Timely argument against spanking justifications

-

 Modern-Day No Spanking


Why against spanking (now)?

    Intuition

    Why depends on goal, objectively measurable level of resiliency, and a focus (focus depends on resiliency and self-control level) on thoughts.

    I tend to think of people like rocks - cause and effect - the difference lies in our ability to exert resiliency in stressful situations.
    For example, if I know my kid will be stress when causing them to experience behind in a situation, one can either decide to change the goal and allow their kid to be curious in their own private enviornment or decide to build resiliency.
    Another example, you can teach a child to avoid a smaller obstacle in their path like a rock, but, what about an obstacle like a whole great wall of China, what if the child sees the rock as the great wall of China - whereas you are conditioned to not be as discouraged by it when you see it in your path? This is called resiliency and change of perspective, and it is objectively measurable.
    Also, I tend to think of human beings as a part of their enviornment. That being said, I do believe in mental cause and effect and mental thought process words, like "focus on thoughts" - unfortunately, this is not explained by parents very much. This also implies I don't believe in free will, this does not take away from resiliency.

    Resiliency is sticking to the goal in hard times.

    The skill of how to persuade people (without direct violence) is a valuable one indeed.

    Look at the effects of spanking objectively, don't get emotional about it, trying to get goals of good or bad. Rather objectively view how it convinces children or changes their mind using what kind of logic.

    All actions' justifications depends on the goal. If the goal is to create a dogmatic child who gets nervous in social situations and does not build confidence and rationale or have a good inner molougue with minimal intrusive thoughts then sure, spank your child. However, if you want to raise an intellectual with reason, then don't spank your child. It's that simple.

    I can only state the effects, you can tell me if it's something that should or shouldn't be pursued based on the goal. I say no as it does not teach children to prioritize and set goals, rather just hyper-focus on a conclusion evaluation, which causes a feeling of badness instead of focusing on the solution and variables involved and recognized and changing - to learn is to change. To teach means to teach a mental thought process.

    I recognize that all goals we set are based on what we think the purpose in life is, and if the purpose in life is to hyper fixate on good and and feelings, then so be it, anti-intellectuals.

    I know there is a reason why this specifically vague idea of hitting the bare bottomed backside of a child is rather unproductive. I know it's not enough to kill, but at the same time intellectual development does not happen because of it and I want to identify that medium.

Why Timely?

    Spanking was largely seen as a reasonable things to do back in the day given the situational context of lack of knowledge. It's similar to how a child learns thru trial and error.


Reasons:

  • "I was hit and I turned out fine" or "I was hit and suffer from a psychological condition known as "respect for others""
    • could you have been a better person if you weren't hit?
      • To the pro spanker: you are not perfect
      • To the pro spanker, be honest with yourself, there were times in life where you felt unsure and those times could be related back to the spanking
    • A thief that had their hand chopped off for stealing can theoretically say the same thing, thinking they deserved to get their hands cut off for stealing.
    • Basically the same thing as saying: I'm going to expect and wait till my son murders someone then I'll whip him, at that point the damage has already been done is the way you should see it.
      • waiting for the crime to take place, prevent it
      • Prevention is better than cure
        • A smart parent would prevent the desire from developing
      • Sure, at that time in moment, you can choose between the lesser of the two evils.
      • Best crime prevention is formal academic education and fostering curiosity not dogmatic boredom. This is what we mean by "get busy with life."
    • too much respect is a bad thing
      • This leads to overly relying in family for support, also known as attachment issues
      • is a form of trauma
    • Think of this as a form of unintentional side effects
      • against it because of the practical effects, such as decreased grey matter in brain, this makes it harder for children to learn new concepts, why do you think the children that are spanked end up average kids?
    • See this article for examples applied to other things: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/well/family/the-fallacy-of-the-i-turned-out-fine-argument.html
    • What does turned off fine even mean?
      • Even a person who was raped can still "turn out fine" 10 years later. That does not mean they didn't suffer with intrusive thoughts, misplaced emotions, jealousy, lack of lack thereof self-control, decreased sense of intellectual curiosity, for the past number of years.
      • By using I turned out fine argument, you are invariably justifying many things, such as rape, or slavey just because the black today turned out fine even though their ancestors are unjustifiable slaves.
    • I could have a random person come up to you and slap you in the face, and 10 years down the line, you will still be fine as it would not have caused immense pain resulting in trauma, however, it undeniably affects your life in ways you may not realize, such as distracting your thought process, maybe you'll retain information less faster, more prone to being reactive.
      • Refer to studies of how influences matter and free will does not exist.
      • If they claim free will only exists for moral options, ask them why the logic only applies to moral "good" behaviors, which have no explanation for why they are good.
      • Curiosity and asking the right questions is what will win the anti-spanking debate (only spanking used as punishment)
    • What criteria applies to "fine?"
      • I can point out many things in your life that you can optimize at the moment, why does the boundary stop at hitting children?
    • There are many things in your life that subconsciously programmed you, similarly, there can be things that are wrong with you and you not being aware of it.
      • Cancer for example.
    • Spanking affects thing on a minute level.
      • Similarly to how placing phone in pocket can actually affect sex life due to reduced sperm count from radiation
      • Similarly to how you will likely still "turn out fine" if you stub your toe 10 years ago, but still is not acceptable.
      • Similar to how you will likely "turn out fine" if you eat food off the ground just once in your lifetime - does not make it the most optimal thing to do given other opportunities.
      • Who knows, years later, we may find that poor air quality index can impair moral judgement - that is a reasonable conclusion to make and it would make sense to improve this environmental factor as it is a minute change with a very overlooked not so obvious effect.
      • When we first observed the sun, no one knew that it would be responsible for our sleep wake circadian rhythm, similarly, no one knew the influence of air quality on asthma, which in turn has an effect on mental health.
      • Similar to how can certain colors trigger seizures or how can certain colors can trigger certain memories or moods, causing a person to act morally or immoral. This describes an enviornment used to sustain morality is the cause of moral behavior and immoral behavior. Furthermore, this shows the importance of enviornment in moral development.
    • Feeling fine or happy being stupid isn't a good thing, no matter if you feel good.
      • Same thing: Even if you feel good smoking or drinking alcohol, does not make it good for you.
    • I can say I stubbed my toe and turned out fine 10 years later, and thereby, all children should have their toes stubbed for the sake of it. That does not make it right.
    • you're basically suggesting that: "what if it has a different effect on me as opposed to you" - in essence, that logic can be used to justify almost anything, including rape. For example, what if being raped for one person made them become more intellectual, would rape be justified in that case?
  • Think about what a wild claim this would be and how they would be directly correlated: WTF? Spanking Young Children Makes Academically Successful Teenagers
    • Do not think of this as "wild," but rather look at it with an open mind.
  • Sure, we resorted this method in dire times, however, we know now that, generally, prevention is better than cure, and is it best to avoid situations where this would happen
    • It's no different than letting your son murder and then whipping him for it.
    • "Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation" 
    • Same thing as deciding not to put son in a temptation environment, such as not putting son in a strip club, not allowing schools to be build near strip clubs
  • Spanking has no specific goal, and we know that when we don't have a specific goal, all goes to shit.
  • Spanking is correlated with a lack of ability to pursue curiosity optimally
  • "Spanking teaches self-control" where one must limit their desires to see the bigger goal
    • You can teach them this thru practical reasons instead of hitting them. You are usually not in an emergency situation where you need to hit them in order to save them, like slapping someone's ass to prevent getting stung by a wasp that was already there.
    • By not caring about the reason why because it morally does not matter, you are ignoring the practical factors that caused the situation to happen and potential ways to mitigated instead of teaching self-control. It's similar to getting mad at daughter for being raped and blaming her for not having enough self-control to wear less revealing clothing on the beach.
  • Spanking was justified "back then"
    • early conclusion
  • Non-verbal communication between parent and child told child they are allowed to do the thing they have done "wrong"
    • Non-verbal communication (unspoken communication) is just as important as verbal communication, by exposing children to environment without pre-warnings like construction workers do, they fall victim to thinking they don't need guidance. All a person needed at that age was someone to be by their side for a day guiding them on what to and not to do, and it wouldn't take hitting someone to do that to learn self-control without messing up their intellectual mental actions.
      • Environmental influences play a bigger role than influences in the home
      • Scientists are just those who study the environment by regulating themselves.
    • Spanking shows that parents indirectly allowed that behavior to continue by not effectively addressing it to begin with.
    • Similar to learning of unspoken rule
  • Proactive parenting not reactive parenting - we don't punish criminals before they commit a crime, only after.
    • Example: In the same way we knowingly don't expose our children to porn because we know and expect them to become hooked or addicted to it, same thing with putting them in an environment with new things, we should expect that they would need to learn self control  before they go into a place and when they fail, you teach them practically by taking one of their things away
    • Same example, just less extreme: in the same way, we don't expose children to high voltage outlets, hell we don't even let adults go there without protection, same thing can be said about children, we shouldn't expose them with things they aren't ready to see without the proper self-control, this is called proactive parenting, expecting when their children will commit crimes to proactively prevent it. Same logic works on children as well.
    • teach them practical morality
  • Spanking teaches curiosity is bad, and the more you limit curiosity in the presence of their experience, the less curious they are and tend to not perform as well academically, this is shown by how the south is behind in education.
    • Spanking decreases intellectual curiosity
  • Spanking can be used to teach morally right but can also be used to teach morally wrong things too. If someone would beat her and ask her to kill someone else because they beat her, she needs to know why that is wrong even if they beat her and refuse to kill said person just because they beat her. Just because you hit someone does not mean they are right and that is what spanking teachers, that some things are wrong because of dogma and practical pain inflicted and without practical reason as to why the world would be a better place if we didn't steal others' belongings.
  • Look at it from a kids' perspective (empathize), all they see is a shiny new thing and they are curious about it, whilst you know it's a wolf in sheep's skin, ideally you wouldn't expose your kid to these things, as it can create subtle forms of hidden trauma as those unexplained feelings are.
    • Yes, scientists don't pursue curiosity to the point of stealing others' belongings, but they do this by avoiding situations, not putting themselves in situations of temptation and actively trying resist it. This is why I am saying environment matters. Environment is a cause and a form of non-verbal communication, and free will does not exist
      • "Free Will Does Not Exist" See: cause of [intrusive] thoughts
    • The kid might see something being in their presence as something that is equivalent to shoving something in someone else's face. For example, what you see as a person shoving something in your face is equivalent as exposing a child to something new.
      • Your goal as a parent might be to desensitize a child to this, however, it can be done tactfully and intellectually with words without resorting to hitting someone.
      • Basically, the child sees being in an enviornment of new things and not being able to interact with it is like taunting them.
  • Is it wrong because you were hit or because it causes harm to another person that trusted you with their belonging in your presence?
  • "kids are amoral"
    • Human developed desires are complicated and more than just "amoral" 
  • Possible future study: Spanking lowers HGH production and decreases height
  • Would you spank your child in front of a doctor?
  • Misconception about spanking is that it affects not only what you think it affects (expecting that toddlers can associate pain with wrongdoing), when in reality, it has many unintended side effects such as reduced grey matter, lack of academic comprehension. Perfect person is a scientist.
    • Why do you think all of the places that are vehemently pro-spanking have the worst test scores? Find stereotypes that outcast this.
  • Leads to more internal problems
    • You can't tell me that you didn't face internal second thoughts about random ideas
  • Children don't have malicious intent
  • don't want to be helpless
  • If it works so well why don't use it all the time? Even for minor, first-time infractions?
  • Human desires are complicated, and I want to spend the time to understand them.
    • This implies a lack of understanding children and of their desires apart from "pain can solve problems"
  • Most people aren't ready to have a kid, all people need is a dick and a vagina and they reproduce
  • It prevents children's confident in trying new things
    • This is where children get that shyness factor
  • It teaches children to stigmatize everything and stop thinking
  • Causes confusion, why is this bad?
  • Why are we born imperfectly?
    • why is evil possible?
    • why am I a human being?
  • Emphasize with children
    • Children "steal" things simply because they are curious, in reality, stealing is nothing but a social construct, nothing is technically owned by anyone.
    • Yes, curiosity does not justify theft, however, it is important to give children a place where they can freely explore their curiosity for hours on end, instead of taking them everywhere you go, this leads to less intellectual development being in an environment where they can't practice curiosity.
  • Same way you wouldn't bring children to a strip club or a movie theater because they'll be too loud.
    • Putting children in places where you know they'll act up is like putting them in a strip club and getting mad at them for looking at the hookers. Looking is an interactive action too.
  • Spanking logic can be used to justify flogging of adults, when, in reality, we know there are better options for adults, sure, we can reason with them easier, however, this shows that it is the parent that cannot reason with the toddler because they forced another person to be in this world.
  • Same thing as you consciously not putting yourself in situations where you will feel tempted (like a strip club) or jealous, same thing can be applied to children.
