NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published on the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3003) wobsite:
In a small move back toward common sense, the Florida Board of Education is considering giving teachers the right to use “reasonable force” to control unruly students.
...
The truth is that violence – which, mind you, may be defined as physical force used with the intention of causing harm or injury – is quite natural. And the only thing related to it that must be taught is when and how to use force morally. It’s much as with sex: people don’t need to be taught it, only that they must keep it within the proper context.
...
At the end of the day, we should ponder the last few decades and ask ourselves a question: Why does it seem that the more we resolve to not “teach our kids violence,” the more violent they become?

Some people just need a smack back into reality.
I doubt many people here will defend Birchers, so my point isn't so much to post this as a hotly controversial talking point. Nor is it to discuss whether or not spanking in schools is appropriate.

My question is: why does an organization whose education advocacy (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/education/1858-jbs-on-public-education) is:
Therefore, the John Birch Society opposes all federal aid to and regulation of education. The state should be the highest level of government concerned with education; however, since parents have the ultimate responsibility for the education of their children, local control of education is best. Furthermore, parents should be free to home school their children.
and that describes the family as 'the bedrock of civilization' (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/family-and-freedom/1869-bedrock-of-civilization) feel it is appropriate for federal employees to be paid to hit their children? If one were looking for an expression of the overbearing nature of the liberal-fascist Orwellian nightmare of America that they so regularly inveigh against, how much more extreme could you get?

So: do you think opposition to public education, and advocacy of homeschooling and 'school choice' is primarily motivated by a genuine ideological doctrine, or is simply a rejection of the tenor of public education as currently formed?

I agree somewhat. Spanking is a much better form of punishment for kids than, say, suspending them from school (oh yeah, I bet they seriously grieve about an extra vacation).
However, it should be used in that and just that context - as a punishment for severe violations of rules, or violence against other kids; not just at the teacher's discretion.
To keep up with the "political correctness", of course, it would be best to make it a voluntary replacement, at parents' choice.

spanking should be confined to erotic story telling. where possible. disincentives are a despiration measure, yet the reality of need for them at times, granted, absolutely cannot be denied.

If any of my teachers ever smacked me, I'd smack them right back. Any violence imposed on me would have been only detrimental to my educational development. Moreover, the kids who you most want to smack, are the ones who need it the least. Smacking a bad kid will only make them worse.

if anyone ever laid a hand on my child there would be hell to pay.

Moreover, the kids who you most want to smack, are the ones who need it the least. Smacking a bad kid will only make them worse.
Centuries of army training experience say otherwise.

Any kind of teacher who would willingly hit one of their students for whatever reason isn't one I want to see in an education system or work with.

Centuries of army training experience say otherwise.

Yes and we all know how intelligent, resourceful, respectable and decent people in the army are. Nothing abhorrent ever happens at the cause of people in the army. Nope.

With all due respect, Fonzica, that's not what history shows.

Use of force to control students works. Can it be overused? Undoubtedly. But the use of force on unruly elements in the classroom has been shown to enforce discipline and decrease disruption. At the very least it permits the other students to continue their studies in a better learning environment.

Use of force to control students works. Can it be overused? Undoubtedly. But the use of force on unruly elements in the classroom has been shown to enforce discipline and decrease disruption. At the very least it permits the other students to continue their studies in a better learning environment.

Much better. They'll behave all right, out of fear of the all powerful authority figure at the front of the room. That's a real supportive and safe learning environment and sets a fantastic moral example for the students in question to take home with them.

And the kids who are already getting this sort of treatment at home? Oh yes, funnily enough, more often than not, they're the behavior problems. Funny that.

Yes and we all know how intelligent, resourceful, respectable and decent people in the army are. Nothing abhorrent ever happens at the cause of people in the army. Nope.

Thats it just imply that everyone in the military are disrespectful, un-resourceful and completely "un decent".
Cause clearly thats the case...

Much better. They'll behave all right, out of fear of the all powerful authority figure at the front of the room. That's a real supportive and safe learning environment and sets a fantastic moral example for the students in question to take home with them.

And the kids who are already getting this sort of treatment at home? Oh yes, funnily enough, more often than not, they're the behavior problems. Funny that.

Yet, up to the 1960's, the situation you're so down on was the norm - and it worked. In many ways, it worked better than what's happening now.

Of course, that inculcation of discipline was reinforced by a similar system at home, and we cannot assume such in our current society.

Some students have discplne. Some need it imposed. The trick is to find a proper balance that supports both, and I don't see the use of force as being outside the bounds of useful tools to reach that balance.

if anyone ever laid a hand on my child there would be hell to pay.

If you didn't want me to sleep with your daughter you shouldn't have let her be so hot.

Yet, up to the 1960's, the situation you're so down on was the norm - and it worked. In many ways, it worked better than what's happening now.

Of course, that inculcation of discipline was reinforced by a similar system at home, and we cannot assume such in our current society.

Some students have discplne. Some need it imposed. The trick is to find a proper balance that supports both, and I don't see the use of force as being outside the bounds of useful tools to reach that balance.

The era before the 60s was also culturally repressive. Everyone being taught to respect authority figures without question does that. Young children need discipline without question until they're old enough to understand why rules exist. If you never teach them to understand why the rules exist and their purpose you're raising a puppet not a person.

The solution is obvious: Compulsory martial arts class! For teachers too!

The era before the 60s was also culturally repressive. Everyone being taught to respect authority figures without question does that. Young children need discipline without question until they're old enough to understand why rules exist. If you never teach them to understand why the rules exist and their purpose you're raising a puppet not a person.

Damn straight. (Though "before the '60's" covers a broad expanse of time - the fifties were culturally repressive, the '20's, '30's and '40's much less so). That's why I emphasized the need for balance - and why I feel any sort of physical punishment should probably be restricted to the primary grades (K-7).

Yet, up to the 1960's, the situation you're so down on was the norm - and it worked. In many ways, it worked better than what's happening now.

Of course, that inculcation of discipline was reinforced by a similar system at home, and we cannot assume such in our current society.

Some students have discplne. Some need it imposed. The trick is to find a proper balance that supports both, and I don't see the use of force as being outside the bounds of useful tools to reach that balance.

What was the norm - 50 years ago - isn't necessarily just.

Corporal punishment cheapens the role of teachers. We are not mere babysitters, let alone drill sergeants. We aim to provide a supportive and trusting environment in which students feel safe and able to learn.

The moment a teacher hits a child the opportunity to do that is gone forever, not only with the child in question but with all of his or her peers.

Some students already face violence at home and school is their refuge. If violence is a common part of schooling as well, where do they go? How do they trust their teachers? They won't - teachers will just be another abusive authority figure to be feared and loathed. That sort of thinking doesn't make healthy and productive members of society. Such students are going to become violent and disruptive merely through the emulation of their typical role models. Teaching students that it's perfectly OK to indulge in what is legally considered assault in any other public context is a recipe for disaster.

As I said in my previous post, the problem isn't because of the prevailing belief that parents are too "soft". In many cases, it's the opposite for the reasons stated above.

I am of the opinion that corporal punishment should be an option - certainly not the only option, but definitely an option. Perhaps only the school principal ought to have such authority. Use of corporal punishment for poor academic performance (wrong answers, bad grades, poor spelling) is inexcusable but as a punishment for violence toward other students or a pattern of unruly, disruptive behavior it may be necessary.

Of course, now we can get into the more interesting arguments about the need for nationally funded public education. It has done such a good job of improving academic standards and reducing dropout rates. After all, we all know that every graduate has a sound understanding of history, the sciences, mathematics, and the English language upon receiving his high-school diploma.... [/sarcasm]

Yet, up to the 1960's, the situation you're so down on was the norm - and it worked. In many ways, it worked better than what's happening now.

Of course, that inculcation of discipline was reinforced by a similar system at home, and we cannot assume such in our current society.

Some students have discplne. Some need it imposed. The trick is to find a proper balance that supports both, and I don't see the use of force as being outside the bounds of useful tools to reach that balance.

I think you are confusing punishment and discipline.

Also, as far as the OP, I don't know what causes someone to advocate spanking in school and also advocate school choice and homeschooling, it seems at odds to me.

I would like to point out though that I am a non-spanking homeschooler though so I have my own bias in both situations.

Smacking children should be a parents' perogative (and then only very occasionally and very lightly - serious belting is child abuse.) I fought long and hard to ban corporal punishment when I first started teaching. In the early 80s it was still ok to strap kids in the state of Victoria, Australia. The message it taught kids was to obey the guy with the biggest stick - hardly educational.
However, I do think that somewhere along the way kids learnt a bad lesson - that many of them had all these rights but they had no responsibilities - and their over-indulgent parents backed them up on this. As a result, until quite recently, teachers found it very tough going in some schools - with some really bad behaviour from some kids. Furthermore, the media kept damning teachers because of their union activities so that social disrespect of teachers soared. These were bad times for teachers - stress levels went through the roof. Lots retired or resigned and there was a shortageof teachers.
We need to get back to respecting teachers - but not because they are figures of power as in the old days - because they are a most valuable resource.
Home school is fine for the parents and kids who want that (but the homeschooled kids do miss out on the frienships and the democracy formed in the schoolyard), Private schools are great for the families that have the means and inclination to pay for it. But the thing that every country needs is a free, high quality, secular and democratic state school system. Countries that choose not to provide this for their citizens are damning themselves and the society they are creating.

Yes and we all know how intelligent, resourceful, respectable and decent people in the army are.
I went through NROTC in college, and, though mostly serving just formally afterwards (effectively a day job in shipbuilding), still spent about a year actually at sea.
Can't say it made me dumb or non-resourceful - not at all, I do better than others in my job. And it most certainly didn't make me less respectable or less decent.
It even didn't make me a conformist or a totalitarian - I still maintain strongly libertarian views, and I still listen to classical and rock music.

So yes, it works. People in the military tend to be at least as good as they were before.

Smacking children should be a parents' perogative (and then only very occasionally and very lightly - serious belting is child abuse.) I fought long and hard to ban corporal punishment when I first started teaching. In the early 80s it was still ok to strap kids in the state of Victoria, Australia. The message it taught kids was to obey the guy with the biggest stick - hardly educational.
However, I do think that somewhere along the way kids learnt a bad lesson - that many of them had all these rights but they had no responsibilities - and their over-indulgent parents backed them up on this. As a result, until quite recently, teachers found it very tough going in some schools - with some really bad behaviour from some kids. Furthermore, the media kept damning teachers because of their union activities so that social disrespect of teachers soared. These were bad times for teachers - stress levels went through the roof. Lots retired or resigned and there was a shortageof teachers.
We need to get back to respecting teachers - but not because they are figures of power as in the old days - because they are a most valuable resource.
Home school is fine for the parents and kids who want that (but the homeschooled kids do miss out on the frienships and the democracy formed in the schoolyard), Private schools are great for the families that have the means and inclination to pay for it. But the thing that every country needs is a free, high quality, secular and democratic state school system. Countries that choose not to provide this for their citizens are damning themselves and the society they are creating.

*claps*

Also, I would like to point out that most homeschooled children do not miss out on friendships. That's a whole other thread though.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Issac Asimov

Getting back to QoD's question: I don't think that opposition to public education is so much a reaction to the "tenor of public education" as simply a fear and control issue. The fear comes in from "what will happen to the children" if they're not being educated "correctly" - whatever that is - and the control issue is not knowing how, in the current framework(s) in place, to make sure that public education does things in the "right" way - whatever that is.

Public education has to be some things to all people, but there will always be those that feel the education is being done in the "wrong way". Either it's not teaching the children to think for themselves, or it's not teaching them in accordance to Biblical truths, or it's not teaching them the patriotism is should, or....

Everyone being taught to respect authority figures without question does that. Young children need discipline without question until they're old enough to understand why rules exist.
Yes, but even after that, they still need discipline.
The time you can rely on your own ideas about what you need is the college. It is voluntary, and there, indeed, you follow rules just based on understanding the principles behind them. But not in school, at least not until the high school. You need to understand why rules exist, but you still need to understand that their violation can lead to punishment to follow them.


That's why I emphasized the need for balance - and why I feel any sort of physical punishment should probably be restricted to the primary grades (K-7).
Depends on the violation, though. Even in the last grade, punishing violence against other students by spanking would be a good idea, IMHO.

Physical punishment today is not as much about the pain as about the humiliation.
Compare boasting "I've beat up that lame emo kid to blood, got suspended for two weeks [look how cool and rebellious I am!]" versus "I've beat up that lame emo kid to blood, then they gathered the entire school in the gym and spanked my bare buttocks for half an hour".



Some students already face violence at home and school is their refuge. If violence is a common part of schooling as well, where do they go?
To the police. If they face an excessive amount of home violence, it should be looked into.

The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published on the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3003) wobsite:

I doubt many people here will defend Birchers, so my point isn't so much to post this as a hotly controversial talking point. Nor is it to discuss whether or not spanking in schools is appropriate.

My question is: why does an organization whose education advocacy (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/education/1858-jbs-on-public-education) is:

and that describes the family as 'the bedrock of civilization' (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/family-and-freedom/1869-bedrock-of-civilization) feel it is appropriate for federal employees to be paid to hit their children? If one were looking for an expression of the overbearing nature of the liberal-fascist Orwellian nightmare of America that they so regularly inveigh against, how much more extreme could you get?

So: do you think opposition to public education, and advocacy of homeschooling and 'school choice' is primarily motivated by a genuine ideological doctrine, or is simply a rejection of the tenor of public education as currently formed?

I would actulay agree with him, and I would also like to see the rational behind you going from this, 'use “reasonable force” to control unruly students.'

To this, 'appropriate for federal employees to be paid to hit their children?'

Yet, up to the 1960's, the situation you're so down on was the norm - and it worked. In many ways, it worked better than what's happening now.


is that just nostalgia or actually based on anything specific? genuine question.

and i'm not sure 'respect for authority' is really what's needed, nor is that what violence leads to; rather, it leads to fear authority. that's different from respect.
what's needed, in my eyes, is for the youth of today (get me, i sound like an old sod...) to respect people universally. yeah it sounds all hippie and like twaddle, but nobody has any respect for anybody any more. whether or not they ever did might be down to nostalgia again...

Ritalin. Enough of that and there's no need for discipline of any sort in schools. *nods* Zombie students FTW! [/sarcasm]

The solution is obvious: Compulsory martial arts class! For teachers too!

I endorse this.

My school behavior got worse after I switched from parochial school to public school. I believe that part of the reason is because I no longer had a reason to fear rulers.

if anyone ever laid a hand on my child there would be hell to pay.
^^^THIS! Beyond most people's ability to imagine, THIS^^^.

ANYONE -- I don't care who or what they are -- who "spanks" or otherwise "physically disciplines" a child of mine is going to learn the true meaning of "there'll be hell to pay." They'll also learn the meanings of terms like "relentless burden upon their miserable, worthless lives," and "wishing their parents had never met" before I'm done with them. Above all, they will learn why they should not have put a hand on my child. I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school, and if they touch my child, I'm the one who is going to straighten them the fuck out.

I am the parent. I am the authority when it comes to my child. If you have an issue with my child, you come to me with it, and I will sort it out. If my child is acting out in school, you call me and I will come, right then and there, to deal with it. But if you presume to lay a hand on my child, if you presume to bypass my authority in the chain of command, if you forget your proper place in the world and presume to step above your station and into mine, then so help me, by all the gods in the universe, I will make you wish you had not done so. Whatever it takes, however long it takes, no matter what I have to do, I will make you wish it very, very much.

And I will make certain my child learns the object lesson of my war with you. And all your colleagues will learn it, too, if they're not entirely stupid.

(By the way, I'd be carrying on a family tradition in this. I never had a teacher who acted all high-handed with me twice. My mom didn't like it. She expected them to come to her with problems concerning me, and she made sure they understood that.)

So when it comes to discipline, let the teachers of Florida remember that kids are not the only ones who can get "smacked back" if they step out of line.

^^^THIS! Beyond most people's ability to imagine, THIS^^^.

ANYONE -- I don't care who or what they are -- who "spanks" or otherwise "physically disciplines" a child of mine is going to learn the true meaning of "there'll be hell to pay." They'll also learn the meanings of terms like "relentless burden upon their miserable, worthless lives," and "wishing their parents had never met" before I'm done with them. Above all, they will learn why they should not have put a hand on my child. I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school, and if they touch my child, I'm the one who is going to straighten them the fuck out.

I am the parent. I am the authority when it comes to my child. If you have an issue with my child, you come to me with it, and I will sort it out. If my child is acting out in school, you call me and I will come, right then and there, to deal with it. But if you presume to lay a hand on my child, if you presume to bypass my authority in the chain of command, if you forget your proper place in the world and presume to step above your station and into mine, then so help me, by all the gods in the universe, I will make you wish you had not done so. Whatever it takes, however long it takes, no matter what I have to do, I will make you wish it very, very much.

And I will make certain my child learns the object lesson of my war with you.

(By the way, I'd be carrying on a family tradition in this. I never had a teacher who acted all high-handed with me twice. My mom didn't like it. She expected them to come to her with problems concerning me, and she made sure they understood that.)

So when it comes to discipline, let the teachers of Florida remember that kids are not the only ones who can get "smacked back" if they step out of line.

Heheh this is very funny. Ohh not funny in the sentiment it raises, but in what it says about this debate and socity in general.

The threat of violence against violence that has been commited. Yep yep, the chap qouted in the OP has the right of it. Mankind does violence upon one and other for all sorts of reasons.

If I was a teacher, I would certianly welcome the powers to protect myself, and restrain a violent child.

Centuries of army training experience say otherwise.
Armies are into spanking? I can believe it of the Spartans, but... well... all those uniforms...

I guess Cameroi was right:
spanking should be confined to erotic story telling.

I dare someone to slap my children. Oh, yes. That'll be the start of the real fun. :D

So yes, it works. People in the military tend to be at least as good as they were before.

