Corporal punishment

[Ace]

......

And when I say, "No, they aren't the 'same," you call that "backpedaling."

I call it nuance.

Nuance, thy name is ****.

For the record, when you get into a disagreement with someone, you don't get to dictate the terms of how they respond.

If you want to keep arguing with yourself, go for it.

 

[armageddon]

Have no desire to get in the middle of the heavyweight bout going on but will offer two thoughts:

1) Wish we still had corporal punishment in schools. Did in my day and I always thought it was an effective tool (when used properly). I know it worked on me in those rare instances I felt it (school and home).

2) Why not used on adults? Maybe we think it won't be an effective tool? Fear of abuse charges? Don't know. But I'm sure guards have used physical force when they felt appropriate/necessary. And wouldn't solitary be similar to corporal punishment?

 

[printdust]

No, the liberal pitch is that violent actions never solve anything.

Which is why our schools are totally out of control as compared to 1980, 70, 60 and so on.

And the world is out of control because of the pacifists who don't want to offend.

 

[RickStain]

No, the liberal pitch is that violent actions never solve anything.

Which is why our schools are totally out of control as compared to 1980, 70, 60 and so on.

And the world is out of control because of the pacifists who don't want to offend.

Things these days, they are so much worse than they were back in the good old days.

Repeated ad nauseum, throughout history.

 

[Ace]

No, the liberal pitch is that violent actions never solve anything.

Which is why our schools are totally out of control as compared to 1980, 70, 60 and so on.

And the world is out of control because of the pacifists who don't want to offend.

You mean like kids bringing guns to school and shooting up the place? I agree and will support your gun control efforts.

Where can I sign?

 

[printdust]

We fear nothing and hence, we respect nothing.

 

[outofplace]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

It is hilarious that you, of all posters, would be lecturing people about being more "civil."

I didn't characterize corporal punishment as we know it and think of it as physical torture. I said that surely "physical torture" - corporal punishment taken to its logical extreme - would deter crime, no? And surely it would serve as a punishment for wrongdoing, no?

So why don't we use it on adults? Since we think it's OK to use on children. Why?

Wait, now which one of us engaged in personal attacks on the other? Please. Referesh everybody's memory for us.

And yes, you did equate corporal punishment with physical torture. Of course, you are doing more backpedaling on this thread than most NFL cornerbacks do in a season, so why stop now?

Why do you keep asking questions that have been answered repeatedly? Oh, I know. Because your argument was exposed as foolish two pages ago and you can't admit it.

You have not answered any questions.

You have said that adults and children are "different."

You have not explained why. You have not explained to what degree. You have not explained why corporal punishment works - supposedly - on children, but not adults. Your answer is that it is obvious and not even worth discussing. That's not an answer. That's not an argument.

Also: I'm not "backpedaling." I don't know what I would even be "backpedaling" about. My stance was that it feels inconsistent to me that we punish children physically, but not adults. I asked people to try to reconcile that - or whether it can be reconciled at all.

You ask questions like: "Just tell me: Do you think children and adults are the same???!!!"

And when I say, "No, they aren't the 'same," you call that "backpedaling."

I call it nuance.

No, arguing that forms of discipline should be viable for both adults and children or they are flawed, then backing off of that point when pushed is backpedaling.

Describing corporal punishment as physical torture, then trying to weasel out of it when you were called on your crap is backpedaling.

Just to cite two examples.

Let's try some logic and see if you can grasp it. You said that there is a logical inconsistency to the use of corporal punishment with children even though we reject its use with adults. I simply pointed out that diciplining a child is different from disciplining an adult. You have agreed to this point. You keep arguing against it, but you agreed to it.

So if appropriate discipline for a child is different from appropriate discipline for an adult, there is no logical flaw in using corporal punishment with the former and not the latter. You can prattle on about nuance and whatever bull**** you like, but your question was answered. You just don't like the answer. It really is that simple.

Now if you want to show us some evidence that children and adults both react to corporal punishment the same way, then your point about the logical issue might hold some water. But you haven't done that, so it does not.

You brought it up, so the burden is on you to make your point. You haven't done that, and I'm quite sure it is because you can't. So you keep on going after me rather than address the gaping hole in you "logical" argument.

It's ok, ****. I can be stubborn sometimes, too. Hopefully, if you can't bring yourself to admit it here, at least you can admit it to yourself.

 

[outofplace]

......

And when I say, "No, they aren't the 'same," you call that "backpedaling."

I call it nuance.

Nuance, thy name is ****.

For the record, when you get into a disagreement with someone, you don't get to dictate the terms of how they respond.

If you want to keep arguing with yourself, go for it.

I've always said you were a gentleman and a scholar, Ace. Ok, I haven't, but I meant to. Really.

 

[Ace]

We fear nothing and hence, we respect nothing.

Feel free to fear, if that's your thing.

