|
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.
Oh, and the OP's analysis of the Greens is shit. Having subscribed to their newsletter I happen to know that they do A LOT of what they claim to for the environment. Or at least do their best to, which is all you can expect.
Also, 'socialist party that agrees with everything Labour does' is actually not a legitimate criticism of the party, if that's what it was intended to be. Firstly, it's wrong, secondly, so what if Labour and Greens sometimes (or even often) agree? Are parties not allowed to agree on things? You should be criticising the policies they agree on (if you find them disagreeable), not the fact that they agree.
|
On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'.
Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defence for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.
|
I don't live in australia, but im a libertarian too.
|
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.
I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?
|
On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there,that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defence for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force.
Its called a loophole. My mother worked with underprivileged kids at a kindergarten who would come in with bruises obviously NOT from childsplay and there was nothing that could be done because CYFS knew there was almost no chance of convicting them unless the situation escalated.
Don't act so smug. Its pathetic, especially when at the expense of abused children.
|
On August 21 2011 17:21 Kiwifruit wrote:
Well I don't know whether Hone had officially established the Mana Party yet when the OP was created. He was kicked out of the Maori Party and classified as an independent for a while. Also if you read the OP's post directly below his OP you will note that he said he forgot to include the Maori Party. If you are offended by this, then perhaps you need to lighten your sensitivities.
The Mana party was established in May of this year (see my second link above) and Hone Harawira had won the Te Tai Tokerau by-election by the 25th June according to this article (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5193349/Hone-Harawira-wins-Te-Tai-Tokerau-by-election-slashes-margin). In any event, it was clear some two months ago that Mana would have a seat in Parliament leading up to the next election.
Again, you seem to have a problem with this. I did read that the OP said he forgot the Maori party, as I made clear in the first line of my first post in this thread. I'm not 'offended' by this, I said the OP was shambolic in general. This was driven by the lack of two current parties in the poll and the overall bad quality of the OP in general (e.g. the loaded party descriptions).
On August 21 2011 17:21 Kiwifruit wrote:
And the point I am making is this - regardless of whether you or the OP are correct, your attitude is ass and if you actually made an effort to explain why you support the Greens rather than just attacking the PM's personality without any substance to back up your claims then maybe people would think about it and agree with you. Because of your negative attitude, and if such an attitude is common amongst Green campaigners, then they're hardly going to earn any support because people will feel unwelcome and threatened by such an abusive demeanour.
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.
Stay tuned, an in-depth post from me explaining exactly why I like the Greens may well be forthcoming!
Also, your response to Swede was complete bullshit and I will explain why later when I have the time.
Edit: On the smacking part, the people above have given good responses too. <3
|
On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification?
It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?
|
On August 21 2011 17:55 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defence for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there,that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defence for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. Its called a loophole. My mother worked with underprivileged kids at a kindergarten who would come in with bruises obviously NOT from childsplay and there was nothing that could be done because CYFS knew there was almost no chance of convicting them unless the situation escalated. Don't act so smug. Its pathetic, especially when at the expense of abused children.
I likewise volunteered with Barnardos in 2008. I agree that it was a loophole. I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers.
|
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification? It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?
The change in the law was completely overblown by the media. In the current law you can still smack your children as long as its reasonable.
|
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification? It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?
Considering the nature of physical discipline - used to show right from wrong for those unable to make rational decisions for themselves - should we strike mentally disabled peoples of all ages to teach them? Assuming they fit into the above criteria?
|
On August 21 2011 17:55 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.
Actually you are not wiping the floor, all you are doing is making ad hominum attacks on the parties you disagree with. The OP (currently banned) stated that what he had written was his opinion and that people were free to disagree. You on the other hand simply come in here attacking John Key as being weak (not giving examples), state that the majority who voted for him resulted in the worst election result as if it were a self-explaining statement of fact as to why it was the worst result, and discard ACT's policies as being bullshit and hardline populist without explaining what the flaws of those policies are. You are the one who is full of garbage rhetoric and you are unable to see that from a different perspective nothing you say is actually explaining everything - rather all you are doing is attacking personalities without providing facts or substance.
|
On August 21 2011 18:01 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification? It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse? Considering the nature of physical discipline - used to show right from wrong for those unable to make rational decisions for themselves - should we strike mentally disabled peoples of all ages to teach them? Assuming they fit into the above criteria?