Except for the ones who get sent off to war and suffer emotional trauma for the rest of their lives. Or the ones who lose their limbs. Or the ones who come home and don't know how to assimilate back into society (Rambo: First Blood was a perfect example of this).

going to learn the true meaning of "there'll be hell to pay." They'll also learn the meanings of terms like "relentless burden upon their miserable, worthless lives," and "wishing their parents had never met" before I'm done with them.
I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school, and if they touch my child, I'm the one who is going to straighten them the fuck out.

Whoa, much for aggravated assault and GBH?

Heheh this is very funny. Ohh not funny in the sentiment it raises, but in what it says about this debate and socity in general.

The threat of violence against violence that has been commited. Yep yep, the chap qouted in the OP has the right of it. Mankind does violence upon one and other for all sorts of reasons.

If I was a teacher, I would certianly welcome the powers to protect myself, and restrain a violent child.
When did I say I would resort to physical violence? Hm? You can quote me threatening to hit people?

Idiots who forget that they are not actually the bosses of their jobs also tend to forget how the systems they are just cogs in work. But I don't forget. I know how the social/governmental/official machinery works, and I know how to grind them up in it. I learned that from my darling mother, who was always there for me. A teacher who steps out of line will not be the first moron who I cause to be publicly humiliated and then fired from their job.

Nobody ever hit anyone in my family. Never. In four generations that I know of, not including military service during WW2, no one in my family ever engaged in activity related to physical violence, not even very physical sports.

But despite that, my family have always been the kinds of people who work well with authorities and official systems UNTIL they try to push us around. THEN, we remind them in a way that they understand and remember that they are not the boss of us, and that they would do far better to cooperate with us than try intimidate us.

How did that translate to my personal experience? In school, I was a near-model student for most teachers/administrators. Everyone knew their place and their role, and everything went smoothly and had good results. But for those few who did not deal properly with me, the angry wrangling always ended abruptly after one meeting with my mother. She would go and have her talk with them. Then she'd come to me and say, "Try to do better." And from that day on, the teacher/administrator who had been so offended by my every mannerism, every word, etc, suddenly would not look me in the eye, avoided me in the hallways, and graded me solely on my class/homework and not on my "attitude," which seemed suddenly to stop being any concern of theirs. You can tell by the look on someone's face when they have been properly reminded of their place in the world.

My mom did not literally beat them up, even though they acted as if she had. Just like I have never and would never use physical violence against any of the dipshits I have had to knock back into line in my life since then.

Whoa, much for aggravated assault and GBH?
The fact that you assume that such words mean violent action is an indicator of how caught up in violent thinking you are.

Armies are into spanking? I can believe it of the Spartans, but... well... all those uniforms...
Oh, these are just for the show. The actual BDU makes kicking ass - into which they are - much more comfortable.


Except for the ones who get sent off to war and suffer emotional trauma for the rest of their lives. Or the ones who lose their limbs.
These come from the actual fighting, not from the training.
And, actually, they'd end up with much worse trauma if they didn't pass through the drills before being sent to war.

So yes, the training is still good - or especially good - for them.

Or the ones who come home and don't know how to assimilate back into society (Rambo: First Blood was a perfect example of this).
It's called "Vietnam Syndrome", not "like Rambo first blood".

The fact that you assume that such words mean violent action is an indicator of how caught up in violent thinking you are.
No offense, but "Wishing their parents had never met" certainly indicates aggression with the intent to seriously harm. Whether or not this actually involves physical action, it's definitely pretty damned forceful.

If I was a teacher, I would certianly welcome the powers to protect myself, and restrain a violent child.
In particular reference to this:

If you physically "restrain" a child of mine, and you claim that my child was being violent towards you, then you had damned well better have video to prove it, or you and your employers will have a problem with me.

When did I say I would resort to physical violence? Hm? You can quote me threatening to hit people?

Umm okay first of all you do know that I was makeing no value judgement on your or your reaction, except as a fine example that humanity is vioent towards itself, okay, got that good.

Secondly, ohh your wish is my very command.

'I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school....'

Legbreaking bodyguard!

' And I will make certain my child learns the object lesson of my war with you.'

War!

'kids are not the only ones who can get "smacked back" if they step out of line.'

Umm yes.

The fact that you assume that such words mean violent action is an indicator of how caught up in violent thinking you are.
The fact that I assume that "legbreaker", "their miserable, worthless lives", "Whatever it takes", "no matter what I have to do", etc., imply the readiness to go with violent action? As a matter of fact, they don't just imply, they clearly state it.

That post of yours, unless you always post behind a proxy chain, could work out against you as a major piece of evidence of malicious intent in investigation and even in court, should something along these lines happen.

It is felony you're talking about.

No offense, but "Wishing their parents had never met" certainly indicates aggression with the intent to seriously harm. Whether or not this actually involves physical action, it's definitely pretty damned forceful.
That is your assumption and yours only.

Legal actions can also make a person feel that miserable -- mostly because they last longer, cost more, and interfere more with the target's life and career.

Once again, it is YOUR focus on physical violence that causes you to read such meanings into my words. As far as I'm concerned, this makes your kind of thinking the source of the overall problem.

And so what if I am being forceful (without physical violence)? Hm? Is it your contention that only governmental employees should be allowed to be forceful in getting their way? That is not my view. MY view is that those who would use force should be aware that force can be applied to them as well. If it is force of law or force of tort or force of public opinion, etc, so be it.

Let them reap what they sow.

It's called "Vietnam
Syndrome", not "like Rambo first blood".


Not over here it's not. I call it by the admitidly longer, but never-the-less just a catchy, 'The Army taking perfectly nice reasonable teenagers, and turfing them out ten years latter as fucked up little shits' moniker.

And boy do I know a lot of them.

In particular reference to this:

If you physically "restrain" a child of mine, and you claim that my child was being violent towards you, then you had damned well better have video to prove it, or you and your employers will have a problem with me.

Heheh I'm sorta with you on that but can you garantee you know the behaviour of your child whilst at school?

The fact that I assume that "legbreaker", "their miserable, worthless lives", "Whatever it takes", "no matter what I have to do", etc., imply the readiness to go with violent action? As a matter of fact, they don't just imply, they clearly state it.

That post of yours, unless you always post behind a proxy chain, could work out against you as a major piece of evidence of malicious intent in investigation and even in court, should something along these lines happen.

It is felony you're talking about.
Bullshit.

Umm okay first of all you do know that I was makeing no value judgement on your or your reaction, except as a fine example that humanity is vioent towards itself, okay, got that good.

Secondly, ohh your wish is my very command.

'I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school....'

Legbreaking bodyguard!

' And I will make certain my child learns the object lesson of my war with you.'

War!

'kids are not the only ones who can get "smacked back" if they step out of line.'

Umm yes.
And? Your point is?

Like Vault10, YOU are the one reading an assumption of physical violence into those expressions. As such, it is YOUR thinking that is focused on violence, not mine. YOU are the one seeing no other ways for such forcefulness to be expressed, and therefore, it is YOUR kind of thinking that is the root cause of the social problem.

I would like to point out an irony that I find rather tasty:

Both Peepleonia and Vault10 have made statements in support of the idea of teachers being allowed to use corporal punishment, which involves physical violence, upon students.

But when I express forceful opposition to such a proposal and promise that any such action upon a child of mine would be met with a forceful countermeasure to punish the adult who violated my wishes and authority with regard to my child, both Peepleonia and Vault10 denounce me for advocating/contributing to violence.

So which is it? Do they believe violence is appropriate to maintaining discipline and social order, or do they not?

Or do they only think it's okay if someone who works for the government does it? Do they expect parents to be as submissive to governmental authority as they think children should be? If a teacher is allowed to spank my child for acting up, are they allowed to spank me for complaining about it, too?

And is that not violence, whereas my actions to make sure they don't hit my kid are? In other words, is it NOT violence when a teacher physically hits a child, but it IS violence when a parent stands up for their and their child's rights?

Legal actions can also make a person feel that miserable -- mostly because they last longer, cost more, and interfere more with the target's life and career.
So your tort lawsuits are going to make a person "Wish their parents had never met"? Interesting.

You work at Wolfram&Hart or something?

But when I express forceful opposition to such a proposal and promise that any such action upon a child of mine would be met with a forceful countermeasure to punish the adult who violated my wishes and authority with regard to my child, both Peepleonia and Vault10 denounce me for advocating/contributing to violence.

Do you see the difference between action causing minor pain and no bodily harm, for disciplinary reasons, versus causing, for purely vengeance reasons, "legbreaking", i.e. grievous bodily harm?
Or don't you?


BTW, I also advocate the right of parents to take their children out of school. Here's a way to protect them from having their butt spanked if they start fights with other kids.

So your tort lawsuits are going to make a person "Wish their parents had never met"? Interesting.

You work at Wolfram&Hart or something?
Clearly, you have never either stood up for your rights and/or interests when you were really pissed off, nor been the object of an action by someone protecting their rights and/or interests by someone you had really pissed off.

Also, clearly, you have no argument. You know perfectly well that everything you have said is a mischaracterization of my statements, and you are determined now to wrangle over specific words taken out of their sentences.

Guess how much time I'm going to waste on such nonsense. I said what I said, the way I said it. Done and done.

Do you see the difference between action causing minor pain and no bodily harm, for disciplinary reasons, versus causing, for purely vengeance reasons, "legbreaking", i.e. grievous bodily harm?
No, all I see is you trying to waste my time. I will not alter my wording. Deal with it.

And? Your point is?

Like Vault10, YOU are the one reading an assumption of physical violence into those expressions. As such, it is YOUR thinking that is focused on violence, not mine. YOU are the one seeing no other ways for such forcefulness to be expressed, and therefore, it is YOUR kind of thinking that is the root cause of the social problem.

Thats a fair point, but the reality is that when you, and I mean you the individual, is faced with a person, using the same terms, and in the same manor, I bet you'd automaticly think the same thing.

Experiance tells me that when a man uses such language then violence is not very far from his thoughts, am I wrong about that one?

or put another way, if you where a nightclub bouncer faced with an irate man, using such langue would your first thought be 'Ohh no here comes the stiff talking to' or 'Shit better get ready to defend myself'?

I would like to point out an irony that I find rather tasty:

Both Peepleonia and Vault10 have made statements in support of the idea of teachers being allowed to use corporal punishment, which involves physical violence, upon students.

But when I express forceful opposition to such a proposal and promise that any such action upon a child of mine would be met with a forceful countermeasure to punish the adult who violated my wishes and authority with regard to my child, both Peepleonia and Vault10 denounce me for advocating/contributing to violence.

So which is it? Do they believe violence is appropriate to maintaining discipline and social order, or do they not?

Or do they only think it's okay if someone who works for the government does it? Do they expect parents to be as submissive to governmental authority as they think children should be? If a teacher is allowed to spank my child for acting up, are they allowed to spank me for complaining about it, too?

And is that not violence, whereas my actions to make sure they don't hit my kid are? In other words, is it NOT violence when a teacher physically hits a child, but it IS violence when a parent stands up for their and their child's rights?

No no completley wrong, unless you can show me my words that confirm this?
talking about irony, you remember my inital post to you, was commenting on exactly the same thing.

That is your assumption and yours only.

Legal actions can also make a person feel that miserable -- mostly because they last longer, cost more, and interfere more with the target's life and career.

Once again, it is YOUR focus on physical violence that causes you to read such meanings into my words. As far as I'm concerned, this makes your kind of thinking the source of the overall problem.

And so what if I am being forceful (without physical violence)? Hm? Is it your contention that only governmental employees should be allowed to be forceful in getting their way? That is not my view. MY view is that those who would use force should be aware that force can be applied to them as well. If it is force of law or force of tort or force of public opinion, etc, so be it.

Let them reap what they sow.
My perspective is that leaving people genuinely regretting their very existence is not a constructive approach to discourse. Being active and applying force on occasion is fine (you need to apply force to deflect force), but totally overpowering someone, whether emotionally or physically, is just bullying, however much anyone might have earned it.

You don't have to crush their spirit to make them see sense, just like you don't need to shoot someone in the face to stop a robbery, you know? A little moderation goes a long way.

I endorse this.

Of course you would (http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/chaoticnetural.jpg).

is that just nostalgia or actually based on anything specific? genuine question.

and i'm not sure 'respect for authority' is really what's needed, nor is that what violence leads to; rather, it leads to fear authority. that's different from respect.
what's needed, in my eyes, is for the youth of today (get me, i sound like an old sod...) to respect people universally. yeah it sounds all hippie and like twaddle, but nobody has any respect for anybody any more. whether or not they ever did might be down to nostalgia again...

I'm a historian. "Nostalgia" is for idiots.

I base it on higher rates of college entry and graduation, lower rates of violence in school, and other statistical studies that show generally better outcomes from school systems of the time than we have now.

That said: The REASONS for those changes are entirely debatable. The removal of corporal punishment from schools is just one of a multitude or cultural and social changes that have occurred on the last fifty years, and to assume that changing back ONE aspect (or even a number of them) will be a "magic bullet" that fixes all our problems is both naive and stupid. I DO feel this would be a step forward; I ALSO think it should be tested in a limited fashion, not introduced wholesale, so that the effect can be studied, observed and understood.

Thats a fair point, but the reality is that when you, and I mean you the individual, is faced with a person, using the same terms, and in the same manor, I bet you'd automaticly think the same thing.
You'd lose that bet, if the person you're talking about is me, because physical violence does not present itself in my mind as a viable option. But for someone who does think of physical violence as a viable option, then yeah, they might.

Experiance tells me that when a man uses such language then violence is not very far from his thoughts, am I wrong about that one?
You are operating under an assumption.

or put another way, if you where a nightclub bouncer faced with an irate man, using such langue would your first thought be 'Ohh no here comes the stiff talking to' or 'Shit better get ready to defend myself'?
Another assumption on your part. Where I come from the opposite assumption is more common, because in my culture (NYC), as violent as it may be, people TALK a lot more force than they would ever think of doing. In my life experience, violence is far more likely to erupt WITHOUT verbal warning, so tough talk means nothing and is usually done in jest.

So once again we see how YOUR assumptions are yours alone and do not reflect an objective reality.

I think they're afraid of those damn hippie liberal tree-huggers like me, who are teaching their kids to be independent thinkers. It's harder to brainwash children when they're presented daily with real facts and choices, and their opinions are respected no matter how different.

That said, I'm off to the classroom to see whether CPS has investigated my report yet and a pissed off parent is waiting to kill me.

Moreover, the kids who you most want to smack, are the ones who need it the least. Smacking a bad kid will only make them worse.

Could not agree with this more. Some of my favorite students were also the ones I wanted to throttle the most, and the ones who least needed it. Students who frequently act out don't need violence--most of them see enough of it at home. They need solid rules and expectations to be consistently enforced, and they need a lot of positive feedback when they follow the rules.

My perspective is that leaving people genuinely regretting their very existence is not a constructive approach to discourse.
To be honest, once the child has gotten hit, I have no more interest in "discourse." If the school system wants to have a constructive discourse with me after one of their employees has already hit my child, they need to start by removing the hitter from the picture.

Being active and applying force on occasion is fine (you need to apply force to deflect force), but totally overpowering someone, whether emotionally or physically, is just bullying, however much anyone might have earned it.
If they earned it, it's not bullying.

Also, to quote some apt cliches: Let them reap what they sow, and turnabout is fairplay.

If they want to teach kids that actions have consequences, then I think they should learn that lesson themselves, too.

You don't have to crush their spirit to make them see sense, just like you don't need to shoot someone in the face to stop a robbery, you know? A little moderation goes a long way.
I'm not interested in making a person who hits a child "see sense." I am interested in making sure they don't ever hit a child again.

See my comment above about lessons about the consequences of actions. You stick your hand into a fire, you get burned. You hit Muravyets' child, you will gain an adult enemy. You don't want those things, don't do those things.

In my life experience, violence is far more likely to erupt WITHOUT verbal warning, so tough talk means nothing and is usually done in jest.
Your culture is then much more violent than mine (Navy).

To be honest, once the child has gotten hit, I have no more interest in "discourse."
[...]
If they want to teach kids that actions have consequences, then I think they should learn that lesson themselves, too.
[...]
You hit Muravyets' child, you will gain an adult enemy.

If I was a principal, then, I'd simply keep your kid as far from my school as possible. Just in case. And I think that would work out best for you, too.

No no completley wrong, unless you can show me my words that confirm this?
talking about irony, you remember my inital post to you, was commenting on exactly the same thing.

This is your original post in response to the OP:
I would actulay agree with him, and I would also like to see the rational behind you going from this, 'use “reasonable force” to control unruly students.'

To this, 'appropriate for federal employees to be paid to hit their children?'
I read this as agreeing with the position of the JBS as quoted by the OP that corporal punishment should be used in schools in Florida.

If that is not your position, then now's your chance to clarify.

EDIT: I remind you that, if you are agreeing with the JBS quote, then that quote specifically advocated corporal punishment, i.e. spanking, not just some undefined, vague to the point of meaninglessness "use of reasonable force."

Your culture is then much more violent than mine (Navy).
I don't know how namby-pamby the Navy is, but my culture is really not that violent because people don't go around just hitting each other or each other's kids, regardless of how they may talk.

If I was a principal, then, I'd simply keep your kid as far from my school as possible. Just in case. And I think that would work out best for you, too.
If YOU were the principal -- and I knew it was you, the NSG poster -- trust me, my kid would not be brought within 100 yards of your school, and I would be distributing your posts to other area parents so they, too, could see before it was too late what kind of nonsense their kids were likely to be exposed to.

I don't know how namby-pamby the Navy is, but my culture is really not that violent
Nope, it seems that violent, if you are any indication. We at least have a habit of first using words, then warning that next we'll use violence, and only then resorting to violence.

Nope, it seems that violent, if you are any indication. We at least have a habit of first using words, then warning that next we'll use violence, and only then resorting to violence.
Isn't that nice of you. I notice that your assumption that violence is ever a viable option leads you to include it in your series of social interactions. Tell me, how often do fights break out where you come from?

