On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:49:47 +0100, Gableking teh moron. wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:41:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson"
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 20:20:11 +0100, 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.

Cumulative effect only applies to things that last, like arsenic poisoning. If you were smacked yesterday, it has no effect today.

Tell my bitch wife that.

Women and logic do not go together.

--
I like bagpipes. I also like violins when played with a hammer.