Political correctness will hunt you down

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/french-schools-replace-mother-and-father-parent-1-and-parent-2

What genocide?

You’d need proof of dehumanization.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/california-nightmare-over-half-people-living-state-wish-they-could-leave

K-shift.

But you get the politicians you voted for, for years.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-14/socialized-healthcare-reality-exposed-30000-dead-due-record-long-hospital-waiting

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/if-socialism-so-good-why-are-people-moving-away

People evading responsibility, including marriage.

Socialists can’t run a business, a church or a creepy hybrid of both.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-06/no-free-lunch-panera-shutters-socialist-pay-what-you-want-restaurant

You can put security guards at a socialist cafe or walls at Rowling’s mansion property, but don’t you dare guard the borders of the country!

Why do security guards exist if everyone can be trusted?

Interpersonal deprivation from single fathers

If you’re going to call out something dysfunctional, nobody gets off scot-free.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019251394015001006

Snape is underrated as an inspiration

If modern fathers were so great, their kids wouldn’t be whining on blogs about their bitch of a Mom, there wouldn’t be a criminal element or out-of-wedlock birth rates. Emotionally disturbed children are low fitness. A child is not like a talking dog or a car you can throw in the garage while you continue a Peter Pan bachelor deathstyle.

There aren’t many studies on single fathers because most men are too cowardly to stick around and do the hard work of raising a child they produced, a slight bias in the sample. Naturally, this scorn I heap on doesn’t apply to the widowed or those abandoned without a choice. Indeed, those men are truly courageous and society should support them. Real Patriarchs, great men. Doubly so if they don’t harm the child by re-marriage and commit to the greatest responsibility a person can have, re-marriage is selfish and purely for the parent’s sex life and social status. Look up the Cinderella effect for starters. Gen X onward gave us plenty to study, fake parents fuck you up. The abusive step-father is a cliche.

Single mothers are actually, as implied by studies like these, better-equipped to raise alone (but not ideal and not to be encouraged). Their struggles are largely external and economic, rather than inner psychiatric like the fathers who get easily overwhelmed and murder the children in all the newspaper stories to spite the mother. Scientifically, you would expect this difference from evolution, women have childcare, men have warfare. Questioning either one is pure idiocy. There are dimorphic reasons for this advantage like female empathy, EI, neural responsiveness to a baby’s cries, lower chance of infanticide by far compared to easily frustrated men but socially, women were often widowed after wars. Brothers, uncles and cousins would step in and help past the tender years. Single parents with a ‘support network’ of extended family are completely fine, considering. When compared, it is worse to have a single parent father than a single parent mother. Yet nobody dare say anything.

Accurate gif, terrifyingly accurate

You people make me sick, claiming to care about the children. Stefan is shit-scared of this topic and he discusses almost everything.

But about the ones who choose to neglect their spawn, a form of abuse…

How could you be so selfish to deliberately harm your future children like that, especially after criticizing women for doing the same thing?
I know someone in child psych (academia-famous name) who calls people who deliberately become single parents “monsters” because all the life outcomes and even the kid’s physical health suffer. “How could someone do that on purpose? There are some evil people, they aren’t just little Mini-Mes.”
And it is always about the narcissistic parent. Spend fifteen minutes researching the damage of being raised by one, it’s the template for dysfunction.
They swear off having kids themselves, from spite and we can’t really blame them. If you don’t learn healthy parenting in a dual-unit healthy household united by a strong marriage with no cheating (distrust is the killer), it’s difficult to come back from. It’s like bargain-basement child-rearing, also, why are people trying to make this one thing so cheap? This is the one thing you don’t want to cheap out on. Nothing else in your life matters. If you wouldn’t die for your child, don’t have one.
They, that neglectful type, have the nerve to then complain about women fobbing off kids to daycare and nannies, oh, so they won’t do any less than 100% of the childcare, all by themselves? Right?

No room to move on that standard?

The narcissism of small differences is aptly named.