Because where I come from, it is quite rare. People play around with violent language, they may even get into vehement verbal arguments -- but they DO NOT then throw a punch, or if a punch gets thrown, the fight is quickly broken up and ended because physical violence is NOT acceptable. It is NOT the "last resort." We do NOT "resort to violence" just because someone did or said something we don't like.

So when someone does use violence, it's not something they "resort to" as a result of social interaction. It's a crime, and no, they don't usually broadcast that they are going to do it in advance.

EDIT: You know what else we don't do? We don't ignore what people say so that we can keep making up lies about what they do or what they intend to do. I already told you how you are wrong in assuming that my words indicate an intent to do violent action. I already indicated that I am not interested in having my time wasted by another of your pointless non-arguments. Don't keep repeating it, because I'm not going to play.

If YOU were the principal -- and I knew it was you, the NSG poster -- trust me, my kid would not be brought within 100 yards of your school, and I would be distributing your posts to other area parents so they, too, could see before it was too late what kind of nonsense their kids were likely to be exposed to.
So basically I'd have a Republican school.

Good thinking.
Actually, I support the right of the parents to choose which school they want their children to go to - one where they'll learn to screw over their teachers, smoke in the class, fight each other in the hallways, do drugs in the restroom, all in impunity as they can't be hit - or one where they'll learn how to follow the society's rules, respect their elders, work together as a disciplined team, gain the self-respect not to harm their bodies, and earn the respect of others.

To each his own.

So basically I'd have a Republican school.

Good thinking. Actually, I support the right of the children and their parents to choose to which school they want to go - one where they'll learn to screw over their teachers, smoke in the class, fight each other in the hallways, do drugs in the restroom, all in impunity - or one where they'll learn how to follow the society's rules, work together as a disciplined team, have too much self-respect to harm their bodies, and earn the respect of others.
OK, that's it. Your inner high-function troll has revealed himself again. First, you attempted a strawman by making me the violent one, after you advocated corporal punishment in schools. Then you tried to deflect the debate into being about my choice of words and my social background rather than the thread topic. Now you're trotting out a false dichotomy using outrageous and inflammatory imagery.

Based on past experience with you, you have now closed the circle of the track you intend to run around and around and around for days. Have fun doing that. I won't be joining you.

You'd lose that bet, if the person you're talking about is me, because physical violence does not present itself in my mind as a viable option. But for someone who does think of physical violence as a viable option, then yeah, they might.

Ahhh so you can see then how the language you use can give people certian ideas of your possible motives.


You are operating under an assumption.

*shrug* We all do that, all of the time.


Another assumption on your part. Where I come from the opposite assumption is more common, because in my culture (NYC), as violent as it may be, people TALK a lot more force than they would ever think of doing. In my life experience, violence is far more likely to erupt WITHOUT verbal warning, so tough talk means nothing and is usually done in jest.

Heh the old culrtural differances huh. Well yes agree I have obviously been coloured by the norms of my own culture.


So once again we see how YOUR assumptions are yours alone and do not reflect an objective reality.

Meh!

Ahhh so you can see then how the language you use can give people certian ideas of your possible motives.
Yes, I see that violently inclined people are likely to assume violence. That does not actually help your argument. I refer you back to my comments about how people who think that way are the root cause of the social problem.

*shrug* We all do that, all of the time.



Heh the old culrtural differances huh. Well yes agree I have obviously been coloured by the norms of my own culture.



Meh!
I'll take this as your concession of the argument because you have no answer to it.

This is your original post in response to the OP:

I read this as agreeing with the position of the JBS as quoted by the OP that corporal punishment should be used in schools in Florida.

If that is not your position, then now's your chance to clarify.

EDIT: I remind you that, if you are agreeing with the JBS quote, then that quote specifically advocated corporal punishment, i.e. spanking, not just some undefined, vague to the point of meaninglessness "use of reasonable force."


Well here is the entire thing.

'In a small move back toward common sense, the Florida Board of Education is considering giving teachers the right to use “reasonable force” to control unruly students.
...
The truth is that violence – which, mind you, may be defined as physical force used with the intention of causing harm or injury – is quite natural. And the only thing related to it that must be taught is when and how to use force morally. It’s much as with sex: people don’t need to be taught it, only that they must keep it within the proper context.
...
At the end of the day, we should ponder the last few decades and ask ourselves a question: Why does it seem that the more we resolve to not “teach our kids violence,” the more violent they become?

Some people just need a smack back into reality.'

Can you see in there any mention of smacking children? Or the phrase 'corporal punishment'?

Yes, I see that violently inclined people are likely to assume violence. That does not actually help your argument. I refer you back to my comments about how people who think that way are the root cause of the social problem.


I'll take this as your concession of the argument because you have no answer to it.

What the Meh! No that was because I found it irrelevant.

Well here is the entire thing.

'In a small move back toward common sense, the Florida Board of Education is considering giving teachers the right to use “reasonable force” to control unruly students.
...
The truth is that violence – which, mind you, may be defined as physical force used with the intention of causing harm or injury – is quite natural. And the only thing related to it that must be taught is when and how to use force morally. It’s much as with sex: people don’t need to be taught it, only that they must keep it within the proper context.
...
At the end of the day, we should ponder the last few decades and ask ourselves a question: Why does it seem that the more we resolve to not “teach our kids violence,” the more violent they become?

Some people just need a smack back into reality.'

Can you see in there any mention of smacking children? Or the phrase 'corporal punishment'?
Is it your contention that the bolded words are not advocating the use of violence on children? Is it your contention that the bolded words do not advocate violence as a part of social interaction? Is it your contention that using such violence upon children in a school setting is not "corporal punishment"? And is it your contention that the use of the word "smack" is not a use of the word "smack"?

Guess what? I would disagree with that. And I would also call your claims that it isn't advocating hitting kids, prevarications attempting to weasel yourself out of the position of having agreed with a call to violence upon children.

What the Meh! No that was because I found it irrelevant.
Sure you did...

You hit Muravyets' child, you will gain an adult enemy. You don't want those things, don't do those things.

Query. Assuming Muravyets' child performs a criminal act potentially fatal to others, and in the course of interaction with law enforcement, is wounded or killed, would law enforcement gain an enemy in you then?

I have seen parents assume that no matter what their offspring has done, he or she is never wrong and will do their best to ensure such consequences of their actions will not touch them, or otherwise direct much ire towards the other party, or both.

Which makes the entire "reap what you sow" argument from that quarter absurd to say the least.

Is it your contention that the bolded words are not advocating the use of violence on children? Is it your contention that the bolded words do not advocate violence as a part of social interaction? Is it your contention that using such violence upon children in a school setting is not "corporal punishment"? And is it your contention that the use of the word "smack" is not a use of the word "smack"?

Guess what? I would disagree with that. And I would also call your claims that it isn't advocating hitting kids, prevarications attempting to weasel yourself out of the position of having agreed with a call to violence upon children.

Bwhahahahhaha ohhh I get it now. I am not allowed to assume, but you are?

Then please allow me to clarify my thought process for you.

This:

'The truth is that violence – which, mind you, may be defined as physical force used with the intention of causing harm or injury – is quite natural. And the only thing related to it that must be taught is when and how to use force morally. It’s much as with sex: people don’t need to be taught it, only that they must keep it within the proper context.'

Tells me that the violent behaviour of humans is normal, and that we should reconise this as a fact, and not shy away from using violence when the need arises. Much like sex, the context is the thing. It says right there in black fonts, that we need to teach our children when it is and is not acceptable to use violence.

So no I did not read into that 'we should slap our children about'.

This:

'Why does it seem that the more we resolve to not “teach our kids violence,” the more violent they become?

Is a rhetorical yet important question. I read it as just that and nothing more. Heh as you have said any inferance to violence to our children that YOU get from this, must come from YOU and YOUR assumptions and outlook on life.

And lastly this:

'Some people just need a smack back into reality.'

I read as being directed towards adults, particularly the 'knee jerk' verity that are bound to scream, 'They want to beat our children, wont somebody please think of the children'.

I didnt fear the rules and I was sent away to a wilderness program in the desert for two months and then went to a lockdown boarding school. They didnt have to beat me to make me follow the rules they would just make you feel like shit all the time (god damn they were great at getting into your head), oh and when you did break to rules you had to dig ditches for a few days. But I turned out better for it, for the most part at least. When it comes to kids not listening and misbehaving and such, i feel its because the consequenses are so lite, being sent to time out, or sent to the principals office never stopped me from misbehaving. Christ, it just made me angry and I would act out more. And suspentions were the greatest thing ever, "What? I'm suspended? Fuck Yeah, I get a vacation!"

Sure you did...

Meh, exactly what relevance does this staement have to the discussion?

'So once again we see how YOUR assumptions are yours alone and do not reflect an objective reality.'

All of us do this, yes, yes, even you. So back to the school, and the beating of kids, or not. Now where was we?

Query. Assuming Muravyets' child performs a criminal act potentially fatal to others, and in the course of interaction with law enforcement, is wounded or killed, would law enforcement gain an enemy in you then?

I have seen parents assume that no matter what their offspring has done, he or she is never wrong and will do their best to ensure such consequences of their actions will not touch them, or otherwise direct much ire towards the other party, or both.

Which makes the entire "reap what you sow" argument from that quarter absurd to say the least.
Is this another false dichotomy suggesting that any opposition to letting people hit my child leaves as the only other option claiming that my child can do no wrong under any circumstance? Or is this another strawman attempt at claiming that what we are talking about here is criminal children?

Read ALL my posts and respond to what I said. Do not waste your time asking me to defend arguments I did not make.

If you do read my posts, you will see very clearly what I am talking about. You will even see where I told Peeplonia that if a teacher claims that my child was beinng violent towards them, they had better have proof of it. I would demand the same burden of evidence from police/prosecutors who accused my child of something.

WITHOUT SUCH PROOF of wrongdoing by my child, the teacher/school who used physical force against my child will have a problem with me. Likewise, WITHOUT SUCH PROOF of wrongdoing by my child, the police/legal system that uses force against my child will also have a problem with me.

Meh, exactly what relevance does this staement have to the discussion?

'So once again we see how YOUR assumptions are yours alone and do not reflect an objective reality.'

All of us do this, yes, yes, even you. So back to the school, and the beating of kids, or not. Now where was we?
It's relevant because you are basing your arguments on why violence is okay sometimes on your personal assumptions and you attempted to defend those arguments/assumptions by suggesting that everyone shares them, as if they reflect a general understanding of reality that affects how people in general respond is social situations. Only they are not universally shared, and therefore they do not reflect a general understanding of reality that affects how people in general respond to things. That means that your arguments are not as applicable to real situations as you seem to think they are. And that undermines their credibility. And THAT is what makes my statements relevant.

Furthermore, the fact that your statements are reflections only of your own personal assumptions and not of objective observations of reality supports my assertion that the only reason you support physical force used against children is school is because you are a violently minded person who is willing to condone violence, which in and of itself is not the kind of influence I want to see in a position of even temporary authority over children.

Bwhahahahhaha ohhh I get it now. I am not allowed to assume, but you are?

Then please allow me to clarify my thought process for you.

This:

'The truth is that violence – which, mind you, may be defined as physical force used with the intention of causing harm or injury – is quite natural. And the only thing related to it that must be taught is when and how to use force morally. It’s much as with sex: people don’t need to be taught it, only that they must keep it within the proper context.'

Tells me that the violent behaviour of humans is normal, and that we should reconise this as a fact, and not shy away from using violence when the need arises. Much like sex, the context is the thing. It says right there in black fonts, that we need to teach our children when it is and is not acceptable to use violence.

So no I did not read into that 'we should slap our children about'.
So in other words, my "assumptions" are correct. You do advocate violence as an appropriate kind of social interaction.

This:

'Why does it seem that the more we resolve to not “teach our kids violence,” the more violent they become?

Is a rhetorical yet important question. I read it as just that and nothing more. Heh as you have said any inferance to violence to our children that YOU get from this, must come from YOU and YOUR assumptions and outlook on life.
Mmm-hm. Okay, let's parse out that sentence, shall we?

"...the more we resolve to not 'teach our kids violence,' the more violent they become..."

You do not see that as saying that it is a mistake not to teach violence? In other words, that it would be good to teach violence in schools, especially in the context of their earlier statements about how "normal" violent behavior is and how people need to learn how to be violent in an acceptable way and how they think teachers should use force upon students?

And lastly this:

'Some people just need a smack back into reality.'

I read as being directed towards adults, particularly the 'knee jerk' verity that are bound to scream, 'They want to beat our children, wont somebody please think of the children'.
Oh I see, YOUR assumptions are okay, but mine aren't (even when they are not assumptions). Too bad for this particular assumption of yours that they wrote this in a context of advocating force against children.

This is ridiculous. Resorting to spanking, etc. is an enormous cop out when it comes to teachers and behavior modification. They need to know how to talk to their students to help resolve the deep seeded problems that cause these disruptions and misbehavior from the kids, rather than just hitting them.

To be honest, once the child has gotten hit, I have no more interest in "discourse."
...
I'm not interested in making a person who hits a child "see sense." I am interested in making sure they don't ever hit a child again.
Maybe I'm not following you, but are you saying that while your motivation is to stop people hitting children, you're not prepared to actually discuss the reasons behind this hitting and addressing them in a constructive manner?

Look, I agree that an adult using physical force against a young child is repulsive, but only because it is the abuse of a position of superior strength. It was that that I found unsettling in your own response - you seemed to have no problem with the application of overwhelming strength yourself, albeit of a psychological nature in your case.

Power, whether physical, psychological or intellectual, needs to be moderated to ensure it doesn't cause more damage than is necessary. Collective development is (or, at least, should be) the purpose of all conflict, and neither putting your opponent in hospital, losing them in discussion nor establishing yourself as an enemy are likely to help either you or them develop.

I'm a historian. "Nostalgia" is for idiots.

I base it on higher rates of college entry and graduation, lower rates of violence in school, and other statistical studies that show generally better outcomes from school systems of the time than we have now.

You have sources for those? I'm pretty sure college entry rates are at the highest in history currently




I don't support spanking in school. A)I don't have time to administer such punishments. B) I treat my students as adults. If anyone spanked me outside the bedroom, I'd kill them. I'd expect my students to do the same. C) The worst thing you can do to a student is embarass them. D) Schools are supposed to be a safe place to learn. Not a place to fear getting spanked.

What I would support is allowing teachers to break up a fight, which is currently against protocal. Not hitting, but using reasonable force to stop one kid from beating the shit out of another. Mind you, they don't act on this rule, but it is there and needs to be done away with.

Ritalin. Enough of that and there's no need for discipline of any sort in schools. *nods* Zombie students FTW! [/sarcasm]

Yeah, those damn stimulants and their making people lethargic and unresponsive and...

if anyone ever laid a hand on my child there would be hell to pay.

Fuck yes.

Corporeal punishment does absolutely nothing but make the one being punished resent the punisher. They become scared and frightened of punishment rather than truly learning anything.

I agree that we need to fix our school's addressing of problems caused by students, but going back to a method consistantly shown to be worthless is not going to help, and the Birch Society can go to hell if they think otherwise.

The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published on the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3003) wobsite:

I doubt many people here will defend Birchers, so my point isn't so much to post this as a hotly controversial talking point. Nor is it to discuss whether or not spanking in schools is appropriate.

My question is: why does an organization whose education advocacy (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/education/1858-jbs-on-public-education) is:

and that describes the family as 'the bedrock of civilization' (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/family-and-freedom/1869-bedrock-of-civilization) feel it is appropriate for federal employees to be paid to hit their children? If one were looking for an expression of the overbearing nature of the liberal-fascist Orwellian nightmare of America that they so regularly inveigh against, how much more extreme could you get?

So: do you think opposition to public education, and advocacy of homeschooling and 'school choice' is primarily motivated by a genuine ideological doctrine, or is simply a rejection of the tenor of public education as currently formed?

Umm, bolded an important part there - School teachers are NOT federal employees. They are employed by states and/or local school districts, not the federal government. The J.B. society is not arguing that federal employees should have a right to "hit" kids. Merely that corporal punishment is appropriate and that the manner in which it is used should be decided on the local level.

You have sources for those? I'm pretty sure college entry rates are at the highest in history currently




I don't support spanking in school. A)I don't have time to administer such punishments. B) I treat my students as adults. If anyone spanked me outside the bedroom, I'd kill them. I'd expect my students to do the same. C) The worst thing you can do to a student is embarass them. D) Schools are supposed to be a safe place to learn. Not a place to fear getting spanked.

What I would support is allowing teachers to break up a fight, which is currently against protocal. Not hitting, but using reasonable force to stop one kid from beating the shit out of another. Mind you, they don't act on this rule, but it is there and needs to be done away with.
I paid attention to and learned from the teachers that paddled me as I was going through school. There was a fear that created a desire to avoid the paddle by learning and paying attention. The teachers that tried to embarrass me were a joke who got no respect and in fact earned my extreme disdain. Embarrassing a kid in front of his peers will breed contempt for the teacher, not respect.

I paid attention to and learned from the teachers that paddled me as I was going through school. There was a fear that created a desire to avoid the paddle by learning and paying attention. The teachers that tried to embarrass me were a joke who got no respect and in fact earned my extreme disdain. Embarrassing a kid in front of his peers will breed contempt for the teacher, not respect.

Hence why I said embarassing a kid is the worst thing you can do. Spanking a kid infront of his peers is pretty damn embarassing.

And I don't want my kids to respect me out of some artificial authority and fear. I need my students to trust me, and respect me, not because I'll hit them if they don't (societys of fear are quite tenuous, and I am not Machiavelli), but because I have earned it.

I don't need to hit a student to get them to listen. Consistant discipline with appropriate punishments works perfectly well. I've yet to have any major classroom management issues.

