The anti-smacking law review
September 8th, 2009 at 9:00 am by David FarrarJohn Key announced yesterday the panel and terms of reference for reviewing how Police and CYFS are implementing the amended Section 59 (the anti-smacking law).
The TOR says:
To review New Zealand Police and Child, Youth and Family policies and procedures, including the referral process between the two agencies, in order to identify any changes that are necessary or desirable in the interest of ensuring that:
1. good parents are treated as Parliament intended under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
2. provisions of the law (both criminal and under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989) are applied to those who abuse children.
Now like many, my preference is for a law change, not just a review of policies and procedures. But the choice of independent reviewer is a very good one, which should give some credibility to what he reports back.
The reviewer (along with the MSD CEO and Police Commissioner) is Nigel Latta, the host of the Politically Incorrect Parenting Show, that showed on TV One.
Latta has said:
I have been approached by the Prime Minister and asked if I would consider participating in a review of the Police and CYF processes around S 59 to see if the law is working as intended. I have agreed to participate in this review on the basis that it was understood that my role was independent and that I was able to speak freely about both the process of the review, and my opinions regarding its findings.
So if he disagrees with any conclusions, he will say so. And more interestingly:
For the record, and this is something I have commented on publically in a number of contexts, my personal view on S59 is that I did not agree with the original law change.
I also voted no in the referendum. I do not believe that a parent smacking their child, in the ‘common sense’ understanding of what that means, should be subject to criminal prosecution or investigation.
That is a very useful statement, because he has said not only should parents who merely lightly smack their child not be prosecuted, he says they should not be investigated (presumably by Police or CYFS).
Again my preference is for a law change, but nevertheless this review looks to be potentially quite positive if done well.
Related posts:
- Herald on anti-smacking law
- Hughes report into anti-smacking released
- S59 Review
- CYFS and anti-smacking bill
September 8th, 2009 at 9:04 am
A new triumph in Latta’s career of cynical self-promotion. Why, it seems like only yesterday he was the “sceptic” who was convinced on Sensing Murder.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:05 am
yawn..!!!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am
I don’t know who I’m more sick of seeing on telly – Latta or Rhys Darby.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am
DPF – “this review looks to be potentially quite positive”
This is yet another talkfest. You have said many times you advocate a law change. Key has admitted the law is a dog’s breakfast. 88% at the referendum don’t want it in its current form. The law needs changed! What part of that is so hard to understand?
This Clark style obfuscation in the hope that the issue will go away is not going to change the fact that the law is a bad law. It needs changed. Simple as that.
I see philu has just woke up………..
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Kaya – I disagree. If this were a true talkfest, then wouldnt key have had some some unknown performing the review and towing the govt line?
No, What Key has done here is picked a pragmatic realist who’s voice holds some weight with the public. It appears to me (but remains to be seen) that key may just have an open mind about what happens from here.
We’ll see what the review panel comes up with, but currently – i’m pretty optimistic.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Well I see (or rather I hear on the radio) that Sue Bradford has criticised the appointment of Latta. The cynical bastard that I am, suspects this is probably a fit-up between her and JK because they know that the issue will never go away whilst they are seen to be on the same side (I think this might have been Danyl’s advice just after the referrendum results?).
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:25 am
But Latta heard there’d be TV cameras, so he killed the pragmatic realist and took his place.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:26 am
no darling..
did my first post on whoar at about 6.36 am..
and have found/lodged 14 stories/links since then..
this just being one of them..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/crash-of-a-titan-the-inside-story-of-the-fall-of-lehman-brothers/
(always with the ‘good stuff’..that whoar..eh..?..)
and i am just so sick of this whole fucken distraction..
we have twin tsunamis..economic and environmental..fast bearing down on us..
and we re talking about this..?
still..?
are you all fucken stark raving mad..?
or just willfully blind..?
..with this terminal state of denial..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:29 am
The law states that any parent who smacks their child for the purpose of connection is committing a criminal act – ergo they are a criminal. No amount of talking about, or indeed implementation of, enforcement guidelines changes that fact.
And since when did we begin accept that politicians should direct enforcement activities?
Oh that’s right. Helen started it.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am
If Latta’s appointment is going to upset Sue Bradford, then it’s an inspired move!