Having children is bigger than marriage. If you won’t get married, you can’t handle kids. If you want to inflict the cold world of rootless parenting into a child’s life, please get sterilized, it’s for the best. Those parents end up hating the child once they realize the hard way what it’s about. You can’t return them to the store or dump them like a girlfriend.

The mental issues are caused by being taken care of by strangers and an absentee or inferior parent. These guys are never dedicated. They love their drinking buddies more. Seriously.

Children take up all your time, even bathroom time. They couldn’t babysit for a week, I’d bet money. Solo, no help, for a week, none of them wanna do it. So much for being alpha and taking responsibility, lol. If it’s so easy, if it isn’t hard work, get paid for it?

They’re little children themselves, they cannot handle it. Most deny what it takes.

That means only part-time work max, no nights out, no business conventions and no holidays. Like, ever. No holidays. Considering how many of these guys complain about freedom, it’s a little like they’re locking themselves into a Houdini straitjacket. Plus chunky padlocks.

The good parents aren’t online saying how easy it is. No good parent says it’s easy. Those are outside observers or the shit ones.

This is with two parents and a marital support. Everything comes second to kids, especially companies: you are no longer an individual when you have dependents.

https://www.inc.com/jeremy-bodenhamer/5-lessons-that-saved-my-marriage-after-my-startup-almost-killed-it.html

Not to mention, surrogates have pitiful quality genes. National IQ India: 82.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-surrogate-mothers-india/surrogate-mothers-in-india-unaware-of-risks-idUSKBN0LY1J720150302

“Babies from multiple pregnancies are more likely to be premature or have cerebral palsy or learning disabilities”

When Tanderup asked doctors if they told surrogate mothers how many embryos they transfer, one answered: “No, we never ask them and they are not even informed how many are going to be transferred. They are illiterate, uneducated girls.”

Clinics typically reduce the number of fetuses according to commissioning parents’ wishes. A lethal solution is injected into unwanted fetuses around week 10 of pregnancy.

Then there’s your children you murdered for being inconvenient. Turns out, men can get abortions too!

Nobody says a fucking thing.

Last month Thailand outlawed surrogacy services for foreigners following several scandals, including an Australian couple that allegedly abandoned a baby with Down syndrome with his Thai mother but took his healthy twin home with them.

thatsjustsickewwtfgrossno

When you mix chocolate with shit, it all becomes shit. Don’t be shocked if it’s retarded, and I wonder if you’d indulge in the 24/7 round the clock care required?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tog.12010/full

I don’t think so.

[And yes, the risk of birth defects and disabilities skyrockets with artificial methods. The fact they didn’t look this up, first page Google-tier, doesn’t surprise me. They’re low IQ.]

Parents must cooperate, Trivers researched why and even proved it mathematically. Children need a balance of their influences. And if you think girls or boys are innately inferior, you don’t deserve to breed. I ask the men planning on using a surrogate, what happens if you have a little girl? You understand nothing about little girls. Great way to make a lesbian, though. Look up role model theory.

Unless you’re going to cross-dress and roleplay the feminine influence too?

Video: The failure of Gen X parents

Are they really Gen X? Lower Gen X.

“like they’re fucking Plato”

I’m glad someone is taking Molyneux to task on the liberal assumption all children are angelic snowflakes who care about reason and truth and never bully or murder one another unless it’s a parents fault for showing them violence.

Have you seen chimps?

Do chimps have violent cartoons Stefan?

Do gorilla spank?

Do antelope butt heads?

Children are not smart. Children are not mature. Children do not have full brains yet.

That’s why they legally need a parent. They need hierarchy, they love routine and stability. Shit tests exist in children and the immature e.g. negging. If there are no boundaries practically, they know they never existed in theory – i.e. you lied to them, so not only will they keep misbehaving, but they won’t believe in moral objectivity (only relativism like the Pleasure Principle) but they’ll also hate you.

This failure to be an assertive ADULT is called permissive parenting. There are studies. Have at it, folks.

