Two very long posts from you, yet there seems little point in replying in detail; as you say:
In all fairness I have read very little of what has been put up to support your position and my OPINIONS, which is all they are admittedly, has been gleaned not from studies, but rather real life/real world experiences, observations, and practical applications where the results appear to be evident.
So this is like arguing with a christian; on our side we've posited a proposition ("the deliberate infliction of pain on children carries an unacceptable risk of long-term psychological harm
"), and we've presented a load of objective evidence from the world of developmental psychology to support our position.
And you respond only with your personal experiences (both as a child who was whipped and as a parent who whips) and your unsupported beliefs.
You haven't read the evidence we've provided, and you've provided no counter-evidence.
So there doesn't seem to be any way to proceed, does there? Your head is firmly buried in the sand; the only weapon we have is the evidence, but if you refuse to look at it, we have a stalemate.
So the ball's in your court, TruthOT.
If I may borrow your macho mindset for a moment, you have the option here to man up. Accept that you may
be wrong, take your head out of the sand and without prejudice
*, look the evidence in the face.
Then draw a rational conclusion from it, whether you like the conclusion or not.
You got the balls for that, Darryl?
* "without prejudice" - I emphasize this because you've already stated several times that you don't trust these kind of authorities:Tell me, what make these sources credible. Are the "experts" parents that have raised a multitude of children that have turned out demonstratively better than children reared differently? Just wondering..... <snip> From what I can see on the surface i always felt that the researchers and self proclaimed experts were very relateble to me and at time didn't even have kids. How can they be trusted?
Developmental psychologists do not need to be parents. Science doesn't depend on personal experience. Science looks at the evidence. Back to square one.
PS I'll reply to a few points in your posts later, but it's all a little irrelevant to the point I've made here.