I'm not really sure what you're rambling about. Striking someone literally is physical violence, that isn't debatable unless you start arguing about your own personal definitions of words. Wolves don't have spoken language about moral concepts.
Again, worse things existing isn't an argument for something being okay. The argument is purely if disciplining children through physical/emotional pain is morally wrong when it is perfectly possible to raise them effectively without causing pain. Sure, some parents who don't smack etc. can still be shitty people, but that has nothing to do with the argument. Two wrongs don't make a right etc etc
I think the fact that the WHO, various governments and health authorities such as the NHS all having slightly differing views on the subject would make it anything but literal. My own definitions being somewhat of a mute point here, but to twist the primary meaning of a word to give the perception of greater justification to your arguement just smacks of the kind of lazy half assed debating style the likes of Donal trump employs. The word violence has a very defined meaning when used in its fullest sense. Using it out of context simply to dramatise your stance is just poor form.
It has also been proven that morality and a sense of right and wrong has evolved in other animals besides humans, elephants, primates, wolves, even mice. There are plenty of books and peer reviewed papers to that effect. Naturally it is not as developed as our own, what with the higher intelligence and all. Which is why I did say not to take it out of context. But that hasn't stopped you so far. Either way the point there is that both verbal and physical discipline has evolved in nature in numerous species. This wasn't an arguement for or against smacking. Just that it is an evolutionary trait necessary for animals in large complex heirarchies to exist peacefully, by establishing rules and ensuring it's members are aware of their place within it. You seem to be painting smacking as some barbaric act of aggression with no sense or meaning, reducing it to the same level as actual acts of violence that are motivated by emotions stemming from jealousy, rage, anger. Or indeed a pathological lack of empathy.
There are studies that show kids who have been smacked are more likely to grow up to become drug addicts. Very compelling arguement until you read that the studies weren't undertaken as true double blind studies, and that the kids most likely to to smacked grew up in troubled neighbourhoods. So the lead author just completely disregards all socio-economic factors.
There is however some compelling and properly carried out experiments that show that use of pain killers and suppression of small amounts of pain in adolescents can lead to them growing up with a narrower range of emotions and higher likelihood of suffering from clinical depression.
I'm not trying to lead the discussion one way or the other here. I'm simply saying you can find statistics or research to back any arguement up. To a point.
Anyways I could go on but suffice it to say we obviously have differing outlooks on this.
Your very much entitled to have strong opinions on the matter, much like I do. And mine is there isn't one right way to do anything in life. Again to a point, so once more, not to be taken out of context. Well you can if you like it's a free country.