[array_key_first]

Consider: not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids, and also free. Ergo, if we're gonna be hitting kids, we need really strong research to show that it's effective. Which we don't have. The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice.

[lostmsu]

> The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice.

This argument could be applied to anything. I'm glad it is not.

> not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids

These two are not the alternatives in question, so the following conclusion is invalid.

[array_key_first]

You basically didn't address anything I wrote - this is one of the most worthless comments I've written in a while.

I will reiterate. If you, or others, want to hit children then that's something you need to justify with cold hard studies. Not me. The default is not hitting people.

Acknowledge the reality: if I do these punishments to another adult man, I will:

1. Probably get my ass handed to me.

2. Go to jail and be prosecuted for assault and battery.

Given that, why then does it magically become okay to do it to kids?

The answer is it doesn't, fucking obviously. So, if you want to do that, justify it. And it better be a good justification backed by science, not some pussy-footing "reasoning" I'm sure you're going to bust out.

[lostmsu]

The default is hitting people. We are afforded the not hitting people personally because law enforcement and therefore hitting people is delegated to the government. Government doesn't do much law enforcement when it comes to children behavior.

[array_key_first]

We live in a civilized society, the default is not hitting people and you won't convince me otherwise. Again, I don't want to hear some pussy-footing bullshit, so if that's all you have then stop commenting.

[lostmsu]

> stop commenting

I will do that, because as you stated yourself you are planning to ignore arguments you don't like:

> you won't convince me otherwise