I notice that those in this thread who are teachers are against, this, while those who have no idea what the inner workings of the education system is like are for it.


Who should I take more seriously?

if anyone ever laid a hand on my child there would be hell to pay.

Oh, and this. I garuntee that I would do everything in my power to own their asses within the next year.

Hence why I said embarassing a kid is the worst thing you can do. Spanking a kid infront of his peers is pretty damn embarassing.

And I don't want my kids to respect me out of some artificial authority and fear. I need my students to trust me, and respect me, not because I'll hit them if they don't (societys of fear are quite tenuous, and I am not Machiavelli), but because I have earned it.

I don't need to hit a student to get them to listen. Consistant discipline with appropriate punishments works perfectly well. I've yet to have any major classroom management issues.
Sorry, I misunderstood your use of the word "worst" in your original post. I took it to mean you were saying that a teacher should never go beyond that in trying to discipline his/her students, not, as I now understood you to mean, he should never do that.

I'll agree that corporal punishment should be a last resort and should not be used until all else has failed. I don't agree, however, that it is always inappropriate. Building the type of mutual respect and trust you speak of is clearly the better route to take. You can't always do that however.

I notice that those in this thread who are teachers are against, this, while those who have no idea what the inner workings of the education system is like are for it.

Who should I take more seriously?

Oh, and this. I garuntee that I would do everything in my power to own their asses within the next year.
Sorry, I'm a teacher (college undergrad level now) who taught H.S. for a while. I believe corporal punishment has a place in the arsenal of tools a teacher and school system uses.

Maybe I'm not following you, but are you saying that while your motivation is to stop people hitting children, you're not prepared to actually discuss the reasons behind this hitting and addressing them in a constructive manner?

Look, I agree that an adult using physical force against a young child is repulsive, but only because it is the abuse of a position of superior strength. It was that that I found unsettling in your own response - you seemed to have no problem with the application of overwhelming strength yourself, albeit of a psychological nature in your case.

Power, whether physical, psychological or intellectual, needs to be moderated to ensure it doesn't cause more damage than is necessary. Collective development is (or, at least, should be) the purpose of all conflict, and neither putting your opponent in hospital, losing them in discussion nor establishing yourself as an enemy are likely to help either you or them develop.
You're not failing to follow me. You're just disagreeing with me.

I look at it this way: I am the child's parent, not the teacher's. I love the child, not the teacher. I am responsible for the welfare of the child, not the welfare of the teacher. I am responsible for seeing to it that the child becomes a good member of society. I am not responsible for making the teacher a good citizen.

In regard to this particular issue, my responsibility begins and ends with making sure that other people do not hit my kid. I will do whatever it takes within the law to make sure I fulfill that responsibility. What affect that has on the one who hit my kid is of little interest to me. Let them go cry to their anger-management therapist about it.

Why is it that it's always the teachers who can't exercise control and authority calling to be allowed to use physical violence?

Seriously, when I went through school, there were teachers who had authority. They had no need to punish anybody, they had no need to beat anyone, they didn't even need to raise their voices. Those were the good teachers. You learned a lot with and from them.

On the other hand, there were teachers who yelled, handed out punishments, slammed doors, dragged students to the headmistress, anything they could legally get away with. They had no authority and were generally little more than a joke. And that wouldn't change even if they had the right to use violence.

So, essentially, you would be handing a useless additional right to incompetent teachers. Not the way to go, in my opinion.

Why is it that it's always the teachers who can't exercise control and authority calling to be allowed to use physical violence?

Seriously, when I went through school, there were teachers who had authority. They had no need to punish anybody, they had no need to beat anyone, they didn't even need to raise their voices. Those were the good teachers. You learned a lot with and from them.

On the other hand, there were teachers who yelled, handed out punishments, slammed doors, dragged students to the headmistress, anything they could legally get away with. They had no authority and were generally little more than a joke. And that wouldn't change even if they had the right to use violence.

So, essentially, you would be handing a useless additional right to incompetent teachers. Not the way to go, in my opinion.
I agree completely.

Why is it that it's always the teachers who can't exercise control and authority calling to be allowed to use physical violence?

Seriously, when I went through school, there were teachers who had authority. They had no need to punish anybody, they had no need to beat anyone, they didn't even need to raise their voices. Those were the good teachers. You learned a lot with and from them.

On the other hand, there were teachers who yelled, handed out punishments, slammed doors, dragged students to the headmistress, anything they could legally get away with. They had no authority and were generally little more than a joke. And that wouldn't change even if they had the right to use violence.

So, essentially, you would be handing a useless additional right to incompetent teachers. Not the way to go, in my opinion.

How did they have authority? If we can figure out that secret, we can provide a good alternative to corporeal punishment.

How did they have authority? If we can figure out that secret, we can provide a good alternative to corporeal punishment.

I've been thinking about that... I'm no psychologist, but a lot of it came from their air of confidence, both in themselves and in the students.
Other than that, they also made it very clear that they were there for you, not you for school (not sure if that makes sense).

It's very difficult to put this kind of authority into words, but I'm quite sure you must have met a person like that once or twice in your life as well...

I've been thinking about that... I'm no psychologist, but a lot of it came from their air of confidence, both in themselves and in the students.
Other than that, they also made it very clear that they were there for you, not you for school (not sure if that makes sense).

It's very difficult to put this kind of authority into words, but I'm quite sure you must have met a person like that once or twice in your life as well...
I was lucky enough to have such good teachers early in my school years, and the other not-good kind later. It is very hard to put into words what the difference is, but competence, intelligence, and personal confidence are definitely part of it. Some people, perhaps, are just not cut out to be teachers.

Sorry, I misunderstood your use of the word "worst" in your original post. I took it to mean you were saying that a teacher should never go beyond that in trying to discipline his/her students, not, as I now understood you to mean, he should never do that.

I'll agree that corporal punishment should be a last resort and should not be used until all else has failed. I don't agree, however, that it is always inappropriate. Building the type of mutual respect and trust you speak of is clearly the better route to take. You can't always do that however.

That is why new punishments have come in. Instead of me having to take time out of my lesson to hit a kid, I can send him to the vice principal/dean (depending on school structure) where he will be disciplined. There, he might receive detention, in school suspension (my personal favorite...the kid is out of my way and forced to do work by a big, scary man with a 70's porn star moustache), out of school suspension, expulsion, or transfer into an alternative high school.

Of course, the vast majority of issues can be handled in class (90% of classroom management is what you do to prevent a problem...classroom layout, structure, and systems)

Of course you would (http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/chaoticnetural.jpg).

*steals*

\(90% of classroom management is what you do to prevent a problem...classroom layout, structure, and systems)

That's kinda' cool, how do you do that? (just seat arrangements?)

How did they have authority? If we can figure out that secret, we can provide a good alternative to corporeal punishment.

Be consistent, be confident, be fair, be respectful, be reasonable without being a pushover, and be fun. Teachers like that not only rarely have disciplinary problems in the first place, but their students will tend to make causing trouble in those classes "uncool."

How did they have authority? If we can figure out that secret, we can provide a good alternative to corporeal punishment.

effective teachers tend to have few "blanket" rules...something along the lines of "respect"...respect for property, other students, the teacher, and yourself.

ineffective teachers have little rules for everything..."you will not throw paper airplanes. You will not throw spitballs. You will not punch. You will not kick. You will not raise your voice above a randomly predetermined level"

Effective teachers are consistant. Kid A always sleeps in class. Teacher A always disciplines him, every time. Kid B has a bad night, and falls asleep in class. Teacher A disciplines her in the exact same manner he disciplined kid A for the first infraction.

Ineffective teachers are not consistant. Kid A always sleeps in class. Teacher B has given up on getting through to him. Kid B falls asleep in class after a bad night. Teacher B uses it to vent frustrations built towards kid A, and loses it.

Effective teachers have clear expectations. You will enter my classroom, sit down, and begin your warm-up. I expect you to be on time, every day, and to have your work done.

Ineffective teachers have either unclear expectations, low expectations, or variable expectations.

Effective teachers have a bond with their students. They stand at the door every day, greeting their students. They attend sporting events, concerts, performances, etc. They ask how their students are doing. They have an open door policy.

Ineffective teachers don't.

Effective teachers place discipline in the forefront of purpose. They will pause the class to address an issue, then return to teaching.

Ineffective teachers will yell while still writing on the board.

In regard to this particular issue, my responsibility begins and ends with making sure that other people do not hit my kid. I will do whatever it takes within the law to make sure I fulfill that responsibility. What affect that has on the one who hit my kid is of little interest to me. Let them go cry to their anger-management therapist about it.
I understand. We'll leave it at that then.

That's kinda' cool, how do you do that? (just seat arrangements?)

Seating arrangements and assignments are a big part of it. Circulating through the class is one of the most effective ways to stop a problem before it starts. Think about it...when you were in class, and the teacher was standing right over you, you wouldn't move. The kid on the other side of the class, however, would.

I arrange my classroom to have wide aisles for me to walk around easily. I also place the desks so I am close to every kid at every moment...like this usually:

/ --- --- \
/ --- --- \

This also allows me to get close to the student answering my question, drawing more thought out of him..."Great answer...how do we know that though?"

I have rapidly started to believe "give away the furniture, give away the classroom". Assigned seats (atleast for freshmen and sophomores) are key...it allows me to put my more special little angels in seats that I am closer to more often.

Setting up systems is pretty key too. the majority of the first two weeks is usually spent teaching expectations. I expect my kids to come in and sit down quickly and quietly. First day, I give seat assignments, explain this, and tell them "I want you to be able to do this in under a minute". Bring them into the hall, and let them go to their seats. It ends up being something of a game. Every day for the rest of the week, I tell them "I think we can do better. Out into the hall and try again".

I expect that they understand that the bell does not dismiss them, I do. And when they leave, their chairs should be pushed in. So I explain this to them, and I stand at the door when the bell rings. I dismiss them, and don't open the door untill every chair has been pushed in. Within the first two weeks, they know that I'm not playing around.

Most of classroom management is established within the first week or two.

I'd agree if she was hot.

Spanking's for weird porn. If they're going to hit you, make it a pimp slap. (Nods)

I'd agree to this only if the power extended to every federal employee. There could be some fun at the post office.

I'd agree to this only if the power extended to every federal employee. There could be some fun at the post office.
Teachers aren't federal.

Teachers aren't federal.

I learned something today, without even the slightest smack. Ain't that something?

I learned something today, without even the slightest smack. Ain't that something?

Well, if you play your cards right, you could still get the smack;)

Ritalin. Enough of that and there's no need for discipline of any sort in schools. *nods* Zombie students FTW! [/sarcasm]

ritilin doesent solve behavior problmes...

NOW mariujana! that's a whol other story!

Assigned seats (at least for freshmen and sophomores) are key...
Setting up systems is pretty key too. the majority of the first two weeks is usually spent teaching expectations. I expect my kids to come in and sit down quickly and quietly. First day, I give seat assignments, explain this, and tell them "I want you to be able to do this in under a minute". Bring them into the hall, and let them go to their seats. It ends up being something of a game. Every day for the rest of the week, I tell them "I think we can do better. Out into the hall and try again".

I expect that they understand that the bell does not dismiss them, I do. And when they leave, their chairs should be pushed in. So I explain this to them, and I stand at the door when the bell rings. I dismiss them, and don't open the door untill every chair has been pushed in. Within the first two weeks, they know that I'm not playing around.

Hey, turns out our concepts of how a school should work are not all that unlike.

The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published on the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3003) wobsite:

I doubt many people here will defend Birchers, so my point isn't so much to post this as a hotly controversial talking point. Nor is it to discuss whether or not spanking in schools is appropriate.

My question is: why does an organization whose education advocacy (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/education/1858-jbs-on-public-education) is:

and that describes the family as 'the bedrock of civilization' (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/issues/family-and-freedom/1869-bedrock-of-civilization) feel it is appropriate for federal employees to be paid to hit their children? If one were looking for an expression of the overbearing nature of the liberal-fascist Orwellian nightmare of America that they so regularly inveigh against, how much more extreme could you get?

So: do you think opposition to public education, and advocacy of homeschooling and 'school choice' is primarily motivated by a genuine ideological doctrine, or is simply a rejection of the tenor of public education as currently formed?
Oh joy. People who believe in violence against children wanting to remove federal oversight. How surprising.

Oh, a teacher like that? I see what you mean, Cabra.

Not something easily taught, though.

If any of my teachers ever smacked me, I'd smack them right back. Any violence imposed on me would have been only detrimental to my educational development. Moreover, the kids who you most want to smack, are the ones who need it the least. Smacking a bad kid will only make them worse.

I doubt that bad kids would not benefit from beatings.

I doubt that bad kids would not benefit from beatings.
Why? They don't seem to have improved you much.

(Hey! It's easy to make snide remarks about nothing which have no argument attached to them and aren't about anything anyway. Thanks for showing me how.)

If you do read my posts, you will see very clearly what I am talking about. You will even see where I told Peeplonia that if a teacher claims that my child was beinng violent towards them, they had better have proof of it. I would demand the same burden of evidence from police/prosecutors who accused my child of something.

WITHOUT SUCH PROOF of wrongdoing by my child, the teacher/school who used physical force against my child will have a problem with me. Likewise, WITHOUT SUCH PROOF of wrongdoing by my child, the police/legal system that uses force against my child will also have a problem with me.

I responded to the post you made, of which you stated anyone who hit your progeny, without qualifiers of any sort.

Thereby with proof of wrongdoing, do I correctly infer that you would be fine with physical negative reinforcement then? Or would you be against it as well?

I'm in favor of teachers hitting kids if the kids are allowed to hit back.

Be consistent, be confident, be fair, be respectful, be reasonable without being a pushover, and be fun. Teachers like that not only rarely have disciplinary problems in the first place, but their students will tend to make causing trouble in those classes "uncool."

I knew a teacher like that. He was about two inches (poor aim) from having a switchblade as a head decoration, courtesy of one of his students.

I knew a teacher like that. He was about two inches (poor aim) from having a switchblade as a head decoration, courtesy of one of his students.

that is a) an isolated incident, b) very rare and c) pretty well irrelevant to his classroom management techniques. Even the best teacher can have a total jackass.

I knew a teacher like that. He was about two inches (poor aim) from having a switchblade as a head decoration, courtesy of one of his students.

Where do you think that switchblade would have ended up if the teacher tried to hit the student?

I'm in favor of teachers hitting kids if the kids are allowed to hit back.


^and worse

I responded to the post you made, of which you stated anyone who hit your progeny, without qualifiers of any sort.

Thereby with proof of wrongdoing, do I correctly infer that you would be fine with physical negative reinforcement then? Or would you be against it as well?
What part of nobody gets to lay a hand on my kid is so hard to understand? Just what kind of corner are you trying to box me into here? You're not allowed to use force on my kid. Period. If you do AND you can provide proof that you HAD NO CHOICE at the time, then I MIGHT forgive you for it IF your evidence convinces me. But otherwise, you keep your filthy germy hands the hell off Muravyets Jr. The end. It really is that simple.

Oh, and I notice you are still misrepresenting my argument because you have not read the posts I asked you to. You never read my link about negotiation tactics in that other thread, but I assumed that was because it was so huge. Now I'm thinking you just don't like to apply effort to building your arguments, not even enough to make sure you're aiming at the right target.

I did not say what you said I said. Prop your strawman up on someone else.

I'd agree to this only if the power extended to every federal employee. There could be some fun at the post office.

There is already fun at the post office I work at. At times, you can swear you're hearing the whistle of a train rolling through, a goose loose in the office, or various other things. We listen to the radio while we do our office work, and our supervisor also allows for us to bust each other's chops (as long as we don't take it too far). We all usually get together for special events (we had a fundraiser at one point for someone with a serious medical condition, there is a picnic every year, etc).

Point is, we don't need slapping or spanking to have a good time at the post office.

You have sources for those? I'm pretty sure college entry rates are at the highest in history currently

In raw numbers, you're right. As a percentage of the population, there's been a significant drop since 1965 - though I'm glad to say that percentage is rising.

I get my numbers from the US Bureau of Statistics.

Seating arrangements and assignments are a big part of it. Circulating through the class is one of the most effective ways to stop a problem before it starts. Think about it...when you were in class, and the teacher was standing right over you, you wouldn't move. The kid on the other side of the class, however, would.

I arrange my classroom to have wide aisles for me to walk around easily. I also place the desks so I am close to every kid at every moment...like this usually:

/ --- --- \
/ --- --- \

This also allows me to get close to the student answering my question, drawing more thought out of him..."Great answer...how do we know that though?"

I have rapidly started to believe "give away the furniture, give away the classroom". Assigned seats (atleast for freshmen and sophomores) are key...it allows me to put my more special little angels in seats that I am closer to more often.

Setting up systems is pretty key too. the majority of the first two weeks is usually spent teaching expectations. I expect my kids to come in and sit down quickly and quietly. First day, I give seat assignments, explain this, and tell them "I want you to be able to do this in under a minute". Bring them into the hall, and let them go to their seats. It ends up being something of a game. Every day for the rest of the week, I tell them "I think we can do better. Out into the hall and try again".

I expect that they understand that the bell does not dismiss them, I do. And when they leave, their chairs should be pushed in. So I explain this to them, and I stand at the door when the bell rings. I dismiss them, and don't open the door untill every chair has been pushed in. Within the first two weeks, they know that I'm not playing around.

Most of classroom management is established within the first week or two.
*Heh* Nice to know we've read the same book (Or at least your instructor in classroom management read the same book).

In particular reference to this:

If you physically "restrain" a child of mine, and you claim that my child was being violent towards you, then you had damned well better have video to prove it, or you and your employers will have a problem with me.

I've physically restrained students from danger (like trying to run away from school into the road) and from hurting other students. I've yet to have had a kid really take a go at me, but I imagine the situation would actually be much easier, since I could simply avoid the child and let her/him run off and not worry about her/him hurting others.

Anyway, the parents with violent kids already know it. They've usually taught them that way.

