Originally posted by debbiejo
3 years old is not an infant...A person developes most of their personality by age 5 from what I've read...First 5 years are the most important years.
So are you going to bless us with your theory on how an CHILD of 3 years old will retain the experience in memory?
To add: Also explain how you believe he's going to have a traumatic life? Especially seeing as he won't remember most likely.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well in your case it wasn't traumatic. So with the above case, all's for nought isn't it? With relevance to this thread.Infact you proved my point. If your parents continued to stress it to you, things likely would have been different.
typical ac response: your post is irrelivant and in fact proves me right...for reasons which i will not state. thats even more annoying than "chill out 🙂 "
maybe you should give that a rest, ya think?
anyway
its completely relevant because to assume that a 3 year old cant retain memories through to adulthood is ridiculous. sure memories are scattered and fleeting, but they can be retained with NO suggestion. that was my point. now how does that, as always without fail, prove you 100% right? again?
im sure if i had a memory of being raped at 3, it would traumatise the hell out of me once i was able to comprehend. memories and revelations are quite possible without a parent's intervention
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, but she's 3. You started with "If". Let's go back to my previous questions:How likely is it that a 3 year old is going to grow up and have a traumatic life as a result of something she/he isn't even old enough to remember or connect feelings to?-AC
your assumption. how are you sure that he wont remember on his own?
Originally posted by PVS
typical ac response: you're post is irrelivant and in fact proves me right...for reasons which i will not state. thats even more annoying than "chill out 🙂 "
I believe the best is along the lines of:
"...and to think you thought you were right! 😆 Okay, try again next time- 😆 I win, and I'm done with this thread. 😆 Good night, I promise I won't post again 'cause I win! 😆
Oh, one more time for ya - loooooser: 😆 "
Originally posted by PVS
typical ac response: you're post is irrelivant and in fact proves me right...for reasons which i will not state. thats even more annoying than "chill out 🙂 "
maybe you should give that a rest, ya think?
If you won't state the reasons, then there's no reason for me to believe there are any. Nice one.
Originally posted by PVS
anywayits completely relevant because to assume that a 3 year old cant retain memories through to adulthood is ridiculous. sure memories are scattered and fleeting, but they can be retained with NO suggestion. that was my point.
now how does that, as always without fail, prove you 100% right? again?
Because whilst it MAY retain the memories, it's extremely unlikely that it will have an emotional connection enough to have a traumatic life. You remembered your experience, it didn't damage you though.
If the parents of the baby say something like: "We're so glad to have you with us. You got abducted and sexually abused by a man at 3 years old! It's all alright now though, cos we've got you back." What effect will it have? Negative, most likely. If they shut up about it, the obvious opposite.
Originally posted by PVS
im sure if i had a memory of being raped at 3, it would traumatise the hell out of me once i was able to comprehend. memories and revelations are quite possible without a parent's intervention
Yeah, but that is not only a hypothetical assumption, it's one that solely applies to you. There couldn't be anything more irrelevant to say. We SHOULD be talking in general. Referencing personal experience is fine, applying it to everything else isn't.
Originally posted by PVS
your assumption. how are you sure that he wont remember on his own?
I'm not sure he won't. I'm pretty sure that without parental intervention, he won't be traumatised.
Could I be wrong? Yes. Am I right in saying that parental emphasis makes things worse? Yes.
Be right back, left my case open. Needs closing.
-AC
I almost died when I was younger, but I don't remember much of it... posttraumatic stress varies on factors directly linked to the environment around the person, AND the person themselves.
