Fail a test and receive the "Board of Education". - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Fail a test and receive the "Board of Education".

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Klirshon
Nov 12, 2010 8:43:01 Not that I really care to debate corporal punishment; I found this article amusing.

Remember Sir Isaac Newton when you get the stick, children.
#2
zombie_babies
Nov 12, 2010 8:49:31
Well, this'll teach him to never fail a test again. Hell, I bet he never does. Er, wait. Paddling can't make you smarter, can it? Oh well. At least the teacher got to vent his daddy issues (if what the kid said was true).
#3
scypio
Nov 12, 2010 8:55:46
I do think children should be disciplined and punished more... but at the same time, I do think teachers are out of control with their Nazi-ism. So I'll say both were wrong.

But I'm surprised that there are still paddlings. But I guess Alabama is a pretty different world.
#4
pluisjen
Nov 12, 2010 9:01:04 This reminds me of something I heard happened in the 50s and 60s or something.
#5
zombie_babies
Nov 12, 2010 9:02:14 Yeah, I had no idea it was cool to paddle kids in school anywhere anymore. I mean, I remember the threat of it when I was in my early school years but can't recall it ever happening. The closest thing was some teachers that prominently displayed their paddles and who also took pleasure in describing how they had the shop class make 'em with holes in 'em so they could get a faster swing. Psychological, sure, but never physical. Hell, until 6th grade I was in Catholic school and had a few nun teachers. Never saw or heard of anyone being hit, though - at least that I can recall. Considerng I graduated HS in 1996, that this is still ok in some places is surprising. But as you said, 'Bama is a whole nutha planet, son.
#6
erato
Nov 12, 2010 9:30:37 @page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
I once read a bit from a guide about child rearing written some 200-300 years ago, which said that you should never apply corporal punishment to a child for something the child can't help, such as not doing good enough or not knowing the rules, but that beating should only be done when the child is deliberately disobedient. Granted, it was progressive for its time, but it's amazing that it's still considered progressive in some parts of the western world today.
#7
zombie_babies
Nov 12, 2010 9:40:17 There's a difference between beating and spanking, though. And there's something to be said for pain as a motivator as well. Thing is, there's all sorts of ways aside from spanking that are no harm to the child (though I do not consider spanking to be harmful if done for the proper reasons, is applied consistantly and is never done to do damage) yet still make the experience unpleasant enough that they'd not like to repeat it. Oh, and I do not feel that the ol' school thought of allowing neighbors, strangers and school officials to physically discipline your child has any place in bringing that child up. That's just an awful idea and one I'm glad is mostly gone.
#8
EscherEnigma
Nov 12, 2010 10:06:58 ... wait... they call seventh grade elementary school down there?
#9
erato
Nov 12, 2010 10:14:14
There's a difference between beating and spanking, though. And there's something to be said for pain as a motivator as well. Thing is, there's all sorts of ways aside from spanking that are no harm to the child (though I do not consider spanking to be harmful if done for the proper reasons, is applied consistantly and is never done to do damage) yet still make the experience unpleasant enough that they'd not like to repeat it. Oh, and I do not feel that the ol' school thought of allowing neighbors, strangers and school officials to physically discipline your child has any place in bringing that child up. That's just an awful idea and one I'm glad is mostly gone.

Since it was Danish (or translated from German), I'm not sure the wording is the same as it would have been in English. I think the words used were hitting/striking and corporal punishment in general. Imo, failing carries the punishment in itself, you don't need an extra motivator to avoid it. Besides, I would never blame, let alone punish, a child for failing a test unless I was absolutely positive it was deliberate.
#10
boraxe
Nov 12, 2010 10:46:56
I do think children should be disciplined and punished more... but at the same time, I do think teachers are out of control with their Nazi-ism. So I'll say both were wrong.

Godwin in 3. Well done.
#11
ADHadh
Nov 12, 2010 10:50:57
I do think children should be disciplined and punished more... but at the same time, I do think teachers are out of control with their Nazi-ism. So I'll say both were wrong.

Godwin in 3. Well done.

There was a Godwin in 2 in a recent thread.
#12
boraxe
Nov 12, 2010 10:53:48
There was a Godwin in 2 in a recent thread.

