"Can the cane: corporal punishment has no place in our schools" – Linguistic analysisThe continued physical beating of children in several Australian Christian schools is causing ethical questions and debates about their hypocritical education system. On July 1, 2011, in a letter to the editor titled “Can the cane: Corporal punishment has no place in our schools,” high school teacher Mike Stuchbery painfully condemns the legality of such shameful behavior in schools. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Speaking in a passionate tone, Stuchbery uses an introductory anecdotal reference as a high school teacher, to allow readers to sense the positive atmosphere within a normal living school environment. The depiction of relaxed calm in his "Teacher's Nirvana" connotes that his work as a teacher is a pleasant gift and is contradictory to that of the supporting image. However, he colloquially turns the tone by using a comparative reference to corporal punishment used at Craigmore Christian School, Central Queensland Christian College and an unnamed South Australian School. Comparing these schools with his implies the clear distinction between the treatment of students, one of which is clearly useless for disciplinary purposes. Stuchbery indignantly questions why teachers are allowed to “hit” students with a “wooden or bamboo instrument,” appealing to a sense of fury as readers become aware of the violence and torture that exists in an environment of vulnerable young students. In a stern tone, Stuchbery states that “regardless of the justifications given, physically hitting a child… is unacceptable,” appealing to readers' sense of morality and sympathy towards the well-being of children. Specifically, by labeling the beatings as “barbaric,” you communicate to readers and especially parents the extent to which teachers are savagely cruel. He then reasons logically that creating wounds on a young person's bottom is “mere torture,” further channeling our indignation towards these actions, tapping into the sense of righteousness against the misuse of discipline. Readers will surely be alarmed that teachers would have to report to child services if a student arrived at school with the same injuries they inflicted. Consequently, the sarcastic reference to these “Christian” schools typically reflects Stuchbery's view that they do not exist is a distortion of Christian values ​​among them. He reasons from first-hand experience that punishments are for children who require loving help rather than physical abuse, eliciting sympathy for the need to guide these young children who will learn from their mistakes without hurt bodies. Referring to Jesus as "a guy", he humorously recalls the teachings of loving others and not hurting them, from his attendance at Sunday school. Here he influences readers by inserting the joke while at the same time remorsefully shaming the Christian schools for their contradictory actions. Stuchbery invites ridicule by quoting from schools that punishments revolve around treatment. Furthermore, readers are told that the punishments are ironically followed by prayer sessions, capitalizing on the sense of outrage at the transition from conflict to peace. Stuchbery categorically condemns how state and federal governments can be complicit in such cruelty towards children, igniting feelings of frustration. due to the short-sightedness of this authority..