    • Instead, what reasonably adults do is avoid places like that instead of being forced to be there and act like you're not tempted.
    • Avoiding problems
  • Cause of behavior is presence of environment. Sure, resilience and self-control are important, but it's smarter to avoid a problem than to create one and solve it.
  • "Idle hands are the devils workshop"
    • Give them something to do so they don't go worrying too much about the neighbors stuff
    • Look at it from their perspective (empathize with them), realize that they are just curious and are born with no malicious intent, rather that is learned and all feelings, including mental feelings can be explained, proving free will does  not exist.
    • The best cure is prevention and the best prevention of bad things is to be worried about doing something good.
  • Put them in a place where they wouldn't have to practice dogmatism or something they don't understand
    • If they act up in a store, simply don't take them to the store, leave them at a place like daycare or gymnastics practice where they can practice their curiosity. This is what the upper-class parents do and they don't have to spank their kids, with all of the pro-spankers complaining about.
  • Spanking is just as much as "coddling" is as much as someone doesn't want murder to be legal
    • send your kids off to a private school instead of a public one because I know there are bad influences there.
  • Family time isn't always a good thing
    • sometimes too much family time can take away from intellectual gains
  • It's not good to be in an area that does not foster intellectual concerns often, this depends on the goal, but if you want academically and intellectually smart children, you need to train as such.
  • Care to understand children's' behavior, if you did, you know the verbally communicating isn't the best way, rather showing them active preventive measure such as sports, etc. is much better.
  • Needing to spank is no different than putting your kid in a shit situation and getting "mad" at them for acting like shit, unless it was all planned out.
    • For example, when kids stole the things from neighbor, the mother should have expected her kids to be bored and do something about it like putting them in sports or some camps or something.
  • If your first time telling your child to do something is ineffective, that is your fault, not theirs
    • Basically, communicating with your child via words isn't effective, actions speak louder than words. In their perspective, it's nothing different than your boss telling you something in a light voice, and you interpreting it differently than what they intended it to since they spoke so softly and them getting mad at you for doing it differently and now they want to hit you.
  • If you have a cookie jar that your child steals from, maybe they aren't old enough to be exposed to the cookie jar temptation, like gold, keep it hidden in the bank or a vault somewhere. In their eyes, it's the gold, when they're older they can realize they should enjoy in moderation.
    • needing to spank is like putting a candy in a child's face and getting mad at them for being tempted to want to eat it. Think of mental actions.
    • It is basically an unnecessary temptation or an unnecessary experience.
  • Spanking decreases intellectual development
  • How do you teach your kids that stealing is "wrong" - meaning you can't objects that are not in your belonging without others' granted permission.
    • Wait until they're older to expose them to certain environments (see: movie theater example), then teach them by reasoning with them and if that does not work, take something of theirs away.
    • it's important to consider why kids are doing so and sympathize with their perspective.
    • Yes, stealing is wrong even if bored, but it's even more wrong to be bored, kids should be constantly engaged with something productive to do to engage their intellectual minds.
  • Spanking does not really teach right and wrong, nor does it remind someone of something. It merely disrupts their ability to learn from failure and look at a situation objectively, this decreasing intellectual capacity.
  • There are bad things in this world, certain bad things they shouldn't be exposed to regardless of age.
    • Such as a tobacco store, there is a reason why tobacco stores are not built nearby schools
    • Kids don't know what to avoid
    • Precaution
    • Sure, they still have to be moral in dire situations, but it'd be smarter to avoid those dire situations rather than have to face it.
  • Brain stimulation
    • I want to make my kid moral by proving brain stimulation
  • The fact that spanking is more common in areas with a lack of opportunity and education is clear to me why spanking is something that should be stopped.
  • Kids start exploring using trial and error
  • Don't be too worried about kids stealing. Stealing is wrong, sure, but you shouldn't be voluntarily putting yourself in tempting situations either. it's like avoiding going to the strip club, this is why strip clubs aren't placed nearby schools.
    • Addressing an act as "stealing" oversimplifies the intracies involved with the event. It fails to answer the question behind the chain of events leading to this event (otherwise known as the why). It's as if I drive into ditch then get out.
  • Being social is acceptable, however, being too socialabe is not.
  • The best way not to get tempted with something is to get busy with something else
  • Children are not distracted, they are merely curious, this is an unbiased way of looking at it without applying any sort of goal oriented words to it.
    • take your time doing something else in the meantime utilize your body some other way
  • Spanking takes effort to put into implying an unneutral position
    • movements can be measured by level of effort
  • It's up to the adult to make it make sense to a child
    • Sure, pain works, we all feel pain.
  • feelings are neither good nor bad
  • The human brain does not make sense sometimes
    • Making sense is what you expect the outcome to be - that is a bias merely based on past experiences, however, I do agree there is an objective standard to evaluate which arguments are more rational, however, in order to reach there, that itself takes time and patience and a calm environment to think of such thoughts.
  • Spanking for running in the street is no different than forcing your kid to a booby trapped home and getting mad at him for exploring it, the point is you should place your toddler in a place where it fosters curiosity, not endangers. Similar to how you plug up the outlets in the home, same logic applied here.
  • Risks are everywhere, the kid shouldn't have to take deathly risks such as living because of your selfishness.
  • I'd rather my child wake up to a world of possibilities
  • Instead of being moral in tempting situations, why not make it easier to be moral by completely avoiding those tempting situations.
    • It does not make sense to willfully go into a strip club and resist temptation, rather just completely avoid the place by taking a different route.
    • look at it from a kids' perspective, it's as if you're taking them to a tempting place voluntarily and expecting them to behave as otherwise.
  • It does not make sense to force someone into a moral dilemma and try to get them out of it by hitting them, it would make more sense to avoid that situation and fill your experiences in life with something else. 
  • prevention by getting busy with something else
    • Similar to how a person can get over a breakup by doing things other than constantly pondering about.
    • In other words: Get busy with life, keep your kids busy - you wouldn't let your kid just sit around the house in the summertime, therefore, you shouldn't do the same when you're just "getting groceries" by leaving them at home, rather give them something to do.
    • kids need to be constantly engaged with something to do or else they will turn their curiosity to their everyday life
      • For example, instead of not letting your child draw on the wall, purchase a wall cover that allows them to draw on the walls without damaging the actual wall which is your concern, not only is this effective in letting them pursue their curiosity, but also practically balances your concerns of not damaging the wall.
      • Similar to how you wouldn't trust a child to run a desk job, same thing can be said about trusting a child with unblemished wall.
    • All it takes is knowing how a child's brain works on a relatively intricate level to understand the more complex things a parent must do in order to successfully raise intellectual and moral kids.
  • Provide them a place to be curious
    • Sports is the best preventative medicine and helps one encourage curiosity of body awareness.
  • Sure you may have been taught "respect" -> however, being too nice is also a bad thing. It shows you are (overly) reliant on others' morality and opinions.
  • Spanking does not truly work long-term based on how the brain works, don't oversimplify it.
  • In order to be moral you need to be in an environment which encourages morality, this is why you don't see protestors rallying against adult clubs
    • not all moral environments are the same
      • For example, an environment can be moral one second and immoral the next given that one person abuses another persons' trust, something that could be prevented.
      • A moral environment is not a immorally-tempting environment. This is why Church service is held in a chapel and not a strip club.
  • Similar to how you wouldn't hire an unable-bodied person for a job since you know they wouldn't have the mental fortitude to do so
    • This is why background checks are important as they ensure
  • Spanking stigmatizes mistakes, which doesn't lead to development as to why some things are bad, rather just knowing that they are. That is not very intellectual or academic.
  • (unconditional) Moral perfectionism is never possible
    • Everyone will fold if tortured enough
  • Ritualized spanking uses the same logic as those who are bad guys
  • Making sense of confusion
  • Spanking affects a person in ways they may not realize or comprehend
    • For example, if you were spanked you may be more vulnerable to forgetting things, etc. It can and will affect mental function in ways that are unnoted.
  • Spanking can cause social anxiety of being near people and can lead to unreasonable trust
  • following morality in desperate times isn't necessarily a good thing
  • Needing to use spanking is already descriptive of a situation that could be avoided.
    • Spanking does not take into consideration of the specific thought process used
  • Spanking teaches resiliency sure
    • Brain research says certain colors invoke certain feelings, this is why therapists offices are colored in light colors whereas arcades have many colors
  • Spanking hinders development of curiosity, creativity and critical thinking skills
    • This also inevitably has effects on other areas of life involving health. For example spanked people have a harder time dieting, sure, they may be considered mutually exclusive events, however, in life, everything affects everything, even things that don't make sense - that's just how the human brain works.
      • The logic here is - learned helplessness
    • Spanking affects children in ways that you may not expect that are related
      • For example, those who are spanked may tend to be less intellectually curious and more dogmatic leading to more intrusive thoughts
      • Similarly to how going to the gym makes one more academic even though it has no ideal relation, both actions do affect each other in the physical realm in terms of balance.
      • Everything affects everything, everything is inexplicably intertwined, it's just the way our feelings brain works: https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-everything-affects-everything-jay-asher-41-15-36.jpg
  • Spanking does not allow the child to realize that it is the environment that is the problem, not the child itself.
    • Sure, resiliency is important when facing adversaries, however, a child shouldn't be facing adversaries
  • If spanking really works, why don't we use it as a first resort?
  • Even if spanking is quick and "effective" in the short-term, the same logic can be used to justify chopping off a thieves hands off as they are caught in the act for petty theft - they are both "quick" and "effective" when considering the short-term.
  • Cause of thoughts is not free will
  • How the human body works is not simple, it's not mere common sense
  • Morality describes an environment, not isolated behavior, in order for one to be moral, they must be in an environment that fosters it.
    • That being said, we should strive to make an environment to be as easily moral as possible, it wouldn't make sense to promote morality if going into said environment, you would be treated immorally by being punched in the face
    • A moral environment is a goal to pursue and sustain as a pre-requisite to most good things in life. For example, we cannot have a good cookout without being moral towards each other.
  • By spanking in this day and age you are claiming to have understood how the human body and brain works and claim it is the most effective tool for correcting behavior.
  • The common sense justification is nothing more than the logic of the following claim: "every person that drinks water has died in 100 years or less, therefore water is toxic" -> that is what common sense would have us believe over 1000 years ago according to some tribes.
  • Consider communication thru body language instead. Consider multiple modes of communication. Our bodies are constantly communicating with our environment. Make sure you only give those you trust actual control.
    • This is called nonverbal communication.
    • Symbolism
  • Spanking affects intellectual development, those who deny it can see the example detailing how going to the gym can boost academic performance even though they are not directly related to each other - it is how our body reacts.
