Willravel

Before I start responding to yuor post, let me make clear that I was responding based on what I thought you were saying,, highlighted by this quote:
This leads me to believe that beating (being excessively violent) to kids is your answer. The word 'beating', to me, is the extreme of physical punishment. I just want to make that clear.
I believe that there is a clear difference between a controled spanking given consistantly out of love and for the childs good versus beating a child. If you did not leave bruises and it was clear to your son that you were doing it for his own good, then I simply see that as you doing what is necessary as a parent to instill good values in your son. My argument was based on my understanding that you support the beating of children and you thinking therepy is useless.

The reason that my tone and position on you specifically have changed is beacuse your position has seemingly changed. Where as in your above post you supported beating kids, you now do not support beating kids, and have cited that in your history you have only spanked your child once seemingly for good reason. I believe this repesents a falacy in your response. You made argument A. I responded to argument A. You changed your argument to argument B, and are insisting that my argument against your argument A is incorrect, trying to compare it to argument B.

I see this as an angry outburst :
After making this statement, you wrote out that you let out a sigh, as if pulling back from your aggressive statements. This was clearly an outburst founded in anger. Does it have bearing? Absolutely. The fact that you defended beating children, the attacked psychology, blaming parents, and blaming environment, and then had an outburst is quite telling.

The OP was there, in real life. He was able to take positive action. Yes, he was angry, but instead of channeling his anger into a blind attack, he used it constructively in order to attempt to make a positive change.

Incorrect. Psychology is, in fact, a science. Also, artistic practices, take musical composition for example, take advantage of theory as a guideline. Science and artistic practice are not mutually exclusive. Anything can scar someone. Biology can be used to cure or to kill, does that make it any less of a science? In fact, main stream psychology has remained more than constand for the last 20 + years.

Frankly, I help people, and my mother helps people. I am not looking for your approval.

Environmental situations, such as being abused as a child, do not always result in cd or antisocial behavior, but they CAN. There was a possibiliy that you could have grown up with cd because of your parents actions, and there was a possibility that you wouldn't. You can find similar situations in physics (another science).
Like I said above, we are dealing in possibilities. There is a possibility that some kids will develop cd for reasons outside of their parents actions, though it is much more rare. In biology, recessive genes come up, despite being more rare.
I almost certianbally have more experience with being in and learning about therepy than you, so when you make statements like "Therapy helps less kids than one might think.", what I think is this guy doesn't understand psychology or therepy at all, and is now bad mouthing something he doesn't understand. You remind me of Tom Cruise on the Today show bad mouthing psychology, saying things like "I've done the research, Matt." The reason that child psychology is more effective than you claim is because psychologiest recognise behavioral patterns, such as wanting to please adults, when treating a child patient. Believe it or not, hundreds of years of scientific development in psychology has mastered what you have figured out.
I was not given a context in which to percieve what you were saying as an exaggeration, so I took it at face value.
Again, I was basing my argument on your first post, in which you make it clear that beating kids is not only okay, but has positive results. You have represented yourself and your standpoint in two very different ways. I will choose to assume that the second post, including clairifications, is your true standpoint and an accurate representation of yourself.