In which all but the most conservative polypeople have a stroke...

[Ned]

Ted, Kerry was opposed to the war before he joined up in '66. He was not just against Nixon.

Nixon was rapidly pulling out ground troops even at the time of Kerry's testimony in the summer of 1971. Nixon began pulling out the troops in the summer of 1969. Kerry's main argument was not that we should pull out the troops, because we were doing that already, but that we should instead abandon South Vietnam to its fate. Kerry believed we are actually fighting on the wrong side in that war as did the vast majority of antiwar protesters.

According to the memoirs of Giap, it was Kerry's testimony and the antiwar movement that kept the North Vietnamese from negotiating a peace deal. In other words, it was Kerry's testimony and Kerry's opposition to the war that actually cost many GIs their lives.

[Ted Striker]

I'd like to see the exact quote from Giap and not the "well traveled" adn far fetched interpretation by Carl Limbacher/NewsMax and Oliver North.


Secondly, I've heard a million, "if it wasn't for so and so, the US would have won."

There were a million reasons for losing and there were probably thousands of better reasons than Kerry's testimony.

Face it, we ****ed up. So let's leave it at that and don't let it happen again.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Face it, we ****ed up. So let's leave it at that and don't let it happen again.

Nah, Walter Cronkite screwed up.

[Ted Striker]

good point

[bipolarbear]

Is it still enforced? i haven't heard of it being enforced. Maybe its one of those really old laws, you know like the kind you find in those 100 hilarious laws books, that people are too lazy to get rid of, so they let them sit, until they make into one of those books.

[Ned]

Ted, I hope you for a minute do not contend that the antiwar movement had no effect on our ability to negotiate a peace treaty with North Vietnam. The antiwar movement and its effect on Congress was the single most decisive cause for the delay of a peace treaty until 1972.

I give you a few quotes from Kissinger's book "White House Years." In November of 1969, the secret negotiations between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho began. At page 444, the text reads,

"In the afternoon, it was Le Duc Tho's turned. He began by challenging my assessment that events had moved in our favor since August. "Onlywhen we have a correct assessment the balance of forces," said Le Duc Tho, in his role Leninist schoolmaster, "can we have correct solution." He revealed the importance Hanoi attached to our public opinion by giving it pride of place in his presentation. He denied Nixon's public standing had improved, citing a Gallup Poll which showed that the number of Americans favoring immediate withdrawal had risen from 21 to 35%. This, however, was "only" public opinion. "In addition, I have seen many statements by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by the Democratic Party, by Mr. Clifford, which have demanded the total withdrawal of American forces, the change of Thieu-Ky-Khiem., and the appointment of a successor to Ambassador Lodge."

All through Kissinger's book Kissinger illustrates just how the antiwar movement and the continuing resolutions by the Senate to unilaterally pull our troops out of Vietnam only hardened the North Vietnamese position. They stated that all they had to do was wait and Congress would force an unconditional withdrawal.

There is little doubt that the likes of Kerry and McGovern extended the war and caused severe damage to America.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

No, Ned, he wouldn't. Most Vietnam Vets respect him and his stances. He's drawing a great deal of support from them.

You should stop getting your ideas from Ted Sampley, a proven liar. You can repeat the same lies if you want, it doesn't make them true.

There are lots of vets who disagree with him too. So far I've seen no polls (believable or not) that address that issue. Personally, I think it'll be an albatross for him.

[SpencerH]

I'm a parent.

I was caned in school for the first time when I was 5; the last time was in grade 9 when I was 13. After 1974 9or so) corporal punishment was banned.

I'm 100% opposed to corporal punishment in school (and aside from a single swat on the behind, I'm also opposed to parents dealing it out but so long as its not in front of me, its their business). Schools are supposed to teach fundamental knowledge not behaviour. I do not abdicate my rights as a parent when school starts and anyone who strikes my children has to deal with me.