This is ridiculous. Resorting to spanking, etc. is an enormous cop out when it comes to teachers and behavior modification. They need to know how to talk to their students to help resolve the deep seeded problems that cause these disruptions and misbehavior from the kids, rather than just hitting them.

Agreed. We also need a lot of help from parents and counselors. Some of these kids need serious therapy.

I notice that those in this thread who are teachers are against, this, while those who have no idea what the inner workings of the education system is like are for it.

Kind of bizarre, eh? But I've met a lot of parents who want me to do the job of raising their children for them--I guess spanking could go with that for some.

Sorry, I'm a teacher (college undergrad level now) who taught H.S. for a while. I believe corporal punishment has a place in the arsenal of tools a teacher and school system uses.

So you advocate spanking teenagers? I'm sorry, but the only time I can really conceive of physically disciplining a child is when they do something potentially dangerous, such as run into a crowded street or play with something that could hurt them, and you need to deliver a swift, strong message, and the child is below an age where they can be reasoned with and explained to. If you're spanking a 15-year-old, you need to find another career.

Be consistent, be confident, be fair, be respectful, be reasonable without being a pushover, and be fun. Teachers like that not only rarely have disciplinary problems in the first place, but their students will tend to make causing trouble in those classes "uncool."

QFT.

I doubt that bad kids would not benefit from beatings.

In my short time teaching, I've found that of the three children who absolutely could not be reasoned and worked with, two were children who were abused at home, and one was an EL from the Philippines who spoke almost no English and seemed to believe that if he was bad enough, his dad would send him back home to his mom. None of those children would have benefited from a beating.

I knew a teacher like that. He was about two inches (poor aim) from having a switchblade as a head decoration, courtesy of one of his students.

In the grown-up world, making the right choice doesn't always lead to the most desired outcome, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the right choice.

that is a) an isolated incident, b) very rare and c) pretty well irrelevant to his classroom management techniques. Even the best teacher can have a total jackass.

Having been from that class, I can say no, the teacher wasn't.

Furthermore, there are other incidents I can point out to where students first resisted civil directions of the teachers, followed by striking first and had to be physically (with some violence) restrained before it could escalate further. This was in a school which disallowed corporeal punishment.

Physical violence from students against other students or teachers in this corner of the world is far from isolated instances.

I also can point out another case of a 14 year old, of whose family I am personally acquainted with, who stole the family car, his siblings valuables and money, and then proceeded to drive to another state where he began a spending spree and was about to sell off the car to some particularly shady individuals before he was finally caught.

He got some yelling at, but remained the same kind of ass he was when he committed the crime. Discreet queries also showed that he was also quite eager for an opportunity to commit his next crime.

This was the case until a acquaintance of that family had the opportunity to meet the criminal, and detailed, I am told, the many uses of commonplace items, small orifices and nerve endings in maximizing physical trauma and why, for obvious reasons, he would be the one to experience those uses at the earliest possible opportunity were there to be a repeat of his actions. This remained a viable scenario, although it seems it was never actually carried out.

I am told he is quite a model citizen now.

No doubt, this will be yet again, an "isolated incident". That is, until one notices the alarming numbers of juvenile crimes with everything from drug possession to snatch thefts with violence to murder one.

Where do you think that switchblade would have ended up if the teacher tried to hit the student?

Probably nowhere, since that would mean the teacher would have had arms some 15 feet long. The switchblade was thrown.

What part of nobody gets to lay a hand on my kid is so hard to understand? Just what kind of corner are you trying to box me into here?


To determine what sort of conditions which you would allow physical negative reinforcement to be used in the education of the concept, or carrying out of, consequences upon your progeny.

If never, under any circumstances, then it would logically dictate that you would never allow your progeny to face the consequences of his or her actions, regardless of whatever they are.

I don't know you Muravyets, not personally, and certainly not well enough to make a judgment as to your exact stances on the questions of responsibility education for your progeny. Hence the objective of these questions. If they seem that broad, it is simply because I do not have a sufficiently complete database on you from which to narrow the questions down to less extreme possibilities.


You're not allowed to use force on my kid. Period. If you do AND you can provide proof that you HAD NO CHOICE at the time, then I MIGHT forgive you for it IF your evidence convinces me. But otherwise, you keep your filthy germy hands the hell off Muravyets Jr. The end. It really is that simple.


There is always a choice Muravyets, even if that choice is doing nothing and allowing further harm to be inflicted through inaction. If your statement of "Had no choice" is without any qualifiers whatsoever, then the logical inference is that you would not allow, as your earlier statement indicates, or forgive, negative physical reinforcement, under any circumstances.

Qualifiers to absolute statements will be helpful in defining your stance.


Oh, and I notice you are still misrepresenting my argument because you have not read the posts I asked you to.


Which ones? I have seen several, but beyond the initial one I quoted, they did not seem to add more datum than was already covered.


You never read my link about negotiation tactics in that other thread, but I assumed that was because it was so huge. Now I'm thinking you just don't like to apply effort to building your arguments, not even enough to make sure you're aiming at the right target.

If I didn't like the effort, or for that matter, attempting honest debate, I wouldn't have bothered making long posts when one line pithy commentary would have sufficed.

I have reason to suspect in that thread, neither of us were really aware of where the other truly stood.


I did not say what you said I said. Prop your strawman up on someone else.

I have quoted your statements without misleading or out of context placement to the best of my judgment, and provided scenarios based on their stances taken to their logical extremes. If you have issue with this method, please provide qualifiers to your statements so as to better define your stance.

Since it occurs to me that you may also be equally unaware of my stance, allow me to elaborate.

I do not advocate physical negative reinforcement as a be all and end all to instilling discipline and a sense of personal responsibility. It should not be the first choice of any disciplinary method, and should be reserved only as a last resort after alternative methods, including counseling and enforced productive labor (civic service) have been exhausted. However, it should be a last resort, and not never.

I was among the last in the UK to be caned at school, being sent to a private school when young. At that time, around '86 or so, parents had to give permission, mine did the bastards.

So I was caned.

I'd say it had not one whit of an effect on me, if anything, being caned elevated you among one's peers. Similarly, to drive a teacher to losing their temper can also elevate you among one's peers.

I'd say that, if you're easily frustrated, then teaching might not be for you, I'm not sure spanking is relevant to why a child is disruptive, certainly not helping and possibly causing more resentment or, worse, enjoyment from perceived elevated peer status.

Repeated physical pain does, and can, make you follow orders without question, hence why it's useful in army training.

Repeated physical pain does, and can, make you follow orders without question, hence why it's useful in army training.


People seem to keep forgetting that school =/= the army.

I doubt that bad kids would not benefit from beatings.
Currently I have two classes in a state of "classroom collapse" (The direct translation of a Japanese term). One is due to the homeroom teacher just not caring, and he allows the kids to run all over him. The second is due to the homeroom teacher being brand new and unsure of her philosophy of classroom discipline. In both cases the bulk of my problem starts with special needs kids who act out with other children figuring that if x-kun can get away with it, so can I. Now beating the special needs kid is NOT going to do anything to restore control to my classroom. You can't beat a disability out of someone after all. The kids who are acting up because of those special needs kids also will not benefit from a beating for reasons ranging from not going to work on the special needs kids so not doing it, to their behavior can be corrected without said beating.

99.9% of the time, moving the kid away from his friends (with whom he's getting into trouble with), setting up camp next to the student, and using the whole class to apply peer pressure (Hey, the next game is really fun, but if everyone keeps talking, we can't play) works wonders. The .01% is usually a special needs kids who need a much, MUCH different take on discipline.

So, no, I don't see a benefit for beating one of my students, but I do see a number of problems that would come from it.

In particular reference to this:

If you physically "restrain" a child of mine, and you claim that my child was being violent towards you, then you had damned well better have video to prove it, or you and your employers will have a problem with me.
And I have no qualms about taking you on in that situation. I've already had a student take a swing at me and one whom I did need to pull back and hold because he was trying to electrocute himself. If keeping my students safe means keeping them down until they can regain control and I can get their parents to school, you better damn well believe I'm going to do it. I'm NOT going to watch a kid hurt themselves or other why I make a quick phone call to you to see if it's ok for me to politely ask them to stop.

This is ridiculous. Resorting to spanking, etc. is an enormous cop out when it comes to teachers and behavior modification. They need to know how to talk to their students to help resolve the deep seeded problems that cause these disruptions and misbehavior from the kids, rather than just hitting them.
How about, the students' parents need to send a socialized kid to school?

In the grown-up world, making the right choice doesn't always lead to the most desired outcome, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the right choice.

The right choice isn't always the same choice, and there's no such thing as a useless tool. Physical negative reinforcement is a tool. Easily abused, true, but a tool nevertheless. Properly used, it can prove beneficial to all concerned, but throwing it out entirely on the basis of abuse and it's byproducts makes for as poor an argument as firearms being the sole cause of crime.

How about, the students' parents need to send a socialized kid to school?

Hey now! You can't expect a parent to provide you with a socialized kid! Everyone knows public school is the only place you can even get "socialized".

It's your job as a teacher to socialize them, they can't be expected to pick something like that up on the streets.
:p:p

Hey now! You can't expect a parent to provide you with a socialized kid! Everyone knows public school is the only place you can even get "socialized".

It's your job as a teacher to socialize them, they can't be expected to pick something like that up on the streets.
:p:p

It's a lose-lose situation with this particular sort of parent really. They refuse to teach their children responsibility or respect for consequences, expect the schools to do so, and when they do, they jump on the schools for touching their children.

Some people it seems, have odd ideas of what parenthood entails.

There is already fun at the post office I work at. At times, you can swear you're hearing the whistle of a train rolling through, a goose loose in the office, or various other things. We listen to the radio while we do our office work, and our supervisor also allows for us to bust each other's chops (as long as we don't take it too far). We all usually get together for special events (we had a fundraiser at one point for someone with a serious medical condition, there is a picnic every year, etc).

Point is, we don't need slapping or spanking to have a good time at the post office.
I'm thinking about sigging this. :D

In raw numbers, you're right. As a percentage of the population, there's been a significant drop since 1965 - though I'm glad to say that percentage is rising.

I get my numbers from the US Bureau of Statistics.
Interesting. I would think that, given how much larger the numbers going now combined with being an echo of the baby boom would give us the edge now...

*Heh* Nice to know we've read the same book (Or at least your instructor in classroom management read the same book).
Scott Seider was a professor of mine ;)
Having been from that class, I can say no, the teacher wasn't.The teacher wasn't what? I didn't make any claims about them...

Furthermore, there are other incidents I can point out to where students first resisted civil directions of the teachers, followed by striking first and had to be physically (with some violence) restrained before it could escalate further. This was in a school which disallowed corporeal punishment.So you are in favor of, or against corporal punishment?

Who hit whom first?

Regardless, that's failed classroom management. It has nothing to do with allowing or disallowing corporal punishments...

Physical violence from students against other students or teachers in this corner of the world is far from isolated instances.Yes, there are fights. The vast majority of students get on without such incidents, however.

I also can point out another case of a 14 year old, of whose family I am personally acquainted with, who stole the family car, his siblings valuables and money, and then proceeded to drive to another state where he began a spending spree and was about to sell off the car to some particularly shady individuals before he was finally caught.

He got some yelling at, but remained the same kind of ass he was when he committed the crime. Discreet queries also showed that he was also quite eager for an opportunity to commit his next crime.

This was the case until a acquaintance of that family had the opportunity to meet the criminal, and detailed, I am told, the many uses of commonplace items, small orifices and nerve endings in maximizing physical trauma and why, for obvious reasons, he would be the one to experience those uses at the earliest possible opportunity were there to be a repeat of his actions. This remained a viable scenario, although it seems it was never actually carried out.

I am told he is quite a model citizen now.
Anecdotal evidence fails. It could still easily be an isolated incident, has flaws and isn't particularly convincing. Show me a report that shows students respond better to corporal punishment.

No doubt, this will be yet again, an "isolated incident". That is, until one notices the alarming numbers of juvenile crimes with everything from drug possession to snatch thefts with violence to murder one.

It is. Show me that crimes are up among this generation. Then show me that corporal punishment would have any impact. Even your anecdote didn't show anything...just that the kid was scared enough to become a "model citizen" (which, given the personality you described prior, I doubt)

Probably nowhere, since that would mean the teacher would have had arms some 15 feet long. The switchblade was thrown.
And so this supports corporal punishment, or refutes?



To determine what sort of conditions which you would allow physical negative reinforcement to be used in the education of the concept, or carrying out of, consequences upon your progeny.Simple: never.

If never, under any circumstances, then it would logically dictate that you would never allow your progeny to face the consequences of his or her actions, regardless of whatever they are.No. I won't allow a teacher to hit my kid. That is vastly different than "never face consequences".

I've physically restrained students from danger (like trying to run away from school into the road) and from hurting other students. I've yet to have had a kid really take a go at me, but I imagine the situation would actually be much easier, since I could simply avoid the child and let her/him run off and not worry about her/him hurting others.

Anyway, the parents with violent kids already know it. They've usually taught them that way.

So many people are trying to come up with defenses for why they'll just HAVE TO manhandle Mini-Muravyets, but what they're not paying attention to is the important part of the equation, which is the result.

Like I said before, it's the same lesson everyone is so hot to get the kids to learn -- actions have consequences. You manhandle Little M, you are held accountable by and to Momma M. That's all there is to it, and you don't get to avoid it, all claims of how you just have to restrain kids on your job notwithstanding.

Now I have made it clear several times, that all you have to do is provide credible proof that you really did have to and sincerely could not avoid using force on my child, so that when I come to hold you to account for what you did to my poor little kid, you will have a nice, believable and acceptable cover for your kid-mangling ass.

And if you really can't manage to do that, then well I guess it's gonna suck to be you for a while.

So fine, you do whatever you think you should, but don't expect that there will never be any blowback, or that everyone in the world is just going to take your word for things. You do something, you have to be ready to answer for it. Especially when you have kid in your school who has a parent like me, who demands absolutely that her authority as parent take precedence over all other adults when it comes to her child.

To determine what sort of conditions which you would allow physical negative reinforcement to be used in the education of the concept, or carrying out of, consequences upon your progeny.
Rewrite that sentence in English, please. And by "English," I mean in terms that don't sound like you're twisting an argument in order to create confusion.

If never, under any circumstances, then it would logically dictate that you would never allow your progeny to face the consequences of his or her actions, regardless of whatever they are.
False dichotomy. Not letting other people hit my child DOES NOT leave no-consequences-ever as the only other option. I already explained this to you. Repeating your invalid argument will not magically make it valid.

I don't know you Muravyets, not personally, and certainly not well enough to make a judgment as to your exact stances on the questions of responsibility education for your progeny. Hence the objective of these questions. If they seem that broad, it is simply because I do not have a sufficiently complete database on you from which to narrow the questions down to less extreme possibilities.
Your repetition of invalid arguments/fallacies, plus your bizarre wordings, cause me to doubt the sincerity of your explanation of why you are asking these questions.

There is always a choice Muravyets, even if that choice is doing nothing and allowing further harm to be inflicted through inaction. If your statement of "Had no choice" is without any qualifiers whatsoever, then the logical inference is that you would not allow, as your earlier statement indicates, or forgive, negative physical reinforcement, under any circumstances.

Qualifiers to absolute statements will be helpful in defining your stance.
This is the second time I'm telling you that my words stand at their face value. Here, I'll make it even more obvious for you -- ALL of the words I have posted in this thread represent my ENTIRE argument.

NOTE: The term "ALL of the words I have posted" means ALL of the words I have posted. Not just the ones you feel like using as a strawman prop.

Which ones? I have seen several, but beyond the initial one I quoted, they did not seem to add more datum than was already covered.
First off, you can't add more "datum" because "datum" is singular. You meant "data."

Second, ALL of the words I posted. Read ALL of them. Even the articles. If you like, I'll give you a test on them.

If I didn't like the effort, or for that matter, attempting honest debate, I wouldn't have bothered making long posts when one line pithy commentary would have sufficed.

I have reason to suspect in that thread, neither of us were really aware of where the other truly stood.
Whatever.

I have quoted your statements without misleading or out of context placement to the best of my judgment, and provided scenarios based on their stances taken to their logical extremes. If you have issue with this method, please provide qualifiers to your statements so as to better define your stance.
Your so-called scenarios have been logical fallacies of false dichotomy and strawmen.

I told you specifically to read ALL of my posts to get the full context of my position on this subject, yet you seem to be having a problem wrapping your brain around what "read all of my posts" means. But until you do, you ARE taking my words out of context.

Since it occurs to me that you may also be equally unaware of my stance, allow me to elaborate.

I do not advocate physical negative reinforcement as a be all and end all to instilling discipline and a sense of personal responsibility. It should not be the first choice of any disciplinary method, and should be reserved only as a last resort after alternative methods, including counseling and enforced productive labor (civic service) have been exhausted. However, it should be a last resort, and not never.
No, actually, I was not unaware that this was your stance. You know how I knew it? I READ THE FUCKING POSTS.

And I have no qualms about taking you on in that situation. I've already had a student take a swing at me and one whom I did need to pull back and hold because he was trying to electrocute himself. If keeping my students safe means keeping them down until they can regain control and I can get their parents to school, you better damn well believe I'm going to do it. I'm NOT going to watch a kid hurt themselves or other why I make a quick phone call to you to see if it's ok for me to politely ask them to stop.
Fine.

When I show up to ask why these bruises are on my kid, be prepared to convince me that your actions were justified.

And if you fail to convince me, then suck it up and do whatever your lawyers tell you to.

Actions >>>> Consequences.

EDIT: It's very simple. Scenario #1: My kid comes home bruised. I march him right back to your office and demand to know why. You tell me you had to use physical force to save his life. Fine and dandy. NOW show me any evidence of what you are saying (if my kid's version differs from yours) and explain why the fuck you didn't notify me when the incident occurred.

