Corporal punishment in schools. Is it time to bring back the strap?

[Moses_Young]

That's pathetic. And evil. You beat dogs and children.

I'll pray for God's protection for children and dogs in vicinity of your reach.

I hope you are consistent with your disdain of violence, and also voice your displeasure at it being utilised - in much more extreme ways - by governments (e.g. police and military). Otherwise, your disdain may appear to many to be little more than virtue-signalling and hypocrisy.

 

[Papermonkey]

I hope you are consistent with your disdain of violence, and also voice your displeasure at it being utilised - in much more extreme ways - by governments (e.g. police and military). Otherwise, your disdain may appear to many to be little more than virtue-signalling and hypocrisy.

Well, let's see if that is a rational perspective afforded from someone who volunteered to this community that they beat children and dogs.

War. War is violent. Waged between mutual armed combatants.
Does that equal violence against a child? Only if the child is armed with a weapon equal to the one you choose to use when you admittedly beat them.

The same with a dog, of course.

Violence in sports. It is a contest between mutually able athletes.
Does that equate to the violence of beating a child or dog? No. Innocent children and dogs.

Violence in a self defense attack. Totally unrelated to beating a child or dog.

Unless of course the child or dog fights back because they've suffered enough abuse.

No, your charge has no merit.

You beat children and dogs.

You freely admitted that.

That's a reflection on your character.

Not anyone else's.

 

[Moses_Young]

Well, let's see if that is a rational perspective afforded from someone who volunteered to this community that they beat children and dogs.

This is the logical fallacy known as a "straw man". You incorrectly assert my position, in order that you can easily defeat the position of your own making, which was not my statement at all. I neither stated I beat children nor dogs. Rather, that "I'm not against beating dogs, either." There are some circumstances where measured violence (i.e. spanking in this context) against both beasts and children is both necessary and helpful, in order to protect people, and especially children.

War. War is violent. Waged between mutual armed combatants.
Does that equal violence against a child? Only if the child is armed with a weapon equal to the one you choose to use when you admittedly beat them.

Here, you make the false assertion that war is justified because combatants are equally armed. An easily refutable and naive statement. In modern times, the victor is usually the side who has access to enough of the most advanced weapons. You accused me of being evil, because I acknowledged there were occasions when violence was necessary for man and beast. I'm asking you to take your statement to its logical conclusion, and agree that all wars (and even violent police/regulatory action) are therefore evil, as they require extreme violence. That you cannot do this demonstrates that logically you are either a hypocrite or incorrect (or both).

The same with a dog, of course.

Violence in sports. It is a contest between mutually able athletes.
Does that equate to the violence of beating a child or dog? No. Innocent children and dogs.

Violence in a self defense attack. Totally unrelated to beating a child or dog.

Unless of course the child or dog fights back because they've suffered enough abuse.

No, your charge has no merit.

You beat children and dogs.

You freely admitted that.

That's a reflection on your character.

Not anyone else's.

Straw man argument again. I generally don't engage unpleasant trolls, so now that I have demonstrated your statements have no merit other than to evidence how misleading your claims can be, I may not dignify further time-wasters from you with a response.

 

[Papermonkey]

This is the logical fallacy known as a "straw man". You incorrectly assert my position, in order that you can easily defeat the position of your own making, which was not my statement at all. I neither stated I beat children nor dogs. Rather, that "I'm not against beating dogs, either." There are some circumstances where measured violence (i.e. spanking in this context) against both beasts and children is both necessary and helpful, in order to protect people, and especially children.

Here, you make the false assertion that war is justified because combatants are equally armed. An easily refutable and naive statement. In modern times, the victor is usually the side who has access to enough of the most advanced weapons. You accused me of being evil, because I acknowledged there were occasions when violence was necessary for man and beast. I'm asking you to take your statement to its logical conclusion, and agree that all wars (and even violent police/regulatory action) are therefore evil, as they require extreme violence. That you cannot do this demonstrates that logically you are either a hypocrite or incorrect (or both).

Straw man argument again. I generally don't engage unpleasant trolls, so now that I have demonstrated your statements have no merit other than to evidence how misleading your claims can be, I may not dignify further time-wasters from you with a response.

No, it isn't a strawman at all. And the Troll charge is a strike against you. Not the one you asked a question of and now don't like her answer.

You volunteered to everyone here that you beat children and dogs.
The animal abuse entered in by your choice. When this thread is about corporal punishment of human children. You chose to admit you're OK with beating dogs too.

Then you posted a hypothetical regarding violence of other kinds to distract from those facts.

