...surely you know of these conditions...?

Yup.
Just wasn't sure what you were referring to.

There is no way of knowing this is what you will get. Having been subjected to 'cultist' technology and sucumbing to it such persons often have heightened vulnerability to manipulation. They are easy prey for instance for neo-nazi punk groups and other such undesirables. Because of the physiological damage they have suffered it can actually be discomforting and even painful to think for oneself. A strong leader and group identity that they can follow and blend into can be tempting and since they have no or little ability to think for themselves and to make decisions, the chances of them thinking 'the idea of killing all non-whites is a bad one', and deciding that no matter how much easier and better it feels to go along than to go along, are slimer than I would put money on.

Good argument.
What are the ways in which this could be minimized?

Read the artical. The interns are being trained to not think thier own thoughts. They are being trained to believe what they are told, to obey and to expect others around them to behave likewise. This is in essence training them to not make decisions and training them to lack the skills required for clear thinking and good decision making. You do not get good at thinking for yourself and making good decisions by blindly obeying someone else, anymore than you get good at running lying on your backside hearing about someone else's race.

The same could be said for the military, yet many people in the military are capable of making good decisions and acting on individual initiative.
With the military, you are built back up after you are torn down.
If the same does not apply for this sort of reform school, it certainly should.

That's not a good result, that is a mediocre result at best.

That can be better than the alternatives.

The negative costs are vulnerability to cult mind-manipulation (from all comers including say a suicidal religious fringe group or a terrorist group).

Check.
I believe that this can be minimized or elminiated (even if not done sufficiently at this particular school).

Long term and possibly life long physiological damage which could stem from the mildly dysfunctional through to the violent such as self damage, harm to others, suicide or homocide (mass homocide included).

All that can just as easily come from going through the public school system.

We know that child abuse can often result in a violent and even pathological adult, so count all the costs we know can stem from child abuse and add in all the costs of exposing citizens to re-education camp/cult style mind-manipulation techniques and you have the costs being born by these vulnerable children and by the society they will eventually be let out loose in....

You are once again assuming that the kids won't cost society if they don't go through the camp/cult. I'm assuming the opposite.

The Marines is something people agree to enter. Further they can actually get out. I know of no treatment in any socially accepted organisation that matches the treatment these children suffer.

True.

Any society worthy of the name civilised would not treat convicted criminals as cruelly and unusually as these children are being treated.

Hyperbolic overstatement.
Or simply incorrect.

See, that's where you and I differ. I'd have gone ahead and done it.

Hee. I actually ended up doing something worse, sort of. I told the idiot's girlfriend, who I talked to later the same evening, about his point of view. It turned out that one of her best friends had recently been put in the ER by an abusive S.O., and, strangely enough, this didn't have her feeling too generously-inclined towards the "she was asking for it" point of view. The moron got quite thoroughly dumped the next day. :)

Hee. I actually ended up doing something worse, sort of. I told the idiot's girlfriend, who I talked to later the same evening, about his point of view. It turned out that one of her best friends had recently been put in the ER by an abusive S.O., and, strangely enough, this didn't have her feeling too generously-inclined towards the "she was asking for it" point of view. The moron got quite thoroughly dumped the next day. :)


Good for you. That asshat deserved it.

Oh for heaven's sake. I have never met anyone who has claimed that being put in time-out for ten minutes caused them pain, let alone "anguish."

Ten minutes? Maybe not.
Half an hour? Maybe.
Where's the line?

Nor have I have ever heard anyone claim that being put in time-out for ten minutes causes permanent physical or emotional damage.

As I said, you never mentioned that as a qualifier.

You've had "abuse" defined for you at least twice now in this thread.

And each time I've pointed out that such definitions could be applied to normal and acceptable punishments.
Feel free to refine the definition and to try again, though.

Please stop claiming that the difference between making a child sit in a corner feeling bored for ten minutes and forcibly shoving a child face-down on the floor and making them lie there for days, weeks, or months is just a trivial variation in degree. It's a specious argument, and I really think you know that.

Have you never seen a kid dragged kicking and screaming to be put on time out? Or ever seen a kid physically forced to sit still?

The only differences between time-out and OP seem to be the duration and the position.

No one is entirely perfect, and no one is entirely horrible. People need to remedy inappropriate behaviors; they don't need to loathe themselves to do so - especially when the "inappropriate behaviors" in question seem largely to be things like experimenting with drugs, wearing clothes their parents disapprove of, having a mental disorder, or generally being a teenager.

Other than the part about drugs, I pretty much agree.

- Not only is it pretty hard to get anyone out of doing some jail time for crimes like murder if there's evidence to convict them, even with a fabulous lawyer, but also, what sort of parent wants to save their child from the hardships of prison by sending them to what is effectively a prison? That doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Which would you choose, the picture of this place painted on their website, or the picture of prison painted in Oz?

- Then neither do the people running Tranquility Bay, and those actions won't be the ones being addressed.

I disagree. What I like about the place (in theory, at least) is that they dissect you and discover (or try) all of your secrets.

- This is absurd. Why not just punish everyone in the world in advance, since all of us might someday kill somebody? Let's all go lie on our faces for a while, just in case!

You're saying that it's impossible for behavior to be predicted?

No. No, no, no, no, no. I have spent a large portion of my life thinking, "I am a bad person who constantly screws up," and there is absolutely no thought in the world less helpful to becoming a better, happier, more functional person. Talk to any psychologist or anyone who's ever been depressed, and I'd bet an awful lot that they'd agree. "I suck" doesn't result in a desire to change. It results in a desire to give up.

That depends on the person, the environment, and the moment.
But we're close enough to agreement on this issue.

Good for you. That asshat deserved it.

I actually have to give karma or something along those lines the credit - because, you see, I didn't know that the girl I was talking to was actually anything more than friends with the idiot until she interrupted me to say, "Wait, you mean Jack LastName? My Jack?" Fate works in mysterious and amusing ways sometimes... :p

I actually have to give karma or something along those lines the credit - because, you see, I didn't know that the girl I was talking to was actually anything more than friends with the idiot until she interrupted me to say, "Wait, you mean Jack LastName? My Jack?" Fate works in mysterious and amusing ways sometimes... :p


Ah. The fickle finger of fate. Gotta love it.

Okay, you're quickly approaching the limit of what I'm willing to listen to. Stop it. Now. You're clearly reasonably literate and capable of understanding simple ideas. Therefore, you are not nearly stupid enough to consider "homework" and "lying on the floor face-down for 18 months" even remotely equivalent.

I've had homework for a lot longer than 18 months.

But (more) seriously, you're taking the absolute record for punishment and using that as an example. That's absurd.

I'm happy for you that you've never encountered anything more painful than "homework," but a lot of people aren't that lucky. Please knock it off, because it's offensive as hell.

