doubtingthomas’s topics MEGATHREAD

[doubtingthomas]

You have zero evidence that creating an environment of fear among students will reduce social exclusion and you justify flat out lying to students by pointing to alleged lying in the past.

A lot of people are lying to students. People and politicians blame evil and the devil for gun violence. The Left rightfully blames terrible gun laws, but Congress won't do anything to fix them.

Thinking about this, there is really no need to lie or exaggerate. Why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression?

Schools use scare tactics.

A key issue is that many fear appeals portray possible but rare and unlikely maladies in ways that may mislead. People with sexually transmitted infections are more likely than not to exhibit no symptoms at all. Because educators are supposed to impart factual information, fear appeals pointing to atypical symptoms could be seen as deceptive

https://scholars.org/contribution/why-u ... y-backfire

I've seen some evidence from other sources that the fear of getting an STI is contributing to the decline in sexual activity, but that's besides the point. Even if fear-inducing strategies aren't preventing young people from having sex, that wouldn't mean that fear-inducing strategies never work for anything.

[Marcus]

You have zero evidence that creating an environment of fear among students will reduce social exclusion and you justify flat out lying to students by pointing to alleged lying in the past.

A lot of people are lying to students. People and politicians blame evil and the devil for gun violence. The Left rightfully blames terrible gun laws, but Congress won't do anything to fix them.

Thinking about this, there is really no need to lie or exaggerate. Why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression?

Schools do use scare tactics to prevent students from engaging in sexual activity. There is some evidence that the fearmongering is working. Students are having less sex and the STI hysteria is contributing to the sexual decline.

Here's a source that talks about why schools use scare tactics.
https://scholars.org/contribution/why-u ... y-backfire

Lol. You’ve reached a new low. At the very least, read the goddamn title before you put up nonsense. Here's the title of the article you say explains "why schools use scare tactics":

”WHY THE USE OF SCARE TACTICS TO PROMOTE SEXUAL HEALTH FOR YOUTH MAY BACKFIRE"

[doubtingthomas]

”WHY THE USE OF SCARE TACTICS TO PROMOTE SEXUAL HEALTH FOR YOUTH MAY BACKFIRE"

Comprehension problems again? I think it's getting late for you, go to sleep.

Here's what I wrote, "Here's a source that talks about why schools use scare tactics".

[Marcus]

”WHY THE USE OF SCARE TACTICS TO PROMOTE SEXUAL HEALTH FOR YOUTH MAY BACKFIRE"

Comprehension problems again? I think it's getting late for you, go to sleep.

Here's what I wrote, "Here's a source that talks about why schools use scare tactics".

So, an explanation for "why schools use scare tactics" is given in an article titled ”WHY THE USE OF SCARE TACTICS TO PROMOTE SEXUAL HEALTH FOR YOUTH MAY BACKFIRE "

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[doubtingthomas]

So, an explanation for "why schools use scare tactics" is given in an article titled

Yes, here it is.

Scare tactics, also called fear appeals, are intended to make people think about the worst-case scenario that can follow from a problematic health behavior. The intention is to cause mental distress in order to prompt healthy behaviors that will minimize the health threat. Fear appeals are not new in public health; they have a longstanding place in health communication campaigns – such as the infamous, decades-old “this is your brain on drugs” public service announcements. Research reveals mixed effects from fear-inducing strategies. A

However, I didn't share that article to prove that scare tactics are working, I shared it to prove that schools are using scare tactics. But of course, you are a person who has comprehension problems.

I'll edit that post to avoid confusion and get back on topic. I am trying to have a discussion with Res Ipsa about preventing violence.

It's clear you are obsessed with me.

[Marcus]

”WHY THE USE OF SCARE TACTICS TO PROMOTE SEXUAL HEALTH FOR YOUTH MAY BACKFIRE"

Comprehension problems again? I think it's getting late for you, go to sleep.

Here's what I wrote, "Here's a source that talks about why schools use scare tactics".

So..schools use them…because they backfire. Sigh.

[doubtingthomas]

So..schools use them…because they backfire. Sigh.

Seriously, go to sleep. A woman your age shouldn't be awake this late.

You are now badly misrepresenting the article. The article never says "because they backfire", that misquotes the title too.

Here's what the article says,

Scare tactics, also called fear appeals, are intended to make people think about the worst-case scenario that can follow from a problematic health behavior. The intention is to cause mental distress in order to prompt healthy behaviors that will minimize the health threat. Fear appeals are not new in public health; they have a longstanding place in health communication campaigns – such as the infamous, decades-old “this is your brain on drugs” public service announcements. Research reveals mixed effects from fear-inducing strategies

Stop spamming this trash can thread with your nonsensical attacks. Allow me to have a discussion with Res Ipsa.

[Marcus]

So..schools use them…because they backfire. Sigh.

Seriously, go to sleep. A woman your age shouldn't be awake this late.

