It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

A hot stove is a different rodeo than shaming someone. Apples and zebras.


Not at all. Thus the assumption that you didn't take psych 101. Negative reinforcement has nothing to do with stoves or airplanes or Santa Claus--it is all about negative repercussions to an act to prevent repeat of said act.


Touching a hot stove and being shamed are definitely not the same thing at all. Maybe the outcome, of not wanting to repeat the action are similar, but the mechanism/delivery of each are 100 percent different.


There are exactly the same and, if you paid attention in psych 101 (which I really don't believe you did at this point) the mechanism is exactly the same--negative stimulus produces a negative response.




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

So the delivery has zero bearing at all? I would beg to differ. I think you are arguing just for the sake or arguing at this point.

A stove burning someone has no intent, as inanimate objects aren't capable of having intentions. Someone shaming another person, has a definite intention. Like I said previously, there may be a similarity in the outcome, but the intent is where it becomes something else entirely.

Stub a toe on a table? No intention from the table. Get punched in the face? Definite intention by the aggressor.

I got an A in every class, by the way.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: ~Lucidity

How dare they be poor! Getting their poverty all over the place, I hope I don't step in it and ruin my shoes, or worse... catch it. Maybe we should tattoo them, or make them wear a uniform, so we can easily identify them.

If people really think that this type of behavior/treatment is even remotely acceptable, I am secondhand embarrassed for them, and saddened that anyone still thinks that way.


Shrug. I'm saddened that people think that special snow flakes should not feel bad (for you leftists it's all about feelings isn't it) for poor choices and should not be held responsible or accountable. Oh the abject horror of individual responsibility.


Leftists?

Apply this to the libertarian viewpoint.

And just how is a woman opting to keep her child not individual responsibility...the the nth degree even...doing it alone?
edit on 6/10/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

What about the guys knocking up those single mothers?

Somebody needs to shame ole' jeb into growing a brain.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: ~Lucidity

How dare they be poor! Getting their poverty all over the place, I hope I don't step in it and ruin my shoes, or worse... catch it. Maybe we should tattoo them, or make them wear a uniform, so we can easily identify them.

If people really think that this type of behavior/treatment is even remotely acceptable, I am secondhand embarrassed for them, and saddened that anyone still thinks that way.


Shrug. I'm saddened that people think that special snow flakes should not feel bad (for you leftists it's all about feelings isn't it) for poor choices and should not be held responsible or accountable. Oh the abject horror of individual responsibility.


Leftists?

Apply this to the libertarian viewpoint.

And just how is a woman opting to keep her child not individual responsibility...the the nth degree even...doing it alone?


I'm a libertarian. The state would not even know the marital status of a mother unless she applied for or was in a state program, thus the "they might not be on welfare" is a non sequetur. The effort was to try to force deadbeat dads to own up to their responsability because, in our current warfare state, the incentive is for the deadbeat dad to hide and for the mom not to name him lest he might (horror if horrors ) be made to support his kids. This is actually a problem in our welfare state.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

have you ever reported them?? just wondering here because I really think that it's quite illegal and well,
it's your civic duty to report them!



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I think they actually included the dads in the shaming strategy. I just kind of noticed that. But my main point of contention here is the things they are against vs the things they are for being a very peculiar kind of hypocrisy that they just don't seem to see.

Access to affordable contraception helps reduce teen birth and abortion rates, but they're not for that. They're for shaming?

Want to put a kid up for adoption instead of aborting it? No cookie for you...shame sammich instead.

People cope as best they can and sometimes need help, not shame or more shame. As for the money if it's needed for assistance? Personally, I just imagine my tax money goes to the things I believe in and the warmongers goes to the things he believes in and let it go.


edit on 6/10/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

So the delivery has zero bearing at all? I would beg to differ. I think you are arguing just for the sake or arguing at this point.

A stove burning someone has no intent, as inanimate objects aren't capable of having intentions. Someone shaming another person, has a definite intention. Like I said previously, there may be a similarity in the outcome, but the intent is where it becomes something else entirely.