I've encountered much worse things, actually. I use homework as an example to point out how petty your qualifications for "torture" and "abuse" are.
You act as if there's a clear line, where it's easy for everybody to see the difference between punishment and abuse, but then you cannot come up with a definition that can't also be applied to common and reasonable punishments.

As for me being "offensive", I'm somehow not too worried about that, considering everything that has been said to me for little to no reason since the start of this thread.

No, they're put in OP for truly horrible offenses like "looking out the window," and "treating others with some modicum of respect rather than obeying orders and ridiculing them." Those little bastards!

And are those the ONLY things that people get put on OP for in this facility?
Once again, you're looking at the angels and I'm looking at the devils.

I've had homework for a lot longer than 18 months.

Most of us have homework nine months out of every year for at least 16 years. Very few of us endure pain or anguish due to it; we mostly endure stress, annoyance, and occasional sleeplessness. I somehow suspect lying on your face nine months of every year for 16 years might be a leeeeeeeeeetle less pleasant, don't you?

But (more) seriously, you're taking the absolute record for punishment and using that as an example. That's absurd.

All right, I'll switch to using "weeks" rather than "18 months." Will you switch to comparing child abuse to something a little less offensively non-abusive than "homework"?

I've encountered much worse things, actually. I use homework as an example to point out how petty your qualifications for "torture" and "abuse" are.
You act as if there's a clear line, where it's easy for everybody to see the difference between punishment and abuse, but then you cannot come up with a definition that can't also be applied to common and reasonable punishments.

I admit that apparently it's not easy for everybody to see, since you are part of everybody. However, you seem to be the only part of "everybody" on this thread who feels any confusion on the subject. Yes, there exist behaviors that are somewhat ambiguous and walk the line between tolerable methods of discipline and abuse. There also exist behaviors that are not one itty bit ambiguous, like, say, assigning homework, or, alternatively, making someone lie face-down on a floor for weeks. Your continued insistence on using these unambiguous behaviors as examples only weakens your argument.

As for me being "offensive", I'm somehow not too worried about that, considering everything that has been said to me for little to no reason since the start of this thread.

I'm sleepy and don't remember everything that has been said to you, and I have no doubt some of it was in error, but I must take issue with the "little to no reason." Whether it's been your intention or not, you've certainly appeared to endorse some rather awful things, at least in cases where you happen to believe the victims deserve it, and appearing to endorse child abuse doesn't exactly endear you to people.

And are those the ONLY things that people get put on OP for in this facility?
Once again, you're looking at the angels and I'm looking at the devils.

No, I'm really not. I'm looking at a bunch of kids, most of whom are probably fairly typical, obnoxious, rebellious, smart-assed teenagers - but I'm really looking at the people in charge. I don't care if a given kid is the biggest asshole ever to walk the face of the earth; abusing him still isn't appropriate behavior.

Effective techniques?

Yes, very. But I am arguing that brainwashing is never right (or at least not in this situation), so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

Who do I need to be?

God, in fact no, I wouldn't give even Him the right to do that.

By definition, it would not be wrong to refuse an unreasonable request.

IF you read my initial post, I think you'll find that part of my condition for sending somebody to this camp is if they constantly refuse reasonable requests.

But what is your definition of reasonable and unreasonable? I assure you it will be different to those of the people being persecuted.

That all depends on who you've been shooting with your guns, and why.
I don't mind stubborness; I'm pretty stubborn myself.
(But let's not get into a contest to see who's worse)

Stubborness is a trait that can be good, or it can be bad, depending on what other behavior it is backing.

Fair enough, good point. It just seemed that you were against it in principle.

Define "everything" in this context.

Their mind.

Try re-reading my initial post.
Where I express my concern that parents would abuse this system.
Then try reading the rest of my posts, and actually thinking about things instead of simply reacting emotionally.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to read back through the nineteen pages. I'll take your word on it, sorry for misrepresenting you.

So hemlock is okay in you book?

If willingly taken, then yes.

(Assuming that I'm the parent)
First, I'd try to figure out what your root problem is that you're trying to self-medicate for, and why you're so rebellious.
Failing that, I'd try to determine the amount of impact that pot was having on your life and I'd learn all I could about the local drug laws.
Then I'd weigh the two and come to a decision between:
a) Turning you in to the cops, IF the drug was doing more harm than the penal system would.
b) Letting the issue drop.
c) Booting you out of the house.
d) Moving someplace where you could not access pot or dangerous peer groups, homeschooling you if necessary. (Not likely to be an affordable option)

If none of those solutions were viable, then I'd do what I could to send you off to a brainwashing organization designed to fix you.
Preferably the US military, but if that was unworkable and if there was an acceptable alternative institution (and if I could afford it), then I would ship you off there.

Fair enough. I don't agree with this standpoint, but I still find it reasonable. It is not as bad as it could have been, even as bad as I suspected. Still don't agree though ;)

You know what that article does? It scares me. I tried to look at it from an entirealy objective point of view and not be influenced by the persuasion of the writer but it still made me sick. Do those kids even know how to think for themselves anymore. I believe that discipline is important but this thing is brainwashing...*shivers* basically it scares me... What if I had been born to parents that would send me to a place like that?

"There is no free time, and you are never alone"

"whereas no child arrives at Tranquility with a release date. Students are judged ready to leave only when they have demonstrated a sincere belief that they deserved to be sent here, and that the programme has, in fact, saved their life."

"On level 1, students are forbidden to speak, stand up, sit down or move without permission."

"for he believes it places troubled teenagers' redemption in their own hands. The choice is theirs."

... then read the next one...

"Students who fail to grasp this formula are forcefully encouraged to get the message. One girl currently has to wear a sign around her neck at all times, which reads: 'I've been in this programme for three years, and I am still pulling crap.'"

"Once a year, Tranquility Bay has a Fun Day. There are sports and special food; girls can braid their hair; staff are smiling. And there is music. Ceaseless, bass-heavy, deafening music. It sends the teenagers out of their minds. They can't stop dancing. Everywhere, students are dancing, demented with fever, as if a switch has been thrown and a surge of energy unleashed through the grounds."

I don't know... that was what jumped out at me... what scaredme ...

Uh, what?
If I tried "Ignoring", "oblivious to", or "exploring" my own kids....?
You're not making sense here.
it = failure to differentiate between the acceptable practise of making children sit bored on a stool facing the corner for 10-15 minutes, and making them lie face down for prolonged periods of times potentially for years on end.

Note the word "enough".
Note the word 'if'. Note that even if we assume bed sores would be avoided by the amount of movement allowed, this does not imply that the amount of movement allowed is sufficient for avoiding physiological damage. These teens are at a crucial stage in their development cycle. Lying on the floor, face down (or face up for that matter) for the majority of their waking hours couldnt not interfer with the developmental processes that must occur if the person is to become a healthy adult.