The question should be asked - can the mentally disabled person learn from being smacked?
If you have a child who runs across the road because he is generally rowdy, and trying to talk rationale and logic into why it is dangerous is not working and he continues to do that - then a smack may work in showing him that doing it is a naughty thing. It is a temporary measure to prevent him from running around on the road until he is mature enough to understand why.
If a mentally disabled person, no matter how you explained it to them, could not understand that concept - perhaps it would be necessary (what's the alternative - to tie them up in a cell)? If smacking them once showed them running across the road with lots of traffic is dangerous and prevents them from doing it, then it is for their benefit.
You are effectively arguing that the parents who smacked their children were doing it because they were committing child abuse. In some cases that was the case, but the way Swede put it - labeling all parents as committing child abuse - is ridiculous.
|
On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification? It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse?
No, because the change in social policy wasn't for that purpose. It was changed because people were abusing their children and getting away with it. I'm not talking about people smacking. I'm talking about parents beating their children. I'm not for smacking, but I would certainly never call it child abuse... The fact is that smacking had to be banned in order to remove the ambiguity between these two things (smacking and child abuse). It's no great loss to any decent parent.
My original description was completely accurate.
As a side note, I was smacked as a child and I hold nothing against my parents for disciplining me in that way.
I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers.
Not what I said at all. It's a shame that your argument relies on misrepresenting peoples' opinions.
If you have a child who runs across the road because he is generally rowdy, and trying to talk rationale and logic into why it is dangerous is not working and he continues to do that - then a smack may work in showing him that doing it is a naughty thing. It is a temporary measure to prevent him from running around on the road until he is mature enough to understand why.
The problem with this argument (which seems to come up so often) is that a smack is not the only alternative to rationale and logic. For example, you could tell your child that he/she will not be allowed out of the house until he/she stops running onto the road. You might not agree with this example (and fair enough, I'm no parent and I just thought of it now), but the point is that there are viable alternatives that are just as effective if not mores so.
|
On August 21 2011 18:02 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:55 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.
Actually you are not wiping the floor, all you are doing is making ad hominum attacks on the parties you disagree with. The OP (currently banned) stated that what he had written was his opinion and that people were free to disagree. You on the other hand simply come in here attacking John Key as being weak (not giving examples), state that the majority who voted for him resulted in the worst election result as if it were a self-explaining statement of fact as to why it was the worst result, and discard ACT's policies as being bullshit and hardline populist without explaining what the flaws of those policies are. You are the one who is full of garbage rhetoric and you are unable to see that from a different perspective nothing you say is actually explaining everything - rather all you are doing is attacking personalities without providing facts or substance.
The reason I haven't been explaining party policy is because I have been too busy explaining why basically everything you said in response to me has been really bad. Also, it's actually quite hard to write lengthy explanations for why/why I don't support any of 6 parties in my first post, so I wrote general stuff. There's plenty of time before the election to get deeper.
|
On August 21 2011 18:05 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification? It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse? No, because the change in social policy wasn't for that purpose. It was changed because people were abusing their children and getting away with it. I'm not talking about people smacking. I'm talking about parents beating their children. I'm not for smacking, but I would certainly never call it child abuse... The fact is that smacking had to be banned in order to remove the ambiguity between these two things (smacking and child abuse). It's no great loss to any decent parent. My original description was completely accurate. As a side note, I was smacked as a child and I hold nothing against my parents for disciplining me in that way. Show nested quote +I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers. Not what I said at all. It's a shame that your argument relies on misrepresenting peoples' opinions.
It's not a misrepresentation. If you had written that the change in social policy was for the purpose of preventing global warming, that wouldn't change the fact that the effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for spanking.
The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for smacking.
Regardless of its purpose, that is its effect.
If you were to give an accurate description of what Sue Bradford accomplished, then that is what you would write.
