[From many - one.]

Good for you. I agree completely that it is not moral to hit a child

There are too many people who feel intimidated about saying that.

But the hittrs provide their own evidence just by denying any possiblity that there might be a better way. They _want_ to hit their kids. Otherwise there would be at least some sincere questions as to how non-spankers succeed...a real search for alternatives.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Good for you. I agree completely that it is not moral to hit a child"

Yup, I have a sister-in-law who thought like you do. She used "time-outs" and verbal disciplinary methods only. Her kids are undiscplined little terrors today, and headed down the path to juvenile delinquency.

Another sister-in-law administered "hand-to-butt" chastisement as needed. HER children are great, polite, intelligent kids, who get great grades in school.

[Cold Heat]

I agree completely that it is not moral to hit a child

Horse manure!

Parenting requires many different tools. You can never take any of them off the table.

Done properly, there is nothing immoral about it, and you ignore this tool to you and your child's peril.

[ddtorque]

I agree completely that it is not moral to hit a child

I'm with you. Anyone who actually wants to cause their children pain - and someone who orders a hitting implement is clearly intent on causing pain - has got some serious bullying issues. if they have pent up anger they should take it out on someone their own size.

[papertyger]

Good for you. I agree completely that it is not moral to hit a child

Are you really so supercilious as to believe your personal squeamishness is morally superior to the Bible, and traditional practice?

There are too many people who feel intimidated about saying that.

Besides on tv, radio, women's magazines and the child rearing section of the bookstore?

But the hittrs provide their own evidence just by denying any possiblity that there might be a better way. They _want_ to hit their kids. Otherwise there would be at least some sincere questions as to how non-spankers succeed...a real search for alternatives.

Circular reasoning anyone?

I'm always impressed by the open mindedness of some people... until one actually concludes something contrary to what the "open miinded" want.

Could not your own flapdoodle be shot down by the very same reasoning? Namely, you are more concerned with stroking your own sense of moral superiority in that you won't consider the necessity of corporal punishment in some cases, and your pride in that refusal?

You are obviously completely ignorant of one of the most salient features of corporal punishment. That is, it ends debate. You are an obvious product of that great segment of our society raised to believe they can get their way on anything, so long as they talk enough. And that talk doesn't even have to have any bearing on reality, cf. your nonsense about people who feel intimidated. (You might as well boast about your bravery at bad-mouthing George Bush before a gathering of the National Press Club.)

Has it never occured to you why all our children have become little "outhouse attorneys" looking for ways to informally litigate their way out of responsibility for their actions, and expressing fear of neither G-d nor man (whom they believe to be bound by rules) when they think they've succeeded.

Corporal punishment is the example of judgment and punishment that brooks no argument. Chiefly because we as adults are assumed to have the experience and discretion to render such judgment, while they as children will argue endlessly the propriety of the judgment, given the chance.

Unfortunately, when these little cretans reach adulthood, the habit of naked denial and brainless argument doesn't leave them. For them, right and wrong are a sliding scale dependent on personal preference. They are the people that are thoroughly convinced they are "right by definition," and if you don't agree with them, it is because of some failure or perversity on your part.