One third the length, all of the key arguments - let me know what you think!
<Same as full version>
<Same as full version>
Love and violence are opposites.
A man cannot claim to love a woman if he beats her.
A woman cannot claim to love her cat if she starves it.
A bully cannot claim to love his victims.
What about love and exploitation?
Can a boyfriend claim to love his girlfriend while secretly running up her credit card bills?
Debt enslavement is the opposite of love.
Let’s try a thought experiment.
Imagine a purple-skinned race.
Society claims to love these “purples.”
Claims of affection aren’t proof of love – abusers, stalkers, cults and exploitive corporations often claim to “love” their victims.
Now, imagine that, in the society that claims to love “the purples,” the following facts are true:
These facts would totally contradict society’s claim of “love” for the purples.
If these were women, we’d call it sexism.
If these were blacks, Indians, or Hispanics, we’d call it racism.
Yet we don’t even have a word for prejudice against children.
That’s not an accident.
“Childism” isn’t even a word.
Why not?
What is “childism”?
It is the universal, relentless – and often institutional – prejudice against and hostility towards children.
All across the world, parents hit their children, force them to stay seated, or confine them to a room. They deny them food, yell at them, and dump them crying into daycares. Children are stuck at home and cannot leave.
A society that loves its children would not have national debt or unfunded liabilities. It would not force children into schools where their interests are ignored and where they are drugged for failing to pay attention.
Children are happiest in two-parent households with a mother who stays home. A society devoted to children’s safety would promote the nuclear family. It would not encourage mothers to separate from their newborns – this benefits employers and governments but harms the mother-child bond, leading to future chaos and violence.
It would not pay mothers to leave their families through welfare, alimony and child support.
A society that loves its children would prioritize their needs and happiness in social and legal decisions. Every important question would be driven by:
Should children be spanked?
The answer is simple: Spanking is disastrous for children.
Should we yell at children?
The answer is also simple: Verbal abuse is disastrous for children.
Should we put children in government schools?
Children do very badly in government schools.
Should we fund society’s current greed by enslaving our children to future debt?
The answer is self-evident.
To see if society truly loves its children, ask:
Would a politician suggesting spending cuts to pay off the national debt for the sake of the children sake ever be elected?
Would school unions accept curricula changes based on what was empirically best for children?
Would it be considered good to criticize those who inflict the lifelong pain of divorce on children?
What about women who have children out of wedlock? Or men who abandon their children?
Those accused of verbal bigotry are shunned and ostracized - but those who objectively harm their children are praised.
People are destroyed over words but praised for harmful deeds.
Using slurs is unacceptable, but yelling at, hitting, confining, and indoctrinating children is praised.
Why is there war, promiscuity, addiction, crime and violence?
Because children are abused.
And we lie about it, and claim we love them.
It is simple.
The world is hell because of childhood.
Do you think this case is too strong, too radical?
All right - let’s listen to the other side!
The counterargument is:
“Children must be hit or controlled because they lack a sense of consequences. You stop a child from running into traffic or grabbing boiling water. Children are impulsive and unaware of dangers, so you use physical consequences to prevent worse outcomes.”
This argument falls apart with a moment’s thought.
It’s childism – bigotry against children – to argue that:
“It is appropriate to use violence against those with limited cognitive abilities.”
If a cognitively impaired adult makes a mistake, is it acceptable to yell, beat, or punish him?
No!
If your elderly mother is cognitively impaired, can you beat her if she forgets her keys?
No!
So – the idea that we beat children because they are cognitively limited is false.
Every group in society that shares characteristics with children is protected – except children.
If a mother says she hits her children because they don’t listen, she lies.
Imagine a mother at work explaining to her boss how something can’t be done, but he won’t listen. Does she drag him across her knees and beat him?
No!
She would be arrested for assault!
If she told the officers she beat her boss because he didn’t listen, or defied her, what would they say?
“Ma’am, you don’t get to beat someone just because he doesn’t listen to you!”
Imagine a politician making it legal to beat anyone who didn’t listen or agree.
People would regard his campaign as morally insane.
Yet we accept this as a “reason” why parents hit their children.
If we say we arrest black people for stealing – but let every other race go free for the exact same behavior, it is a lie to say we arrest black people for stealing.
If we insult, hit, and punish children for mistakes and not listening – but never do this to others, we are lying about our moral motivations.
Everywhere you look, you see the same pattern: Punishment and violence are morally evil for us, but morally good for children!
That is childism.
People also say: I hit my children because they can’t reason!
Imagine this in society.
Is the world full of people deeply dedicated to reasoning?
No.
So – is it morally good to beat people if they don’t reason? No.
Do you see how insane this is?
Do you see how our supposedly “universal” moral rules reveal the vicious prejudice of childism?
You may be surprised to learn that even babies can reason – starting at about fifteen months, they can perform deep moral reasoning. The grim reality is most parents don’t believe this because they have never tried reasoning with their children.
For many parents, ‘reasoning’ means agreeing.
“I’ve asked you nicely!” usually precedes coercive escalation.
Disagreement or inconvenience often leads to violence, either physical or emotional.
This is madness.
If you pull out a gun during an argument, and your opponent punches you, it’s not proof he is unreasonable - you provoked the violence!
Similarly, parents don’t try reasoning for months before hitting their children; they hit them from the start, thus preventing the development of reasoning abilities.
The hitting comes first – the “kids can’t reason” excuse comes much later.
Morally, society holds two central principles.
The first is:
Yet, children, physically limited in their reasoning capacity, are punished for this all the time. If a guest writes on our walls, we don’t yell, hit, or punish them.
Adults are forgiven; children are punished.
This isn’t about virtue; it’s about power.
Why do we punish children?
Because we are good, and they are bad?
No.
Because they refuse to reason, leaving aggression and violence as our only option?
No.
We punish children because we can.
When slavery was legal, slaveowners beat their slaves because they could. If we hit, scream at, punish, or call children abusive names – but never attack adults – it’s just because we can.
The second moral standard in society is:
The more power that exists, the more virtue is required. A man in a coma isn’t praised for his morality, because he has no capacity to do good or evil.
A broke woman despised for not giving to charity, but a billionaire would be.
We all accept the following as morally foundational: the greater the power disparity in a relationship, the more virtue is required from those who hold the most power.
This is the most basic fact: there is no greater power disparity than that between parents and children.
We punish a boss asking out his secretary because of the power disparity. More power requires more virtue. If a prisoner threatens a guard, it means little – if the guard threatens the prisoner, it means everything.
Imagine the power dynamics of parenthood in a marriage.
Bob and Sally are married. Sally was assigned to Bob and had no choice. She cannot leave for at least eighteen years. Sally can only leave the house with Bob or someone with authority over her. She can never leave on her own for the first eight to ten years.
Bob has total control over Sally. He can hit, restrain, refuse to feed her, cut off her social contacts, confine her, scream at her, and call her names. She cannot leave or defend herself. If Bob hits Sally and she resists, Bob can call the police, who will lecture Sally about her need to be more obedient.
If Sally complains about Bob’s violence and abuse, everyone tells her to forgive Bob, to stay with him for life, care for him, give him money, and surrender to his preferences without expecting an apology or change.