    • This is proof that all actions, including spanking, affects more than one thing that what we realize on a surface level common sense level of understanding
  • Spanking encourages impulsive behavior
    • Yes, most pro-social behavior is impulsive
  • Spanking causes intrusive thoughts, yes thinking is an action, therefore a skill that can be mastered, it's called intellectualism
    • TO THOSE THAT ARE PRO-SPANKING: You'd be lying if you said you didn't have any intrusive thoughts, this is caused by the spanking, yes, they are related even if you don't think they are. Similarly to how certain colors can attract head and not just used for cosmetics.
  • Spanking can reduce a child's admiration for skillful events like gymnastics or grappling
    • minute differences like this matter!
  • Spanking teaches the child that there is no practical reason behind morality.
  • Spanking is not in accordance with how the human body or brain works
    • To those who said it taught them right from wrong, ask them to explain why what is wrong is wrong, if they answer with dogma, then they clearly don't understand why.
  • The need to spank is almost always the parents fault (assuming child does not have maldeveloped brain) because it is the parents responsibility to ensure the prevention of crime.
    • no different than getting mad at child for being a school shooter after being a school shooter.
  • Similar to how cigarettes used to be seen as a positive thing in the 60's same thing can be said about spanking nowadays, we know it hinders cognitive development.
  • Newer understandings of how the brain works render spanking ineffective in the longer-run even if we don't live forever, our children will carry legacy
    • Spanking can cause an lesser grey matter in brain, literally leading to anti-intellectualism
  • Spanking does not take into account non-verbal communication, or rather communication with one's own enviornment.
    • This can lead to communication problems
  • Children that act out are the real victims as they are the one's that have not been provided a place to practice their intellectual curiosity
    • Similar to how those who commit heinous crimes (those on death row or life in prison) are also a victim as chances are they had a bad childhood. They are not just the perpetrators, but also the victim.
    • Same thing can be said for small times crimes like petty theft or acting out in public. Applying the same logic, we can see that it is the parent that put the kid in a tempting enviornment without any viable training beforehand.
  • Encouraging not stealing can be taught by explaining concepts such as: Personal Space, Bodily Autonomy, Social Boundaries, Trust, Control, Giving Up Control, Vulnerability, 
  • People steal because of temptation and curiosity, temptation is the cause of this.
    • When this curiosity is not fostered beforehand, it will leach onto society in the form of stealing, etc.
  • Self-control is the enemy of curiosity
    • This bring out the point that one must be in an enviornment that fosters curiosity with moral boundaries. But reasonable boundaries so that they don't require excess or unbearable amounts of self-control.
  • Without verbal explanation, children have no idea how to tactfully regulate and decide who to trust. Rather they find themselves in tempting situations and just practice self-control to get out, they commonly blame themselves without recognizing the external, rather uncontrollable, factor
  • Use "rehabilitative" punishment as opposed to retributive punishment
    • Retribution does nothing in terms of understanding why, it only creates a dogmatic idea in the head that does not reason with it's practical effects. Sooner or later, without understanding why, one is unable to identify their limits of being in an abusive situation.
    • Retribution does not actually teach someone anything academic or of value.
  • Don't spank your kids for stealing instead explain to them why things like large amounts of money are locked up without the publics' view and whereas things like kids toys are not and how they need to develop self-control if they want to live in a civilized society in the presence of other people.
  • Explain the history of why your kid is ending up where he is now, talk about human struggles
  • The logic of thinking like a spanker does not involve logic at all in terms of how human beings work
    • To explain, to communicate with other human beings, one must teach by ensuring the enviornment is safe to learn in. This is what a school does with academic topics. The same logic can be used to teach self-control and resistance. There are levels to understanding one's enviornment.
    • Teach a child how to mentally get into the mindset of being in public and respecting property by teaching them to trust their surroundings under given conditions.
  • If you can't explain it to them in words, then they are too young to be explaining that to in terms of adjectives like self-control and need other stimulation to keep their curiosity until they can be explained that to. Academic schoolteachers use the same concept. You wouldn't teach calculus to a 9 year old, but you would to a 19 year old because of their pre-requisite experience, same logic here.
  • Unless your child is mentally deformed and in a way that their genetic makeup makes them a psychopath, there is no reason to use force as such.
  • If you can't explain their behavior, then you don't understand how to communicate, how to understand human behavior and how to prevent bad behaviors by modifying surroundings.
  • It's similar to arguing with a scientist on the effects of toothpaste, just because you uses SLS in your mouth and turned out fine does not make it the most optimal given our new understanding of human behavior.
    • For example, if a study came out stating that the more children were exposed to red light, the more their amygdala lightened so therefore they removed all red colored objects in a testing room to dole out distractions.
  • Explain how there are right are wrong are derived
  • Explain how there are boundaries to everything, including personal space
    • For example, it's ok if someone is in your presence - because the presence of surroundings withing your senses does not make it your "personal space" - or does it? Either way, explain in what conditions it is okay to react as such. For example, it is not okay to react by kicking a car that is parked, however, if a car that is in yourself is coming at you, it is okay to kick it.
  • instead of hitting to explain, try using words to explain to children not to steal given it's practical purpose in society, if you can't use words, you are being dogmatic and don't even understand why yourself. Which is just as bad as someone doing something without knowing why they're doing it.
  • Children aren't mentally resilient enough to gain the skills of understanding that the purpose of being around people isn't always to interact with them. This requires a lot of pre-requisite work and social conditioning.
  • Take the time to understand the reasoning behind the behavior
  • Spanking logic does not make sense because it can be used to justify flawless behavior. It is reactive not preventative. You wouldn't spank a child before they commit a crime, however crime-committing does not make sense as we just use people to place the blame onto showing a need to place a blame onto someone, proving that there is too many people in this world to live a quality lifestyle.
  • actually explain to yourself what you're trying to teach. If you are saying: stealing is wrong, you are not considering the mental effects of being in the presence of something new and shiny and intriguing from a child's mind, instead, what should happen is consider the conditions of the enviornment and explain to them concepts of self-control, patience, trust, expectations of said enviornment and have them understand why they should derive the goal of not stealing, because, even a criminal knows it's wrong to steal, hence why they don't do it in broad daylight, but that does not stop them, instead logically deriving the goal of why they are in that enviornment what their purpose in said enviornment is and actually comprehending it will be far more effective in preventing promiscuous thoughts - Yes, even thoughts can be immoral.
    • Not to mention, how do we know that it's not wrong to be in someone's presence, it does not make sense to be in a tempting enviornment and expect someone to practice self-control. For example, if you are on a diet, you wouldn't voluntarily walk into a McDonalds - it does not make sense.
  • If you can't explain what you're teaching via words, then you simply don't understand it yourself and probably shouldn't be a parent.
  • the way you teach one thing is the way you teach everything else, explain to the child how to identify which variables are conditional and which bounds they should be limited to, for example, when i was having trouble sleeping: i identified variables like screen time, eating time, etc. that helped identify my flaws
    • If you tend to teach the child via spanking, you aren't actually identifying the root cause and putting into words
  • Spanking does not teach children to cooperate
  • Spanking does not typically take into consideration the mental effects it can have on a kid - spanking can affect areas in life such as academics and cause brain fog
  • Spanking can also leave people vulnerable to not understanding their enviornment.
  • Spanking does not address the development of malicious feelings
    • Within the user interface of life, parents must understand the multitude of influences within a child's life, such as a tobacco store near a school is a big no-no.
  • A child might be "overstimulated" when in public and just simply does not comprehend how to navigate thru the public sphere yet - in that case, it does not make sense to expose them to that kind of enviornment
  • Everything you do is an opinion - a mood - by spanking them you are teaching that certain development of thoughts are unacceptable to think up of making them unacceptable opinions
  • The logic of explaining to someone that stealing/smoking is "wrong" simply does not make sense unless you give the why behind it, and if the person cannot comprehend the why part, then they are too young to be exposed to that kind of stuff anyways. Similarly to how children's shouldn't be viewing adult content.
  • affect multiple areas of life
  • Spanking does not just affect one area of life, it affects all areas of life such as logical setting boundaries and affect academic performance
  • What you learn outside of school matters more
  • Don't evaluate children's behavior as right or wrong as it takes more to comprehend behind rather than be judgmental than understanding and targeting the real cause of the issue. It's likely that your child was overstimulated from the public enviornment and needed someplace else to be, since the goal is to stimulate the intellectual curiosity of the child.
    • Also, identifying something as right or wrong simply does not make sense as it cannot answer the question: what are you comparing right or wrong to - what is the scale used to measure if something is right or wrong? The answers is almost always: feelings or mutual feelings. The tricky part is that children have yet to learn how to balance the desires of others with their own needs and the specifics matter, especially to children. You must tactfully desensitize them.
  • Spanking is as ridiculous as teaching a child to learn mathematics by hitting them every time they don't comprehend something. As teachers, you know that if they don't understand something it means a previous concept - something of lesser complexity - simply wasn't understood.
  • Those who say explain then spank simply don't understand human behavior at all - if you can explain it to them to the point where they can understand via verbatim, then you wouldn't have to use physical reprehension, if you can't then they're too young to be in that situation to begin with and should start with something less intimidating.
  • Teach them concepts such as human cooperation
  • To change someone's perspective for the longer-term and actually understand, you must be convincing intellectually, not just physically demanding.
  • If you can't explain how to think or derive said conclusion in a way they can understand it, then they are simply too young to be in that situation. Similar to how you wouldn't assign responsibility to a kid for entering a hard hat only zone simply because they are too young to understand/comprehend the dangers of why they need to be wearing a hard hat, so, simply best to avoid that situation altogether in lieu of one that is more easily able to understand by the child like going to the library.
  • Spanking does not take into the cause of the desire to "steal" or "smoke" more often than not, children are exposed to these things and develop a sense of curiosity to these things rather than a sense of malicious desire. In reality, to change the perspective of children towards these things, we must limit exposure to this kind of enviornment that promotes such bad thoughts and wait till they are old enough to comprehend concepts such as human cooperation via verbatim.
  • "Don't me telling a person how to interpret their surroundings and how to learn from their experiences"
    • For example: if a person got raped, don't be like "they should now interpret it and take it as now that i got raped i will were less slutty clothing" -- When in reality the moral responsibility isn't on them, Thus furthers my point that the experiences controls our thoughts, this also furthers my point that middle classes folks who live amongst the masses in close-quarters houses are abusive by nature as being exposed to others as soon as you walk outside is rather stressful, proving that you shouldn't have been born and are one of the masses, moreover, proving quality over quantity, implying you need to be humbled by grappling.
