Bring back the cane

The youth of today make me sick,SICK SICK .
Darn liberals and women, you have turned them into a bunch of disrespectful,rowdy yobs ...
They have no respect for authority,They are always abusing alcohol and getting drunk. always rolling around in their, gangs smoking their fags in their dirty council estates

Its time we brought back the cane because this all started when teachers were no longer allowed to discipline them .

Its time to bring it back

A lot of what you have said is emotive waffle.

well, instead of continuing this discussion because I see this going on endlessly, I'll tell you a few last things to hopefully draw this to a conclusion. you may see my morality as emotional, but it's not at all (and I say this humbly, being largely an objectivist, which is why my defence of freedom is so frequent). in fact, I see consequentialism to be an appeal to emotion, opposed to an appeal to freedom. freedom isn't moral (e.g. my freedom to insult or sadden is immoral in practice, which could indicate that my exercise of freedom may well be immoral, but rights trump morality), freedom is a fact, unless transgressed, therefore, freedoms exist in nature as a fact of reality from this in my view. we're all free to do what we want until we're stopped and controlled, but just because we're stopped that doesn't mean we weren't free from the beginning, to suggest that the freedom existed as a matter of fact before that initiation of force began. as I use this as the basis of my reasoning, the initiation of force, as we're discussing (e.g. caning kids), I don't care if kids turn out to be unintelligent adults turning out to be poorer than they might have otherwise been, this is not the basis of my reasoning - my reasoning is that we ought not to be told what to do as so far as humanly possible. you may find it emotional that kids will turn out to be stupid or troublesome, but I see this as the appropriate power distance between me and another equal individual (or at least the parents, seeing as we're talking about kids here). I don't have a logical right to control people because I don't think people have a logical right to control me, even concerning children unless they are going to be harmed physically based on a lack of an ability to know or learn properly about certain things not outside the scope of "work = money" for school), because there is no foundation of this besides consequentialist, emotional or pragmatic reasons which may ultimately not interest me or someone else, but that shouldn't justify force to be committed against me due to this. kids (and especially teenagers) can ultimately be persuaded; if we tell them, as our teachers and parents taught you and me as university students, that if we work, we'll get good jobs and a stable income etc, which is ultimately important for some kids/teen whereas it's not to others, then surely those that would have worked for this reason will use this and those that aren't interested probably won't but that's their prerogative as a soon-to-be adult - we shouldn't force our virtues of "good work means good job/money" onto people who don't care or relate to this approach to school. if kids don't want to learn, they don't have to and the taxes of their parents may be wasted, but instead of forcing them to work through caning, we should deter them from wanting to misbehave e.g. threats of expulsion (non-violent; simply the ending of their conditional right to attendance) or we can use reason to teach them that their success in school is important enough to determine if they'll be rich or poor (and I suspect some kids will want to be rich, whereas some really will not care either way and that should be their right to not care). the effect of this, obviously, might, as I mentioned, be a cause of less happiness for these future adults, e.g. there will be a utilitarian outcome, but that's not my concern nor my purpose to administer - my purpose is to not harm people, and I see the harming of kids to fit into that, because if we all view harm towards ourselves to be a transgression of our right to freedom, then we cannot logically make this consistent with caning if the use of force is usually in our best interests if it is a government policy (or at least the reasons behind it are mostly all "moral/pragmatic" reasons, e.g. a porn ban to protect kids, a prostitution ban to "protest public morals", a drug ban to "save us from drug addictions" etc which will all create good outcomes, but not moral acts - e.g. I hope you're agreeing with me here that drugs or alcohol for that matter shouldn't be banned simply because it'll create or shape a society with less addicts or alcoholics; it shouldn't be a valid reason to stop sensible people from doing those things. this is the reasoning I employ with not harming children - it shouldn't be anybody's right to force people into their vision for society because ultimately "we" aren't society and arguably society as a concept is a superficial fictional entity when you think "what is society? where is society? can I see or hear society? if I take away one person, does that change society? what about two?" etc to reduce it down to the eventual "society is only a lot of individual people who are not one entity together, their existence is itself a number of things, not one thing as a literal other"

Anyway, the point of children going to school is to learn, if they disrupt learning for others they should be punished. Caning should be an option if that punishment needs to be severe. Caning is nothing more than a quick short shock to beat them back into disipline. It is not a teaching method, it is a punishment.

if they disrupt learning, sure they should be "punished", e.g. sent out of the class etc, but not have pain inflicted upon them, unless the children are allowed to fight back, because that would be in their rational self interest; why should it be okay for one person to assault one particular, but not that other particular to self-defend? either it's not okay for an individual to do and thus it should be prevented, or it is. the reasons behind it should only relate to defence, not pragmatics. the only limit I have with this is regarding things that are for all intents and purposes not possible e.g. kids voting, or kids being solicited for sex based on a reasonable consequential expectation of physical harm)

Im not even going to get into a debate about slavery now, thats for a different thread and yes I am currently doing a module that includes both slavery and the industrial revolution, but even if i wasnt i would still have a good idea about it since i did a lot of work around that period at A level (likewise getting A's) and general reading.

fair enough, I don't want to talk about slavery either, but at least recognise the fact that it was a perhaps pragmatically appropriate means of democratically-approved force of a minority (e.g. kids in my case of caning) from a majority (adults) when it was kept legal. if we agree hopefully that people ultimately should be left alone so long as they don't hurt anybody while doing it (which is reasonable enough for a society), then that principle should extend as far as it can possibly extend, such as with innocent children whom shouldn't be controlled for the same reasons I shouldn't be if I'm not harming others, unless it's for their literal defence, e.g. not allowing kids to have sex with a stranger because they don't have the means of defending themselves from rape, and all that jazz which I don't particularly feel great about using as an example of the limits of free will. ultimately, as I was saying before, my defence of not caning kids might actually not be "moral" nor "pragmatic" - it's simply a defence of the principle "don't harm others unless they're harming you first" (e.g. kids disrupting a class doesn't constitute "harm" in that sense) and in terms of emotions it might actually create an unhappy situation, but these kids will then grow up to teach their kids to not follow their example, which might be pragmatic but that isn't the reason why I use that mode of reasoning.

anyway, I'll leave this here as I've blabbed on a lot just to conclude my reasons, you do actually have some good points, don't get me wrong, I think we simply have a fundamental difference in our views of what constitutes good grounds for force or when pragmatics trump free will - e.g. I recognise that if by forcing kids they'll grow up ultimately happier or richer, I don't contest that fact, it's most likely true, I'm simply using perhaps another valid principle (that principle which justifies my right to free speech, freedom of property, freedom of movement, etc, which I'd rather have than something that "protects me from myself") in its place to not uphold that, but that doesn't mean I'd rather kids go poor, I'd rather they'd listen in schools, I just don't think there's a logical (not to say "logical" means moral, necessarily, e.g. we have a logical "right" (I use that word loosely here because it's probably the only synthetic right we might have) to eat meat and ultimately kill animals to get that meat based on our bodily needs, but that doesn't make the outcome of a healthy and functional body to be something that was achieved through moral means, because it involved a use of "I know what's in the society's best interests therefore I can force you to do things, or here, kill you to allow us to survive") right existent that allows us to do this if we're to say we have rights against violence despite what might be in our "best interests for the future"

Posted from TSR Mobile

This. If my parents gave me an occasional slap after misbehaving, fine. If my teachers did that, I would definitely react differently and retaliate.

It's probably more about how kids are disciplined at home. I behaved in school and when I didn't, they would tell my parents. Who would discipline me. So it's all about the discipline at home in my opinion.

Its time we brought back the cane because this all started when teachers were no longer allowed to discipline them .

Yeh I agree completely, If I ever did anything wrong, my mum would find out and let me have it lol,

one day she even got a friend id never seen before (who was a very authorative type man) to drag me out the house into his car claiming I was being taken to borstel/bad boys school, and I was kicking and screaming the whole way until my mum "stopped him" and said I could have one more chance,

Needless to say I didnt misbehave again for a while lol.

The youth of today make me sick,SICK SICK .
Darn liberals and women, you have turned them into a bunch of disrespectful,rowdy yobs ...
They have no respect for authority,They are always abusing alcohol and getting drunk. always rolling around in their, gangs smoking their fags in their dirty council estates

Its time we brought back the cane because this all started when teachers were no longer allowed to discipline them .

Its time to bring it back

The youth of today make me sick,SICK SICK .
Darn liberals and women, you have turned them into a bunch of disrespectful,rowdy yobs ...

They have no respect for authority,

They are always abusing alcohol and getting drunk.

always rolling around in their, gangs

smoking their fags

in their dirty council estates

... this all started when teachers were no longer allowed to discipline them .

Year 11s in East london are a bunch of pussys compared to what they were in the 50s, 60s and 70s when we still had corpral punishment. We used it back then on yobs, we can use it today.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Agree with it or not, you can`t deny there was more discipline in the classrooms and respect for teachers than there is now.

I have to agree about bringing the cane back. In secondary school, you'll find that kids can get away with pretty much anything, and all the teacher can do is shout at them, which is highly ineffective. Little brats need sorting out, bring the cane back.

Leave "discipline" where it belongs, in the 19th century.

Smoking is not legal for under 16s.

Why the **** are women responsible?

That said, I think discipline is a good thing. Apparently studies show physical punishment doesn't make for a better society, so I think that may simply not work. The root causes of the things you point out are;

- Economic and technological development - no need to work hard to survive, and a massive sense of entitlement from all social backgrounds.
- Possibly the end of caning.
- Lack of religion.

I don't want to bring religion back, but I won't deny it did a lot to keep people in check. I just think a life run by fear is not worth the extra benefit. I think the main reason is the first.

I don't have a solution, but I wouldn't idealise the past either - there has always been plenty of violence and gangs around.

Yes it is actually. It's illegal to sell tobacco to them, and it's illegal for them to smoke in public, but there's no blanket ban saying under 16s can't smoke.

Im pretty sure the School is classed as "in public".

Posted from TSR Mobile

It depends on the school, but the vast majority of schools are not considered public places - if they were anyone could just walk in for whatever reason they feel like.

I`m 34 and I had spoken to my teachers the way some kids do now there would have been hell to pay. One of my friends is married to a primary school teacher and some of the stories she comes out with are shocking. If I had told a teacher that i was going to rape her for telling me to be quiet, or told her I wanted to **** her I would probably have been kicked out. Instead now all she`s allowed to do is send them to the head. That`s it.

Just because we aren`t teachers doesn`t mean we cant have a say.