Seriously though, whilst I’m not a fan of Latta’s persona, the message that he is getting across through his parenting show, especially where it relates to boys and young men is music to the ears. This whole mindset of protecting our boys from anything that could be remotely risky or even fun is a load of ideological bullshit.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:34 am
twin tsunami’s eh? Is that like japanese sisters?
Might only be one now the recession is over though.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:38 am
getstaffed – “The law states that any parent who smacks their child for the purpose of connection is committing a criminal act – ergo they are a criminal. No amount of talking about, or indeed implementation of, enforcement guidelines changes that fact.”
That is it in a nutshell. Thank you for that. The law needs to be changed.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Forgive my cynicism but I don’t trust Key, he is tainted on this and the only thing that will start to remove that is:
When he apologises and changes the law back so that parents don’t break the law when they give a smack on the bum.
David quotes them as saying:
“good parents are treated as Parliament intended under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007″
This is the key to the issue.
I think the intention all along was to stop smacking and change societal behaviour through CYFS and NZPolice investigation.
If it wasn’t he would have fronted up and said we apologise and the law will be changed. he didn’t he obfuscated and deflected and lied with the full backing of his caucus.
Key has brought in the outside expert because he can’t apologise. Why?
What has Latta got that 80% of the parents and others who voted NO haven’t.
He (key) doesn’t want to change the law, he’s just going through the motions so that if the issue dies it can stay or he can go with the results of the experts.
he doesn’t repsect the social contract.
sadness is Goff doesn’t have an inkling of what this actually is all about either.
The only people who do and will publicly say is ACT.
Vote:This is just so sad for NZ, that the majority in parliament can’t put this right.
You can’t have common sense without common values.
The people have spoken twice.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Oi Key, stop being an arrogant prick and listen to the voice of NZ and do your job. Which is, to CHANGE THE LAW!!
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:45 am
“getstaffed
The law states that any parent who smacks their child for the purpose of connection is committing a criminal act – ergo they are a criminal. No amount of talking about, or indeed implementation of, enforcement guidelines changes that fact.”
Don’t worry, we are all already criminals, all those times you’ve brushed past someone on a busy train or bus, that is already assault.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Thank you Wreck succinctly put.
Respect is a two way street – that is core to the social contract in a civil society.
John Key does not respect the voter.
if he did he would have apologised already and changed the law.
They poll to suit themselves in their arrogance.
for if they really did take any notice of the polls John Key would never have foisted this law change on us.
Similarly he would have changed the law asap.
He like many politicians sees himself and parliament as OVER us, not servants of ours to represent us.
Vote:He’s not alone we elected 112 other people who thought the same way.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Racer1
Stop being stupid you are obfuscating a serious issue.
brushing past someone or bumping into someone is not the same as deliberately using force with an intention.
You got one thing right. you are a criminal when you break a law knowingly.
Which is one of the things Mr Key is deliberately lying about.
The core to this which Sue Bradford intended is the position/status of a parent to child vs a vs the state that is at issue here. (as I enumerated in my submission)
I.E. basic societal relationships that have been in place for thousands of years, and within the social contract between parliament and the people.
Vote:Plain common sense.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I think that all votes that impinge on constitutional issues should be conscience votes and not allowed to be whipped.
Vote:What do you all think?
September 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I agree with many above — we want a law change. At the moment smacking our children for the purposes of correction is a criminal act. That’s what I want changed. I am pro-smacking because I believe in the context of a loving family it produces a well-behaved child that in future the parents can be proud of.
I see people are cottoning on to what is happening in schools. They remove corporal punishment and now the schools are so bad that they have to get the police in to maintain order. Presumably this means that the police can baton and tazer the children if things get out of hand? So this is the great leap forward — we ban the cane and the strap — we bring in enlightened procedures like stand downs and they don’t work. So things get so bad we bring in the police.
What happened to banning corporal punishment will make our schools less violent? In fact they are more violent and less safe for the children. That’s what will happen to families as well. They will become more violent, because corporal punishment by parents is now a criminal act. If parents can’t maintain order then families will become more violent and less safe.