Instead you encompassed all parents who previously smacked their children as child abusers by saying that it removed the reasonable defence for child abuse.
|
On August 21 2011 18:10 CaptainCharisma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 18:02 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:55 CaptainCharisma wrote:
Don't deflect it to the OP, you, personally, were wrong about Harawira. Also, I think the reason you think my attitude is 'ass' is because I am wiping the floor with you and you don't like it. That last part of your response was just garbage rhetoric.
Actually you are not wiping the floor, all you are doing is making ad hominum attacks on the parties you disagree with. The OP (currently banned) stated that what he had written was his opinion and that people were free to disagree. You on the other hand simply come in here attacking John Key as being weak (not giving examples), state that the majority who voted for him resulted in the worst election result as if it were a self-explaining statement of fact as to why it was the worst result, and discard ACT's policies as being bullshit and hardline populist without explaining what the flaws of those policies are. You are the one who is full of garbage rhetoric and you are unable to see that from a different perspective nothing you say is actually explaining everything - rather all you are doing is attacking personalities without providing facts or substance. The reason I haven't been explaining party policy is because I have been too busy explaining why basically everything you said in response to me has been really bad. Also, it's actually quite hard to write lengthy explanations for why/why I don't support any of 6 parties in my first post, so I wrote general stuff. There's plenty of time before the election to get deeper.
Before I addressed your post, this is what you wrote:
"The National Party is just Labour but with arrogance and a wimpy leader."
Nothing to back up that statement.
"The Maori party started good, but has lost all its focus and is now just enjoying the perks of government."
Oh OK, we'll just take your word for it then.
"Peter Dunne does fuck all and is only there because of some stupid worm which rose whenever he said "common sense"."
I agree with this part - I have no idea what his party stands for.
"Also I just want to say that choosing John Key over Helen Clark (HELEN CLARK FFS) has got to be one of the worst election results in NZ history."
I was unaware that Helen Clark being better than Key FFS was a self-evident fact. And not just that, it's the worst election result in NZ history... Well, I'd have to say Muldoon winning the election in the 70s was the worst result due to the incredibly way he fucked up the economy back then through price freezes and establishing SOEs but whatever.
|
On August 21 2011 18:10 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 18:05 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:56 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:54 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 17:45 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 17:37 Swede wrote:
I'll probably vote for the Greens based on them being comparatively non-corrupt and their seemingly greater moral integrity. People rule out the Greens because of stereotypes (e.g. they're all hippies and stoners), and yet Gareth Hughes was virtually the only politician with the slightest clue about the recent changes to piracy laws, and Sue Bradford spearheaded one of the most controversial and important changes in social policy in the last few years (removal of reasonable force as a defense for child abuse).
The Greens have their issues, sure, but I feel like they're a lot more focused than National or Labour who's goals basically just seem to be 'do whatever it takes to stay in power'. Interesting perspective you have there, that in your opinion it was previously OK to commit child abuse if you used reasonable force. I was not aware of this previous law which said that reasonable force was a defense for child abuse. I had thought that child abuse was against the law, but thanks to you I am now informed that previously it was OK to commit child abuse so long as you used reasonable force. I'm not sure what this post is about. It seems like a really misguided attempt at being an a-hole, but I can't be certain. Clarification? It would have been better if you were honest and said that the change in social policy was to remove reasonable force as a defence for child discipline/spanking. To label it child abuse is saying any parent who smacked their children previously was 'abusing' them, or 'committing child abuse'. In that case, I could go around telling people that because my mum and dad used to smack me I am a victim of child abuse, and that I was abused as a child. Are you also a victim of child abuse? No, because the change in social policy wasn't for that purpose. It was changed because people were abusing their children and getting away with it. I'm not talking about people smacking. I'm talking about parents beating their children. I'm not for smacking, but I would certainly never call it child abuse... The fact is that smacking had to be banned in order to remove the ambiguity between these two things (smacking and child abuse). It's no great loss to any decent parent. My original description was completely accurate. As a side note, I was smacked as a child and I hold nothing against my parents for disciplining me in that way. I disagree with Swede's labeling of parents who used to smack their kids as child abusers. Not what I said at all. It's a shame that your argument relies on misrepresenting peoples' opinions. It's not a misrepresentation. If you had written that the change in social policy was for the purpose of preventing global warming, that wouldn't change the fact that the effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for spanking. The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defence for smacking. Regardless of its purpose, that is its effect. If you were to give an accurate description of what Sue Bradford accomplished, then that is what you would write. Instead you encompassed all parents who previously smacked their children as child abusers by saying that it removed the reasonable defence for child abuse.
