Corporal Punishment in Schools

I remember one time as a freshman in high school one teacher threatened that she might resort to corporal punishment against one particular problem student. Most of the class was sure that that was illegal, but she explained it was just highly regulated. She would certainly be sued if his parents did not first sign a waiver. She might even have sent such a waver home with the kid, but he sure didn't hand it to them. I think she was also told that it was the district's policy not to allow corporal punishment unless the parents were physically present in the room at the time. I think in the end she settled for the far easier punishment of long term suspension.
 
You are conflating a beating as in abuse with punishment. Their is a difference between punishing a child for doing wrong and just beating a child for the sake of it. If you are not teaching your children that this little pain is better than the potential consequences latter on in life. Beating your child just for the sake of is not punishment it is you taking your anger out on them, a span on the bottom should never be done out of anger.

There is no difference between beating a child and abuse. They way you intend to teach a child is seriously flawed in my opinion. You want the child to avoid "potential consequences" when he/she is older, but not because he/she understands these consequences, but because he/she subconsciously fears the pain that may come from the action.
Take as example a man who was beaten as a child at school because he didn't obey an order from his teacher. The lesson in this case is to obey any orders from more powerful people without questioning.
 
There is no difference between beating a child and abuse.

This is simply wrong. Of course there is.

They way you intend to teach a child is seriously flawed in my opinion.

Do you have kids? Tell you what...you raise your kids how you want, and let others raise them how they want.

Take as example a man who was beaten as a child at school because he didn't obey an order from his teacher. The lesson in this case is to obey any orders from more powerful people without questioning.

And what if the order were something like 'dont run in front of that car!'...??? Or something similarly lethal?

Why make the failed assumption that such punishment is only done for the detriment of the individual? Especially when its simply not?
 
Do you have kids? Tell you what...you raise your kids how you want, and let others raise them how they want.

Why do you discuss when you are not interested in my opinion?


And what if the order were something like 'dont run in front of that car!'...??? Or something similarly lethal?

Why make the failed assumption that such punishment is only done for the detriment of the individual? Especially when its simply not?

I'm not saying that. I wasn't beaten as a child and hardly anyone I know was. We all learned that you shouldn't cross the street when a car comes close. All I'm saying is that there is no occasion where it is absolutely necessary to beat a child and when you do you take the risk that you cause much more harm to body and soul than just a bit pain.
 
There is no difference between beating a child and abuse. They way you intend to teach a child is seriously flawed in my opinion. You want the child to avoid "potential consequences" when he/she is older, but not because he/she understands these consequences, but because he/she subconsciously fears the pain that may come from the action.
Take as example a man who was beaten as a child at school because he didn't obey an order from his teacher. The lesson in this case is to obey any orders from more powerful people without questioning.

This example is flawed because it does not mention what type of thing the order was, for example ordering them to stand on their head is very different from ordering them not to cheat.
 
This example is flawed because it does not mention what type of thing the order was, for example ordering them to stand on their head is very different from ordering them not to cheat.

Take as example that the teacher ordered him to take another seat in the classroom.
 
Why? The why matters too.

Let's assume that the pupil does not know it. Maybe the teacher wants to separate him from another pupil, maybe he just wants to teach him better. The point is that the pupil gets his corporal punishment for disobedience and not for anything that happened before.
 
Why do you discuss when you are not interested in my opinion?

Uhm. Ditto? Actually, I discuss to counter your opinion.

I'm not saying that. I wasn't beaten as a child and hardly anyone I know was. We all learned that you shouldn't cross the street when a car comes close. All I'm saying is that there is no occasion where it is absolutely necessary to beat a child and when you do you take the risk that you cause much more harm to body and soul than just a bit pain.

Well, almost everyone I grew up with was spanked to one degree or another. It was common practice in rural Arkansas where I grew up. And not a single person I knew grew up to be an axe murderer (or to a lesser degree - violent, or having problems with violence their whole lives).

And how can 2 or 3 whacks on your bottom 'cause 'much more harm to body and soul'?

Isnt that just more than a bit overstated? I mean CP has been around litterally since time began - the way you describe it, it lays such waste to a person that its a wonder we've advanced at all as humans.

However, we both know thats simply not the case.

Between beating and abuse? I'd say beating is abuse.

The fallacy is when some people assume spanking=beating, which it doesn't need to be the same.

When I read it I took him to indicate that beating = spanking. Gotta remember your target audience, even when arguing semantics. :D
 
Well, almost everyone I grew up with was spanked to one degree or another. It was common practice in rural Arkansas where I grew up. And not a single person I knew grew up to be an axe murderer (or to a lesser degree - violent, or having problems with violence their whole lives).

Statistics is weird in that way. Almost no one becomes an axe murderer anyway, or even becomes violent (e.g. child abuse is 'only' around 2% in US); regular CP simply increases the chance at the margins. So most people who are spanked come out okay, but the point is that they would come out better if pain was not used as a disciplinary tool. Kind of like torture vs. traditional interrogation.
 
And how can 2 or 3 whacks on your bottom 'cause 'much more harm to body and soul'?

Isnt that just more than a bit overstated? I mean CP has been around litterally since time began - the way you describe it, it lays such waste to a person that its a wonder we've advanced at all as humans.

However, we both know thats simply not the case.

I can turn this argument back and tell you that in some countries, corporal punishment for children is outlawed for almost a century and noone misses it.
You might want to read something about the Psychological_trauma.

