"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." - Gone With the Wind
Movie quotes with no actual credibility aside, the problem with your argument is that you're responding to a claim nobody has made. Nobody has said "no spanking = perfect child", but picking and choosing what you want to believe for whatever reason just because there is "conflicting evidence" without examining the actual "conflicting evidence" is completely illogical. If all the research is done in a fair, consistent, and unbiased manner, doesn't that tell you something if, for example, 90/100 tests done indicate something? The possibility of doubt doesn't mean that doubting is a good choice or that it automatically makes the 90% that has come up with something different irrelevant.
Taking a step back:
They're human that's why you can't look to them or some journal article or another country to say whose right.
So what you're saying is that you can know better than someone who has extensive education and has spent years of their life devoted to gaining advanced insight into the discipline of their choice, just because they're human?
That's what I'm getting out of this statement, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
The probability of someone knowing more about a subject than you is entirely possible regardless of the human tendency to commit errors. In fact, I would argue that the more educated a person is on a subject, the smaller that margin of error tends to be. The human experience is entirely subjective to each individual, which is why it is not nearly as unreliable as a system that goes through a rigorous process to try and separate what's fact and what's not. Personal experience and what you think
to be the case has no tangible way of translating into well-established fact -- merely perceived trends.
Yes and as a parent it might not do well to spank your child and it might. Parents are wrong too.
Except that the most grounded and solidified evidence says that it doesn't
do your child well to spank them. Personal anecdote is not on the same level as researched evidence -- they are not equal tools for determining what is what. If somebody tells you that spanking lowers the IQ of your child and can breed aggression, why would you not try to do everything in your power to give your child the best opportunity for success later on in lieu of what seems to be a temporary fix for now
Charles Manson was supposedly never spanked. Go figure. It's just not some over-arching thing that you can point to and say, "evil!" because it's hitting.
Again, arguing a point that was never made. The lack of spanking is not the panacea to smart, sociable, well-behaved children just as spanking your children does not automatically lead to a homicidal sociopath later on -- that's a slippery slope on both accounts.
I've never met a child who had any respect for fire until they burned themselves.
Is it respect or is it fear? As far as I know, people fear pain and seek to live most of their lives avoiding the direct source of it -- avoiding the fire itself, but not the match. Instead of asking themselves "how can I do what's right?" they ask themselves "how can I escape pain?" -- and one tends to be much more superficial than the other.