Shouting that schools are out of control compared to whenever doesn't make it so.

 

[printdust]

Ask a few underpaid, overstretched, hands-tied teachers.

 

[armageddon]

We fear nothing and hence, we respect nothing.

Feel free to fear, if that's your thing.

Shouting that schools are out of control compared to whenever doesn't make it so.

Well, the schools I frequent are far more dangerous/stressful/deadly than those of the '70s and early '80s.

 

[RickStain]

Ask a few underpaid, overstretched, hands-tied teachers.

When I'm looking for hard evidence, the first thing I think of is "man, I sure could use some anecdotes."

 

[armageddon]

Ask a few underpaid, overstretched, hands-tied teachers.

When I'm looking for hard evidence, the first thing I think of is "man, I sure could use some anecdotes."

The city in which I grew up: EVERY public HS has metal detectors. Never did when I was a kid. Ditto for many of the middle schools.

Teacher friend (in middle school) a few years back suffered broken jaw when the sixth-grade girl drilled her in the face. The teacher's crime? Asking her to stop talking on her call phone.

"F&*% you b*&^%" was the cry before the punch.

I know kids in my class always slugged our teachers when we were asked to be quiet and listen.

Large public school from back home doesn't go a week without cops being called in to break up a disturbance. The best part of those incidents is when the PARENTS come to the school to take on the cops.

Nice touch.

I've lost track of how many times police had to be called in and gyms had to be cleared of all fans to prevent riots at HS hoops games in our coverage area. I don't recall that in our area as recently as the late 80s/early 90s.

My wife has been teaching for two decades in a public school district. She doesn't recall in her early years her second- and third-graders bringing knives and -- wait for it -- a friggin' gun to school.

She also doesn't recall having to protect some of those kids, as they go to the bus, from the gang-bangers trying to recruit them.

I know, I know. You need hard evidence. Maybe some day we'll be able to find some.

 

[CarltonBanks]

The kids haven't changed...the asshole parents, more interested in being best buddies than actual parents to their kids, have. And, God forbid, someone thinks their precious Johnny is anything less than perfect. Man, if I would have taken even a pocket knife to my school my father would have worn my ass out. And if he wasn't around, my mother would have. If she was not available, Grandma would have gladly lended a hand. Now it's "He made a mistake, the other kids pick on him, why ruin his life because of a small mistake and stop picking on him." And the teachers have to sit there and actually respond to this garbage.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The kids haven't changed...the asshole parents, more interested in being best buddies than actual parents to their kids, have.

Really, demographics have.

Lumping "public schools" together as if they are all P.S. 156 or whatever it was in Season 4 of "The Wire" is silly. Most public schools in suburban areas are ****ing country clubs.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

It is hilarious that you, of all posters, would be lecturing people about being more "civil."

I didn't characterize corporal punishment as we know it and think of it as physical torture. I said that surely "physical torture" - corporal punishment taken to its logical extreme - would deter crime, no? And surely it would serve as a punishment for wrongdoing, no?

So why don't we use it on adults? Since we think it's OK to use on children. Why?

Wait, now which one of us engaged in personal attacks on the other? Please. Referesh everybody's memory for us.

And yes, you did equate corporal punishment with physical torture. Of course, you are doing more backpedaling on this thread than most NFL cornerbacks do in a season, so why stop now?

Why do you keep asking questions that have been answered repeatedly? Oh, I know. Because your argument was exposed as foolish two pages ago and you can't admit it.

You have not answered any questions.

You have said that adults and children are "different."

You have not explained why. You have not explained to what degree. You have not explained why corporal punishment works - supposedly - on children, but not adults. Your answer is that it is obvious and not even worth discussing. That's not an answer. That's not an argument.

Also: I'm not "backpedaling." I don't know what I would even be "backpedaling" about. My stance was that it feels inconsistent to me that we punish children physically, but not adults. I asked people to try to reconcile that - or whether it can be reconciled at all.

You ask questions like: "Just tell me: Do you think children and adults are the same???!!!"

And when I say, "No, they aren't the 'same," you call that "backpedaling."

I call it nuance.

No, arguing that forms of discipline should be viable for both adults and children or they are flawed, then backing off of that point when pushed is backpedaling.

Describing corporal punishment as physical torture, then trying to weasel out of it when you were called on your crap is backpedaling.

Just to cite two examples.

Let's try some logic and see if you can grasp it. You said that there is a logical inconsistency to the use of corporal punishment with children even though we reject its use with adults. I simply pointed out that diciplining a child is different from disciplining an adult. You have agreed to this point. You keep arguing against it, but you agreed to it.

So if appropriate discipline for a child is different from appropriate discipline for an adult, there is no logical flaw in using corporal punishment with the former and not the latter. You can prattle on about nuance and whatever bull**** you like, but your question was answered. You just don't like the answer. It really is that simple.

