I'm pretty sure I recall studies suggesting that we're better off keeping things temperate.
Citation? And more importantly, what observations would falsify that hypothesis? Perhaps a Holocene Optimum that coincided with an improvement in life for humanity? Or a Medieval Warm Period that coincided with increased agricultural productivity? Or how about the comparison of biodiversity between arctic tundra and tropical rainforest?
And I think most everyone agrees that a global increase in ocean acidity is bad news for fish (and the people that eat them) everywhere
1) Oceans are not acidic, so a drop in pH is not "increasing acidity", it's "less alkalinity".
Because you are choosing a particular set of proxies rather than using all the proxies that are available.
Including all proxies, regardless of their quality, is yet another form of cherry picking. The Cochrane Collaboration offers some insight as to how to decide what data to include and what data to exclude when choosing disparate sets.
Established scientific "fact" is all about general agreement amongst experts as to what has or hasn't been observed.
There's a difference between observation, and the attribution of that observation to cause. Yes, it is a scientific *fact* that the world has warmed at times over the past 150 years. Yes, it is a scientific *fact* that the world has cooled at times over the past 150 years. It is *not* a scientific fact that all of this change, or even a specific percentage of this change in climate can be attributed to human activity - no matter how many people generally agree to it.
Science is not a straw poll - it is a ruthless application of skepticism, and it all starts with a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
However one is for sure: what ever was the reason of the medieval warming, it was not CO2.
So if the world can warm without CO2 being a driver, why is it that you believe it's a driver in the current warming? What leads you to believe that natural variation can be ruled out?
More importantly, what observations of CO2 and temperature over say, the next 5 years, would make you change your mind?
The question is: while the discussion is still going on, should we go ahead and exceed the 450 ppm level, knowing that we don't really have a way to extract the CO2 from the atmosphere if we're wrong.
The answer is, what is the cost of limiting our society to 450ppm, and what are all of the possible probabilities of either beneficial impact from 450+ppm, and negative impact from 450+ppm. The short answer to that is we have a good idea about the costs, and they would drive most of the world into poverty and a brutish existence, and we have no idea about what the real benefits/disadvantages we would experience from +450ppm.
When we began the process of agriculture and animal husbandry, someone could have argued about whether or not there was an upper limit to how much farmland we should cultivate, and how many animals we should breed. And they could have further argued that we shouldn't exceed some arbitrary limit until we had a way to quickly return land to its original, unfarmed state, and return the animals to their wild nature. The precautionary principle is a sweet siren song and a dangerous delusion.
Now, why is it any sillier to consider your chosen proxies than mine?
Science isn't about "general agreement" - state a hypothesis, state the observations that would falsify it, and ruthlessly look for those observations.
So shouldn't we do something to stop the changes we can stop?
Why? What if human caused changed might end up being very good for us? What if *without* human caused change, we would face doomsday and disaster? You've got all sorts of imaginary risks here that have no basis in any sort of firm rationale.
The precautionary principle, while instinctually compelling, is dangerous to follow blindly. Everyone assumes that their proposed "precautionary intervention" has no downside risk, but that's simply baseless assumption. By the tenets of the precautionary principle, we could have rationalized never starting any agriculture - the conscious manipulation of our environment, through either farming or animal husbandry, was a new, different, and wholly unprecedented activity. Naysayers back in the hunter-gatherer tribe could have insisted that such intervention into the natural world was going to doom us in 5 years.
Point is: It never changes spontaneously, for no reason.
Nothing ever happens "spontaneously, for no reason". Often times, we can't discern the reason, but we live in a world of causes and effects, even if they are chaotic.
Now, climate has *always* changed, for the entire history of the planet, long before mankind was even a protoplasmic soup. Of course these changes all had reasons, but nobody dares assert that they know every reason for every historical change - yet you would have us believe that atmospheric chemistry has been the cause of all of earth's climate variation?
But let's play the science game -> what observations of temperature and CO2 for say, the next 10 years, would falsify your hypothesis that human driven changes to atmospheric chemistry are driving global average temperature? Be specific.
