BangkokReady

I thought it was normally girls from the North-East, who then headed South-West? Is it really girls in Chiang Mai that get knocked up and head to Pattaya?

Animals tear each other to pieces over territory, sex or food all the time. ????‍♂️

The thing is, the hypothetical was posed as: "If not some form of corporal punishment, how can you possibly address the issue in this classroom?". So there were only really two options: concede that corporal punishment is a possible answer or propose another solution to keeping order in this hypothetical classroom. It also appears that "just let the kids be naughty" wasn't an acceptable solution. By saying "leave", it suggests that someone doesn't have an answer for how to fix the classroom. So, the person who suggests "leave" is implying that there is no answer to the problem in term of non-corporal punishment. If there is no non-corporal punishment option, it leaves only the other option, the use of corporal punishment, which you avoid by leaving. Leaving also doesn't fix the problem of the disruptive classroom. That being said, I don't disagree with the idea that the best choice for the teacher is to leave, It simply doesn't quite answer the hypothetical sufficiently for me. The other option, which I outlined in another comment, is to simply admit that in order to enjoy teaching in Thailand (or at least encounter less stress) the teacher has to accept the kind of "fake teaching" that occurs in many schools and simply focus on the students that want to learn while still allowing students who have zero ability to pass the subject. Not a great choice for someone that takes teaching seriously and wants all of the students to listen, but one of the only realistic choices. Foreign teachers cannot change the system as the students are indoctrinated into it and they have no say. I feel like this also was not something that the OP was going to accept as part of their hypothetical either, however.

I most certainly do. You clearly do not. It is. I read the comment you were responding to. It wasn't "whataboutism" because it was directly relevant to what happened and was in no way any kind of deflection. It pointed out that Thai people do the exact same things but are not treated in the same way when they do so. The point was to highlight this discrimination, not to say "Thais do bad things too, they're just as bad". Hence it was not an example of "whataboutism". Please look up the definition of "whataboutism" to save yourself further embarrassment.

I don't think you know what "whataboutism" is. I can tell you for free what it isn't; it isn't when someone points out that individuals ignore their own people doing something but then go crazy when a foreigner does the same thing. That's simply pointing out hypocrisy.

"I'm not just mad about the crime, I'm mad because a White guy did it and I hate White people!" At least you're honest about it! ????

Is that cases where a person has done such a thing, or just when a foreigner does it?

It's not really their fault. Many Thais are used to mafia-backed monopolies and price-fixing, with no competition allowed. It's a cultural thing and happens all over Thailand. Why single out lotto vendors? Because they aren't connected?

Now imagine that nobody cares if the students attend or not and you're still expected to pass them all...

This is the big problem. The reason that a hypothetical like this exists in the first place is that foreign teachers often find themselves in situations where basically "fake teaching" is going on. Nobody cares about the disruptive students, they won't be able to fail, no one respects the teacher or the subject being taught, the students don't value learning English and, if M3, the naughty boys will be off to vocational college next year anyway. In these contexts the teacher has two options: become complicit in the fake teaching and simply go through the motions for about 75% of the class, or leave and try to get into a better school. For someone who does not have the latter choice, you can imagine how the former might wear away at a person's spirit, to the point where they wonder in desperation if having the option to give the naughty boys a whack on the arm with a ruler might straighten things out. (Doesn't mean they actually want to do it.)

I love this as a response to a specific hypothetical. "What can a teacher do to in this scenario?" "Leave the school?" Absolutely ridiculous, but funny at least.

I have called it what it is. If you don't see it, you shouldn't be teaching anyone. Lol. It's not up to you.

They wouldn't be damaging attacks and wouldn't threaten the integrity of a child's bones. Again, you're just making it up to try and make it sound worse. Pure fantasy and completely ridiculous.

It's funny how Western do-gooders frown upon the habit of chaining up insane people in some cultures, yet these cultures have pretty much no protection from anyone, other than what an individual and those near them can provide. It makes the practice seem a lot more reasonable.

Precisely. One of several users who like to try and twist things and label them with a generic word to make them sound like the worst possible meaning of that word. They won't refer to it as "corporal punishment" or "a ruler across the knuckles". It has to be "abuse" and "violence". Quite tedious to read and really contributes nothing to any discussion. All they really want to do is silence people and disrupt any meaningful conversation.

Is child psychology able to prove that there is no benefit to corporal punishment in any culture? It seems like it would still be an opinion. An opinion of an expert, but still an opinion. I'm interested to see any research, but it seems like it would be hard to prove. Also, it was made illegal, so I'm not sure they would need to try to argue why corporal punishment is not a positive thing.

What psychological training is that?

But you said no problem. How do they have to deal with you if there is no problem?

Western TEFL teachers aren't hitting anyone. They would be gone instantly. Foreign teachers are not the same as Thai teachers. Also, someone saying, as part of a discussion on the subject, "Maybe there is justification for very light corporal punishment in some circumstances" is nowhere near "violent psychopath" level. That's simply ridiculous.

It doesn't sound like she was slapped lightly if blood was drawn. That's one opinion, sure. Others may think that something very low level as corporal punishment is acceptable in some circumstances.

Unless they didn't. I think you're struggling with the idea of a hypothetical scenario presented as an analogy. Oh every time... except when it doesn't.

I disagree. A little hyperbolic. Also not proof of the accuracy of your first sentence.

It's a hypothetical where there is no other alternative, therefore this does not apply and is meaningless. Lol. No one is talking about hitting your kids.

Adults in a civilised adult workplace do not behave like troubled children in a school. If they did, they would be sacked. If all troubled children in a school could be "fired", maybe things would be different, but that is generally an undesirable outcome (possibly even "not allowed"). Imagine you had to deal with a mentally unstable adult in your workplace who regularly did little work and fought with your other employees, but you could never fire them. You fond that a ruler across the knuckles made them calm down, stop fighting and get on with their work. Are you telling me that wouldn't seem like an attractive option?

Why is "violence" unacceptable? If that "violence" is extremely low-level and causes barely any pain at all and done to punish the student? You cannot pretend that the "violence" of slapping someone on the hand with a ruler is the same as the "violence" of severely beating and injuring someone. There are many levels of "violence", some of which does not even involve physically striking someone, depending on the definition. It becomes a little pointless to want to label someone by a very vague and generic term.