I don't think you understand that I'm mocking the way you beg the question that hard in every post you make.

You can't just slip in that parents "need" to spank their kids.

No I understand, I'm just completely bemused by your rationale, and give the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I shouldn't.

In the post I made I'm arguing for what things would look like in the situation where the pro-spank guys are right, but the data doesn't back them up. I'm deliberately and transparently begging the question in order to show the plausibility of an alternative possibility. I'm not taking a position on whether parents need to spank.

I feel like Clinton in his "that depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is" moment:



A dumb layer asks him a ham-fisted question and he raises a perfectly valid point of order - that then blows everyone's mind. Are people that dumb? The point is crystal clear, it's only second level logic, and yet no one is getting it.

I certainly can. And you're assuming your premise with that statement.

You should deliberately and transparently beg the question less often.

Ok, so:

1 < f(j) < TREE(3)

?

I think we're getting somewhere.