We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.

Bill: School Discipline Act

Details

Submitted by^[?]: Rightist Party

Status^[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: August 2556

Description^[?]:

TBD

Proposal^[?] to change The teacher's right to discipline children.

Old value:: Teachers are forbidden from striking children and may only use non-contact discipline (detention, expulsion etc).

Current: Teachers are forbidden from striking children and may only use non-contact discipline (detention, expulsion etc).

Proposed: Discipline levels are set by local governments.

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date	14:04:41, April 01, 2008 CET
From	Judicial Union Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Child abuse is wrong. It is never acceptable to hit a child.

Date	14:50:02, April 01, 2008 CET
From	Rightist Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	So classroom discipline=child abuse now? Boy I'm glad I do not live in your world. Actually...I bet in your world, any form of physical discipline is abuse. Luckily, I live in a sane world.

Date	19:41:43, April 01, 2008 CET
From	Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	We'll oppose. Rightist, every scientific study on education and raising kids will tell you hitting kids is never the right solution. Rewarding good behavior is always better than punishment, and if you want to punish a student because he was late, didn't do his homework, isn't cooperative, or whatever.. there are other -non violent- ways of punishing them. I really hope your ambition isn't becoming a teacher.

Date	20:18:02, April 01, 2008 CET
From	Tuatha D� Danann
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	We will oppose this on grounds of the proposed alteration being worse than the one we have now.

Date	22:42:34, April 01, 2008 CET
From	Judicial Union Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Of course any form of physical discipline is child abuse. It's disgusting that you think it's ok to hit children for any reason. It is nothing less than criminal battery, and a good parent would not do such a despicable thing to a helpless child.

Date	04:14:19, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Rightist Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	"Of course any form of physical discipline is child abuse" So if a parent gives their child a swift swat on the butt in public (just one swat I must add) you will call that child abuse? No wonder our kids are the way they are. No one knows the value of discipline anymore.

Date	04:59:01, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Judicial Union Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Yes, that is child abuse. It is unacceptable to hit anyone, especially a helpless child. Are we trying to teach our kids that physical violence is a good thing to do? No.

Date	05:04:24, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Rightist Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Oh now we have moved into a non sequitor. 1) No, we are not teaching our kids that physical violence is a good thing. There is a distinct difference. 2) Your a fucking fool if you try to connect that. 3) No a good swift swat on the butt is not child abuse. Beating the kid into submission? That's child abuse. One swift swat on the butt is not. Are you incapable of seeing a difference? As I said. Its no wonder children are unruly and have no respect anymore. Its because of a complete lack of discipline. At least my kids will have discipline.

Date	05:05:57, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Judicial Union Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Any form of physical violence on a child is child abuse, by its very definition. By allowing this to happen, we're showing them that it's ok to hit another person, since their parents and teachers do it.

Date	05:16:36, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Rightist Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	A response I knew was coming. You are way to predictable.

Date	05:17:31, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Judicial Union Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	That's because it's so clear and obvious. It shouldn't need to be spelt out for you why child abuse is bad.

Date	05:22:20, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Rightist Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	You are right that Child Abuse is bad but a swat on the butt is not child abuse. Its a shame you cannot differentiate what is and is not child abuse.

Date	05:30:27, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Judicial Union Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	I've always Socrates, he was probably one of the most influential thinkers of all time. So let's do this as a syllogism. 1. Child abuse is violence towards children. 2. Smacking a child is violence towards children. 3. Therefore, smacking a child is child abuse. That's ironclad logic there. Now let's apply some of this same logic to whether we should allow smacking. 4. Child abuse is bad. 5. Smacking a child is child abuse. (from above) 6. Therefore, smacking a child is bad. Oh, interesting result. In this nation, we tend to make illegal bad things. It stands to reason therefore that we should make smacking, and any violence towards children, illegal.

Date	05:51:54, April 02, 2008 CET
From	Rightist Party
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Unfortunately for you, your logic is flawed.

Date	19:57:36, April 04, 2008 CET
From	Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists
To	Debating the School Discipline Act
Message	Unfortunately for you, your proposal is defeated :D

Vote

Seats

yes

Total Seats: 116

Total Seats: 353

abstain

Total Seats: 31

Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer".

Random quote: "Only the educated are free." - Epictetus

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 71