[dagmx]

Sigh.. you've become increasingly combative in the face of new evidence against your preconceived notions. You're also throwing out strawman arguments to save face.

I have never said not to intervene. That's purely something you've manufactured. You can intervene in the case of attacks. Nothing I've said contradicts that. However physical abuse in the case of defense is different than physical abuse as a training mechanism.

Also you justify spanking. Again this is not recommended behaviour by child and family psychologists today. Your methodology is very old school from an era that's passed. Whether you continue to practice it or not is totally on you, but preaching it as advice in the face of science and then getting defensive when pointed out that science has moved on, is not healthy.

I will not be participating further in this discussion due to your strawmen arguments and discussion in bad faith. It is clear you have no intention to understand the current field of science on both child and dog behaviour.

[loceng]

Sigh. This is discussion, nothing combative - and if you want to apply that label to me then you're equally "combative" - so it's a moot point.

You've ignored my questions or countering my specific points - instead saying I've used straw man arguments and saying I'm arguing in bad faith - in order to avoid actually responding to my specific points, likely because you don't have arguments to counter most of them.

Is firmly holding the hand of child to safely cross them across the street because they're acting in a wild way or having a temper tantrum considered abuse? I'm really curious what your line for what is considered abuse vs. what is considering caring.