|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rhodesian
Joined: 26 Oct 2011
Location: NZ
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="TheUrbanMyth"]
| Mix1 wrote: |
[q. It just seems like if a teacher or parent even tries to exert discipline via any form of physical coercion, they could get sued or fired, and the kids know this, and act accordingly, which has repercussions throughout society. ..
And CP is alive and well in the other provinces apart from Gyeonggi-do. It is still in vogue at my school...come to school late and you're duck walking and doing jumping jacks.
Seoul is not the be-all and end all. |
I feel sorry for teachers who have no sanction apart from "go and sit in the corner Johnny" . A teacher need to be respected, as does a parent, but if society removes the right to correct a child (and CP has worked for hundreds of years,probbaly much longer) it has itself to blame for the ensuing lawlessness.
How does one know if CP is allowed in one's school (am about to take up a contract in a school on outskirts of Seoul)? Is it one of the questions you just ask the co-teacher? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fosterman
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
For it!
how you think the Roman, British, spanish navy, army conquered the world?
with discipline. and it was enforced!
the British were the most ruthless with punishing their own soldiers. and look they owned a third of the world for it. their military , and navy were run very efficient.
without punishment, they would of never succeeded.
Discipline works when it is administrated properly.
when it's gets into the wrong hands, then it becomes misused and abused.
so I am for some properly regulated corporal punishment.
I am against, just random beatings by any teacher for what ever reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Rhodesian"]
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
[q. It just seems like if a teacher or parent even tries to exert discipline via any form of physical coercion, they could get sued or fired, and the kids know this, and act accordingly, which has repercussions throughout society. ..
And CP is alive and well in the other provinces apart from Gyeonggi-do. It is still in vogue at my school...come to school late and you're duck walking and doing jumping jacks.
Seoul is not the be-all and end all. |
I feel sorry for teachers who have no sanction apart from "go and sit in the corner Johnny" . A teacher need to be respected, as does a parent, but if society removes the right to correct a child (and CP has worked for hundreds of years,probbaly much longer) it has itself to blame for the ensuing lawlessness.
How does one know if CP is allowed in one's school (am about to take up a contract in a school on outskirts of Seoul)? Is it one of the questions you just ask the co-teacher? |
It's not a school by school issue...it's a city or province issue. If your school is in Seoul then no, CP is not allowed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motiontodismiss
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| methdxman wrote: |
CP is not really the issue. Most people don't know how to raise kids. They have no idea about how to exert authority or gain confidence from people in general.
One thing is for sure, Koreans raise kids better than Americans do. N. Americans in general are probably an example of how not to raise kids. |
One should have to get a license to be able to have kids. You have to have a license to drive a car, practice law, or get married, why not for having kids? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| motiontodismiss wrote: |
One should have to get a license to be able to have kids. You have to have a license to drive a car, practice law, or get married, why not for having kids? |
I disagree. Child bearing is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights don't need licenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fosterman wrote: |
For it!
how you think the Roman, British, spanish navy, army conquered the world?
|
So the Romans and the British and the Spanish should have conquered the world? Or how about this, if the Romans would have questioned what they considered to be standards maybe they would have thought more about not having gladiatorial combats or having a huge slave population. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motiontodismiss
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| motiontodismiss wrote: |
One should have to get a license to be able to have kids. You have to have a license to drive a car, practice law, or get married, why not for having kids? |
I disagree. Child bearing is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights don't need licenses. |
Some people don't deserve to bear children. Like people who have 4 or 5 children who can't afford them. Then demand welfare. It's a fundamental right, fine, but don't ask single people who had the sense not to bear children they can't afford to subsidize you.
Think of it as.....natural selection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Some people don't deserve to bear children. Like people who have 4 or 5 children who can't afford them. Then demand welfare. It's a fundamental right, fine, but don't ask single people who had the sense not to bear children they can't afford to subsidize you.
Think of it as.....natural selection. |
So the kid who's done nothing wrong has to suffer? I don't like the idea of paying for irresponsible people's kids any more than you do but in a civilized society child bearing has to remain a right and we have to protect innocent kids. Simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motiontodismiss
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
Some people don't deserve to bear children. Like people who have 4 or 5 children who can't afford them. Then demand welfare. It's a fundamental right, fine, but don't ask single people who had the sense not to bear children they can't afford to subsidize you.
Think of it as.....natural selection. |
So the kid who's done nothing wrong has to suffer? I don't like the idea of paying for irresponsible people's kids any more than you do but in a civilized society child bearing has to remain a right and we have to protect innocent kids. Simple as that. |
Then don't pay it out in the form of cash welfare. I'd be in support of putting them in the foster care system (or have them adopted by someone who can afford another kid), but not direct cash welfare. Irresponsible acts should have consequences.
