[logifail]

> Actually, it's the definition of punishment: inflicting or imposing penalties as retribution for an offense.

Children are not small adults, but they are surprisingly capable of understanding incentives.

"If you behave well you can have ice cream. If you behave badly, you don't get ice cream. It's your choice."

It's awful to teach children that behaviour doesn't matter. Actions do have consequences.

[Ensorceled]

This is still punishment, even if you believe it's for their own good that "actions do have consequences".

You can't just redefine it as "not punishment" because you want to use that method in child rearing.

[logifail]

> This is still punishment, even if you believe it's for their own good that "actions do have consequences"

"Actions have consequences" as a statement isn't really up for much debate, it's more of a observation on how the universe works. If we fall far enough, we hurt outselves.

Gravity isn't punishing us when we fall, even if it may feel like that at times - the scars on my right arm from a cycling accident last year are still visible.

[Ensorceled]

"Actions have consequences" is explaining why you are punishing your child.

I'm not saying you're a bad parent for punishing your child, I'm saying you could be a better parent if you stopped leaning on punishment as a parenting tool.

Also, stop telling your child you aren't punishing them because they will ALWAYS remember that bullshit. At least own up to the fact that you are punishing them and tell them why.