[naasking]

> it will only make the bullies taking their revenge on vulnerable ones with even more cruelty. And they will plan it carefully to be hard/impossible to prove. It will lead to the escalation, not to the resolution

Bullies are generally not very intelligent. Deterrents absolutely do work if applied consistently. A society that applies corporal punishment at multiple levels, as Singapore does, strongly ingrains the idea to straighten yourself out, because there's always someone with a bigger stick.

> In severe cases, I can think of suspension or exclusion from school or another kind of isolation.

In my experience, this isn't the deterrent you think it is.

[zarzavat]

Bullies certainly can be intelligent. Intelligence and sadism are orthogonal traits.

The only thing that unites bullies is the willingness to inflict misery on others. A bully could be a simple thug who uses violence because they have nothing else going for them, or a popular kid at the top of their class who manipulates others for their own amusement.

[hackable_sand]

A bully is not necessarily a sadist

And neither a sadist or a bully are necessarily bad people.

[bdangubic]

yes they are, bullies some of the worst of humanity

[hackable_sand]

"Bully" is an archetype.

[vidarh]

Teaching someone that using violence and abuse as ways to exercise power is not a lesson I want people to learn.

[naasking]

Good thing that's not the lesson then. Of course if you see any use of physical correction as violence and abuse, then you're just assuming the conclusion.

[vidarh]

I see any use of violence as violence, yes, and find it abhorrent to see people justifying violence against children. I'm happy I grew up in a civilised country where it was and is a criminal offense

[postalrat]

Do you consider putting someone in jail as violence. It's not much different than kidnapping and that's usually considered violence. How about a time-out for a child?

[vidarh]

> Do you consider putting someone in jail as violence.

Yes, I do. It should also be a last resort to mitigate worse consequences to society, and is severely over-used for many things where it has no proven benefit.

> How about a time-out for a child?

It can be cruel if over-used, but it is not the same as physically hurting a child.

[naasking]

> It can be cruel if over-used, but it is not the same as physically hurting a child.

Anything is cruel if "overused". And nobody is claiming "it's the same" as corporal punishment, the argument is whether corporal punishment should be on the table in some circumstances at all, and what those circumstances should be.

I think the conclusion that it should never be permitted is completely unjustified, based on fantasy notions that everyone is innately good if properly directed using words (false), that we understand psychology enough to change people using words (we don't), and how common and abused the power for physical punishment can be (it can be bad, as can many things whose risks we manage).

I think there are many functional and legitimate ways that humans can organize themselves (law and culture), and the idea that corporal punishment cannot be justifiably used in any of them seems almost certainly false.

[postalrat]

A time-out can still be considered violence and something you approve for children.

[LocalH]

The state's monopoly on violence is literally the only way to enforce their perceived legitimacy

[cortesoft]

> because there's always someone with a bigger stick.

This is certainly not true. Someone has the biggest stick, and if they abuse that power, it can be horrible.

[naasking]

Nobody has the biggest stick forever, and time is implicitly included in the adage "someone always has a bigger stick".