I was in a wreck last march and my car was totalled, I was nervous around the spot of my accident, but got over it after a few drives on that spot. My mother was in a wreck, with me and my brother, and she had been nervous for years, my brother for months, and I for about 2 or 3 weeks.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You remembered your experience, it didn't damage you though.
because it wasnt traumatic. even if i experienced it today, however i would want to forget it, the conclusion would be joy that it was over and i was ok. there was no element of violation and victimisation. big difference. the only reason i brought it up was for the point that children 3 years old can remember significant moments in their life.
even though the kid couldnt comprehend rape, things were certainly f***ed up from his perspective, enough to take a prominent space in his memory, as opposed to everyday experiences.
in fact, the separation from his family, the pain he must have felt...you honestly believe he wasnt terrified? i doubt he has to know what rape means to already feel trauma.
That's all based on major assumption.
Let's look at my original point. Babies don't like to be away from their parents, no matter what. I'm willing to bet for sure that the kid was upset to be away from his parents purely because...he was away from his parents. Not because he sat there and thought "Oh god, I'm getting sexually abused and have been abducted!". Kids get abducted by strangers for the same reason. "Hi Kid, your mother sent me to get you." The baby doesn't think "Hmm...well no she didn't. You may be attempting to lure me into an otherwise dangerous situation." does it? Let's be real.
My point is, whether he retains the memories or not, it's not a dead certain fact that he will have a traumatised life. He's 3. What debbiejo said was a huge over-reaction. The point made in connection with that by both VVD and myself is how parental intervention can make or break. If parents shut up about it, it drastically lowers the chance of traumatisation than if they force their kid to remember, which he may very well not.
Comprende? Swell. That's all I was saying. I'm sure you know that parental intervention can reduce or increase trauma.
If a kid hurts himself, there's nothing worse than to exacerbate the situation by running over there screaming "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD HE'S BLEEDING!". Same applies.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So are you going to bless us with your theory on how an CHILD of 3 years old will retain the experience in memory?To add: Also explain how you believe he's going to have a traumatic life? Especially seeing as he won't remember most likely.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My point is, whether he retains the memories or not, it's not a dead certain fact that he will have a traumatised life. He's 3. What debbiejo said was a huge over-reaction. The point made in connection with that by both VVD and myself is how parental intervention can make or break. If parents shut up about it, it drastically lowers the chance of traumatisation than if they force their kid to remember, which he may very well not.
right, nothing is dead certain. its possible for the kid to not remember, and even hopeful. either way, the parents should not remind the kid and instill trauma where there (in such a case) would be none.
however, the same could be damaging if the kid WAS traumatised and the parents chose the method of not addressing the problem and getting therapy for the kid.
so no, its not always ok for the parent to just "shut up" but rather not be destructive in their handling of the situation.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Comprende? Swell.-AC
just had to end it on a condicending childish note again huh?
fine i'll bite:
chill out 🙂
Originally posted by PVS
you implied that she was 100% wrong
then you cut back the absolute thinking a tad with 'most likely'
I do love all this.
Did I imply that, or are you infering? Did I cut back or did I elaborate on my point that you are misconstruing? Yes exactly, don't dive in. Though you do like to do this. Misunderstand then when explanations are offered, claim that it's excuses being made.
Originally posted by PVS
so quit acting like you mean 'some' all along, rather than a child's
memory of such an event to be some rare case.
See above.
Originally posted by PVS
right, nothing is dead certain. its possible for the kid to not remember, and even hopeful. either way, the parents should not remind the kid and instill trauma where there (in such a case) would be none.
Which was my original point. Funny that.
Originally posted by PVS
however, the same could be damaging if the kid WAS traumatised and the parents chose the method of not addressing the problem and getting therapy for the kid.
Not the case though is it? The kid was traumatised. We're not talking about what could happen oppositely, just in this case and similar cases. So what you said was irrelevant. You highlighted a completely different scenario.
Let's recap. My point: Parental intervention can increase or even cause traumatisation. Right? Yes. Done.
Originally posted by PVS
so no, its not always ok for the parent to just "shut up" but rather not be destructive in their handling of the situation.