Now you claim strawman. When my reply was no such thing. You asked for a relative comparison of other forms of violence compared to those types you employ against children and dogs respectively. You imagined my answer would make my taking umbrage to your admissions hypocrisy.

Now you claim strawman.

Time waster? You asked me a question. I answered.
The waste of time is your trying to walk back what you freely admitted in this thread of yourself.

You could always ask Administration or a Moderator delete your admission of child and dog abuse posts.

I'm fine, if they do comply with your request , if they also delete my corresponding replies.

Unless or until then, you are responsible for telling us about yourself.

And I will continue to pray God's protection for any child or animal in vicinity of your reach.

Beating children and dogs is pathetic. AND evil. Don't like that truth ? Then don't admit you do that.
That is all.

 

[Cameron143]

No, it isn't a strawman at all. And the Troll charge is a strike against you. Not the one you asked a question of and now don't like her answer.

You volunteered to everyone here that you beat children and dogs.
The animal abuse entered in by your choice. When this thread is about corporal punishment of human children. You chose to admit you're OK with beating dogs too.

Then you posted a hypothetical regarding violence of other kinds to distract from those facts.

Now you claim strawman. When my reply was no such thing. You asked for a relative comparison of other forms of violence compared to those types you employ against children and dogs respectively. You imagined my answer would make my taking umbrage to your admissions hypocrisy.

Now you claim strawman.

Time waster? You asked me a question. I answered.
The waste of time is your trying to walk back what you freely admitted in this thread of yourself.

You could always ask Administration or a Moderator delete your admission of child and dog abuse posts.

I'm fine, if they do comply with your request , if they also delete my corresponding replies.

Unless or until then, you are responsible for telling us about yourself.

And I will continue to pray God's protection for any child or animal in vicinity of your reach.

Beating children and dogs is pathetic. AND evil. Don't like that truth ? Then don't admit you do that.
That is all.

I've heard of paying tolls but never trolls. No troll charge for me.

 

[TheNarrowPath]

Its a huge leap to equate smacking with beating. Or physical discipline with physical abuse.
A mother dog corrects her puppies with a quick sharp nip. It is not meant to injure the animal, it is meant to give them a warning.
The Bible has examples of violence. Some of it at Gods own doing. Ive always seen it as another way of God showing His love for us by giving us that warning because He is our Father and He sees what is our future before we do.
Same as a parent might smack the child. The parent knows the child and knows what kind of warning works best with that child. Sometimes verbal works, other times physical work. Traditional ways are being challenged by the modern upbringing and are a big reason why family values are breaking down.

 

[TheNarrowPath]

Off topic I wonder why Rizen and Xavier were banned.

 

[Cameron143]

Off topic I wonder why Rizen and Xavier were banned.

Rizen didn't believe in the deity of Christ. Not sure about Xavier. I didn't agree with all he said but he was well informed and also very amenable and gracious.

 

[Papermonkey]

I've heard of paying tolls but never trolls. No troll charge for me.

They implied I'm a troll, made the charge I'm a troll.😆

I'll go off topic with the rest of you for a moment.
I remember Xavier's posts. Very polite and seemed genuine in their Bible study and opinions.

I don't think I saw posts by Rizen.

P. S JW's don't accept the deity of Jesus. Maybe Rizen was JW?

 

[Cameron143]

They implied I'm a troll, made the charge I'm a troll.😆

I'll go off topic with the rest of you for a moment.
I remember Xavier's posts. Very polite and seemed genuine in their Bible study and opinions.

I don't think I saw posts by Rizen.

P. S JW's don't accept the deity of Jesus. Maybe Rizen was JW?

Sometimes we're all quick to answer and not sensitive as we can be in our discourse. When that meets with someone who is possibly irritated at something from the day it might strike them differently than if they had just come from a quiet time with God.
I've found here a need to make great allowances for others while accepting little for myself a good way to relate. Being quick to apologize and giving latitude for the offenses of others has been a nice grace God has afforded me. I recommend it to anyone.

 

[Moses_Young]

Its a huge leap to equate smacking with beating. Or physical discipline with physical abuse.
A mother dog corrects her puppies with a quick sharp nip. It is not meant to injure the animal, it is meant to give them a warning.
The Bible has examples of violence. Some of it at Gods own doing. Ive always seen it as another way of God showing His love for us by giving us that warning because He is our Father and He sees what is our future before we do.
Same as a parent might smack the child. The parent knows the child and knows what kind of warning works best with that child. Sometimes verbal works, other times physical work. Traditional ways are being challenged by the modern upbringing and are a big reason why family values are breaking down.

Very good point. I think I'm guilty of this in this very thread.

