Bay Times published my reply to their editorial on 30 November.
Your editorial (Bay Times, 22 November) blames “rising youth crime and wanton violence” on the outlawing of caning and the move away from enforcing discipline with a solid smack. Some of your correspondents blame the absence of prayer in schools. I’m sure others blame the Labor government. The thing they all have in common is the failure to provide any real evidence of a link between the problem and their pet cause. The best they can manage is the post hoc logical fallacy; they assume that if B follows A in time, then B must be caused by A.
The argument by reference to today’s community and business leaders could also apply to today’s leading criminals, who are also sure to have been smacked. Did this “help mould them into the people and leaders they are today”?
What would be interesting would be some research to see if there is any correlation, positive or negative, between corporal punishment and those responsible for the youth crime and wanton violence. Were these young people smacked at home or not? I know where I would put my money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment