Rochester, NY teacher gets suspended for washing students mouth out with soap

[Speelgoedmannetje]

But it's a physical assault.
You can physically get kids out of the school, but you cannot punish a kid physically.

Rules are rules, otherwise ppl gonna interpret guidelines for themselves.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

JonoPike wrote:
Whats the big deal?

human interpretation of right and wrong.

Physical punishment should be banned, and banning such can ONLY very absolute, even these cases which are not harmfull should be banned for legal reasons.
And legal reasons are not built for multiple interpretations.

Next time it's a teacher who thinks it's reasonable to beat a kid up with a wooden stick.

Next time it's a teacher who screws a kid to let it understand what it said.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Is it so hard to understand a phenomenon called 'law'?

You think 'law' is an ultraliberal imagination?

It's simple: if a student is causing trouble, kick it out of school. That's a legal thing you can do.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Punishing should ONLY be done by law.
Otherwise, we can have all kinds of institutions which can punish.
For instance: the Maria Magdalena houses.

Laws that don't support both parties don't deserve to be followed.

Laws do not support parties.
Laws have to be obeyed. Period.

Someone else has to get them then, don't they?

Eventually, no. If one do not want to learn, nothing will work.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Excluding a kid from the group is punishment enough.
Putting a kid in a place wich is empty and without anything that attracts attention does miracles.

Allowing physical methods to enforce discipline leaves WAY too much opportunities open for wrongdoers (plus a big grey area between enforcing discipline and abuse).
Besides that, a kid isn't immune for the law either.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

What I read now here is quite another problem, or let I say problems:
The system does not maintain the law properly plus a bad social structure.
 
Allowing physical punishment won't cure that.

On the contrary.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
laws and liberalism be damned.

And what about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
The law is the problem. It makes teachers and authorities powerless to act against abusive students.

fancy talk. ppl do not know how to use the law, because they do not know the law properly.

Bringing back physical punishment might not help, but blaming teachers for any failure of the idea that they're supposed to be angerless victims who'll never fight back and shouldn't be respected is even worse.

If a teacher is being attacked physically, she/he may defend her/himself physically, according to the law (at least, the Dutch law that is).

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Should a country be fit for normal people to live, or does everyone have to be a lawyer in order to exercise their rights?

A citizen is obliged to know the law correctly.

mikeymike wrote:
If you're a good person, the law should be on your side,

Can't you understand your own subjectivness? What's exactly a 'good' person? A person who obeys the law or a person who thinks he can deny the law if it doesn't suit her/him well?

with a few million ppl living in a country, there are also a few million slightly/extremely different views of a 'good person'

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Sorry Eyso, come back to this thread when you've got a clue. What you're writing has the echo of "ivory tower" all over it.

sorry, but this is no argument.
I know way too much about different interpretations and the conflicts these causes, so I see the neccesity of an absolute rule.
Since you also claimed you do not participate in social activities whatsoever in your CV threads, and I am actually participating in more than one, for instance scouting, I think YOU are the one who's in the 'ivory tower' and that you have no clue about how to deal with conflicts within a group. You are just having an impulsive reaction on this case.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I've never seen such an amount of lame non-arguments before here on Aorg, particularly from KennyR and JonoPike.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

As it stands, you are the black sheep of the flock who posted in the thread.

wrong, other than the others, I am no sheep.

Oh, and I'm 18, not 8

You're talking about your IQ?


[lynch the bugger!]

[Speelgoedmannetje]

JonoPike wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

As it stands, you are the black sheep of the flock who posted in the thread.

wrong, other than the others, I am no sheep.

Oh, and I'm 18, not 8

You're talking about your IQ?

You talk about lame offtopic arguements by me and KennyR when you are trying to divert attention from your losing arguement with crap like that.  :lol:

As for 'Sheep' I was being metaphorical. You are the odd one out in this thread - and you haven't exactly done a grade A job of keeping your cool under pressure.  :-P

hmmmmmmmmm.... kebab....

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Glaucus wrote:
Yeah, sure, in this particular case it's no big deal. But if you allow this kind of treatment other teachers will only take it further. Eventually you'll have cases where kids will get injured. It's hard to enforce a rule where it's okay to use only a drop of soap, and no more. It's either all or nothing. If you allow her to use one drop, what happens when the next teacher decides to empty the entire soap dispenser in a kids mouth? It's a slippery slope, best to stay off it completely.

  - Mike

Exactly my point

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Everyone knows there's a line you can't cross

That's one of my points. People do not know that. That's why humanity invented law.