Philomel: I agree totally agree with everything you said about spanking/smacking.

I don't smack/spank my kid, and I get a lot of shit for it. But the inescapable fact is, it's uncivilized.
Even if it's only a light smack that does not technically qualify as abuse, it's still uncivilized, and I am above swinging my arms at my child like an ape.
I don't slap my husband when he pisses me off. I don't smack my friends. I don't have fights with strangers outside pubs. What makes my child any less deserving of the same basic respect I give a complete stranger?

It is never necessary or "needed" to hit another human being (or an animal). If that's the only way you can get them to understand they've done something wrong, you have serious communication issues and need to seek professional help.
Nor do they ever "deserve it". Teaching your kids that there's ever a time they "deserve" to be hurt is a stupid thing to do, that's exactly the kind of mind-set that convinces adults to put up with physically abusive relationships.

I've heard people say that "nothing else works", and that's not true either. There are literally countless types of parenting tactics and discipline styles out there, and no parent on this earth that has tried every single one.
If they're having trouble finding an effective non-violent parenting style, then they should try actually making an effort and take a parenting class or two.

Kids get scared of adults who hit them just like animals do. It's a relationship of respect based on fear, not discipline. Especially if it's not talked about to the child.

I can't believe people believe animals deserve more rights than small people. What the hell?

I am staying with my dad for the summer. This means that, right now, I am living with my baby brother. He is three on June 6th. To punish him, they let him know when he is acting badly and that he must stop. If he keeps on, they threaten a "thump". A thump is when they flick him on his legs, below his knees. They warn him about the thump three times before they ever give him one. It does not hurt. It is not violent. But, it gets the message across.

I don't think hitting is really a good punishment. It serves more to vent off steam for the hitter. I found that spanking my daughter was not really effective when she was younger. By spanking I mean I popped her leg a few times when nothing else would work. It got her attention, and she didn't like it, but she had already learned that hitting was bad. So after she stopped crying she would tell me I was bad for hitting. Well, that was right- that is what I had taught her. So spanking is counter productive. Making her sit on the stairs for 10 minutes bored out of her mind was a better alternative. That, and taking away privileges or favorite items for a while.

For dogs (who hits lizards, fish or birds, or, yikes, cats?) it is not good to hit them because they can stop trusting you. Tapping or popping them on the nose when they are into something they shouldn't be into is actually a good part of discipline, but a beating is out of the question. One smack on the butt is probably in that "popping" category, too. They need to know what is not acceptable.

For me it depends on what you mean by hitting. (I am talking on the children side) Many parents believe in spanking saying that it is an effective way to deal with unwanted behavior. Others say that it only instills violence into the childs life and makes it okay for them to hit others. I don't have any kids but I have a lot of cousins and I can tell you there really is an attitude different between the cousins who get spanked and the ones that don't. I believe that there is a time and place for spanking and that it should only be used when absolutely neccessary by the parent only.

As for animals I would never strike an animal in anyway and I hate people that do so. Period.

I have a 1.5 year old dachshund puppy. When he was younger and pooped in the house, my dad flipped out. He would put his face right up at the poop and spank him as hard as he really could. It broke my heart.
I do think a little peck or something is fine, but that is outrageous to me. If my dog does something bad like poop or pee in the house, I'll give him a little pop on the butt, but only if I know it wasn't my fault. Generally it is because i'll give him a treat from the closet instead of letting him out if he doesn't go to the door.
For children, I don't believe in spanking. My parents did it when I was younger and I know from my perspective that it didn't teach me anything whereas when they grounded me, I had time to think about what I did. When they spanked me, after it stopped hurting I would revert back to old behavior and ignore them the rest of the day. I am stubborn as far as the ignoring and retaliation goes, but the lesson I received remains even for someone that didn't do that.
Generally, I don't think it's acceptable to hit dog or animal anymore than a pop on he nose for dogs. IF I have children, I will stick to grounding and restricting their rewards.

