belamy, you must WANT to be ignorant. Otherwise at your age you'd be fully aware that there are many times when words alone CAN'T calm down an unruly child.
Of course not, silly, words are totally useless, only arguments are of any use. That's why people like you only work with either void, senseless words (but uttered with total conviction and self-satisfaction) and equally senseless violence, not because I pretend that all form of violence is senseless in itself, but because most people who justify the use of violence, like yourself, are people whose only alternative are words without any reasoning and reason supporting them.
Say a child was hitting another kid and wouldn't stop and refused to stop. If left alone that would be terrible teaching, worse than getting the child to stop. In this situation somebody must be brought in to physically enforce the rules, a job for which a policeman is ideal since they have very limited chances of being sued for misconduct.
Now who is pulling a Wicker Man to justify case with a different case.
Ok, I'll play: by "kid" you are supposed to actually mean "kid" and not "teen" or a pompous Londoner in his/her early twenties. If he is already actually hitting another kid I don't think you should expect to use words like a charm to make it stop, and I agree abou using your hands to make it (or try it, if the
elementary schooler is possesed by the evil
) stop. That doesn't change the fact that there was a flaw in detecting the reasons why a kid decided to start hitting a classmate.
It's easier to harness a river while it's still closer to its source, and that was my point when commenting the case of a kid whose hormones had not been touched by the wild fevers of puberty and adolescence. Otherwise, we are not talking about education anymore, and in that case you can let in all the police, the army and the mercenaries you want.
The problem with education is that it is hardly ever really education, but rather indoctrination, and since we have been told that men are born free, we shouldn't be surprised that there are kids who won't ignore abiding values that supposedly wiser adults learnt to take for granted or even always totally ignored and won't easily take normal things as necessarily right. That, of course, unless you take a more despotic view asserting that men are not born free but wild.
As for your double standard being only in my head refer to post number 7.
As for that, I invite you to reread (that supposing you actually ever read them) that same #7 and #9: that "American standard" expression that you pretend to use as proof of my incoherence is only a proof of (for the -nth time
) your I suspect more unwillingness than incapability of actually reading what I said: I'm not trying to make it appear as something diferent, but you skimmed the surface of what I read and you seem so satisfied with your prejudices and your reading that you just won't get out of yourself.
In that #7 I stated quite explicitly that it's not that the USA are bound to set a standard from the very beginning but that, setting some practices that you can call a standard in the USA, when you compare them with those in other countries you can perceive a duality and, if you think, 1) that things are done in a way simply because they are done so, for no other reason but themselves being so 2) that things are done elsewhere in a different way 3) then, you must come up with the IDEA of double standard. BUT, and here you should be finally able to understand if you wanted
that I notice that the Americans have one standard and, say, the Nigerian have another, doesn't mean that I believe it MUST be so, which would support your claim to my adhering to a necessary double standard.
Again, since you yourself can only things as they happen to be, as you have shown in your compliance to social usages beyond any reason and logicality, and being so content in your smugness, I shouldn't be surprised you take so much pains in reading the plain logic of what I say.
Well, maybe you can come back in a few years and try again.