The dust bowl is an excellent example of the turmoil that can happen as a result of climate change.
So dust bowls and severe regional droughts never happened before the post-1950 industrial boom?
Climate *always* changes. Dust bowls will *always* happen. How are you going to prove that the rate of dust bowls relates to human CO2 emissions? Or conversely, what observations will falsify your hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause more dust bowls?
What would you accept as evidence? I'm assuming you'll reject any regional evidence as simply regional, and even a multiplicity of regions could be objected to with the same rationale.
Of course, that kind of rationale really cuts both ways - if you have solid evidence that the MWP was globally *cooler* than today, I'd love to see it (and of course, make the same sort of regional objections as you might:)
So instead of taking a straw poll of scientists, how about this - come up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and clearly state what observations would falsify your hypothesis. If your hypothesis is "the globe is warmer today than it was during the MWP", what observations would falsify that?
This is like warning us about irreversible breathing, or irreversible gravity, or irreversible earthquakes. Climate changes - it always has, and it always will, and funnily enough, its changes will always surprise you.
Seriously, no matter what you may believe about the anthropogenic components of global average temperature, this kind of overhyped doomsday rhetoric does *nothing* to forward the important scientific work that should be going into studying climate and its many variations both past, present and future.
Totally eliminating all risks is a bad idea, because then banks will not back a lot of potentially good, but also risky ideas. It will stagnate the economy even further when only mundane ideas can get loans...
Excellent point. On the one hand, we're screaming that banks shouldn't take so many risks, but on the other hand, we're screaming that banks should be giving more loans out. It's like people who want more services, but less taxes.
My point exactly - people seem to be so oversensitive to this video, when compared to *real* violence (be it anywhere from a severe beating by a parent, to being tortured as a POW), that they lump them all together - they're as different as night and day.
I'm arguing here that on the scale of abuse, this was minor. It showed more about the emotional problems this family had than anything regarding physical violence, and sadly enough, the daughter learned a lesson of vengeance she held onto for seven years, instead of making better choices than her parents. Those people that want to make it out like she was some kind of tortured POW are completely out of line.
And yes, if you were captured in war, and tortured for months on end, I'll freely admit you've gone through way worse, and that I've got no right to compare my suffering to yours (and you'll note, I never did compare my suffering to that kind of suffering).
On the other hand, if you're just talking out of your hat because you know *theoretically* there are tortured soldiers out there, and your life has been one peachy keen rainbow, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on - you've got no right to talk on their behalf if you haven't been there yourself.
This is one repeated pattern I see in a lot of people who claim they were beaten as a child and it did them no harm. They are incapable of sympathy/empathy and are far more desensitised to violence than any video game player who gets a bit too far into it.
I suppose it could go the other way too for people who weren't beaten as children - they are oversensitive to any display of conflict, and interpret any sort of raised voice as just as violent as a full on beat down. Personal experience with being beaten, and having *real* harm done to you, gives you a perspective that is distinctly different than someone who has had nothing but flowers and roses in their life. Not all beatings are of the same magnitude, and the video shows something mild compared to the reality many children have to endure every day.
Blaming her and calling her rotten too is WAY over the top.
I call it like it is. She had crappy parents, and instead of making the decision to be different, she learned the same lessons of hate, anger and vengeance. In the end, no matter what the world does to you, *you* are responsible for the choices you make - otherwise, why not just blame the guy who beat the father, and the father before him, and the father before him, ad infinitum? It's easy to blame others.
But Hilary has cerebral palsy to deal with. You do not. I don't know enough about how she is affected to tell you if it has affected her ability to understand and choose her morality.
Now that's an interesting thought - I've never had anyone suggest that cerebral palsy might leave people incapable of morality, or incapable of any sort of self reflection and self control. I would suggest though, that even for the most damaged brains, we still have the choice on how to react to our surroundings - it may be more difficult for some brains to realize that, but it is nonetheless true.
The trick here is to realize that some people *choose* to be unhappy, and ultimately nobody can be blamed for that except themselves.
A teacher can do a great job of teaching at the same time a student does a poor job of learning.
A student can do a great job of learning at the same time a teacher does a poor job of teaching.
In the end, if you're a student who wants to learn something, it's probably best not to depend upon your teacher's skill or ability - the teacher doesn't get hurt when you don't learn, *you* do. It might not be fair, but hey, it's life.
I'm not sure if the alternative is really worse - absurdly high entrance requirements stops unprepared people from spending a year's worth of tuition to fail. Of course, you've got to work on what your high entrance requirements are going to be (I'd probably assert many standardized test suck as barometers, but fighting over the details is inevitable - I'd probably weigh teacher recommendations more heavily, and look for proof that these kids can work hard and get shit done, rather than just pad a resume with a bunch of trivial extracurriculars).
As it stands, the university lets in a whole bunch of unqualified people, takes their money (subsidized by taxpayer backed loans, and constructed to that they're almost impossible to default on), and has no real incentive to improve their student pass rate.
There is a cost for letting in unqualified people, and in the end, it's carried on the backs of taxpayers.
I don't think her releasing the video now really has much point, although I wont condemn her for it.
I think you're right, but because of that, I do...well, not *condemn*, but certainly disapprove of Hillary's continuation of the cycle of anger and hatred. She learned the lesson of lashing out at things that frustrate you from her parents, when she should've taken their example as a display of what *not* to do.
The happy ending to this story is still a long way off, if it exists at all.
Oh, no doubt, I could've learned the lesson of anger and hatred from my parents, the way Hillary seemed to learn from her parents. It would've been almost too easy. But I made a conscious choice to forgive my parents, and to respond to their anger and hatred with love and compassion. My children don't get beat, they get disciplined with appropriate restrictions and stern lectures - both of which, by the way, have been very effective in teaching proper behavior.
Emotions are only partially under our own control, they are influenced by others, that's part of what it means to be a social animal.
I respectfully disagree - the illusion is that they are only partially under our control. The reality is that our emotions are completely under our control, and breaking through the illusion, as hard as it is, gives us great power and peace. I'll leave with this quote from "Open Heart, Clear Mind":
"We often get angry when something we consider undesirable happens. But what use is this anger? If we can change the situation, then let's go ahead and do it. There's no need to be angry. It's very useful to think like this when confronted with social problems and injustice. They can be changed, so rather than be angry, it's wiser to work calmly to improve the society.
On the other hand, if the situation can't be changed, anger is equally useless. Once our leg is broken, we can't unbreak it. All of the corruption in the world can't be solved in a year. Getting angry at something we can't alter makes us miserable. Worrying about or fearing something that hasn't happened immobilizes us. Shantideva sad in A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life:
Why be unhappy about something If it can be remedied? And what is the use of being unhappy about something If it cannot be remedied?"
Any abused child has two choices, even if they don't realize it:
1) they can be a victim, and learn the hatred lessons taught by their parents; 2) they can break the cycle, and refuse to give into hatred and anger, in any of its forms
In this case, you've got parents teaching the wrong lesson, and unfortunately a daughter who couldn't break the cycle. I wish them all the best for coming to terms with their angers in the future, but I must say it's probably a lot harder than any of them can imagine.
Don't get me wrong AC, I'm not condoning anything here - I'm simply adding perspective. The judge is a weak man, the wife is a weak woman, and the daughter learned from her parents that internal frustration and anger can and should be retaliated against. I judge them *all* to be in error.
I'm glad you had a good childhood, and parents that were intelligent enough to discipline you effectively without teaching you lessons of hatred and anger. But you've got to know that this video and its contents are a far cry from real, honest-to-god-fear-for-your-life-and-physical-well-being beatings that a tragically large number of people have gone through during their childhood. This whole drama is an exposition of how people externalize the causes of their own personal frustrations, and take it out on others - and *that* is the real problem here.
