1. I said a steep slope on the 'wrong' side, implying a gentler slope on the 'right' side which is easy to climb. Please re-read the original statement.
2. If it can't be proved either way then assuming the best case senario is unrealistic, even if the article's slant would like to imply otherwise. Any doubt is too much.
3. When I referred to brain damage I wasn't referencing the article, I was referencing the myriad of oter studies which prove that it causes damage. I'm not going into the issue of 'more damage' or 'less damage', damage is damage and I felt that this had to be raised as an issue. This treatment probably causes long-term brain damage, however slight, which is self defeating besides all the other arguments.
4. 'The least of all evils' is still evil, right? It would take irrefutable proof that these children will not respond to any other method before I'll agree that it's OK to even try the bare-bones treatment on him/her, and even then you're looking at a method that is open to abuse (I'll say it again, shocked for swearing? WTF?) and is near the top of a very slippery slope. For those reasons (and I know I'm repeating myself here, but it appears to be necessary) my distaste at this method of control is unchanged, and I'd be horrified to see it become something that is accepted as a recommended treatment.
no subject
2. If it can't be proved either way then assuming the best case senario is unrealistic, even if the article's slant would like to imply otherwise. Any doubt is too much.
3. When I referred to brain damage I wasn't referencing the article, I was referencing the myriad of oter studies which prove that it causes damage. I'm not going into the issue of 'more damage' or 'less damage', damage is damage and I felt that this had to be raised as an issue. This treatment probably causes long-term brain damage, however slight, which is self defeating besides all the other arguments.
4. 'The least of all evils' is still evil, right? It would take irrefutable proof that these children will not respond to any other method before I'll agree that it's OK to even try the bare-bones treatment on him/her, and even then you're looking at a method that is open to abuse (I'll say it again, shocked for swearing? WTF?) and is near the top of a very slippery slope. For those reasons (and I know I'm repeating myself here, but it appears to be necessary) my distaste at this method of control is unchanged, and I'd be horrified to see it become something that is accepted as a recommended treatment.