0
1

[–] 4491007? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This is sort of a built-in tautology, isn't it?

If it's necessary, then it's necessary. Difficult to argue with that!

Now, the argument as to whether it's necessary or effective is another question, but that one doesn't have a built in tautology.

0
1

[–] Salicaz [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I suppose. I merely meant it as opposed to hitting children for no reason.

0
1

[–] 4491493? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I guess that leads to one of the limitations of parenting, and one argument against hitting children: There aren't really checks and balances.

Of course, if you go overboard on hitting your kids and leave marks, that's one thing, police and CFS will get involved. On the other hand, if you arbitrarily choose to physically punish your kids while staying within the limits of what the state considers acceptable physical punishment, you can physically punish them for whatever you want.

Slight speach impediment? That's a paddlin'.

Left handed? That's a paddlin'.

Got a sunburn? That's a paddlin'.

No girlfriend? That's a paddlin'.

There's no court of appeals in physically punishing your kids. There doesn't even have to be a set of consistent rules. Yet it's a fairly visceral punishment -- enough that the state has generally decided it doesn't want to do it any more because it's inhumane.