There's one argument with hitting the kids that I don't know to argue with. It goes like this.
There are things in life with consequences that are dire yet can only be felt in the long run (e.g. a smart kid can coast with bad work ethics until college / grad school / start up). As a parent, you can explain these consequences, and the kid may intellectually agree, but can not fully internalize.
Hitting the kid is simply a way to translate these long-term consequences into short-term ones that can be more easily felt. It's simply the equivalent to celebrating milestones in a long project, translating long-term benefits into short-term ones that can be easily felt. Why is the former vilified, while the later touted as good practice?
There are things in life with consequences that are dire yet can only be felt in the long run (e.g. a smart kid can coast with bad work ethics until college / grad school / start up). As a parent, you can explain these consequences, and the kid may intellectually agree, but can not fully internalize.
Hitting the kid is simply a way to translate these long-term consequences into short-term ones that can be more easily felt. It's simply the equivalent to celebrating milestones in a long project, translating long-term benefits into short-term ones that can be easily felt. Why is the former vilified, while the later touted as good practice?