  • The same logic used for spanking children can be the same logic used to justify extreme measures as a punishment for petty theft like chopping the hands off of a thief for steaking a candy bar.
    • we both recognize that thief is likely to not steal again, however, it does not service much practical value as the person who stole can and should change with proper conditioning.
  • In the same way sleeping is a part of training and recovery, the same thing spanking should be considered as - spanking can affect academic train of thought.
    • Such as how losing a couple of hours of sleep will not only affect the morning but the rest of the day. Imagine if you had to take a test that morning, that lack of sleep would be affecting it.
    • In other words, the logic of learning from spankings slows down intellectual development
  • Knowing when to limit curiosity is a good thing, however, if one cannot explain it via verbatim the situation is too dangerous and requires too much trust.
  • To those who claim indoctrination, ask them to define indoctrination - you'll soon realize, they think in terms of their ideas vs. mine, instead of reasoning vs. reasoning. They'd rather argue rather than care to understand reasoning.
  • affects more than what you're trying to "teach"
    • if you can't put it into words and teach what kind of thought process they should have, they're too young to learn said contents
  • does not teach to avoid certain experiences that trigger these desires, instead just suppresses curiosity instead of being occupied with another form of curiosity. Children are curious and that should be encouraged in the proper enviornment.
    • does not teach children to encourage curiosity
  • does not teach them what the purpose in life is to follow curiosity and to be intellectually developed instead of dogmatically moral. Every goal you set comes from what you think the purpose in life is.
  • Feelings do matter, we are controlled what to think by enviornment, once you realize this, you'll see how pointless life really is - deciding what to experience
  • Children should be treated as intellectuals
  • parents never have "bad" intentions when spanking children
    • First, define "bad"
      • using loaded adjectives to describe a goal doesn't make much sense if you don't describe the goal first. The goal should be achieved based on how human beings work. 
    • Next, intentions don't matter as much as the effect of your actions. For example, if you push someone off of a cliff, regardless of your intentions - maybe you were trying to get them from falling off of the cliff - at the end of the day you pushed them off of the cliff (and they died) therefore, you pushed them, period.
    • just be blatant with yourself - you are trying to coerce, convince your child to see things a certain way. If you can't explain it via verbatim and they comprehend then you're reasoning isn't up to par.
    • Don't confuse intentions with actions
  • effect the brain in much more ways than just one
  • I can use the same logic to justify immoral acts because hitting someone enables me to take control of their amygdala which shuts down the logical part of the brain processing.
  • can also prevent stealing by occupying with someone else to do. can't steal if you're focus on something completely different, this proves that it takes mental energy to identify something
    • Can't steal something you don't know about. Like I said before, everything is conditional. Likewise, how you wouldn't expose a child to a hard-hat only area if your goal is safety, it would be to rather avoid this experience.
      • Similar to how common sense is used to avoid bad situations, like avoiding stepping into a pool of lava because you know from experience that excessive heat isn't suitable for survival sustaining conditions.
  • feeling formula
    • To generate curiosity in surroundings, one must be exposed to it first
  • The only people who agree with spanking children as a form of discipline are those who don't care to question why a child does certain things to begin with and what a child's goal's are - their goals are curiosity and it should be encouraged for intellectual development goals, goals such as respect should be instilled later on or in accordance with intellectual development, such as understanding of how to focus on goals, isolate distractions, decide what goals to pursue, see obstacles, etc.
    • The only people that don't agree with goals of developing goals of intellectual curiosity are those who have been conditioned to think that children should pursue these goals, the default value is to be curious, not to be dogmatic
  • Those who agree with spanking don't recognize that one must learn from their past experiences, if you reflect on your pasts experiences without considering the reasoning fort your past actions, you won't be able identify the cause of the problem - first without understanding how human beings work.
    • Only those who won't recognize that children are scientists and are left with unconditioned curiosity will be able to appreciate and pursue the goal of intellectual development.
  • Spanking does not directly teach one what to think in a situation to calm down - it literally does not make any sense. To an intellectual, this is how an intellectual would view it.
  • Spanking does not address the mental variables in place, such as self-control, perception, evaluation, application of criteria, conclusion, 
  • usually if a child is in public and being curious and unruly (perspective), that means their curiosity goals aren't tended to enough and they don't know how to focus on a goal given the distractions.
  • I don't want to hit my kids to make them think that feel like everything is an obstacle. I'd rather teach them to focus on a goal and build resiliency and self-control via intellectual explanation.
  • By spanking them you are indirectly and subconsciously teaching them the attitude to solve certain problems is to hit people without understanding their goals in a non self-defense situation.
  • It does not make sense to interpret the past as right or wrong given with a given bias of evaluating it for recognition of certain people or things, rather it makes sense to identify the cause of one's own behavior considering their goals and actions towards their goals and sympathizing with what they knew with back then to what they know now and evaluate it as such.
    • If a person applies a set of criteria to describe their past actions without realizing the reasoning for their past actions, they simply can't understand the mentality behind their past actions. For example, if you can't understand why the kid version of you at 4 years old wanted to jump down from a 10 foot mountain with no supervision, you shouldn't just judge "that was stupid" with the information you know now as all you are identifying is what you know now, now what you knew back them. For example, you might have wanted to jump off that mountain because you felt threatened. In other words, if you felt this way and justifiably so, you should consider why you felt this way - maybe you perceived (perspective) the presence of a bear and natural instincts kicked in for survival mode and thought to jump off, without realizing the variable of the cause of behavior, you can't address the problem.
  • In the same way you can't chop someone's hand off for stealing and claim "it's the best for them" them same logic can be applied in accordance with how people work.
    • Without first a solid base in understanding how human desires work and how children are naturally curious to learn more about the world via factual information and then navigate upon it
  • Spanking teaches children to give up on goal of curiosity | in other words teaching them the mental thought process that curiosity is inherently bad, which is not the intention so why teach it like that? If your intention is to teach something - you should teach the thought process of how to get there mentally and physically.
    • If they start exploring in such an enviornment, then that means the enviornment isn't friendly for curiosity, meaning, it is unsuitable for the child to be there, the goal's do not align or are the same.
    • The goal a child should pursue is to foster their curiosity, if they are in a dangerous enviornment, then the enviornment is an issue, it's similar to how one wouldn't bring a non hard hat wearing to a hard hat only zone.
    • One must teach someone to change goals peacefully by recognizing what to prioritize
  • Interpreting learning from a spanking reflection on past events and concluding what you did was unsuitable towards the now newly set goals and judging yourself  instead of understanding why you did what you did as a child - children are curious and get mad if you disturb curiosity endeavors - and blaming yourself for being at fault is no different than a raped person blaming themselves for wearing a certain type of clothing item that provoked another person to rape them when looking at it from a justified behavioral judgmental perspective if is rapist who is at fault and should change to accommodate their impulse control and self control. This is another reason why jail does not make sense as it doesn't address deeper rooted problem within behavior - the more we understand human behavior and the thinking process the more we can become aware of what we need go change in accordance to the way we work.
    • Point is spanking does not address the cause of the problem, even when symbolized as a consequence. Obviously behavior needs to change, but what about the behavior went unchecked that caused these actions
  • The problem is the cause of the problem
  • Identify the mental variable at fault here
  • Children will feel overwhelmed if they can't pursue original goal of curiosity.
    • Also too much information given the presence of others and seeing them as obstacles can make them feel overwhelmed
  • There is a limit on interpreting an action that happened to them as a reminder
    • For example, what if i were to chop off hand because you came late to work - is that a valid form of a reminder? It is not. And justifiably so. That is because you will be rather hyper fixated on the pain that intentions and goal of the other person does not matter. Instead using peaceful persuasion tactics such as reason would work and if you can't use words and reason then your goal itself isn't reasonable and should probably evaluate it if you can't think about why you're doing what you're doing.
    • Comprehension of the evaluation they should perform when in public such as: respecting others personal space whenever others come into their sense (for example, when others come into their view, the must avoid them or interact with them based on the goals)
  • Sometimes when people look at their surroundings they see too much information - stimuli overload since their brain is constantly identifying subconscious thoughts
    • Knowing this information will help you address how to mentally address the stimuli of information coming to your child
    • For example, if you exposure your kid to an enviornment with many restrictions to curiosity they will grow up to be rather dogmatic and not know ways to optimize or solve problems.
    • Living amongst others is stressful as everywhere you look and turn, it is occupied by other people that you have to either avoid or engage with, making people an obstacle for the goal of the person. Teach children to focus on a worthwhile goal, build resiliency, and cooperate with others.
    • In other words it's considered, mentally categorized as unneeded stimuli otherwise known as too much information - TMI - and when people receive too much TMI they tend to give up on goal due to lack of encouragement and internal resiliency.
      • Teaching kid to mentally categorize means to teach how to think
    • being physically too close to people can cause overload of mental symbolism and excessive emphasizing of mental characteristics.
      • by logic of free will, there is no boundaries to thinking
  • Spanking will cause jealous (indirectly teaching jealousy which arises from not setting boundaries and resiliency and non being distracted from goal by non-emergency endeavors properly) - which indicates a lack of understanding and security of the event
    • To avoid the trigger of these feelings - mini-ptsd - one should rather understand the function of being in the presence of others' property and respecting the presence of it.
      • By being around others' property all of the time not being abel to practice curiosity can really dull out a child. There are ways to balance social respect (objectively measurable) and curiosity (objectively measurable)
        • In the same way people say morality is objectively measurable, I agree, there are many objectively measurable variables at play here. For example, it takes more self-control for a person being kidnapped being shown a porn video as opposed to someone who comes across a porn video on accident on reddit or something as they are scrolling. Of course, both of these events take comprehension skills to recognize the pornographic events - a child would not recognize pornography as porn.
  • To help parents understand from children's point of view and their desires and goals
    • In the same way you wouldn't expose children to drug dealers and porn addicts forcing your child to take part on those behaviors, you shouldn't have them around similar influences as well, you should want to guide their desires - same thing goes with less then obvious examples
  • how to learn to be straight? you ask that to conservatives, they can't explain the psychology behind - not knowing that there is psychology behind everything - changing goals and what not,
