Something being harmful does not equal something being evil. The entire purpose of pain from a biological perspective is teach us to not do something. Us using that system in a nondestructive manner to teach seems logical.
You see someone beating up a child. I see someone at least potentially teaching (details of the event unknown). At the least, no permanent damage is done, at least physically. And it is very likely that whatever event caused the punishment is unlikely to be repeated, which is the intent (presumably). I can't see into the hearts of the people doing the act, but the act itself is not necessarily evil. You believing that it must be evil doesn't make it so. It is only a statement of your personal moral code.
The parent is obviously ok with it. Are you trying to tell the parent what is appropriate with their child? Let them do them, you do you. That is the entire purpose of what we are fighting for; to not have people dictate the terms of our life choices (as long as those choices aren't a direct violation of someone else's rights).
Something being harmful does not equal something being evil. The entire purpose of pain from a biological perspective is teach us to not do something. Us using that system in a nondestructive manner to teach seems logical.
You see someone beating up a child. I see someone at least potentially teaching (details of the event unknown). At the least, no permanent damage is done, at least physically. And it is very likely that whatever event caused the punishment is unlikely to be repeated, which is the intent (presumably). I can't see into the hearts of the people doing the act, but the act itself is not necessarily evil. You believing that it must be evil doesn't make it so. It is only a statement of your personal moral code.
The parent is obviously ok with it. Are you trying to tell the parent what is appropriate with their child? Let them do them, you do you. That is the entire purpose of what we are fighting for; to not have people dictate the terms of our life choices (as long as those choices aren't a direct violation of someone else's rights).
Like I said, I didn't know the specifics. My point still stands, since it was made on principle and the assumptions were stated.