What? Justify your position, sir.
Basically, people who think that this sort of crap is okay aren't pointing to the Bible verse that says "red urine is nothing to worry about". If someone thinks it's okay to do this to kids and not adults, it's because they think of kids as inferior and in need of "tough love" or some such BS.
Most people who support an age of minority/majority distinction included some pretty heavy qualifications as to the rights and responsibilities of the guardian, ruling this stuff out entirely and in most cases explicitly.
Yes, and those rights and responsibilities are very ill-defined, typically boiling down to "whatever I want to do is okay, and whatever I wouldn't do is over the line".
Pretty sure most of those people don't think child abuse falls under the responsibilities of a legal guardian.
I'm pretty sure these people didn't consider their actions to fall under "child abuse". I guess that's the funny thing about opinions: everybody has one and they all stink.
People that think children "Have no rights" are almost nonexistant. We might disagree on the details, for example, is spanking necessarily abuse? (I lean toward not necessarily) but nobody thinks that children do not have rights.
Well, trust me, I've had discussions with more than a few of those people. They definitely exist and not in small numbers.
Anyway, what are your exact thoughts about spanking? Is it only okay if you don't feel any anger when you do it? By the same token, would the abuses described in the OP be okay so long as the abusers don't feel any anger when they do it? Is it a matter of causing physical harm? If so, how much harm is acceptable? Do you draw the line at "a bit of shock and awe is okay, so long as it doesn't hurt"? Or at "pain is okay, but cuts and bruises are not"? How about "visible damage is okay, so long as it's not permanent"? All of these borders are completely arbitrary and equally valid... which, by necessity, means that they're equally
invalid. Do you think it's okay for a ten-year-old to drink Coca-Cola? Probably. What if it was the ultra-old-school coke that still had cocaine in it? You'd probably say "no, that's against the rules"... even though cocaine and caffeine have the exact same effects on the brain (the difference being that caffeine lasts much longer). Where do you draw the line?
As soon as you start saying "kids and adults alike have rights ABC, but only adults have rights XYZ", then that's no different from saying "I get to decide what rights another person has", which is, in turn, no different from "another person has no rights, only I do"