[The Mad Viking]

The function of corporal punishment is to make the person in authority feel better; to reduce their frustrations, and let them believe they are accomplishing something.

It is very cruel of people like SpencerH, molly bloom, and Laz to suggest that the feelings of these people should be violated by prohibting them from the blatant misuse of raw physical force against the most helpless members of our society.

Seriously, JohnT- I am a parent, and I am strongly opposed to corporal punishment.

Why? Because it makes no sense whatsoever.

If the use of power against others is wrong, how is it right to use it against the small, weak and fragile?

If they are not wise enough to understand, THEN YOU BEAT THEM FOR THAT??? WTF!!!

If you cannot make them understand, THAT IS YOUR FAILURE. GO BEAT YOURSELF!!!

All you are teaching a kid by beating them, is that you are stronger than them, so you can.

You then spend many years trying to teach them that it is wrong to beat someone just because they disagree with their behgaviour.

And you wonder why it is so hard for them to understand?

My older son is 17 and a hell raiser. My younger son is 14 and well-behaved. My older son, naturally, has friends of a similar nature. Some of these were corporally punished. It did not change their nature, but the mother of one of his friends has been hit back by her son. She then phoned the police. Stupid ****.

Facilities with corporal punishment often do exhibit better behaviour. But only as long as the threat of punishment exists. The moment you remove the threat, all hell breaks loose. Because no-one ever taught the REASON for the RULES.

If you want your kids to frow up to be human beings who can think, evaluate, choose, in short to LIVE, you need get them started now.

If you want them to be dogs, then go ahead and beat them.

[GePap]

My parents used corporal punishment, though infrequently- my grandmother did as well. It may have its uses but they are very limited, and certainly not in school.

As The Mad Viking said, trully behaving well is based on the idea of trusting your parents or the authorities, and believing they do have your best interests at mind, they know what they are talking about even when you don't, and thinking they have love you OR they whish you best, and thus give you the right advice in any situation, even if you do not understand it- at some point you get to understanding, but it begins with trust and respect- and I question how much trust and respect can be built solely from fear of pain.

[Ned]

Should parents have an option to corporally punish their kids and authorize the schools to do so as well, or should we ban it entirely?

[Drogue]

I'm against this, though I'm not sure how strongly against it. I'm glad we don't have it, but I can understand the arguments for.

Originally posted by Elok
(the V.P. had resigned after being told to paddle a little girl for talking back).

I'm more concerned that a teacher felt the need to resign to avoid paddling a student. Surely, if it exists, the teacher should be allowed to choose another punishment?

Originally posted by Elok
But the idea that there's some kind of "arse-beating regulatory commission" to approve paddle thickness is even more depressing to me.

Considering the number of "find me a job" threads I've seen lately, this could come in handy...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Should parents have an option to corporally punish their kids and authorize the schools to do so as well, or should we ban it entirely?

Option a) providing that children can beat their parents when they misbehave; dad gets tipsy at the office works Christmas party and makes a pass at a co-worker, mum accidentally forgets to pay for an item at the greengrocers, uncle bob leaves the petrol station without paying for various services, and so on.

Then when they arrive home, a moderate amount of birching should ensure they never repeat offend.

All that corporal punishment teaches us, is the lesson that bullies teach everywhere- if you have power over someone else you can abuse it, the more power the greater the abuse. The bully's power comes from physical or mental intimidation- so can your parents' power, and your teacher's power.

'Do as I say, not do as I do' is the refrain of the powerful.

I suspect if your dad or mother had hit each other every time there was a parental/marital 'infraction' then Ned you would have been a ward of court long ago.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by JohnT
It is something that cannot be taught from a book, it is something that cannot be reasoned, it MUST be experienced, or else you truly have no clue.

I agree completely. We all experience it as a child. You say you are better qualified because you are a parent, others could say they are better qualified because they are closer to childhood, so remember it better. Considering how many parents haven't a clue how to raise kids, the fact they might have experience wouldn't necessarily make them any better.

