I would say that a discipline that results in behavior where one person threatens to hospitalize another if the latter does not accept the former's interpretation of reality is not one I believe is necessarily desirable. If that is indeed the outcome of 1950's style discipline I would say that it is not one suitable for civil society.

I am not sure whether you deliberately failed to see the point I was making, or whether you are just trolling. I will assume the latter.


Let me repeat my point ...

The enforcement of self discipline could lead to one of three outcomes -

(a) where the recipient was traumatised to the point they will never stand up to a strong forceful personality ... I.E. where all self respect and confidence was knocked out of them;
(b) where the person concerned became a bully themselves;
or
(c) the right result where a strong personality is confronted in a wrong situation and challenged, that is a situation where their interpretation of the facts leads (in their interpretation) of a wrong outcome (not taking account of other possibilities) and accusations arise as a result with a demand for some forfeiture.. If that strong personality (or bully, usually) then tried moving to escalating the point to a physical state (that is the bully doing it first), then I will not back down. I am prepared to take the physical issue to the point either is hospitalised, which is why they get a warning.

I make use of the fact I have the capability of suppressing some level of pain in myself, as well as having a capable background.

The end result of this type of escalation, in my experience, is the other party backs off and things are left hanging. But, the one that backs down I have never found to follow this up at another time, it becomes forgotten.

My biggest experience of this was at work, when the senior manager concerned (who was essentially God in our regional area), 4 grades higher than me in seniority, was challenged when I was accused of doing something he had actually decided to do.

Interestingly, when I challenged him he found my behaviour highly unusual, as he had never had this happen in over 30 years of his career. The issue was about him threatening to ruin my career, which he had the power to do. My response was to point out to him I could ruin his career much more permanently than he could mine (this is from my technical and career background).

We never spoke again until his retirement 12 years later.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

.
The issue was about him threatening to ruin my career, which he had the power to do.

Would a severe caning of his backside have made things better?

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I would say that a discipline that results in behavior where one person threatens to hospitalize another if the latter does not accept the former's interpretation of reality is not one I believe is necessarily desirable. If that is indeed the outcome of 1950's style discipline I would say that it is not one suitable for civil society.

I am not sure whether you deliberately failed to see the point I was making, or whether you are just trolling. I will assume the latter.


Let me repeat my point ...

The enforcement of self discipline could lead to one of three outcomes -

(a) where the recipient was traumatised to the point they will never stand up to a strong forceful personality ... I.E. where all self respect and confidence was knocked out of them;
(b) where the person concerned became a bully themselves;
or
(c) the right result where a strong personality is confronted in a wrong situation and challenged, that is a situation where their interpretation of the facts leads (in their interpretation) of a wrong outcome (not taking account of other possibilities) and accusations arise as a result with a demand for some forfeiture.. If that strong personality (or bully, usually) then tried moving to escalating the point to a physical state (that is the bully doing it first), then I will not back down. I am prepared to take the physical issue to the point either is hospitalised, which is why they get a warning.

Previously you stated that the "latter" character in my formulation merely "escalates the issue", you said nothing of that person threatening physical violence and the "former" being more than prepared to stand their ground. There are more ways to "escalate" a disagreement than resorting to violence, for instance by referring the disagreement to appropriate authorities. Thanks you for the accusation of trolling, perhaps you'll now apologize given that it is unwarranted.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I assume you have the studies that show this to be true?

Who needs a study (To waste More Money We don't have to spare)? Watch the children in most neighborhoods and watch the News, Listen to the Police, Parents, Teachers and Councilors.

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

.
The issue was about him threatening to ruin my career, which he had the power to do.

Would a severe caning of his backside have made things better?

It would have made an amusing youtube I am certain!!

---

Janice

I assume you have the studies that show this to be true?

Who needs a study (To waste More Money We don't have to spare)? Watch the children in most neighborhoods and watch the News, Listen to the Police, Parents, Teachers and Councilors.

Quite, why let the facts get in the way of opinion? The news tells me that gun crime is lower in NYC than it was 30 years ago, is that a result of improper discipline by parents? Or in the UK, that crime has been on a decline since the mid 1990s (as recorded by the British Crime Survey - see page 15 of this document - "Overall BCS crime remained at its lowest levels since the survey was introduced in 1981."). The studies are already out there, if criminal behavior is a result of lack of discipline, wouldn't we expect it to be on the increase if discipline is not being taught to the youth of today? If the reverse is true, isn't there a chance that today's parents are not the abject failures that some posts on this thread might have us believe?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I assume you have the studies that show this to be true?

Who needs a study (To waste More Money We don't have to spare)? Watch the children in most neighborhoods and watch the News, Listen to the Police, Parents, Teachers and Councilors.

Quite, why let the facts get in the way of opinion? The news tells me that gun crime is lower in NYC than it was 30 years ago, is that a result of improper discipline by parents? Or in the UK, that crime has been on a decline since the mid 1990s (as recorded by the British Crime Survey - see page 15 of this document - "Overall BCS crime remained at its lowest levels since the survey was introduced in 1981."). The studies are already out there, if criminal behavior is a result of lack of discipline, wouldn't we expect it to be on the increase if discipline is not being taught to the youth of today? If the reverse is true, isn't there a chance that today's parents are not the abject failures that some posts on this thread might have us believe?

And it could be that I just happen to live in one of the problem areas. Near a Problem ridden City.
I know What I see and live, We had to start hiding Medicines our valuables and set up security cameras...Just because we had medicines taken from our home.
Then there are the Meth Labs that turn up everywhere around here with the children right there. And juveniles stealing copper or Anything for that matter and selling it to buy their Toys to look cool. Where have all the Morals Gone?
I am not continuing with this so we will just have to Agree to Disagree on this matter.

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

teaching children that violent acts are the way to enforce leadership is not a valuable lesson.

I agree.

The purpose of the slipper and the ruler in school was to instil, NOT enforce, acceptable standards of behaviour, to enable the teacher to teach the class in an appropriate environment conducive to learning.

In the 1950's our parents taught us to respect our teachers, that you didn't steal others possessions, or trespass on others property. Clearly that doesn't happen today. Hence my opinion that most modern parents are useless at parenting.

But it is NOT the Schools job to put that right!

Sorry, Chris (and John), but there's never been a golden era. Stealing, trespassing and the link did not suddenly appear after you entered adulthood. They have been with us ever since we viewed certain things as our property. Codes of behavior or law going back, say 3500-5000 years, have said people should not steal. Why say you should not do it if it was not occurring? Now, taking into consideration all things that have been said in this thread, let us also consider that the world's human population keeps growing and growing, and the ability to observe and report on such activities are growing and growing. I suggest some of the reasons these things seemed to be less of a problem in the past is that there were less people, and it was easier to sweep things under the rug.

John calling Bobby a troll? WTH? John, have you forgotten who Bobby is?

Please play nice.

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

Well said, Chris.

You speak as one who has seen the results close up as a recently retired IT teacher. Today there are no sanctions the ferrel young can now have applied or they fear (the latter being a motivating force).

I also agree with Sarge - there has never been a golden age.

There has certainly been a significant, and recorded, drop in the numbers of the young who "couldn't care about conforming to society's expectations of behavior" since the late 1960s. The percentage of the ferrel group, compared to the total number of young is increasing a lot.

I would also want to point out that the great majority of youngsters grow up to be well rounded well behaved citizens, despite the grade drift in society's moral standards.

I would say for the majority there is no case for bringing back caning. But, for that significant percentage of ferrel young there is clearly a case for the cane to provide a sanction they might fear.

The problem is where to place the line for the subject of this thread!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

In my opinion during this thread we all had deviated a little bit from the original point.
Should we bring back canning in to schools? Definitely not, even a large percentage of parents are in favour of bringing back corporal punishment in to schools.
Canning and other punishments had an era and a context in time, now society moved on, and is facing a big problem. Some parents (not all thank God) don’t know what to do with their children, and most of them grew without any limits or boundaries. In one word they where spoiled and all their will where satisfied because it was convenient for the parents.
Then we have the other face of the coin, parents who have no values, raised their children in the same fashion and now expect that school will surrogate them as parents and give them the education that they never had had home.
Schools are not a depot where parents leave their children while they are working neither a place where they expect that a perfect stranger, a teacher will educate. A teacher teaches, he/she transmits knowledge and some values of course. But most of us, we are parents, and yes there was once in time where we slapped our children and it hurted more to us than to them, but it was needed.
Now we look at them and they are responsible teenagers or responsible young adults. Like us full of imperfections and dreams, and still learning hot to live. But that’s life, and we look at them we smile and think to ourselves, mmm maybe I didn’t do a bad job after all.
Parents, need to learn that school is not the answer for their negligence or selfishness. Raising is hard, takes time and devotion, and more than everything takes love and understanding.
To rule by fear is easy, to have respect is hard and takes a lot of work.

I would agree Sarge, but the point remans that 50 years ago we simply didn't seem to have the wilful disobedience in our schools that we are seeing today.

Indeed, there was no moral panic in the early 60s as a result of marauding youths. Or a decade later. I suppose that the individuals that participated in these events were perfectly behaved whilst in school.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

“Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.”

Oh, by the way, this quote is attributed to Socrates.

Somehow, since the dawn of civilization, children have managed to grow out of their rebellious stage to become productive adults.
I don't think beatings are the reason.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

I guess the people in their 50s and older are the last breed of species who learnt the consciousness through caning or bat things. The people in their 30s are likely a first generation of breeds who faced less or no old age methods to learn the consciousness. If this new breed manage to evolve 2 more generations then we might see some clear positive results that realistically civilized citizens might pop up everywhere.

---

Mandtugai!

spare the child, spoil the rod.

Teaching our children that the way you get what you want is through violence is a lesson best forgotten.

---

Janice

spare the child, spoil the rod.

Teaching our children that the way you get what you want is through violence is a lesson best forgotten.

No body is at the moment doing this from what I can judge from reading this thread

Perhaps so.

But, we need to remove the 10% of the class in the inner city and other schools whom are robbing the other 90% of the students from having the right to a learning environment and, therefore, an education. If we don't do this for reasons of political correctness then we are only pretending to offer public education, and the lower classes will be doomed to staying in their current morass.

These students will wind up dead or in prison anyway so why not remove them anyhow since they are a loss to society. Now, where do we send them ?

What parents? No father, and the mother works full time. Child is raised by grandmother (no grandfather either)or by no one. You will not fix public education without fixing this problem. Any Ideas ? The solution would have to be radical and draconian.

Here in the US we have created this underclass due to mis-guided welfare policies. Monetary assistance and public housing based on number of children and whether or not a father was living in the home.

What parents? No father, and the mother works full time. Child is raised by grandmother (no grandfather either)or by no one. You will not fix public education without fixing this problem. Any Ideas ? The solution would have to be radical and draconian.

Here in the US we have created this underclass due to mis-guided welfare policies. Monetary assistance and public housing based on number of children and whether or not a father was living in the home.

Well, we have a global warming problem too, perhaps the Chinese fix works for both problems.

---