My parents have always and are using the Authoritative parenting style, how cani prevent myself from using it?
Use both. I am usually Authoritative, but when my children have crossed the line, I become authoritarian very quickly.
Which is worse, authoritarian parenting or permissive parenting?
Well my logical answer is that being authoritative is best, it's in the middle and there is balance. As to which of the other two is worse, I would say it depends on the child and their personality. If you have an easy going child who is a general people pleaser and Intelligent then you might be able to get away with being permissive or at least it wouldn't cause as much damage where as if you have a strong willed child who is a dare devil and doesn't think before they act then you could be in for some trouble and so could they. If you are authoritarian, and you have a child who is generally a people pleaser and a sensitive child then this could be an issue but if you have a strong willed child who is a risk taker and doesn't think before they act then this could work out or at least do less damage. Hope that all makes sense but in other words a child's personality will factor in to which parenting style will do the most damage or have the worst effect on them. However I feel that no matter which personality your child has, a balance between the two (authoritative parenting) would work out great. Just having a balance isn't enough though. There is so much more to parenting. You have to be creative and have common sense. You have to think ahead and know your child well. You have to know when to use the stricter part of being authoritative and when to use the more permissive side of it. Since it is a little of both the balance has to be used appropriately for it to be effective.
What countries are under an authoritarian regime?
Using the Democracy Index - Wikipedia, a score of less than 4 is authoritarian.Hence, the following countries are authoritarian. This list is in order of most to least democratic:Ivory CoastJordanVenezuelaKuwaitMyanmar (Burma)MauritaniaNigerComorosCambodiaAngolaGabonCameroonAlgeriaEthiopiaEgyptCubaRepublic of the CongoQatarRwandaRussiaZimbabweGuineaBelarusChinaVietnamKazakhstanTogoOmanSwazilandDjiboutiBahrainUnited Arab EmiratesAzerbaijanAfghanistanIranEtitreaLaosBurundiLibyaSudanYemenGuinea-BissauUzbekistanSaudi ArabiaTajikistanEquatorial GuineaTurkmenistanDemocratic Republic of the CongoCentral African RepublicChadSyriaDemocratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea)Is anyone surprised that North Korea is on the bottom of the list? (Norway’s at the top if you care)
In your opinion, is reductive logic inflexible when subjected to philosophical assumptions? Could philosophy be more parsimonious than logic?
I don't know everything about logic or philosophy, by far. but I think that logic is about as parsimonious of a system of thought as we can come up with, with the exception of some kind of source code for a computer, which is really another kind of logic, I think.All philosophical principles should be reduced to a form of logic, because if they can't be then those principles are not sound. But there are different kinds of logic too. There are basically two types of logic- deductive and inductive. Within deductive logic there are two other kinds called predicate logic and term logic (Aristotelian logic).Any philosophical argument or principal should be reduced to some form of deductive or inductive logic in order to test the validity and soundness of the principal. This is not always done of course. I don't think most philosophers would call 911 for the logic police if one of their colleagues didn't use logic to support his or her arguments, but it's always good to back yourself up and know that you're logic is good in your argument.
"At most" predicate logic?
No, at least is different than at most. But both are expressed with the identity relation: (∃x) Fx There is at least one frog. (∃x) (∃y) [Fx & Fy & ~ x = y] There are at least two frogs. (∃x) (∃y) (∃z) [Fx & Fy & Fz & ~ x = y & ~ y = z & ~ x = z] There are at least three frogs. ... and so on (∀x) (∀y) [(Fx & Fy) -> x = y] There is at most one frog. (∀x) (∀y) (∀z) [(Fx & Fy & Fz) -> (x = y ∨ x = z ∨ y = z)] There are at most two frogs. (∀x) (∀y) (∀z) (∀w) [(Fx & Fy & Fz & Fw) -> (x = y ∨ x = z ∨ x = w ∨ y = z ∨ y = w ∨ z = w)] There are at most three frogs. ... and so on