And talking of experience, you wouldn't have experience (IIRC) of parenting a school aged kid, which this thread is about. Sure, corporal punishment may be needed at an early age, but later on it may not be.

[Ned]

Molly, I fundamentally do not disagree. I think you have convinced me that we need to ban it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Schools are supposed to teach fundamental knowledge not behaviour.

I'm concerned about corporal punishment for many reasons:

• It teaches children right and wrong, not a grey area. It teaches children the morals of the teacher, not allowing them to make their own.
• It is dibilitating. Hitting someone stops them doing some things, from sport to simply things like sitting down.
• It is a punishment for something that is often a lack of understanding, not a desire to harm.
• If parents consent is required, it leads to a system whereby some can misbehave, knowing they are safe from the paddle, and some can't.
• It psychologically affects people. I know people who are still traumatised by being hit in school. WHen you are hit by another student, it is unsanctioned and is seen as wrong. You have the teachers, the authority, to protect you. When the authority itself is harming you, there is no-one to turn to. The idea of someone in a position of power over you deciding to harm you physically is quote disturbing, IMHO.
• We don't physically abuse prisoners, who have gone against set laws, and have had due process of being convicted. Why physically abuse weaker people, who have gone against school set rules (some of which may not be written down) and who have no had any process. They haven't had their side heard. Why does that matter? Suppose there's a fight between two people. One boy is bullying the other. The teacher does the usual thing of "you've both been fighting, I don't care who started it, you both get punished". So not only is this boy being bullied, he's also being punished for being bullied, by someone who should be watching out and protecting him.

Authority and laws are there to protect citizens, especially the weakest members of society. Children are the weakest members, yet they do not have the same rights to protect we have? That just seems wrong to me.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, I fundamentally do not disagree. I think you have convinced me that we need to ban it.

Careful Ned- people will say we're in love.

I speak as an uncle/childminder only, of course, and an ex-child. I'm always aware that as the 'gay' uncle, physical punishment is most definitely not an option, not only for the avoidance of doubt, but because to me it's just plain wrong.

My proclivities for spoiling the nieces/nephews and friends' children usually mean there isn't any serious misbehaviour anyway, but having said that, I've had comments from people in public telling me how well-behaved the children are- and this is a reflection on how self-disciplined and well brought up the children have been.

Some percentage of children will always act up some of the time, but I think physical punishment is the punishment borne of frustration and expediency.
Thankfully industrial disputes and managerial disagreements aren't settled this way.....

[Drogue]

Originally posted by JohnT
So I'm correct in assuming all the non-corporal punishment people don't have their own kids?

Or maybe they just happen to be older, and grew up in a time when corporal punishment was allowed and more commonly used.

Again, the US seems to be using violent methods when the rest of the world has solved it peacefully. School isn't there to teach morals, it's there to teach knowledge. However they do have to keep order, in order to teach effectively. Therefore, if someone misbehaves, detention. If they do it again, then suspend them. If they are habitual offenders, then tell them to find another school. If they stop other kids learning, remove them from the learning environment. Physical violence is simply unnecessary.

[Whaleboy]

Drogue is bang on here.

So I'm correct in assuming all the non-corporal punishment people don't have their own kids?

No. I know parents that never hit their kids, and their kids are perfectly good, intelligent and nice. Not perfect, but who is? Furthermore, I have three little brothers who to my memory have not been hit in years, they are reasonably well behaved compared to their friends, and when I'm looking after them I never have the need to hit.

Physical violence is simply unnecessary

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Drogue is bang on here.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I know parents that never hit their kids, and their kids are perfectly good, intelligent and nice. Not perfect, but who is?

Originally posted by Whaleboy

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Drogue

Again, the US seems to be using violent methods when the rest of the world has solved it peacefully. School isn't there to teach morals, it's there to teach knowledge. However they do have to keep order, in order to teach effectively. Therefore, if someone misbehaves, detention. If they do it again, then suspend them. If they are habitual offenders, then tell them to find another school. If they stop other kids learning, remove them from the learning environment. Physical violence is simply unnecessary.

I'm glad to hear that the rest of the world has solved school discipline problems. I wasn't aware we were so far behind.

Let's see

Step 1: Detention - doesn't work

Step 2: Suspension - "Thanks for the day off - maybe I'll act up some more and get more time off"

Step 3: New school - "Cool, I get some new scenery and I can do whatever I want"

Step 4: Expulsion - - Now the kid gets no education and you've disrupted 2 schools.

I'd rather let my kid or one of his clasmates get a swat on the butt then go thru the above cycle. Remember I said swat on the butt not a beating.

Except what really happens is this:

Step 1: Detention - doesn't work.

Step 2: Suspension - unlikely because teachers don't want to kick kids out of school for minor infractions that need to be dealt with swiftly. So kids act up because they know there is no real consequence.

I don't like the idea of a teacher getting pissed and using corporal punishment. But I have no problem with the idea of children and parents being told on the first day of school that these are the rules and these are the consequences.

Maybe something along this line:

Talking during class/Distractng Class

First time - warning
2nd time - lose recess
3rd time - seperate student in classrom from others
4th time - 1 wack on the buttocks with a pointer

The point is that if reasoning with a child doesn't work, and it always doesn't, then a punishment that the child doesn't like has to be used.

Most children will find 1-3 bad enough. For those that don't, in and of itself, knowing that 4 exists is usually sufficient. Its rarely necessary to use 4.

As for parental consent - I would require it no more then I would require consent to lose recess. I would tell parents the rules and punishments in a handbook. If they didn't like it they could a) home school b) put thier kid in a private school that didn't allow such measures c) run for school board or governor and change the law.

BTW - I am parent of 2 kids. 15 year old daughter and a 9 year old son. Between the 2 of them I have only had to use corporal punishment on one of them once. It never really had to get there except once but they both knew it was a possibility.

Anyways thats my 2 cents.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, if some here feel that corporal punishment woks, lets take it to the logical conclusion- all teachers must be allowed to, at least once a year, execute one unrully student in front of the class as an example. Imagine your teahcer took that bastard tommy and shot him down, and then had the other kids clean up the corpse? No one would EVER question teacher ever again..

Remember folks, Rule of Terror work!

I'm all for it if the worst teacher in the district is also executed publicly each year as well.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned
Ted, I hope you for a minute do not contend that the antiwar movement had no effect on our ability to negotiate a peace treaty with North Vietnam. The antiwar movement and its effect on Congress was the single most decisive cause for the delay of a peace treaty until 1972.

OF COURSE it had an effect. DUH. Beating the USA at home was the plan from the very start.

But the effects of any anti-war movements were far overshadowed by the people running the show, mainly idiots like McNamera. Place the blame on them.

The wind was already blowing in the direction it wanted to, people like Kerry just pointed it out.

[Ned]

Ted, I think you wholly misunderstood the point. The goal of Johnson and later of Nixon was to get a peace treaty to end the fighting with the North. The peace movement was a single most important factor in the delay in obtaining a peace agreement until 1972. The Communists were hoping that America would pull out unilaterally and abandon the government of Vietnam to its fate. That is what the peace movement advocated and that is why there was no peace for years.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
A teacher once picked me up by the collar and pinned me against the wall for talking back and generally being an adolescent *****.

It only happened once, never had to happen again, and he remains one of my favorite teachers.

It didn't happen to me but in grade 7 one of the less well behaved boys ( and left back twice by that point) was acting up. The teacher picked him up and actually pretty gently pinned him to the wall saying very calmly and quietly, " You and I aren't going to have any more problems are we ?"

The whole class saw this. The teacher had no more problems.