I'd rather hit a dog/cat than a child, but lately I've been beginning to think I'm crazy for valuing humans over animals.

I think that dogs DO understand that if you swat them, they need to stop. Children understand a lot more than dogs do, so you shouldn't NEED to hit them, but if it works for your kid, go for it. Pain is a form of punishment in a pack of animals. That's what they do.

I have a Great Pyrenees and two Great Danes. These are obviously dogs you need to be in control of at all times. I used a barb collar (which many, many many people don't agree with) on all of them, and I taught them all the 'leave it' command by smacking them lightly on the nose. If they bark, I swat them on the bum. If they get into fights, I pin them to the ground. It works for them. They're very well behaved. If positive reinforcement by itself works for your dog, wonderful, but I'm not going to let my dogs get away with bad behavior or give them a 'light redirection' instead of discipline.

I've never really taken care of kids, so I can't compare much there.

hmmm... well,
 

I think that If the child or animal doesn't get the idea of rules, or continues a disruption, it's okay to hit them. Maybe just a spank, and nothing too overboard. Also, I don't believe it should be a continuing occurrence, since sometimes it won't help. Spanking didn't help with me when my dad did it, because since I hated it so much, I would do the opposite of what he wanted, even if it made me receive another spanking. In my case, if he talked to me calmly, I would get the idea, and just go to my room.

It is a disciplinary action, and really, it just depends on the individual.

My father had a few rules for when it came to hitting us kids, and I agree with them 100% when it comes to children and pets:

1. If it hurts your hand, you're doing it way too hard. You're not there to hurt them, just make them realize what they're doing is wrong and that you disapprove. Something little more than a pat is good enough.

2. Don't spank more than three times - three is enough to get the point across.

3. If you're angry, don't do it. Wait until you're calm.

4. Spanking is for punishment, not revenge.


I think so long as you follow these rules it's acceptable. My grandma didn't follow these rules (she was more of a "beat the kid with a 2x4" kind of woman) and, yeah, I don't quite so approve of that one. :\

Although spanking shouldn't be a go-to punishment. Kids will adapt to any punishment you give and you should vary it from time to time, occasionally giving them a time out, making them write an essay, etc.

First off, no, not "of course". When you choose to be violent in response to violence, you are doing exactly that, *choosing*. Even those who support violence admit that. Second, I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume it was self-defense. But that's exactly that, it was *self-defense*. Not punishment, which is what we're talking about.

Also, why does it matter? It's simply a mental issue you have with face-slapping. If physical punishment's perfectly fine, face-slapping should be, too. And don't try to say it's about the severity. I was physically punished a lot of ways when I was little, and spanking always hurt far, far more than face-slapping.

If that's true, she could have gotten the same affect without hitting you. Instead, she chose the path that involved pointlessly assaulting her child.

Then obviously, you should be fine with what is typically considered abuse. Since there's no right or wrong way of dealing with an issue, and the affect on the victim does not matter, why does it matter if they feel pain? Why does it matter if they see you as a negative force rather than a positive one? Why does it matter if they're pulled into a neverending cycle of domination vs oppression? It's all relative, and the vast majority of people arrested for child or animal or even spousal abuse honestly believe they're simply doing what they think works.

However, as I said in my original post, if you're going to base the best ways of training animals on the people who know it best and not someone simply doing what they assume works, then positive reinforcement is what works. I've already explained why, so I will not do so again.

And that would be pointless, as it would teach the dog to fear you (since you're the one hurting it, not them) but not in any way improve or even address his treatment of your children. In fact, it would likely make it worse -- dogs still have a pack mentality, and since he's been shown he's below you, he'll try to make sure he's not on the absolute bottom by attempting to subordinate your children, likely through hostile behaviour and biting.

