<span>I think smackers are doing something wrong, but they do it because they consider it normal behaviour. If I call them a bad person for that, I'm stupid!  </span>

Then the discussion is back to where it was … why do you think that smackers (not child beater, not child abuser, but parent who lightly smack their children as a correction) are doing something wrong?

Throughout this thread, you have failed to argue that smacking is wrong. Again, we're talking about the use of reasonable force (let's say a little slap on the hand, not hitting or using wood kind).

<span>Where does this determination to have the right to smack our kids come from? Why would bob spend so much effort, money and time into ensuring he has this right? I do struggle to understand this?  </span>

It comes from the fact that kids are kids, they are not adults. There are times when you just can't communicate with kids, they just don't listen. If your kids are such perfect angels and they always listen to you, then good on you, but don't take the rights of other parents with more challenging kids to discipline theirs.

In other parts of the worlds, if you're caught stealing, the mass will likely to beat you to comma, many times to death, or to a point where you wish you'd died. Even in western nations, if you go to jail, you'll meet with some inmates that would do you. If not, the criminal record is enough to say good bye to any decent future.

You think smacking is cruel? It is way more cruel to not discipline your kids at the age when they are teachable.

This is not children vs adults. Your children will become adults too and when you give away your parental rights, you're giving away your children's rights when they become parents later in their lives.

Further more, the law as John Key himself said is a 'dog breakfast'. So many good parents are made criminals by this law. Just because they have not arrested you, doesn't mean you are not being criminalised, and definitely doesn't mean you won't get arrested in the future.

Actually the article I linked to deal with this argument this "wrong message" argument has several flaws.

First, it proves to much after all couldn’t someone give a precisely analogous argument against parents having a right to confiscate childrens property as a form of discipline. After all aren’t we teaching them its ok to control people by threatening their property. Or what about groundings aren’t we teaching kids its ok to control people by threatening their liberty.

Second, there are at least two possible messages children could learn from physical punishment one is (a) that its permissible for anyone to use force to control others and the second that (b) its permissible for those in authority to use force to punish those who do wrong. The assumption you make is that corporal punishment sends (a) and not (b) but why assume that? After all children will observe that not just anyone can discipline them only their parents can. So why would they come to (a) as opposed to (b)

Benatar notes this point.

The objection takes too crude a view of human psychology and the message that punishment can impart. There is all the difference in the world between legitimate authorities — the judiciary, parents, or teachers — using punitive powers responsibly to punish wrongdoing, and children or private citizens going around beating each other, locking each other up, and extracting financial tributes (such as lunch money). There is a vast moral difference here and there is no reason why children should not learn about it. Punishing children when they do wrong seems to be one important way of doing this. To suggest that children and others cannot extract this message, but only the cruder version that the objection suggests, is to underestimate the expressive function of punishment and people's ability to comprehend it. (David Benatar: Corporal Punishment a Philosophical Study)

I actually think my children are smart enough to tell the difference between what a private person does to another and what a lawful authority does to those who break reasonable rules and hence can distinguish (b) from (a). I also think that children should learn that when they break reasonable rules that authorities will use force to stop them doing so, that after all is the real world.

Recent blog post: Issues to Consider in Moving from Blogger to WordPress?

Not at all, you like many people who for the impermissibility of any form of corporal punishment , suggested that because something is assault when done to an adult its assault when a parent does it to a child. This is false and your example shows it, babies don’t consent to having their bums powdered, now if I touched an adult women’s bum without consent it would be assault, its not when I do it to my baby.

Your love analogy does not work either btw, an analogous argument would lead to all kinds of silly conclusions. I do not take my wife’s property because I love her. I do not prevent her from leaving the house because I love her. I make love to her because I love her. Does it follow therefore that its unloving to confiscate a child’s property, to ground the child or that its loving to have sex with a child? Of course not.

The point is that the parent child relationship is disanalogous to the husband wife relationship and so you can’t as so you can’t, as many commentators do, automatically infer moral rules about parenting from rules about marital relations

-First of all that was a joke (you can tell that because I put the work JOKE in brackets),

I know it was a joke, however the joke was used to express a point, and I responded to the point. The fact that something is a joke does not mean it does not express ideas. Humour has in fact been used to transmit political, ethical ideas for centuries.

I do not have problem with authority, I have a problem with smacking children (striking them with your hand to control them). And yes, I do support prisons, the police force, court of law and laws (but they could be better). They are not smacking children, so whats your point?