Scenario #2: Bruised kid. March to your office. WTF? Your answer, "He was being disruptive and a discipline problem" No. Not acceptable. You'll be hearing from my attorney. (Note: Obviously, this wouldn't happen with you, because you already stated your views re beatings, but I am talking about the OP quote's notion of corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes.)

EDIT2: In all seriousness, I learned the actions>>>consequences lesson very early in life. I learned it by suffering the consequences of my own actions, and by watching others (teachers and administrators) suffer the consequences of their actions. For years now, I've been hearing people bitch about how it's so imperative that kids have to learn this lesson for a change, and I always thought that was just old-fogey complaining BS, but from this thread it's starting to seem as if there really are a lot adults running around who never learned it. I base this on the number of adults kicking up fits at the thought that I, as a parent, would demand and enforce accountability for how they treat my child, in re the "nobody hits my kid" rule.

The teacher wasn't what? I didn't make any claims about them...

You inferred the possibility of the teacher being:

"Even the best teacher can have a total jackass."

So just to add some data, no, it isn't.


So you are in favor of, or against corporal punishment?


Neither. Either position speaks of either making it more acceptable and thus becoming the norm (abuse issues), or outright barring it's application (which has it's own problems). Corporal punishment however, has a place as a tool of negative reinforcement. Even the laws of society are upheld by physical negative reinforcement, thereby, corporal punishment has a time and place where it is applicable.


Who hit whom first?


The student.


Yes, there are fights. The vast majority of students get on without such incidents, however.


And when there is violence, would you agree that some level of force is required to put an end to it before it escalates?


Anecdotal evidence fails.

I'm not seeing anything beyond that level of evidence on this thread supporting either side of the argument. However, that it does come from students, former students, and teachers, does lend a bit of credibility. But just a bit.


It could still easily be an isolated incident, has flaws and isn't particularly convincing. Show me a report that shows students respond better to corporal punishment.

Likewise, can you show me a report that lack thereof, and just that, has better student response?


It is. Show me that crimes are up among this generation. Then show me that corporal punishment would have any impact.

Given that the practice of corporal punishment in most first world educational facilities are out of favor these days, with a few exceptions, I would only have to show that increased juvenile crime rates in these countries to prove my point no?

Certainly, you could cite a variety of factors. Worsening economic conditions, increased workplace stress translating to domestic abuse, the increasing culture of responsibility free parenting, many things really.

But then likewise, those very factors could also apply towards the effectiveness or lack thereof, of appropriate use of corporal punishments would it not?


Even your anecdote didn't show anything...just that the kid was scared enough to become a "model citizen" (which, given the personality you described prior, I doubt)

Were law enforcement, and the threat of negative physical reinforcement for crimes, to vanish overnight, how long do you suppose it will be before there is a sharp increase in crimes?


And so this supports corporal punishment, or refutes?


Neither. It does show however, that lack of corporal punishment and good teachers don't necessarily produce model citizens.


Simple: never.


It wasn't directed at you, but since you have said never, I would then ask this. Would you say the same thing if the situation were to escalate? Say, juvenile crimes.


No. I won't allow a teacher to hit my kid. That is vastly different than "never face consequences".

Then in this case, specific consequences then. For example, if that student I mentioned had better aim, lodging the switchblade in somewhere important in the teacher, would you still disallow that teacher to retaliate, or for that matter, preserve his own life with physical violence?

Where is the upper limit? Or is there none whatsoever?

Could not agree with this more. Some of my favorite students were also the ones I wanted to throttle the most, and the ones who least needed it. Students who frequently act out don't need violence--most of them see enough of it at home. They need solid rules and expectations to be consistently enforced, and they need a lot of positive feedback when they follow the rules.

Moreover, the kids who you most want to be violent to, probably are already all-too-familiar with violence (as you said), so you're just exposing them to more. Eventually, violence will be all they know. Which is not the purpose of an education. Violence has no place in school, especially if it's disciplinery.

You inferred the possibility of the teacher being:

"Even the best teacher can have a total jackass."

So just to add some data, no, it isn't.
I didn't infer anything. You may think that I implied something (you infer from an implication). I made no implications about the teacher, and still have no idea what you were saying.

Yes. Even the best teacher can have a total jackass in their class.

Now, what are you on about?


Neither. Either position speaks of either making it more acceptable and thus becoming the norm (abuse issues), or outright barring it's application (which has it's own problems). Corporal punishment however, has a place as a tool of negative reinforcement. Even the laws of society are upheld by physical negative reinforcement, thereby, corporal punishment has a time and place where it is applicable.And that time and place is?
Honestly, the way that you are writing is making your argument astoundingly unclear.



The student.

Then yes, the student should be properly restrained. Not hit, but restrained. There is a difference. Restraining a student is NOT corporal punishment.

And when there is violence, would you agree that some level of force is required to put an end to it before it escalates?
If a student swings at me or is in danger, yes. But that isn't corporal punishment.


I'm not seeing anything beyond that level of evidence on this thread supporting either side of the argument. However, that it does come from students, former students, and teachers, does lend a bit of credibility. But just a bit.

Likewise, can you show me a report that lack thereof, and just that, has better student response?Currently having issues getting on to the server I need. Give me a few.



Given that the practice of corporal punishment in most first world educational facilities are out of favor these days, with a few exceptions, I would only have to show that increased juvenile crime rates in these countries to prove my point no?No. Correlation does not equal causation. You have to show that A) there was an increase and B) that increase was caused by a lack of corporal punishment.

Certainly, you could cite a variety of factors. Worsening economic conditions, increased workplace stress translating to domestic abuse, the increasing culture of responsibility free parenting, many things really.

But then likewise, those very factors could also apply towards the effectiveness or lack thereof, of appropriate use of corporal punishments would it not?
No. Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Starting with the most basic:
Biological and physiological (food, sleep, water, sex)
Safety (protection, security, order)
Love and belongingness (friends, family, student-teacher relationship)
Esteem (achievement, status, reputation, responsibility)
Self-actualization (personal growth and fulfillment)

Unless the more basic needs are being met, one cannot progress with the next (If you are starving, esteem doesn't matter. If your life is at risk, love doesn't matter).

Hitting a student places them in a situation of danger (be in perceived or real), placing them only at level two. Moreover, it destroys the chance of belongingness with that teacher, restricting any ability for instruction.


Were law enforcement, and the threat of negative physical reinforcement for crimes, to vanish overnight, how long do you suppose it will be before there is a sharp increase in crimes?

False dicotomy. The police are barred from using physical punishments (they can't beat a criminal). There are many options between "no law enforcement" and "physical punishments"

Neither. It does show however, that lack of corporal punishment and good teachers don't necessarily produce model citizens.

It also doesn't show that the presence of corporal punishment has any impact.

It wasn't directed at you, but since you have said never, I would then ask this. Would you say the same thing if the situation were to escalate? Say, juvenile crimes.
Never. Beating a child is not an acceptable consequence.
If, say, my child hit a teacher, and the teacher restrained him, that is fine. But that isn't using physical violence as a punishment. It isn't corporal punishment.


Then in this case, specific consequences then. For example, if that student I mentioned had better aim, lodging the switchblade in somewhere important in the teacher, would you still disallow that teacher to retaliate, or for that matter, preserve his own life with physical violence?
That isn't corporal punishment then. It is self defence. Again, there is a difference.

Rewrite that sentence in English, please. And by "English," I mean in terms that don't sound like you're twisting an argument in order to create confusion.

The upper bounds of what you will allow your progeny to get away with against other people, notably teachers, no more, no less.


False dichotomy. Not letting other people hit my child DOES NOT leave no-consequences-ever as the only other option. I already explained this to you. Repeating your invalid argument will not magically make it valid.


Oh? And what sort of consequences would you allow then? What if your child were to start a fight? What if he or she swung first? You are very strongly against any form of physical punishment, at least from other people, so I do wonder what lesson imparting consequences you would advocate. Please, do elaborate.


Your repetition of invalid arguments/fallacies, plus your bizarre wordings, cause me to doubt the sincerity of your explanation of why you are asking these questions.

I have explained the reasons why I ask the questions I do. If you doubt the sincerity of them on the basis of word choice, then there really is nothing else I can do about it.


This is the second time I'm telling you that my words stand at their face value. Here, I'll make it even more obvious for you -- ALL of the words I have posted in this thread represent my ENTIRE argument.

NOTE: The term "ALL of the words I have posted" means ALL of the words I have posted. Not just the ones you feel like using as a strawman prop.

Quoting your entirety of posts in this thread would be page breaking, and I suspect, duplicating several of your arguments. But since you have put some qualifers before this quoted post, it allows me to narrow definitions somewhat.


Now I have made it clear several times, that all you have to do is provide credible proof that you really did have to and sincerely could not avoid using force on my child, so that when I come to hold you to account for what you did to my poor little kid, you will have a nice, believable and acceptable cover for your kid-mangling ass.

Your choice of words speak very strongly against the idea of acceptance even with clear proof of necessity, and presumes innocence of the child regardless of act. It does not speak very well of an impartial, or at least, fair stance.


First off, you can't add more "datum" because "datum" is singular. You meant "data."

Your correction is appreciated.


Second, ALL of the words I posted. Read ALL of them. Even the articles. If you like, I'll give you a test on them.


Beyond proving whether I have or have not read your posts, what would that prove?

Evidence re: corporal punishment:
(I can't link to these as they require registration)

Straus (1991): Chioldren who recieved "ordinary" corporal punishment were 3 times more likely to assault siblings than those who were never physically punished.
Larzelre (1986): There is a linear relationship, across several age groups of children, between frequency of corporal punishment and aggressive acts

Physical punishment may lead to depression (Holmes & Robins, 1988; Maurer, 1974; Straus, 1994) fewer friends extending into college (Bryan and Freed, 1982), elevated levels of anxiety, depression, and negative social interactions (again, extending into college and potentially beyond) (Bryan and Freed, 1982).
Corporal punishment in the teen years has been associated with drinking problems and thoughts of suicide (Straus and Kaufman-Kantor, 1994)

There is a link between recieving corporal punishment and later spousal abuse (Straus, 1996).

Straus, 1991: linked to substance abuse, criminal activity, low economic achievement, depression, thoughts of suicide [interesting, it leads to higher criminal activity, exactly the opposite of its intended effect]

[I've yet to find that it leads to better behavior, or anything positive, but will continue to look.]

I didn't infer anything. You may think that I implied something (you infer from an implication). I made no implications about the teacher, and still have no idea what you were saying.


Then the matter is cleared up.


And that time and place is?


When the juvenile in question has committed a serious breach of the laws in place with intent comes to mind. For example, deliberate destruction of school or private property that doesn't belong to them on school grounds.


Then yes, the student should be properly restrained. Not hit, but restrained. There is a difference. Restraining a student is NOT corporal punishment.

Considering that the child in question (12 years I believe but quite large for his age) was strong enough to successfully struggle despite attempts at restraint, it seemed apparent that some other form of incapacitation was required.


If a student swings at me or is in danger, yes. But that isn't corporal punishment.

Self defense, yes. But the line between that and corporal punishment is somewhat muddy when we consider violent juveniles, and the hullabaloo that certain parents like to raise regarding the innocence of their progeny.


No. Correlation does not equal causation. You have to show that A) there was an increase and B) that increase was caused by a lack of corporal punishment.

Fair enough. But I will wait on your evidence, which I believe you've said you will provide in a while, that the lack of corporal punishment has led to reduced crime.


No. Consider Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Starting with the most basic:
Biological and physiological (food, sleep, water, sex)
Safety (protection, security, order)
Love and belongingness (friends, family, student-teacher relationship)
Esteem (achievement, status, reputation, responsibility)
Self-actualization (personal growth and fulfillment)

Unless the more basic needs are being met, one cannot progress with the next (If you are starving, esteem doesn't matter. If your life is at risk, love doesn't matter).

Hitting a student places them in a situation of danger (be in perceived or real), placing them only at level two. Moreover, it destroys the chance of belongingness with that teacher, restricting any ability for instruction.


Of course according to Maslow's table, if we assume rule violations of intent and not emotion, number four or five would be the ones fulfilled (generally). Thereby, if need two becomes threatened in certain actualization of needs four and five, would that not mean that such rule violations would drop?


False dicotomy. The police are barred from using physical punishments (they can't beat a criminal).

Actually, they can if the suspect is resisting arrest, but only to incapacitate the criminal. Why else would they have been issued nightsticks?


Never. Beating a child is not an acceptable consequence.
If, say, my child hit a teacher, and the teacher restrained him, that is fine. But that isn't using physical violence as a punishment. It isn't corporal punishment.

I see, thank you for clarifying.

Oops. I thought this was going to be a dirty thread. *whistles and walks out*

EDIT

heey!

My post count is 2222!

How about, the students' parents need to send a socialized kid to school?

Allow teachers to spank the parents. Great incentive system, yes?

Then the matter is cleared up.You still need to check the definition of "infer (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infer)". It doesn't mean what you think it means (You thought I was implying something, not infering something). But yes, point settled I guess.



When the juvenile in question has committed a serious breach of the laws in place with intent comes to mind. For example, deliberate destruction of school or private property that doesn't belong to them on school grounds.
So a kid scratches "FUCK" into the desk...you should hit him, rather than explain what he did, give him detention, and change the "FUCK" into "BOOK"?


Considering that the child in question (12 years I believe but quite large for his age) was strong enough to successfully struggle despite attempts at restraint, it seemed apparent that some other form of incapacitation was required.

And that was...?
Restraint still isn't punishment.

Self defense, yes. But the line between that and corporal punishment is somewhat muddy when we consider violent juveniles, and the hullabaloo that certain parents like to raise regarding the innocence of their progeny.

Not really. Kid punches me, I can grab is harm and hold it untill I can either calm the student or get help. Self defence is holding or hitting a student to protect your well-being. Corporal punishment is hitting for punishment. The two are quite distinct.

Fair enough. But I will wait on your evidence, which I believe you've said you will provide in a while, that the lack of corporal punishment has led to reduced crime.That isn't what I claimed, though, as it turns out, it does. Strange how that worked out.



Of course according to Maslow's table, if we assume rule violations of intent and not emotion, number four or five would be the ones fulfilled (generally). Thereby, if need two becomes threatened in certain actualization of needs four and five, would that not mean that such rule violations would drop?
No, you would still have broken a rule. Stealing is stealing, whether it is a 16 year old stealing a DVD or a 16 year old stealing a loaf of bread to feed his siblings.
I'm not sure where you came up with that as being an implication of what I said, however.


Actually, they can if the suspect is resisting arrest, but only to incapacitate the criminal. Why else would they have been issued nightsticks?

Again, that isn't corporal punishment. That is tied in with self defence and, in the case of resisting arrest, protecting society (it is also the only option besides just letting them go. In that case, it is not a false dichotomy)

I believe that if say if my kid was acting up in school or being a bully, the teachers phone me and I'll deal with it. It's my kid, I'll deal with him/her. I wouldn't permit the teacher to lay a hand on my kid. The teacher can just call me up and I'll fix the problem. The reason why is that an educator who yells, screams or even hits a student is discrediting his/her competence as a teacher. If they even laid a hand on my child in a harmful manner, I'd make sure the teacher would be out on the street begging or I'd give em a piece of my mind.

I believe that if say if my kid was acting up in school or being a bully, the teachers phone me and I'll deal with it. It's my kid, I'll deal with him/her. I wouldn't permit the teacher to lay a hand on my kid. The teacher can just call me up and I'll fix the problem. The reason why is that an educator who yells, screams or even hits a student is discrediting his/her competence as a teacher. If they even laid a hand on my child in a harmful manner, I'd make sure the teacher would be out on the street begging or I'd give em a piece of my mind.

Not an complete option. It's part of the option, but not the entire story.

There are many, many parents, be they good or bad. While you very well may take care of the issue at home, many parents might not. The student may never recieve discipline for their actions. Additionally, students must understand that there are consequences for actions at school, too...not just at home.

The most effective punishment occurs within the school (Little Z gets a detention for being a little bastard), and at home (Little Z has to go to bed early).

Mind you, not corporal punishment, but standard punishment.

Well I believe that parents need to have a firm hand. I mean school is only what approx 30 hours a week minus holidays. Whereas home is pretty much the majority of time the child spends. I mean if my kid becomes a snotty bastard I'll cut the power from him. Also Detention is good enough. I agree, however I strongly side that parents are highly responsible for why the child acts the way he/she does. I mean if a parent slacks on raising and spoils the child. He/she is going to be an ungrateful douche (pardon my language). However if you as a parent teaching a child must give him/her the understanding of reward and punishment.

Well I believe that parents need to have a firm hand. I mean school is only what approx 30 hours a week minus holidays. Whereas home is pretty much the majority of time the child spends. I mean if my kid becomes a snotty bastard I'll cut the power from him. Also Detention is good enough. I agree, however I strongly side that parents are highly responsible for why the child acts the way he/she does. I mean if a parent slacks on raising and spoils the child. He/she is going to be an ungrateful douche (pardon my language). However if you as a parent teaching a child must give him/her the understanding of reward and punishment.

You're definatly right...parents do need to be the main authority. Unfortunatly, thanks to a mix of parents working several jobs, single parents working several jobs, and just plain bad parenting, I can't always rely on parents to pick up where I left off. And it shows in the kids behavior more often than not.

So a kid scratches "FUCK" into the desk...you should hit him, rather than explain what he did, give him detention, and change the "FUCK" into "BOOK"?


No. Explain what he did, why it was wrong, and then follow up with corporal punishment. Corporal punishment without making the connection clear to the perpetrator is pointless.

Barring corporal punishment however, I will accept forced civic service as an acceptable alternative.

Although I was thinking a little more severe vandalism than scratching on the table.


And that was...?
Restraint still isn't punishment.


The student was struck so as to fall off balance and on the floor, where he was successfully restrained.


That isn't what I claimed,

An incorrect assumption on my part.


though, as it turns out, it does. Strange how that worked out.