Because they don't understand what you're saying. They're animals. But hitting them doesn't do anything either. Indeed, if the hitting takes place more than a few seconds after whatever it is they did, they don't even associate it with what you're punishing them for. They just think you're re-asserting your dominance over them unnecessarily. If you'd actually read the previous responses, you'd note that we not suggesting you replace physical abuse with verbal abuse.

You're misunderstanding the argument. Communication skills are not limited to speaking. It involves getting your point across. In animals and children, punishment does not get your point across. Physical violence definitely doesn't, since often you end up punishing them for something you yourself do. If you hit when something doesn't go your way, you never end up learning how to handle things differently. You don't have to. You raise your hand, your children and pets and, for some, spouses and younger siblings do whatever you want them to, just to placate you.

Honestly, if someone does have excellent communication skills and simply chooses to use violence unnecessarily because she can, because she's allowed, I worry for those who come under her care.

I've always given my animals a tap when they've done something bad.
I refuse to believe that my animal is too stupid to know when, and what they've done wrong. Trust me, they usually have a pretty accurate guess.
For example, my sisters Chihuahua, she KNOWS damn well when she's done something she shouldn't. She gives herself away; tail between her legs, ears back, nervous movements, she just knows. But that doesn't stop her from doing the same bad things repeatedly.
So obviously, my sister is going to punish her. This includes a tap on the but, and put in a room/corner for a little while. Same thing you'd do with a kid.
animals aren't stupid. They recognize what they're doing.
When they're young, they might not. But if you don't teach them, how will they know what they're doing wrong? The tone of your voice is enough to show them that they've done wrong, yes. But you don't want them pissing themselves every time you get angry at something and happen to yell.
They need to know when things are directed at them. A small tap is harmless, and very effective. I see nothing wrong with it.
That's not to say I agree with a full out slap, I don't think it's okay to cause any actual harm to them.

EDIT:

lol Oh you.
Another thing to add to this, is that when you "rub their nose in it", it doesn't teach them that going inside the house is wrong, but that the act itself is wrong.
You don't want to have a dog that's afraid to go take a piss.


ANOTHER THING.
After reading some of the previous posts, I feel as though someone might try to tell me that my sisters methods didn't work because the dog 'fears' us, that's not the case. Yeah, she pisses herself and starts panicking, but that's ONLY when she's done something that she knows she damn well shouldn't have.
Any other time, when she's being a good girl, she jumps and gets super excited to see us. That dog, in no way, fears any of us. She whines when we leave her at home, so I don't think she dislikes our company at all. She just a bit of a wuss. (;

ALSSOO.
Yes, dogs are pack animals, they like to be dominate. But just because you prove to your dog that you're on a higher level definitely doesn't mean it'll go growling at your kids. Again, you just teach it that it's not above them.
And behaviors of dogs, or any being for that matter, are more than just habitual, or even because of how they were raised, many aggressive animals and people have aggressive genes in them. That means, they were likely to turn out that way regardless.
That's not just talking out of my ass either, they spent half a century learning how to domesticate foxes, and after 50 years, some of them were as friendly as dogs. But the ones who were still hostile and aggressive stayed that way, even after being separated from an aggressive mother at birth, and being raised by a tamed one.
So there's a lot more factors to the personality of a creature than just the way it's been treated.

And a tap on the but, is in no way abuse. I don't care how you try to look at it, it just isn't. Abuse is something that causes either physical, or mental harm. An animal isn't going to go cut itself just because you tapped it's but. No.
It's a small thing to say, "Hey you, stop that." they're not going to be hurt by it in any way.
There IS a difference between slapping, and tapping someone. Hense, the two different words with different meanings.
Also, sometimes a small physical reaction is what it takes to get an animal or child to listen to you. My cat, all I have to do is use a tone, no volume, just a tone, and she'll know. Others, on the other hand, like my brothers cat, needs a tap, and to be thrown in a crate for a few minutes. Different animals require more or less severe measures of discipline. That's life.
You can't always be 'nice' and have people listen to you, no. Like people, some animals are just brats. And they'll do whatever they can get away with doing.