I know. Not coincidentally it was also Scypio who did it.
#13
Idolis
Nov 12, 2010 11:02:15 Hmmm, I do it to a kid I was helping raise (not that it was right) and I'm charged with a felony. This guy does it, and no one even considers suing. I should have been a teacher.
#14
zombie_babies
Nov 12, 2010 12:17:08
Since it was Danish (or translated from German), I'm not sure the wording is the same as it would have been in English. I think the words used were hitting/striking and corporal punishment in general. Imo, failing carries the punishment in itself, you don't need an extra motivator to avoid it. Besides, I would never blame, let alone punish, a child for failing a test unless I was absolutely positive it was deliberate.

Yeah, I thought that may have had something to do with it. Corporal punishment isn't necessarily beating but when you get into translations, subtleties can easily be lost. Oh well, I agree with the rest of what you posted here. Failing is bad enough, but I will give a lecture or something like that and, if there are rewards for good performance, those are obviously not given in the case of failure. I think that's enough. When the kid fails a test or homework or whatever cuz he's lazy and doesn't do the work, the lectures get long, heh (cuz it's an ongoing issue). I'd never lay a hand on him, though, as he's not my child and it's just not my place to touch him. Even if he were, I'd not spank him for failing a test no matter how irritating it is when he just doesn't do the work. But yeah, you can't hit a kid for not understanding something.
#15
EscherEnigma
Nov 12, 2010 14:06:27
Hmmm, I do it to a kid I was helping raise (not that it was right) and I'm charged with a felony. This guy does it, and no one even considers suing. I should have been a teacher.

The mother did file a police report, so legal action might yet result.
#16
Someone
Nov 12, 2010 23:50:16 I wonder if the legal repercussions of said action will involve corporal punishment. Because that would be ironic.
#17
tsukinousagi
Nov 13, 2010 9:01:25 Must be a small town school. In a major city the guy is gunned down later for doing it as a lesson to other teachers that think its a good idea.
#18
jesse.two.coins
Nov 15, 2010 7:17:54 In Florida they used to call the parents to come do it or the parents could allow them to do it
#19
atrociousDM
Nov 15, 2010 18:30:46 I am sorry, but how is this not assault?
#20
iqwinn
Nov 15, 2010 18:53:08 Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence.

Children do need to be disciplined, otherwise you end up raising monsters. Such discipline, though, needs to be in conjunction with love, a desire to make the child better, not as a means of venting your frustrations.
#21
boraxe
Nov 16, 2010 10:50:28
Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence.

Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such.
#22
Idolis
Nov 16, 2010 15:17:38 Actually it is Battery and even more because the paddle could be considered a weapon and so ups the charge to Aggravated Battery, at least that's how it was explained to me.
#23
Klirshon
Nov 16, 2010 19:54:05 If my memory bank is correct, there is the possibility for the prosecution to charge both offenses.
#24
homicidal_squirrel
Nov 16, 2010 21:58:12
Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence.

Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such.

Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault.
#25
pigknight
Nov 16, 2010 22:00:52
Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence.

Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such.

Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault.

What if it's a ghost and you hit them but your arm phases through their incorporeal body?
#26
homicidal_squirrel
Nov 16, 2010 22:02:39
Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence.

Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such.

Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault.

What if it's a ghost and you hit them but your arm phases through their incorporeal body?

I believe that is called a Baker Act.
#27
iqwinn
Nov 16, 2010 22:03:45
Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence.

Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such.

Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault.

What if it's a ghost and you hit them but your arm phases through their incorporeal body?

(slams pigknight upside the head with a 4lb sledgehammer)

Smart ass.
#28
pluisjen
Nov 17, 2010 1:54:08 Since it says "causes harm" you'd think that anything you do to a ghost would be assault since you can't actually harm one.
#29
toastedamphibian
Nov 17, 2010 5:40:47 Both assault and battery charges only apply for hitting living humans.
If it was corporeal remains, you could be charged with desicration of a corpse, but it isnt.

Sounds to me like punching a ghost is a legal loophole. Go get'em slugger!
#30
zombie_babies
Nov 17, 2010 9:09:58 Hells yes. Casper is so about to be my beotch.
#31
jesse.two.coins
Nov 17, 2010 11:50:15 soak a lousville slugger in holy water and swing away lmao
#32
iqwinn
Nov 18, 2010 2:35:20
Hells yes. Casper is so about to be my beotch.

