Especially on point three, but that seems to be a VERY subtle nuance many, if not most, people don't recognize. Hence we can't say cannibalism, bestiality, genocide etc. etc. are inherently "wrong" because we can't make value judgments about PEOPLE; that would be... er... wrong....

Of course, stating it's wrong to go into a supermarket and start gunning down people at random for fun doesn't make any value judgment on a person, only the action, which I'd hope we can all agree is indefensible. Likewise, the possibility someone might do that or something similar due to the effects of current or past trauma in their lives may be relevant to the severity of the penalty, but doesn't mitigate the results of the behavior and thus fails to make it any more acceptable.

Yes, I realize a lot of that seems like it should be patently obvious; what bothers me (a lot) is that it evidently often isn't.

To return to topic, the article isn't all bad, but where it succeeds, I think, is where it applies common sense becoming conventional wisdom. Spanking shouldn't be the first response in most cases, at least IMHO, or it could very easily create the impression that every problem should be first addressed with force. It shouldn't be used when the child is unable to connect the spanking with the consequences of their actions, or it's just abuse that could, if frequent enough, produce traumatic scarring. Indeed, it seems most effective when it is a last resort; Star Trek quotes aside there are regrettably times when violence can only be countered with violence, but to reduce the need as much as possible it is paramount to ensure violence is only accepted when all other options have failed.