Then what is the point? Unless you're relying on humiliation (which is disturbing in and of itself), if it doesn't hurt, then where's the punishment? Was your schedule so full as a child that the idea of wasting time getting a spanking was punishment in and of itself?

If you threw an adult over your knee and started spanking them, it would be assault. I see absolutely no reason why it should not be considered such with a child. They are as aware of what is happening to them as an adult, and they're just as sensitive. The only difference is that if you tried that with an adult, someone who could actually fight back, you'd likely end up with a broken face.

You said that it wasn't the spanking that affected you. Therefore, the same result could have been achieved without the spanking. Pointless violence against a child.

So then, hitting a spouse is not abuse if you do so gently? And again, if it doesn't hurt, where's the punishment? When I touch my animals, they see it as a reward, basically petting. If your animal shies away from your touch, they have a reason to do so -- either you're hurting them, or they've been hurt in a similar way in the past. They don't completely and permanently re-work their behaviour after being poked in the nose.

No, absolutely all dog trainers use positive reinforcement. The ones who don't are generally arrested for animal abuse, and if they aren't, they are put out of business.

And I find your choice of words rather telling. "Dominated". Do you realize that the physical punishment combined with the intent to dominate is doing exactly what I mentioned earlier, setting up a hierarchy identical to what they would have with other dogs and thus leaving room for an omega? God forbid a smaller dog or children enter the home; you've already shown them that to move up in rank requires the physical domination of others, so that's exactly what they'll try to do to insure they are not the bottom of the pack. It's that mentality that causes dogs to end up attacking other dogs and humans.

You can instill fear in them without anything physical at all. It certainly doesn't have to hurt. If you're not associating doing something good with a reward, then you're associating doing something bad with a punishment (or rather, getting caught doing something bad). Fear is necessary for it to work -- fear of punishment, and thus, fear of the one doing the punishing. To suggest that there's no fear involved is completely dishonest.

They don't learn what's "wrong", anyway. They don't care what's "wrong". They care what the result of their actions is. If they do something and get a reward, they will do that something more often. If they do something and are not rewarded, they don't do it. No violence necessary.

Just as some believe there's nothing wrong with using pain as a form of discipline. Just as there was a time not too long ago when the laws that currently define child abuse defined spousal abuse -- that is, as long as you don't use a weapon or cause permanent harm, violence is perfectly acceptable. If everything's relative, it's all the same, and you have no right to criticize such tactics. Actually, by your logic (that pain does not make someone fear you, but rather act in the way you want them to), as long as they're teaching a lesson you agree with, abusive parents and pet owners and spouses are even better trainers than you.

I don't believe there's a difference. They are doing something you do not want them to do, and so you hit them. When a toddler throws a hissy fit and hits another child, that same logic is in play -- if I hit them, they won't do it anymore. The difference between you and the toddler is that you're an adult and that means you can do more damage, you have (or should have) better communication skills, and have had a fair few years to decide whether violence is a good or bad thing, rather than simply doing the first thing that comes to mind. Really, if anything, you're worse.

I said the spanking didn't hurt, but that whole process is still a spanking. Taking away my toys, or putting me in a corner didn't work. Having me walk over to her and get the spanking is what worked. So once again, it was not pointless.

Also. It is harder to train an adult dog than a puppy. The reason you don't spank an adult is because the situation is ridiculous. As you said, being an adult you have better communication skills - so obviously you are able to communicate with them. When communicating with a kid, it is harder. They don't understand as much, so you some times have to associate their bad action with something they consider bad in order for them to understand. Be that by giving them a spanking, putting them in a corner, etc...etc...