Imagine for a moment the same scene, with the same verbal abuse, but no beating - just yelling. The anger lesson is still being taught. Imagine for a moment the same scene, without the verbal abuse, but *just* beating. Now a slightly different anger lesson is being taught (possibly with a touch of sociopathy). In any of those cases, including the one shown in the video, the *wrong* lesson is being taught, and the daughter's long hoarded vengeance shows that she learned that lesson well enough to emulate it, albeit in a different mode.
I think you misdiagnose the real damage actually - it's not fear or terroristic threats (her dramatic reactions during the encounter, compared to her cool demeanor afterwards shows a distinct lack of fear), the real damage is the *example* that her parents gave her. Her parents taught her, with that beating and whatever other beatings she may have had, that anger, hatred, and frustration can be blamed on *others*, and that taking action against others is a rational and normal course of action. The father and the mother were frustrated with their daughter, blamed her for their internal anger and hatred, and took action against her. Seven years later, the daughter was frustrated with the father and mother, blamed them for her internal anger and hatred, and took action against them.
It very well may be that only those who have been *really* abused can look at this video and not be shocked - I don't doubt that at all, in fact. But honestly, you've got a weak man weakly beating up on his rebellious daughter because he can't figure his own anger out, an obedient wife who goes along with the gag even though she must know in her heart she's married to a wimp who didn't have the balls to just *take the damn computer away*, and a daughter who sets up her little candid camera with visions of cold vengeance in her head (a daughter who could probably have beaten the shit out of her own father if she wanted to).
In the end, the girl got her vengeance, the father got his moment to feel like a man beating up on a 16 year old girl, and the mother got to feel like a devout and godly obedient wife. All three of them suck. Take away lessons:
1) a real mother doesn't let their husband/boyfriend beat on their kids 2) a real man doesn't beat their kids 3) vengeance, while definitely a dish best served cold, is only a perpetuation of a continuing cycle of negative emotion
Real world implications:
1) if your man is beating on your kids, divorce him, break up with him, and get the kids away from him; 2) if you're beating on your kids, stop - there are *plenty* of punishments that can be used to discipline kids without beating them, and frankly, they're a lot more effective. Take the computer out back and smash it to bits with a baseball bat if you have to express some inner violence, but leave the belt down; 3) if you're getting beaten by crappy parents, get out - find relatives, or friends that can help you through that rough patch if you can; no matter what, though, understand that your parents are messed up not just because they're beating on you, but because they're filled with negativity, and *vow* to yourself that you won't follow in those footsteps (even if its a different *form* of negativity).
Slashdot Mirror
Citation? And more importantly, what observations would falsify that hypothesis? Perhaps a Holocene Optimum that coincided with an improvement in life for humanity? Or a Medieval Warm Period that coincided with increased agricultural productivity? Or how about the comparison of biodiversity between arctic tundra and tropical rainforest?
1) Oceans are not acidic, so a drop in pH is not "increasing acidity", it's "less alkalinity".
2) The historical record doesn't support any sort of assertion that high CO2 in the atmosphere is going to cause the oceans to become acidic: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/
Including all proxies, regardless of their quality, is yet another form of cherry picking. The Cochrane Collaboration offers some insight as to how to decide what data to include and what data to exclude when choosing disparate sets.
There's a difference between observation, and the attribution of that observation to cause. Yes, it is a scientific *fact* that the world has warmed at times over the past 150 years. Yes, it is a scientific *fact* that the world has cooled at times over the past 150 years. It is *not* a scientific fact that all of this change, or even a specific percentage of this change in climate can be attributed to human activity - no matter how many people generally agree to it.
Science is not a straw poll - it is a ruthless application of skepticism, and it all starts with a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Got one of those?
Sad, isn't it? Appeal to unnamed authorities never really does the trick :)
So if the world can warm without CO2 being a driver, why is it that you believe it's a driver in the current warming? What leads you to believe that natural variation can be ruled out?
More importantly, what observations of CO2 and temperature over say, the next 5 years, would make you change your mind?
Okay, so let's plot a graph of droughts from say, 1900-1950, and 1950-2000.
Plot another graph of CO2 emissions from those same periods.
Now what?
The answer is, what is the cost of limiting our society to 450ppm, and what are all of the possible probabilities of either beneficial impact from 450+ppm, and negative impact from 450+ppm. The short answer to that is we have a good idea about the costs, and they would drive most of the world into poverty and a brutish existence, and we have no idea about what the real benefits/disadvantages we would experience from +450ppm.
When we began the process of agriculture and animal husbandry, someone could have argued about whether or not there was an upper limit to how much farmland we should cultivate, and how many animals we should breed. And they could have further argued that we shouldn't exceed some arbitrary limit until we had a way to quickly return land to its original, unfarmed state, and return the animals to their wild nature. The precautionary principle is a sweet siren song and a dangerous delusion.
Okay, we can play that game - proxy from China:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
For other regions, see:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/a_regional_approach_to_the_medieval_warm_period_and_the_little_ice_age.pdf
Now, why is it any sillier to consider your chosen proxies than mine?
Science isn't about "general agreement" - state a hypothesis, state the observations that would falsify it, and ruthlessly look for those observations.
Why? What if human caused changed might end up being very good for us? What if *without* human caused change, we would face doomsday and disaster? You've got all sorts of imaginary risks here that have no basis in any sort of firm rationale.
The precautionary principle, while instinctually compelling, is dangerous to follow blindly. Everyone assumes that their proposed "precautionary intervention" has no downside risk, but that's simply baseless assumption. By the tenets of the precautionary principle, we could have rationalized never starting any agriculture - the conscious manipulation of our environment, through either farming or animal husbandry, was a new, different, and wholly unprecedented activity. Naysayers back in the hunter-gatherer tribe could have insisted that such intervention into the natural world was going to doom us in 5 years.
And where would we be now?
Nothing ever happens "spontaneously, for no reason". Often times, we can't discern the reason, but we live in a world of causes and effects, even if they are chaotic.
Now, climate has *always* changed, for the entire history of the planet, long before mankind was even a protoplasmic soup. Of course these changes all had reasons, but nobody dares assert that they know every reason for every historical change - yet you would have us believe that atmospheric chemistry has been the cause of all of earth's climate variation?
But let's play the science game -> what observations of temperature and CO2 for say, the next 10 years, would falsify your hypothesis that human driven changes to atmospheric chemistry are driving global average temperature? Be specific.
So dust bowls and severe regional droughts never happened before the post-1950 industrial boom?
Climate *always* changes. Dust bowls will *always* happen. How are you going to prove that the rate of dust bowls relates to human CO2 emissions? Or conversely, what observations will falsify your hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause more dust bowls?
Be specific.
What would you accept as evidence? I'm assuming you'll reject any regional evidence as simply regional, and even a multiplicity of regions could be objected to with the same rationale.
Of course, that kind of rationale really cuts both ways - if you have solid evidence that the MWP was globally *cooler* than today, I'd love to see it (and of course, make the same sort of regional objections as you might :)
So instead of taking a straw poll of scientists, how about this - come up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement, and clearly state what observations would falsify your hypothesis. If your hypothesis is "the globe is warmer today than it was during the MWP", what observations would falsify that?
...natural climate change.
This is like warning us about irreversible breathing, or irreversible gravity, or irreversible earthquakes. Climate changes - it always has, and it always will, and funnily enough, its changes will always surprise you.
Seriously, no matter what you may believe about the anthropogenic components of global average temperature, this kind of overhyped doomsday rhetoric does *nothing* to forward the important scientific work that should be going into studying climate and its many variations both past, present and future.
The sky is falling indeed.
Excellent point. On the one hand, we're screaming that banks shouldn't take so many risks, but on the other hand, we're screaming that banks should be giving more loans out. It's like people who want more services, but less taxes.
My point exactly - people seem to be so oversensitive to this video, when compared to *real* violence (be it anywhere from a severe beating by a parent, to being tortured as a POW), that they lump them all together - they're as different as night and day.