The smart Gen Y are doubting parenthood because they see this. Many Gen Y can’t even afford kids, let alone ungrateful ones. I do think Gen Y will be worse (like, abusive level worse) in places.

Weak parents, weak children. The sins of the father…. A good tree produces good fruit, a bad tree… should be sterilized. He misses one major issue here: slutty parents. This does a number on the kid’s brains. They begin to feel unwanted and this naturally fucks anyone up existentially (most edgy nihilism, parents ignored them). Should parents be allowed to re-marry if they have proven themselves incapable of the responsibility?

If the parent has no superego, how can they instill one to their spawn?
If the parent cares about the reputation of being married more than staying married, how can society allow this superficial abuse of the system to make their personal lives look more responsible?

Another one is technology. Anyone giving a smartphone to a baby or a toddler should be locked up. I’m completely serious. Apple employees wouldn’t do that. They would agree with me, it’s brain damaging. Why doesn’t Jr have impulse control when we gave him bleeping instant access to the whole world while he was still trying to figure out selfhood and not being selfish? There should be 16+ age restrictions on smartphones, especially the camera unit. With the amount of child-made child pornography (the grooming of “sexting”) it’s a rare time we need regulations because the parents are inept.

Other needs?

Revoke the marketing category of teenager. You’re adult or child.

Let older children work and earn as much money for the same labour.

Allow children to graduate early, including with MOOCs.

Encourage children to be useful to the family, they are not pets to be indulged.

Spoiling isn’t a good thing like adverts say. It’s corruption. The short track to the parental ego boost, it’s all about the parent seeing their brat ‘so happy’. The kid plays up to it over time.

You can spoil a hard-working adult – either yourself or your spouse, romancing your child is creepy. Buying gifts to make them like you – ew.

Children can’t respect power in a parent that isn’t there.

Modern parents spend more time with children now than in 50s

Yeah, don’t take your history lessons from adverts.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/modern-parents-spend-more-time-actively-engaged-with-children-than-50-years-ago/news-story/f7f9dc36605a5da378ef56754c9ba8f5

A spread between parental units is also better for the child’s development. Too much mother is as much a problem as too little.

The mother in the tender years (0-5ish) and the father for about 10 years after that to teach them the basics and keep them grounded, but overall children do need approximately as much quality time with each parent, and it’s terrible when men ‘want’ children just to say they have them but want to skip out on spending time with them. They aren’t a lamp. You can’t just pay for them and leave them there and expect them to be fine. Abandonment is more than financial, it’s giving up leisure time to extra-house priorities, which should come far lower. Family comes before friends, and nights out drinking don’t even really become a college student, let alone a Patriarch. I’ve seen men happy to spend time with a mongrel for hours at a park than five minutes with their spawn.

It doesn’t matter how much money he pulls in if his heart is made of ice. Women shouldn’t procreate with such monsters.
However, such parents will be abandoned once the resentment has festered by rights. They won’t get that replacement kidney or the good nursing home and won’t they be shocked? Their children built a whole life without them too!

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Neither should the children always come first (for some things yes but balance it), that right actually belongs to the spouse, oft-ignored in pop culture like they’re boring to encourage affairs (by clubbing, drinking, bad influence friends). Without a secure spousal relationship, the children will suffer and doing it this way avoids spoiling them or making them arrogant. Happy wife, happy life. Better children too.

It’s common to see posts about maternal abandonment as if a man is a walking wallet. Aside from being a sexist reduction of the Patriarchal role, paternal abandonment has a much more far-reaching effect on the life of the child.

Patriarchs don’t just get to sit around at home while wifey makes them a cocktail and that’s a bizarro-world American Dream anyway. Nobody has that life, even billionaires. They are both workers in the home. He does DIY, she cooks, she cleans, he changes diapers. The 50s advert postcard image is just that – a mirage. Rich people hire help. That’s the trick. Outsourcing. Time is $$$.

The anti-spanking initiative is r-selected

Disclaimer: I came into this topic with an open mind and I was shocked by what I found.