Talking to Bob about his abuse will upset him, they say – he is "doing his best."
Sally is constantly reminded of Bob's difficult past and told her job is to love and understand him – and never leave.
After twenty years of abuse and begging for change, if Sally leaves Bob, she must keep her new freedom a total secret, knowing that people condemn her for not supporting her “loving” husband.
If Sally ever even mentions escaping her abusive relationship, she faces coldness, rejection and hostility.
Sally notices that women who voluntarily entered and left marriages are praised for their courage, while she, who was forced as a child into an abusive marriage, is condemned.
The world seems sane only if you refuse to think. This is the standard Sally faces: leaving a voluntary relationship is praised; fleeing an abusive, involuntary one is condemned.
Children depend on their parents and cannot leave. This is not a moral or legal issue but a biological fact. The fact that children are involuntarily trapped with their parents is not a problem to be solved – since there is no solution – but a power disparity to be recognized.
It is deeply strange that we expect the greatest morals from the most powerful people – except parents, who have the most power in the universe and can do almost anything!
This is a bizarre moral reversal – we have a principle that, as power increases, moral standards must also increase – except at the very summit of power, where wild immoralities are accepted and praised!
This would be as bizarre as a feminist claiming that inappropriate comments, glances, and touches are evil – but patriarchal leaders are only moral if they abuse and rape at will.
It is also strange that many who oppose violence and corruption refuse to address the abuse of parental power against children. Billions panic about possible climate changes 100 years from now, while stepping over the countless broken bodies of broken children.
If the environmental movement is driven by concern for children and their future – and concerns over using nature's scarce resources – it should oppose divorce, which harms children and wastes resources.
For thousands of years, moralists have condemned and opposed war – while avoiding society’s endless war against its children.
Millions who support the nonaggression principle avoid condemning the greatest violation of this principle: physical and verbal violence against children.
We cannot claim to be moral if we reverse principles at will.
We cannot say it is wrong for a boss to ask out his secretary due to power disparity but right for a parent – who has far greater power - to hit a child.
The secretary can file a grievance, quit, or refuse advances. Abused children cannot leave, fight back, or get support. If they complain, they are dismissed. If they fight back, punishments escalate to mortal danger. Children have no independence, no legal standing, no choice, no freedom, no self-defense, or ability to avoid tormentors.
If the parent is the bully, there is no escape.
Let’s return to Bob and Sally.
If Bob wants his wife to love him, but she is forced to marry him and cannot divorce, what can he do?
Involuntary relationships have a deficit - they are not chosen. A joyful marriage might start at plus ten; a forced marriage starts at minus ten.
People who choose marriage start at plus six to eight – the happiness of getting married but some uncertainty as to the future. To reach plus ten, they need 2 to 4 extra points of happiness.
Forced marriages start at minus ten—to reach plus ten means twenty extra points of happiness.
To achieve a happy marriage, Bob must think: “My wife cannot leave, so I must be so great she would choose me if she could. I must act as if she could leave anytime, and maintain the highest standards of love, humor, and virtue.”
The involuntary nature of the relationship demands the highest standard from Bob to turn it from unchosen to chosen.
(Adults can leave abusive parents after eighteen years, but it costs them almost all relationships—like a wife leaving her husband after eighteen years, but losing all social and familial ties.)
Parents choose to have children; children do not choose to be born or choose their parents. Children are trapped with their parents—a biological reality, not a moral or legal issue. It is an arranged marriage—arranged by parental choice.
In order to be truly loved, parents must think like Bob.
Bob says: “Sally never chose me, so I must act so that, given a choice, she would choose me.”
Similarly, parents must say: “My children never chose me, so I must act so that, given a choice, they will still choose me.”
If Bob continually snarls at Sally: “You owe me obedience and love, and I will punish you if you disagree, disobey, or inconvenience me!” - what are the chances Sally would love Bob?
To ask the question is to answer it.
One way to abuse someone is to create imaginary obligations and then punish them for failing to meet these “debts.”
Imagine a man who thinks that buying dinner entitles him to sex. If his date refuses, he gets angry. This is abusive.
Similarly, parents create obligations like “obedience” or “respect” - and then punish their children for not meeting these imaginary debts.
“Entitlement” is believing you are owed something you have not earned. A man who believes women owe him sex is dangerous. An employee expecting a paycheck without working is deranged.
Many parents believe their children owe them and use aggression if children don’t comply.
Your children do not owe you obedience, respect, love, support, resources, attention, time, phone calls, money, or care in your old age.
Creating imaginary obligations is easier than earning genuine respect. Threatening people to claim they “love” you is easier than earning true love. It’s easier to steal, copy an MP3, and kill than to create, write music, and raise life.
Bullying children into obedience is easier than inspiring them through virtue.
Forcing a woman to obey and say she “loves you” makes you a bully.
Imagining that children owe you obedience then bullying them into compliance is immoral.
If you grow up believing that the world is flat – because it looks that way, everyone says so, and dissenters are called insane and ostracized – are you to blame?
We should have sympathy for the effects of the errors imposed on us.
If you’re a parent, it doesn't take much thought to understand that your children didn’t choose you.
We hold those in power to higher moral standards and treat those with disabilities more gently.
We don't encourage violence against the vulnerable.
These simple principles are accepted by everyone.
It’s one thing to believe the world is flat when it looks that way and everyone says so. It’s quite another matter after being in orbit and seeing the spherical planet.
Most of us experienced contempt, hostility, aggression, violence, and abuse as children. Whether through direct experience or by seeing the difference in better families, we know the truth.
We will discuss facts, reason through ethics, and break the prejudice of childism – we will live up to our claim of loving and treasuring our children. We will do the hardest thing. We will accept only honesty, truth, and virtue. We will endure our pain to reach our moral destination.
We will do this because the alternative is not just hell, but death. There is no other path. We must confront these truths to create a better future for our children.
The strangest thing about peaceful parenting is that it is what we practice in most of our daily lives.
Peaceful parenting is not alien, revolutionary, or contradictory. It is what you teach your children, how you live, what you praise and prefer in almost everything you do.
Is this incomprehensible?
Look at the bigger picture.
Peaceful parenting is the greatest moral revolution in history, aligning with and extending all prior moral progress.
What do I mean?
Science, technology, and morality progress by eliminating exceptions. Simplifying principles into universals gives us more power over knowledge, nature, and ourselves.
Early commandments forbade stealing only within one's tribe. Outsiders were fair game, but the property of fellow believers was to be respected.
Imagining a flat Earth creates exceptions to universal laws.
In many societies, rights are reserved for some, while lower castes, women, and slaves remain unprotected. Why allow these complications?
It's about power. Complexity masks corruption.
Changing one variable can simplify the system, transforming it from corrupt to moral.
When Earth was considered the center of the universe, the retrograde motion of Mars was explained with the Ptolemaic system, requiring hundreds of calculations. The Sun-centered model of the solar system simplified everything: Earth sometimes moves faster around the sun, making Mars appear to move backward. Simple.
Newton's gravity theory states that everything falls: apples, Earth, and moons.
Einstein simplified understanding with relativity and E=MC², rejecting the theory of universal ether.
Extending self-ownership, property rights, and voting rights to all adults eliminated the moral justifications for slavery.
Every human owns himself and his the effects of his actions – this is the foundation of political liberty and property rights.
Conditional morality, on the other hand, exempts some people from general principles.
“Everyone can enter contracts – except women!”
“Everyone can vote – except slaves!”
“Only the King has free speech!”
Some religions reserve divine access for priests; others offer it to all.
What moral principles currently need universal extension?
We all accept and enforce the nonaggression principle (NAP), which states it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another person. Self-defense is acceptable in extreme danger, but you cannot use violence against someone unprovoked.
Historically, NAP has been applied selectively. Nobles could sell land without selling themselves, but serfs were tied to the land and sold with it. Members of an in-group had to respect NAP among themselves but could hit or steal from outsiders.
So, what is peaceful parenting? It simply extends the nonaggression principle to children, making it immoral to initiate the use of force against them.
Peaceful parenting means it is immoral to use force against children, enter contracts on their behalf, or borrow against their future earnings.
The extension of NAP to children means that it is immoral to beat, hit, confine, spank, or physically restrain them.
I know many arguments against this principle are erupting in your mind, and I sympathize with that. I will address these concerns throughout this book. But consider this:
Wouldn’t it be simpler to have one moral rule for everyone, rather than separate rules for adults and children? Wouldn’t it be less confusing for children told not to hit to not be hit themselves? Shouldn't authority figures follow their own rules and not hit others?
A significant proportion of you (about 10-20%) agree that hitting children is wrong, and I appreciate that. But peaceful parenting also recognizes that verbal abuse against children violates NAP.
Verbal abuse includes calling children stupid, lazy, selfish, or telling them the world will end soon or that they are evil for being born. If you kidnap and brainwash a woman, it's considered psychological abuse and forcible confinement. We seek legal damages for emotional pain and punish cult leaders for indoctrinating.
Children can't leave abusive environments and are deeply affected by parents' words. We have laws against libel and defamation because words cause harm.
We ban physical violence and damaging verbal abuse against adults – why not against children too?
Science, technology, and morality advance by extending simple, accepted rules universally. Moral laws protect those who can't protect themselves – and children are always the most vulnerable. Yet, children are excluded from protections granted to powerful adults.
Free, powerful adults are protected; dependent, trapped children are not. This is unacceptable. It’s time to change.
Why do we find it so hard to live our values?
This is by design.
Pretending to be virtuous in order to do evil is the oldest con.
“Virtue” was invented to exploit us.
Don’t believe me?
Good! You shouldn’t just take my word for it.
Think of two warring tribes – the Hatfields and the McCoys.
The Hatfields respect property rights; the McCoys do not.
The Hatfields can own land, machinery, make and sell weapons – they trade, specialize, and become wealthy.
The McCoys steal from each other, so no one plants crops or develops weapons.
When they clash, the Hatfields win with stronger warriors, superior weapons, and extra food.
Every group benefits from respecting property rights. Christianity spread by teaching “Thou shalt not steal,” creating wealth that elites could tax and use to control the masses.
“Honesty” is a virtue when those in power want information from you. It’s punished when inconvenient truths are told, labeled “rude,” “blasphemous,” “seditious,” or “hate speech.”
“Courage” is praised in soldiers serving the elites but called terrorism and treason when opposing them.
If you unpack these “virtues,” you’ll see they always benefit those in power and are punished if they don’t.
A soldier is rewarded for killing an enemy, but punished for killing a citizen.
Virtues like “honesty” and “courage” are good. My goal is not to make you cynical about morality but to help you understand why it’s difficult to apply consistently.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander…
If an action is good in one situation but evil in another, this a moral reversal.
Sadly, we experience these moral reversals from the very start of our lives.
For example, parents teach us to tell the truth, but punish us when our truths are inconvenient.
When children are asked who broke a lamp, truth is praised - but if children mentioning seeing a parent kissing another person, it is not!
If you say that you refuse to kiss your Aunt Edna because her breath stinks, you’re punished for “rudeness” rather than praised for honesty.
Virtues are praised when they serve those in charge and punished when they don’t.
School teachers want you to tell the truth, except if it’s about them being boring or incompetent.
They teach nonviolence but go on strike to get what they want.
They say to stand up to bullies, but don’t support you when you report bullying.
Virtues are described as universal but not applied universally, and this contradiction is ignored.
This is why we don’t notice society’s claimed love for its children - while continually abusing and exploiting them.
Morality is often a cover for exploitation.
A moral philosopher who urges the consistent application of universal values causes great fear because historically, living by consistent morals has been extremely risky.
Deep down, we understand:
“These morals are universal, but living by them can lead to destruction. Talking about these contradictions is also dangerous.”
Killing without the approval of those in charge is murder; with approval, it earns medals and parades.
We feel safe speaking about universal ethics while actually doing the opposite – and never noticing the contradiction.
Recognizing this moral reversal is humiliating, revealing our fundamental enslavement.
The world is hell mostly because it pretends to be heaven.
Let us imagine a world where we truly live our values of loving and treasuring our children.
Imagine every decision impacting children is designed to benefit them the most.
Let us begin this journey.
Children care most about the virtues of their parents, as consistent positive actions form loving bonds and emotional security – which children crave most.
In a world devoted to children’s happiness, men and women would choose each other based on virtues, not just looks. Attractive faces indicate health, but love stems from virtue, and children need virtuous parents to love and respect.
It's hard to imagine a company hiring someone without verifying his skills, or an employee working without knowing her salary. Economic relationships define mutual values upfront.
That’s not how dating works – especially today.
Dating should exist for the sake of future children, creating a secure and positive environment for raising a family. Dating is not for vanity, sexual satisfaction, or social media. Dating means checking compatible values before starting a family.
In the past, tribal elders managed dating, ensuring shared values. Now, we are in charge and often avoid moral discussions in order to pursue physical attraction. This leads to breakups, weakening our ability to bond over time.
Multiple relationships make us suspicious, hard to love, and less able to bond. Like clear plastic sticky tape, the more bonds we make and break, the less we can bond. In our thirties, panicking about fertility, we try to settle down and have kids but struggle to bond with our spouse and children, leading to anxiety and depression.
If you don’t bond with your children, parenting becomes hard, and depression sets in easily. Seeking identity and purpose in work, not family, only makes things worse.
We are designed to pair-bond with those who share our values – good moral values, not random preferences. Countless couples date for years without discussing whether they want children or how to raise them. They never negotiate their inevitable value divergences, leading to emotional, familial and legal bonds with no ability to navigate opposing ideas and approaches.
This would be insane in any other relationship. Would you take a job without discussing responsibilities or salary? Would you have a child without considering what life will look like afterwards? Would you sign a 40-year mortgage without discussing interest rates or payments?
Of course not.
People date for reasons of lust and enjoyment – fun and sex – hijacking the purpose of dating and sexuality, which is to filter for value alignment and emotionally pair-bond with mutually compatible morals. Since dating comes before children, any society that truly valued its children would start by reforming dating.