I'm arguing here that on the scale of abuse, this was minor. It showed more about the emotional problems this family had than anything regarding physical violence, and sadly enough, the daughter learned a lesson of vengeance she held onto for seven years, instead of making better choices than her parents. Those people that want to make it out like she was some kind of tortured POW are completely out of line.
And yes, if you were captured in war, and tortured for months on end, I'll freely admit you've gone through way worse, and that I've got no right to compare my suffering to yours (and you'll note, I never did compare my suffering to that kind of suffering).
On the other hand, if you're just talking out of your hat because you know *theoretically* there are tortured soldiers out there, and your life has been one peachy keen rainbow, then fuck you and the horse you rode in on - you've got no right to talk on their behalf if you haven't been there yourself.
I suppose it could go the other way too for people who weren't beaten as children - they are oversensitive to any display of conflict, and interpret any sort of raised voice as just as violent as a full on beat down. Personal experience with being beaten, and having *real* harm done to you, gives you a perspective that is distinctly different than someone who has had nothing but flowers and roses in their life. Not all beatings are of the same magnitude, and the video shows something mild compared to the reality many children have to endure every day.
I call it like it is. She had crappy parents, and instead of making the decision to be different, she learned the same lessons of hate, anger and vengeance. In the end, no matter what the world does to you, *you* are responsible for the choices you make - otherwise, why not just blame the guy who beat the father, and the father before him, and the father before him, ad infinitum? It's easy to blame others.
Now that's an interesting thought - I've never had anyone suggest that cerebral palsy might leave people incapable of morality, or incapable of any sort of self reflection and self control. I would suggest though, that even for the most damaged brains, we still have the choice on how to react to our surroundings - it may be more difficult for some brains to realize that, but it is nonetheless true.
The trick here is to realize that some people *choose* to be unhappy, and ultimately nobody can be blamed for that except themselves.
A teacher can do a great job of teaching at the same time a student does a poor job of learning.
A student can do a great job of learning at the same time a teacher does a poor job of teaching.
In the end, if you're a student who wants to learn something, it's probably best not to depend upon your teacher's skill or ability - the teacher doesn't get hurt when you don't learn, *you* do. It might not be fair, but hey, it's life.
I'm not sure if the alternative is really worse - absurdly high entrance requirements stops unprepared people from spending a year's worth of tuition to fail. Of course, you've got to work on what your high entrance requirements are going to be (I'd probably assert many standardized test suck as barometers, but fighting over the details is inevitable - I'd probably weigh teacher recommendations more heavily, and look for proof that these kids can work hard and get shit done, rather than just pad a resume with a bunch of trivial extracurriculars).
As it stands, the university lets in a whole bunch of unqualified people, takes their money (subsidized by taxpayer backed loans, and constructed to that they're almost impossible to default on), and has no real incentive to improve their student pass rate.
There is a cost for letting in unqualified people, and in the end, it's carried on the backs of taxpayers.
I think you're right, but because of that, I do...well, not *condemn*, but certainly disapprove of Hillary's continuation of the cycle of anger and hatred. She learned the lesson of lashing out at things that frustrate you from her parents, when she should've taken their example as a display of what *not* to do.
The happy ending to this story is still a long way off, if it exists at all.
Oh, no doubt, I could've learned the lesson of anger and hatred from my parents, the way Hillary seemed to learn from her parents. It would've been almost too easy. But I made a conscious choice to forgive my parents, and to respond to their anger and hatred with love and compassion. My children don't get beat, they get disciplined with appropriate restrictions and stern lectures - both of which, by the way, have been very effective in teaching proper behavior.
I broke the cycle of anger. Hillary didn't.
I respectfully disagree - the illusion is that they are only partially under our control. The reality is that our emotions are completely under our control, and breaking through the illusion, as hard as it is, gives us great power and peace. I'll leave with this quote from "Open Heart, Clear Mind":
"We often get angry when something we consider undesirable happens. But what use is this anger? If we can change the situation, then let's go ahead and do it. There's no need to be angry. It's very useful to think like this when confronted with social problems and injustice. They can be changed, so rather than be angry, it's wiser to work calmly to improve the society.