Before we begin: We all know social science is indoctrinated by liberal bias (9/10 hiring decisions come on), so any parenting finding they present as untouchable requires as much doubt as global warming.

Before someone goes there, I hate to say it, but I doubt Stefan Molyneux knows psych data better than a guy who worked at the APA. Having data doesn’t mean shit, it’s the quality of the data. He keeps going on about this topic in a smug self-satisfied way with reference to simplistic philosophy over the scientific method as it applies here (they do differ substantially as we’ll see) and it irritated my amygdala enough to play Devil’s Advocate and see where the data took me.

I mean, if you watch that video I linked he even committed an ad hominem attack to anyone who disagrees and the psychogenetic fallacy, as well as the fallacy of dismissal and others. You’d be triggered too.

“In a meta-analysis of 26 studies, Larzelere and a colleague found that an approach they described as “conditional spanking” led to greater reductions in child defiance or anti-social behavior than 10 of 13 alternative discipline techniques, including reasoning, removal of privileges and time out
from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/04/spanking.aspx

ummmm drinking oh dear no uh oh tyrion game of thrones drinking

THE FORBIDDEN FINDING. I could just leave it there, tbh. It’s tempting.

They refuse to control the data (confounds) properly because it would prove them wrong, that’s why the methods are dodgy. If you look at plenty of pro-liberal social studies (at least 90% of them presumably, going by hiring for research posts), the statistics are distorted to match public policy recommendations, making the studies themselves post-hoc and invalid. It’s justification for social engineering, not real science.

As in many areas of science, some researchers disagree about the validity of the studies on physical punishment. Robert Larzelere, PhD, an Oklahoma State University professor who studies parental discipline, was a member of the APA task force who issued his own minority report because he disagreed with the scientific basis of the task force recommendations. While he agrees that parents should reduce their use of physical punishment, he says most of the cited studies are correlational and don’t show a causal link between physical punishment and long-term negative effects for children.

Translation: he thinks they’re filthy liars so he showed them up with a real study (hence the meta-analysis method, the gold standard) and they have no genuine reply to this, it’s hilarious. He went on to explain their flaws too, because he’s savage.

Little known fact: You do have to prove causation. Before you start lecturing people. They cannot. What does that say? Well, what does proof involves? Statistical control of confounds, which they refuse to do for some strange reason. The same way behaviourists refuse to control for genetics in their studies, while saying out the other side of their mouths that it wouldn’t change their significant findings if they did….

This is why social science isn’t yet a real science. These people. Who ‘can’t’ do maths.

“The studies do not discriminate well between non-abusive and overly severe types of corporal punishment,” Larzelere says. “You get worse outcomes from corporal punishment than from alternative disciplinary techniques only when it is used more severely or as the primary discipline tactic.”

Such obscurity is always deliberate. Part of p-hacking. Heard of that reproducibility crisis?
Liberals see all forms of physical punishment as ‘too much’. To them, it’s all ‘abusive’, like disagreeing with a black guy is ‘racist’ or a gay man refusing to shag a woman is ‘sexist’. Well technically, theoretically speaking, but really no. Not in the real world. Where the data lives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15898303

This meta-analysis investigates differences between the effect sizes of physical punishment and alternative disciplinary tactics for child outcomes in 26 qualifying studies. Analyzing differences in effect sizes reduces systematic biases and emphasizes direct comparisons between the disciplinary tactics that parents have to select among. The results indicated that effect sizes significantly favored conditional spanking over 10 of 13 alternative disciplinary tactics for reducing child noncompliance or antisocial behavior. Customary physical punishment yielded effect sizes equal to alternative tactics, except for one large study favoring physical punishment. Only overly severe or predominant use of physical punishment compared unfavorably with alternative disciplinary tactics. The discussion highlights the need for better discriminations between effective and counterproductive use of disciplinary punishment in general.