So's homework.
No homework is not an extreme imposition. It is a minor imposition if it is an imposition at all (whether or not it is an imposition depends on who is doing the homework).

Utterly unacceptable. I know from experiance that for many teens this is just egging them on. Resistance in my case would have occured before capitulation and this would have required I be restrained which would have placed me at risk of physical injury. That is not exactly acceptable either.

So don't resist.[/QUOTE]
So dont resist doesnt cut it. Between a teenager and an adult entrusted with the care of the teenager, the person who has most onus on them to make decisions that uphold and promote the teenager's well being is the adult, not the teen.
Expecting a teenager to capitulate to this degree (as required for OP to end) on pain of long term consequences they cannot see (ie the potential physiological consequences) and short term consequences that they have set themselves against as a matter of pride, identity and peer 'display' is an unreasonable expectation.


I agree that it would [i]feel[/]i unbearable.
But obviously it is NOT unbearable, or the kids would not bear it.
I did not say immediately unbearable. I said 'in time' unbearable. Chinese water torture and not being fed are not immediately unbearable but rather are unbearable after a time.

They would avoid it, even if it meant admitting that they had done something wrong.
Your conclusions appear to have been reached without any consideration for facts. We are talking about teenagers here.
Teenagers are in a particular physiological state. Two things; 1stly: their reasoning is not necessarily reliable during this state, their emotional state is not necessarily reliable in this state, their self-control is not necessarily reliable in this state.

Secondly they are 'in formation', in fact at a crucial stage of over all development. The malable still forming bodies and minds of teenagers are more vulnerable to damage.

And I still don't think it's that psychologically damaging.
Just to be certain; you realise I am not suggesting that (imo) the proceedures at Tranquility Bay are potentially psychologically damaging, I am suggesting they are potentially physiologically damaging (that is either or both psychologically and/or physically damaging)?
I dont believe you have thought about it if you dont see the damage. Human beings are social creatures. Even without the physical restriction on movement, the isolation is potentially damaging even to an adult. That these are teens only deepens the potential likliehood and extent for damage.

This is the main sourse of disagreement. You see the little angels unjustly imprisoned, I see the spoiled and dangerous bastards who feel a deep and stupid need to cause other people trouble.
I do not see little angels unjustly imprisoned at all and I dont think what you see is very well reasoned out.
As it happens you have failed to follow the conversation. The kid should not have been there, refers to the face down on a hard floor for extended periods of time, not 'imprisoned' or 'on camp' or what have you. I dont think criminals ought to be as a matter of routine treated like this.

So if a kid decides for himself what to do, that can cause him damage.
If a person decides for themselves and makes a bad decision, this can cause him or her harm.
I had thought that somewhat obvious.

nd it's a parent's responsibility to decide for them what is best?
Yes it is their [b]responsibility[/].

You're making a good case for their methods.
The case I made was 'the only effective parts of this 'programe' are the bits that qualify as torture/cause psycological damage'. If you call that a good case I have to infer that you believe torturing children/causing them psychological damage is an acceptable means of discipline. I honestly cannot see what the referent of good case is other than torture/pyschological damage.

Would you rather lie on the floor for 24 hours, or have your head beat against a wall?
I'd take the floor.
Not 24 hours, for at least 24 hours.
Which is prefered is irrelevent. The fact that a child can choose to obey under force of threat, does not make the thing that is threatened magically 'not abusive'.

No.
I'd like to point out what you go on to state as your principal, bears no logical relationship to the statement that I summarised your prinicipal from.

My principle is: If the kids have done something wrong, then it is in their best interest to face up to that fact and to learn and grow.
Nothing leads to believe that the treatment dolled out at Tranquility causes these kids to 'fact up to the facts and to learn and grow'.

This goes against the nature of most kids, so they will resist as long as possible.
Ahem, most kids are not criminals, most kids dont grow up to be criminals. Are you advocating this kind of treatment (ie parents placing children in OP at home for 24 hours) for all kids?
Given that most kids are resistent to capitulating, and given that most kids grow up to be healthy contributing members of society, why is expecting these kids to act unlike most kids (ie capitulating) helpful?
The nature of teens is not a choice on their part. There are processes beyond their control and environmental factors that may extend back many years into their child-hoods.
We know these can be turbulent years, I'm not convinced that Tranquility Bay provides an answer for particuarly disruptive instances of teenagers though. In the first place I find it difficult to believe that suddenly teens are 'worse'. I find it hard to believe that available 'resorts' that parents could go to well before Tranquility Bay had been gone to. While you talk about 'last resorts' I expect for many parents this was a preference resort rather than a last resort.
I find it difficult to believe that parents and social factors are not involved if there is an increase in juvenile problems. That being the case, I cannot believe that parents who can afford Tranquilty Bay are not able to sort the problem out by manipulating the offending factors, ie themselves and the social environment they allow their child to access.

The more stubbornly a kid insists on clinging to ego over virtue, the longer it will take to help them. But the kid is the one deciding each time that he/she would rather mindlessly rebel than to help himself/herself become a better person.
It's not necessarily mindless rebelling. And frankly you dont seem to understand a great deal about teenagers.

IF, on the other hand, the kids did nothing wrong and are being hassled for no reason, then of course things are messed up.
Did you even read the artical? Rolling one's eyes is a punishable offence. So I expect is objecting to the negative treatment people are given when they are forced to give up their personal secrets (under threat of having to lie on their face for 24...). I would consider it virtue to stick up for such a person knowing that I would suffer concequences, and cowardice not to. They are not teaching 'orderly behaviour' they are teaching 'persecution of others in the mindless adherence to authority no matter how 'wrong' your rationing minds reasons authority and its persecution to be.

Just like if an innocent person is sent to jail, then things are messed up.
That is not a problem with the punishment, it is a problem with the determination of guilt.
Which simply points out another flaw in the system in this case. Tranquility Bay functions on a 'you pay, your kids stay' system. There's no 'guilt or innocence' there is 'did your parents pay?'....

You seem to be assuming that the determination of guilt is always faulty, that none of these kids have done anything to merit such drastic measures.
I disagree, and say that under certain circumstances there is merit to such tactics.
I am not assuming that at all, I am assuming that no circumstance justifies such meaures...

I agree, except with the idea that making them lie on the floor constitutes abuse.
Right, ring any state child welfare enforcement centre in the Western world and ask them if lying their child face down on the floor except for toilet and sleep breaks, for even a week on end (because they wont say sorry) is acceptable under law. How much money would you like to bet that it does constutite child abuse throughout the Western world?