On the other hand, if the situation can't be changed, anger is equally useless. Once our leg is broken, we can't unbreak it. All of the corruption in the world can't be solved in a year. Getting angry at something we can't alter makes us miserable. Worrying about or fearing something that hasn't happened immobilizes us. Shantideva sad in A Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life:
Why be unhappy about something
If it can be remedied?
And what is the use of being unhappy about something
If it cannot be remedied?"
Any abused child has two choices, even if they don't realize it:
1) they can be a victim, and learn the hatred lessons taught by their parents;
2) they can break the cycle, and refuse to give into hatred and anger, in any of its forms
In this case, you've got parents teaching the wrong lesson, and unfortunately a daughter who couldn't break the cycle. I wish them all the best for coming to terms with their angers in the future, but I must say it's probably a lot harder than any of them can imagine.
Don't get me wrong AC, I'm not condoning anything here - I'm simply adding perspective. The judge is a weak man, the wife is a weak woman, and the daughter learned from her parents that internal frustration and anger can and should be retaliated against. I judge them *all* to be in error.
I'm glad you had a good childhood, and parents that were intelligent enough to discipline you effectively without teaching you lessons of hatred and anger. But you've got to know that this video and its contents are a far cry from real, honest-to-god-fear-for-your-life-and-physical-well-being beatings that a tragically large number of people have gone through during their childhood. This whole drama is an exposition of how people externalize the causes of their own personal frustrations, and take it out on others - and *that* is the real problem here.
Imagine for a moment the same scene, with the same verbal abuse, but no beating - just yelling. The anger lesson is still being taught. Imagine for a moment the same scene, without the verbal abuse, but *just* beating. Now a slightly different anger lesson is being taught (possibly with a touch of sociopathy). In any of those cases, including the one shown in the video, the *wrong* lesson is being taught, and the daughter's long hoarded vengeance shows that she learned that lesson well enough to emulate it, albeit in a different mode.
I think you misdiagnose the real damage actually - it's not fear or terroristic threats (her dramatic reactions during the encounter, compared to her cool demeanor afterwards shows a distinct lack of fear), the real damage is the *example* that her parents gave her. Her parents taught her, with that beating and whatever other beatings she may have had, that anger, hatred, and frustration can be blamed on *others*, and that taking action against others is a rational and normal course of action. The father and the mother were frustrated with their daughter, blamed her for their internal anger and hatred, and took action against her. Seven years later, the daughter was frustrated with the father and mother, blamed them for her internal anger and hatred, and took action against them.
The fruit didn't fall all too far from the tree.
It very well may be that only those who have been *really* abused can look at this video and not be shocked - I don't doubt that at all, in fact. But honestly, you've got a weak man weakly beating up on his rebellious daughter because he can't figure his own anger out, an obedient wife who goes along with the gag even though she must know in her heart she's married to a wimp who didn't have the balls to just *take the damn computer away*, and a daughter who sets up her little candid camera with visions of cold vengeance in her head (a daughter who could probably have beaten the shit out of her own father if she wanted to).
In the end, the girl got her vengeance, the father got his moment to feel like a man beating up on a 16 year old girl, and the mother got to feel like a devout and godly obedient wife. All three of them suck. Take away lessons:
1) a real mother doesn't let their husband/boyfriend beat on their kids
2) a real man doesn't beat their kids
3) vengeance, while definitely a dish best served cold, is only a perpetuation of a continuing cycle of negative emotion
Real world implications:
1) if your man is beating on your kids, divorce him, break up with him, and get the kids away from him;
2) if you're beating on your kids, stop - there are *plenty* of punishments that can be used to discipline kids without beating them, and frankly, they're a lot more effective. Take the computer out back and smash it to bits with a baseball bat if you have to express some inner violence, but leave the belt down;
3) if you're getting beaten by crappy parents, get out - find relatives, or friends that can help you through that rough patch if you can; no matter what, though, understand that your parents are messed up not just because they're beating on you, but because they're filled with negativity, and *vow* to yourself that you won't follow in those footsteps (even if its a different *form* of negativity).