I'd rather you took out this guy: www.milkandcookies.com/link/54983/detail...
#33
jesse.two.coins
Nov 22, 2010 11:56:26 dragonbane i'm sorry I was a jerk to you a long time ago /hugs

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Klirshon Nov 12, 2010 8:43:01	Not that I really care to debate corporal punishment; I found this article amusing. Remember Sir Isaac Newton when you get the stick, children.
#2 zombie_babies Nov 12, 2010 8:49:31	Well, this'll teach him to never fail a test again. Hell, I bet he never does. Er, wait. Paddling can't make you smarter, can it? Oh well. At least the teacher got to vent his daddy issues (if what the kid said was true).
#3 scypio Nov 12, 2010 8:55:46	I do think children should be disciplined and punished more... but at the same time, I do think teachers are out of control with their Nazi-ism. So I'll say both were wrong. But I'm surprised that there are still paddlings. But I guess Alabama is a pretty different world.
#4 pluisjen Nov 12, 2010 9:01:04	This reminds me of something I heard happened in the 50s and 60s or something.
#5 zombie_babies Nov 12, 2010 9:02:14	Yeah, I had no idea it was cool to paddle kids in school anywhere anymore. I mean, I remember the threat of it when I was in my early school years but can't recall it ever happening. The closest thing was some teachers that prominently displayed their paddles and who also took pleasure in describing how they had the shop class make 'em with holes in 'em so they could get a faster swing. Psychological, sure, but never physical. Hell, until 6th grade I was in Catholic school and had a few nun teachers. Never saw or heard of anyone being hit, though - at least that I can recall. Considerng I graduated HS in 1996, that this is still ok in some places is surprising. But as you said, 'Bama is a whole nutha planet, son.
#6 erato Nov 12, 2010 9:30:37	@page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> I once read a bit from a guide about child rearing written some 200-300 years ago, which said that you should never apply corporal punishment to a child for something the child can't help, such as not doing good enough or not knowing the rules, but that beating should only be done when the child is deliberately disobedient. Granted, it was progressive for its time, but it's amazing that it's still considered progressive in some parts of the western world today.
#7 zombie_babies Nov 12, 2010 9:40:17	There's a difference between beating and spanking, though. And there's something to be said for pain as a motivator as well. Thing is, there's all sorts of ways aside from spanking that are no harm to the child (though I do not consider spanking to be harmful if done for the proper reasons, is applied consistantly and is never done to do damage) yet still make the experience unpleasant enough that they'd not like to repeat it. Oh, and I do not feel that the ol' school thought of allowing neighbors, strangers and school officials to physically discipline your child has any place in bringing that child up. That's just an awful idea and one I'm glad is mostly gone.
#8 EscherEnigma Nov 12, 2010 10:06:58	... wait... they call seventh grade elementary school down there?
#9 erato Nov 12, 2010 10:14:14	There's a difference between beating and spanking, though. And there's something to be said for pain as a motivator as well. Thing is, there's all sorts of ways aside from spanking that are no harm to the child (though I do not consider spanking to be harmful if done for the proper reasons, is applied consistantly and is never done to do damage) yet still make the experience unpleasant enough that they'd not like to repeat it. Oh, and I do not feel that the ol' school thought of allowing neighbors, strangers and school officials to physically discipline your child has any place in bringing that child up. That's just an awful idea and one I'm glad is mostly gone. Since it was Danish (or translated from German), I'm not sure the wording is the same as it would have been in English. I think the words used were hitting/striking and corporal punishment in general. Imo, failing carries the punishment in itself, you don't need an extra motivator to avoid it. Besides, I would never blame, let alone punish, a child for failing a test unless I was absolutely positive it was deliberate.
#10 boraxe Nov 12, 2010 10:46:56	I do think children should be disciplined and punished more... but at the same time, I do think teachers are out of control with their Nazi-ism. So I'll say both were wrong. Godwin in 3. Well done.
#11 ADHadh Nov 12, 2010 10:50:57	I do think children should be disciplined and punished more... but at the same time, I do think teachers are out of control with their Nazi-ism. So I'll say both were wrong. Godwin in 3. Well done. There was a Godwin in 2 in a recent thread.
#12 boraxe Nov 12, 2010 10:53:48	There was a Godwin in 2 in a recent thread. I know. Not coincidentally it was also Scypio who did it.
#13 Idolis Nov 12, 2010 11:02:15	Hmmm, I do it to a kid I was helping raise (not that it was right) and I'm charged with a felony. This guy does it, and no one even considers suing. I should have been a teacher.
#14 zombie_babies Nov 12, 2010 12:17:08	Since it was Danish (or translated from German), I'm not sure the wording is the same as it would have been in English. I think the words used were hitting/striking and corporal punishment in general. Imo, failing carries the punishment in itself, you don't need an extra motivator to avoid it. Besides, I would never blame, let alone punish, a child for failing a test unless I was absolutely positive it was deliberate. Yeah, I thought that may have had something to do with it. Corporal punishment isn't necessarily beating but when you get into translations, subtleties can easily be lost. Oh well, I agree with the rest of what you posted here. Failing is bad enough, but I will give a lecture or something like that and, if there are rewards for good performance, those are obviously not given in the case of failure. I think that's enough. When the kid fails a test or homework or whatever cuz he's lazy and doesn't do the work, the lectures get long, heh (cuz it's an ongoing issue). I'd never lay a hand on him, though, as he's not my child and it's just not my place to touch him. Even if he were, I'd not spank him for failing a test no matter how irritating it is when he just doesn't do the work. But yeah, you can't hit a kid for not understanding something.
#15 EscherEnigma Nov 12, 2010 14:06:27	Hmmm, I do it to a kid I was helping raise (not that it was right) and I'm charged with a felony. This guy does it, and no one even considers suing. I should have been a teacher. The mother did file a police report, so legal action might yet result.
#16 Someone Nov 12, 2010 23:50:16	I wonder if the legal repercussions of said action will involve corporal punishment. Because that would be ironic.
#17 tsukinousagi Nov 13, 2010 9:01:25	Must be a small town school. In a major city the guy is gunned down later for doing it as a lesson to other teachers that think its a good idea.
#18 jesse.two.coins Nov 15, 2010 7:17:54	In Florida they used to call the parents to come do it or the parents could allow them to do it
#19 atrociousDM Nov 15, 2010 18:30:46	I am sorry, but how is this not assault?
#20 iqwinn Nov 15, 2010 18:53:08	Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence. Children do need to be disciplined, otherwise you end up raising monsters. Such discipline, though, needs to be in conjunction with love, a desire to make the child better, not as a means of venting your frustrations.
#21 boraxe Nov 16, 2010 10:50:28	Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence. Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such.
#22 Idolis Nov 16, 2010 15:17:38	Actually it is Battery and even more because the paddle could be considered a weapon and so ups the charge to Aggravated Battery, at least that's how it was explained to me.
#23 Klirshon Nov 16, 2010 19:54:05	If my memory bank is correct, there is the possibility for the prosecution to charge both offenses.
#24 homicidal_squirrel Nov 16, 2010 21:58:12	Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence. Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such. Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault.
#25 pigknight Nov 16, 2010 22:00:52	Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence. Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such. Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault. What if it's a ghost and you hit them but your arm phases through their incorporeal body?
#26 homicidal_squirrel Nov 16, 2010 22:02:39	Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence. Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such. Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault. What if it's a ghost and you hit them but your arm phases through their incorporeal body? I believe that is called a Baker Act.
#27 iqwinn Nov 16, 2010 22:03:45	Technically, it is battery: Assault is simply the threat to perform violence, battery is the actual performance of said violence. Not quite. Battery is use of force against another person, not necessarily violent, while Assault is the use of violence. In this case it most certainly is Assault and should be dealt with as such. Not necessarily. You can be charged with assault for urinating on someone. Also, battery is a voluntary act that causes harm to an individual. Assault is almost like an attempted battery. If you take a swing at someone and hit them, it is considered battery. If you take a swing and miss, you can be charged with assault. What if it's a ghost and you hit them but your arm phases through their incorporeal body? (slams pigknight upside the head with a 4lb sledgehammer) Smart ass.
#28 pluisjen Nov 17, 2010 1:54:08	Since it says "causes harm" you'd think that anything you do to a ghost would be assault since you can't actually harm one.
#29 toastedamphibian Nov 17, 2010 5:40:47	Both assault and battery charges only apply for hitting living humans. If it was corporeal remains, you could be charged with desicration of a corpse, but it isnt. Sounds to me like punching a ghost is a legal loophole. Go get'em slugger!
#30 zombie_babies Nov 17, 2010 9:09:58	Hells yes. Casper is so about to be my beotch.
#31 jesse.two.coins Nov 17, 2010 11:50:15	soak a lousville slugger in holy water and swing away lmao
#32 iqwinn Nov 18, 2010 2:35:20	Hells yes. Casper is so about to be my beotch. I'd rather you took out this guy: www.milkandcookies.com/link/54983/detail...
#33 jesse.two.coins Nov 22, 2010 11:56:26	dragonbane i'm sorry I was a jerk to you a long time ago /hugs