"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...


Ron wrote:
"Carlson LaVonne" wrote in message
...

I don't think anyone who is opposed to paddling minors has said that
teachers don't get assaulted by students in high school, or that paddling
a student wouldn't provoke a "fight."

Teachers ARE assaulted by highschool students, and of course the kids end
up in a court room.

Will a paddling in highschool provoke an assault on a teacher? Lets look
at that, just for the same of the educationally limited.

1. Teachers do not paddle students. Administrative staff do, i.e. a
Principal. And then only after consultation with the Childs parents.

You are not only grossly misinformed, but you didn't read my post. Here
is what I said:

Grossly? Hardly madam.

Besides, we already know your position and could most likely present your
entire argument to a given situation without ever having to consult you.

"The problem is with the law in this country that allows students to be
paddled by teachers and school administrators...."

Wo we agree on this. However, if you look at the laws in Texas, you will
find that Texas administrators and teachers can paddle without parental
consent. It is good to have facts, don't you think?

And the link to the law is where?


2. Now, do kids in highschool get paddled in school? Not in any school
I have ever heard of, not even parochial schools. My own children have
attended both public and parochial school over the years, and in all
cases the policy of the schools is that there can be no corporal
punishment in any form. Not even with the permission of the childs
parent.

Your experience is only your experience. You have not experienced laws in
every state. You need information.

Possible, but then again you have not provided very much now have you?



The problem is with the law in this country that allows students to be
paddled by teachers and school administrators. And that unfair law is on
the side of the teachers and the school administrators.


How is this "unfair"?

The law is unfair because corporal punishment of anyone over the age of 18
is considered cruel and usual by federal law, and is legal assault and
battery for anyone over the age of 18, for any reason other than a life
threatening circumstance that could not be resolved another way. Laws
exempt children from protection from the very acts that are considered
physical assault and battery if the child is over the age of 18. That is
what is unfair.

Nice opinion.

A bit light on fact though.



Work to change the law, and provide the same protection for individuals
under the age of 18 from physical assault that every legal adult in the
USA enjoys.

It's not a matter of whether paddling a high school student would provoke
a fight. Paddling a high school student is legal in many states --
physical retaliation is assault. So, the student suffers twice. Let's
make things fair.


OK, lets give a 9mm pistol to every person who enters the school. Of
course we are going to have to teach them how to use them, so lets start
with mandatory weapons safety classes in kindergarten. Don't want anyone
getting accidentally shot now do we? This way EVERYONE is on equal
footing, everyone can both defend themselves from unwanted assaults as
well as initiate those assaults against those they know are also equally
armed, as is everyone around them.

Now, what is the point of this? A smoke screen, perhaps? We are not
talking about equal access, we are talking about equal protection under
the law. Can you understand the difference?

Quite.

Equal access and equal protection are both the responsibility of the
citizen, not government. The difference is minimal and they both are bound
together in a civilized society.

The point was dearie, that "fair" is in the eye of the beholder. Use your
imagination for a few seconds and think about the proposal. If everyone is
trained in the use of firearms from an early age, owns a firearm, and may be
carrying one at any time legally, just how polite are you and your fellow
citizens likely to be toward them? How many simple assaults will there be?
How many husbands are likely to beat on a wife that is carrying a Glock?

You ask for the law to provide equal protection. The law cannot do this.
Not in any state or country on the planet. Every single law in existence is
prejudicial against someone somewhere, or prevents the free expression of
some citizen. The question we should be asking is if the law is best for
the greatest number of people, or if it places an undue burden on a majority
of the general population.


Is this not equality? Equal rights, no matter what the age? After all,
it would only take a single years national budget to issue a gun to every
single citizen out there, and then we would have not only a 100% armed
citizenry, we would also have the worlds most polite society.

Good grief. Your debate is ridiculous. And, there are probably gun
lobbiests that would agee with you.

Not as ridiculous as you think. And certainly no more or less ridiculous
than the argument you attempt.

An extremely wise man once said "The first sign of a failing society can be
found in the level of politeness of its citizens".

This has nothing to do with exempting children from physical assault and
battery laws. And hitting a child is physical assault and battery, the
same as it is for you or me. The only difference is that we have legal
protection -- three year olds do not.

LaVonne

I guess its down to definitions now isn't it. Assault laws in this country
already protect children. Parental discipline is not considered assault.
You consider CP to be assault, "hitting" to use your term. I do not. The
majority of the citizens agree with me, as do the laws and law makers of our
nation. This is not likely to change. Time to face that fact.

In every country on the planet the government considers itself to be "in
situ" parents to its citizens. Children most specifically. Our educational
system being a part of that government strongly believes this, as is shown
by its actions and its demands on the citizens. Therefore it is not really
all that odd that our nations educators wish to provide for themselves the
rights of the parent in matters of child discipline (a situation I do not
agree with) within specific limits. Each state placing different limits of
course, depending on the ability and willingness of its citizens to force
those limits through legislative actions. In the 1800's teachers commonly
applied CP to disruptive students without parental permission, it was
considered appropriate and within the purview of the educational system.
Times have certainly changed, and the invasiveness of the educational system
towards its citizenry has only increased, not decreased. A spanking and it
was done, in the 1800's. Now we get letters, demands for our time and
presence at the school, court orders and legal fee's, time-out tables in
lunch rooms (to ostracize the children publicly and thereby provoking
emotional damage in the children), and a whole host of more "humane" methods
of enforcing discipline that may or may not have the desired affect but
which have been shown to be less effective and more damaging to the child
simply because of its reduced effectiveness and its greater length of time
required
to obtain results of any kind, the intended results or not.

Ron