Yes, they are. They are given two options, and they choose the option that they find less hateful.
In the situations you agree are abuse you agreed that having an alternative to the abuse didnt make the abuse 'not abuse'. So it cant be used to differentiate here either then if you are to be logically consistent. So what differentiates abuse from non-abuse?
You have excluded potential for 'long term physiological damage'. Unbearable after a persistent lenght of time, not proceedurally excluded by the actions constituing the act', so what exactly is the objective criteria that you apply to differentiate between abuse and discipline of children.

Scenario:
You have a child and you catch the kid playing with the oven. You tell the kid not to play with the oven or you will have to put the kid on time out.
The kid hears you, and keeps playing with the oven.
You put the kid on time out.

Did the kid have a choice?
What on earth do you think this has to do with it? Time out is not abuse. Give the objective criteria that we can differentiate acts that are abusive (in terms of outcome/effect for instance) and acts that are acceptable.


They're not put on OP for that.
Normal teenager behaviour is enough to get someone on OP. If a child has been abused, is mentally ill or is in a dysfunctional/disruptive home, this could be enough to have their parents send them to the Bay. Once at the Bay even the most mild and normal of teenager will get them OPed as will refusal to tell intimate and personal emotional details to a group so they can jeer at you, heckle you, humiliate and intimidate you.

Normal teenager behaviour is often unachievable for an unmedicated undiagnosed bi-polar teenager, to mention just one often missed (even having spent copious times with councillors etc), yet the standard is higher than that. It wouldnt be at all 'incredible' for a mentally ill teen to be sent to Tranquility rather than getting the medical intervention they need.

It is an unsafe place without enough independent representation of the child's interests. The parents are admitting they have a child they cannot control. This means they either need assistance or they are inept. The decision as to which of these they are, is probably not best made by them if they are the latter......

If none of those solutions were viable, then I'd do what I could to send you off to a brainwashing organization designed to fix you.

Why not simply euthanise them ? In both cases you are committing murder - one through killing the spirit, one through killing the flesh - but in the second case there at least is no suffering.

Yup.
Just wasn't sure what you were referring to.
Good argument.
What are the ways in which this could be minimized?
By not sending them to Tranquility Bay.

The same could be said for the military, yet many people in the military are capable of making good decisions and acting on individual initiative.
With the military, you are built back up after you are torn down.
If the same does not apply for this sort of reform school, it certainly should.
No the same could not be said of the military. I dont know of a single example of a soldier being made to lie face down this an indefinate duration that could last months.
More to the point, it is entirely different because military enlisted men are 18 + not 18 and under, and that goes without getting into the fact that most people in the military believe in the purpose of the organisation and have joined it willingly.
The fact is the teen years are more crucial than the 18 + years in the formation of physiology, personality etc. People are more vulnerable in these years to both damage and to acquiring mental pathologies.

That can be better than the alternatives.
And that can be worse than the alternatives; I dont see any evidence that it is better than the alternatives.


Check.
I believe that this can be minimized or elminiated (even if not done sufficiently at this particular school).
The only way to minimise or elminate it is to minimise of elminate the aspects of the 'programe' that make it appear effective.

All that can just as easily come from going through the public school system.
Whether or not that is true is utterly irrelevent to the conversation at hand. That you would make such a comment reeks of desperation...:rolleyes:

You are once again assuming that the kids won't cost society if they don't go through the camp/cult. I'm assuming the opposite.
Once again you are making more than enough assumptions for the both of us.

True.
Hyperbolic overstatement.
Or simply incorrect.
So far as I know it is a true statement.

Jesus f*cking Christ!!! In nearly ALL the cases, it seemed, it was the PARENTS f*cking fault the kids were screwed up in the first place! And what do these stupid assholes of parents do? Admit they are bad parents and try to love their children for once in their miserable lives? OF COURSE NOT! Send them to Guantanamo bay were they belong! JESUS! I've never been this angry! :headbang:

Why? F*ck! Death to Jay Kay! :sniper:


EDIT: I re-read the article, and I realized what they're doing there. Read the part where Winston is caught by the though-police in '1984'. Remove some of the brutal beating and you've got "Transquility bay" *Spits*

Sorry for all the swearing, but believe me, I've restrained myself!

Most of us have homework nine months out of every year for at least 16 years. Very few of us endure pain or anguish due to it; we mostly endure stress, annoyance, and occasional sleeplessness.

If something is stressful enough, it can be anguish
"Agonizing physical or mental pain; torment."
I know I've been tormented by assignments for school before.

I somehow suspect lying on your face nine months of every year for 16 years might be a leeeeeeeeeetle less pleasant, don't you?

Of course.

All right, I'll switch to using "weeks" rather than "18 months." Will you switch to comparing child abuse to something a little less offensively non-abusive than "homework"?

Try 24 hours. If they stay in OP longer than that, it was due to their own choice.

I admit that apparently it's not easy for everybody to see, since you are part of everybody. However, you seem to be the only part of "everybody" on this thread who feels any confusion on the subject.

I don't feel confusion. Like you, I feel that things are pretty clear.
Unlike you, I don't consider a lengthy time-out on your face to be abuse.
Since we both feel that things are clear, yet we disagree, I'm trying to determine why you feel as you do.

Yes, there exist behaviors that are somewhat ambiguous and walk the line between tolerable methods of discipline and abuse. There also exist behaviors that are not one itty bit ambiguous, like, say, assigning homework, or, alternatively, making someone lie face-down on a floor for weeks. Your continued insistence on using these unambiguous behaviors as examples only weakens your argument.

If you say so.
Maybe if my argument weakens enough, we'll be on even terms. :)

I'm sleepy and don't remember everything that has been said to you, and I have no doubt some of it was in error, but I must take issue with the "little to no reason." Whether it's been your intention or not, you've certainly appeared to endorse some rather awful things, at least in cases where you happen to believe the victims deserve it, and appearing to endorse child abuse doesn't exactly endear you to people.

All people need to do is to read what I have posted and to think about it.
Yes, I don't have a problem with certain bad things happening to bad people. That's why I'm not protesting the existence of prisons and police.
And I don't see how OP counts as child abuse. It's glorified time-out. Big deal. Sure, it would be unpleasant. That is the point of punishment.

No, I'm really not. I'm looking at a bunch of kids, most of whom are probably fairly typical, obnoxious, rebellious, smart-assed teenagers - but I'm really looking at the people in charge. I don't care if a given kid is the biggest asshole ever to walk the face of the earth; abusing him still isn't appropriate behavior.

I agree.
I just disagree that OP is simple abuse.

If your argument is that "even the biggest asshole on to walk the face of the earth does not deserve such treatment", that's fine.
You should quit trying to bring up points that are irrelvent to that argument, such as people getting OP for stupid reasons like looking out a window, and stupid parents sending their kids to such a place for the wrong reasons.
If you truly want to convince me, then take a worst-case scenario and show me that such a person does not deserve to be brainwashed into behaving themselves.