Well if you put my comments in context ( something you claim I don’t do) then you will see what my point is. I wrote:

what has been claimed is that if a person refuses to obey a legitimate authority then that authority can if necessary use force to gain compliance.
Do you deny this claim? If so I take it you do not support prisons or a police force or a courts system or laws, all of which back up the commands of the government with force. In fact those who support the repeal of s59 do so precisely to force child abusers to comply with their commands.

Here my point is clear, the fact you support prisions shows that you do accept the contention that: if if a person refuses to obey a legitimate authority then that authority can if necessary use force to gain compliance.

You position appears to be however that certain types of force (imprisonment) are acceptable if while others (smacking) are not. I doubt this can be coherently defended, after all many of the practises involved in imprisoning a person are actually far more intrusive, degrading and harmful than smacking are.

Recent blog post: Issues to Consider in Moving from Blogger to WordPress?

You seem to misunderstand my argument. As is evident from the context of my comments, I am not comparing the action of self defence with the action of “smacking” and saying these two actions are on are on par.

I am suggesting that the argument Bradford gave for abolishing s 59 (the defence of reasonable force for correction, is analogous to an argument for abolishing s48 ( the defence of reasonable force for defence) and suggesting the arguments are on par. Both have the same structure and both have true premises, hence if one is a sound argument so is the other and if as Bradford says the “logic” of one is silly so is the other.

Recent blog post: Issues to Consider in Moving from Blogger to WordPress?

"You support other authorities using force, why do you not support parental authorities using force."

I support police using force to restrain someone for others safety ONLY! I hate police brutality, don't support it at all (not saying a smack is brutality), I'm saying police, prisons have authority to used force to protect public. Children answering back are not endangering the public.

"You don't use (or not use) physical force on a loved one (directly) because they are loved. You use it because you are in a position of authority."

-I challenge the belief that parents use it in a position of authority, its more a position of power, which is different. I got smacked until I was 14, after that I got told off, grounded and other privileges taken away. I was under my parents authority till I was 18, yet their power had gone at 14, because I was now bigger than them. I support allowing parents to exercise their authority in other ways, not through smacking.

We all know how quickly children learn things from adults, e.g. bad language. Are you worried about what your child is learning from your smacking?
Your child will learn about violence, fear and intimidation. They learn you can control people that hold less power than you. I want a violence free society, it starts at a young age.

"You support other authorities using force, why do you not support parental authorities using force."

I support police using force to restrain someone for others safety ONLY! I hate police brutality, don't support it at all (not saying a smack is brutality), I'm saying police, prisons have authority to used force to protect public. Children answering back are not endangering the public.

"You don't use (or not use) physical force on a loved one (directly) because they are loved. You use it because you are in a position of authority."

-I challenge the belief that parents use it in a position of authority, its more a position of power, which is different. I got smacked until I was 14, after that I got told off, grounded and other privileges taken away. I was under my parents authority till I was 18, yet their power had gone at 14, because I was now bigger than them. I support allowing parents to exercise their power / authority in other ways, not through smacking.

We all know how quickly children learn things from adults, e.g. bad language. Are you worried about what your child is learning from your smacking?
Your child will learn about violence, fear and intimidation. They learn you can control people that hold less power than you. I want a violence free society, it starts at a young age.

Guest You've taken that out of context, again (your out of context comparisons are getting tiresome, on every point I make). I was referring to using physical force on a loved one. The fact I powder my baby's bum, does not mean I powder my mums!

What? Your comparison may have been that these are people you loved, but Matt pointed out that the reason one smacks is not related to "love" rather "authority" And he showed this with the example. He is not taking you out of context, he is showing your context for smacking is irrelevant. And you tacitly agree with Matt with your example of powdering your baby's bum.

You powder your baby and not your mother. You love you baby and your mother. Thus powdering is not directly related to love, it is related to ability (ie. the inability of your baby).

You don't use (or not use) physical force on a loved one (directly) because they are loved. You use it because you are in a position of authority. You support other authorities using force, why do you not support parental authorities using force.

Recent blog post: Untying the binding

-You've taken that out of context, again (your out of context comparisons are getting tiresome, on every point I make). I was referring to using physical force on a loved one. The fact I powder my baby's bum, does not mean I powder my mums!

"Well that might be a good point if people actually had argued it was OK to hit someone merely to get them do what they want. But no one has argued this, what has been claimed is that if a person refuses to obey a legitimate authority then that authority can if necessary use force to gain compliance."

-First of all that was a joke (you can tell that because I put the work JOKE in brackets), I'll try not to have a sense of humour on page (another joke). I do not have problem with authority, I have a problem with smacking children (striking them with your hand to control them).
And yes, I do support prisons, the police force, court of law and laws (but they could be better). They are not smacking children, so whats your point?