While I won't go as far as claiming your children will hate you - after all, you probably don't hate your parents - I will suggest that they'll grow up morally confused. Your defensive response has many logical errors, and your moral base seems to be to do whatever you are told, or whatever you feel like, without reflection or reason.

The good thing about expressing your thoughts in a forum like this is that you get to take them apart and analyze them. I know that my thinking has gotten stronger because of good, well thought out arguments that others have presented to me, and I've often changed my mind because of them.

To your response: I'll just point out the most egregious logical missteps.

"Hitting no, but swatting ..." It should be obvious that you mean, "Hitting yes, but only ..." Lying about whether swatting is hitting is a bad start. If you agree with hitting, which you clearly do, then say so and defend the practice for what it is.

"I believe in what the Bible says, ..." This is an easy fill-in-the-blank statement. The question it raises is, do you believe everything in the Bible, or just the parts you like? If everything, do you apply all of it with equal moral force? I examined this question personally a while ago, and concluded that everyone picks and chooses what parts of the Bible to believe, including those who believe none of it. I can't find a way to actually believe all of it, though, without adding lots of convoluted non-biblical theology, which amounts to claiming that parts of it don't mean what they say. (See the remarks on "hitting" above.)

"Just because you don't believe in X, don't tell me I'm wrong or bad for doing it." Another fill in the blank. Can you really put any behavior in the blank? Smoking pot, cheating on your taxes, wearing a mullet, having an abortion, spanking your kids, ethnic cleansing? Obviously these actions run the whole gamut from harmless to terrible. Just because people have different beliefs about them does not make them morally neutral, and certainly doesn't mean that no one should speak up about them.

"What I don't get is why people think they have to attack others that don't think and act the way they do." You might consider that you did exactly this in your previous post. You attacked those who divorce, bear children out of wedlock, and have no "moral compass." If you can answer the question of why you did this, you might understand why others do it, too.

"... it is better to do something than nothing at all." I'm not sure you really meant anything by this. It sounds like a wrap-up argument, but what does it mean? Is action always preferable to inaction? In the area of child-rearing, is there never a time when stepping back and letting things happen is preferable to interference? This statement oversimplifies the case, presenting a false dilemna. The choices at hand are not "something" or "nothing at all," but several different "somethings." In this case, hitting as disciplinary punishment, or timeouts as a behavior modification technique, or many other options.

I'd sincerely suggest that you examine your own moral compass. What makes something right or wrong? I know that reflecting on, and writing about, these issues has improved my thinking and my sense of morality.

I think this arguement boils down to 2 things:

Is hitting and/or violence ever the correct response? I don't know about correct, but natural, illogical, and visceral, yes. If someone hits me, or treats me violently, I really want to hit back. Or run (ever heard of fight or flight?) When you have a two year old reaching for something that will harm them - like a hot plate or an electrical socket, my gut reaction is to smack the hand and say no. If all you do is speak, they may not hear, sometimes a physical response is necessary, even if it is just in the form of restraint (grabbing or holding a child rather than smacking). If none of us were ever done violently with, would this reduce or eliminate violence as a whole? I am not sure of that. There is in us, as people a deep visceral need to react physically, sometimes violently to actions. My opinion is this: sometimes spanking is necessary and it can be used for the good of the child. Sometimes it is used overmuch and does harm.

The flip side is, of course, are time outs and reasonable logical consequences, always the right course of action? As far as time outs go, the answer (mine at least) is emphatically not. look at the example above, of the two year old - they behaviour will cause the child harm, but putting him or her in time out will solve nothing. What consequences would there be? I am not advocating this approach exactly, but from many previous experiences have learned that many children will not understand something being hot until they experience the heat and pain for themselves. you may say, no, it's hot, but this means nothing until they learn what "hot" is. for actual bad behavior, like hitting or biting, etc, sometimes logic works, especially if the child has been on the receiving end of a hit or bite. As the child ages, the more often time-outs and logical consequences really are effectual. For children under the age of 3, really, not so much.

What my point is, is that regardless of your preferred method of discipline, you should always take pains to explain your actions. As briefly as possible, and as often as necessary. Sometimes hitting, smacking, spanking is the right way to go. Sometimes it does more harm than good. This is a debate I doubt will be resolved in my lifetime, but hopefully we can continue to discuss it like adults, with civility and logic, and without sarcasm and guile.

If a kid reaches for an electrical socket, quickly acting to prevent that physically is perfectly reasonable. But that doesn't require a smack. Sure you might reach out too aggressively or hold on a bit too tightly, but that's not because you see "smacking" as a reasonable response - that's simply a case of adrenalized strength.

And the level of upset itself will be scary to the child that most won't try to stick their fingers in the socket. Though some (like me) weren't statisfied until they burned up a socket or two and had a nasty "bite".

And you are right, LOGICAL consequences require age to be sorted out. But Timeouts are not about "consequences" but instead they are a disruption of the current moment - allowing a calming down and redirection of emotions for BOTH the child AND THE ADULT.

Nice strawman - who said all the problems of the past are due to spanking kids?

Yeah...no kidding. You can't adequately research this topic. Not with any kind of scientific validity. It's all subjective. The variables involved with figuring out whether time-outs are "detrimental" would be astronomical. The cost alone would be prohibitive.

There's not a way to get a control group. Because you would have to study the parents of those children as well. This is all science through interview...which is entirely subjective. It would be entirely plausible to get research to "show" the exact opposite.

Quoting statistics and research in this area is completely meaningless, because there is no way to prove that there are actual corrolations. In cases such as this, people prove what they set out to prove...nothing more. In my own personal research program...we'll call them subjects, A, B, and C. My methods are working fine, (time-outs, lectures, and the occasional swat) and I am comfortable with them. My kids are adorable, loved, and they know that they are the center of my universe.

You are correct to a point. Observational behavioral science is not as "hard" as physics or chemistry. But there are techniques that can provide repeatable data and experiments.

And this is more rigorous and statistically significant than the annecdotal "I turned out ok even though I hit my children" approach you take. Of course you are comfortable them Every bit as much as your kid was comfortable with hitting, biting or kicking when they were 2 or 3.

LOL...ah...degsme.
I find you just the right combination of pomp and rediculous. Do carry on...maybe if you post enough, we'll be convinced that you are wiser than we.

Perhaps in 20 years you can hold up your perfect child and proclaim righteous triumph, and all spanking in the world shall cease, and then we will all join hands and sing kumbaya. Strangely...I'm not the least bit worried about that coming to pass. But, the idea makes me giggle.

Just soze you know...you keep contradicting yourself...which makes it all the more enjoyable. It's like you want to swamp people with statistics that really aren't very reliable, and prove your point that way. And people who aren't aware of that might feel a little threatened by it. All it does is give me a mental picture of a guy in a suit throwing a tantrum about being right. Which again...makes me giggle.

Regardless of whether you approve...My kids will still get time outs when it's warranted, and swatted on their little tushies when it's warranted...and I think they're gonna be just fine. :) Cheerio.