Why are we punishing them? I thought we were showing them the difference between right and wrong? If we show them that it is wrong, they'll generally stop. Also - I see no way you can actually punish an animal without being cruel...what are you going to do? Starve it to death.
No, you simply show it what it is doing is wrong. I'm not talking about striking an animal, I'm talking about tapping it on the nose, or patting it's bum.
Also, once again, I would not consider it abuse. What I'm talking about is not enough to actually hurt anyone. Besides, you never 'punish' your spouse, or show them right from wrong. You should be able to communicate with them.
Besides, this debate is about children and pets. Why are spouses being brought into this?

Well, if I'm the one squirting them with water, why don't they fear me? But they certainly don't like that water bottle. I don't think they fear it, I think they simply don't like it. Why is it that everything that isn't you 'positive reinforcement' has to instill fear?


If I were to do something bad, and not get punished, how would I know what I did was bad? Sure, I may do things to get rewarded more often... But that doesn't mean I still wont do something that is bad.

I wasn't criticizing any tactics actually, I'm just arguing in the defense of one. Also, like I said. You don't need to hit a child or a pet enough to actually hurt them. The shock is usually enough. Have you ever seen a kid fall down. It doesn't hurt, but the moment they see that it could have hurt, or that you think they're hurt they will burst into tears.
Also, I've said this before, I don't agree with abuse. But hitting a pet or child, I think, is a method of teaching them right from wrong. You just have to do it in a certain manner, and NOT do it hard enough to actually cause them pain.

Alright, we've established that adults have communication skills. Toddlers do not. You can't have a one sided conversation and expect them to understand.

But *why* did it work, if it did not hurt? Answer me that.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You argued that it wasn't assault. If you replace the child with an adult (and I see no logical reason why you cannot), it is assault. Therefore, I will not retract my statement that it was assault.

It's also difficult to teach them how to speak your language. That doesn't mean you can just stop trying and never talk to them again. If you are not willing to put effort into parenting, you should not be a parent.

A) "We" aren't punishing them. YOU are punishing them. If you hit them, it is punishment. If you take a toy away, it is punishment. If you have any negative recourse for an action, you are punishing them. That is the definition of punishment.
B) That's BS and you know it. Not only are you teaching them not to get caught, rather than to not do something they obviously really want to do (they don't get punished when they don't get caught), but there's a reason we have murderers and thieves and arsonists. Do you think no one ever told them killing and stealing and destroying others' property was wrong? Hitting someone doesn't make them agree with you. If they want to do something and think they can do so without getting caught, the punishment does not matter. Also, I hope you never hit your kids for being violent, since that cannot possibly do anything other than confuse them.

Which is why I don't support punishment.

...Which is striking an animal. And I asked you a question about that. If you're not going to answer it, tell me now so I can stop wasting my time.

I know you do not consider it abuse. I do not care what you consider it. Few people ever consider what they're doing bad, or they wouldn't do it. The people who get arrested for beating their children half to death do not consider what they did abuse. I consider what you do abuse. If it would be abuse to an adult, it is abuse to a child or pet. Whether or not you actually cause injury does not matter.

Because, like I said, it wasn't too long ago when spouses (wives, specifically) were considered the same as pets and children. They were too simple to understand anything other than physical force, so obviously physical force is what you had to use. If you didn't approve of it, then good for you (though don't blame us if your wife doesn't behave appropriately), but don't stick your nose into how we handle things. People's methods differ, after all, and there's no right or wrong way.

I am attempting (and failing) to show you that the only reason you're okay with using physical force against pets and children, the only reason it's even an option in your mind, is because you've been raised this way, because society and the law has given you the go-ahead.

Because if it didn't, it wouldn't affect their behaviour. If they have no reason to dislike whatever it is you're doing, they will not stop what they're doing. And they do fear you. You are the leader, the alpha. If they didn't fear you, they'd be attempting to overpower you.

Ask yourself that. It works the same with a punishment system if you don't catch them.