In previous posts in this thread I constructed an example where a child was beaten to obey his teacher. The person might grow up and become a soldier and a guard in a Guantanamo-like prison or something worse. I think it is very likely that such a person will not deny a command to torture and kill because he subconsciously fears the pain that he might suffer from not obeying.

edit: "worse" relates to the Guantanamo-like prison, not to the job as a guard.
 
Statistics is weird in that way. Almost no one becomes an axe murderer anyway, or even becomes violent (e.g. child abuse is 'only' around 2% in US); regular CP simply increases the chance at the margins. So most people who are spanked come out okay, but the point is that they would come out better if pain was not used as a disciplinary tool. Kind of like torture vs. traditional interrogation.

Don't blame the medicine if the doctor prescribes one hundred times the maximum dose and it kills the person
 
Don't blame the medicine if the doctor prescribes one hundred times the maximum dose and it kills the person

:sad: But the medicine is already inferior in the first place; there are more effective prescriptions.
 
Statistics is weird in that way. Almost no one becomes an axe murderer anyway, or even becomes violent (e.g. child abuse is 'only' around 2% in US); regular CP simply increases the chance at the margins. So most people who are spanked come out okay, but the point is that they would come out better if pain was not used as a disciplinary tool. Kind of like torture vs. traditional interrogation.

Define 'better'? Also, bear in mind that such an allegation is entirely subjective and thus hugely debatable.

I can turn this argument back and tell you that in some countries, corporal punishment for children is outlawed for almost a century and noone misses it.

I didnt realize you spoke for entire nations.

Just because something is outlawed doesnt mean it still doesnt get practiced - nor does it indicate how well its enforced. Besides, I wouldnt want to live in a country that tells a parent how they should parent to that degree.

You might want to read something about the Psychological_trauma.

Giving a kid a few whacks on the bum isnt a 'traumatic event'....and I suggest that if it is, then your doing it wrong.

In previous posts in this thread I constructed an example where a child was beaten to obey his teacher. The person might grow up and become a soldier and a guard in a Guantanamo-like prison or something worse.

Or they may grow up to be Mother Teresa or another Einstein. :rolleyes:

Btw, just because a soldier is a guard in Gitmo it doesnt make them a violent monster. Thats a terrible fallacy for you to pursue.

I think it is very likely that such a person will not deny a command to torture and kill because he subconsciously fears the pain that he might suffer from not obeying.

I know for a fact your're wrong in your assumption as soldiers are indeed taught what an illegal order is, and that would be an illegal order.

You dont know very much about soldiers do you?
 
:sad: But the medicine is already inferior in the first place; there are more effective prescriptions.

It works, but some people have no idea on the correct dosage.
 
Giving a kid a few whacks on the bum isnt a 'traumatic event'....and I suggest that if it is, then your doing it wrong.

It doesn't work like that.
If you rape a woman she will usually get a trauma even though the physical pain may be negligible.


Btw, just because a soldier is a guard in Gitmo it doesnt make them a violent monster. Thats a terrible fallacy for you to pursue.

I have never said that. Edit: I have edited earlier post to make the meaning clear.

I know for a fact your're wrong in your assumption as soldiers are indeed taught what an illegal order is, and that would be an illegal order.

I know perfectly well what an illegal order is. What is your point? I claim that many people will commit horrible crimes when they get a direct order to do so, no matter if the order is illegal. And it seems reasonable to believe that if they were, as a child, taught by force to obey, they are much more vulnerable to such kind of behaviour.
 
It doesn't work like that.
If you rape a woman she will usually get a trauma even though the physical pain may be negligible.

Now your comparing spanking to rape in terms of psychological trauma? :confused:

Please. Just stop. The two simply arent comparable in any way, shape or form. I never ever got a spanking (or gave one) without absolutely knowing wth I was getting one for. I knew I did wrong, and this was the ramification of my own behavior. I never, ever, EVER held it against someone (teacher or parent) that spanked me for the simple reason I never got a spanking I didnt deserve.

Thats not to say some kids do get spankings they dont deserve. Of course they do. But in those cases, those are parents that are 'doing it wrong', not because spanking is wrong.

I have never said that.

Then what was the implication you were going for in even equating spanking with a soldier at gitmo? :crazyeye:

I mean really. If dont see how you can deny what you were implying there.

I know perfectly well what an illegal order is. What is your point?

My point is you cant assume what anonymous soldier X at Gitmo is going to do in the face of an illegal order, and in fact the odds simply arent that they would torture some inmate like that. The vast, vast majority of guards conduct themselves in a completely professional manner, and while misconduct by a soldier is a possibility, the vast probability is that they will act professionally and not the way you allege.

I claim that many people will commit horrible crimes when they get a direct order to do so, no matter if the order is illegal.

And while I fully acknowledge that some few might, I dispute your claim of 'many'. Real facts just dont back that up, and generally people that think every soldier is a criminal base this perception by what they see on the evening news and nothing more.

And it seems reasonable to believe that if they were, as a child, taught by force to obey, they are much more vulnerable to such kind of behaviour.

I dont see that as reasonable at all. In fact, I find it ridiculous.
 
Just like at home, there shouldn't be corporal, but rather psychological, punishment.
 
My greatest concern with spanking being equated with abuse is that one day, something such as the corner could be lumped in as abuse too.

Reward is good, but isn't discipline as well? What forms of discipline cannot qualify as abuse?

Discipline is a harsh reality of life; if you do bad at your job, you don't get told "there there." You get fired.

Just like at home, there shouldn't be corporal, but rather psychological, punishment.

I am intrigued. Please elaborate, if you'd be willing. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom