Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caning proven to work.
For what, administered by who?
Usually is headmaster or disciplinary teacher if in school. Otherwise will be the special trained prison officer for general adults.
Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
701–710 of 713 posts
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what, administered by who?
Usually is headmaster or disciplinary teacher if in school. Otherwise will be the special trained prison officer for general adults.
So when you say proven to work, do you just mean "proven that it gets them to follow rules"?
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no denying a broken nose and some lost teeth will make many bullies twice about trying again. Problem is it's often illegal or against the rules to do it since deliberately beating the crap out of a bully isn't self defence in the traditional sense. And in the cases where it doesn't work, the situation may escalate or the victim might end up being punished harder than the bully.
You don't attack the bully first; you retaliate.
Retaliation is not self-defence.
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#704Why only for boys?
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a fair amount of research pointing to prohibiting corporal punishment for kids leads to better mental health, lower suicide rate, etc But is that research of high quality?
Consider: not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids, and also free. Ergo, if we're gonna be hitting kids, we need really strong research to show that it's effective. Which we don't have. The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice.
> The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice.
This argument could be applied to anything. I'm glad it is not.
> not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids
These two are not the alternatives in question, so the following conclusion is invalid.
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it will only make the bullies taking their revenge on vulnerable ones with even more cruelty. And they will plan it carefully to be hard/impossible to prove. It will lead to the escalation, not to the resolution Bullies are generally not very intelligent. Deterrents absolutely do work if applied consistently. A society that applies corporal punishment at multiple levels, as Singapore does, strongly ingrains the ide…
Teaching someone that using violence and abuse as ways to exercise power is not a lesson I want people to learn.
The state's monopoly on violence is literally the only way to enforce their perceived legitimacy
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#707Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about the amount of times when the bully didn't stop? That's the useful metric here. When there was resistance, how effective was it? Judging from your description you didn't lay out any examples of where fighting back failed.
Because I can't really think of examples. Mind you that might be biased because people do often have an intuition for when they'd either get their ass handed to them or it would otherwise backfire so I assume there'd be some examples otherwise if they didn't take that into account. Also these examples were mostly from incidents where the bullying got physical anyway. Much of it isn't and making it physical even as th…
Right so without examples your evidence actually lends credence to my point. 3/3 times is a 100 percent rate of the bully backing down. That is the logical and rational analysis.
Obviously your personal conclusion is different but I would say it’s not an empirical or strictly logical analytical conclusion.
You will also note that I was able to guess and predict where you’re coming from. Not only did I ask for the full metric, I asked for it partly because I can predict it would be 3 out of 3. My response to the other persons reply predicted what was going on in your head quite accurately. Because of this I would say that I have knowledge about this context that you don’t know about it and that you can learn from. It’s natural for you to you to fight for your point but that would be a form of bias.
So here’s something that you can agree with. If the victim wanted to he can go to the kitchen grab a knife bring it to school to try to kill that bully. Another option is to follow that bully home and attempt to slaughter his family.
No matter how small a victim is… any bully will back down if he knew the victim was willing to raise the violence level to these insane extremes.
The point of that example is to show you a level of resistance that will cause nearly 100 percent of bullies to back down. And to also show how extremely possible it is for anyone to do. Anyone can go to the kitchen and grab a knife and raise the stakes. The point is that most victims just don’t have the balls to do it.
From a practical standpoint you only need to go a fraction of that distance in order to cause most bullies to back down. Are you willing to get violent with a bully? Maybe don’t get a knife but be willing to smash his face in with your fists. Or bring a bat to school and try smash down his legs to get him to kneel if your fists are truly too weak. If you don’t do shit then the bully won’t back down and that is primarily what the bully takes advantage of as shown with the 3/3 statistic you presented me with.
The victim definitely has choices. But he’s too scared take charge or even follow through with the right choice. Weakness is not a realistic excuse because the victim has choices in weaponry (rocks, bat) that can even the odds or even bend the odds to extreme levels (knife).
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider: not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids, and also free. Ergo, if we're gonna be hitting kids, we need really strong research to show that it's effective. Which we don't have. The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice.
> The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice. This argument could be applied to anything. I'm glad it is not. > not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids These two are not the alternatives in question, so the following conclusion is invalid.
You basically didn't address anything I wrote - this is one of the most worthless comments I've written in a while.
I will reiterate. If you, or others, want to hit children then that's something you need to justify with cold hard studies. Not me. The default is not hitting people.
Acknowledge the reality: if I do these punishments to another adult man, I will:
1. Probably get my ass handed to me.
2. Go to jail and be prosecuted for assault and battery.
Given that, why then does it magically become okay to do it to kids?
The answer is it doesn't, fucking obviously. So, if you want to do that, justify it. And it better be a good justification backed by science, not some pussy-footing "reasoning" I'm sure you're going to bust out.
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The default should be DENY, not ALLOW, just like good security practice. This argument could be applied to anything. I'm glad it is not. > not hitting kids is much easier than hitting kids These two are not the alternatives in question, so the following conclusion is invalid.
You basically didn't address anything I wrote - this is one of the most worthless comments I've written in a while. I will reiterate. If you, or others, want to hit children then that's something you need to justify with cold hard studies. Not me. The default is not hitting people. Acknowledge the reality: if I do these punishments to another adult man, I will: 1. Probably get my ass handed to me. 2. Go to jail and b…
The default is hitting people. We are afforded the not hitting people personally because law enforcement and therefore hitting people is delegated to the government. Government doesn't do much law enforcement when it comes to children behavior.
Re: Singapore introduces caning for boys who bully others at school
#710I certainly don't condone the experience I had in junior high school, although it seemed to work for our specific environment.
As a child I went to a well funded Catholic school in Chicago. Fighting was discouraged by priests who would put the two kids in a boxing ring - we were made to use gloves (but I don't remember helmets). Both kids would have a priest in their corner, but really for their own amusement. Then they would ring the bell and the two combatants would have at it.
What those who don't box don't know is that unless you are trained, boxing exhausts you almost immediately and the gloves very quickly become so heavy you can hardly lift them to punch. At the end of the first round, the priests would ask us if we wanted to continue, we would exhaustedly decline.
My only introduction to the ring ended with my opponent becoming a best friend, and most bouts ended the same.
Again, I'm not condoning this practice, and I'm not nostalgic about the period, but it seemed to have positive effects in a milieu that seems no longer to exist (I'm 73).