Besides, your fundamental rights end at my tax dollars. Education and medical care (and the healthy, educated populace that results) benefits society as a whole, but having more children the parents can afford doesn't. People shouldn't get to have tax credits because they're married, or have kids, or own a house. It's your right to do all those things, but don't ask society to pay for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| motiontodismiss wrote: |
| [ People shouldn't get to have tax credits because they're married, or have kids, or own a house. It's your right to do all those things, but don't ask society to pay for it. |
How is society paying for it if you get a tax credit? That simply means you pay less of YOUR own money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motiontodismiss
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| motiontodismiss wrote: |
| [ People shouldn't get to have tax credits because they're married, or have kids, or own a house. It's your right to do all those things, but don't ask society to pay for it. |
How is society paying for it if you get a tax credit? That simply means you pay less of YOUR own money. |
Because it usually means a tax increase in the form of higher marginal rates for the rest of us that don't do those things. Deductions, credits, etc. are just wealth redistribution. I wouldn't trust the government to deliver my junk mail properly let alone do something that important and complicated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| fosterman wrote: |
For it!
how you think the Roman, British, spanish navy, army conquered the world?
|
So the Romans and the British and the Spanish should have conquered the world? Or how about this, if the Romans would have questioned what they considered to be standards maybe they would have thought more about not having gladiatorial combats or having a huge slave population. |
That's easy to say if you're just looking back at history through a modern, PC, hyper-ethical, liberal studies lens.
But that perspective tends to neglect that most social interaction at the time was all about the application and distribution of power. It still is today too, it's just not as out in the open as it was in the past.
And today some people even feel guilty and uncomfortable about wielding almost any kind of power, as we can see by the desire to remove corporal punishment. But that power is just redistributed back to the kids, and they know it and act accordingly...usually in an irresponsible way; they are kids after all.
Knowing Roman values and standards of discipline and hierarchy, yes, they almost certainly still would have had gladiatorial games and slaves.
It was a conquer or be conquered time. That doesn't excuse everything, but it wasn't the time to be sensitive or weak or you'd get taken out of the game. If the Romans, British, Spanish, etc. hadn't done it, someone else probably would have conquered them instead, and we'd be blaming someone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cuorev
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:50 am Post subject: hmm |
|
|
[quote="crisdean"][quote="edwardcatflap"]There are very strong emotive arguments against corporal punishment but the fact is it works better than anything else anyone has come up with so far. Since CP was abolished in the UK discipline in schools has got much worse, teacher morale has declined and no one has come up with a satisfactory system to replace it. Exclusion is a basically a holiday. What really bad kid is going to mind that? Naughty kids these days are told they're suffering from syndromes such as 'anti school syndrome' and tax payers' money is spent on psychologists who meet with them individually to discuss their 'issues'. Every whim is catered for as they are allowed to select which lessons they feel 'comfortable' with attending. It's expensive and it doesn't work. And eventually I'm sure we will see a similar thing happening in Korea.
But given how kids today are different from those back in the days, what if this means escalation of the whole situation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| motiontodismiss wrote: |
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
Some people don't deserve to bear children. Like people who have 4 or 5 children who can't afford them. Then demand welfare. It's a fundamental right, fine, but don't ask single people who had the sense not to bear children they can't afford to subsidize you.
Think of it as.....natural selection. |
So the kid who's done nothing wrong has to suffer? I don't like the idea of paying for irresponsible people's kids any more than you do but in a civilized society child bearing has to remain a right and we have to protect innocent kids. Simple as that. |
Then don't pay it out in the form of cash welfare. I'd be in support of putting them in the foster care system (or have them adopted by someone who can afford another kid), but not direct cash welfare. Irresponsible acts should have consequences.
Besides, your fundamental rights end at my tax dollars. Education and medical care (and the healthy, educated populace that results) benefits society as a whole, but having more children the parents can afford doesn't. People shouldn't get to have tax credits because they're married, or have kids, or own a house. It's your right to do all those things, but don't ask society to pay for it. |
I think the fundamental right to conceive children trumps the right to pay less taxes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
motiontodismiss
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| motiontodismiss wrote: |
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| Quote: |
Some people don't deserve to bear children. Like people who have 4 or 5 children who can't afford them. Then demand welfare. It's a fundamental right, fine, but don't ask single people who had the sense not to bear children they can't afford to subsidize you.
Think of it as.....natural selection. |
So the kid who's done nothing wrong has to suffer? I don't like the idea of paying for irresponsible people's kids any more than you do but in a civilized society child bearing has to remain a right and we have to protect innocent kids. Simple as that. |
Then don't pay it out in the form of cash welfare. I'd be in support of putting them in the foster care system (or have them adopted by someone who can afford another kid), but not direct cash welfare. Irresponsible acts should have consequences.
Besides, your fundamental rights end at my tax dollars. Education and medical care (and the healthy, educated populace that results) benefits society as a whole, but having more children the parents can afford doesn't. People shouldn't get to have tax credits because they're married, or have kids, or own a house. It's your right to do all those things, but don't ask society to pay for it. |
I think the fundamental right to conceive children trumps the right to pay less taxes. |
No it doesn't.
...Fine, let's say it is a fundamental right. Then don't ask anyone to subsidize the children you can't afford. I'd agree with your proposition on the condition that parents with children won't get special treatment for the purposes of taxation, welfare, financial aid etc.
And it's not the fault of the child that he/she was born to an irresponsible parent. Which is why irresponsible people SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED to have kids.
Last edited by motiontodismiss on Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
