On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:28:12 +0100, Vic Smith wrote:

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:20:11 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 06/07/2016 01:32 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 18:45:56 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 06/05/2016 07:59 PM, James Wilkinson wrote:

[snip]

Which hurts a child more? A quick smack? Or deprivation of TV for a
week? It's the TV. It lasts a week not 10 seconds.

Another "one instance" fallacy. The cumulative effect of HUNDREDS of
these is MUCH worse.

And the cumulative effect of lots of other things is even more much worse.

Anyway, get things into perspective, it's a smack we're talking about,
something which hurts slightly for a few seconds and leaves no bruise.
You must be getting confused with punches to the face.

Do you fail to understand the meaning of "cumulative effect"? One smack
isn't much, THOUSANDS are.

How about 3 or 4? Or 5-7 over a childhood?
I found that was enough to make my kids well-behaved.
They never had tantrums in stores or restaurants.
Well, not more than one or two.

We need more people like you. Kids nowadays do whatever they bloody please. The few I see getting smacked shut the **** up for the rest of the time I see them.

--
What Gets Longer When Pulled,
Fits Between your Boobs,
Inserts Neatly in a Hole,
And works best when it is jerked?
A seatbelt.