Dating should look for empirical evidence of value compatibility. Before a date, you talk about values. Once compatible values are established verbally, dating tests these claims. If a man claims he wants to provide for a family, dating confirms his education, assets, income, and potential. If a woman claims she resolves conflicts peacefully, dating tests this through disagreements.
Power tends to corrupt humanity, and dating gives another person escalating power over your happiness and security. No one starts as a CEO – employees gain responsibility progressively.
Dating asks and answers questions about virtue: Is the person on time? Thoughtful? Kind and courageous? Honest? Reliable? Does he enhance my life? Do I enjoy her company without sexual opportunity? Is he good with children? Does she have vices like gambling or drinking? Is he conscientious?
By focusing on these values, we can create a world where the well-being of children is truly prioritized, starting with the foundation of healthy, virtuous relationships.
Once emotional trust is established through verifying value statements, pair-bonding and sexual activity commence.
Sex should be a reward for value compatibility. Modern dating misuses sex as a reward for attraction, leading to disaster and lies.
Parents who divorce - including those who never married but separate after having children - do not act in their children's best interests. The data on this is clear.
Single mothers often claim their children are their highest value, which is false. If children were their priority, they would have avoided unreliable men.
If a woman’s partner abandons his children, two possibilities exist:
Either way, her children are not her highest priority.
To place children first, society must reform dating to align pair-bonding with the best outcomes for children. Marriage, welfare, and divorce laws should promote stable marriages, providing children with security.
After conception, what is best for children includes:
Women should stay home, love, and breast-feed their babies to live up to the values of nurturing children. This reduces GDP and economic activity in the short run but raises men's wages by reducing competition.
Prioritizing economic activity over children's well-being leads to encouraging women to use daycare, benefiting the economy but harming early childhood bonds.
Do we value children or political power and money? Do we want happy babies or higher economic indicators?
Few women earn enough to cover taxes, expenses, and daycare. Most abandon their children for a pittance, or even a net loss. The average mother makes only a few dollars an hour after expenses.
If we cared about children, this would not happen.
To verify if we care, we ask: what is best for children? Then see if society does that.
If society doesn’t do what is best for children, it either doesn’t want to or doesn’t know what is best.
If I claim to want to lose weight but avoid learning about it and get angry at good advice, it’s clear I don’t really want to lose weight.
We don’t point out hypocrisy in order to shame but to prevent wasting time trying to reform hypocrites.
If my friend claims to want to lose weight but keeps gaining weight, and I point out he's overeating and avoiding exercise, and he yells at me, it's clear I shouldn't help.
He doesn't actually want to lose weight – he just talks about it to feel better.
If a woman claims she wants a moral man but keeps dating losers, a good friend will point this out. If she yells at him, it’s irrational to keep helping her.
Some people change when their hypocrisy is pointed out – this is worth further investment.
This is the exception.
We all do wrong – we recover when we admit fault, make restitution, and prevent recurrence.
If a man cannot admit fault, he cannot prevent recurrence or make restitution.
If restitution is impossible, fault is rarely admitted.
If you hit someone’s car, you can pay for the damage.
If you hit someone’s car and kill his wife, restitution is impossible.
If a parent snaps at a child, the parent can apologize and work on anger management.
If a parent abuses a child for fifteen years, no restitution can make the child whole.
Restitution occurs when emotions become neutral.
If someone dings your car, pays for the repair, and compensates you for your time, that’s reasonable restitution.
If you had a terrible childhood, what would make you okay with it?
When we work for pay, we do things we wouldn’t do without being paid.
Restitution for working is $20 an hour.
But childhood is different.
Picture this…
Imagine seeing your life before birth, knowing your childhood is full of abuse.
Would you choose life if it meant 18 years of abuse?
How much would you need to be rewarded for being born into 18 years of abuse?
If you wouldn’t choose to live no matter the reward, no restitution is possible.
Your abusers can never make it right.
They are unforgivable.
If this analogy is too mystical, consider your present life.
If someone offered to pay you to surrender to 18 years of abuse, would you accept?
No sane person would.
Most people pay taxes and obey laws to avoid jail, where abuse is likely.
Since no money would make you surrender to 18 years of abuse, and you had an abusive childhood, you can never receive restitution.
A person who refuses to apologize and make restitution cannot be forgiven – forgiveness is earned, not granted.
No one can be forgiven if their wrongdoing is beyond restitution.
Virtues that serve those in power are praised, while the same virtues that harm them are condemned – forgiveness follows the same pattern.
As a child, if you made a mistake and were punished, you were not forgiven!
Punishment was the ideal, not forgiveness.
When you confront your parents for their wrongs, suddenly forgiveness is the ideal, not punishment!
Do you remember?
If you failed to study for a test as a child, you were punished, not forgiven – you got a failing grade and were probably yelled at, spanked, or confined to your room.
This happens to billions of children aged seven, eight, or nine.
Parents often get angry when children bring last-minute school projects needing parental time and resources, such as a spelling bee practice, science project materials, or permission slips.
We all know the parental response…
“You’ve known about this for weeks; why are you telling me now?”
The principle here is clear:
Failing to prepare for deadlines is very bad!
Parents often punish children for failing to prepare ahead of time.
This reflects the moral madness of society: children are held to higher standards than adults!
Refusing to forgive children for being unprepared is seen as virtuous – refusing to forgive unprepared adults is condemned.
From the time people learn how babies are made to actually having a baby, parents have years to learn how to parent.
Most parenting books since over the past 70 years discourage hitting and yelling at children, advocating positive reasoning and spending time with them to make them feel loved.
People have years to study parenting best practices before having children.
Quick question: which is more important – a Grade 7 spelling bee or peaceful, healthy parenting practices?
Who should be more accountable – a child with an immature brain or a fully-grown adult?
Society believes 40-year-old adults should never be punished for failing to prepare for parenting, while an eight-year-old should be punished for failing to prepare for a unimportant school quiz.
Parents who didn’t read up on parenting are never punished for their failings.
A nine-year-old who forgets a quiz gets an ‘F’.
Parents who failed to prepare for parenting must be forgiven.
If a child fails a test, they can’t excuse it by saying they did their best with the knowledge they had…
If a man who can’t drive crashes a stolen car, he can’t escape punishment by saying he did his best with the knowledge he had.
Children are told it was their responsibility to study before the test – ignorance is no excuse.
Parents who never learned good parenting practices claim they did their best with the knowledge they had.
Children face the highest moral standards – but parents are outraged when held to those same standards.
If an adult victim of child abuse confronts her parents, the parents will deny, minimize, and demand forgiveness, claiming parenting is hard and they did their best.
Philosophically, we must extract the core moral principles from these excuses to see if they can be universally applied.
Immature people dislike moral philosophers because we strip them of their excuses.
Okay, is it acceptable for a child to fail a math test because, according to the child, math is really hard?
No, of course not – the child is told to work harder because math doesn’t come easily.
Is it acceptable for a child who fails a test to say he did his best with the knowledge he had?
No, he will be told he didn't study enough.