[The Mad Viking]

Talking during class/Distractng Class

First time - warning
2nd time - lose recess
3rd time - seperate student in classrom from others
4th time - 1 wack on the buttocks with a pointer

The point is that if reasoning with a child doesn't work, and it always doesn't, then a punishment that the child doesn't like has to be used.

Most children will find 1-3 bad enough. For those that don't, in and of itself, knowing that 4 exists is usually sufficient. Its rarely necessary to use 4.

Wrong. For MOST KIDS it is correct; but for a significant number, you will be smacking them on the butt often, and some, every day of their school life. Sometimes because their parents forgot to give them their Ritalin that morning. That will certainly lead to a well-adjusted child. NOT!

I have two sons. The younger one would be in the rarely category. The older one will not obey a rule he doesn't understand. Period. All through his school life, we had to explain to the teachers and administrators that punishments of all kinds were completely ineffective with Karl. What you needed to do is take the time to explain why the rule was created, how it worked and why it was important. They never believed us. Finally, after a couple of suspensions and hearing us repeat our suggestions over and over, they would relent and try. Usually, the very next day, Karl would be convincing the other students about the importance of adhering to the rule.

The administrators were generally shocked and amazed.

If corporal punishment had been an option in elementary schools, Karl would have been hit nearly every day. He is not afraid of pain, and absolutely refuses to have his behaviour coerced. I literally told a VP one day that they only punishment that would stop Karl from breaking a rule that he believed was stupid, was beheading.

Since he has moved to High School, things have been much better. (The exact opposite of the apocalypse predicted by elementary schools) At Karl's school, the actually discuss things with the students; they listen to what Karl has to say, treat his ideas with respect, and explain their positions. He is still a bit of a wildman, but disciplinary issues when his behaviour crosses the line are generally agreed upon by all parties.

I find it surprising that someone who believes in Libertarianism would condone the use of force on individuals. I guess children don't have natural rights.

[debeest]

I have never had to smack either of my children (8 and 14 years old), and they're delightfully well behaved kids. If you raise your children right, there's no need for violence. In fact, raising them right implies not being violent to them.

School, or any other situation where someone must raise children that someone else is primarily repsonsible for, does offer additional challenges. If a teacher feels that violence is necessary, then the proper target usually would be the parent who "raised" the child so poorly. Not an option, though. Still, the same techniques that worked for my own children would have great applicability. Violence should be a last resort, or else you're modeling violence as a preferred choice.

[Deity Dude]

. The older one will not obey a rule he doesn't understand. Period. All through his school life, we had to explain to the teachers and administrators that punishments of all kinds were completely ineffective with Karl. What you needed to do is take the time to explain why the rule was created, how it worked and why it was important. They never believed us. Finally, after a couple of suspensions and hearing us repeat our suggestions over and over, they would relent and try. Usually, the very next day, Karl would be convincing the other students about the importance of adhering to the rule.

I assumed that it was obvious that teachers would try and explain issues before resorting to the punishments above.

Originally posted by debeest
Violence should be a last resort, or else you're modeling violence as a preferred choice.

If you'll notice in my example it was a last resort.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Remember folks, Rule of Terror work!

Apparently not. Teachers Unions have apparently failed.


On a more serious note, what concerns me is that only 22 states allow corporal punishment.

Any 'poly parent please weigh in on the subject. I agree with JohnT's assessment, actual parenting is a better qualifier on this subject.

JohnT - Yey
Ogie - Yey
Deity - Yey
Jimmytrick - Yey
Viking - Nay, Iassume
Debeest - Nay
Ned - Nay

Other parents?

One last point. The use of corporal punishment is outlawed in 28 states this means even if you think it is something allowable in certain circumstances it is strictly outlawed. Given the toolkit of allowable practices teachers/administrators are allowed to employ why necessarily tie their hands by disallowing certain tactics (even if used sparingly).

[Deity Dude]

If you look on post above your's, I voted yeah