Spanking is not a good form of punishment for children

Now on the way to my school today I was listening to the radio, and the show Mike and Mike was on. So I decided to listen to it and see what they were talking about, and the man they were talking about was Adrian Peterson. Now they were discussing how Adrian Peterson had abused his four year old son. You might be wondering why I brought this up. People actually think physical abuse is spanking, but it's not. A simple hand slapping the son/daughter on the bottom is something that is trying to teach a lesson. Slapping, Punching and Kicking that is not spanking that is just abusive and he said he loved his son. Now if you love your son why would you beat him? Now I think you should only be spanked till a certain age maybe around SIX years old. Now on the website they said SIX also because it helps in your later(if it is not abusing just a simple three lick thing or something of the simple NOT ABUSE thing) life. Like it has taught kids to make wiser decisions and it also helped in future school life with grades behavior and ect. "That is to say, to such parents, discipline is often a dirty word. They tend to be overly permissive, set poor examples, be inconsistent in moral guidance and not teach responsibility. They are unlikely to view themselves as absolute authority figures but, rather, will treat the family as a democracy (without a constitution). They are more apt to want to be buddies than parents to their children." -Selwyn Duke. Now why would I use that? Here let find another one for you to read people. "Common sense tells us some other things as well. For one thing, we often hear that corporal punishment is damaging because it "teaches violence," a nonsensical assertion if ever there were one (I completely refute this notion here). It is ironic, too, given that those who promote this idea are generally evolutionists who believe man to simply be a highly evolved animal. After all, can you think of an animal that doesn"t at times use violence? Animals use it in defense of self and territory, to kill prey, to win females, and sometimes simply because they"re angry. Hey, even Bambi is guilty. I read a while back about a deer that attacked a man, impaling the fellow with his antlers. Yet, evolutionists would have us believe that somehow, magically, man is the only "animal" who ended up with the Gandhi gene while "evolving" in this violent world." -Selwyn Duke. I got one more I promise I'm not plagiarizing I'm quoting and also putting where I found. Now by the US government that is not plagiarism. "Of course, in reality, as even cursory observation of babies and toddlers informs, it"s more like the Attila the Hun gene. When they have tantrums, they will often lash out, hitting, biting, and pulling hair. Hey, they will cry and scream without that behavior being modeled for them, either. Despite this, some would have us believe that parents can control these often violent, disagreeable little creatures without occasional recourse to physical action themselves. These experts tell us that if you have to resort to such a tactic, there is something wrong with your parenting ability. This is an interesting theory. If it is valid, we can save ourselves a heck of a lot of money." -Selwyn Duke. Links of where I looked. http://www.cnn.com... http://www.thenewamerican.com...