I know so-called Liberals can’t see this. I actually think the problem is spiritual. At the heart of this matter, as in other laws that have come in over the last 20 or 30 years, is godlessness. We need the right spirit in this country. So many people, in their heart, seem to be rebelling. A spirit of rebellion seems to be what has been in our hearts for many decades now. That’s what needs to change fundamentally.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
But aren’t you rebelling against the government’s S59 change?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Scott, are there any actual links between no corporal punishment and increasing levels of violence, or is it just speculation?
Do you think that bringing back corporal punishment would
- be accepted enough to be effective
- reduce violence levels (apart from the violence of the punishment of course)
Can you accept that many people who believe in god/s can be and are violent? And some who don’t believe in god/s may not be violent?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Zen has an excellent satire over at NZ Conservative today, “Laws last longer than promises“. He writes –
So true!!
Vote:The law is the law is the law.
Whatever “understandings” there are will vanish with a new administration.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Scott 11:23 am,
You raise some good points Scott.
Why can’t people see the link between the removal of corporal punishment in schools and increasing violence in schools? It is so clear. Especially as many over forty adults had the benefit of going through school when physical discipline was a part of the means by which acceptible behaviour was encouraged. Many have commented here before that they were glad they were physically disciplined as children/youths, and that it has moulded them into the responsible and accountable adults they are now.
If we continue with this stupid law as it stands; where parents who physically correct their children have committed a criminal act, then we have essentially removed the last tool in the toolbox by which children are taught responsibility, accountability and that there are consequences for inappropriate behaviour. We can talk about timeout and adult-child discussion all we like, but without the ultimate punishment these other methods are next to useless and ineffective. It makes me physically ill watching a parent trying to ‘discuss’ the wherefores and howtos to a small child while the child continues to throw a tantrum and ignore the parent. A good smack and the problem is resolved, parental control is re-established and life reverts to normal.
We don’t have to look through our crystal ball very far ahead in the future to see that once children become physically stronger than their parents, then, with no other behavioural controls, children will physically oppose their parents. For boys that is likely to be about 12 with their mothers, and 16-18 with their fathers. Of course long before they reach that age they will be ‘educated’ about their rights to report any parental ‘abuse’ to CYFs and the police. It’s already happening in primary schools since Bradford’s Abomination has been law.
Like you Scott, I also believe that as we continue to remove biblical principles that shape our laws and values, then we will continue down the road toward greater moral relativism, rebellion and increasing anarchy. The ‘spirit’ of this age continues to extend its tentacles into all areas of society, and without the ‘antidote’ there is little recognition, or even willingness, to make the necessary societal/individual changes.
God help us all!
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“Why can’t people see the link between the removal of corporal punishment in schools and increasing violence in schools? It is so clear.”
Is it? Where is the evidence?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Cerium you are no more than a common troll as usual.
Vote:The evidence is in the prisons, news reports of schoolyard violence, killing of children etc etc etc
Are you blind or just a habitual dropkick?
September 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
How about the recent attacks in schools by students on other students in one instance, and the lack of ability of teachers to break up a schoolyard fight without getting pushed over in another? This is happening more and more and teachers are getting scared. Did this used to happen when we had corporal punishment? Of course not.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
There is obvious evidence of violence. But no one has pointed to any evidence that removing corporal punishment is a partial or major cause of increasing violence levels.
The home environment is thought to contribute to school violence. The Constitutional Rights Foundation suggests long-term exposure to gun violence, parental alcoholism, domestic violence, physical abuse of the child, and child sexual abuse teaches children that criminal and violent activities are acceptable. Harsh parental discipline is associated with higher levels of aggressiveness in youth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_violence
No mention of corporal punishment being a factor.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Cerium 12:09 pm ,
Gee, I dunno. Maybe it’s the increasing levels of violence in schools since corporal punishment has been removed?
Vote:More evidence:
• Increased police interventions/callouts.
• Increased student and teacher assaults.
• More teachers fearing for their safety.
• More students carrying weapons.
• More students being hospitalised due to student violence against them.
• More teachers leaving the education system because of increasing violence and rebellion of students.
• And less people entering teaching for the same reasons.
Heck, how many do you want?
September 8th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Typical troll…just tell 1/2 the story eh cerium?
What about this tit bit from the same wikipedia article???
The key words are in extremis.
Considered & corrective corporal punishment is not extreme.
“Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan found little evidence to support claims that what is thought to be normative parental spanking (inflicting mild physical pain without injury) has a detrimental effect on child behavior although there is wide agreement that corporal punishment in extremis has detrimental effects on children.[37]“
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Quote:
The reviewer (along with the MSD CEO and Police Commissioner) is Nigel Latta, …
WTF? Nigel Latta the psychologist? Haha, that says it all.
This idiot who had endorsed the TV2 Sensing (Bullsh*t) Murder show in the past as somehow there might be some truth to it, that the dead (from the other side) can talk to us, is now emerged as an expert reviewer in the anti-smacking law? He had been thoroughly debunked by the good people at Silly Beliefs for his incompetence in being a neutral observer in the making of TV2 Sensing (Bullsh*t)? Why should we take this clown seriously?
Nigel, you should stick to your usual practice of endorsing or believing in mysticism, because that’s what you’re good at.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
A confession to a crime was made on Hosking’s ZB talkshow this morning. His female sidekick stated that her 8 year old came home from school and told her he could do what he liked and she couldn’t hit him. He then proceeded to use the ‘F’ word. She was so shocked that she forgot about time out and stand down and aimed a wallop at his bum which missed when he dodged and landed elsewhere…The point is that HOSKINGs a devotee of the no smacking enclave is now duty bound to report the crime of his sidekick, resulting no doubt in a visit from a young constable who will take down all her details and those of her son, use his prescripted discretion as to what action he should recommend to his superiors, transmit the appropriate form and detail to Cyps who will in time send out a field officer to assess the home situation. He will record his result and hold a conference with other officials as to whether further action is required. When they reach a decision both Police and CYPS will let the mother know and save the full details in a data base to be regurgitated if a further report is received.A statistic will be created showing that a further report of child abuse has been received…Meanwhile all the staff will be too busy and have too large a case load to target those whose profile indicates they regularly seriously abuse or kill their kids. That’s what John KEY means when he says the current law is working.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Kris, that is evidence of violence, not evidence of cause. A lot of things have changed since corporal punishment stopped here. The US experiences increasing school violence everywhere and 20 states still allow corporal punishment.
What’s your point lofty? Different studies have suggested that mild smacking/spanking doesn’t cause kids to be violent.
Vote:It is also widely accepted that violence at home (not including mild smacking) breeds violence at school and elsewhere. And violence in schools has been increasing since well before the child discipline law didn’t make any difference.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Cerium,
Violence blamed on removal of corporal punishment:
So, if the above figures are correct, in eight years we have observed an 88% increase in suspensions of eight-year-olds for assaults on classmates. So therefore Cerium we should have also seen a similar percentage increase in all of the areas you outlined in your 12:24 pm comment. I seriously doubt that has actually happened.
But I could imagine an 88% increase of PC parenting where new age parents give their kids timeout and ‘little chats’ when their little darlings step over the boundaries of good behaviour. Of course, even if children are disciplined at home, the fact that the school environment is a ‘no consequence’ one encourages kids to push limits that perhaps they would never dream of doing at home.
We can see a similar parallel with children who are split between parents due to divorce. They may not be as well behaved with mum during the week because she is more lenient. Whilst with dad on the weekends they are little models of good behaviour because dad enforces behavioural boundaries more rigorously.
Simply put: if kids have no, or minimal, boundaries then they will modify their behaviour to suit that particular environment. Greater violence is just one result of the anti-social behaviours that we observe increasing in both children in particular, and society in general.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Cerium 11:46 am,
Depends on which ‘god/s’, and which ‘scriptural’ authority.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Cerium said…
Kris, that is evidence of violence, not evidence of cause.
What’s your point lofty? Different studies have suggested that mild smacking/spanking doesn’t cause kids to be violent.
Cerium, you’ve made lots of comments on this issue on this blog with mostly nonsense and contradicting arguments. You stated that , not evidence of cause and then you concluded above that different studies have suggested that mild smacking/spanking doesn’t cause. Don’t you see a contradiction in your statement here? It seems to me that you confuse or have no clue at all to what correlative and causative analysis is about? Psychological/Statistical studies are correlative and not causative analysis.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Family First blaming it on something doesn’t make it evidence.
It is widely believed that school violence is a reflection of family and societal violence.
