Are you comparing a human child with dogs, chimps and giraffes? Are you saying it's appropriate to communicate with physical violence in this context? What other human-to-human contexts are there where physical violence or the threat of physical violence is okay?

I'm genuinely curious about this worldview, because I personally cannot empathize with this. It's abhorrent to me and my values.

I would argue that basically every human context includes the possibility of physical violence, usually for sufficient transgression the boundaries of others.

If you walk out your door start groping people or try to run off someone's child, you will encounter violence pretty fast.

Those examples are not "every human context" and they don't guarantee violence, they're extrajudicial. Are you saying spanking a child is extrajudicial? a vigilante assault?

every human activity is in relation to possible violence. It holds relevance to basically every aspect of human life. It enables the status quo, and has the potential to disrupt it.

You couldnt make a post on HN if it werent for violence, or the threat of it. you have a computer to type on because if someone were to take it, they would risk beating or death. someone built the computer because threat of violence makes them work for a living instead of taking what they want. sometimes you can be minding your own business at a desert rave and violence comes for you anyways.

im saying all order, justice, and authority is based on violence. the only difference between an extrajudicial vigilante and a sanctioned enforcer, is that the enforcer is on the side generally considered more threating.

If you are sufficiently transgressive, violence is always a possible consequence, for children and adults. it is a simple fact of life.

Considering the behaviors children typically get spanked for, these are severe crimes. Do we have a higher standard of behavior for children?

I don't know what scenarios you are imagining but I think standard should be lower for children than adults, and the punishment less severe, but that doesn't preclude any violence.

I think your response captures it in a nutshell. Dog’s, chimp’s and giraffe’s primary concern is addressing the problematic behavior. Modern parenting’s primary concern is with congratulating themselves for their enlightened values.

As opposed to archaic parenting being about what exactly?

That's a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. At the same time, I think demonizing corporal punishment categorically is a mistake rooted in a false understanding of human nature. I see no problem caning violent criminals, for example.

What if the violent criminal is a child?

Nips are not intended to cause a meaningful amount of pain.

Also we let/cause lots of things to happen to animals that would likely need therapy if they were humans, so this comparison really doesn't work.