?

Based on the evidence you showed, it doesn't. It simply points out that corporal punishment increases the likelihood of violence.


No, you would still have broken a rule. Stealing is stealing, whether it is a 16 year old stealing a DVD or a 16 year old stealing a loaf of bread to feed his siblings.
I'm not sure where you came up with that as being an implication of what I said, however.

I think you misunderstand.

According to Maslows hierarchy, if one of the levels is disrupted, anything above it ceases to matter directly to the individual. Thereby if the individual commits an action to fulfill a higher level, say, stealing something to fulfill level 4, would not a linked disruption of level 2 needs because of the first act serve as a deterrent then?

No. Explain what he did, why it was wrong, and then follow up with corporal punishment. Corporal punishment without making the connection clear to the perpetrator is pointless.

Barring corporal punishment however, I will accept forced civic service as an acceptable alternative.

Although I was thinking a little more severe vandalism than scratching on the table.
Such as?


The student was struck so as to fall off balance and on the floor, where he was successfully restrained.

How was he hit? There are tons of variables in any given situation. I can't say if I agree with it or not without large numbers of details.


?

Based on the evidence you showed, it doesn't. It simply points out that corporal punishment increases the likelihood of violence.
linked to substance abuse, criminal activity, low economic achievement, depression, thoughts of suicide

Substance abuse, as well, can be a criminal activity, depending upon what substance.
There is a link between recieving corporal punishment and later spousal abuse
Spousal abuse is a crime.
I think you misunderstand.

According to Maslows hierarchy, if one of the levels is disrupted, anything above it ceases to matter directly to the individual. Thereby if the individual commits an action to fulfill a higher level, say, stealing something to fulfill level 4, would not a linked disruption of level 2 needs because of the first act serve as a deterrent then?
Read that outloud and see if it makes sense to you. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.
I understand you up untill the bold part.

Are you trying to say "Would a person do something to seem cool, knowing that it would result in a risk of physical harm"?
If so, the answer is a resounding...maybe. Does the kid actually associate actions and consequences? Not all kids...hell, not all adults...do.

If they do? Then I STILL can't teach them. They just don't act up. Instead, they feel unsafe in my classroom and, more than likely, so do some or all of my other students. They know that I can and do hit them...why would they feel safe, why would they respect me, and consequently, why would they listen?

Such as?

Breaking windows, pipes, electrical wiring, damaging faculty cars, that sort of thing.


How was he hit? There are tons of variables in any given situation. I can't say if I agree with it or not without large numbers of details.

Hair pull and a punch to the side of the chin if I recall correctly.


Substance abuse, as well, can be a criminal activity, depending upon what substance.

Spousal abuse is a crime.

Fair enough. I was thinking of a different meaning when I wrote those words, which in retrospect, was very poorly worded.


Read that outloud and see if it makes sense to you. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.
I understand you up untill the bold part.


Not an uncommon occurrence in my arguments and debates, I am told. I will elaborate as best as I can. Pavlovian treatment.

Consider. By Maslow's hierarchy, any higher level is less important to the individual than a lower, base level correct?

Now you can correctly argue that they can attempt to fulfill a higher need at the risk of the lower.

However, the key factor is risk. If risk instead becomes a certainty, and the certainty is linked specifically to a specific act, then fulfilling that higher need would be shelved in favor of ensuring that the lower needs are fulfilled correct?


If they do? Then I STILL can't teach them. They just don't act up. Instead, they feel unsafe in my classroom and, more than likely, so do some or all of my other students. They know that I can and do hit them...why would they feel safe, why would they respect me, and consequently, why would they listen?

This occurs if you fail to make the connection between crime and punishment apparent to both the perpetrator and the rest of the class. It doesn't matter what sort of punishment you use here, but if you fail to make the connection clear to the class, any sort of punishment will fail without exception.

Yet, up to the 1960's, the situation you're so down on was the norm - and it worked. In many ways, it worked better than what's happening now.I really don't understand this view. If your mythical Golden Age of White Bread America was as great as you say that it was, then why did it's internal contradictions lead to the sociopolitical powder keg of the 1960's?

Allow teachers to spank the parents. Great incentive system, yes?

And vice-versa.,

Hell people, why not just give every human being capable of holding one a stick, an lets all go at it. Last one standing rules the world.

Allow teachers to spank the parents. Great incentive system, yes?
Schools are not and should not be a dating service. :D

The upper bounds of what you will allow your progeny to get away with against other people, notably teachers, no more, no less.



Oh? And what sort of consequences would you allow then? What if your child were to start a fight? What if he or she swung first? You are very strongly against any form of physical punishment, at least from other people, so I do wonder what lesson imparting consequences you would advocate. Please, do elaborate.



I have explained the reasons why I ask the questions I do. If you doubt the sincerity of them on the basis of word choice, then there really is nothing else I can do about it.



Quoting your entirety of posts in this thread would be page breaking, and I suspect, duplicating several of your arguments. But since you have put some qualifers before this quoted post, it allows me to narrow definitions somewhat.



Your choice of words speak very strongly against the idea of acceptance even with clear proof of necessity, and presumes innocence of the child regardless of act. It does not speak very well of an impartial, or at least, fair stance.



Your correction is appreciated.



Beyond proving whether I have or have not read your posts, what would that prove?
It would accomplish two goals relevant to this conversation:

1) It would reveal to you the answers to all your (vague and misleading) questions, which are actually already addressed because I went to the trouble of presenting a complete position. So if you bothered to read them, you would not keep treading the same water over and over.

2) It would show me that you are sincerely interested in understanding what my position is, rather than just spewing self-serving bullshit.

Now, as to the rest of your post, all of it is addressed at least partially in the posts you refuse to read. Until you do so, I will not waste more of my time pointing out to you that your questions are vague, misleading, lacking in substance, and redundant (because the answers to what they seem to be are already in the thread).

We have now danced around this barn enough times. You asked me to explain my position. I pointed you to writings that explain my position. You refuse to read them. Any further refusal on your part to read the information you asked for will result in me dismissing you as a waste of time (again).

I believe that if say if my kid was acting up in school or being a bully, the teachers phone me and I'll deal with it. It's my kid, I'll deal with him/her. I wouldn't permit the teacher to lay a hand on my kid. The teacher can just call me up and I'll fix the problem. The reason why is that an educator who yells, screams or even hits a student is discrediting his/her competence as a teacher. If they even laid a hand on my child in a harmful manner, I'd make sure the teacher would be out on the street begging or I'd give em a piece of my mind.

Well I believe that parents need to have a firm hand. I mean school is only what approx 30 hours a week minus holidays. Whereas home is pretty much the majority of time the child spends. I mean if my kid becomes a snotty bastard I'll cut the power from him. Also Detention is good enough. I agree, however I strongly side that parents are highly responsible for why the child acts the way he/she does. I mean if a parent slacks on raising and spoils the child. He/she is going to be an ungrateful douche (pardon my language). However if you as a parent teaching a child must give him/her the understanding of reward and punishment.

Not an complete option. It's part of the option, but not the entire story.

There are many, many parents, be they good or bad. While you very well may take care of the issue at home, many parents might not. The student may never recieve discipline for their actions. Additionally, students must understand that there are consequences for actions at school, too...not just at home.

The most effective punishment occurs within the school (Little Z gets a detention for being a little bastard), and at home (Little Z has to go to bed early).

Mind you, not corporal punishment, but standard punishment.
I agree with Zaijin's approach.

As a teacher, Sarkhaan, you are looking for a way to address an issue with many children, but from the parents' point of view, each parent is ONLY responsible for their own child(ren).

Obviously, the "if my kid acts up, the teacher should call me to deal with it," will not address every single instance a teacher has to deal with, but it does suggest one part of an operating procedure.

I was lucky enough to attend one of the best elementary schools in NYC (good old PS 90), and they actually did use that disciplinary approach. A student who acted out disruptively and would not comply with in-class controls/disciplines by the teacher would be sent out of the class. Depending on their emotional state, they would either be taken to the principal's office or the nurse's office (for kids who were very upset about something, the nurse's office was a quiet, calming environment removed from school traffic, where there was a cot to lie on and the lights could be turned down). While in that time-out, one of the school staff would ALWAYS call the parent/caregiver to inform them of the incident and either (a) require the parent to come get the child, (b) inform the parent of how the school intended to handle it, or (c) get instruction/approval from the parent as to how to handle it (as with special needs kids).

Did every parent respond cooperatively or productively to this? Probably not. Did it eliminate all fights, bullying, insubordination or acting out? No. But PS 90 experienced a very low rate of serious bad behavior compared to other NYC schools. I believe it was largely due to their calm, dispassionate and consistent approach to maintaining order, including the calling the parents method, which had the effect of not letting parents be "absent."

The right choice isn't always the same choice, and there's no such thing as a useless tool. Physical negative reinforcement is a tool. Easily abused, true, but a tool nevertheless. Properly used, it can prove beneficial to all concerned, but throwing it out entirely on the basis of abuse and it's byproducts makes for as poor an argument as firearms being the sole cause of crime.

I don't know that I've ever met anyone who thought firearms were the sole cause of "crime". The sole cause of shooting deaths, perhaps. But the body isn't a musical instrument and beating kids isn't the right to bear arms, so stick to the discussion, Socrates.

*snip*

Okay, I understand that this discussion has become pretty heated, so I'm going to assume your tone is borne out of frustration at what you perceive to be a lack of understanding of and willingness to accept responsibility.

I certainly do not think I can put hands on anyone, anywhere in the world, and escape responsibility for it. My response was to your assertion that a parent would have to have video footage of your child being violent. Obviously that was a bit of hyperbole (I don't think teachers are allowed to set up classroom cameras), and I was trying to show you an example or two of when reasonable force for restraint may be necessary for a SHORT period of time.

If any situation like that occurs (it's only happened twice), I certainly notify the parents immediately and sit down with them to discuss it. If anything like that occurs, I've usually talked to the parents about their child many times before this, so it's not totally out of the blue. If you knew that your child had several previous violent outbursts which you discussed with teachers, principal and counselor at length, it would be a very different situation than your child randomly coming home with a bruise with no explanation.

Okay, I understand that this discussion has become pretty heated, so I'm going to assume your tone is borne out of frustration at what you perceive to be a lack of understanding of and willingness to accept responsibility.

I certainly do not think I can put hands on anyone, anywhere in the world, and escape responsibility for it. My response was to your assertion that a parent would have to have video footage of your child being violent. Obviously that was a bit of hyperbole (I don't think teachers are aloud to set up classroom cameras), and I was trying to show you an example or two of when reasonable force for restraint may be necessary for a SHORT period of time.

If any situation like that occurs (it's only happened twice), I certainly notify the parents immediately and sit down with them to discuss it. If anything like that occurs, I've usually talked to the parents about their child many times before this, so it's not totally out of the blue. If you knew that your child had several previous violent outbursts which you discussed with teachers, principal and counselor at length, it would be a very different situation than your child randomly coming home with a bruise with no explanation.
My tone was meant to convey the degree to which excuses, justifications and off-point anecdtoes about how individual teachers try to do their best, fall upon deaf ears with an angry parent.

None of that stuff matters, from the parent's point of view. As a parent responsible for the welfare of my child, I cannot and should not ever get to a point where I do not demand satisfactory explanations for bruises on my child. I should never get the point where I just assume what happened, no matter what behavioral issues I may know my child to have. I would be derelict in my duty if I did not treat every single instance with the same level of concern.

And I'm sorry, but I don't care what the limitations on schools are. The school's restrictions and limitations are not my problem. My responsibility is to look out for my child, not to be considerate and cooperative with the school.

And it is my personal opinion that if a school system -- I'm talking about school boards and administrators -- took a mature and professional attitude towards what they do, they would operate on the assumption that all parents will respond this way and have systems/procedures in place to cover their asses in case they do get called to account for how they handled someone's child. In other words, they would figure out how to get sufficient evidence to justify their actions.

Also, if they were to take a mature and professional attitude towards their own work, they would know that if they fail to justify their actions, then they will have to suffer a consequence, regardless of the circumstances, and rather than whine and cry about it, they'd be prepared for it, just like governments and businessess prepare themselves for such setbacks (insurance, legal advice, etc).

What I see in this thread is me saying that, as a parent, I would (A) be an assertive advocate for my child, (B) have very strict rules in place for how other adults are permitted to interact with my child and specifically a prohibition against other people physically hurting my child, (C) enforce those rules in every single instance including calling people who use force on my child to account for their actions, and (D) take aggressive action to redress any violation of such rules which cannot be justified to my satisfaction as a parent. And then I see a bunch of people getting very personally defensive about that and, even though they themselves oppose corporal punishment, rushing in with all kinds of ancedotal stories about specific instances that they hope somehow generally justify teachers using force on a student.

But none of it changes a thing as far as the parent is concerned. Justify your actions in any given specific situation, and the parent will be willing to work with you. Fail to justify your actions in any given specific situation, and you will have conflict with the parent.

If my kid has bruises because you had to use force to pull him out of the way of a bus or keep him from toppling out a window, fine, thank you. It should not be so difficult to persuade me that that really happened.

But if my kid has bruises and you admit that you hit or beat him and say it was justified because of some bad behavior you accuse him of, well, then you had damned well better be able to convince me that that really happened, or you are in for a fight way nastier and longer than anything my child might have inflicted on you.

Rather than take this personally, Ryadn, put what I am saying into the context of the OP. If JBS gets its way, and the entire Florida school system decides to start encouraging corporal punishment, do you think my attitude would be unreasonable? I don't. I think it would be appropriate to such a circumstance.

Another example within the thread. Non-Aligned States has claimed that he approves of corporal punishment only as a last resort, but in one of his recent posts to Sarkhaan, he describes using corporal punishment as part of a three-step disciplinary response to a student committing minor property damage. To me, that is outrageous, and if any teacher were to hit, spank, paddle or strap my child for such an offense, I would not rest until that person was unemployed, possibly facing an assault charge, and the system he/she worked for changed its policies. If it took years to accomplish the destruction of their career and reputation, well, I'd just add that to my list of hobbies, next to my knitting. That is how strongly I feel that people like that have no business working anywhere near other people's children.

Breaking windows, pipes, electrical wiring, damaging faculty cars, that sort of thing.
Call the police, have the student charged with vandalism. Still no need to touch the kid.

Consider. By Maslow's hierarchy, any higher level is less important to the individual than a lower, base level correct?
More or less.
Now you can correctly argue that they can attempt to fulfill a higher need at the risk of the lower.they could

However, the key factor is risk. If risk instead becomes a certainty, and the certainty is linked specifically to a specific act, then fulfilling that higher need would be shelved in favor of ensuring that the lower needs are fulfilled correct?Generally yes.



This occurs if you fail to make the connection between crime and punishment apparent to both the perpetrator and the rest of the class. It doesn't matter what sort of punishment you use here, but if you fail to make the connection clear to the class, any sort of punishment will fail without exception.And yet, hitting the kid still instills fear, even if you rationalize that they deserve it to the entire class. More than any other punishment.

I agree with Zaijin's approach.

As a teacher, Sarkhaan, you are looking for a way to address an issue with many children, but from the parents' point of view, each parent is ONLY responsible for their own child(ren).

Obviously, the "if my kid acts up, the teacher should call me to deal with it," will not address every single instance a teacher has to deal with, but it does suggest one part of an operating procedure.

I was lucky enough to attend one of the best elementary schools in NYC (good old PS 90), and they actually did use that disciplinary approach. A student who acted out disruptively and would not comply with in-class controls/disciplines by the teacher would be sent out of the class. Depending on their emotional state, they would either be taken to the principal's office or the nurse's office (for kids who were very upset about something, the nurse's office was a quiet, calming environment removed from school traffic, where there was a cot to lie on and the lights could be turned down). While in that time-out, one of the school staff would ALWAYS call the parent/caregiver to inform them of the incident and either (a) require the parent to come get the child, (b) inform the parent of how the school intended to handle it, or (c) get instruction/approval from the parent as to how to handle it (as with special needs kids).

Did every parent respond cooperatively or productively to this? Probably not. Did it eliminate all fights, bullying, insubordination or acting out? No. But PS 90 experienced a very low rate of serious bad behavior compared to other NYC schools. I believe it was largely due to their calm, dispassionate and consistent approach to maintaining order, including the calling the parents method, which had the effect of not letting parents be "absent."
Parents can still be quite absent, even with constant phone calls. I agree that parents should be involved in discipline. The harsh reality is they can't always be. I had students whose parents couldn't speak any English. I had students whose parents worked pretty much constantly. And I had students whose parents really just didn't care.

It is wonderful when there is a helpful parent at home. That isn't always the case. I still make the attempt, I just don't always get the help I request.

Schools are not and should not be a dating service. :D

but teachers also need love! :D


seriously tho.

It should be the parent's who discipline their children. for the most part, they do. however, the problem arises when the parents don't discipline their children or are so centered on their child and their viewpoint that 'their child does no wrong so it's the other child's/teacher's fault'.

Outside of self defence, there should (key word SHOULD) be no reason to inflict any sort of physical violence on a child.

but in a perfect world, there would also be no crime, no poverty, no homeless...

Schools are not and should not be a dating service. :D

Sadomasochistic acts of a sexual nature do not necessarily imply a dating relationship.

Parents can still be quite absent, even with constant phone calls. I agree that parents should be involved in discipline. The harsh reality is they can't always be. I had students whose parents couldn't speak any English. I had students whose parents worked pretty much constantly. And I had students whose parents really just didn't care.

It is wonderful when there is a helpful parent at home. That isn't always the case. I still make the attempt, I just don't always get the help I request.
Once again, I understand what you are saying, but, for the parent, your problems do not matter. The problems of other parents do not matter. The problems caused by other parents do not matter. Each individual parent/set of parents is ONLY concerned with how you interact with their child. So, since I'm arguing the parental point of view, nothing being said by you and several other people, who are arguing the teacher's point of view, matters.

