|
On August 21 2011 18:53 zany_001 wrote:
numbers of parents who genuinely abuse their kids logically would not have gone down as under the previous law they could also be arrested.
The entire point of the anti-smacking legislation was that genuine child abusers could use the old loophole to avoid being arrested. You are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire issue.
Don't be silly, the question is clearly phrased so that abusers can't simply say they were smacking their child. Abuse is not good parenting by any standards.
It's not being silly. How should I answer the question when I do not believe smacking can be a part of 'good parenting'? There is no such thing as a smack as part of good parental correction in my opinion. I voted yes, because I'm smart and knew a yes vote was in support of the Bill, but the average disinterested NZer would just look at the question and tick no because they support 'good parenting', without necessarily opposing the Bill. No wonder the figure is so massively inflated.
it isn't the child's fault that their mother was raped; why punish a child for their mother's rapist's crime?
First of all 'punish' is a loaded word. It's pretty much a harmless process. Sure, it 'deprives life', but so does every second of every day that people are not having sex. Secondly, why further punish a rape-victim mother by making her go through the child-birth process; all the physical and psychological stress that would entail?
|
|
|
On August 21 2011 19:15 Goragoth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 19:12 zany_001 wrote:
What is this scientific distinction? How does science know when a baby is not a baby? I don't see how it is possible to scientifically measure humanity. Sure you can, how else would you do it?
How? How does science measure humanity? Enlighten me please.
Dali. let's go ahead and kill all unemployed too, they're a weight on society. How about all criminals too? And if someone disagrees with you, kill them too. That'd cut down on overpopulation.
Although let's not get into whether or not the earth is overpopulated or not, that's yet another can o worms.
|
The point is that under the law those parents SHOULD be arrested; because nearly 90% of kiwis disagree with the law in this case, they just ignore it.
Actually, 90% of NZers disagree with 'a smack as a part of good parental correction being a criminal offense'. Which, like CaptainCharisma already mentioned, is a total farce. Which is the reason the politicians ignored the referendum. John Key himself said that the referendum was completely pointless due to the phrasing of that question.
If you don't understand why it's stupid, tell me a situation in which something good should be considered bad. It's an impossible task. If there's a situation in which it's considered bad, then it isn't good anyway and so you haven't fulfilled my request. Something good can't be bad, and good things shouldn't be criminal offenses.
|
On August 21 2011 18:47 Swede wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 18:39 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 18:32 Swede wrote:
I'm sorry, but this article actually has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm NOT anti-smacking. Sue Bradford's bill may sacrifice the ability to smack your child, and some people may find that annoying... But who gives a shit if it STOPS CHILDREN BEING ABUSED?! Perhaps in a world where smacking was the [i]only]/i] effective way to discipline your child then I would understand, but it absolutely isn't. That point isn't even up for debate. The point is, it DOESN'T STOP CHILDREN FROM BEING ABUSED. That is what the opponents of the bill advocated. Most on the right consider that the way to prevent child abuse is to reform the welfare system. This is something the Left is strongly against. I refer you to the following: + Show Spoiler + You're right. Children are still be abused. But at least now the child abusers who are being caught are being punished in some form. It's true that we should be aiming for a society in which child abuse is something which is a lot less common, but that is actually a different issue, despite how it may seem. The issue Sue Bradford's bill addressed was people abusing their children and getting away with it. The bill was not designed to put an end to all child abuse ever. The reason you're so dissatisfied with the bill is because your expectations are completely unreasonable and unjustified. Nobody ever made this bill out to be anything more than what it has turned out to be. The issue you are talking about is child abuse in general, ie the fact that it occurs. I am totally in agreeance that we should be taking steps to prevent child abuse before it even happens, but the fact is that, for now, it is happening and before the removal of reasonable force people were getting away with it too. I just can't fathom how you can disagree with the bill. Anybody who understands it properly agrees with it, and you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand it.
I disagree with it because it is the equivalent of banning video games to prevent violence at school. Smacking is one of the many tools a parent can use to discipline their children, and there are textbooks from child psychologists showing that for some children it is necessary and that the alternatives (e.g. Ritalin) are not appropriate.
I agree that child abuse is an issue - but what is needed is to lift people out of poverty, as poverty is strongly linked to children being raised in abusive families. Not a change in the smacking law.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
This is going to be one of the most one sided elections ever. People don't want to put Phil Goff in charge, and Labour know that and will blame the entire loss on him and rebuild towards 2014. The only interesting questions this time around are:
a) Will minority parties or national benefit most from labours decline (looks like national is winning in this regard)
b) Will national get enough to govern alone (looking increasingly likely)
Here's hoping Banks doesn't win epson, and ACT is kicked out of parliament. No Rodney no fun imo.
|
I doubt most NZers cared too much about the fine distinction of the wording of the referendum; everyone knew about the new law being put in place and 90% of people were against it.
|
People don't want to put Phil Goff in charge
Its so true that its sad for a Labour supporter..
|
I maintain my position absolutely. I wouldn't say it to a woman's face, or most people for that matter.
I find it about as disturbing as the meat industry, yet less immoral. As far as my understanding goes, a fetus might feel a flash of pain, but nothing more. And it would a pain unlike ours, considering their extremely underdeveloped brain. Perhaps the same kind of pain a spider feels when it is crushed.
I feel sadder watching a fully grown cow or pig be slaughtered, since I believe they hold more emotional traits to us than a fetus.
|
On August 21 2011 19:25 zany_001 wrote:
I doubt most NZers cared too much about the fine distinction of the wording of the referendum; everyone knew about the new law being put in place and 90% of people were against it.
They didn't care, that's the problem. If they did, you wouldn't have gotten the result you like to throw around in support of your opposition to the anti-smacking law.
What everyone knew about was the media frenzy, which led a lot of people to believe that "good parents" would be arrested. OF COURSE people would vote against that, but that isn't happening!
|
On August 21 2011 19:20 zany_001 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 19:15 Goragoth wrote:On August 21 2011 19:12 zany_001 wrote:
What is this scientific distinction? How does science know when a baby is not a baby? I don't see how it is possible to scientifically measure humanity. Sure you can, how else would you do it? How? How does science measure humanity? Enlighten me please. Dali. let's go ahead and kill all unemployed too, they're a weight on society. How about all criminals too? And if someone disagrees with you, kill them too. That'd cut down on overpopulation. Although let's not get into whether or not the earth is overpopulated or not, that's yet another can o worms.
Unemployed people are conscious, intelligent beings capable of distress and suffering. A fetus has no mental concept of pain until the third trimester apparently. It simply outputs pain reception, in the same manner any insect would.
|
The only reason it didn't happen as much as was thought (and it did happen, although not much) was because the police were given control over who they prosecuted. I mean, that isn't supposed to be the police's job, they're supposed to arrest or fine people breaking the law and smacking for correction is breaking the law; the courts are supposed to decide whether they should be fined/imprisoned or not. Happily most cops are sensible enough to not bother arresting those parents committing illegal acts of correction; the point is that the law is wrong and the law should also not tell the police they canchoose what is right or wrong.
|
On August 21 2011 19:28 Dali. wrote:
I feel sadder watching a fully grown cow or pig be slaughtered, since I believe they hold more emotional traits to us than a fetus.
Absolutely. Can anyone defend the killing of cows or pigs whilst maintaining that abortion hurts fetuses too much for it to be a worthwhile practice for the other parties involved (e.g. the mother, her family).
On another note, just think. I wonder what it would be like to find out you are the product of violent rape? I bet there are some pretty messed up people out there in that position.
|
On August 21 2011 19:35 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 19:20 zany_001 wrote:On August 21 2011 19:15 Goragoth wrote:On August 21 2011 19:12 zany_001 wrote:
What is this scientific distinction? How does science know when a baby is not a baby? I don't see how it is possible to scientifically measure humanity. Sure you can, how else would you do it? How? How does science measure humanity? Enlighten me please. Dali. let's go ahead and kill all unemployed too, they're a weight on society. How about all criminals too? And if someone disagrees with you, kill them too. That'd cut down on overpopulation. Although let's not get into whether or not the earth is overpopulated or not, that's yet another can o worms. Unemployed people are conscious, intelligent beings capable of distress and suffering. A fetus has no mental concept of pain until the third trimester apparently. It simply outputs pain reception, in the same manner any insect would.
