bambinod said:
spanking is child abuse, yelling is child abuse, grounding is child abuse, denying candy is child abuse, where does it end?
no, this is not child abuse. it's just parents trying to discourage behavior they believe is being done deliberately.
Kids tend to be hard-wired to want to be more like their parents and peers, so they'll usually see diapers as something they want to get away from, and this makes it an effective tool to encourage better behavior. Sometimes it's misguided, but it's usually well-intentioned.
"but you'll traumatize the child!"
and I think that's why we have a growing problem with people being so easily offended. Too much effort put into childproofing the world instead of worldproofing the child.
For a lot of people, behaviorism might not cause violence, just the desire to be good for those in power. The violence might only come in when those in power turn their backs.
Peaceful, mindful, conscious, respectful, objectivist parenting is not permissive. Children raised this way do have rules, and do follow them. They're some of the most polite, thoughtful kids I've ever seen. They know how to talk to adults, and sound rather like us.
I think it's because their parents spend so much time talking to them, and reasoning with them. They don't lie and say Santa is real, or the tooth fairy, or Mickey Mouse, or any other such imaginary being. As a result, these kids come to know their parents as reliable sources of accurate information.
Most of these parents hold the Non Aggression Principle.
Basically, "Thou shalt not initiate force, nor commit fraud. (lie)"
The parents don't hold their children to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves to. They don't want their kids to hit, or in other ways cause them physical pain, verbally tear them down, and withhold cooperation, so, the parents, themselves, don't.
They say something like, "You don't know my birth mother, because when I was 4, she took drugs that made her die. No, I don't think she meant to die. I bet she just wanted to hide her hurt feelings."
When a 4 year old asks about babies, they give them the science, not the stork. How is that lifeproofing?
These kids do not stuff their feelings, instead, knowing what they feel, and why, and what they know, and why. The thing these children also do, which makes adults who were brought up with behaviorism nervous, because the adults didn't get it, and instead, got punished and rewarded, is to expect respect as a matter of course.
They have a better chance against some tricky person telling them to drop trou, and don't mindlessly do as they're told, because their parents aren't big incompetent giants. And if it does happen, they have the language to put the tricky person away.
"Behaviorism creates the problem, for which it is (seen as) the only solution."
If you, for example, smack an adult, without his or her consent, that's assault, if the definition you use doesn't include the threat of violence. If it does., the threat, "This is your warning," for example, is assault, and the followthrough is battery.
It doesn't matter if you're doing it to teach, or not. Unless it is for self defense, it is morally repugnant to purposely hurt someone without consent. Since children are too young to consent, it is not different than hurting an adult without consent.
You won't see me cut off a son's prepuce, either.
I'm not uppity, or offended. I'm sad. I went through behaviorism, too. There's a better way. It doesn't have to hurt.
