also not aggression
Smacking as a parental technique is unprovoked aggression as the child has not initiated it
for years she'd have been dealing with the reluctance, almost dragging me down the road
> as the child has not initiated it This is incorrect
the child has initiated it - thats the whole point. its a reaction to an action
> unprovoked aggression this is incorrect
@notaglobe Have they attacked their parent or someone else? In most cases no
oh, so you can only respond to direct attack?
so when my kid hits me, I can round house them?
Not doing what you are told does not warrant an aggressive response
tell the USA that
unprovoked smacking would do absolutely nothing, in fact it would diminish the power of the act as well as being actual child abuse
We should just ban all violence towards children by parents
it's not violence
its not violence
Yes it is
we disagree on the fundimentals here and you just keep repeating
Smacking someone is violence
Go and smack someone on the street and see what the police say that you have done
words are violence too i guess
No
yes it is
i think we've established that you'd make a terrible parent and raise a selfish, petulant monster too
Only physical contact with the intent to cause harm
there is no intent to cause harm
<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>
Smacking as a parental technique fulfils that
violence is physical harm, I don't think violence in it's broadest sense is inherently wrong, though
there's so much wrong here
You are intending to cause harm as a deterrent to a particular action
no
yeah im going to fuck off and play some more tomb raider
this conversation is groundhogging
if you've ever smacked a child, it's not a hard action
It is still physical harm
you don't hit the child to cause pain
It may be more minor then the cane or beatings but it is still using pain as a deterrent
That is simply morally wrong
ok, so when i touch you, is it painful?
