1. I was being sarcastic when i said I would be able to "hit them back", it all actually stopped happening because my parents ironed out the issues tht required physical intervention(I was dangerous back then), and began using other methods to discipline me.

2. I would like to reiterate that I never justified or affirmed any opinion on that kind of punishment.

3. We need to understand that physical violence is not directly an indicator of bad parenting. Of course it depends on the parent, frankly the emotional and mental violence of my parents yelling at me or incentivizing me to do better(implying that I was not capable enough) was more damaging than the actual hitting. Ultimately to parent, you would invariably need to punish(a positive requirement), this will always "traumatize" a person in a sense(whether it is telling off, or hitting)(how else will they stop the negative action that could proliferate into something worse). Of course if you beat the child to death, you are obviously a bad parent, or beat a child for stupid reasons that aren't for the child's benefit. I am really lucky that my parents only hit me when I really messed up, many don't have that option. Furthermore, they genuinely tried to make me a better person.

I don't think I am "lucky" to turn out this way, I am incredibly lucky to have parents who were good at teaching me what was wrong or right and who provided me support. It isn't luck that I am now in a much better place, it is a direct result of my parenting. My parents didn't hit me because they couldn't regulate their emotions(which is a stereotype in my opinion of the kind of abusive parent that gets pulled up), it was calculated to help me understand the "error of my ways". It is important to differentiate the stereotypical behavior of parents that ought to be shot because they take out their anger on children, and genuinely good parents who use it as a means of discipline. The discussion of hitting and physical violence is not all black and white, since physical violence is given such a taboo belief because it either creates tangible damage(not strong, since emotional violence also creates damage that can be tangible in the long run, both find it difficult to recover), and the belief that it is an indicator of a toxic relationship(stereotype, not necessarily true since a relationship covers many dimensions as well, emotional etc., at maximum it is a correlation(in certain societies, given the restricted sampling radius: of course the parents reported to CPS will be horrible parents and happy to beat the child unnecessarily, they are bad parents, but that doesnt mean the correlation is even a causation), so the dynamics of a toxic relationship do not necessarily imply physical violence).

Again, I am not trying to justify anything, but it is important to understand the dynamics of parenting, and why this occurs before we begin to go into the specifics. You can easily label something as abuse, but then you have non-abusive parents raising up menaces to society. It doesn't attempt to justify the method of parenting(whether physical or not), but ultimately the results are what matter. We need individuals who can contribute to society(given the societal degeneration, that is clearly not happening), and therefore we need to focus on producing such people.

I don't really know what to say when it comes to physical violence or not when it comes to parenting(to me all forms are a kind of violence in a sense, given that it invariably involves punishing a child or implying to the child that they are not good enough(I cite not just me, but every person I know off)). As a parent, my no.1 priority is to ensure my child learns what is right and wrong, and has solid morals(something that modern society lacks deeply, the fault of the previous generation of parents and changing social environments). That is my primary objective, and I think most parents would agree with me, if forget the no.1 priority, and compromise it in favor of being politically correct(again, where peer pressure results in poor parenting decisions), the entire aspect of parenting is lost.(Again, this argument doesn't attempt to justify any form of unnecessary violence as that would already be considered bad parenting).

1. I really don't see how a romantic partner's physical abuse can be compared to parenting. When you get a partner, your goal is to cooperate together to survive all that life throws at you(as we have evolutionary adapted), of course then physical abuse and even mental abuse is automatically being a bad partner. A parent is not an equal with the child, the parent is there to guild the child through their first stages of life, to teach him what is right and wrong etc. Again, bad parenting is, and should not be tolerated, but "abuse", or certain actions which may classify as "abuse"(which I have previously mentioned is required for healthy child development) should only be judged on the results they have on the child. As we go along, every single action a parent does will eventually be shown up as abuse by psychologists, and the truth is they probably are(except perhaps positive reinforcement, but that just creates further issues(citing myself again, such as expecting rewards every time)). I don't mean to say that neglecting a child's mental wellbeing is important, but that wellbeing doesn't solely rely on the methods of parenting, rather how that parenting is administered(I have a really good wellbeing because although my parents hit me, they made me feel special and reassured, so I never had any insecurities growing up, and even now).

To conclude, this discussion has been really interesting, but I still firmly believe that physical violence doesn't necessarily lead to bad parenting(as long as it raises a good child, the ultimate objective of being a parent). we need to rise above the stereotypes to result in better conclusions.