Stub a toe on a table? No intention from the table. Get punched in the face? Definite intention by the aggressor.

I got an A in every class, by the way.

So the greatest example of negative reinforcement,a military drill sergeant,is not a prime example of military reinforcement and is not effective to modify befavior effectively? Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?

Happy fuzzy teinforcemt is not negative reinforcement.
edit on 10-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I think they actually included the dads in the shaming strategy. I just kind of noticed that. But my main point of contention here is the things they are against vs the things they are for being a very peculiar kind of hypocrisy that they just don't seem to see.

Access to affordable contraception helps reduce teen birth and abortion rates, but they're not for that. They're for shaming?

Want to put a kid up for adoption instead of aborting it? No cookie for you...shame sammich instead.

People cope as best they can and sometimes need help, not shame or more shame. As for the money if it's needed for assistance? Personally, I just imagine my tax money goes to the things I believe in and the warmongers goes to the things he believes in and let it go.

so a deadbeats dad should not be shamed into taking care of his responsability? Is that it? Your support deadbeat dads?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I think they actually included the dads in the shaming strategy. I just kind of noticed that. But my main point of contention here is the things they are against vs the things they are for being a very peculiar kind of hypocrisy that they just don't seem to see.

Access to affordable contraception helps reduce teen birth and abortion rates, but they're not for that. They're for shaming?

Want to put a kid up for adoption instead of aborting it? No cookie for you...shame sammich instead.

People cope as best they can and sometimes need help, not shame or more shame. As for the money if it's needed for assistance? Personally, I just imagine my tax money goes to the things I believe in and the warmongers goes to the things he believes in and let it go.



So now you cross ends. Is abortion wore than adoption?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?


You are just full of assumptions, aren't you.

I must be a feminist, right?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

So the delivery has zero bearing at all? I would beg to differ. I think you are arguing just for the sake or arguing at this point.

A stove burning someone has no intent, as inanimate objects aren't capable of having intentions. Someone shaming another person, has a definite intention. Like I said previously, there may be a similarity in the outcome, but the intent is where it becomes something else entirely.

Stub a toe on a table? No intention from the table. Get punched in the face? Definite intention by the aggressor.

I got an A in every class, by the way.

So the greatest example of negative reinforcement,a military drill sergeant,is not a prime example of military reinforcement and is not effective to modify befavior effectively? Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?

Happy fuzzy teinforcemt is not negative reinforcement.



Yeah, send some army drill sergeants out there to yell at them.

YOU GOT YOURSELF PREGNANT, MAGGOT? DROP AND GIVE ME 100!

That makes all the sense in the world.

Womyns? Nice.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not your call to make. Or mine.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Why do you insist on forcing this question and opinion on me?

Shaming deadbeat dads is no different. Shaming is not the way. Full stop.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: daryllyn

I know, right?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc




Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?


You are just full of assumptions, aren't you.

I must be a feminist, right?


Psych obviously didn't take, do what was it?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Never liked Bush, Don't particularly like Hillary that much, but I do think she's better than Bush...But enough to care?

Give me someone else besides Paul on the right.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc




Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?


You are just full of assumptions, aren't you.

I must be a feminist, right?



Psych obviously didn't take, do what was it?



Negative Reinforcement versus Punishment

One mistake that people often make is confusing negative reinforcement with punishment. Remember, however, that negative reinforcement involves the removal of a negative condition in order to strengthen a behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, involves either presenting or taking away a stimulus in order to weaken a behavior.

Consider the following example and determine whether you think it is an example of negative reinforcement or punishment:

Timmy is supposed to clean his room every Saturday morning. Last weekend, he went out to play with his friend without cleaning his room. As a result, his father made him spend the rest of the weekend doing other chores like cleaning out the garage, mowing the lawn and weeding the garden, in addition to cleaning his room.
If you said that this was an example of punishment, then you are correct. Because Timmy didn't clean his room, his father assigned a punishment of having to do extra chores.

When Is Negative Reinforcement Most Effective?

Negative reinforcement can be an effective way to strengthen a desired behavior. However, it is most effective when reinforcers are presented immediately following a behavior. When a long period of time elapses between the behavior and the reinforcer, the response is likely to be weaker. In some cases, behaviors that occur in the intervening time between the initial action and the reinforcer are may also be inadvertently strengthened as well. psychology.about.com...


Once again, shaming is not negative reinforcement. It's abuse.


edit on 6/10/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

So the delivery has zero bearing at all? I would beg to differ. I think you are arguing just for the sake or arguing at this point.

A stove burning someone has no intent, as inanimate objects aren't capable of having intentions. Someone shaming another person, has a definite intention. Like I said previously, there may be a similarity in the outcome, but the intent is where it becomes something else entirely.

Stub a toe on a table? No intention from the table. Get punched in the face? Definite intention by the aggressor.

I got an A in every class, by the way.

So the greatest example of negative reinforcement,a military drill sergeant,is not a prime example of military reinforcement and is not effective to modify befavior effectively? Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?

Happy fuzzy teinforcemt is not negative reinforcement.



Yeah, send some army drill sergeants out there to yell at them.

YOU GOT YOURSELF PREGNANT, MAGGOT? DROP AND GIVE ME 100!

That makes all the sense in the world.

Womyns? Nice.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not your call to make. Or mine.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Why do you insist on forcing this question and opinion on me?

Shaming deadbeat dads is no different. Shaming is not the way. Full stop.
It is the business of every taxpayer.

You honeztky do not want to Shane deadbeat dads? That's aweful as a deadbeat dad is the crappiest person there is. Obviously, you don't want fathers to be held accountable for their children and lose you support a runaway and wasteful welfare state.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
got to love this world we've created!!
big banks pull off massive scams and make tons of money while tanking our economy, and they get nice big bailouts from the gov't. never mind that the shock waves from their actions causes a ton of people to become unemployed!

companies send their jobs to countries where they are able to pay such low wages they have to enclose the roofs with barbed wire and they are praised by the great increase in profits.

and well, we won't talk about those great politicians that rig the laws so that we can all be taken again and again for the sake of the rich becomming richer!! no, they are great leaders!

but the weakest, lowest among us, well they are the ones that deserve the shame!

lol....ya right!



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc




Are you sure those "a" s came from psych and not womyn's studies?


You are just full of assumptions, aren't you.

I must be a feminist, right?



Psych obviously didn't take, do what was it?



Negative Reinforcement versus Punishment

One mistake that people often make is confusing negative reinforcement with punishment. Remember, however, that negative reinforcement involves the removal of a negative condition in order to strengthen a behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, involves either presenting or taking away a stimulus in order to weaken a behavior.

Consider the following example and determine whether you think it is an example of negative reinforcement or punishment:

Timmy is supposed to clean his room every Saturday morning. Last weekend, he went out to play with his friend without cleaning his room. As a result, his father made him spend the rest of the weekend doing other chores like cleaning out the garage, mowing the lawn and weeding the garden, in addition to cleaning his room.
If you said that this was an example of punishment, then you are correct. Because Timmy didn't clean his room, his father assigned a punishment of having to do extra chores.

When Is Negative Reinforcement Most Effective?

Negative reinforcement can be an effective way to strengthen a desired behavior. However, it is most effective when reinforcers are presented immediately following a behavior. When a long period of time elapses between the behavior and the reinforcer, the response is likely to be weaker. In some cases, behaviors that occur in the intervening time between the initial action and the reinforcer are may also be inadvertently strengthened as well. psychology.about.com...


Once again, shaming is not negative reinforcement. It's abuse.

No it's not. It's negative reibfircment. Okay, please outline more appropriate negative reinforcement..



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


It is the business of every taxpayer.


Oh God. I bet you are one of those people who think 'taxpayers' should be able to choose what people on food stamps eat too, aren't you? Do you argue over whether they should be able to spend "your money" on toilet paper, and such?

It's really NOT any of your business, and you are deluding yourself if you think it is. Sometimes it's necessary to get out of your own head, and your own ego to see people for what they really are, and not your pre-conceived notion of them. You know?
edit on 6/10/2015 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join