But the other researchers don’t want the truth. They can’t handle the truth. It’s black and white thinking from them on this subject. All bad, or all good, unlike literally any other human behaviour known to mankind. Did I mention another reason for its hot-potato status is racial differences?

Our results indicate that adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritative parenting style, regardless of their race, are less likely to engage in health-risk behaviors than adolescents who perceive that their parents use an authoritarian, permissive, or uninvolved parenting style. Conversely, in this study adolescents of all races who characterize their parents as uninvolved are more vulnerable to engaging in health-risk behaviors. The effects of the authoritarian and permissive parenting styles differ by race. In relation to the other parenting styles, the authoritarian style is more protective for Black adolescents than it is for White adolescents; while, the permissive style is more protective for White adolescents than it is for Black adolescents. The permissive parenting style and the authoritarian parenting style appear to have an equal effect on health-risk behaviors in Hispanic teens. source

TLDR: So being anti-authoritarian is actually racist.

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Don’t expect them to crack it anytime soon. Money’s on it being mediated by MAO genes. And if personality is innate after a certain point and we should accept this and tolerate differences, is it reasonable to ask people to change? Weren’t they Born This Way?

This whole debate, all this is a ruse that relates back to Authoritarianism, also called a parenting style but actually a political invention by Adorno, a personality metric to call conservatives mentally ill. It’s basically a medical label of prejudice. Adorno was an avowed Communist who worked as part of the Frankfurt School. Seriously, look it up.

No literally, he tried to make up a hodge-podge theory calling conservatives mentally ill. It’s quite funny how overtly biased he was.

http://www.simplypsychology.org/personality-theories.html#adorno

Case studies, e.g. Nazis

They piloted and developed a questionnaire, which they called the F-scale (F for fascism).

Those with an authoritarian personality tended to be:

• Hostile to those who are of inferior status, but obedient of people with high status [DS: hierarchical]

• Fairly rigid in their opinions and beliefs [DS: aka closed to manipulation attempts]

• Conventional, upholding traditional values

Liberals did political psychology before we did. They started it.

laughing rdj crack up

Despite how;

Still, the authors concluded that the authoritative parenting style is protective in regards to adolescent drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001). source

So it works. Literally, it works. The majority of their argument against is futile.

The whole idea of parenting styles is a joke. You know what the data shows? The still-conservative one called authoritative is the best for life outcomes. Do they follow outcomes for types of discipline? No, not really, and especially not the least-popular parenting ‘style’, permissive (lazy). Why wouldn’t liberals want to study that?

Little mentioned is the damage of the permissive (liberal) parenting style. Why? Well, it’s hardly ever researched and commented upon.

Parental permissiveness or indulgence was also associated with increased adolescent alcohol and tobacco use(22,23,27). source

Adolescents who described their mother as using a permissive parenting style were more likely to demonstrate a tendency to anticipate a more violent response to the hypothetical situation. [same source]

Sounds healthy. Mentally.

Parenting style is like learning style, it pathologizes natural differences for political gain around a kernel of truth. Mental illness is not a political pawn, nor should it be used as one. But again, which wing started that?

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/mental-illness-is-not-a-political-issue/17600#.VqR5n_mLTZ4

There is also a big difference between genuinely seeking to end unjust discrimination against those who suffer from severe mental-health issues, and making out that we’re all secretly a little bit mentally ill.

Is it to help people, as best as we can, to live normal lives? Or is it an attempt to medicalise further normal aspects of everyday life?

Casually diagnosing a misbehaving child with mental problems, such as anxiety or depression, is the equivalent of a get-out clause.

Girl crush.

We all know overdiagnosis is a problem, mathematically, as the majority (mentally healthy) cannot be the minority (mentally unhealthy) in a Medical Model. What type of person over-diagnoses or self-diagnoses?