A parent like me is someone you either work with or work around. But you won't get a parent like me to say, "OK, I see your point of view." The reason is that I DO see your point of view, but it is irrelevant to my position and my responsibilities. Involved parents can be an asset and a resource to teachers, but ONLY if the work with the parents, starting with respecting the parents' authority and following the parents' rules regarding their child. Failure to do that would turn such a parent from being a partner to being a problem.

I'm thinking about sigging this. :D

You won't do it, but the OLD Muravyets would. :tongue:

You won't do it, but the OLD Muravyets would. :tongue:
The old Muravyets heard you and woke from her coma. ;)

the old muravyets heard you and woke from her coma. ;)

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :D

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee! :D
However, you are now contributing to a misleading trend in my sig. I'm either going to have to vary my sig quotes or my lifestyle. ;)

1) It would reveal to you the answers to all your (vague and misleading) questions, which are actually already addressed because I went to the trouble of presenting a complete position. So if you bothered to read them, you would not keep treading the same water over and over.


Since making long quotes to prove that I did read it is a bit counter-productive, I will point out the post number, provide summaries, and will go up to the point where our argument began.

For the purpose of elaboration, the "Her", in summaries refers to you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030100&postcount=30
Summary of Post #30
Lists a great deal of ranting and threats of terrible retribution, including assault, should anyone physically discipline her child and dares to, "disrupt my chain of command", insisting that any and all matters be brought before her for judgment. Notable comments in regards to vengeance:

"I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school" "their miserable, worthless lives", "Whatever it takes", "no matter what I have to do."

She also promised to teach her children to continue this practice.

Comment: No qualifier was present in this post as to what extent of act her progeny can carry out before she would relinquish her "chain of command", or for that matter, how sShe would deal with any infractions of discipline.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030120&postcount=32
Summary of Post #32
Joke response to Vault 10. Presumable image response to Cameroi. Image cannot be seen.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030152&postcount=36
Summary of Post #36
Response to Peepelonia.

Denial of threats of physical violence as retribution. Boasts about how to work the governmental machine. Threats to ensure employment termination of anyone who physically disciplines your child. Some maternal praise.

Claims of never being struck in 4 generations. Claims of working well in society and under authority until authority exerts authority "push us around". Promise of retributions if authority is exerted.

List of personal schooling experience. Claims of working well in most cases. Claims of maternal figure "dealing" with teachers when grades are unsatisfactory. Threats implied. Derogatory labels applied.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030168&postcount=40
Summary of Post #40
Demands that any attempt to physically restrain your child be accompanied with video proof.

Comment: Similarities to legal requirements to produce 4 upstanding witnesses in rape cases in certain ME countries are astounding. Maybe we should install cameras in the teachers.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030175&postcount=43
Summary of Post #43
Response to Kamsaki-Myu. Claims of interpretations of promised violence in her posts are assumptions. Makes no reference to her previous statement of
"I belong to the parent-as-bodyguard/legbreaker school"

Claims that those who interpret violence in her promises are because of the violent inclinations in them and that they are the source of the problem.

States that there is no problem with force application from her side. Does not allow that the same applies to her. First statement of "let them reap what they sow"

Comment: Scientology much?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030182&postcount=46
Summary of Post #46
Response to Vault 10. "Bullshit".


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030186&postcount=47
Summary of Post #47
Response to Peepelonia
See Post #43. Statements very similar.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030198&postcount=48
Summary of Post#48
Claims of irony in Peepelonia and Vault 10's analysis of her posts that promises physical violence as retribution. Claims that sShe only supports forceful (non-violent) retribution. Attempts at obfuscating legal direction of physical force and illegal direction of physical force.

Comment: Breaking legs isn't violence now? Or is that a new dance form?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030207&postcount=51
Summary of Post #51
Response to Vault 10
Claims that Vault 10 never stood up for his rights when offended. Claims of Vault 10 having no argument. Claims that it is nonsense and will waste no time on it.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030209&postcount=52
Summary of Post #52
Response to Vault 10
Claims that there is no difference between minor physical harm and breaking legs.

Comment: Wouldn't that mean being in the school of leg breaking is violence then hmm?



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030260&postcount=58
Summary of Post #58
Response to Peepelonia
Claims that her words, if from another person, would not be interpreted by her as violence.

States that violence in her area is less likely to occur prior to forceful words. Claims that tough talk is in jest.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030271&postcount=61
Summary of Post #61
Response to Kamsaki-Myu
States that no discourse is possible after application of corporal punishment. Demands the applicator be terminated by school authorities before discussion possible. Again no allowance for actions of progeny or even justification.

More comments on reaping what they sow and turnabout. Focused entirely on responding figures, not on initiators.

Promises to be an enemy to anyone who strikes her child.

Comment: You're either with me, or I screw you?


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030278&postcount=64
Summary of Post #64
Response to Peepelonia
Claims of Peepelonia supporting spanking as corporal punishment. Provides supporting statements. States now is the time to clarify position.

Comment: And when I ask for her to clarify sShe gets all huffed up.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030282&postcount=65
Summary of Post #65
Response to Vault 10
States ignorance as to how "namby-pamby" navy is. States her culture not as violent.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030287&postcount=66
Summary of Post #66
Response to Vault 10
States that if Vault 10 were a principal of a school, she would not only keep her children away, but begin a campaign of defamation against Vault 10.

Comment: Ruining other people's lives because you don't agree with them. What fun!


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030301&postcount=68
Summary of Post #68
Response to Vault 10
Statement that Vault 10 has violence as an option. Query of how often violence occurs. Statement that violence is rare in her area and that it is never a last resort.

Claims that she doesn't ignore others to make lies about what others intend to do.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030312&postcount=70
Summary of Post #70
Response to Vault 10
Claims that Vault 10 is a troll. Claims that his argument used strawmen, deflection techniques and false dichotomy.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030328&postcount=72
Summary of Post #72
Response to Peepelonia
More claims that only violently inclined people are likely to assume violence (context: when faced with word interpretation). More claims that people like that are the root of the problem.

Interprets statement of "Meh" as concession to her stance.

Comment: And of course vengeance and ruining lives is perfectly fine and never contributes to problems, nope, nope, nope.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030367&postcount=75
Summary of Post #75
Response to Peepelonia
Highlights of portions of the article. States that Peepelonia's earlier agreement with it as full support for all measures found within the article.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14030370&postcount=76
Summary of Post #76
Response to Peepelonia
Just sarcasm.




2) It would show me that you are sincerely interested in understanding what my position is, rather than just spewing self-serving bullshit.

Or maybe it would show that you may be one of those types who believes in familial vengeance, regardless of what the family has done.

The summary of your posts show that you have an untouchables mindset, not uncommon among, but not exclusive to, the privileged of society, who use their influence to escape justice. You demand that adults face accountability when meting out punishments on your children, but make no claims of such when your children are the initiators. This will likely come to grief when faced against someone with greater influence and an axe to grind for the actions of your progeny.

In short, you've not substantially answered one question of mine. Rants of terrible vengeance and raging may be an answer to some, but not to me.


Now, as to the rest of your post, all of it is addressed at least partially in the posts you refuse to read.

Partially is not complete, and as pointed out above, I did read them.


Until you do so, I will not waste more of my time pointing out to you that your questions are vague, misleading, lacking in substance, and redundant (because the answers to what they seem to be are already in the thread).


Liar. They're not. All your answers have been about wreaking vengeance on those who carry out corporal punishment and how it's the fault of anyone who thinks it might have merit because they have violent inclinations.


We have now danced around this barn enough times. You asked me to explain my position. I pointed you to writings that explain my position.


What, that dissent against your position is because of violent inclinations and that it's the problem?

Your position is a little bit clear in other matters, notably in how you're a spiteful person willing to do whatever it takes to bring ruin down on others if they cross your path.

And more telling, in how you will let your progeny run rampant with little to any control from your end, if your mother's treatment of you is any indication, while making sure that anyone who notices the problem and acts on it will be brought as much lifelong harm as you can direct.

More ironically, I find it most telling how you advocated "win-win" solutions in the other thread and how integrative approaches would be for the best for everyone and should be first attempted, but here you are, throwing it all out to carry out acts of vengeance as first options.

Someone it seems, has weak convictions, easily thrown out when convenient.

Analysis indicates that you will now claim that I've not read anything, am making more false dichotomies, maybe a strawman argument, claim that I am part of the problem with my "violent" inclinations, and will place me on the ignore list.


Non-Aligned States has claimed that he approves of corporal punishment only as a last resort, but in one of her recent posts to Sarkhaan, he describes using corporal punishment as part of a three-step disciplinary response to a student committing minor property damage.

Of course. Major property damage such as arson would be treated as a criminal case, well outside the jurisdiction of any educational facility, and I would advocate full criminal charges and hefty punishments equal to damage caused. Long jail terms, or perhaps forced labor until the damage was paid off, would be quite suitable in those cases.

I would not care one whit if they were children. If they are old enough to comprehend intent and destruction with intent, they are old enough to face the consequences as adults.

No doubt, you would still see it as an outrage.

Perhaps you would not mind taking their place then? Putting parents in jail for the crimes of their offspring might make people take parenting a little bit more responsibly I think.



To me, that is outrageous, and if any teacher were to hit, spank, paddle or strap my child for such an offense, I would not rest until that person was unemployed, possibly facing an assault charge, and the system he/she worked for changed its policies. If it took years to accomplish the destruction of their career and reputation, well, I'd just add that to my list of hobbies, next to my knitting.

Is that so? I do wonder what you will do if a certain number of children were to break every window in your house and trash the electrical wiring.

I look forward to you not doing a thing. Because after all, it's "not your chain of command" to interfere in.

Call the police, have the student charged with vandalism. Still no need to touch the kid.

I would consider that minor property damage, and within the schools jurisdiction to mete out discipline. But the police and criminal charges will suffice I suppose. That is, if they will be meted out punishments equal to the damage they cause.


More or less.
they could

Generally yes.

So would not the certainty of threats to lower level needs work as to prevent undesired and disruptive higher level needs fulfillment?


And yet, hitting the kid still instills fear, even if you rationalize that they deserve it to the entire class. More than any other punishment.


Fear is the glue that holds society together. Too much of it, and you'll get an angry society, true, but too little, and you get a self serving society willing to break itself apart for immediate individual goals anyway.

Although upon further thought, there are a variety of ways to get that kind of fear that won't involve corporal punishment or any form of physical harm. A great deal more fear. But that would be far more controversial than merely corporal punishment.

So would not the certainty of threats to lower level needs work as to prevent undesired and disruptive higher level needs fulfillment?
Assuming the student is sane? Yes. It would help to stop disruptive behavior.
That doesn't mean the student will learn, however.
Nor does it mean that other students will learn.

Firstly, education works best when the student trusts the teacher. Second, I demand respect in my classroom. I will not treat them in any way less than I expect them to treat me. If I expect that they will not spank me if I do something wrong, I will not do so to them. Thirdly, I teach English and make frequent use of discussion. Discussion fails when you have petrified little automatons who are afraid to step out of line. Fourth, corporal punishment teaches "Fear me, for I am big and you are small", rather than "Consider this. Why were your actions wrong? Why do we discourage them?". Follow the leader vs. critical thinking.


Fear is the glue that holds society together. Too much of it, and you'll get an angry society, true, but too little, and you get a self serving society willing to break itself apart for immediate individual goals anyway.
Altruism is not reliant upon fear.
Although upon further thought, there are a variety of ways to get that kind of fear that won't involve corporal punishment or any form of physical harm. A great deal more fear. But that would be far more controversial than merely corporal punishment.

I have great control in my classroom without the need for corporal punishment or whatever this other form is that you allude to.

Assuming the student is sane? Yes. It would help to stop disruptive behavior.
That doesn't mean the student will learn, however.
Nor does it mean that other students will learn.

That would depend on what they are supposed to learn isn't it? If you mean the why's that they shouldn't do something, insofar as I know, there isn't a foolproof method for doing so, or any combination of methods that would yield 100% results.

As for insane students, well, that's not really a task for teachers or educational facilities but psychologists.


Firstly, education works best when the student trusts the teacher. Second, I demand respect in my classroom. I will not treat them in any way less than I expect them to treat me.

This works, but only to an extent.


If I expect that they will not spank me if I do something wrong, I will not do so to them.


We also generally expect educators to educate their students, as well as keep order in their classroom and not vice versa do we not? You can't uphold the do unto argument universally.


Thirdly, I teach English and make frequent use of discussion.


Class participation is all well and good, but that doesn't exactly address the issue of disruptive students does it?


Discussion fails when you have petrified little automatons who are afraid to step out of line.

Hence why corporal punishment cannot be the only tool to be used.


Fourth, corporal punishment teaches "Fear me, for I am big and you are small", rather than "Consider this. Why were your actions wrong? Why do we discourage them?". Follow the leader vs. critical thinking.

I did specify that the crime and the reasons why it was a crime were to be explained first did I not? Corporal punishment without that fails as an educational tool.


Altruism is not reliant upon fear.


Altruism, honest altruism, is rare.


I have great control in my classroom without the need for corporal punishment or whatever this other form is that you allude to.

So you do. And I have known classrooms where there wasn't, though the teachers did do as you stated on this thread.

Since making long quotes to prove that I did read it is a bit counter-productive, I will point out the post number, provide summaries, and will go up to the point where our argument began.

<snip>

Is that so? I do wonder what you will do if a certain number of children were to break every window in your house and trash the electrical wiring.

I look forward to you not doing a thing. Because after all, it's "not your chain of command" to interfere in.
What I won't do is physically attack them.

You have gone to a lot of trouble on my request. For that I thank you.

However, you have also gone to a lot of trouble to misrepresent my statements and to pepper your references to my arguments with snide, insulting and condescending wisecracks and characterizations. And the "argument" you seem to be building around all that seems to be even purer BS than before. For that, I do not thank you.

However, that is only what appears at a cursory glance. I need to take some time to carefully read through all your comments and compose a proper, on-topic response. I will do that in a day or two.

Then I will probably put you on ignore because you really are not actually addressing the arguments of the topic at all. This is very much like my other experience of you. You're really doing nothing but busting my chops.

However, you are now contributing to a misleading trend in my sig. I'm either going to have to vary my sig quotes or my lifestyle. ;)

I'm sure Neo Art will help you with the latter anytime you like. :tongue:

I'm sure Neo Art will help you with the latter anytime you like. :tongue:

This will take some....extra work.

Alright Mur, bend over....

I'm sure Neo Art will help you with the latter anytime you like. :tongue:

This will take some....extra work.

Alright Mur, bend over....
Ah, I'd love to have fun with this, but alas, I've been reading through Non-Aligned States' post that he expects me to respond to, and it is so full of lies, misrepresentations, deflections, fallacies, ad hominems, and pure bullshit that it is sapping all the joy out of the evening for me. I'm going to bed. I'll think about his crap tomorrow. Or maybe the next day. Actually, definitely the next day. I'm in no rush to sort out his nonsense. It's so convoluted, I may have to print it out and cut the paragraphs apart and organize them on a chart. I'm only going to respond in full to it because I said I would, but then I'm putting that... person on ignore for the rest of my life. For the sake of my ability to enjoy this forum.

What a bother.

Ah, I'd love to have fun with this, but alas, I've been reading through Non-Aligned States' post that he expects me to respond to, and it is so full of lies, misrepresentations, deflections, fallacies, ad hominems, and pure bullshit that it is sapping all the joy out of the evening for me.

was that a "no" I heard out of you?

was that a "no" I heard out of you?
It was despondency. I'm not sure you can spank a person out of a despondent funk.

While I am against corporal punishment to be used at schools, especially since there would be some teachers who would abuse that power. I do know that had I known that I would get 'six of the best' for many of the things that I did while at school, half of the stuff I did I would never consider doing let alone think about doing it.

I think the current discipline system is fairly poor but there has got to be a better way of doing these things. Certainly not being sent outside to do your work because you were playing a game of classroom golf. That was fun to be outside, I accepted being punished but the fun I got out of misbehaving far outweighed the punishment I would receive for it. [/POINTLESS POST]

It was despondency. I'm not sure you can spank a person out of a despondent funk.

you have obviously never gotten spanked by me then....

you have obviously never gotten spanked by me then....

Check your TGs.

Check your TGs.

Woah, I had no idea you were into THAT. I mean...alright, I'll try anything once, but where do I get a rubber sheep costume, a neon yellow corset, and laderhosen at this time of night?

And what are you going to wear?

I mean..um....replied.

Woah, I had no idea you were into THAT. I mean...alright, I'll try anything once, but where do I get a rubber sheep costume, a neon yellow corset, and laderhosen at this time of night?

And what are you going to wear?

I mean..um....replied.
Oh, I know a store that's open 24 hours.

Oops. I mean, TG. ;) :D

Ah, I'd love to have fun with this, but alas, I've been reading through Non-Aligned States' post that he expects me to respond to, and it is so full of lies, misrepresentations, deflections, fallacies, ad hominems, and pure bullshit that it is sapping all the joy out of the evening for me..

Lies. Really. No need to respond then. I can estimate what you are likely to say. Goodbye Muravyets. I will no longer aggravate you.

Lies. Really. No need to respond then. I can estimate what you are likely to say. Goodbye Muravyets. I will no longer aggravate you.

shhhh, you're not the center of attention anymore.

Oh, I know a store that's open 24 hours.

Oops. I mean, TG. ;) :D

You like TransGender? Imaginary (magic, sci-fi transformations) or real (operations)? ;)

Well, regardless of what you like, I liked your responses in this thread...

-Snip-
Telegram!

Lies. Really. No need to respond then. I can estimate what you are likely to say. Goodbye Muravyets. I will no longer aggravate you.
Good. But I'm still going to post my response to your nonsense, because you made a few accusations against me that I cannot allow to slide by. But don't worry, you will not need to respond to it, because I fully intend to have you on ignore thereafter. I suggest you do the same with me if you haven't already.