Okay, is it acceptable for a child who fails a math test to blame it on finding math tough and having a bad teacher?
Of course not.
If a parent helps a child study and the child fails, can the child blame the parent as a bad tutor?
No, of course not.
Parents will say: “If you know you’re bad at math, you need to study extra hard. Knowing your weakness makes you more responsible for failing to study!”
If a child says his phone distracted him from studying, what do his parents reply?
“If you knew your phone was a distraction, you should have removed it! Knowing a problem means you’re responsible for fixing it. If you sunburn easily, you must use sunscreen!”
The principle is clear: if you know a weakness, you are more responsible for overcoming it.
If a child claims he can study and watch a movie at the same time, no one believes him!
When he fails the test, he can’t blame the movie.
Parents will say:
“You can’t study while watching a movie, so you’re responsible for failing the test!”
If a mother knows her bad childhood will affect her parenting, she must overcome it.
If a man knows he gets drunk with a particular friend, choosing to be with that friend is choosing to get drunk.
He can’t say: “I’m not responsible for getting drunk because I was with my friend!”
If a man gambles compulsively at a casino, he can’t claim he had no choice because he was at the casino!
Knowing cause and effect means taking responsibility for the effect.
If a boy knows his phone distracts him, he is responsible for failing to study because he keeps checking his phone.
Parents who know they had bad childhoods are more responsible for improving their parenting – not less!
If parents were held to the same standards they hold their children to, peaceful parenting would be achieved!
However, it’s even worse than that…
In our society, children are punished for actions adults expect forgiveness for - and for things beyond the children’s control!
Meet two children: Bob and Sally.
Sally's parents encourage reading and provide a supportive environment.
Bob lives in chaos; his parents mock reading, and endless parties disrupt his sleep.
Both are judged by the same standards.
Bob often fails; Sally excels.
Bob is punished for his family situation, which he cannot control.
Sally is rewarded for her good fortune, which she didn't earn.
Children eating well are judged the same as those fed junk food.
We tell children: “You’ll be rewarded or punished for things utterly beyond your control!”
Society condemns adult children criticizing abusive parents.
Parents control the household but aren’t punished for bad choices.
Children have no control but are punished for their parents' choices.
Do you see the insane moral reversals in our society?
Do you understand the widespread, institutional bigotry of childism?
In many ways, children are like slaves.
Slaves don't choose who has power over them – neither do children.
Slaves get food, shelter, and healthcare – so do children.
Slaves can't talk back or punish their masters – neither can children.
Slaves can be punished at their owners' whim – without accountability.
Same for children.
Masters can aggress against slaves – but slaves can't defend themselves against masters.
Slaves can't leave and have to follow arbitrary rules – same with children.
But there is one huge difference…
Masters don't pretend that society exists to love and elevate slaves.
Society doesn't claim slaves are its future, deserving respect and affection.
Slaves historically kept over half their production – children inherit only perpetual debt.
Slaves are owned, beaten, and sold without moral falsehood, sentimentality, or hypocrisy – through brute power.
Slaves who dare to escape are praised by moralists – not attacked for their “ingratitude.”
A slave's mistake is punished – a master's mistake must be forgiven.
A beaten slave gets little sympathy, as it's believed he brought it on himself.
We recoil in horror at historical punishments of slaves for their masters' sins.
In society, we always support the master over the slave regarding children.
If a master hits a slave, it's the slave’s fault.
A slave who escapes is attacked for not forgiving the master - who is seen as not responsible due to being raised with slavery.
Masters are praised for not forgiving slaves – slaves are attacked for not forgiving masters.
Parents are praised for punishing children – adult children are attacked for holding abusive parents accountable.
The future will view today's parenting much like we view historical slavery.
We condemn past slaveowners while neglecting and abusing our own children.
We decry past dehumanization while verbally abusing our children.
We criticize past educational deprivation while subjecting children to mind-numbing school indoctrination.
We scorn past punishments of rebellious slaves while attacking those who advocate for children's rights.
We sympathize with historical heroes attacked for their righteousness - but attack current moral philosophers who fight for the rights of children.
We have no excuses anymore!
There are no rights without children's rights.
We have no morality if it is not applied to children first.
We have no honor if we punish children for the same actions we demand forgiveness for.
We lack integrity if we bury children in debt for our greed.
We condemn ancient child sacrifices, but sacrifice our children to the greedy demands of voters.
We attack our children, claiming ignorance of peaceful parenting.
This is a lie – everyone knows how to parent peacefully!
Just about everyone has received thousands of hours of training in peaceful parenting.
You don’t believe this?
I can prove it quickly!
For decades, child abuse has been virtually absent from popular media and, if shown, it was utterly condemned.
Most parents hit their children – if they are comfortable with this, why is it never portrayed in family shows?
Consider the countless sitcoms since the 1950s where parents have conflicts with their children.
Did Fred McMurray beat his children in “My Three Sons”?
No – he reasoned with them.
Family Ties, Leave It to Beaver, The Cosby Show, Full House, Happy Days, Saved by the Bell, Everybody Loves Raymond, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Who's the Boss? The Brady Bunch, The Partridge Family, Eight is Enough – all these shows modeled peaceful parenting and were watched by billions of people over decades.
Can parents who have consumed thousands of hours of peaceful parenting claim ignorance of it?
Imagine a sitcom showing a child being beaten or verbally abused.
Complaints would flood in, networks and actors would be boycotted.
Parents justify their attacks on their children as morally good. If this is true, why would they be outraged to see it on TV?
Sitcom creators test scenarios with audiences.
Every time abuse was shown, they recoiled from portrayals of their own parenting, claiming offense.
That’s why we don’t see children being hit or yelled at on TV.
Isn’t this strange?
We don’t see children being hit or yelled at on TV because it horrifies people, even though many do it daily.
If a man works out daily, he wouldn’t be outraged to see exercise on a show.
If yelling at and hitting children is good, why don’t parents want to see it on TV?
We don’t see heroes like Superman or Batman doing evil. We want to see moral heroism on the screen.
If hitting and yelling at children is good, why do we never see it in popular entertainment?
Or, why is it always a villain doing these terrible things?
Parents on TV and in movies don’t yell or hit, they reason with children positively.
Billions of people worldwide have watched thousands of hours of peaceful parenting depictions.
It’s not foreign or unknown.
Countless children watched peaceful parenting shows more than they were actually parented.
People tune in to see and praise peaceful parenting, knowing it’s good to reason with children.
Even with little children, TV parents are sweet and patient – they don’t hit or yell.
None of it makes a shred of sense!
Why do parents recoil from the aggressive parenting they claim is moral?
It’s like a policeman horrified at seeing an arrest on TV.
Or a doctor appalled at seeing someone taking antibiotics on TV.
It’s almost beyond crazy…
Every good parent in movies and TV is a peaceful parent.
Everyone tunes in to see peaceful parenting.
Good parents on screen don’t yell at, hit, or abuse children.
Everyone recoils from child abuse - but then gets up from watching TV and abuses their children.
People watch thousands of hours of peaceful parenting on TV – then claim ignorance of how to parent peacefully.
They demand that TV parents reason with children and never abuse them – and then claim they had no choice but to yell and hit their children because they didn’t know better!
The world is an asylum pretending to be sane.
If parents have no knowledge of better parenting, why demand to see better parenting on TV - and be horrified if their own parenting is shown?
Because they know…
You can’t demand something for decades, oppose any deviation, and then claim ignorance.
Good parenting is shown on TV to appeal to parental abusers and make abuse victims feel more alone.
This is why good parenting is consistently shown on TV – to make child abuse victims feel isolated, as if everyone else has a better life.
Parents know exactly how to parent peacefully. They see it every day on TV and enjoy it.
They cannot claim complete ignorance after watching countless examples of good parenting.
The contradiction is clear – they know the right way to parent but choose to ignore it, hiding behind the excuse of not knowing better.
The world continues to suffer because of this pretense of ignorance.
True change begins when we acknowledge the truth seen daily on our screens and choose to act on it.
Why do parents who advocate aggressive parenting avoid shows depicting it?
It's not due to a dislike of conflict in art. Shows with children involve disagreements. If reasoning with children led to disaster, people would protest such shows.
Nutritionists would be outraged by shows promoting junk food to kids. Imagine them loving junk food shows and raging against healthy eating shows. Incomprehensible, right?
Healthy eating is about only health, not morality.
Imagine feminists enjoying media depicting women being humiliated, while complaining about any dignified portrayals of women.
If parents think reasoning with children creates entitled brats, they should protest shows promoting it.
Aggressive parents believe aggression is good for all families and society, while reasoning with children is bad. They think aggressive parenting prevents spoiled brats and instils respect for authority.
Would people who care for children want TV shows promoting dangerous activities? Imagine comedies showing kids crossing railway bridges at night or playing with poisonous snakes. Parents would protest!
Aggressive parents think children need coercive control to prevent injury or death, like burns from boiling water or running into traffic. They believe reasoning exposes children to danger.
Aggression saves lives; reasoning gets kids maimed or killed. By cheering shows promoting reasoning, aggressive parents believe they endorse practices leading to maiming, death, and selfish adults who destroy society.
Incomprehensible.
Almost…
But nothing in the human mind escapes philosophy.
So – what on earth is going on?
Why would aggressive parents support shows that promote child injury and societal destruction?
Why do aggressive parents oppose shows advocating for safe, happy children and functional societies?
This is like an army teaching recruits to reason with opponents but rejecting weapon training – setting them up for combat failure and death.
What is the answer to this riddle?
In “The Remains of the Day,” a cold-hearted butler secretly enjoys romantic novels. In “American Beauty,” a homophobic neighbor is secretly gay. This Jungian approach shows exterior personalities reacting to hidden emotional opposites – a “reaction formation.”
Earlier, I talked about the unconscious “moral reversal.”
Believing something is moral while also believing its opposite is moral requires creating disconnected and opposing personality structures.
The psychological concept of ambivalence describes opposing forces in the personality. A woman loves bad boys but knows a good man is better for her. An addict both needs and hates his addiction. A boy feels desire and fear when asking out a girl. Opposing feelings are natural.
In parents, there are usually two personalities – one aggressive, one reasonable.
The “reasonable parent” tries talking to children; if they don’t listen, the “aggressive parent” takes over. It’s the good cop/bad cop switch.
If a woman tries reasoning with an abusive husband, but he becomes aggressive, she calls the police, turning over her self-defense to their aggression.
Parents use the same process.
“If you won’t listen, you must be controlled!”
Aggression thus results from the child not listening.
To children, this means “listening” is a charade.
It's like a thug demanding your wallet at gunpoint. His words are backed by the gun’s threat.
Parents willing to resort to aggression aren’t reasoning – their aggression is always part of the equation.
You can’t reason with someone if failing to agree leads to violence.
A schoolyard bully isn’t “requesting” lunch money with a raised fist.
A child who might be hit isn’t being “reasoned with.”
The “nice” parent and the aggressive parent don’t connect.
Victims of child abuse note that their parents restrain aggression in public but unleash it in private.
Children beaten at home aren’t beaten in public.
Parents restrain aggression when there are negative consequences.
The peaceful parent dominates social situations; the aggressive parent emerges in private.
The peaceful parent enjoys sitcoms with happy families and respectful children.
If a TV parent hits a child, the peaceful parent would see abuse without transitioning to the aggressive parent – thus seeing the aggressive parent's actions without provocation.
We’ve often seen shows where a mass murderer has a sweet, innocent second personality horrified by the actions of the murderous one.
The aggressive parent believes children owe obedience, and if children don’t comply, aggression is justified.
But this switch requires the presence of a disagreeing child.
How you feel about what you watch on screen often differs from your real-life reactions.
People enjoy true crime podcasts but wouldn’t want to be victims of those crimes.
Women made “50 Shades of Grey” a bestseller, but would be appalled by real-life abuse.
The aggressive parent runs on the principle that “my children must be aggressed against if they defy me.”
However, TV children don’t trigger this belief.
Thus, a TV parent hitting a child gives the peaceful parent a glimpse of the aggressive parent.
Imagine finding irrefutable proof you were a mass murderer – it would destabilize your life and self-conception.
You’d likely feel rage against the person exposing your evil.
As a moral person, you’d want to get help and prevent further harm.
Imagine a dog owner discovering they terrorize their dog while sleepwalking. The shock would destabilize them.
Before knowing this, they’d enjoy pet videos and be appalled by abuse.
They’d report abusive videos to authorities.
Seeing abusive actions on TV gives parents a shocking glimpse of their aggressive side without the usual provocation. This unfiltered view can be deeply unsettling, revealing a side they might not consciously acknowledge.
Parents able to restrain aggression in public often let it out behind closed doors. Abuse is absent in malls or in front of teachers or police, but surfaces at home.
The peaceful parent enjoys shows with family harmony, but seeing a TV parent hit a child shows the aggressive parent's actions without the dissociating provocation of a disagreeable child. This duality, like discovering an unknown evil side, shocks the peaceful parent, causing deep rage against the exposure of their internal conflict.
Thus, understanding these dynamics helps us see why aggressive parents oppose shows advocating non-aggressive parenting, as it forces them to confront their own hidden aggressive tendencies.
In “Manchurian Candidate,” a man is programmed to murder upon hearing specific words, entering a fugue state. He commits the murder, escapes, then forgets the act.
Moral reversals create two opposing personalities that never communicate, to avoid exposing contradictions.
When the peaceful parent sees the aggressive parent on TV, it destabilizes them. The aggressive parent recoils, like a bank robber caught in the act.
The powers that be maintain power through these reversals.
In ancient times, Alexander the Great captured a pirate who argued that with more ships, he’d be a navy not a pirate.
In “Crime and Punishment,” a murderer questions why Napoleon, who killed millions, is celebrated, while he, who killed two, is imprisoned. This exposes the moral reversal.
In “The Godfather,” a crime boss compares his killings to those by political leaders in war.
The Joker in “The Dark Knight” notes that people recoil from city murders but accept mass murder in war, as it fits a plan.
We hate murderers but love soldiers.
