Use of corporal punishment in the State School system has been outlawed since what, the early 90s?

In the past 20 years we have seen how this has produced a happier, healthier learning environment where students, teachers and other school staff have been able to go about their business in an environment of mutual respect uninterrupted by the terrible violence and behavioural problems which had been triggered by use of the evil cane.

Why these days, the strategy has been so effective that all forms of assault and anti-social antics are virtually just a memory of bad old days past. Bullying for instance, or schoolyard fights and students who were resentful over a rebuke or being sent to the Principals office would never dream of raising a hand to their teacher, throwing objects or shouting obscenities and threats. No sirree Bob! It's been a total success.

So now let's concentrate on those terrible parents who dare to give their recalcitrant offspring a slap or 2 as discipline. Lets see if we can apply those same wonderful results across the board .....

OK - Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny will now hear your requests and honestly, all your delusions will come true .....

The point of the article is that, in every other context, hitting another, even mildly, is legally the crime of assault. The law simply hasn't caught up with incorporating the hitting of children into assault legislation.

You can argue about parents' rights, children's cognitive immaturity and declining social behaviours till the proverbial cows come home, but current laws on assault are based on the assumption that everyone other than children has the legal right to be protected from all forms of physical force. If you grab another adult's arm and slap them a few times on the top of their hand, they can go straight to the police and have you charged (as long as you can prove it). A child who receives the same treatment - by someone 3 times their size, on a regular basis, and in the supposed safety of their own home - can legally do nothing. Neither can any third party intervening on their behalf.

And, R0bert, the children in the wooden spoon anecdote showed the exact level of respect for their father's 'private property' that he deserved. If someone intends to use an implement to inflict violence on you, you have every right to destroy and dispose of that property. In this instance, it was the children who dared to discipline their own parent. I applaud both them and the father who seems to have learned his lesson.

Well of course it is, snake.

>>Pericles.... Post hoc ergo propter hoc, actually is Latin<<

What it is not, though, is a quotation.

It describes the situation where an outcome is caused by an action that preceded it, regardless of any other factors. If you were to point out, for example, that Australia's GDP is the highest that it has ever been, and that there are now more people in prison than ever before, the post hoc fallacy is to assert that our prosperity causes criminal behaviour.

In the same way, the suggestion that reducing child abuse leads to more dangerous streets is equally fallacious. As I pointed out, the correlation between being beaten as a child and being in prison for violent offences is extremely high. It would be equally wrong to automatically link the two, however tempting it might be, and assert that if we stopped beating our kids, they'd stay out of jail.

The knee-jerk reaction that says "we're too soft on the kids, they need more physical discipline if the streets are to be kept safe", is just another version of "they all need a spell in the army, national service is the way to go" approach. It gives the speaker a nice warm feeling of self-righteousness, but doesn't actually help solve the problem.

In fact, it is a rather neat example of the lazy thinking that characterizes the whole debate. If we accept that much of the problem is due to poor child management on the part of the parents, why do we not propose that they receive the punishment? Reason: it's so much easier to beat the child, than accept a failure to set and manage those behavioural boundaries.

Receptus ignavorum. That's Latin too, snake, and it means the coward's retreat, or the easy option.

The root cause would appear to be in the parents' relationship with the kids. How about we work towards making the parents fully responsible for the actions of their children until, say, their eighteenth birthday? Send them to jail, along with the offender.

Solving tough problems is never simple.

These days I work as a piano teacher. I encourage all my students, both old and young, to relax their whole bodies at the piano, and to understand how the way you move your arms and wrists can affect the tone you produce from the instrument. Older generations often tell me how in their piano lessons as children, they had teachers who would whack their hands with a cane if they made a mistake or their hands got out of position. If I ever have the pleasure of meeting a teacher who did this, or still does this, (one of my students had a teacher who would use a metal ruler just a few years ago,) I swear i will break their fingers one by one. I'm sure this will serve as an adequate deterent to any to any half-baked teacher who thinks that hitting someone is going to make them a better musician.

On another note, I'll never forget the time my dad smacked me on the bottom with the wooden spoon (a common form of punishment amongst my immediate and extended family,) and when I deliberately screamed in his ear immediately afterwards, he asked me "why are you trying to hurt me?"

lol

I've just checked up on Patmalar Ambikapathy's background and realise that 'father' in my comment above should have been 'mother'.

Apologies to the author.

"If someone intends to use an implement to inflict violence on you, you have every right to destroy and dispose of that property"

By that logic we would have the right to destry police paddy wagons and prisons even when not facing an immediate threat of incarceration in case the application of the law leads to confinment as a consequence for a crime at some time in the future.

Alternatively we can take note of the possible consequence of incarceration and do whatever is practical to ensure that's never a problem. Obey the law, pay the fine when you do mess up.

Our law is backed by the threat of violence, before that violence is used there are generally a range of other options but eventually you get to the point that for serious infractions you may be detained against your will (forcibly if you don't coperate) for a long period.

The pretense that violence is never allowed against adults is not valid, it is used where adults break the law and don't cooperate with lesser penalties.

R0bert