this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
61 points (90.7% liked)
Casual Conversation
1769 readers
219 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
- !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca
- !askmenover30@lemm.ee
- !dads@feddit.uk
- !letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
- !movies@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
With respect, 16 year old brains are not physically developed enough to make that decision. It’s why we don’t let them vote.
Things may look different today. I stand by my suggestion.
anyone who's been abused as a teenager could tell your differently. your advice is wrong, sorry.
Yeah the guy isn’t a stranger to L takes. “Maybe cut the guy some slack” pfffft. Abused or neglected at 16? Nah you're too young to know that apparently.
It isn’t really. But you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Entitled is an ironic choice of words for someone who's never been abused and says teenage abuse victims aren't "developed enough" to go no-contact with their abuser. Foolish human. If you respond I'll block you instantly without reading it to verify that you've read and understood my comment.
You seem nice.
The person I'm talking to discredits teenage victims of abuse who choose to cut off their abuser by saying that they're not "developed" enough to decide when the abuse stops. And you're offended by what I said? Fuck off.
Fuck off. Stop assuming that you know anything about me, foolish asshole.
Now that the BLUF is out of the way, and I know that you've read and understood my comment, I'll do you a solid to show that there are no hard feelings. You're blocked.
A completely unsurprising response given your idiotic takes in the thread so far. Sounds like you need more education in your “area of professional study.” Or just any education would do.
16 year olds would call getting grounded abuse. But there's not enough info to know whats up in any way.
But you do seem like an absolute asshole, so I'm blocking you. And no I'm not the person you replied to.
There’s (edit:was) enough info in the thread to read between the lines enough to know it wasn’t anything on par with “grounding”. Implying most 16 years old call grounding abuse sure is helpful in a thread like this though. As if someone maintains 20 years NC because of grounding.
Sounds like you’re doing them a favour by blocking them if you think saying the equivalent of “just get over it” is reasonable.
I merely add another such thing that can be interpreted out of nowhere just as they are doing.
No need to read between the lines if you're making assumptions to justify a perspective.
I’m not reading between lines. You’re the one who trivialised the issue by asserting 16 years olds call grounding abuse and did so in the context of this post. As I said before they removed it (due to privacy I suspect) there was enough to know it was nowhere trivial enough to be compared to grounding. Frankly in the OP alone there’s still enough information to draw that conclusion.
If you and @CaptObvious@literature.cafe can’t read through the thread and/or lack experience with childhood abuse probably best not weigh in on such matters and keep your poorly informed opinions to yourselves.
Jesus fucking christ dude
Also with due respect, your opinion is wrong. I work with badly abused people, and those that CAN escape from toxicity at the earliest have it "best". Some could never escape. There are 12yr old who have a forced maturity that you often don't even find in 40+ olds. Which is not really a good thing.
Please, i don't wanna sound condescending or so, but widen your horizon in that regard please.
My "opinion" is not wrong. It is scientific fact. Adolescent development is an area of my professional study.
Are there abused children in the world? Yes. Are their brains well-enough developed to make any lifelong decisions? No. That doesn't mean that they don't deserve help. It does mean that they are not mature enough to understand the ramifications of a no-contact decision.
I don't wanna sound condescending, but please base your own opinions in fact.
Facts? So heavily abused children should stay with their abusers forever because their "brain is not well-enough to make any lifelong decisions hence they are not... "? This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while. Not saying their brain isn't perfectly well adjusted. No shit sherlock, that's old news. Just the conclusion is... Very questionable. The ramifications of a no-contact-decision is the faint possibility of starting a therapy and get slightly better.
Anyone abused in whatever way, no matter how mature their brain is, should leave the abusive environment (at the very least. And get help at the acceptable best) . Isn't that like the most basic survival-tactic? Avoid any kind of harm at all costs however possible.
And now we know that you can’t (or won’t) read. That’s ok. But I do think that we’ve exhausted the possibilities of this conversation.
We sure did. But please, do continue your "studies", you never know when it might come in handy.
Yeah I’m glad I wasn’t the only one to pick up their attempt to appeal to their own non-existent qualifications. Their field “was and is linguistics” (and a technical advisor, scuba certified hiker, former school teacher, former journalist and presumably navy seal). Who was apparently born in the 70s and alive during the Cold War era. They also don’t believe in mobile phones being addictive.
If the fact that they thought “young brains aren’t finished developing” was a profound point isn’t enough to discourage anyone taking them seriously; all of that should be. Block and ignore them. Not worth wasting the brain cells over.
Their point was that the kid's brain isn't well enough adjusted to understand the ramifications of a permanent non-contact-decision. While part 1 isn't wrong, part 2 is so horribly off, even to the point of someone seemingly fearing their toy might be leaving. Not saying pedo, but either that, silly conclusion or a total lack of empathy.
And nah, i rarely block nor ignore. Most people fight for their point to the death, even if they already know it's bonkers. Even "science"-people who totally shouldn't, as it's never a personal fight in science. And trying to indicate some kind of authority on the topic is fine too. I did it myself. Those who really have, know the difference of stating and posing it.
Trying to indicate authority on a subject is fine if it’s relevant to the discussion which I would argue their isn’t. The rest I agree with and find commendable. I haven’t blocked them either but it’s my go to suggestion for others dealing with posters like this.