And as to how it works, it's simple. If you don't introduce them to punishment, then all they know is reward vs withholding of the reward. The want to get the reward, so they will try things out until they figure out what they should be doing. It's all in how you handle it -- if a dog is jumping up on you, wait until they stop, then reward them. They associate not jumping up with the reward, so that's what they do. The same goes for anything else, really. And again, no violence necessary.

So you really are perfectly okay with what you would consider abuse, so long as it's not your kids/pets? After all, it is just one more tactic. You seem to be assuming that your opinions are objective. That's a rather silly thing to do.

So you're intentionally making them worry that you're going to hurt them. That sounds completely healthy.

Obviously, you don't agree with what you think of as abuse. If you saw it as abuse, you wouldn't agree with it, and if you agreed with it, you wouldn't see it as abuse. No one ever does. Everyone believes their methods are perfectly acceptable, including those who have had their pets and children taken away from them for what the law defines as abuse. Stop telling me what I already know.

If it doesn't cause them pain or at least a fair amount of discomfort, then it is not a deterrant. They are doing what they're doing because they want to. Your desires mean absolutely nothing to them, so it takes more than something they could easily mistake for a reward to get them to alter their behaviour.

As I said, it need not be verbal. And again, you're acting like children are just left to figure out communication on their own. They aren't, and if it's worth the effort to help them learn their alphabet or be able to ask for what they want, then it's worth it to find a non-violent way to teach your child about the world.

Speaking of which, why are you supporting violence so vehemently? I mean, I don't have children, but I do have companion animals, and if I were doing something violent against them, no matter how pure my intentions were or how little it hurt them, and someone said, "You know, you could get the exact same result with a bit more effort and planning and without doing anything violent", I would jump at even the possibility of it working. But you're sticking with what you've always done simply because that's what you've always done. Why is that?

I'm not supporting violence, because, like I said. I do not consider it violence. Obviouly this debate wont go anywhere between us because you think a pat on the bottom is such a crime[exaggerating obviously].

If I were to say I pat my kid on the back because they did a good job, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
But, if I use that same force as a form of discipline, it is suddenly wrong? I know there are other methods, and I would gladly try them first, but I still would give my kid a spanking if the situation called for it.
And, I also push my cats butt if they're misbehaving.

As to your first question. It worked because I didn't like it. Maybe it was more physiological, but that doesn't change the fact that it worked. No violence was used against me, I never bruised or bled
Here Is the definition of violence. I don't see how a spanking, or a pat on the but fits any of those definitions.

Also, just because it was done to me, doesn't mean I stick with it. My parenting strategies will be nothing like my mothers. I do have a mind of my own thank you, so just because I see nothing wrong with giving a kid a spanking doesn't mean I wont first try to ground them. I'm not some abusive maniac supporting violence again animals and youth.

I'll use your source.

It is most definitely physical force, and it is my opinion that it is violation. And again, how someone defines "abuse" is entirely subjective, so that doesn't tell us much.
You are stronger and bigger than they are. You are an authority figure. They have no recourse if they do not agree with what you are doing. You have power over them, and are using it to do what would, to an adult, be assault. If you really dislike the "A" word so much, I'll put it in other terms -- if a caretaker did something to her patient that she could not legally do to anyone else and can only do to her patient because they are a dependent (for instance, determining their lives for them, making and cancelling appointments, etc.), she would be seen as abusing her power.

And actually, according to many of those definitions, violence does not even solely apply to the physical. So I'm not sure what you were trying to prove.

Except, that's exactly what's happened. You claim to see nothing wrong with using physical force against a child or a pet, but doing so against a spouse disgusts you, even though in theory it's perfectly fine so long as communication is difficult (someone who is disabled or who simply refuses to do what you tell them, perhaps). You're stuck on the law's idea of "abuse" and can't possibly fathom that there are, and have been, numerous other definitions of abuse.