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1566&context=lcp

Corporal punishment is usually correlated with behavior problems such as antisocial behavior and aggression.24 But correlation does not equal causation. What is open to dispute are the causal influences that explain those correlations. Making valid causal conclusions from correlations involving corrective actions is especially problematic, for correlations are biased against corrective actions, a problem known as the intervention selection bias.25 This selection bias occurs because of the poorer prognosis of those selected for the corrective action compared to the better prognosis of those not needing the corrective action.

aka Stefan is wrong.
And bad kids get disciplined more, they were bad to begin with. I love how nobody asks about psychopaths either. Like evil people pop into existence at age 18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

However, all kinds of nonphysical punishment also predicted higher antisocial behavior with the same controls.

Woops. That’s not to suppose to happen, is it, Stefan?

all predicted significantly higher subsequent hyperactivity, whereas physical punishment did not, β = .03, n.s. Therefore, the strongest causal evidence against customary spanking is not unique to spanking, but applies as much to most corrective actions, including most corrective disciplinary actions by parents and corrective interventions by psychotherapists.

That’s the sound of a hypothesis dying. Like a whale.
I don’t blame him for being a pacifist though. Being Canadian.
If the therapists are harming children, where’s your moral beacon?

In sum, the strongest causally relevant evidence against customary spanking yields small, apparently detrimental effects that can easily be due to a combination of several substantive and methodological factors that bias the results. Consistent with this, the first studies to use the same research methods for alternative disciplinary tactics showed similar results for corrective actions by both parents and professionals. In evaluating corrective actions by clinical psychologists, this type of evidence would not even be considered and would definitely not override the causally conclusive evidence that spanking can be effective for enforcing nonphysical disciplinary tactics, even in the most clinically defiant two- to six-year-olds.154

*crickets*

Under Conclusion.

Spanking must be understood in the broader context of the appropriate exercise of parental authority. Numerous studies have shown the superior effectiveness of authoritative parenting, especially compared with the extremes of authoritarian and permissive parenting.174 We have recently extended that evidence by documenting that ten-year child outcomes vary greatly by these preschool parenting patterns.175

Calling a parent a Nazi is pretty extreme, yes.

The use of normative spanking did not distinguish authoritative parents from other parenting patterns, although it was used more by authoritarian parents than by permissive parents. We think that authoritative parenting can be implemented by some parents without the use of any spanking, but we have no evidence of that from our study, as all authoritative parents used spanking at least occasionally.

As this alludes, hippies still spank their kids, they just lie about it. Getting the child to lie for them could be considered a form of abuse too, if you want to play that game.

There’s a load of duh conservative wisdom too before I move on.

Spanking should never be used in an infant’s first twelve months of life and rarely, if at all, before eighteen months of age. Parents should make sure their children know that any corrective discipline, including spanking, is motivated by love and concern for them. Parents must also be certain not to administer punishment too severely, whether physical or nonphysical. Finally, all punishment should be used in such a way that reduces the need to use it in the future. Every child is different, so not all disciplinary tactics will work as well with every child—or for every situation with the same child.

Parental authority figure. Authoritative role assumption. Duh?

Authoritarian should actually be called Tyrant. If the labelling system were culturally honest and followed, I dunno, the definition of English words?
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english-thesaurus/authoritarian

I was doing some pondering over this topic and the neurobiology that must be involved and came up with a pie-in-the-sky opinion theory. Since I’ve already established the direction the empirical evidence has headed, I wanna freestyle it to finish.

Wall of text incoming.