The child-haters (as described by Proverbs 13:24) so often equate spanking with beating that I sometimes use their term to describe spanking. They then (mid-debate) change the definition of "beating" back to its usual definition, in order to try to ascribe wickedness to those who believe in scripturally-justified spanking. Equivocation is the name for this dishonest technique, and is a tactic commonly used by Communists (in many arenas, not just corporal punishment).

 

[Ilive4Jesus]

If a school has a good PTA it goes a long way for educational outcomes for that school. Not all schools have PTAs.

Sorry for the reaction, but before we pulled our kids from public school we were in a school that had a PTA.
All it was was another social clique among staff members and "popular parents".
If you were a parent in PTA you were in good with the school staff (even if your kid needed a good whooping or two, and often those were the kids who could get away with anything).......
parents not part of PTA were shunned... never mind the fact that not everyone has the $$ for the member fees, or time to put into it.
And as far as educational outcomes.......
the "education" the kids were getting was pure
OH! But the PTA bought and installed a new playground! (And less than 5 years later did it again)

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Our Christian schools K-12 required a signed permission form from the parents to allow paddlings. If there were problems beyond verbal reprimands, or missed recess, the parents were contacted to come in to meet with the principal. We didn't have to expell any children because of continued problems, but most of that was because of the selection process. Parental involvement and restricting attendance to those with known reputations helped the entire school experience.

I understood what you meant Moses.
I looked at the context. If you were talking about my friend's Chow that mauled me while visiting and sitting in the chair watching TV. In that context if you said beat, I'd think you meant like the owner who used his fist. The dog should have been shot first day. Unfortunately, it was allowed to live and less than a week later mauled a lady in the face. In that context, you do what's necessary to defend the innocent person. Even my buddy's Dad insisted he kill it, but instead he gave it to someone with property where it could run loose. I will add, now he gave it an opportunity to run loose to possibly kill an innocent person. The Bible says that it's blood should be shed for shedding man's blood. So, yes beating has multiple definitions. I try not to use it when speaking about spanking/ paddling children because of the possibility of misrepresentation; however, I can't fault you or anyone from using a Biblical term. A loving parent would use a different chastisement for their toddler than what a criminal would receive as punishment by the police in a foreign land. Even "beat" is used with proper context and meaning in the Bible. Sometimes I use Biblical terms for emphasis, or to remind me and others that we are not holier than God. Our Bible uses strong language and it looks like you know the definitions from reading it.

Hard / Archaic Words in the Bible

 

[TheNarrowPath]

The child-haters (as described by Proverbs 13:24) so often equate spanking with beating that I sometimes use their term to describe spanking. They then (mid-debate) change the definition of "beating" back to its usual definition, in order to try to ascribe wickedness to those who believe in scripturally-justified spanking. Equivocation is the name for this dishonest technique, and is a tactic commonly used by Communists (in many arenas, not just corporal punishment).

I agree with you. You made me think about the word choices we use. I think whatever Bible translation we use its very clear the rod is a physical instrument and beating is Gods will for correction. The use of force is up to the parent. Either we discipline them or God will.

 

[Papermonkey]

Its a huge leap to equate smacking with beating. Or physical discipline with physical abuse.
A mother dog corrects her puppies with a quick sharp nip. It is not meant to injure the animal, it is meant to give them a warning.
The Bible has examples of violence. Some of it at Gods own doing. Ive always seen it as another way of God showing His love for us by giving us that warning because He is our Father and He sees what is our future before we do.
Same as a parent might smack the child. The parent knows the child and knows what kind of warning works best with that child. Sometimes verbal works, other times physical work. Traditional ways are being challenged by the modern upbringing and are a big reason why family values are breaking down.

In no way relates to MY's admissions.

 

[Papermonkey]

I agree with you. You made me think about the word choices we use. I think whatever Bible translation we use its very clear the rod is a physical instrument and beating is Gods will for correction. The use of force is up to the parent. Either we discipline them or God will.

I think rather than excusing word choices and then reiterating the word beating, that you and MY need to find a dictionary.

A dog nipping her pups to train them isn't the same as a man beating a dog.
Nor is spanking a child, a dictionary and thesaurus is helpful there too in searching the meaning of spanking, the same as admitting to being OK with beating a child.

Using the OT as license isn't proper either.

The inconsistency some employ in their exegesis is not good.
First we're told we're not Jews, we're not under the OT laws, etc.... Then some claim we're to follow OT laws regarding punishment of children.

I suggest reading the OT in full.Pethaps that will inspire a change of mind and heart.

Namely because , as those of us who have read it know, the OT gives permission to do many things to a person in the name of discipline and justice.

Many such things are illegal in America. Like beating children and dogs.