  • what changed your mind is a valid question as it shows the limits of our feelings and how it works, without being open to realizing how things change our minds, you will never know what the deciding factor in what your thinking is. If you merely say, "it's somethign you have to experience to know" that just explains the fact that you don't even know how to explain it yourself, and that, my friends, is what we call the confused state of mind.
  • learning form spankings as the intentions instead of the pain symbolism is like saying 
    • If all that mattered from the lesson was symbolism, this just means that you can justify a lot of things including rape, using that particular logic and application of criteria, the rapist raped the person because the person was wearing provocative clothing on the beach, and therefore the things that needs to be changed is the person that was wearing the slutty clothing as that symbolizes slutty clothing.
  • spanking suppresses curiosity to optimize one's life as you don't know why the child is "stealing" objectively looking at their behavior without any sort of predefined goal, they are merely exploring, they haven't learned to evaluate their surroundings as things they are allowed to touch and things they are not, curiosity matters that a child doing that in public is no different than not taking care of that child's curiosity needs
  • Interpreting the past experiences as emphasizing characteristics
    • since we only learn from past
    • scientists learn from the past too and they learn about atoms and their implications, whereas children learn metaphorical symbolism
  • the logic of looking at the past only emphasizing what happened instead of why it happened will carry over to other areas of life instead of recognizing and focusing (mental thought process words used here) the actual root cause
  • Too close to people  = more trust, spanking can lead to confusion as to what the purpose of being here is
    • Maybe your child stole the car or flowers or whatever because they didn't see it as stealing rather than justified exploring or maybe because they felt uncomfortable being in it's presence as they thought it might hold something dangerous (like how a cop pats down a criminal) - this is because the parents does not allow their child to be curious, rather tries to change the goal of curiosity to pursuing objectively dogmatic rules without letting the child learn how nature works
  • Spanking encourages being scared of the unknown (fear of the unknown as a common fear) instead of being curious of the unknown
    • Sure, some may see this as a thing that should be pursued and a good thing- children should not have to experience comprehending fear at such an early age.
  • In the same way exercise affects all areas of one's life, spanking does too
    • Exercise can improve work performance even though may not be directly related, same thing with spanking - it affects affects ability to reason and set thinking goals and physical goals.
  • How to teach trusting enviornment?
    • Is it via curiosity or 
  • Spanking causes a fear of the unknown turning into jealousy
  • Why put in this situation?
    • That is up for the person to identify?
  • why do we not want to know why
  • If the logic of learning resiliency is by depending on your parents to spank you, how would learn resiliency for other things in life if the logic for justifying spanking is simply to avoid that particular thing? Why experience that experience to begin with? It's like saying why eat junk food and pretend it's not going to affect you negatively?
  • Without considering why the child wanted to [steal, etc.], you can't effectively address the issue. What if the child wanted to "steal" or in their eyes "play with toys" - maybe it's because they were unsure if they should be safe around these toys so they went to investigate to address their sense of curiosity and safety, in that case, you hitting them will only make their anxiety worse, justifiably so. It'll ruin their trust and ability to think intellectually, resiliency, and goal-setting process. Measuring feelings = sympathy.
  • Spanking just teaches them to subconsciously fear, which some argue to be reasonable fear - however, they don't realize that prevents intellectual thoughts and actually makes one stupider, which, I am sure some people will still argue that is a goal to be pursued regardless even if it makes one stupider.
  • Preoccupy with a goal - prioritizing goals; Goal-setting process
  • "I just say the effects, you decide if it's good or bad" - in other words, something you want to pursue or something you don't want to pursue.
  • Children need encouragement for goal of curiosity
  • The logic of learning resiliency and focus on a moral goal or idea by getting hit affects how you learn resiliency in other areas of your life - by training them to depend on getting hit they will seek out similar acts of violence to get motivated to do anything in life - which rarely happens after childhood, apart from the fear of being homeless (which isn't exactly the same as being hit), that being said, this is the main reason why most people are rather (intellectually and physically and athletically) lazy: Is because they have learned to be lazy because they are looking for motivation by fear or rather a sense of their need for psychological discomfort being jeopardized (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) instead of intellectual curiosity.
    • This leads to parts of the brain not intellectually developing, such as the intellectual curiosity of the desire to read. By constantly having security jeopardized, you are not able to develop that desire of reading, learning, changing, gathering knowledge.
    • Most people have this issue and don't even recognize it - the mental variables of not having their security jeopardized.
  • Being too scared to think is a real thing - spanking does that to people and it does indeed decrease objectively measurable intellectual qualities and brain cells, now, if you think this is a good thing for your goal and should pursue it based on how you set and pursue goals (how it is affecting your senses) then you should pursue it, but, for us people that are able to, we will choose not to since there are better options.
  • The logic of learning via a spanking will make it harder to teach other concepts of intellectualism (yes, this means that too much self-control and hanging out with too many people and feeling good for hanging out with too many people too many times and respecting people) will make it harder to learn those newer intellectual skills because now you are conditioned to pay attention to only listen to a certain degree of violence to change your mind. Not to mention, hitting someone literally makes them lose brain cells (yes, religion makes you lose brain cells) and prone to mental and physical laziness.
  • Claiming that spanking does not affect intellectual development is like saying drinking alcohol does not negatively affect my athletic performance, like sure, they may be unrelated, but that does not imply they don't have intermediate effects on other areas of life.
    • It does not make sense to isolate spanking as an ok activity when you don't apply consistent logic characteristics throughout all other justifications.
  • How a child is supposed to learn to focus on a subset of ideas or goals or thoughts in response to having their sense of security and comfort being jeopardized does not make any learning sense to me that.
    • See: learning how to learn logic
      • this explains how human behavior works, disproving free will - something religion does not like.
    • By that logic, anyone can learn anything from a person spanking their behind and telling them that 1+1 = 2 you hear me!!?!?!? - That is not derived out of rationalism, rather dogma and fear of the unknown, even though accurate thoughts not the accurate way of deriving information.
      • As a matter of fact is spanking really works, it should be used as a primary teaching tool.
      • Doing the right thing for the wrong reason
      • This explains the thinking or, rather, the learning formula for learning the contents of what a spanking really teaches - to focus on a set of ideas in response to jeopardization of security and sense of physical comfort. As a matter of fact, that is how all opinions are developed.
      • Spanking Is serious because if you use the same logic and apply it to other activirs like introducing your kid to a complex area of a complex math problem and getting mad at them for not automatically doing it by instinct that is against common sense
    • Similarly, I can teach a kid to steal using the same logic as teaching a kid not to steal via spanking (the logic of learning this lesson does not make any sense)
    • Using this logic, by focusing on a set of ideas and a goal in mind instead of teaching the goal setting process is what keeps people confused as to what they should do next in their lives.
    • If you can't rationalize using words, then you are using feelings - it is that simple. Sure, you can call it justified feelings, but what is stopping anyone from saying anything else is justified. A serial killer can say their feelings are justified as well for the exact same logical reasoning.
    • Focus on the formula used to learn these ideas: by hitting to learn and symbolize these hits as a reason or a consequence to an idea does not make sense. This is where the feelings start. This is where one learns to be distracted from curiosity endeavors.
  • Morality isn't focusing on a subset of ideas, it is measurable and (tolerable) level of self control and focus towards the goal of cooperation.
  • spanking will lead a child to think people are obstacles, instead I want to teach them to admire people but also resiliency to balance that with their longer term goals
    • remember, everything is taught - either consciously (focused upon content) or subconsciously
  • Responsibility self control morality depends on comprehension not hyperficzation in a mental goal. That isn't a mental skill. Moreover, intellectual stimulation is also morality. Intellectual stimulation for human comfort is going into isolation and avoiding all randomness
  • trying to convince a pro spanker to be an anti spanker is like trying to convince a serial killer that killing people under certain conditions should not be done - simply put, they see killing as something they should do whereas civilized people think the opposite - they are both aware of the effects, it's just that one things it should be pursued and the other thinks the opposite
  • in the case of spanking, pro spankers think fear of the unknown to a level is a good thing not being aware it can transfer over to other areas of one's life since they vulnerable children 
  • If children can't understand cooperation and reasoning with human beings, wait till older so they comprehend
  • spanking can impair social confidence (reasonable level of confidence and fear) and cause shyness and dogmatism and vulnerable to irrational reasonings.
  • The logic of interpreting senses distraction
  • Don't focus on the words anyone says, instead consider their behavior as well, interpret body language. You're entire life you've been taught to only look at words, which is why you are not progressing and easily manipulated, without any logic.
  • Those who say spank only if no lasting marks, what is considered lasting, because at the end of the day, nothing is lasting, even our lives, what defines permanent marks, because all marks, will eventually go away, even in 10 or even after death. This illustrates the boundaries we set on what spanking is defined as. Because children should focus on the fact that they are being hit on the ass instead of the words the spanker is saying.
  • Spanking can affect motor skills and lessens a child's ability to cultivate an interest in other curious endeavors
  • Spanking teaches the brain to enter autopilot mode and to let others control the presence of you and your limbs. This is because the body will prioritize the goal of surviving above everything. For example, you can eat foods with the goal of merely surviving or you can eat certain foods to optimize your chances at growing taller.
  • The logic of learning social skills makes no sense as it literally is teaching people to fear instead of actually understanding how to use people. Being on autopilot is bad for intellectual goals, unless the person knows that their goals will be tended to later, like a reward for doing something. It's like congratulating a child for doing something scary, like grappling or going down a tall waterslide, positive reinforcement as such makes the child set the goal of, "I can endure the suck as long as I get something in return" - this is ironically what spanking teaches, "I can endure the spanking to keep my sense of security in check" -> this is the thinking formula that spanking. actually teaches.
  • To teach how is more important than to teach what - if you don't show how to derive a conclusion, then you're being dogmatic, and dogmas logic can go two faced. Obviously, there is some dogma that is more harmful than others.
  • confusion intention with action
  • emphasize with the goal setting of children - just identify their behavior, just observe their behavior, and then isolate the variable that must change.
    • the goal of children is based on your perspective, if you are objectively observing and only identifying without evaluating for a particular goal, you will care to understand the situation as opposed to identifying the variable that needs to change as the person themselves, as themselves are a part of the environment, this is how I conclude that you are letting others control your limbs when they're in your senses and trust them - that is called environmental variables.
  • What kind of offenses would one spank a child for anyways, and instead identify how to derive those ideas
  • Technically, nothing is lasting or leaves permanent scars, therefore, why does slapping the bum have to be considered spanking instead of hitting someone's ass - why does there have to be a separate word for it?

Intellectual Reasons:

Remember the goal is not to make fun of people - including religious folks who spank their children, but rather to observe and learn from their behavior.

 
  • Decreases athletic ability; willfull submission decreases athletic ability to escape from a wrestling spanking position and I value this as it is a gymnastics-grappling skill.
    • Those who say there isn't a correlation between extreme self control and curiosity are the same ones who say exercise shouldn't correlate with intellectual development because they're unrelated when in reality they are both related as exercise, while it may seem surface level unrelated, does indeed have an effect on intellectualism primarily thru character development, thinking process and formula, resiliency, and athletic performance.
  • According to the thinking formula of spanking to focus on words and emphasis of certain characteristics
  • Look at it like this: if you are constantly in an environment where you can't touch or explore things, do you think that person will develop the intellectual curiosity to explore those things? No. It is a prerequisite to explore things, this is why parents bring toys to children to explore them. This develops intellectual curiosity. It is also the parents job to predict certain behaviors, like why you shouldn't bring a child into a hard hat zone its also a parents job to control what the child thinks and does to an extend - this is why school isn't held in a strip club as it distracts focus
    • Instead of putting them in an environment where they can't explore and learn the innerworkings of things to then trust them, the parent should rechannelize their curiosity to another area, like taking the child to a science museum where they can explore freely.  And once back home explain to them why they should develop resiliency to pursue the goal of going to the science museum when in the presence of others belongings to control their impulses to explore and judgmentally "steal." - because technically speaking, as soon as you identify it as someone else's and not yours and decide to stop being curious about it, you stop thinking about it- which is a bad thing to practice, as this decreases curiosity, going against the goal of intellectual development and rather moral development.
    • This is largely why people advocate that their child do sports or some other intellectually stimulating activity such as reading instead to channeling their curiosity and balance it with self control in society.
  • Ask yourself: how far is this mental categorization based on these characteristics far from identifying it unbiasedly in scientific atoms. For example, instead of looking at it as a set of atoms, why look at it as "not my car, therefore I shouldn't touch" - i see it as you have another goal that is worth it. For example, i have another goal of going to the science museum where I KNOW and TRUST and can RELY on it to tend to my necessities so it's WORTH NOT STEALING the car in the time being to ACHIEVE MY LONGER TERM GOAL OF INTELLECUAL DEVELOPMENT.
  • Another way: instead of looking at it as not my car i shouldn't touch us the fact that this thought can only be identified as such based on how your physiological needs are tended to. For example, if you are in need of a cat to escape and survival is in jeopardy, then taking the car - aka. Stealing - is quite necessary, whereas if your security isn't, then it's not. This is why is matters so much how our physiological needs are tended to.
  • Every goal we set is to tend to our physiological needs, foe example, you wouldn't be taking your car out to work today if it weren't the idea that you needed to make money to comfortably survive in society.
    • To achieve this goal,  you must have confidence in the roads you are driving on and the people that you are driving around, without this, you will be in constant survival mode.
  • Everything is a level of adaptation to environment.
  • Is the answer to the why do we have to do this and answer of explanation or actually doing? Because if you are constantly curious about why in the presence of danger. For example, in the presence of being chased by a lion, you don't have time to stop and question why, your survival is jeopardized and need to get our asap assuming you want to pursue the goal of living. This means that we have a level of fear of death in everything we do, right? This is why it matters so much.
  • Ask yourself: why do you trust them? It's only because they (sources identified) tended to your physiological needs even after the spanking which is why you continued to visit them, if they spanked you and let you go, then chances are, you probably only go there just because you know that there is food there, not necessarily because you "love" them - that word is just hard to disguise the ideas people simply don't care to think about or explain or measure.
  • Trust is based on physiological need. Source is based on how our physiological needs are met, it is here where people set their conditions that will follow throughout childhood and adulthood. A childhood can be the biggest predictor of success and I believe that.
  • To explain to your child that stealing isn't a goal to pursue when in the presence of the public environment (teaching a mindset shift), one should incorporate the terms of personal space, proximity, to help them understand that they are a part of their environment and impulses are okay, but one must set boundaries to achieve a certain goal to make it clear.
  • Should you feel fine being spanked as opposed to do you feel fine after being spanked?
    • In a similar situation - if a woman does not report her husband slapping her for non self-defense defense reasons and it being disciplinary, people would obviously think she was abused and conditioned to stay quiet- this is why children who are sexually abused don't know their boundaries and when to stay quiet. Like in my case, I was abused but was manipulated into wanting to stay with my parents due to a fear of the greater evil.
  • Spanking teaches children to become scared of the unknown - whilst a justified healthy fear of this is acceptable, spanking exemplifies the effects of this and cuts into intellectual curiosity desires.
    • That is the learning logic - learning how to learn - formula for thinking
  • Why curiosity because you don't know if it's safe to be around people if you don't check them first- it's like why bouncers check you for weapons before entering a nightclub- justified curiosity - this is why it's important to know why behind a particular action instead of being dogmatic about it. Why isn't intentions, why is the end goal, and the why to the goal is the purpose in accordance with how things work. Many background processes like trust and fear reasonable
I had do much on editpad.org that fucking website just deleted my shift our of nowhere.

Why?


    I've always had this intuition in my head since I was a kid that the mere idea of hitting someone and violence in general naturally hurt my head.

    I also know that this is not how scientists raise their children

children are born scientists, and I feel like there is an optimal way to balance social boundaries and curiosity

understand your own behavior to understand others' behavior

In good parenting, spanking is something that has never crossed mind

Sources


Personal Application: [Personal Mini Blog Post]

    This is why I was unable to set healthy boundaries in forming effective friendships growing up. It is because my subconscious mind was confused about boundaries in the social realm. 

What spanking really teaches the subconscious mind:

  • Learned helplessness
  • Stunted creativity
  • Tolerating stupidity
  • Unable to socially navigate or speak your unfiltered mind
  • unspoken communication

What spanking really teaches | Part 2:

Here, I will detail formally, what spanking actually teaches a child.

Teaching how to think and the reasoning behind spanking.

How should a kid view a spanking? - What spanking actually teaches? - What a child is actually learning.

This is what you are meaning to communicate to the child. You must make the child think accordingly:

"If I continue to do these things, I will feel embarrassment and pain, so I should stop doing it."

There are many things wrong with this thought process:
  1. It does not directly convey discussing the limits of one's self-control, personal space, empathy.
    1. Yes, self-control is needed in today's society with exposure to lots of stimuli, however, there are ways to go about helping a child comprehend and understand why they must behave a certain way.
    2. Weather you know it or not, there are limits to everyone's self-control. Self-control isn't unlimited.
  2. It does not directly convey the reason why we are moral.
    1. Having knowledge of why one is being moral will make one become moral for longer.
  3. It does not directly convey the symbolism behind why we value certain creatures called human beings
  4. Similarly to how we expect addicted people to not have self-control when in the presence of drugs, similar can be said about children, instead of exposing them to much stimuli without supervision, how about you gradually expose them to a newer enviornment.
    1. This is the same reason why a church service isn't held in a bar or strip club or any other tempting enviornment.
  5. Yes, I am blaming the enviornment, and yes, it is justified.
    1. It's no different than blaming a victim of torture for being immoral and drinking alcohol after being released from torture. You are not understanding the reason behind the motives. It does not make sense to isolate one singular event when your life is not at risk.
  6. Assumes that all children are the same and will react the same way to a spanking
    1. I understand that everyone is different and require different parenting methods, however, not all children will be able to think: pain = bad. Also, if hitting someone to make them symbolize an idea as bad is what makes it bad, then that is simply not true.
  7. Interpreting spanking as a reminder is the same logic as interpreting getting hand chopped of as a consequence as a reminder not to steal.
    1. Using pain to symbolize a particular goal
  8. logic is when someone slaps bare bum and tells you something you should do it by that logic i can justify stealing by slapping a stranger kid's bum and telling him to steal something, point is the logic of hitting someone and telling someone something does not make sense.
    1. this is what we mean by mental variable
    2. try to understand intentions and goal of child, maybe child was scared of is so they wanted to explore it to be more comfortable in the presence of it.
      1. symbolism cause mental logic laziness thinking logic
  9. How to change goals why specifically use spanking why not reason this proves specifics interpreting and why depends on goal and experience
  10. A breach of trust is a justifiable way to interpret it as that is factually what happened based on feelings
  11. "stop exploring and instead put blind trust in the environment"

    

What to do instead:

  • Reason with the child - speak their language
  • Human beings learn most when understanding the reason why behind something, if it cannot be communicated verbally, then it isn't to be communicated at all. Simply put, if you can't put it into words, it can't be rationale.
  • Teach your child to be aware of the the intracies of the multitasking of the brain
  • Teach your child to be aware of their moral limits of self-control, personal space, etc.
  • stimuli in a micro level
  • Teach your child to avoid morally compromising situations by understanding what situations, circumstances and conditions to avoid being in to cause a need for more self-control.
  • Teach your child how to identify people, respect their presence when conditions are appropriate
  • Teach your child how to handle distractions (when respecting the presence of immoral people)
  • Take your child to a museum or library to have them engage with their intellectual curiosity.
  • If you can't explain it to them via verbatim, then they shouldn't be in said enviornment to begin with and should start with something simpler so they actually understand why.
  • Teach them to mentally prioritize, categorize and set goals instead
  • level of resiliency and tolerance affects other areas of life like should one be resilient when torturerd and how will affect my intellectualusm how it affects goal-setting like intellectual goals
  • Those who spanked will constantly seek a stress reliever in others- wheras parents might not think this is a bad thing, it actually is depending on the goal.
  • by that logic, you should learn math by getting hit on the bare bottom - but that's not how the brain mentally categodizes, is it?
  • how you learn/interpret from the past says everything about learning style and emphasis of variables and characteristics
  • mental variables like level of resiliency come into play - all is a form of torture; you may not see it as torture because you are simply conditioned to tolerate it's presence.
  • It is a greatest justified pleasure of mine to change the mind of a pro spanking person with Stockholm syndrome to anti spanking position identification using logic of how it affects all other areas of one's life.
  • Level of unawareness of trust in environment makes them more curious you pursue anti intellectual endeavors.

Tips on formulating more arguments:

  • every action u take says what u think purpose in life is
  • I am doing this because I know that everything stems from if you can justify your political beliefs or not - this is the base of which you rely on. 
  • It would make more sense to address why of the child's behavior instead of hyper fixating on evaluating past decisions with a judgement rather understanding.
  • focus on what you wanted beforehand - what did you want as a curious child?
  • I believe everyone is the same from birth - we are only different due to environmental conditioning.
    • In the nature v nurture debate, assuming able-bodied people, I will take the side that nurturing has more effect on the person.
  • If free will was real, then why study and reflect on our behavior at all. As studying requires identifying the complex reason why, which requires a bigger hypothalamus.
  • The desire to do is a lack of understanding, this is called curiosity.

Keywords:

Social lens, how the brain works, moral environment, sociology, psychology, conditioning, human behavior conditioning, behavior, natures' behavior, environmental behavior, we are our environment, we are a part of environment, thoughts affect feelings, observe your thoughts, unbiased feelings, necessary evil, dogma, understanding motivation, abusive situation, practical value, potentiality, limits on potentiality, reward system, biological motivation, changing biology, science of temptation, feelings formula, mental proactiveness, emotional regulation, limits on temptation, free will is not real, social feelings, social realm, social influence, unregulated variables, trust, forced trust, who to be compassionate to and who not to, mental effects, how to teach a child self control, desires limits, tempting presence, seeing too much information, overstimulation, too many people in this world, solution to overpopulation, how to set goals, comprehension process, learning process, learning how to learn, learning logic of getting slapped, science of confusion, optimizing life performance, let it radicalize you, be anti spanking for femdom and intellectual desire and pursuing gymnastics motor skills, goal of thinking, purpose, how to live, how to set goals, learn first do later, lack of understanding is called curiosity, being unaware changes minds, how it affects senses for the goal of survival, the science behind desire, should you feel this way amongst people, how you interpret and set goals and empathize explain human behavior says a lot about you, why this situation, hate having to limit myself, Necessary evil: use as mental tools not curiosity, how do you know, expect behavior, calculate behavior, convincing them to categorize hitting on the buttocks to promote an idea, rationalism is based on the goal, specifically vague, open to interpretation, how to distract someone, Goal motivation curiosity fear mentally, logic of learning, thinkin formula, emphasizing characteristics, resiliency, tolerance, thinking formula, develop intellectual curiosity, stopping learning process, save me from myself, confront feelings, studying religion, 

Comments

Post a Comment

I don't really moderate comments, so do as free as you wish. I intend the comment section to be helpful in some way shape or form though, so please don't abuse this privilege.