"Yes, this is true, but not my society, every society does"
You concede that your society doesnt have kid's best interests in mind.
"If our society banned all these things, then it wouldn't be a free country now would it."
Do you want freedom or best interests? And no, you cant have both, as confirmed by your own sentence.
"First of all, who are you to say that I don't have kids' best interests as my main interest."
Why would I think that you have kid's best interests in mind? Just one line ago, you were justifying things that arent in kid's best interest.
"Again, you can't take away a kid's choice, when they don't have it in the first place"
You concede that children are property.
"This isn't even an argument because you are trying to get me to specify what best interests are."
Which you cannot do, because:
"There are different best interests"
"We can all agree that loving families are trying to improve their kids' lives"
So now we have moved from "best interests" to "loving"
This is what happens when you cannot define your own moral system.
"I'm talking about best interests as in doing things that can better any child's life not a specific one."
You defined best as something that improves life? But you already admitted that you dont want to improve life by banning junk food and cars, so you have some of your version of "improving" that has nothing to do with best intetests.
You concede that you cannot know who has your version of "best interests" in their mind. You concede that even you dont completely believe in best interests, making the system of best interests merely your excuse to use when you see fit and to discard when you see fit.
"most people want society to progress"
"put their best interests at heart"
At start, you conceded that society hurts kids.
Now you switch story again and say that society has best interests in mind.
Which is it?
"When did I ever say we need to use violence. I said discipline"
Do you approve the corporal punishment? Just answer, simple yes or no.
If yes, then answer this:
Does corporal punishment involve painful involuntary contact on someone's body?
A simple yes or no.
"YES. I totally agree with this statement. But not when it comes to kids, who DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN BODYS YET."
Since you conceded that children are property, why do you oppose to how people treat their property?
"Again, you are putting words into my mouth that I hadn't even said"
You clearly stated in this forum that children are property of their parents. Do you need to be reminded?
"You are taking the fact of a lot of people don't care about kids"
You are contradicting yourself. First you conceded that most people dont care about kids, then you changed your mind and said that most people do care, now you claim again that most people dont care about kids.
You changed your mind 3 times in one comment?
"and turning it into, no one cares about kids"
Do you care about kids and do you agree to ban cars and all the other things I listed as "kid's best interests"? Or do you not care about kid's best interests when it doesnt suit you, making your moral system inconsistent?
"You need to learn the difference between intentionally hurting someone and unintentionally hurting someone."
Lets proceed to your explanation.
"people don't intentionally feed their kids junk food just to hurt them"
Are you conceding that people dont know that junk food is harmful?
In that case, their lack of knowledge makes "best interests" unachivable.
If people do know that junk food is harmful and they care about kid's best interests, why do they give junk food to kids?
The answer is simple. You cant define best interests. Your system is a moral perversion where you sometimes care, sometimes dont. No one knows exactly what you mean when you say best interests, because your definition changes all the time.
Since you failed to define best interests, and failed to stick to your own definitions, we can safely say that you dont know what best interests are.