What has pain got to do with anything? We'll just anaesthize the unemployed before killing them; then there's no pain.
|
Not sure what throwing a video up is meant to accomplish. That's just making an argument by appealing to emotion. When it comes to political decisions emotion should have nothing to with it (it often does, which is a large reason for many of the stupider laws we have, but it shouldn't).
|
On August 21 2011 19:21 Kiwifruit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2011 18:47 Swede wrote:On August 21 2011 18:39 Kiwifruit wrote:On August 21 2011 18:32 Swede wrote:
I'm sorry, but this article actually has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm NOT anti-smacking. Sue Bradford's bill may sacrifice the ability to smack your child, and some people may find that annoying... But who gives a shit if it STOPS CHILDREN BEING ABUSED?! Perhaps in a world where smacking was the [i]only]/i] effective way to discipline your child then I would understand, but it absolutely isn't. That point isn't even up for debate. The point is, it DOESN'T STOP CHILDREN FROM BEING ABUSED. That is what the opponents of the bill advocated. Most on the right consider that the way to prevent child abuse is to reform the welfare system. This is something the Left is strongly against. I refer you to the following: + Show Spoiler + You're right. Children are still be abused. But at least now the child abusers who are being caught are being punished in some form. It's true that we should be aiming for a society in which child abuse is something which is a lot less common, but that is actually a different issue, despite how it may seem. The issue Sue Bradford's bill addressed was people abusing their children and getting away with it. The bill was not designed to put an end to all child abuse ever. The reason you're so dissatisfied with the bill is because your expectations are completely unreasonable and unjustified. Nobody ever made this bill out to be anything more than what it has turned out to be. The issue you are talking about is child abuse in general, ie the fact that it occurs. I am totally in agreeance that we should be taking steps to prevent child abuse before it even happens, but the fact is that, for now, it is happening and before the removal of reasonable force people were getting away with it too. I just can't fathom how you can disagree with the bill. Anybody who understands it properly agrees with it, and you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand it. I disagree with it because it is the equivalent of banning video games to prevent violence at school. Smacking is one of the many tools a parent can use to discipline their children, and there are textbooks from child psychologists showing that for some children it is necessary and that the alternatives (e.g. Ritalin) are not appropriate. I agree that child abuse is an issue - but what is needed is to lift people out of poverty, as poverty is strongly linked to children being raised in abusive families. Not a change in the smacking law.
I have never seen a peer reviewed study demonstrating the usefulness of smacking over other forms of discipline. Show me.
I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree though. This isn't going anywhere.
|
Numbers out today look even worse for Goff, down 7% and it seems people running to Greens and possible Maori Party, although it's only 1000 people with a sampling error of 3%.
Either way, it seems no one wants him as Prime Minister.
Personally hoping the is no outright National victory, 3 years of compromise could be scary
|
On August 21 2011 19:37 zany_001 wrote:
The only reason it didn't happen as much as was thought (and it did happen, although not much) was because the police were given control over who they prosecuted. I mean, that isn't supposed to be the police's job, they're supposed to arrest or fine people breaking the law and smacking for correction is breaking the law; the courts are supposed to decide whether they should be fined/imprisoned or not. Happily most cops are sensible enough to not bother arresting those parents committing illegal acts of correction; the point is that the law is wrong and the law should also not tell the police they canchoose what is right or wrong.
Police are given discretion in a wide variety of areas. Sure, what you have pointed out is an ideal and I agree with it, but it is simply not practical. Discretion is an absolutely vital part of any functional justice system.
|
I would like to bring up the ridiculousness of the 2008 National party platform. They basically said please vote us in, and we won't do some of the things we actually believe in (selling off SOEs for example). What kind of party does this? How can they maintain credibility while doing this? It just boggles my mind.
|
On August 21 2011 19:38 Swede wrote:
I have never seen a peer reviewed study demonstrating the usefulness of smacking over other forms of discipline. Show me.
I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree though. This isn't going anywhere.
What, like http://nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.php?c_id=1&objectid=10404809 ?
"Study members in the 'smacking only' category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society," she said."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare02.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare03.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare04.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare05.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare06.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare07.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://rubyjudas.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/welfare08.jpg)