Your analysis of its effects are incomplete though. It's more like this:
The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defense for child abuse at the expense of the freedom to smack.
No clear headed person would call that a bad thing. If you are so attached to smacking as a means of discipline that you would have child abusers roam free with no consequences then you are an idiot.
And notice how both of my previous posts have clearly distinguished between smacking and child abuse? I don't consider people who smack to be child abusers.
|
[QUOTE]On August 21 2011 18:15 Swede wrote:
[quote]The effect of the law change was to remove reasonable force as a defense for child abuse at the expense of the freedom to smack.[/quote]
This is a good summarisation.
[quote]No clear headed person would call that a bad thing. If you are so attached to smacking as a means of discipline that you would have child abusers roam free with no consequences then you are an idiot.
[/QUOTE]
You are the idiot if you think the solution to child abuse is to remove a method of discipline from good parents. It goes far deeper than just smacking. It is the result of family circumstances, poverty, mental illness, stresses in life, etc. This article by Muriel Newman (former ACT MP) explains part of the issues:
[quote]Raising children - using traditional methods of discipline when necessary - has withstood the test of time. There is no evidence to show that such children have grown up to be anything but normal, balanced, healthy, contributing members of society (click here to read a Berkeley University study on this). Whereas hostile youths, who have not been adequately disciplined or socialised, have long been the scourge of any community.
A British study “Broken Homes and Battered Children” by Robert Whelan, carried out in 1994, shed light on the real causes of child abuse. The study found that the incidence of child abuse is 20 times higher for children living with their cohabiting parents and 33 times higher among children living with their mother and her boyfriend compared to children living with their biological, married parents. With child deaths, the situation is even worse children living in households in which the child's biological mother is cohabiting with someone who is unrelated to the child were 73 times more likely to be killed than those living in a traditional, intact, married family.
With child abuse predominantly occurring in single parent families reliant on welfare in New Zealand - Maori children now being the most at-risk group in our society - the Green Party and all of those organisations that claim they want to reduce child abuse, should support a national campaign to reform welfare. The campaign would need to prioritise a reduction in the reliance on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, and it should also promote the traditional married biological family as society's safest child-rearing unit.
Yet, after a decade of calling for welfare reform, I have noticed only limited support for such a campaign from organisations that purport to care. Perhaps those that receive government funding are fearful of speaking out in case their money supply is cut and they are blacklisted, or perhaps it is simply too PC to talk about traditional values any more.[/quote]
|
On August 21 2011 18:13 Kiwifruit wrote:
Before I addressed your post, this is what you wrote:
"The National Party is just Labour but with arrogance and a wimpy leader."
Nothing to back up that statement.
"The Maori party started good, but has lost all its focus and is now just enjoying the perks of government."
Oh OK, we'll just take your word for it then.
"Peter Dunne does fuck all and is only there because of some stupid worm which rose whenever he said "common sense"."
I agree with this part - I have no idea what his party stands for.
"Also I just want to say that choosing John Key over Helen Clark (HELEN CLARK FFS) has got to be one of the worst election results in NZ history."
I was unaware that Helen Clark being better than Key FFS was a self-evident fact. And not just that, it's the worst election result in NZ history... Well, I'd have to say Muldoon winning the election in the 70s was the worst result due to the incredibly way he fucked up the economy back then through price freezes and establishing SOEs but whatever.
Those are just my brief summary opinions on the parties. If you disagree with any of that that's fine and I don't mind, but I reserve the right to choose when and where I explain my opinions. I don't demand to know why you think posting a picture of Goff with donkeys is relevant, but I ignore it because it's trivial and not worth discussing, just like my opening remarks.
Also, you lack basic reading comprehension. "One of the worst" does not equal "the worst". I am quite aware of the Muldoon era.
|
Election during Rugby World Cup? Will anybody care for politics then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
