The point is, if you don't need to spank your kids in order to insure their safety or personal development, then you're a fucking cock if you do it.
If you want to phrase it as "does spanking actually provide a benefit that can't be achieved by other means", so be it
I'm under the impression that all these pro-spanking people in the thread are making that argument that they'd prefer not to spank if they could, but its a necessary evil* to keep your kids safe/behaving.
I'm under the impression that pro-spanking people who spank don't think spanking is evil.
I'd also rather not give time outs. If spanking is necessary evil, so is a time out. And so it stealing/witholding property.
You draw no distinction between hitting someone(as a method of obedience training), and withholding benefits that you own? If someone works for me, is me docking their pay as valid a method as slapping them?
Personally I really don't buy into the "kids are property till age/point X" argument. If they were truly property you could do absolutely anything you want to them, which obviously no one agrees with, so its an incomplete/faulty analysis of the relationship between parent and kid. If they don't fit the properties of property, then law of identity = they ain't property.
I think all parents would prefer not to have any need for punishment and discipline, but obviously that isn't going to happen. The point is A) does spanking provide a significant benefit that can't be achieved by other methods B) is spanking as valid as other methods of punishment
Not buying your kid ice cream or not letting them use a toy reinforces to them the benefits your provide as a parent, it works on a quid pro quo, and it teaches kids how behaving can be in their interest. Spanking relies on fear and blind authority. In fact above all I find the most useful disciplining technique is simply talking to kids and trying to make them understand why what they've done isn't very nice. I've never had to hit my nephews to get them to share with each other.
I'm glad people like Tuttle and Hellbilly are here to fight the corner of non spanking. As Hellbilly said, if your kid is so small they have difficulty understanding the world in a safe way, then spanking is no substitute for prevention of harm. In my own experience I've never had a problem keeping 0-3 year old twins safe under my supervision without resorting to spanking, and clearly other full time parents haven't either. This isn't proof spanking is 100% unnecessary, but neither is parents who say they need to spank proof that it is.
If people are going to keep throwing the spectre of injured/dead kids into the debate, then they're going to have to back it up with facts that not using spanking leads to more injuries/deaths.
I criticize spanking and proponents of spanking because I think its unnecessary, vulgar and an unthinking method of discipline. If I'm wrong prove it, because I don't really care if I'm "insulting" anyone by calling the truth as I see it, especially if those people aren't interested in defending their view of the truth with facts.
In case anyone couldn't be bothered reading the waffle above, here's a simplified version.
Does not spanking lead to any greater risk of to the welfare of kids? If so prove it. And if you're going to claim that sometimes/ for some kids spanking is the ONLY thing that will work, I'd like to see that proven beyond anecdote.
"Sometimes I can't see any other way to discipline my kids without spanking" is not the same as "sometimes there is no other way to discipline my kid without spanking"