If you have to beat a child to get them to respect you, you've no idea what respect is. Causing physical pain isn't respect. It's depravity.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

 

[Papermonkey]

I think rather than excusing word choices and then reiterating the word beating, that you and MY need to find a dictionary.

A dog nipping her pups to train them isn't the same as a man beating a dog.
Nor is spanking a child, a dictionary and thesaurus is helpful there too in searching the meaning of spanking, the same as admitting to being OK with beating a child.

Using the OT as license isn't proper either.

The inconsistency some employ in their exegesis is not good.
First we're told we're not Jews, we're not under the OT laws, etc.... Then some claim we're to follow OT laws regarding punishment of children.

I suggest reading the OT in full.Pethaps that will inspire a change of mind and heart.

Namely because , as those of us who have read it know, the OT gives permission to do many things to a person in the name of discipline and justice.

Many such things are illegal in America. Like beating children and dogs.

If you have to beat a child to get them to respect you, you've no idea what respect is. Causing physical pain isn't respect. It's depravity.

Spank
verb (used with object)

to strike (a person, usually a child) with the open hand, a slipper, etc., especially on the buttocks, as in punishment.

noun

a blow given in spanking; a smart or resounding slap.





Beat
verb (used with object), beat, beat·en or beat, beat·ing.

to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly.
verb (used with object), beat, beat·en or beat, beat·ing.

to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly.

to dash against: rain beating the trees.

verb (used without object), beat, beat·en or beat, beat·ing.

to strike repeated blows; pound.

to throb or pulsate: His heart began to beat faster.

noun

a stroke or blow.

the sound made by one or more such blows: the beat of drums.

 

[blueluna5]

So suspending the students just gives them a holiday from learning. Who is disciplining our young people if the state threatens uplift if the parents smack their children for misbehaving?
End of year and still students are being suspended for fighting and other undesirable behaviour.
Most schools model a framework of positive behaviour but it doesnt work on some students. A mostly female school staff isnt helping either. Boys dont respect their authority. Its pretty disheartening to see how angry these young boys can get. I think schools are too soft on bad behaviour and most principals dont set the best standard for their schools. Some people think its abuse but you can ask the children nicely in a positive tone to correct the behaviour maybe several times or you can get the strap out and this speeds up the correction.

Is that to prevent the gun violence in schools? Because that won't happen. Violence breeds violence.

I'm not against spanking, although many kids don't need it. I'm just against anyone other than the parents (mother and father) spanking. That includes step father or whoever is in the picture. It's not right and rarely goes well.

Spanking is a quick fix but keep in mind that it doesn't teach. Sure the kid knows they shouldn't hit a kid, but do they actually know their options or what to do. Probably not. Kids don't even know how to sit in a restaurant without a tablet. You have to teach social skills in schools. There can be consequences, but after age 6 spankings are pretty much useless anyhow. Anger is actually a form of fear. We have a lot of anxious people and kids are no exception. Truthfully being taught social skills and therapy would do a world of good. Unfortunately you can't teach them the real truth, being God. You can still give them bits of the truth without being judgemental. That would be way more than most kids get.

 

[Cameron143]

Is that to prevent the gun violence in schools? Because that won't happen. Violence breeds violence.

I'm not against spanking, although many kids don't need it. I'm just against anyone other than the parents (mother and father) spanking. That includes step father or whoever is in the picture. It's not right and rarely goes well.

Spanking is a quick fix but keep in mind that it doesn't teach. Sure the kid knows they shouldn't hit a kid, but do they actually know their options or what to do. Probably not. Kids don't even know how to sit in a restaurant without a tablet. You have to teach social skills in schools. There can be consequences, but after age 6 spankings are pretty much useless anyhow. Anger is actually a form of fear. We have a lot of anxious people and kids are no exception. Truthfully being taught social skills and therapy would do a world of good. Unfortunately you can't teach them the real truth, being God. You can still give them bits of the truth without being judgemental. That would be way more than most kids get.

You bring up some good points. I had the opportunity to take a course called growing kids God's way. One of the things that stuck with me the most was that much of what children do needs training and not punishment. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child according to Proverbs. Children are a forgetful lot. What many parents view as rebellion is just lack of training.
Before punishment is meted out, it should be determined whether the child's actions are rebellious in nature or merely foolishness.
It's simple enough to do. By giving the child the opportunity to correct or do the action required will let you know. If they comply, it is usually a matter of foolishness which can be corrected with training. If they do not comply, it is generally rebellion which necessitates some form of punishment.
I offer this explanation because punishing foolishness can lead to deep-seated resentment on the part of children. When they are punished for things that they never intentionally disobeyed, they will inevitably feel they have been unjustly dealt with.