4 ms·

You're not presenting any kind of defense for your claims. You're saying things like they're obvious truths, when they're obviously not for the sake of this dis

• DanBC 11y ago
  But so are you, and since the action you're proposing (violence against children) is a violation of that child's human rigts as defined in international agreements, and is illegal in several countries, and will draw attention from child protection in many others, you have a higher threshold. No parenting expert recommends violence against the child - (although a few religious extremists claim to be parenting experts). Note that any experts dealing with children whose behaviour is described as difficult or challenging will reject violence against that child - and it's that behaviour which you have said should be met with violence. As one example of an evidence based programme (although the evidence is weak) you might wantto lok at Webster Stratton. I'm presenting this as self-evident truth because the evidence is over-whelmingly against hitting children. You might think there's some debate to be had, but that's because you live in the US which is i) extraordinarily violent country, and ii) has religious extremists who promote violence against the child. The rest of the developed world had this debate in the 1980s and decided that hitting children needs to stop.