Yes, very. But I am arguing that brainwashing is never right (or at least not in this situation), so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

I'm posing the opposite view; that brainwashing could well be appropriately applied. Part of my argument is the effectiveness of brainwashing.

God, in fact no, I wouldn't give even Him the right to do that.

So your question was pretty silly then, wasn't it? :)

But what is your definition of reasonable and unreasonable? I assure you it will be different to those of the people being persecuted.

If there are people being persecuted, then by definition they are being treated unfairly and unreasonably.

Fair enough, good point. It just seemed that you were against it in principle.

Their mind.

Okay, so show me evidence that these kids lose their mind from OP.

I'm sorry, I don't have time to read back through the nineteen pages. I'll take your word on it, sorry for misrepresenting you.

Accepted. :)


If willingly taken, then yes.

Then you get points for consistancy, which is pretty important.

Fair enough. I don't agree with this standpoint, but I still find it reasonable. It is not as bad as it could have been, even as bad as I suspected. Still don't agree though ;)

Fair enough. :)

[musing] I doubt that the Jamaican government would particularly care or respond significantly if the place was invaded and sacked. I'd certainly do it. It wouldn't be too hard; get 20 or 30, or maybe even less, people, arm them with rifles, buy a boat, and take it to this horrific hellhole. Subdue or if necessary kill the guards. Pass out plane tickets and limited credit cards to the kids and take them to the nearest international airport. I certainly wouldn't send them back to their either utterly sociopathic or utterly neglectful parents.

[musing] I doubt that the Jamaican government would particularly care or respond significantly if the place was invaded and sacked. I'd certainly do it. It wouldn't be too hard; get 20 or 30, or maybe even less, people, arm them with rifles, buy a boat, and take it to this horrific hellhole. Subdue or if necessary kill the guards. Pass out plane tickets and limited credit cards to the kids and take them to the nearest international airport. I certainly wouldn't send them back to their either utterly sociopathic or utterly neglectful parents.

I don't suppose any reactions were gotten from kids who had left the place, or the parents? Did these harsh methods improve their behavior at all?

I don't suppose any reactions were gotten from kids who had left the place, or the parents? Did these harsh methods improve their behavior at all?

The place reports a "20% success rate", of course what this place considers "success" is open to observation.

Also, apparently lawsuits have been brought up, but due to a few legal difficulties(Got to hand to places like this-they know how to cover their ass), none(as far as I know) were fruitful.

Note the word 'if'. Note that even if we assume bed sores would be avoided by the amount of movement allowed, this does not imply that the amount of movement allowed is sufficient for avoiding physiological damage. These teens are at a crucial stage in their development cycle. Lying on the floor, face down (or face up for that matter) for the majority of their waking hours couldnt not interfer with the developmental processes that must occur if the person is to become a healthy adult.

Somehow, I'm not impressed.

No homework is not an extreme imposition. It is a minor imposition if it is an imposition at all (whether or not it is an imposition depends on who is doing the homework).

I can't remember saying that it was.

So dont resist doesnt cut it. Between a teenager and an adult entrusted with the care of the teenager, the person who has most onus on them to make decisions that uphold and promote the teenager's well being is the adult, not the teen.

And if the adult deems that it is in the teen's best interest to face themselves and become a better person, and that punishment is necessary to accomplish this, then what?
Does the adult also have the onus upon them to determine an appropriate punishment?

Expecting a teenager to capitulate to this degree (as required for OP to end) on pain of long term consequences they cannot see (ie the potential physiological consequences) and short term consequences that they have set themselves against as a matter of pride, identity and peer 'display' is an unreasonable expectation.

Really?
I was under the impression that teenagers were thinking human beings.
I don't find it unreasonable at all to expect them to be able to think about things and to be able to overcome their baser emotions.

I did not say immediately unbearable. I said 'in time' unbearable. Chinese water torture and not being fed are not immediately unbearable but rather are unbearable after a time.

Right.
And when it becomes unbearable, then the kids quit bearing it.

Your conclusions appear to have been reached without any consideration for facts. We are talking about teenagers here.
Teenagers are in a particular physiological state. Two things; 1stly: their reasoning is not necessarily reliable during this state, their emotional state is not necessarily reliable in this state, their self-control is not necessarily reliable in this state.

Again, you're treating teens like they were all inherently deranged or something.

Secondly they are 'in formation', in fact at a crucial stage of over all development. The malable still forming bodies and minds of teenagers are more vulnerable to damage.

I agree, but we seem to disagree about what is more damaging to them.
Personally, I think that cultivating habits of denial and irresponsibility is more damaging than lying down for a day or two.

Just to be certain; you realise I am not suggesting that (imo) the proceedures at Tranquility Bay are potentially psychologically damaging, I am suggesting they are potentially physiologically damaging (that is either or both psychologically and/or physically damaging)?
I dont believe you have thought about it if you dont see the damage. Human beings are social creatures. Even without the physical restriction on movement, the isolation is potentially damaging even to an adult. That these are teens only deepens the potential likliehood and extent for damage.

Ah. Sorry about that, I'm arguing with pretty much everybody and most people are taking the psychological track.
I can certainly agree that there should be some mechanism for making sure that the kids don't suffer permanent physiological harm from OP.

I do not see little angels unjustly imprisoned at all

Okay, then we're both operating under an assumption of OP being used on people who are guilty.

and I dont think what you see is very well reasoned out.
As it happens you have failed to follow the conversation. The kid should not have been there, refers to the face down on a hard floor for extended periods of time, not 'imprisoned' or 'on camp' or what have you. I dont think criminals ought to be as a matter of routine treated like this.

Elaborate on the physical dangers of lying down for long periods of time.

If a person decides for themselves and makes a bad decision, this can cause him or her harm.
I had thought that somewhat obvious.

I think so too.
My full restatement of your position was: " So if a kid decides for himself what to do, that can cause him damage, and it's a parent's responsibility to decide for them what is best?"

By chopping it in half, you lose the meaning.
Leave it intact, and let me know if that is indeed the view that you are expressing.

The case I made was 'the only effective parts of this 'programe' are the bits that qualify as torture/cause psycological damage'. If you call that a good case I have to infer that you believe torturing children/causing them psychological damage is an acceptable means of discipline. I honestly cannot see what the referent of good case is other than torture/pyschological damage.

That's the case you tried to make.
The case you actually made, as far as I'm concerned, is spelling out why the seemingly cruel 24 hour period is necessary in order to break the kids down enough to fix them.
It seemed an overly long period of time to me, but you may well be right that a lesser time period would be ineffective.

Not 24 hours, for at least 24 hours.

Okay, fair enough.

Which is prefered is irrelevent. The fact that a child can choose to obey under force of threat, does not make the thing that is threatened magically 'not abusive'.