Now if you want to show us some evidence that children and adults both react to corporal punishment the same way, then your point about the logical issue might hold some water. But you haven't done that, so it does not.

You brought it up, so the burden is on you to make your point. You haven't done that, and I'm quite sure it is because you can't. So you keep on going after me rather than address the gaping hole in you "logical" argument.

It's ok, ****. I can be stubborn sometimes, too. Hopefully, if you can't bring yourself to admit it here, at least you can admit it to yourself.

I don't see it as binary the way you do.

They are "different."

Fine.

How so? Why does that matter?

That they are "different" doesn't end the discussion for me.

 

[outofplace]

Of course there is a difference between physical torture and a "smack on the tush."

But it is worth asking whether it is a difference in kind of a difference in degree.

That infuriates you for some reason and causes you to ridicule me as the village idiot.

More dishonesty. I never questioned your intellect. I don't know enough about you to say whether or not you are intelligent. There is a difference between saying that you made a stupid argument and saying that you are stupid.

You, on the other hand, did attack my intellect directly. Funny how things go when people hold you accountable for your posts, isn't it?

And just because I'm calling you out on your bull**** does not mean I am angry. Again, you were the one who went straight for the personal attack, not me. You are clearly the one who is getting angry.

You characterized corporal punishment as physical torture. More dishonesty. You misrepresented what the other side is talking about to try to make your point.

Again, please try to be more honest in your posts. It will make for a much more civil and productive conversation.

It is hilarious that you, of all posters, would be lecturing people about being more "civil."

I didn't characterize corporal punishment as we know it and think of it as physical torture. I said that surely "physical torture" - corporal punishment taken to its logical extreme - would deter crime, no? And surely it would serve as a punishment for wrongdoing, no?

So why don't we use it on adults? Since we think it's OK to use on children. Why?

Wait, now which one of us engaged in personal attacks on the other? Please. Referesh everybody's memory for us.

And yes, you did equate corporal punishment with physical torture. Of course, you are doing more backpedaling on this thread than most NFL cornerbacks do in a season, so why stop now?

Why do you keep asking questions that have been answered repeatedly? Oh, I know. Because your argument was exposed as foolish two pages ago and you can't admit it.

You have not answered any questions.

You have said that adults and children are "different."

You have not explained why. You have not explained to what degree. You have not explained why corporal punishment works - supposedly - on children, but not adults. Your answer is that it is obvious and not even worth discussing. That's not an answer. That's not an argument.

Also: I'm not "backpedaling." I don't know what I would even be "backpedaling" about. My stance was that it feels inconsistent to me that we punish children physically, but not adults. I asked people to try to reconcile that - or whether it can be reconciled at all.

You ask questions like: "Just tell me: Do you think children and adults are the same???!!!"

And when I say, "No, they aren't the 'same," you call that "backpedaling."

I call it nuance.

No, arguing that forms of discipline should be viable for both adults and children or they are flawed, then backing off of that point when pushed is backpedaling.

Describing corporal punishment as physical torture, then trying to weasel out of it when you were called on your crap is backpedaling.

Just to cite two examples.

Let's try some logic and see if you can grasp it. You said that there is a logical inconsistency to the use of corporal punishment with children even though we reject its use with adults. I simply pointed out that diciplining a child is different from disciplining an adult. You have agreed to this point. You keep arguing against it, but you agreed to it.

So if appropriate discipline for a child is different from appropriate discipline for an adult, there is no logical flaw in using corporal punishment with the former and not the latter. You can prattle on about nuance and whatever bull**** you like, but your question was answered. You just don't like the answer. It really is that simple.

Now if you want to show us some evidence that children and adults both react to corporal punishment the same way, then your point about the logical issue might hold some water. But you haven't done that, so it does not.

You brought it up, so the burden is on you to make your point. You haven't done that, and I'm quite sure it is because you can't. So you keep on going after me rather than address the gaping hole in you "logical" argument.

It's ok, ****. I can be stubborn sometimes, too. Hopefully, if you can't bring yourself to admit it here, at least you can admit it to yourself.

I don't see it as binary the way you do.

They are "different."

Fine.

How so? Why does that matter?

That they are "different" doesn't end the discussion for me.

Now I think you are playing dense on purpose.

Different is good enough to answer your initial question. You asked if there was some kind of failure in logic if we would use corporal punishmen with children and not adults. I pointed out that both have to be disciplined different, which you said you agree with, so there is no logical issue.

It's your argument. It is your job to back it up, but you keep trying to avoid that because you can't do it.

Please let me know when you want to have an honest discussion.

 

[Azrael]

The Geneva Conventions specifically prohibit threads like this. Especially when used against civilian populations. The Red Cross has been notified.

 

[Blitz]

And the world is out of control because of the pacifists who don't want to offend.

Correct analysis

 

[RickStain]

The world is probably more under control now than it has ever been in the modern era.