We punish those who kill without permission but praise those who kill with it.
Moral reversal.
Antiwar activists often want more government power for social programs—different coercive actions.
We cannot oppose violence because we love, commit, justify, and advocate for it.
We cannot oppose elite predations because we prey on our own children.
We cannot reduce global violence until we confront our own.
An aggressive parent who sees her behavior on TV rails against it, as it mirrors her actions.
She empathizes more with a TV child actor than her own children.
It is unacceptable to hit a child on TV but moral to hit her own child.
It is wrong for a TV parent to scream at a TV child but necessary to verbally abuse her own children because they don’t listen.
The world is an asylum founded on unconscious moral contradictions.
Here’s a tip.
If you would hate seeing your parenting on TV, don’t do it at home.
If it’s appalling to see a pretend parent hit a pretend child, don’t hit your real child.
Smashing a mirror for showing your obesity is crazy.
The problem is not the mirror, but yourself.
The camera doesn’t add 10 pounds.
That’s just how you look.
You must accept it to change.
To save the world.
To protect your children from your darker self.
When you are born, your parents are your templates for sexual success.
In small tribes, to succeed in dating and mating, you had to follow your father’s actions, as the women would be mostly like your mother.
If your father beat you, it signaled that women in your tribe preferred men who beat their children.
If your mother screamed at you, it meant the men accepted women who screamed at their children.
Your genes prioritize reproduction over happiness.
If happiness aids reproduction, be happy. If unhappiness aids reproduction, be unhappy – just breed!
Men and women who prioritized reproduction over happiness reproduced more.
You are designed to breed, not to be happy.
Happiness helps breeding success and is encouraged, but any happiness that interferes with breeding success will be quickly eliminated.
Love serves the genes, not morality or personal happiness.
Human pair-bonding increases the chances of offspring reaching reproductive age.
Imagine you are a boy in a primitive tribe.
Your father beats you, your mother screams at you, but you plan to raise your children peacefully.
Everyone else in the tribe prefers aggressive parenting.
Who will mate with you?
Women avoid you because peaceful parenting puts your kids at a disadvantage.
You would be teaching your offspring a different language – one no one else in the tribe speaks.
If you lived in Japan and never learned Japanese, your reproductive odds would be very low.
Doing the opposite of what your parents did will likely lead to opposite outcomes – since your parents reproduced, you will not, and the genes influencing this behavior will end with you.
The same pressure applies to complying with your parents.
Throughout evolution, resources were scarce, predators were everywhere, and competition was fierce.
Half of children died before age five, so parents sometimes withheld resources from sickly children.
With five children and limited food, the weak child often suffered.
This is about evolutionary pressures, not morality.
A defiant child wouldn't adopt cultural and reproductive customs.
Historically, rebellious children who fought their parents faced neglect.
Parents were slower to rescue them from predators, hesitant to give extra food, and less careful in protecting them.
Parents’ instincts discouraged wasting resources on rebellious children.
Blind rebellion was selected out over tens of thousands of years.
Children had to submit to their parents, or their chances of reaching adulthood dropped considerably.
Ah, but a definite switch is required.
If parents are aggressive, children must submit to their will.
Rebellion is the most dangerous predator.
Upon reaching puberty, children must rebel and become aggressive, especially males.
Women raised by aggressive males see them as sexually successful. A submissive male is unattractive, contrasting with her aggressive father figure.
This pattern of children, particularly males, becoming aggressive during and after puberty is well-established.
Non-aggressive boys were not chosen as mates, so passivity vanished from the gene pool.
Understanding the recent miracle of using negotiation instead of violence to gain resources is crucial.
Trade requires property rights, a very new phenomenon in our species.
Property rights need peace, trust, a fair judicial system, empathy, literacy, education, and affordable contract enforcement - all uncommon throughout our evolution.
Property rights enable specialization and trade. A blacksmith trades his output for a farmer’s food, making both wealthier.
Trading societies attract warrior societies, as it is easier to steal than create.
Excessive violence in raising children produces volatile adults who cannot negotiate.
Parenting styles must adapt. In trade-based societies, children need less violence and better negotiation skills.
For centuries, England eliminated its most violent criminals, evolving into a polite society enforcing morals through ostracism, not violence.
In peaceful societies, reasonable parents' children do better; in violent societies, bullies rule.
A boy raised by violent parents sees society as violent, believes women prefer violent men, and must submit to parents, then rebel. Submission ensures survival; rebellion attracts women.
Abuse was survival.
Moral philosophers can debate this, but it was a basic survival fact.
Every parent is both a coward and a bully.
The coward complied as a child; the bully rebels as a teen.
The child survives by bowing to parents; the teen reproduces by rebelling.
Throughout history, it was abusive to genes not to abuse children.
Modern complexities mean that resources are now gained by those pretending to be rational but profiting from violence.
Corporations collaborate with politicians for profit.
Politicians make millions trading stocks, likely with insider information.
What seems like peaceful negotiation is often violent predation.
Amateur thieves rob banks; professionals own them. (And the ultimate criminals own central banks.)
Poor people vote for free government money. It seems like negotiation but is in fact predation – taxes are collected, money printed and borrowed, forcing others to pay or go to jail.
Public negotiation hides violence.
Negotiation covers violence.
Words camouflage fists.
You see how this relates to modern parenting?
Most modern parents pretend to negotiate in public, but use violence in private.
They mirror their society, which feeds off their parenting to bolster its power. It is the ultimate – and most literal – vicious circle.
People recoil from open violence, so it's masked in rituals and conformity and language.
Everyone raised by an abusive parent knows the power of that random phone call. A parent can be screaming at the child, but if the phone rings, and the parent is expecting a call – sweet and gentle tones replace the yelling.
In this moment, the abusive adult is replaced by the compliant child.
This moral reversal has deep roots in early childhood.
A child hates being abused but complies for survival. This bottled anger is released in adolescence, modeling aggression.
As a child, you can't fully experience the horror of abuse; empathizing too much with yourself undermines the aggression needed for reproductive success.
Excessive empathy has historically hindered necessary violent traits.
The psychological split from "I hate being hurt" to "I enjoy hurting others" is inevitable.
You can't empathize with others more than with yourself. If empathy with others interferes with reproductive success, it must be abandoned. If the only way to abandon empathy with others is to stop empathizing with yourself – you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Evolutionarily speaking, violent parents protect their children by preparing them for aggressive survival.
The real issue is hypocrisy. Aboriginal tribes openly abused children without pretense, unlike modern parents who claim virtue in public while doing harm in private.
Hypocrisy is pretending to be virtuous while doing evil.
A parent who accidentally hurts a child during play apologizes and vows to take fewer risks next time. However, if a child complains about pain and the father smiles and repeats the act harder, he is a sadist.
Pretending to be good means knowing what goodness is, and how to achieve it. A hypocrite, unlike someone merely ignorant of virtue, cannot be reformed.
A lack of knowledge can be fixed by providing knowledge; hypocrisy is irredeemable because the hypocrite already knows what is good but chooses evil.
A con man knows exactly what trust is – and trustworthiness – which is why he pretends to be trustworthy in order to deceive.