You are now badly misrepresenting the article. The article never says "because they backfire", that misquotes the title too.

Here's what the article says,

Scare tactics, also called fear appeals, are intended to make people think about the worst-case scenario that can follow from a problematic health behavior. The intention is to cause mental distress in order to prompt healthy behaviors that will minimize the health threat. Fear appeals are not new in public health; they have a longstanding place in health communication campaigns – such as the infamous, decades-old “this is your brain on drugs” public service announcements. Research reveals mixed effects from fear-inducing strategies

Stop spamming this trash can thread with your nonsensical attacks. Allow me to have a discussion with Res Ipsa.

Your misunderstanding is well documented.

Parents, policymakers, and community members should learn more about what kind of sexuality education is being taught in local schools, and if scare tactics are used, assess whether they may be more harmful than helpful.

Stop wasting time with your randomly googled nonsense.

[Res Ipsa]

You have zero evidence that creating an environment of fear among students will reduce social exclusion and you justify flat out lying to students by pointing to alleged lying in the past.

A lot of people are lying to students. People and politicians blame evil and the devil for gun violence. The Left rightfully blames terrible gun laws, but Congress won't do anything to fix them.

Seriously. Take a class in basic reasoning. Justifying lying to students by the fact that students have been lied to before is a non sequitur. It's also a symptom of a broken moral compass. The political debate over gun laws is a red herring -- it is irrelevant to your proposal to lie to parents about the risks of social exclusion.

Thinking about this, there is really no need to lie or exaggerate. Why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression?

You are approaching the issue exactly backwards, which is a red flag that you are engaged in motivated reasoning rather than genuine problem solving. You are the one who is proposing some kind of change. You carry the burden of proof to show that the change would be not only effective, but the best method of achieving the desired goal. To this point, you haven't even defined the goal.

Second, what exactly would you tell parents? How do you expect the parents to react and what is your basis for that expectation? What do you expect that parents will communicate to their children, if anything at all, and what is the basis for your expectation? Finally, how do you think the children will react to whatever you expect the parents to tell them and what is the basis for that expectation?

Third, why do you think that schools telling something to parents that you hope will result in them telling something to their children that you hope will lead those children to be more inclusive is a better approach than the schools acting directly with students to encourage more inclusion?

Schools use scare tactics.

https://scholars.org/contribution/why-u ... y-backfire

I've seen some evidence from other sources that the fear of getting an STI is contributing to the decline in sexual activity, but that's besides the point. Even if fear-inducing strategies aren't preventing young people from having sex, that wouldn't mean that fear-inducing strategies never work for anything.

So? Why are you still arguing a point that you've already acknowledged you don't need? See above -- you're still arguing a non-sequitur. You're also getting the burden of proof backwards again. You are the person that proposed the use of a fear based strategy to get students to be more accepting of the students that you've worked to make them afraid of. It's your burden to show why that would be an effective strategy.

In addition, what you've also shown is that you don't have any kind of grasp of what you need to do to present a sound argument for your proposal. You cited an article in support of a point that is part of a terrible argument (past lying justifies lying in this specific case) and which undercuts the strategy you were arguing for. It doesn't matter why you cited it -- the piece itself undercuts the argument that you were making: that lying to parents and students to make them afraid is a good idea. Using chess as an analogy, you just sacrificed your queen to capture a pawn -- and you think you've done something clever.

If you honestly want to have a serious discussion about solving a problem, define the problem, define the change you want to bring about, and then, if folks agree that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, they can discuss potential solutions and try to figure out which one would be most effective. If you want to behave like a petulant teenager who wants to get even for past wrongs, I'm not interested.

[doubtingthomas]

Seriously. Take a class in basic reasoning. Justifying lying to students by the fact that students have been lied to before is a non sequitur. It's also a symptom of a broken moral compass. The political debate over gun laws is a red herring -- it is irrelevant to your proposal to lie to parents about the risks of social exclusion.

And you should take a class in basic understanding. You and many others here have the habit of misunderstanding my points. Your brain seems to be wired to misunderstand my points and find mistakes.

I asked you, why can't schools have an honest discussion with the parents about the correlation between social exclusion and aggression? Why can't there be Parent-teacher conferences to discuss papers like the one I shared here?

Politicians blame evil and the devil, why can't schools educate parents about what the actual research says?

You carry the burden of proof to show that the change would be not only effective, but the best method of achieving the desired goal. To this point, you haven't even defined the goal.

I have to show that educating parents is going to be effective? Well, shouldn't we try the experiment first? I never suggested that children should be afraid of each other, that's a straw man you created, but I do think children should be afraid of bullying and socially excluding others.

You are the person that proposed the use of a fear based strategy to get students to be more accepting of the students that you've worked to make them afraid of. It's your burden to show why that would be an effective strategy.

I am proposing that schools should educate parents, that's it. There are many reasons to suspect that social exclusion can lead to violence or aggression, the paper I shared is perfectly consistent with that theory.