And again, that you even think of it as an option is due to the way you were raised. Just as people think of piercing a (female) child's ears or circumcising a male child as entirely normal but tattooing them or doing any "non-standard" though often less invasive and painful piercing is mutilation, thanks to the way you were raised, you see violence as an option, and a viable one, while certain forms and levels of violence are abuse. Even if you saw it as an option and decided against it, you would still be under the influence of what you've been taught throughout your life.

According to yourself. But then, according to ourselves, we're all doing the very best we possibly can. It takes quite a bit of self-exploration to see anything we do as not the best option, and as it can be very uncomfortable, many refuse to do it.

There isn't much I can say to this one. I don't see it as a violation, because the intent is so discipline, not violate them.

Well, according to the law a parent is allowed to hit theirkid, open palmed, and not leave marks. So, according to the law, what I'm saying it not abuse.
Besides, there is a difference between adults and kids. So you can't just stick an adult in the situation as an argument.
1. You are not legally responsible for an adult. And, unless they are your kid, why should you even be disciplining them/punishing them?
2. The adult is already fully developed, so they already should know what is right and wrong. And the whole point in disciplining pets and kids it so help show them right from wrong.

Also... A police officer must abuse every one he arrest because he is an authority figure and is using his power over them, and some times he must use force to restrain them. Oh no!

I'm not arguing against hitting anyone but your own child and pets.
Why you keep insisting on putting others into this scenario to try and prove your point is beyond me.
You don't try and train or teach a spouse, or an adult.

According to yourself. But then, according to ourselves, we're all doing the very best we possibly can. It takes quite a bit of self-exploration to see anything we do as not the best option, and as it can be very uncomfortable, many refuse to do it.[/QUOTE]
Well, if that's the case, the same could be said about you.
And anyone, and any argument that has ever taken place.

That's it, I'm done with you. You're either intentionally missing my points, or you're really that thickheaded, but whatever the case, I'm tired of wasting energy on it. A dear Kiw-- er, friend of mine sent me this link, and I think you should look at it:

The Yes Vote - NZ Referendum on Child Discipline 2009

Maybe now you will understand what I was trying to get at with my examples, that this idea of violence being a suitable form of discipline is based entirely and completely on what you've been taught and it is not the objective norm.

Name-calling? What name did I call her? If you're referring to me suggesting she's thick-headed, I have explained why I was arguing the way I was in every single post, yet she kept asking the same question. I demonstrated why it didn't matter what she considers her actions, and yet she still put that forth as an argument. What would you call that?

And it was hardly a fight (I'm ignoring your use of the term "cat" to describe two people who just happen to be female arguing). Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but you can't expect everyone to just post and run in a debate forum.

That thar argument is so circular I'm not even sure where to jump in. However, this topic reminds me of a debate I heard during public speaking about whether phsyically disciplining a child was right or wrong. The girl who spoke on behalf of physical punishment ended up winning, though to be honest I felt that though her speech was very clever, it was a little too tongue in cheek. It was as if she didn't actually believe what she was saying - which she probably didn't, as we all know that it's not a necessity to BELIEVE an argument to argue it.

Anyway, that's beside the point. One thing I would like to say because it jumped out at me is that cannibalistic cows, you have an incorrect understanding of abusive relationships. A relationship where a person is regularly beating or otherwise abusing their spouse is doing exactly what YOU say they are not doing - instilling in them a sense of their own superiority, TEACHING them that their behaviour is wrong and will be punished. Through this, the abused spouse LEARNS not to act that way in the future. Also, your impression that an abusive relationship indicates a lack of communciation is also wild and false. I speak from experience.

If you look at the definition of abuse I used up there, to re-quote myself:

This isn't so different to the methods of training of children and animals which cannibalistic cows advocates. How much or how little force is used doesn't matter, if the intention is there.

So... training through punishment = abuse? Looks like we're back to square one of the argument. ^^ Well done, me. *pats herself on the back... with force* Huh, better not do THAT again. ;3;

@Lorika: *hugs* Oh Astrid...there are times like this that I love you so much *squishles* you make a very excellent point.