It's a matter of degree. I consider having your head beaten against a wall to be abusive. I do NOT consider lying on the floor to be abusive.
I find it strange that you lump these two things in together.

I'd like to point out what you go on to state as your principal, bears no logical relationship to the statement that I summarised your prinicipal from.

Then you picked the wrong statement.

Nothing leads to believe that the treatment dolled out at Tranquility causes these kids to 'fact up to the facts and to learn and grow'.

I disagree.
The initial article showed a very effective method of forcing kids to face themselves and how their actions affect people around them.

Ahem, most kids are not criminals, most kids dont grow up to be criminals. Are you advocating this kind of treatment (ie parents placing children in OP at home for 24 hours) for all kids?

Of course not.
Just like I wouldn't endorse prison for most people, and like I wouldn't endorse unnecessary heart surgery for most people.

Given that most kids are resistent to capitulating, and given that most kids grow up to be healthy contributing members of society, why is expecting these kids to act unlike most kids (ie capitulating) helpful?

I don't consider it a given that most kids grow up to be healthy contributing memebers of society, actually.

The nature of teens is not a choice on their part. There are processes beyond their control and environmental factors that may extend back many years into their child-hoods.

That's a load of bull.
Teenagers are not just retarded robots; they have as much free will as anybody else.

We know these can be turbulent years, I'm not convinced that Tranquility Bay provides an answer for particuarly disruptive instances of teenagers though. In the first place I find it difficult to believe that suddenly teens are 'worse'. I find it hard to believe that available 'resorts' that parents could go to well before Tranquility Bay had been gone to. While you talk about 'last resorts' I expect for many parents this was a preference resort rather than a last resort.

Unfortunately, so do I.
As I have mentioned.

I find it difficult to believe that parents and social factors are not involved if there is an increase in juvenile problems.
That being the case, I cannot believe that parents who can afford Tranquilty Bay are not able to sort the problem out by manipulating the offending factors, ie themselves and the social environment they allow their child to access.

They likely could, but they're too busy, incompetent, messed up, or simply stupid.
Or the kid is just too out of control for some other reason, more than the parent can handle.

It's not necessarily mindless rebelling.

If it's not about mindlessly rebelling, then what IS it about?

And frankly you dont seem to understand a great deal about teenagers.

I was one once, if that helps any.

Did you even read the artical? Rolling one's eyes is a punishable offence.

I can see circumstances where this might be appropriate.

So I expect is objecting to the negative treatment people are given when they are forced to give up their personal secrets (under threat of having to lie on their face for 24...). I would consider it virtue to stick up for such a person knowing that I would suffer concequences, and cowardice not to. They are not teaching 'orderly behaviour' they are teaching 'persecution of others in the mindless adherence to authority no matter how 'wrong' your rationing minds reasons authority and its persecution to be.

Why are you so against giving up secrets?

Which simply points out another flaw in the system in this case. Tranquility Bay functions on a 'you pay, your kids stay' system. There's no 'guilt or innocence' there is 'did your parents pay?'....

Absolutely true. That is messed up.

I am not assuming that at all, I am assuming that no circumstance justifies such meaures...

Then quit pointing to things like eye-rolling and other stuff. It's irrelevent to your basic assumption that NO circumstances justify such measures.
Pick something much more severe and show me how even a serious offense doesn't warrent such measures.
If I was going to argue against the death penalty, I wouldn't start by saying, "Well, nobody deserves to die for littering..." because it's weak.
I'd start with "Okay, let's imagine a textbook case where people would think the death penalty is appropriate. Say some guy used a toddler to beat a nun to death, just because he was in a bad mood. Even HE doesn't deserve to die because...."

If you seriously think that NOBODY deserves such treatment, show me that NOBODY deserves it. Not that people who sneeze at the wrong time don't deserve it.

Right, ring any state child welfare enforcement centre in the Western world and ask them if lying their child face down on the floor except for toilet and sleep breaks, for even a week on end (because they wont say sorry) is acceptable under law. How much money would you like to bet that it does constutite child abuse throughout the Western world?

I'm sure that they would indeed say that it constitutes abuse.
I'm not sure that they would be right.

In the situations you agree are abuse you agreed that having an alternative to the abuse didnt make the abuse 'not abuse'. So it cant be used to differentiate here either then if you are to be logically consistent. So what differentiates abuse from non-abuse?
You have excluded potential for 'long term physiological damage'. Unbearable after a persistent lenght of time, not proceedurally excluded by the actions constituing the act', so what exactly is the objective criteria that you apply to differentiate between abuse and discipline of children.

Good question.
I'd say that it's a measure of whether the cure is worse than the disease, and the accuracy in treating the problem.
If the "cure" causes more severe problems than it solves, then it would be abuse.

What on earth do you think this has to do with it? Time out is not abuse.

It wasn't a question of whether time out was abuse, the question is about choice. You seemed to be saying that in OP, the kids don't have any choice about how long they are forced to lie down.
I have the view that anything past that first 24 hours is a choice that you make.
So answer my scenario instead of dodging it, or explain how I misinterpreted you and that you already agree with my view.

Normal teenager behaviour is enough to get someone on OP.

You and I have likely have different ideas of what constitutes "normal teenage behavior".

Why not simply euthanise them ? In both cases you are committing murder - one through killing the spirit, one through killing the flesh - but in the second case there at least is no suffering.

:rolleyes:

No the same could not be said of the military. I dont know of a single example of a soldier being made to lie face down this an indefinate duration that could last months.

Believe it or not, there are other ways to break a person down other than lying them on their face for months.
The military is quite good at utilizing other methods of accomplishing the same thing.

More to the point, it is entirely different because military enlisted men are 18 + not 18 and under, and that goes without getting into the fact that most people in the military believe in the purpose of the organisation and have joined it willingly.
The fact is the teen years are more crucial than the 18 + years in the formation of physiology, personality etc. People are more vulnerable in these years to both damage and to acquiring mental pathologies.

So you'd have no problem with the place if the people inside were over the age of consent and volunteered to be there?

The only way to minimise or elminate it is to minimise of elminate the aspects of the 'programe' that make it appear effective.

You give up too easy.

Whether or not that is true is utterly irrelevent to the conversation at hand. That you would make such a comment reeks of desperation...:rolleyes:

You were making the argument that because Tranquility Bay might cause these problems, then it must be horrible abuse.
I was pointing out that IF you are right, then lots of things would fall into the same category.

Also, apparently lawsuits have been brought up, but due to a few legal difficulties(Got to hand to places like this-they know how to cover their ass), none(as far as I know) were fruitful.

This place reminds me very much of Fred Phelps' bunch - the insane, horrific anti-gay idiots who protest at the funerals of soldiers? Even though their activities are utterly sickening, they manage to stave off legal challenges and take a sort of 'ha-ha-we-got-off' pride in doing so. These guys are exactly the same - horrific practices and protection behind legalities.

