Should we reintroduce the cane in schools? (2 Viewers)

[John McCain]

The child belongs to themselves alone. Anyone who is given a duty of care, which includes teachers, must by necessity apply some sort of discipline.

If the best punishment for this circumstance is physical, then it should be applied.

 

[Omie Jay]

The child belongs to themselves alone.

But this is implying that the child is independant of anyone.

Children are dependant on their parents (or caregivers).

Also, i guess its just a courtesy/morals sake that you dont smack other peoples kids.

 

[John McCain]

But this is implying that the child is independant of anyone.

Children are dependant on their parents (or caregivers).

Also, i guess its just a courtesy/morals sake that you dont smack other peoples kids.

I don't believe it implies that. Having a relationship with someone should never convey ownership.

This whole discussion is about whether that moral is correct. A moral must be rationally justifiable.

I argue that the only thing that should be important is the health of the child. If physical punishment has best results under certain circumstances, it is good that it is applied, regardless of who applies the punishment. If not punishing the child in this regard has worse outcomes for the child, it is morally wrong to not apply it.

I would say that a casual acquaintance, such as a bus driver, does not have sufficient information on a child to make a judgement on whether a given punishment is appropriate, but a teacher does have enough information to make this judgement.

 

[Omie Jay]

i see what you're saying, i guess its my personal choice then, why i think only the parent should be the one to physically discipline a child.

 

[*TRUE*]

I don't believe it implies that. Having a relationship with someone should never convey ownership.

This whole discussion is about whether that moral is correct. A moral must be rationally justifiable.

I argue that the only thing that should be important is the health of the child. If physical punishment has best results under certain circumstances, it is good that it is applied, regardless of who applies the punishment. If not punishing the child in this regard has worse outcomes for the child, it is morally wrong to not apply it.

I would say that a casual acquaintance, such as a bus driver, does not have sufficient information on a child to make a judgement on whether a given punishment is appropriate, but a teacher does have enough information to make this judgement.

If a teacher is minding a TWO YEAR OLD and has a close enough relationship to the child then I'm sure parents would delegate some limited authority to the teacher.Corporal punishment is a ridiculous notion for children of school age. You STILL labour under the misapprehension that what works for a two year old will work for an eight year old. The reason Omie Jay and many others probably feel nervous about the idea of people other than parents smacking children is that it is parents who have the responsibility towards the children. The parents brought the baby into being, thus their responsibility for the baby is estabilished. I reject socialist notions of children belonging to state - children need much more intimate care than the state can provide - and - contrary to what seems to be the belief of others, I think that children require a good relationship with their disciplinarian. Discipline (not just smacking, but even other methods later on) is about learning curves, and without a good relationship a child may associate discipline with being disliked by the disciplinarian instead of being lovingly taught something for their benefit. A child should accept the authority of their parent, but not neccessarily the authority of every other adult, keeping their discipline largely to the parent is another safety measure, imo.

 

[John McCain]

Corporal punishment is a ridiculous notion for children of school age. You STILL labour under the misapprehension that what works for a two year old will work for an eight year old.

I don't feel the distinction is justified. To quote myself:

I don't understand how a young child can be developed enough to recognize the cause and effect of smacking, but not of other punishments.

I don't think the emotional impact of isolating them for a time out, in combination with you raising your voice and using aggressive body language, is that distant and abstract from the cause. If they are too young to draw this basic, virtually immediate connection, then are they old enough to be making the connection between physical violence and it's cause, and learn to change behaviour from the experience?

The reason Omie Jay and many others probably feel nervous about the idea of people other than parents smacking children is that it is parents who have the responsibility towards the children. The parents brought the baby into being, thus their responsibility for the baby is estabilished.

And the school cares for the child for 8 hours a day, most days of the year. This is more time than many parents spend with their children. A teacher has full responsibility for the safety and development of a child during this time. They have full legal and moral responsibility for what happens to the child during this time.

What responsibility do parents have that a school doesn't? Schools are always liable when something goes wrong.

I reject socialist notions of children belonging to state

I don't believe I implied such a relationship. I don't believe anybody 'belongs' to anyone else, I don't like the implications of ownership that word implies, they have relationships with other people. It depends on what you mean by 'belonging' to someone.

A child should accept the authority of their parent, but not neccessarily the authority of every other adult, keeping their discipline largely to the parent is another safety measure, imo.

Why should a child respect the authority of a parent, but not others? A parent is as likely (or more) to abuse that authority as anyone else. Many parents use their authority irresponsibly and children shouldn't accept this authority.

As an adult in our society, you are expected to show respect for the authority of anyone who holds more power than you. Your employer, police, judiciary etc.. Accepting the authority of anyone in power is a more realistic lesson than just teaching them to accept parental authority.

 

[*TRUE*]

I don't feel the distinction is justified. To quote myself:

I don't understand how a young child can be developed enough to recognize the cause and effect of smacking, but not of other punishments.

I don't think the emotional impact of isolating them for a time out, in combination with you raising your voice and using aggressive body language, is that distant and abstract from the cause. If they are too young to draw this basic, virtually immediate connection, then are they old enough to be making the connection between physical violence and it's cause, and learn to change behaviour from the experience?


And the school cares for the child for 8 hours a day, most days of the year. This is more time than many parents spend with their children. A teacher has full responsibility for the safety and development of a child during this time. They have full legal and moral responsibility for what happens to the child during this time.

What responsibility do parents have that a school doesn't? Schools are always liable when something goes wrong.


I don't believe I implied such a relationship. I don't believe anybody 'belongs' to anyone else, I don't like the implications of ownership that word implies, they have relationships with other people. It depends on what you mean by 'belonging' to someone.


Why should a child respect the authority of a parent, but not others? A parent is as likely (or more) to abuse that authority as anyone else. Many parents use their authority irresponsibly and children shouldn't accept this authority.

As an adult in our society, you are expected to show respect for the authority of anyone who holds more power than you. Your employer, police, judiciary etc.. Accepting the authority of anyone in power is a more realistic lesson than just teaching them to accept parental authority.

Okay.Young toddlers will understand the cause/effect of smacking because the smack is immediate, taking place immediately after a certain behaviour.The smack is just a quick reminder than the decision that preceded it was one that would have a bad result. A time out for a two year old is cruel - how on earth will he remember which behaviour caused his punishment after ten minutes? He won't. A FOUR year old, on the other hand, is likely to respond to a time out.School age children are old enough to understand more natural (though simulated) consequences for inappropriate behaviour, and these sorts of consequences show a respect for the growing maturity of the child.A parent delegates limited authority to their childs teacher.As a child matures in his/her understanding, the correct authority figures to respect can be explained. Young children SHOULD NOT feel that they need to mind every adult, it's dangerous for them to do so.

 

[Jack Burton]

why is there even an arguement what was the reason the cane was taken out the schooling system hmmm?everyone knows that a good smack is acceptable its fact although there is no scientific proof for either side many people around Australia have been disciplined this way and they aren't retards... there is also a difference between a smack and a beating (which would make you retarded). I mean srsly why is there even a debate about this smacking works it does... whacking a 14 or 17 year with a cane will not.