I was reading about the findings on spanking, and it seems to be r-types self-selecting for narcissism. As in, they don’t develop empathy, which is based on pain (all kinds) and physically structured by mirror neurons. For an example of how this pertains to modern issues, such impaired ‘theory of mind’ (low empathy) is implicated in Borderline Personality. From what I know of the brain, spanking would actively change the child’s personality (an unstudied effect, a remarkable gap in the research despite the known origin of spanking research -parenting style- being based in the personality of the parents) and this change would aim to make the child more socially humble and deferential, respecting of hierarchy, such as parental authority, (like the spanking parents themselves, making spanking a cultural meme and untouchable by liberals on this basis) and such traits are something we know to be actively K-selected. I even thought of a mechanism, most parents who spank only start once the child is of around pre-school age, wandering curious age, at the exact time of great neural pruning. What most people don’t know is that neural pruning can be triggered and directed by experiences of pain, and once those connections are gone, they’re dead forever. Pruning is vital for healthy brain development, and may be a hidden environmental factor (really epigenetic) in childhood development.
By refusing to admit any positive effects from spanking whatsoever (impossible in social science), they admit their bias, because at that exact time biologically in the child’s development, mild physical pain, no different morally than controlled exposure hand-ice studies conducted by psychologists themselves, would cause neural pruning of the decisive connections which led to that antisocial behaviour. It causes a rewiring of the brain for prosociality during the ‘window of opportunity’.
In the ‘social science’, they’ve tried to argue that spanking causes sociopathy but the genetics show there is a predisposition, so what, pray tell geniuses, is a parent supposed to do if they find their kid lighting fires? How are they supposed to discipline the child they found torturing cats or trying to kill their little sister by pushing her down the stairs? They have no answer for this, because their entire anti-scientific premise rests on All Child Are Innocent Angels Incapable of Wrongdoing, something any parent will tell you is BS. The number of abusive children is rising.
What is the social engineer’s answer to this? Does the parent require less protection, when the child is often below the age of criminal responsibility? One of the expert-given causes for such abuse is “lack of consequences for bad behavior”, what do you think that might mean? As for solutions: “There are no agencies or programs that protect parents from abusive children, adolescents or teenagers other than giving up their Parental Rights to the state they live in.” So it seems the case that if the parents refuse to use physical force altogether, the child might take the newly imbalanced power dynamic (game theory) as carte blanche and abuse the parent. Such sunny optimism as you see with the anti-spanking witch hunts fail to recognize this, despite their supposed stance against all abuse and violence. It irritates their amygdala, you see, making them ignore it. Like a child screaming in a supermarket. They’re That Parent.
If a parenting style fails to apply to all children (and you don’t know who’s pathological until they’ve killed the family cat), it fails and one cannot advise parents to undertake it in good conscience. Children are capable of great evil and not just the sociopathic ones (from ignorance, bad peer influence, genetic bequeath or sheer stupidity). If you ask real parents anecdotally, (bear in mind liberals avoid having children making their opinion dubious since they admit to hating kids in general) they’ll draw a connection between late Gen Y/ early Gen Z and NARCISSISM. Aka part of the Dark Triad. Why weren’t those connections pruned, compared to earlier generations? Many parents would say the anti-spanking initiative, and wouldn’t you know it, that generation is coincidentally the most heavily liberal known to mankind. They respect nothing and feel invincible, literally as if nothing could really harm them? ‘Import rapists? Sure! They would never hurt me!’ It would be a like a cultural version of Toxoplasmosis infection, because they speak from ignorance. Their brains are immature, but that isn’t an excuse, they aren’t insane and know logically right from wrong, and arguably that makes it worse. They follow their feelings knowing it’s wrong, the polar opposite of what the advocates of prohibition say should happen!

It’s widely recognized the rise in child narcissism is due to the Self Esteem Movement, but what caused the SEM? What new behaviours from parents, since it’s novel in children? Non-parenting parents. Genetic parents, who fail to take up the social role.

nonparents

Source: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement

I’ll just paste this off wikipedia because I’m lazy.

A study conducted by Jean Decety and colleagues at the University of Chicago demonstrated that subjects with aggressive conduct disorder elicit atypical empathic responses to viewing others in pain.[89] Subjects with conduct disorder were at least as responsive as controls to the pain of others, but unlike controls, subjects with conduct disorder showed strong and specific activation of the amygdala and ventral striatum (areas that enable a general arousing effect of reward), yet impaired activation of the neural regions involved in self-regulation and metacognition (including moral reasoning), in addition to diminished processing between the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.[89]

Absence of punishment rewards bad behaviour. They don’t learn to control themselves and cannot morally reason, the thing the anti-spanking people rely on as the bulk of their proposition.

