@ Dan
You said: "...There was a time when there was no child or wifeabuse and people had the right to hit their kids and wife, heck it was even legal to hit farmhands and maids. There was no such thing as rape inside a marriage either it was just "fullfilling wifely duties".
It was called the 1800s, it´s over. Get over it!..."
----------------------------------------------------------
If you equate child abuse and wife abuse with discipline then perhaps it is just as well you don't believe in smacking. My standpoint isn't about supporting abuse. It is about recognising that a timeous smack can prevent a whole heap of trouble later on. Ideally, nobody wants to smack anybody. We don't look for excuses to do it, we do it out of necessity.
A few other things: when I mentioned the legal, moral and parental responsibility a father or mother may have for their child, you said "...In other words you have all this power over the child and still need to hit it?..."
Well, this goes hand in hand with your next comment that "..no child is too young to be reasoned with.."
Well, I don't know what fantasy land you live in, Dan, but young children are OFTEN impossible to reason with. This is because they have a limited perception and understanding of their surroundings and have an agenda that centers almost entirely on themselves. Ever seen a kid throwing a tantrum in a supermarket because his mom won't buy him a toy? Ever seen a kid that insisted on wanting to play with something around the house that he should not be playing with? You may have been the only angelic kid on the planet, Dan, but speaking for myself and the rest of the world, I got up to alot of naughtiness as a kid and I would be damned if I was going to always listen to my parents the first time they said something, especially if (according to my child-like logic) they were being unreasonable and I could see no reason why I could not continue behaving the way I was. I got quite a few smacks as a kid and I don't hate my parents. They probably saved me from becoming an insolent little Chav, or possibly hurting myself or someone else by doing things whose consequences I did not have the knowledge or experience to understand fully.
You also say 'Parents do not own their children'
Does this mean they are like those little Troll keyrings, that you have for a certain number of years, are obliged to feed and clothe, but simultaneously treat as equals? Who is responsible for the child, Dan? Is it the child himself or is it a benevolent pixie at the bottom of the garden? It isn't about 'owning' the child, it is about doing that which you are obliged to do to bring the child up according to your ideals, whilst simultaneously observing the law of the land. If this wasn't so, parents would not be liable for charges of neglect and they would be freely allowed to abandon chldren with no reproach.