This place reminds me very much of Fred Phelps' bunch - the insane, horrific anti-gay idiots who protest at the funerals of soldiers? Even though their activities are utterly sickening, they manage to stave off legal challenges and take a sort of 'ha-ha-we-got-off' pride in doing so. These guys are exactly the same - horrific practices and protection behind legalities.



I think that pretty well sums it up.

Somehow, I'm not impressed

[QUOTE]I can't remember saying that it was.
Whether or not you remember doesnt change the fact that you did say it (post 275).

And if the adult deems that it is in the teen's best interest to face themselves and become a better person, and that punishment is necessary to accomplish this, then what?
Big ifs. In the first place I dont know that this 'punishment' is capable of achieving what you describe. I would in fact prima facie question the parental capabilities of anyone who deemed that such treatment as OP were in their child's best interests.

Does the adult also have the onus upon them to determine an appropriate punishment?
Yes, with emphasis on the word 'appropriate'.

Really?
Yes, really.
I was under the impression that teenagers were thinking human beings.
Most human beings are. This does not exclude them from making poor decisions, from engaging in high risk - low(/or no) reward behaviour, or otherwise acting to self harm or ommiting to act to avoid harm.

I don't find it unreasonable at all to expect them to be able to think about things and to be able to overcome their baser emotions.
Then you dont know a lot about the neurochemistry and biological factors involved. For a start the portion of the brain that reasons is not fully structurally developed.

Right.
And when it becomes unbearable, then the kids quit bearing it.
So what? It is unacceptable treatment even if the kids quit bearing it at the first opportunity (24 hours after commencement).
Unless your point is that the ability to capitulate to one's tormentor's demands in order to avoid a particular abuse of one's person makes the abuse magically 'not abuse' I do not see what point you are intending to make with such comments.

Again, you're treating teens like they were all inherently deranged or something.
No, treating teens as if they are teens. Teenagers are not 'short' adults. They are physically different to adults in physical brain structure and they have a different neurochemistry.

I agree, but we seem to disagree about what is more damaging to them.
Personally, I think that cultivating habits of denial and irresponsibility is more damaging than lying down for a day or two.
Nice false dichotomy. I think both choices are stupid and am thankful that there are many more alternatives available, even if disturbed at other peoples' apparent inability (or unwillingness) to see those alternatives.

Ah. Sorry about that, I'm arguing with pretty much everybody and most people are taking the psychological track.
I'm taking the physiological track. It's a crucial time in the development of bodies and brains, and it's also a crucial time in the development of personality and self identity.
I honestly believe you do not understand the quality, extent and effects of the physical processes that are taking place.

I can certainly agree that there should be some mechanism for making sure that the kids don't suffer permanent physiological harm from OP.
No such mechanism is demonstrated to exist in the case we are actually discussing...

Okay, then we're both operating under an assumption of OP being used on people who are guilty.
Er no, you are guilty of making too many assumptions.

Elaborate on the physical dangers of lying down for long periods of time.
Musculature damage.

I think so too.
My full restatement of your position was: " So if a kid decides for himself what to do, that can cause him damage, and it's a parent's responsibility to decide for them what is best?"
I'm not sure why you think I need to be reminded of my position. I have not forgotten my earlier comments...

By chopping it in half, you lose the meaning.
Leave it intact, and let me know if that is indeed the view that you are expressing.
Which view? That parents have a responsibilty to uphold the well being of their non-adult children?

That's the case you tried to make.
No, that's the case I believe I have made. You might disagree with the discription of the acts/practises refered to (ie not consider them child abuse) but so far as I can tell you have not disagreed that the removal of these aspects would render the programe ineffective.

The case you actually made, as far as I'm concerned, is spelling out why the seemingly cruel 24 hour period is necessary in order to break the kids down enough to fix them.
Nothing I have said argues that the OP is the necessary to 'break the kids down', nothing I have said argues that breaking them down is necessary to fixing them, nothing I have said argues that breaking them down is consistent with fixing them...

It seemed an overly long period of time to me, but you may well be right that a lesser time period would be ineffective.
The artical establishes that 24 hours is not necessarily effective. In fact for 80% of all internees, everything the camp throws at them doesnt achieve what it is hyped up as achieving. We are talking about an 80% failure rate here! So the treatment doesnt even have the 'saving grace' you have somehow got yourself believing in - ie that it works...frankly it's an abysmal failure...

Okay, fair enough.
It's a matter of degree. I consider having your head beaten against a wall to be abusive. I do NOT consider lying on the floor to be abusive.
I find it strange that you lump these two things in together.
It's not strange at all. Works on the same principal.
A matter of degree is a cope out. In other words you have no objective 'effect referent' criteria. If you want to call it 'not abuse' you claim it doesnt cross this conceptual, never explicitly stated line of degree, however if you want to claim 'it is abuse' you say it does cross the line. All without ever actually defining the line, defining abuse, or even proving that you actually have a definition that you consistently hold from one issue to the next. Sounds awfully flimsy to me, although rather obviously convinient for you.

Then you picked the wrong statement.
Except the statement I picked is the one you responded to. I suggest another case of those memory bugs of yours.

I disagree.
LOL, this much I have ascertained....;)

The initial article showed a very effective method of forcing kids to face themselves and how their actions affect people around them.
No it doesnt show that at all. One might choose to infer that the events and occurences described in the artical could be so interpreted, but unless you can demonstrate why such a counter-intuitive interpretation is more robust or sound than more intuitive interpretations, it would seem somewhat silly to take up such an interpretation.

Of course not.
Just like I wouldn't endorse prison for most people, and like I wouldn't endorse unnecessary heart surgery for most people.
Sorry the 'abusiveness' or otherwise of an act (or ommision) lies in the act (or ommision) not in the person it is being perpetrated on.

I don't consider it a given that most kids grow up to be healthy contributing memebers of society, actually.
Fine and well but if you intend to posit your consideration as a premise of your argument, you will need to substantiate it.

That's a load of bull.
Teenagers are not just retarded robots; they have as much free will as anybody else.
Let's not get into a discussion about free-will just yet (LOL, like we need further complications at this juncture in our conversation....;) ).
I have not suggested anything about retardedness, or robotism...
Whether you know it or like it, teenage brains are structurally different to adult brains. Unless you can prove that brain structure is not a factor in reasoning and decision making you have already demonstrated yourself to be rationalising based on fantasy rather than reality.

Unfortunately, so do I.
As I have mentioned.
.....:rolleyes: ...

They likely could, but they're too busy, incompetent, messed up, or simply stupid.
Well done, you have just defeated yourself in an argument...

