Again you assume the age and nature of the child. The child is not that young and this is not long enough after the offense. Stop making excuses, your basically stating never is never, never say never when raising a child!
You're the one saying "never".
As I said, I am speaking from personal experience. My 2 year old won't remember what he is being smacked for if he is smacked for it 3 hours later, as one example. He won't be able to connect the two. I mean for goodness sake, you are attempting to place me into this box that you think I need to fit into. I'll discipline my child as the situation warrants. I am not going to start going into stereotypes about what I'd do in whatever situation for whatever age my child might be. You agree that each child is different and each situation needs to be assessed individually, but then you basically start saying that smacking is good. No, smacking is only one form of punishment. For us it is the last resort. When you have a child you can do as you see fit with it. But do not assume that you know me well enough to take it upon yourself to tell me that my not smacking my kid for every little thing or whacking the underside of his bare feet somehow makes me a bad parent.
You stated what you would not do, but if you will do it if the time comes... well can't say you won't only that you claim you won't.
What I have said is that I will never inflict pain on my child and then call it punishment or discipline. And yes, hitting a child's bare feet, as you say, where it is free of callouses at such a young age, is causing pain. Or as you put it:
Why the butt? My grandfather nello stile di vecchi paesi would smack you on the bottom of the feet. It makes good sense as children feet lack callus, the feet are more sensitive then the butt (especially the toes), its not kinky, and it leaves a real aching pain for some time.
Nothing on this planet would make me want to leave "real aching pain for some time" on my children's body. Nothing. Nor would I ever even consider finding the most sensitive part on my child's body, deciding that a lack of callouses, for example, would intensify the pain, and then take to hitting him there.
And no, it does not "make good sense" to make a child feel pain like that. It's no different to hitting a child and/or scaring to the point where he loses control of his body and he wets himself.
I never said you need to hit your "hit your child's bare soles with a cane until it stings". Only "tough love" may very well be something like that or something you at present regard as abusive, but you would do it regardless so I think my point is taken.
"Tough love"? What exactly is that?
Love is love. For a child, it should be unconditional. "Tough love"? That's like beating up on someone and then telling them that you're doing it because you "love" them.
I don't think what your describe is valid to this thread, this thread is about corporal punishment, which may need not involve "marking" the child, or causing lasting damage, or cause "lose of bodily functions" or any other red harring your presented. A simple spanking does none of those things.
And for a parent who does hit their child in such a fashion and call it "discipline", they might scoff at the thought that the law would consider it to be child abuse. To that individual, that is what he or she might consider to be a "simple spanking". That's the issue with corporal punishment. There is a fine line between child abuse and what we all consider to be a "simple spanking" as you put it.
I never said your a bad parent, I was simply giving alternative options to spanking the butt, I never said "cane" either, you have been consistently distorting the argument into one that you can win, no arguments need not be competitions nor is a fallacy a winning argument (except in politics).
Yeah, sorry about that. I was sure you'd said hitting the feet with a cane. I retract that and will correct previous posts on the matter when I get the chance.