Not sure this is really an appropriate thread for this, since it's a loooong digression, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any expert, psychologist, or parent who can point to even a single anecdotal case of a child who benefited from receiving no or insufficient discipline; you'll find plenty who can point to the contrary.The statement: "Children need discipline" is not objectively true. What makes it true? What facts support that assertion?
If you're at the point that you're pressing for evidence for the proposition that children need some discipline, I think we can safely agree to disagree and move on.
Sure, and if it was a "majority rules" argument, you'd be right. Since I'm not saying that (straw man fallacy), it's kind of irrelevant.The fact that the majority of the population agrees with a principle does not make it objectively true. That is an Ad Populum fallacy.
Lastly, something can be objective, even if the answer isn't known. I will never know how many hot pockets i have consumed over the course of my lifetime. However there is a correct, objective answer to that question, and every other answer is false. A lot of people tend to confuse an objective question with unknown variables with a subjective question, when they are really very different.
Any time. Always glad to converse with someone who knows their fallaciesAnyway, i believe i better understand your perspective on the matter, thanks again for the legal insight.