[dahfizz]

> So "cannot be reasoned with" seems to mean "refuses to accept that I'm right".

That's unnecessarily combative. Are you arguing that refusing to brush your teeth is a reasonable position?

> I hope you aren't focusing mainly on their dental hygiene.

Dental hygiene was OP's example.

> a lot/all of the time, what's being referred to as "troubled" is really "traumatised".

I agree that most of the "troubled" kids I've known have been traumatized. But traumatization does not necessarily lead to being "troubled", and being "troubled" does not require traumatization. In any case, it does not excuse illegal, damaging, and destructive behaviors.

[mxkopy]

>That's unnecessarily combative. Are you arguing that refusing to brush your teeth is a reasonable position?

If all you did was explain to them the importance of healthy teeth, then denton-scratch is justified, all you're saying is that the kid cannot be reasoned with because they didn't listen to your explanation. Show them a root canal. Let them talk to the local crackhead. If your kid doesn't already have trauma and they aren't listening, most likely you aren't trying hard enough or aren't creative enough in your approach.

[denton-scratch]

> Are you arguing that refusing to brush your teeth is a reasonable position?

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that poor dental hygiene isn't in the same universe as getting drunk, stealing your parent's car, and wrapping it round a tree. Or beating up small kids at school.

It seems an awfully trivial misdemeanour to bring up, in a discussion of "troubled" kids and abusive incarceration.

[dahfizz]

I don't understand why you're so hung up on that example. It was the OP's example, and all the same logic applies to the examples you bring up here.