Did I say shut up entirely and not help? Or did I say shut up ABOUT the trauma? Let's see:
Me: "If the parents of the baby say something like: "We're so glad to have you with us. You got abducted and sexually abused by a man at 3 years old! It's all alright now though, cos we've got you back." What effect will it have? Negative, most likely. If they shut up about it, the obvious opposite."
There we go 🙂. Delightful.
Originally posted by PVS
just had to end it on a condicending childish note again huh?
fine i'll bite:chill out 🙂
I end on a true, relevant and apparantly condescending note, you end on a hypocritical one. I certainly am not coming off looking a tad silly here. Your bites are all gum, ironically in a thread about babies. What a funny old game this is.
Anyway, we've established that we agree on the parental intervention. So you delving into opposite scenarios which were neither relevant or denied, isn't needed. Anything else to add?
-AC
look ac, i know you get hot and bothered at the idea of fulfilling your role as 'tireless rebutter' again, but it will have to be with someone else.
so ill just point out your blind assumptions of what is likely and what is not likely>>>>as opposed to what is simply POSSIBLE. surely you can see the difference between....
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How likely is it that a 3 year old is going to grow up and have a traumatic life as a result of something she/he isn't even old enough to remember or connect feelings to?How likely is it that, in the event of it having a traumatic life, the parents are responsible?
Answer to the first: Not likely.
Answer to second: Much more likely than the latter.
-AC
based on what? do you have figures to back up your claim that it is unlikely that the kid will remember? and while your at it, please present whatever studies you have read into that state the obvious tilt in the ratio of parents who contribute to a child's trauma to parents who do not.
FACT: your statements are NOT of mere posibility, but rather an assumption that your stated example is far more frequent. again: based on what?
im not twisting your words here, but rather you are being very shifty in an attempt to 'win' once again. once the possibility for your case is acknowledged you go on to assume that your assumption is most likely the case...of coarse you add the obligatory disclaimer that its not certain. well thank you for that, but once again, how is it that you feel you can then go beyond the bounds of acknowledging possibility and blindly assume the frequency of circumstance unchecked?
i only quoted a single example, as i dont feel like flooding the page with your dodgy assumptions
Originally posted by PVS
look ac, i know you get hot and bothered at the idea of fulfilling your role as 'tireless rebutter' again, but it will have to be with someone else.
And the hypocricy flies. It really does puzzle me how someone with such zest for striking down hypocrites is, infact, one of the biggest on this site.
Originally posted by PVS
so ill just point out your blind assumptions of what is likely and what is not likely>>>>as opposed to what is simply POSSIBLE. surely you can see the difference between....
Oh look, kids. PVS missed a part again:
How likely is it that a 3 year old is going to grow up and have a traumatic life as a result of something she/he isn't even old enough to remember or connect feelings to?
It's not a common occurance for adults to retain mass details of things that occur at such a young age. Fair enough, I should have indeed noted that it wasn't likely as opposed to not possible. But what's this!
There are these things called past, present and future tense. I used some in my post, see if you can figure out where and then use that to see where you went wrong in pulling that out. Sweet.
Originally posted by PVS
based on what? do you have figures to back up your claim that it is unlikely that the kid will remember?
Stats are like a lamp post to a drunk man. More for leaning on than actual illumination. I've said it before and I'm saying it again.
How many adults do YOU know who can tirelessly and effectively remember details so graphically, that it disturbs them? From age 3 or circa that time. When it's speculation all you can do is say likely or unlikely, which is what I did. I said likely. See? Read the quote.
Moreover, you've done the exact same thing no more than a couple posts ago.
Originally posted by PVS
and while your at it, please present whatever studies you have read into that state the obvious tilt in the ratio of parents who contribute to a child's trauma to parents who do not.
When did this become about the amount of parents who contribute to trauma and the amount who don't? It's the effect who those who do compared to those who don't, that I have proposed YOU look into. Come back and join the topic, PVS.
