DaProle Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 According to Stephan, people will be immunized against violence if they are treated in a peaceful way in their childhood. I don't think that word immunization should be used in this case. The whole point about immunization is that a little bit of antigen is introduced into an organism and this organism develops immunity against the antigen. So if we take the analogy literally, immunization against violence would be something like... martial arts which, according to Stefan, is a violent and inappropriate venture in itself. Also I do not think it's reasonable to expect from people that never seen or dealt with a conflict to be able to resolve it in adult life. People learn from things including things like conflicts and violence. There is a way to check Stefan's theory about peaceful parenting. Simply run a quiz among heavy left leaning people like Marxists and socialists as well as the libertarian types asking them the question about their upbringing. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of people that never been spanked etc. would be higher among leftists.
mythness Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 There is a way to check Stefan's theory about peaceful parenting. Simply run a quiz among heavy left leaning people like Marxists and socialists as well as the libertarian types asking them the question about their upbringing. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of people that never been spanked etc. would be higher among leftists. I highly, highly, recommend Alfie Kohn's book, Unconditional Parenting. It's short, rich in content, backed by studies, and gets straight to the point with no holds barred! (Pun intended?) Seriously. Grab this book from Amazon.com or get it on your e-book reader or whatever. To just focus on whether or not a child is spanked is narrow sighted. Kohn makes the argument against any form of conditional parenting, including: spanking timeouts or leaving the room any punitive measures ignoring your child material rewards psychological rewards presenting limited choices et al Not exactly a libertarian or anarchist, he doesn't come to the logical conclusion against the state or welfare services; however, his ideas on parenting can be used to understand why any form of conditional parenting is less than ideal. So, in short, just because a kid wasn't spanked doesn't mean much. I agree that it's better (for moral and practical reasons) not to spank a child, but it's not the only thing that must be changed in the way people parent the young.
mythness Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 Also I do not think it's reasonable to expect from people that never seen or dealt with a conflict to be able to resolve it in adult life. People learn from things including things like conflicts and violence. Such problems become a non-issue when nearly all the people are raised the same way. If nearly an entire population of people are raised in the same manner (peaceful parenting, unconditional parenting, whatever you want to call it), then the issue of dealing with violent, aggressive conflicts will be a thing of the past. Besides, no one would use the argument that a young girl should be sexually and physically abused, just a little bit, in order to prepare her for an abusive relationship in her adult life, even if the odds of her falling victim to an abusive husband is significantly high.
DaProle Posted February 13, 2013 Author Posted February 13, 2013 Also I do not think it's reasonable to expect from people that never seen or dealt with a conflict to be able to resolve it in adult life. People learn from things including things like conflicts and violence. Such problems become a non-issue when nearly all the people are raised the same way. If nearly an entire population of people are raised in the same manner (peaceful parenting, unconditional parenting, whatever you want to call it), then the issue of dealing with violent, aggressive conflicts will be a thing of the past. The question is how to get there. We are years if not centuries away from that environment. Also, are you implying that there will not be any conficts when everybody is raised the same way? And what it means "the same way"? In a free society it is impossibility in itself. Humans will be humans and conlicts will always exist imo. Besides, no one would use the argument that a young girl should be sexually and physically abused, just a little bit, in order to prepare her for an abusive relationship in her adult life, even if the odds of her falling victim to an abusive husband is significantly high. I wasn't talking about validity of abuse in any shape or form. A clearer definition though is a good thing. Stef sort of gave a definition of spanking in one of his last podcasts and, frankly, I would define that as an abuse. This is not what I think when the topic of spanking comes up. To me spanking is like when a parent tells a kid not to do something repeatedly and s/he does it anyway and then the kid as a result gets spanked once or twice as a punishment. Now, I do realize that the notion of "do something" is very variable here and abuse is possible if kid simply gets picked on by the parents for anything and everything. This is not what I mean. P.S. Thanks for the book, I'll research that.
mythness Posted February 14, 2013 Posted February 14, 2013 The question is how to get there. We are years if not centuries away from that environment. Also, are you implying that there will not be any conficts when everybody is raised the same way? And what it means "the same way"? In a free society it is impossibility in itself. Humans will be humans and conlicts will always exist imo. Your opening post read "conflict and violence" which is why I implied that "aggresive conflicts will be a thing of the past." Sure, conflicts may still exist in one form or another, but they will likely be dealt peacefully with negotiation and cooperation. As for "everyone parenting the same way" by "same way" I mean with the same principles of unconditional parenting. Take school as an analogy. My problem with school is not so much the teaching methods or the text books or even the teachers themselves. My problem with school, in general, is that it is involuntary. Completely voluntary education is the only possibility that would respect individual liberty and property rights. How each school or institution in such a society "educates" the young is anyone's guess, and it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it is voluntary. Going back to parenting, the different styles and methods are not as important, as long as they share a principle in common: the same (or greater) respect for the child as for any fellow adult; a respect for the child's developing mind and body; unconditional love. As Stef mentioned before, how we raise our kids is the most important application of the non-aggression principle. I hate to use the "slavery" argument again, but it's the best way to illustrate this point. "If the slaves are freed, how will we pick the cotton or harvest the crops?" "It doesn't matter. The point is that slavery is immoral. How will the cotton be picked? I don't know how, but I do know how it won't be picked: using slaves." Also I do not think it's reasonable to expect from people that never seen or dealt with a conflict to be able to resolve it in adult life. People learn from things including things like conflicts and violence. I don't accept that kids must be exposed to some violence or aggression or shame or anything punitive in order to "vaccinate" them for the "real world". There is no justification for it. It is wrong, on principle. If it becomes such a problem (unlikely) for a child raised peacefully/unconditionally, he can always choose to sign up for self-defense classes; just like I can always choose to learn a new language if it's really worth it to me.
Recommended Posts