Telling a con man that it is better to be trustworthy is a waste of time – he already knows the value of trust.
It’s like instructing a counterfeiter about the value of currency – he already knows, which is why he counterfeits!
What bothers me about abusive parents is their pretense of virtue. This shows that they already know what virtue is, and how to be good.
They use virtue as camouflage, making true virtue forever inaccessible to them as a practice.
Parents don’t aim to harm their children; they believe they have the best of intentions. Spanking, they claim, teaches boundaries and respect. Parents argue that children are too young to reason, so immediate negative stimuli ensures safety. For example, a child playing with a knife could be hurt, and a few light smacks are a small price for safety. Similarly, vaccinations, though painful, prevent deadly diseases.
Parents need their child's respect and obedience so that commands like “STOP!” are followed without question. A bit of fear ensures safety.
Parents see consequences invisible to children. Children can't reason, so reasoning with young kids is futile. With multiple children, endless debates create exhaustion. Sometimes, kids need to follow routines without argument.
Children learn when they become aware of missing knowledge, but their immature brains often don't know what they lack. Life teaches painful consequences: sunburn from not using sunscreen, getting fired for skipping work, legal troubles for not paying taxes. As adults, neglecting health or responsibilities incurs severe penalties, far worse than a childhood spanking. Nature, bosses, and government demand compliance; adult life isn’t a theme park but a harsh world of unforgiving consequences.
Endless discussions with kids won't prepare them for aggressive people and harsh realities. Debating with kids won't help them with cops, taxes, or bullies. They’ll be helpless, unable to handle brutal absolutes. You’re sending them as lambs to slaughter. As adults, these “reasoned with” children will face competition from those raised with strictness and consequences.
If you’re betting on a race: choose the runner with a strict coach, not one who “negotiates.”
Reality: you must compete against those raised strictly, possessing iron will and discipline. Most people use manipulation, force, and threats. Raising children with "angelic virtue" won't prepare them for a Darwinian world.
If your child wants junk food and ignores vegetables, reasoning alone won't work. A “talk and talk” parent might meekly remind, and cross their fingers for a right decision. Total crap! Children making the right decisions defies the very essence of childhood. “Reasonable” parents know that children aren't adults. They know children’s brains and bodies are undeveloped but still treat them as adults. They rely on reasoning and negotiation, which is ineffective, given children’s developmental stage.
Strict parenting, though harsh, is a way to prepare children for an unforgiving world. Emphasizing discipline over discussion builds resilience, and the capability to navigate a world ruled by absolute consequences, not endless negotiations.
In a military context, forcing children to become soldiers is wrong. Being a soldier is an adult's job - as is making good decisions. We don’t give children driver’s licenses, bills to pay, jobs, or contracts to sign because they are children. We don’t give mentally defective adults full rights and responsibilities, because they need to be managed. A thirty-year-old with the mentality of an eight-year-old cannot be a truly free, independent adult.
You think yelling and spanking is harsh? Parents use corporal or verbal punishment as a gentler form of consequences than nature or other people will. Exercise may be unpleasant, but it's better than muscle atrophy and bone degeneration. We make children exercise and eat well for their health. We take them to doctors for their health, and to coaches for sports excellence. All experts inflict pain for the benevolent goal of future health and excellence. Children don’t know what’s good for them, but parents do. Should parents let children eat junk food, avoid exercise, and become obese and diabetic? Should parents allow children to avoid the dentist and end up with rotten teeth?
Should parents let children play video games instead of reading challenging books that develop their language skills, empathy, and self-knowledge? Books train important skills; video games train stress and reflexes. When grown, will children thank parents for teaching discipline, or for being indulgent?
Parenting is instructing children on what they cannot know, due to immaturity, lack of experience, or inability to foresee consequences. The idea that you can instruct children without inflicting any negative consequences is insane and immoral. With one compliant child, it may seem fine, but not with a house full of boys.
Letting children run into the street, ride without helmets, play with knives, or handle boiling water is playing Russian roulette with their lives. Such laxness favors parental preferences, not the best interest of children. Disciplining is not fun - just like dieting or exercise - but it’s necessary. "Peaceful" parents are pursuing their own peace of mind at the expense of their children’s safety and maturity. They prefer being “best buds” over disciplining – they avoid criticism or hostility from their children. Their children will later criticize them as adults when they realize they’ve been crippled by a lack of discipline.
Give kids candy instead of vegetables – they’ll like you momentarily, but hate you later for the damage. Boys who avoid suffering don’t ask girls out; girls who get fat and lazy never get asked out. Rigid discipline is essential for success. It's better to teach discipline early through negative consequences like lectures, coldness, raised voices, or spanking. Success requires discipline, and it’s better to learn it young when the stakes are lower and consequences less severe.
If you've ever tried learning a foreign language as an adult, you know it’s much harder than learning as a toddler. Would you avoid teaching your children to read and let them figure it out as adults? That's a terrible idea – children have a critical language learning window which, if missed, leaves them struggling for life. Would you let your children sleep whenever they wanted, for as long as they wanted? Another bad idea – children with sleep disturbances grow into adults with sleep disturbances - and we all need to wake up for jobs! Children need to learn language, sleep hygiene, nutrition, exercise, and discipline early on so these habits are innate, rather than struggling with them later.
Pro-discipline parents ask: Will my children thank me as adults? Assertive parenting, sometimes called "aggressive," produces strong, disciplined, and healthy individuals who will appreciate it later. If a child fears the dentist and "peaceful" parents avoid dental visits, the child will face tooth pain and gum disease later in life. What kind of citizens will spoiled children – yes, spoiled! – become as adults? Will they respect the laws of society? No, because no rules were ever inflicted on them! Will they think deeply and reasonably about consequences? No, because their parents shielded them from bad effects! Will they be hard workers? No, since they've never faced discipline! Will they be strong and healthy? Unlikely, given their parents let them eat poorly and avoid exercise. Maturity means doing the things you don't want to do!
You don’t need discipline to eat cheesecake, sit on the couch, or smoke a cigarette. Drinkers and gamblers don't need discipline to indulge further. Parenting teaches children the value of doing what they don’t want to do. Children don’t understand deferring gratification; they live for immediate pleasure. Try taking Halloween candy from a six-year-old for her well-being. She will cry – she’s a child! "Peaceful" parents avoid disciplining because they find it unpleasant, modeling hedonism and expecting discipline to just magically appear. Spanking, for instance, shows parental willingness to endure short-term child dislike for the child's long-term benefit. Spanking teaches children to defer their immediate happiness for their long-term well-being.
"Peaceful" parents avoid the unpleasant for themselves and the child, teaching children to avoid negative experiences, resulting in self-indulgent, discipline-averse, narcissistic adults. I say "narcissistic" because these children grow interested only in their immediate pleasure and unused to sacrificing it for future happiness, even their own. Parents who sacrifice their own immediate happiness – through spanking – for the child's long-term benefit teach children to think of others' happiness, even at their own expense. As adults, they'll appreciate the importance of sacrificing immediate happiness for long-term well-being – their own and others'.
[MORE TO COME]
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
Recent Comments