> Locking criminals away to protect innocent people is different than caning and you know that.

No, I don't think it is different. Both are applications of state violence for enforcing laws. I think it would be reasonable to use (public) caning as a judicial punishment in the US for certain kinds of crimes, for the same reason I think it is reasonable to use incarceration as a judicial punishment in the US for other types of crimes.

> Locking criminals away to protect innocent people is different than caning and you know that.

In my jurisdiction prison sentences and imprisonment for public protection are different things, and only the latter is to protect innocent people. It is also pretty rare. Most prison sentences are, because society 'thinks' the aspiring prisoner deserves it, not because the public needs to be protected. Also penalties also fulfill the desire of the society for vengeance.

I think, being locked in isolation or with very dangerous individuals can leave deeper scars than a short period of violence. It's also not, like people in general never have any injuries, so it's not the pain itself that is an uncommon experience, but more the knowledge of it being linked to your actions. People don't have traumas just because they walked through nettles, feel from their bicycle or broke their legs.

> And I'm pretty sure the type of person speaking out against outdated, abusive child rearing doesn't support the use of cudgels or tear gas in law enforcement or unsafe/cruel deportation.

That's nice, but I think he still has an amount of accepted violence by the state, because the policy of 'I don't give a fuck, let the strongest do what he likes' doesn't actually lead to less violence.

I just want to point out, how it is not necessarily a black or white thing, I'm not arguing for child abuse.

I can make a study that shows 0 wars in the region for decades despite having an army, and say that the logical conclusion should be to disband the army.

People often quote research to mislead and push their narratives. Widen the scope and their narrative falls apart.

In this case it's about going past this (often western-ish) belief that all children are born good and that something in their lives makes them bad. I'd like to propose a different take: that some children will often test their boundaries upon others and choose to say some threats are no big deal, until they actually go through the pain. Amongst those who go through it, even if there's 1 who remembers the pain and refrains from committing the same act in the future, it's worth it. Caning won't stop everything, but it is but one part of the whole net to tackle problem youths, and has effects down the road.

> TLDR Singapore and Japan have low crime rates that likely have nothing to do with severe punishments

Can you elaborate ? Singapore has 4 ethnicities, 4 religions, and 4 languages living together as a developed nation in a small city which could be considered a marvel in any other part of the world. Also, apart from the US, and perhaps UAE, Canada, is the only nation with a policy allowing a sizable skilled immigrant population. With such a diverse set of folks, one could argue that the only common denominator is the cane, a language everyone understands.

Piles of western research. Eastern psych corpus suggest opposite. Well it's more nuanced, some combination of permissive / neglectful parenting styles. IIRC the rough TLDR is engaged tiger parents with mild CP vs hands off parents with no CP... guess who had better academic performance, social regulation etc. Something something kids find engaged parent with a little tough love = being cared for vs hands off = neglect. Anecdotal but you can see how this carries over in west between diaspora generations when the CP rates drop. East Asia is competitive, beating bad apples to be productive members of society due to entire layers of social cohesion/shame that is missing in west, hence why they can beat their way to high grades and low crime rates, but west generally can't, or at least not by 2nd diaspora generation. Of course I don't mean CP everyone, but CP tool for some kids (individual differences etc). Good argument for blanket condemning CP to prevent abuse, but at the end of the day, some would have benefitted from CP, which still preferable to silent treatment for many.

Assuming these sociological studies are robust (which they're likely not as sociological studies have poor reproducibility) am I also supposed to reject the evidence of my eyes and ears? Families have been destroyed by terrorism in the UK, by terrorists who have been given second and third chances.

To link this back to the original topic: discipline of children is part of a wider topic of how as a society we discipline those who fall out of line. Discipline in society determines the kind of future we're shaping for ourselves.

There are many western states with welfare state. Do you think otherwise?

Countries taking care of their citizens is communism? A social safety net leads to empty store shelves? Am I the latest victim of Poe's Law here?

Every advanced economy in the world except for the United States has a well developed social safety net, and I assure you our shelves are not empty and I can listen to all the Mötley Crüe I desire.

> the state preventing me from listening to the same rock music songs I've heard since the 1970's

Oh, come on, stop whining. Skrewdriver is still on Spotify.

You're such a snowflake, posing as the victim of government oppression.

And what’d be the point? The police will not be interested in the would-be phone thief, calling them would be of negative value to society.

another take: some people are emotionally “dumb” and have a really hard time feeling empathy for others. This is just another way to force the bully to be in someone else’s shoes…literally.

I do agree we shouldn't limit it to children! But I don't think the boss/employee relationship should involve violence though because firing someone is simple and effective. But if someone is doing something bad for their community that has no obvious other consequences? Then yeah, it absolutely should be an option.

These rules should be implemented locally at a town or city level. No need to enforce the same set of rules across all society.

And it's interesting you bring up that bullying is a second order affect. If one of the parents is abusive, that should be something that has physical consequences. Solve the problem at the source, stop wringing our hands and getting lawyers / police involved for everything. That's not scalable and as a result there are a bunch of unsolvable problems in our society today.

Deterrent can be an effective form of rehab.

A former coworker of mine walks funny because he had polio as a child, and his father worked for the railway union after WWII. He told me one day in high school, one of his friends came to school with bruises couldn’t hide, inflicted by his drunk father. Everyone in school knew, everyone in town knew, but no one did anything.

My coworker informed his dad, about the egregious injuries that day. His dad drove to the drunk man’s house and knocked on the door and seized the drunk man by the collar: “if you ever touch that boy again, I’ll kill you.”

The threat must have been believable coming from a rail union worker, because it rehabilitated the recipient’s decision making processes going forward.

Yes. I think bullying should automatically lead to bully being shipped to suitable facility where they are rehabilited. It must be done to protect other children. Best way is to remove the perpetrator not the victim. Adults and evil monsters should stop excusing bullying with something like bad home conditions. If home conditions are bad remove them from that home. Or at least remove them from places where they can cause suffering to others.

> Rehabilitation and figuring out why they are bullying is the correct response in a civilized society.

Your so called “civilized societies” have continuously failed at this though.

You can’t keep failing and then demand your method is the correct method.

> "Rehabilitation and figuring out why they are bullying is the correct response in a civilized society."

Then why doesn't the "correct response" work in practice? We are clearly not seeing its effectiveness in real life.

I'm pretty sure the proportion of corrupt people in any country will be pretty similar if the right structures are put to place. I think people give in to corruption when the system favors regardless of the country or continents and as a matter of fact a lot of people in government and places of power in my country were foreign schooled or bred.