HS girl confronts bullies bullying another kid:

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
There was a rather excellent series on BBC4 on corporal punishment. There are
advocates who state that its not really punishment at all unless the recipient feels
pain. As for breeding resentment, yes, if the punishment is unjustified, but i cannot
think of a single instance where i was physically punished for a misdemeanor and it
bred to re ...[text shortened]... ness
sake if the taught the kids things they were actually interested in, its half the battle.

As a fromer New York City public school teacher, I can tell you that shouting abusively in someone's face in an attempt to ridicule someone would clearly be considered corporal punishment and you would have a good chance of losing your job.

Someone in charge need not choose between verbal abuse and physical abuse. Human beings can actually reason with other human beings, they person in charge can withhold rewards or punish by taking away privileges.

Originally posted by quackquack
As a fromer New York City public school teacher, I can tell you that shouting abusively in someone's face in an attempt to ridicule someone would clearly be considered corporal punishment and you would have a good chance of losing your job.

Someone in charge need not choose between verbal abuse and physical abuse. Human beings can actually reason wit ...[text shortened]... r human beings, they person in charge can withhold rewards or punish by taking away privileges.

My former Maths teacher, Mr Dixon was into that, he was a martial arts expert and I
think he liked to intimidate people psychologically, but its probably all different now.
We had a teacher, Mrs Fairhurst, she used to throw stuff at the pupils, like the duster, or
an eraser, anything on hand. If you forgot your gym kit, we had this ex soccer player
who used to beat you with a training shoe! Mr Williamson was his name, he used to
play for Glasgow Rangers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My former Maths teacher, Mr Dixon was into that, he was a martial arts expert and I
think he liked to intimidate people psychologically, but its probably all different now.
We had a teacher, Mrs Fairhurst, she used to throw stuff at the pupils, like the duster, or
an eraser, anything on hand. If you forgot your gym kit, we had this ex soccer ...[text shortened]... at you with a training shoe! Mr Williamson was his name, he used to
play for Glasgow Rangers.

Perhaps you floruished in that environment and honestly everyone's learning style is different. But for the overwhelming majority of people psychological intimidation, beating people and throw things creates a dangerous environment and forces people to focus more on surviving than learning.

Originally posted by quackquack
Perhaps you floruished in that environment and honestly everyone's learning style is different. But for the overwhelming majority of people psychological intimidation, beating people and throw things creates a dangerous environment and forces people to focus more on surviving than learning.

We didn't like it, the point is that it has left no lasting resentment.

Originally posted by FMF
Of course it is. Preventing a rape for example. The reason your Internet Tough Guy persona is so laughable is because you reserve the right to use physical violence against people who show you "disrespect". I can dig out the quote again if necessary.

So preventing a rape justifies violence, however is it possible that preventing the rape may be accomplished by corporal punishment early in life? I am by no means saying that beating is the only form of discipline, only that it is one effective means when properly applied.

On the "Internet Tough Guy" accusation, I would say that is more your thing than mine, in that you insist on repeating old arguments. Have you nothing to say, like perhaps an apology for calling me a liar in regards to the death of my daughter? I stand by what I've said, but it has to be taken in context, and I don't wish to rehash the past.

I do see the need to reserve the right to respond with violence. Note "reserve", indicating it is most often the last resort. You on the other hand seem to relish the notion of provoking people to responses, which if practiced in person could provoke others to violence. Now who is the tough guy? The one pulling people's strings to get a reaction, or the person reacting in anger? Your tough guy act is purely based on your presumed anonymity. Your behavior is typical of the internet bully.

Originally posted by quackquack
As a former high school teacher and as a parent I try to teach my students and children to resolve differences without using violence. Physical punishment when a person is old enough to respond to non-physical threats sends the wrong message, builds resentment and escalates situations. They are simply better ways for a person who is in charge to resolve a dispute.

" They are simply better ways for a person who is in charge to resolve a dispute."

Can't disagree as a general rule. There are almost always exceptions to every rule.

"Physical punishment when a person is old enough to respond to non-physical threats sends the wrong message"

Yes, which is why the rules have to be established earlier.

Originally posted by normbenign
So preventing a rape justifies violence, however is it possible that preventing the rape may be accomplished by corporal punishment early in life? I am by no means saying that beating is the only form of discipline, only that it is one effective means when properly applied.

Beating children prevents them from raping people later in life? Rapists were not beaten when they were children and there's a causal link? You got anything to substantiate these theories?

Originally posted by normbenign
Have you nothing to say, like perhaps an apology for calling me a liar in regards to the death of my daughter?

Well I still think its'a lie. So, no - no apology. The people I know who've lost children don't bring it up like you do, in a chat room, in order to try to personalize a discussion, like one we were having about a news clip, or to browbeat others, stifle disagreement, or to justify making online threats of violence. You command no respect with your chest beating and I for one don't believe that you lost your daughter and that the circumstances of her death were kept secret by wicked Federal agents. Sorry, don't believe a word of it.

Originally posted by normbenign
I do see the need to reserve the right to respond with violence. Note "reserve", indicating it is most often the last resort. You on the other hand seem to relish the notion of provoking people to responses, which if practiced in person could provoke others to violence. Now who is the tough guy?

I have never threatened you with violence. I have never threatened anyone with violence online. I've never alluded to a personal proclivity or a prowess for violence, as you have. I make no claim to be a tough guy, normbenign. But internet tough guys like you, on forums and blogs across cyberspace, are ten a penny.

Originally posted by normbenign
So preventing a rape justifies violence, however is it possible that preventing the rape may be accomplished by corporal punishment early in life?

Is it possible? Maybe... but something "being possible" isn't a reason for it.

I've posted a real study that shows that in many cases corporal punishment at least correlates with increased aggressive behavior.

Like FMF, I wonder if you only have your speculation to back up your claim of this being possible?

Originally posted by FMF
Beating children prevents them from raping people later in life? Rapists were not beaten when they were children and there's a causal link? You got anything to substantiate these theories?

When you have to argue against a strawman you build instead of what another actually said, you've lost already.

Originally posted by FMF
Well I still think its'a lie. So, no - no apology. The people I know who've lost children don't bring it up like you do, in a chat room, in order to try to personalize a discussion, like one we were having about a news clip, or to browbeat others, stifle disagreement, or to justify making online threats of violence. You command no respect with your chest beating ...[text shortened]... of her death were kept secret by wicked Federal agents. Sorry, don't believe a word of it.

"Well I still think its'a lie."

And I think you are an incredibly insensitive jerk. How do you know how people deal with grief? I did try to personalize the discussion, but never made threats of violence, browbeat anyone. What the hell do you think you are doing now?

I truly thought that some time might mellow you, to a recognition that this is a story that nobody would invent. The fact that you remain as adamant as before, leaves me with absolutely no desire to interact with you in any future discussion on anything.

"Sorry, don't believe a word of it."

Evan in your conclusion you lie. You aren't sorry, or perhaps you are in another sense.

Originally posted by FMF
I have never threatened you with violence. I have never threatened anyone with violence online. I've never alluded to a personal proclivity or a prowess for violence, as you have. I make no claim to be a tough guy, normbenign. But internet tough guys like you, on forums and blogs across cyberspace, are ten a penny.

"I have never threatened you with violence."

In that, how do we differ?

"I have never threatened anyone with violence online."

Same here. How would such ever be carried out anyway?

"I've never alluded to a personal proclivity or a prowess for violence, as you have."

Ok, so your a complete wimp, and will take whatever anyone dishes out in person. I will not. I have trained, not to use violence but to prevent and avoid it. I'm no tough guy, internet or in person.

"I make no claim to be a tough guy, normbenign."

What are you doing in this post but attempting to show how tough you are?

"But internet tough guys like you, on forums and blogs across cyberspace, are ten a penny."

And pseudo intellectuals like you, who daringly call others liars on line are far cheaper than that.

This is instructive, because FMF admits to knowing nothing of violent responses, but feels qualified to talk down to people who have actual experience in various ways.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Is it possible? Maybe... but something "being possible" isn't a reason for it.

I've posted a real study that shows that in many cases corporal punishment at least correlates with increased aggressive behavior.

Like FMF, I wonder if you only have your speculation to back up your claim of this being possible?

From my entry into this thread, I only suggested that there is some historic evidence that the new age attitudes on the use of corporal punishment may not be totally sound. I have admitted that physical punishment is not the only tactic to be used, and believe personally that if used sparingly and at young ages, it is not required later on.

I doubt it is worth my time to search most modern studies for support on these conclusions, and where I found it would almost certainly be attacked as "right wing" propaganda sites, so you can keep on believing in no physical punishment ever, or do some research yourself.

I could give you personal anecdotal evidence, but FMF would probably call me a liar, and say the story is made up.

Originally posted by normbenign
When you have to argue against a strawman you build instead of what another actually said, you've lost already.

No straw man. You said "So preventing a rape justifies violence, however is it possible that preventing the rape may be accomplished by corporal punishment early in life?"