It's still MORALLY theft,even if it's not LEGALLY theft

[Gwedin]

then i guess what i'm asking is for you (or anyone) to post shit that proves that not using coercion to dictate a child's behaviour is better than doing so.

idek at this point why i'm arguing cuz i don't necessarily believe what i'm writing but it could be fun and perhaps enlightening so why not.

[Avatar Korra]

Then I shall go on an evidence spree~
I will come back with my findings either tomorrow or when I find something really good.

[James Comey]

(04-23-2017 11:53 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  then i guess what i'm asking is for you (or anyone) to post shit that proves that not using coercion to dictate a child's behaviour is better than doing so.

idek at this point why i'm arguing cuz i don't necessarily believe what i'm writing but it could be fun and perhaps enlightening so why not.

Contrarianism!

[Gwedin]

(04-23-2017 12:18 PM)Hansgrohe Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 11:53 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  then i guess what i'm asking is for you (or anyone) to post shit that proves that not using coercion to dictate a child's behaviour is better than doing so.

idek at this point why i'm arguing cuz i don't necessarily believe what i'm writing but it could be fun and perhaps enlightening so why not.

Contrarianism!

if i was feeling particularly righteous i'd say i was simply playing the devil's advocate but yeah i just wanted to spite superkami originally i think so contrarianism will do

[The man]

Yay.

[Gwedin]

can you please stop fucking shit posting

[Avatar Korra]

@Gwediiiiiiiin: Here are some things I found so far:

http://othereducation.com/index.php/OE/a...ew/104/117
(This is a study on grown unschoolers. The main stuff is toward the middle and end)

https://loveparenting.org/2013/09/23/why...esnt-work/
(More info on what non coercive parenting is)

https://loveparenting.org/2012/12/31/the...ntrolling/
(Being in control vs being controlling)

https://loveparenting.org/2013/02/25/con...all-about/
(More info on attachment parenting and continuum parenting)

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bdb/16/1/1/
(Attachment parenting from a behavioral developmental view)


I found a bunch of studies connecting coercion with conduct problems, but they all costed money. How annoying. ;n;
Damn it Google Scholar...

[stevehein]

i just read this thread again. i don't think i saw some of the replies. for example the one that said "i dont care what you feel" and saying "idiot" to superkamicuru - who i will call skg

for now i would like to ask how skg felt to read "idiot"

for me it is not acceptable to call someone an idiot in this forum.

i feel protective of skg and of other sensitive people who come here for emotional support.

i also feel a bit aggressive atm when it comes to protecting people, including myself.

i also feel supportive of soulriser. and i feel admiration for her. and a huge amount of respect.

i feel pretty sure she also wants this forum to be an emotionally supportive place. part of that means being a safe place.

[stevehein]

(04-13-2017 11:49 PM)Korravatar Wrote:  J.6 What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ6.html

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but this article describes a way of raising "free children" without punishments or coercion. It sounds pretty radical at first, but makes more sense(and sounds more practical) with the more you read.
Here's a piece of it for an idea:

Quote:Moralism, however, can never get at the root of the problem of secondary drives, but in fact only increases the pressure of crime and guilt. The real solution is to let children develop what Reich calls natural self-regulation. This can be done only by not subjecting them to punishment, coercion, threats, moralistic lectures and admonitions, withdrawal of love, etc. in an attempt to inhibit their spontaneous expression of natural life-impulses. The systematic development of the emphatic tendencies of the young infant is the best way to "socialise" and restrict activities that are harmful to the others. As A.S. Neill pointed out "self-regulation implies a belief in the goodness of human nature; a belief that there is not, and never was, original sin." [Summerhill, p. 103]

According to Neill, children who are given freedom from birth and not forced to conform to parental expectations spontaneously learn how to keep themselves clean and develop social qualities like courtesy, common sense, an interest in learning, respect for the rights of others, and so forth. However, once the child has been armoured through authoritarian methods intended to force it to develop such qualities, it becomes out of touch with its living core and therefore no longer able to develop self-regulation. In this stage it becomes harder and harder for the pro-social emotions to shape the developing mode of life of the new member of society. At that point, when the secondary drives develop, parental authoritarianism becomes a necessity.

This oppression produces an inability to tolerate freedom. The vast majority of people develop this automatically from the way they are raised and is what makes the whole subject of bringing up children of crucial importance to anarchists. Reich concluded that if parents do not suppress nature in the first place, then no anti-social drives will be created and no authoritarianism will be required to suppress them: "What you so desperately and vainly try to achieve by way of compulsion and admonition is there in the new-born infant ready to live and function. Let it grow as nature requires, and change our institutions accordingly." [Op. Cit., p. 47] So in order to raise psychologically healthy children, parents need to acquire self-knowledge, particularly of how internal conflicts develop in family relationships, and to free themselves as much as possible from neurotic forms of behaviour. The difficulty of parents acquiring such self-knowledge and sufficiently de-conditioning themselves is obviously another obstacle to raising self-regulated children.

I agree 100%

Thank you for finding this VSD.

It's encouraging that it makes sense to you.

This reminds me of what Gabor Mate says abt the myth of human nature.

Basically he says we are born mentally healthy, cooperative, empathetic etc. The myth is that we are naturally competitive, viuolent, selfish etc.

[the Analogist]

I see only good in my kids.

of course when they do assholeish things its because I suspect learning that that world within you also resides in other people is a lesson that takes awhile. my kids can objectively know its not nice to hit your brother like that, but that his brother deserves the same respect as him, they just arent there yet. I have no idea when/how that will happen

[Gwedin]

sry Korravatar i meant to reply to this thread at a later point in time but completely forgot about it. i appreciate your effort.

i'll pin this thread and get around to it in the weekend because work occupies my weekdays.

stevehein's whining and lack of arguments are annoying.

[the Analogist]

having seen stevehein on YouTube talking about montenegro I can say he makes more sense to me. I imagine his writing being said in that stevehein way and it helps me understand what he's saying better.

he feels his words, so you have to feel them to. if you read them it doesnt work.

I wonder whose harder to understand, stevehein or me? at least according to my wife I write shit in a way thats misleading or not as accurate as i think

[Gwedin]

you sometimes write in a vague way that hurts my brain and i often have to read over it multiple times to understand and even then my comprehension isn't the greatest. having a small attention span does me no help there tbf.

stevehein's way of writing on the other hand comes off as very self centered due to the way it completely ignores the point and goes off on its own irrelevant tangent (hurt feelings in this case, where the point was my argument about whatever)

if i'm arguing i don't want to feel words and i'd say personal feelings have no place in argument so i'd rather just read words.

montenegro the country? what even

[the Analogist]

My problem is that I have a hard time knowing when I've been clear. I can write more words and try to anticipate how people will respond to what i'm saying and clarify accordingly, but I've kind of given up on that level of writing since it produces very long paragraphs which are an even bigger challenge to short attention spans.

Stevehein is trying to express a whole storm of emotions evoked by 5 words. I can relate since I have that same problem/advantage. That is, I read very slowly because sometimes I have to stop and pace around for a day or two just processing what I've read. I get a lot out of reading certain things, but I don't always get it out by writing. I see connections that I could draw together into a comprehensive theory of whatever, but i pretty much don't get thanked for my musings...

therefore "..."

[stevehein]

(06-21-2017 04:37 PM)Gwedin Wrote:  sry Korravatar

stevehein's whining and lack of arguments are annoying.

i am reporting this too.

here is what i wrote
==
Korravatar; whining -- clear invalidation
==

invalidating people's feelings is a form of psychological abuse.
http://eqi.org.invalid.htm

[stevehein]

(04-23-2017 01:44 PM)Gwedin Wrote:  i just wanted to spite superkami originally....

just calling attention to this as another example of hurtful words/intentions

==



noun
1.
a desire to hurt, annoy, or offend someone.
"he'd think I was saying it out of spite"
synonyms: malice, malevolence, ill will, vindictiveness, vengefulness, revenge, malignity, evil intentions, animus, enmity; More
verb
1.
deliberately hurt, annoy, or offend (someone).

[Gwedin]

(06-23-2017 10:41 AM)stevehein Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 01:44 PM)Gwedin Wrote:  i just wanted to spite superkami originally....

just calling attention to this as another example of hurtful words/intentions

no shit?

the cunt was shitting up the forums with what was borderline spam, he totally deserved it. he's calmed down now and is totally fine in my view currently so i don't feel spiteful to him. amazing how things work like that.

---

as for "Korravatar", considering what she did on the discord (which was far more abusive than anything i've done here (recently)) i feel totally justified in calling her that. she doesn't seem to mind too much anyway.

---

(06-21-2017 05:42 PM)Benjavaz Wrote:  Taking someone's property without their consent is theft. When you give someone a gift, then it becomes their property. So I agree with this thread.

what do you think of the arguments i made earlier in the thread, specifically the ones about expecting good behaviour or whatever in return for pocket money or electronics or whatever?

[Gwedin]

even so, do you feel that it's ok for the parent to then take the item off the child for breaking the conditions?

[Gwedin]

what if they aren't suicidal or whatever, though, is it then ok?

or how about, what if the parent feels as though the child is not improving because of the help that they're getting online, keep in mind the mistrust a lot of parents probably feel towards unqualified strangers on the internet being involved in something so important like their own child's life? is it morally wrong for the parent to try and interfere with what they perceive to be something harming their own child, and perhaps as an alternative, seek out more qualified help?

[Gwedin]

you're dodging the question tbh. the child consented when they agreed to the conditions but when you say "consented" i get the feeling you're saying it at the moment of the parent taking the item away for breaking the conditions.

[Gwedin]

"if you give me good behaviour i'll buy you a laptop but if you stop being good i'll take it off you"
yeah ok mum gosh just gimme the laptop

i mean in such an example the child is clearly being forced to consent to it if they want the laptop but what's wrong with that? no good behaviour, no laptop.

or are you talking about a different kind of forced consent, i'm a lil bit confused here.

[Avatar Korra]

Then the only reason they are being good is for the laptop. They are not intrinsically desiring to be good. If the point of wanting a child to be "good" is so they'll continue being that way into adulthood, then that is not a lasting strategy.

[Gwedin]

i agree.

but that's not the point. is it morally ok for the parent to take the item off the child in such an instance?

[Avatar Korra]

I don't find it okay, because the child didn't want the punishment aspect to the agreement, they just wanted a laptop. That is unfair, and parent shouldn't be manipulating their child that way in the first place.

Basically, it is immoral for the parent to take it away, because it is immoral for her to make that the only way her kid can get the laptop.

[Gwedin]

if they didn't want the punishment condition then why did they agree to it in the first place?

[Avatar Korra]

They only wanted a laptop, and only agreed because they'd get the laptop. Having one sometimes is better than not having one at all, though they'd prefer to have one without the condition.

[Gwedin]

right but that's an ideal situation, this isn't, there are conditions attached to having the laptop. one could argue it shows an awful lack of maturity in the child to disregard the conditions and only think about the laptop.

this is going nowhere

[Avatar Korra]

I don't find it immature to rebel against unfair conditions that shouldn't exist in the first place, I find it understandable.

I see it like(I'm gonna use a more extreme example since I understand those easier) if someone kidnapped a person you loved and said, "I'll give them back to you, once you break my friend out of prison." It would be understandable if you attempted to find and take your loved one back instead of doing the undesirable task, because the kidnapper shouldn't have coerced you into doing it in the first place.

[stevehein]

(06-24-2017 09:58 AM)Gwedin Wrote:  ...the child is clearly being forced to consent to it if they want the laptop but what's wrong with that? no good behaviour, no laptop.

what's wrong is that it is pure behavior control. no or little regard for the feelings and needs of the child/teen

i make a distinction between child and teen btw

and just for the record i believe parents have way too much power over children and teens - i include legal/financial/physical/emotional power