Or the kid is just too out of control for some other reason, more than the parent can handle.
You've lost me, you think that OP is acceptable if it is necessary (there being no other alternative that achieves the result) yet concede that it isnt necessarily necessary.
In fact given the 80% failure rate, I suggest it's not even effective, much less necessary.

If it's not about mindlessly rebelling, then what IS it about?
It could be defensive for a start.

I was one once, if that helps any.
Apparently it doesnt.

I can see circumstances where this might be appropriate.
I see no circumstances where it is appropriate to apply it to a 'troubled teen'. Seems more harm than good would come of such an application.

Why are you so against giving up secrets?
Who said I was against it? I certainly never made such a statement. I'm sure I dont need to define for you the difference between 'giving' and 'being extorted'?

Absolutely true. That is messed up.
Yet it appears to be crucial to the continuity of Tranquility Bay and it's ilk... which ought to suggest something to you in it's own right.

Then quit pointing to things like eye-rolling and other stuff. It's irrelevent to your basic assumption that NO circumstances justify such measures.
If it is relevent and appropriate I see no reason why I should not raise such issues.

Pick something much more severe and show me how even a serious offense doesn't warrent such measures.
You pick something and prove it does warrent the measures, please be sure to indicate if it warrents the measures simply for malicious get backs of if you intend the measures only if they are remedial. Since I dont see them as being remedial and only as beking malicious, insert anything you want and I still wont see the measures as justified unless and untill you prove it is both necessary and sufficient for improving the long term behaviour or survivability odds of certain teens or certain classes of teens.

If I was going to argue against the death penalty, I wouldn't start by saying, "Well, nobody deserves to die for littering..." because it's weak.
I'd start with "Okay, let's imagine a textbook case where people would think the death penalty is appropriate. Say some guy used a toddler to beat a nun to death, just because he was in a bad mood. Even HE doesn't deserve to die because...."
Except I didnt say the treatment shouldnt occur because eye rolling doesnt warrent it. I referred to eye rolling in order to demonstrate that excessive and extreme behaviour on the part of the teens was not necessary in order for OP to occur.

If you seriously think that NOBODY deserves such treatment, show me that NOBODY deserves it. Not that people who sneeze at the wrong time don't deserve it.
You are unreasonably placing an onus on me to prove a negative.

I'm sure that they would indeed say that it constitutes abuse.
I'm not sure that they would be right.
Of course they would call it abuse and of course they would be correct.

Good question.
I'd say that it's a measure of whether the cure is worse than the disease, and the accuracy in treating the problem.
If the "cure" causes more severe problems than it solves, then it would be abuse.
I have seen no evidence that the 'cure' actually does cure, I can see plenty of scope for harm though.

It wasn't a question of whether time out was abuse, the question is about choice. You seemed to be saying that in OP, the kids don't have any choice about how long they are forced to lie down.
I did not say any such thing and if you infered that I implied or seemed to say as much then that is all your own work. I have stated that the choice on the part of the teen to capitulate or not doesnt make the OP itself their choice (I expect most if not all teens would choose to not be in such a position as to have only those alternatives), and more to the point that the choice of capitulation or not does not make the OP non-abusive.

I have the view that anything past that first 24 hours is a choice that you make.
So answer my scenario instead of dodging it, or explain how I misinterpreted you and that you already agree with my view.
Aha, but your veiw appears to posit a fantasy in which teens are 'mini-adults' with the same brain functioning as adults (or at least the same capacity to reliably and consistently make reasoned choices for themselves) for the reality in which teens and their brains are semi-formed and under construction.

You and I have likely have different ideas of what constitutes "normal teenage behavior".
Until you demonstrate otherwise I have to conclude that your understanding of teenaged persons is limited.

Meh. Kids in the third world have it worse. At least these ones aren’t starving.

It is rather soothing, though, to think of those cocky ass kids being forced to live a life outside suburbia.

I've noticed a good portion of the posters seem to know exactly how things work inside the facility. Secondary sources, such as new articles will juice a story for all it's worth to make it seem more interesting, thus you can't know for sure everything you are reading is true.

While I know the descriptions of the levels and punishments may be true, the actual 'beatings' and 'living conditions' can not be deemed reliable from an outside source. Only by a diary or on-scene interview could determine the finer details of this compound.

:rolleyes:

My question was serious. Why is brainwashing someone through torture until they break better than simply euthansing them.

Of course, I would personally prefer neither happens, but if you gave me the choice I seriously would chose the latter.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

Yes, it does. Unfortunately, the spaces and loopholes that are meant to protect otherwise innocent people are abused by douchebags who make sure to cover their ass before they engage in under other circumstances illegal acts. The only people who seem to look for a loopholes are the ones who need to be worrying about legal ramifications(or in otherwords, criminals).

"Every time I come here I'm just so struck by the love of these people. You can't fake this kind of love. And this place is just full of love. I challenge anyone to come down and take a look."
Well, it sounds like they have a regular Ministry of Love humming along down in good old Jamaica...

A straight-A high-school graduate, she was heading for Harvard until an unsuitable choice of boyfriend had her sent here at the age of 17.Well, damn.

The students all describe their pre-programme selves using the same subjective descriptions, such as 'ignorant' or 'disrespectful', as if these were neutral adjectives, like 'brown'. Their delivery, too, is disturbingly similar, for the words come out like empty envelopes, emotionally vacant.
"Raymond Shaw -- I mean Jay Kay -- is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

Students also take part in seminars - phenomenally confrontational three-day sessions which are calculated to induce what approaches mass hysteria."The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic." ... "At those moments his secret loathing of Big Brother changed into adoration, and Big Brother seemed to tower up, an invincible, fearless protector."

And parents have a financial incentive to believe and proselytise. For every new customer they can recruit, a month's fees for their own child are waived.It's like a chain letter, you see. A fascist, soul-crushing chain letter.

Dr Chappuis thoroughly enjoys working at Tranquility, and it shows. "It's a lot of fun! I love it. Just the satisfaction of seeing these kids change."Or snap. It's a matter of semantics, really.

I know what they can do: Charter themselves a boat, get a bunch of assault rifles and shoot those psychopaths who run that place. And the parents too.
I hope you aren’t being serious.

Honestly, I just can’t bring myself to feel sorry for a bunch of rich spoiled teenagers, no matter their potion.

I love it... :rolleyes:

Lets see, I'm an absolute failure as a parent. But instead of making changes in myself for the sake of my child and actually dicipline them, I'll just ship them off to a prison camp so I don't have to deal with it. Its cheaper than boarding school, and we can stay at the local all-inclusive resort and get pampered when we go visit.

Lovely parenting. And people wonder why kids are totally F'd up these days...:headbang:

I sent out 3 emails, 2 to the owners of this "school" and one to the other address i had :D
That was months ago and i never got a reply, i don't think they like hate mail.