this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
389 points (98.0% liked)
Insane People Quora
159 readers
2 users here now
A community for weird/insane questions and answers you see on Quora
Please obscure all usernames or identifying info!
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You have nothing if you don't provide sources besides a claim that you've made. I've seen studies too and every one I've seen specifically references teenagers. There's also studies that say "taking something away" doesn't work, yet you do that by taking away video games.
Taking things away from our kids to help them change their behaviour often looks like taking away privileges, toys, or activities. There are a few reasons why “taking things away” is an ineffective method of discipline.
You'll notice this article cites their sources.
Twice you've avoided sourcing your claims. Why should any third party reading this thread believe what you say? Why should I?
So you don't believe the studies that show your method is ineffective but you do believe the ones you continue to avoid sourcing?
Taking things away from our kids to help them change their behaviour often looks like taking away privileges, toys, or activities. There are a few reasons why “taking things away” is an ineffective method of discipline.
You made a claim of fact and yet refuse to source it so why should I believe some random stranger that their "sources" exist?
In fact, you do the exact thing you're against in a different way. Sure, you don't take your child's door; instead you take something else
I'd love to see your "sources" that state taking a door away from an 8-10 year old is "shattering their trust".
Edit: of course you downvote, still without providing sources.
That's three times you've now avoided providing your "sources".
You're not? I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to provide the studies you to cited. And you clearly downvoted them. Anybody can view votes on Lemmy using lemvotes. They're public on Lemmy, that's why I don't voting either way though I might move to Piefed when lemm.ee goes offline.
Four times you've avoided providing your "sources".
Votes are public on Lemmy. That's how I know you went back and downvoted every one of my comments on this post after I called you out for downvoting my one comment.
You started to deflect and refuse to source your claims after I pointed out your hypocrisy and continue to do so.
You could backup your original claims by posting supporting sources, or you could have phrased your original comment as your opinion, which it seems clear now it was.
If they provide sources your comments are going to look pretty silly.
Maybe, but I don't think the sources exist. Certainly not specific to the situation I described in my anecdote.
I'd love to read them if they're real but I pose this question to you:
If they've read these studies why would the still use a punishment method on their child that's been proven ineffective through those same studies?
I know that current methodology is to use positive reinforcement and feedback methods to deal with children's behavioral issues, why don't they?
I don't know, but it doesn't automatically have to be malicious. Though I agree that citing the specific studies they were talking about would pretty easily put it to rest.
Still no sources I see.
Taking things away from our kids to help them change their behaviour often looks like taking away privileges, toys, or activities. There are a few reasons why “taking things away” is an ineffective method of discipline.
hy·poc·ri·sy /həˈpäkrəsē/ noun the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform
Seems like the definition of hypocrisy. It's a profoundly terrible idea based on these "studies/insight" you won't provide yet you do it yourself.
If you bothered with the link I've posted 3 times which is sourced, something your own claims aren't.
I don't need to resort to personal attacks and deflect when challenged.
Did you read the article linked in their reply? I think the hypocrisy they reference is that you're okay with taking things away which the sourced article they provide says is ineffective.
Do the studies you've read not explain that because the ones cited in the article seem to.
I don't need your help on this.