There is no difference in the principle. I am talking about ANY violence towards children as a means to "fix behavior." What about negotiation? What about reciprocity?
How about this: You punch yourself in the face for failing as a parent whenever you decide that your child needs spanking. Why is the child the only one being punished? At least your children would understand that you are on their team, not just an adversary to overcome.
Ever thought about why your child misbehaves? Of course you don't. Because you are stronger than your child and can decide whatever you want (mostly). But once your child becomes old enough, you don't spank any more because the power levels equalize. Then suddenly the method - even though you praised it up until than as good - seems to fail. What a miracle, right? Once your child can defend itself, it's no longer a good method.
You are merely justifying violence against the most vulnerable in society. You could just as well ally with leftists and advocate for abortion. You'll find so much common ground.
Wrong. It learns that doing bad things AND getting caught results in punishment from YOU. It does not imply that the behavior in itself is wrong or bad. It just means they know YOU don't like knowing about it. They will also grow to distrust you in regards to telling you about their problems or if they did something bad, knowing that you have an affinity for violence - so it's only "good news or no news." And when shit's on fire, they'll maybe just shut up.
I am speculating though, I don't know the extent to which you fail to be a good father and are proud of it. But I will not stand by idle listening to how it's a good practice in general.
look how much mental gymnastics you have to do to try and turn this around
Not really. I presented a lot of arguments. Your argument is the rule of terror. I wonder how that manifests itself politically...
I bet it's fun to be your child navigating through emotional landmines around you. Also when they become teenagers, they might go full punk mode in order to rebel against you. Will you beat the shit out of them too when they are 16 and oppose your regime? Or will you pride yourself when they leave early on in order to escape from you, thinking you were any good father? But I am just speculating.
when they have the mental capabilities of a dog, raising them like a dog is the way to go. when they grow up and CAN be reasoned with, you can use that instead
I really question your ability to assess when people can be "reasoned with." Because that sounds like an euphemism for "obeying you unconditionally." Apparently because I severely disagree with you, I can't be reasoned with either, right? If any of your children opposed you like I do, you'd beat the shit- sorry, "spanked" them, right?
There is no difference in the principle. I am talking about ANY violence towards children as a means to "fix behavior." What about negotiation? What about reciprocity?
How about this: You punch yourself in the face for failing as a parent whenever you decide that your child needs spanking. Why is the child the only one being punished? At least your children would understand that you are on their team, not just an adversary to overcome.
Ever thought about why your child misbehaves? Of course you don't. Because you are stronger than your child and can decide whatever you want (mostly). But once your child becomes old enough, you don't spank any more because the power levels equalize. Then suddenly the method - even though you praised it up until than as good - seems to fail. What a miracle, right? Once your child can defend itself, it's no longer a good method.
You are merely justifying violence against the most vulnerable in society. You could just as well ally with leftists and advocate for abortion. You'll find so much common ground.
Wrong. It learns that doing bad things AND getting caught results in punishment from YOU. It does not imply that the behavior in itself is wrong or bad. It just means they know YOU don't like knowing about it. They will also grow to distrust you in regards to telling you about their problems or if they did something bad, knowing that you have an affinity for violence - so it's only "good news or no news." And when shit's on fire, they'll maybe just shut up.
I am speculating though, I don't know the extent to which you fail to be a good father and are proud of it. But I will not stand by idle listening to how it's a good practice in general.
So you raise your children like your dog?
Not really. I presented a lot of arguments. Your argument is the rule of terror. I wonder how that manifests itself politically...
I bet it's fun to be your child navigating through emotional landmines around you. Also when they become teenagers, they might go full punk mode in order to rebel against you. Will you beat the shit out of them too when they are 16 and oppose your regime? Or will you pride yourself when they leave early on in order to escape from you, thinking you were any good father? But I am just speculating.
I really question your ability to assess when people can be "reasoned with." Because that sounds like an euphemism for "obeying you unconditionally." Apparently because I severely disagree with you, I can't be reasoned with either, right? If any of your children opposed you like I do, you'd beat the shit- sorry, "spanked" them, right?