What appears to be pathological altruism is in fact a weakened threat recognition system, and surely it’s better to teach a child the meaning of pain and suffering in a controlled environment than wait for it to metastasize in a potentially lethal way? None of the studies, though persuasive, account for these factors. Reasoning with a bad child doesn’t work. Some children are bad, where do they think bad adults come from? They pop into existence at age 18? Why even have clinical child psychology if no intervention could ever have changed them? What are good parents of a bad egg supposed to do? Pray? Cos that’s about as reasonable as ‘reasoning’ with them – humans are not logical animals. If it won’t work on adults (Israel/Palestine, anyone?) it certainly won’t work on a toddler. We have to teach classical logic and formal laws of maths when they’re at school, far too late, the superego/conscience is already formed, so expecting them to get it earlier on or as a baby is frankly retarded. So while I hate to say it, I’m forced to conclude that spanking is justifiable in certain conditions of very bad behaviour (especially criminal) and during the window of life phase time (childhood stage) it might be corrected for. A little bad does us good, in the long term? This is the low time preference view, which is, wouldn’t you know it, the preserve of conservatives. I call it the Eustress Hypothesis.

TLDR: Fear is something you learn and liberals haven’t.

Also, I find it funny liberals don’t believe in IQ unless they’re citing spanking studies, then negligible IQ drops are totally a real thing and a huge deal (unlike IQ drops from smoking pot, which are rounding errors apparently). 5 points of difference for example could be caused by anything, it was raining today so when the kid took the IQ test again he was sad? Education boosts IQ far more than spanking supposedly drops it, so what’s the problem? If we’re playing the IQ maths game? Does it take pointing out the obvious by twisting it the other way to make the faulty reasoning clear? Did they control for parental investment (extraneous variable) or what? No, they did not. This includes reading to them and other at-home education (itself a sign of parental IQ – another confound!). The IQ difference within this study doesn’t even remain over time, in the older age group, the difference is a stonking 2.8 IQ points! Wow! At which point they stopped measuring or failed to report on the data, which isn’t odd… To clue you in on how valid this widely cited dataset is, the guy who conducted it is a sociologist. Not even a child psychologist or anything psychologist (they tend to use different methodologies, different assumptions and much weaker statistics).

According to PC dogma, even yelling isn’t allowed now. So no form of discipline is acceptable to them, the r-types. Why yelling? It causes shame and apparently no child should ever feel shame for anything. http://jezebel.com/if-yelling-at-kids-is-as-harmful-as-spanking-what-the-1455310255

Gee, which political wing hates being ‘shamed’?

Different from guilt, which is too generic and makes them neurotic and indecisive as adults. Like Catholics.

I don’t expect liberals to avoid confirmation bias, we wouldn’t want them to be triggered by facts, would we? However, I expect better from the Alt Right. Quit taking tips on aggression from a non-scientist Canadian philosopher. Quit bothering me with assumptions that his proofs are correct when the internet is right there and you should use it. Topic covered? Can we drop it now?

I don't have anything funny to say about this

Manosphere wrong on evolution again

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-science-of-sex-most-important.html

I mentioned parental choice obliterates most of their theories. In favour of Dad-types. In evolutionary terms, the man who reproduces is the Alpha. Notches count for nada. It’s like the spergs who record a tally of all the sexual acts they’ve done with a woman. Like, do you want a medal? It’s somewhere here just check the evolution tag, probably. Maybe the little girls marrying creepy old men myth.

No matter how much evidence stacks against their silly little notions of supremacy, they’ll never admit they’re being unscientific. Sometimes, we’re worse than the feminists.

This aims to be a neat summary. Neat explanations are frequently superior.

The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans – which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates.

<laughs in CH’s direction>

…Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses – and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population – and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation.

Much like a…. game….

…In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women.

The opposite of MGTOW. (lmao)

So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers.

Social Alphas.

…Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants – and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve.

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

The first thing a traditional society would do is ban nightclubs.