So the little recap didn't work. Cool, we'll go over it again (which I'm surpised at since you already agreed with me):
A parental unit who intervene with their children and continually remind them OF the trauma, will have more of a negative effect than those who do not. Simple logic. It's like on South Park (hopefully not too offensive for you) when Cartman is trying to convince Butters to vote for his side. He emphasises that his side is better and emphasises that Kyle's side is worse. Therefore, Butters is immediately influenced to pick Cartman's one.
Point? If a parent drills it into you that you were sexually abused, throughout your life, then it will quite obviously have a more negative effect that parents who don't emphasise or raise the issue.
I'll let that sink in.
Originally posted by PVS
FACT: your statements are NOT of mere posibility, but rather an assumption that your case is far more frequent and the opposing case to be rare. again: based on what?
P...PVS? I'm over here. Where are you going? Here, this is my point:
Parental intervention involving the constant reminder of childhood abuse will result in negative outcomes more likely than parents who do not raise the issue all the time. Confirm or deny? (You've already confirmed it, but let's do it for a laugh).
Originally posted by PVS
im not twisting your words here, but rather you are being very shifty in an attempt to 'win' once again. once the possibility for your case is acknowledged you go on to assume that your assumption is most likely the case...of coarse you add the obligatory disclaimer that its not certain. well thank you for that, but once again, how is it that you feel you can then go beyond the bounds of acknowledging possibility and blindly assume the frequency of circumstance unchecked?
The only one winning is you, and that's for KMC most hypocritical member. Don't foolishly try the age old tactic of trying to underpin some kind of "You're trying to win" schtick against me for the millionth time, PVS. You're better than that surely. I'm just discussing, no winning or losing to me.
So come on, you're not a stupid idiot. It's quite obvious what is the more likely of occurances isn't it? Parents constantly reminding the kid that he was abused will more likely result in trauma than parents who don't continually remind the kid. You don't need to be Stephen Hawking to work it out.
Originally posted by PVS
i only quoted a single example, as i dont feel like flooding the page with your dodgy assumptions
N-not that many was there? Nah. Never mind.
-AC
debbiejo gave a false absolute statement. she committed a logical fallacy and was called on it. yet you in turn rebutted with your own fallacy of assumed likelyhood.
but whatever dude. avoid the point all you wish. maybe if you flood the page with some more nonsensical yet humorous ad hominem jabs the truth will somehow become moot and you shall remain the victor once again.
Originally posted by PVS
debbie joe gave a false absolute statement. she committed a logical fallacy and was called on it. yet you in turn rebutted with your own fallacy of assumed likelyhood.but whatever dude. avoid the point all you wish. maybe if you flood the page with some more nonsensical yet humorous ad hominem jabs the truth will somehow become moot and you shall remain the victor once again.
Haha, I'm not trying to win anything. Continually claiming so just makes you look foolish.
If you don't wish to discuss with me, then admit that you're backing out of your own free will. Don't be so cowardly as to try and pin it on me. It's tired. Your choice and yours alone. I never forced you to back out. Your inability to be bothered with a discussion against someone who won't immediately lay down isn't my problem. Sorry. Shame, we could have discussed further.
Syren, yes hello. Do you want something? What's the problem or curiousity you seem to have?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you don't wish to discuss with me, then admit that you're backing out of your own free will
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't be so cowardly as to try and pin it on me.
i abreviated my point in the very post you quoted. you chose to glaze over and disacknowledge it entirely...which i find to be cowardly, since you brought it up... so since you refuse to address the point, what else is there to discuss? the weather?
Interesting.
Originally posted by PVS
but whatever dude. avoid the point all you wish. maybe if you flood the page with some more nonsensical yet humorous ad hominem jabs the truth will somehow become moot and you shall remain the victor once again.
Avoid the point, then? I'm not the one choosing to end this discussion. You're the one who got a little too offended by me saying "Comprende?". As always is the case, one word can spark a tantrum for you. It's harder to be INoffensive than it is to be offensive around you.
-AC