A big person should never hit a little child.
You start out with a lie, let's see where you go from there.
All adults who hit their children have varying opinions as to what it is specifically meant by applying “only the amount of correction thast matches the offense that is being corrected.
Turn to Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
If any of you has a disobedient and rebellious son, who does not respond to the instructions of his father or mother, you are first to discipline him. If he still does not heed you, you are to bring him to the elders at the gate of the city. You are to say to the elders of the city, “This son of ours is disobedient and rebellious. He won’t obey us. He is a glutton and a drunk.”
The men of the city are then to stone him to death. In this way you will rid yourselves of this evil, and everybody else will hear about it and be afraid.
That passage is thought to be between twenty-five hundred and three thousand years old.
Yes, I have read the passage.
The disobedient and rebellious son is obviously a fully grown man and not a child.
In nomadic tribes, the grown children stayed with the parents until they got married.
So “disobedient and rebellious” sons evidently were a serious problem centuries before Hollywood and hip-hop — even in homogeneous cities (none much bigger than Littleton. Colorado or Parkland, Florida) where every activity was structured around religion and where children were constantly with their families.
In a nomadic tribe, a "disobedient and rebellious" person could cause the death of the entire tribe.
Are you trying to claim that one hip-hop artist can cause the death of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people the way one "disobedient and rebellious" person could in a nomadic tribe 3000 years ago?
The problem was consistent and important enough not only to be written into sacred law but to merit public execution.
A person that was causing the kind of disruption that would result in an entire tribe being killed is important.
Which tells us something else: that no one knew what to do.
Of course they knew what to do.
The obvious solution is to put the person to death before the entire tribe is killed.
The real reason this was written down in the law was to show that the parents were to be responsible for the welfare of the tribe over any silly modern liberal notion of wanting their children to be happy.
A sentence of death, demanded by the parents themselves, is a clear signal that no one in that society could come up with a constructive solution for extreme disobedience and rebellion in the young.
No, that is the kind of misunderstanding a person with a modern liberal education would come up with, because the modern liberal education teaches people that they are to be as destructive to society as possible and that there are no consequences for their actions.
The problem was both too strong to overcome and too threatening to tolerate. In a time when children were crucial to the economic survival of the family, both the parents and the community were reduced to the epitome of defeat: killing their kids.
Why are you trying to make this into an argument about abortion?
And the stated purpose of this public execution was to scare other kids into behaving. No society sets such a grim example unless its members feel it’s needed.
Yes, the very survival of the whole tribe is that important.
Hitting children is morally wrong.
No it isn't. Abortion is morally wrong. Spanking a child for misbehaving is not morally wrong.
We now know that abuse of children defninitively changes their neurological systems in harmful and dangerous ways. For life.
Teaching a child to be a responsible person is "harmful and dangerous"?
Are you an idiot?
Because of obedience to violence as a child, by readiness to obey any authority which recalls the authority of the parents--as the Germans obeyed Hitler, the Russians Stalin, the Serbs Milosevic.
No, the readiness to obey any authority comes from stripping the parents of the ability to correct their children and enrolling the children in a "public" school that is modeled after the
Prussian education system with compulsory attendance and transference of authority from parents to the teachers as interchangeable authority figures, since the purpose of the Prussian education system was to make the children unthinking obedient citizens of the state.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45721588/79491444.0.0.jpg)