Quote:
A University of Minnesota Extension Service sociologist, conducted a six-year study of changes in parental disciplinary practices, specifically the use of corporal punishment, and their effects on aggressive child behaviors.
Researchers interviewed the parents regarding their parenting practices in 1993, 1995, and 1998. During the six-year period, many parents attended positive-parenting classes. At the same time, a multiagency citizen group ran a public awareness and educational campaign to bring the message of “Kids: Handle with Care” to the county residents. Overall, parents’ use of corporal punishment declined from 36% (1993) to 21% (1995) to 12% (1998) during the six months prior to the interviews. Those parents who attended public-awareness activities reported lesser use of corporal punishment.
In 1993, 11% reported spanking their children eleven or more times in the past six months before the interview. By 1998 no parent reported spanking that often during the past six months. In 1993, 20% indicated spanking six or more times the previous six months. Just 2% said they used physical punishment in 1998. Parents who took parenting classes reported, among other things, that they learned to set limits by explaining to the child what was expected of him or her. Fathers who actively participated in the parenting classes and public-awareness programs did just as well as or better than the mothers in changing their parenting practices.
The researchers also found changes in some children’s aggression. Nonaggressive children at the start of the study who were spanked were twice as aggressive by the end of the study. Those who were aggressive in 1993 but were not spanked throughout the study were half as aggressive in 1998. Overall, the percentage of parents who reported their children hitting siblings dropped from 80% in 1993 to 56% in 1998. Hitting other children declined from 45% to 27%, damaging things, from 47% to 31%, and hitting adults, including parents, from 28% to 9%. The study did not take into account, however, that much of this change would be expected because of the difference in the children’s age from the beginning to the end of the study.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1401/Causes-Effects-Child-Abuse-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT.html
If you are interested in what may be best for a child the whole article is worth reading – and it also quotes “some experts believe nonabusive spanking can play a role in effective parental discipline of young children.”
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Falafulu Fisi, do you think Kris, lofty and Fletch understand what correlative and causative analysis is about?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I mean to state that psychological studies that anti-smackers like you shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
@ Falafulu fisi…What’s your point lofty? Different studies have suggested that mild smacking/spanking doesn’t cause kids to be violent.
I am a simple person FF my point is merely that Cerium seems to be engaged in trolling only, and will use any argument it can to inflame comment…that is all.
@cerium… while I am a simple soul I actually do understand what correlative & causative analysis is about..simple does not equate to stupid.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Ha. Nigel Latta is not doing media interviews on the review. But he’s got himself a new press secretary.
I wish to announce that I have just appointed my cat, Jerry, as my new Chief Press Secretary. Please direct all media inquiries to him
Vote:GSOH
September 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“I mean to state that psychological studies that anti-smackers like you shouldn’t be taken seriously.”
I am not an anti smacker, I just prefer alternatives as much as possible.
Lofty I haven’t been trying to inflame comment, I have just been asking if several posters can back up the claims they have made. It is possible that stopping corporal punishment is a significant cause of increased violence levels but I have not seen anything to back that up apart from “violence has increased since corporal punishment was stopped”.
Violence has increased since we stopped being involved in major wars, is a reduction in wars responsible for an increase in violence levels here?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
This is as big a white wash as when MPs reviewed MMP or when Clark set the terms of reference into Field’s conduct.
Key claims he is not telling the police how to do their job.
The present law that Key calls a compromise is worse that Bradford’s original bill.
Jim Evans is emeritus professor of law at Auckland University stated this at the meeting in Mt Roskill Monday night.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10588870&pnum=0
This issue is bigger than about smacking or even parental rights. It is about who rules New Zealand – John Key by edict or Parliament.
Key is playing with words when he says he is not telling the police to do their job – yeah right – just like Clark did not tell the police driver to speed in the motorcade.
We do not need a psychologist on the review but a constitutional lawyer.
During the talk a member of the audience called out, “thin edge of the wedge”. Prof Evans agreed. I can remember when Muldoon took power he circumvented Parliament by telling employers they could stop making contributions to the former government’s super fund before Parliament changed the law.
We have had nine year of the Clark government where police used their discretion not to charge government MPs including the Prime Minster for serious crimes although there was a prima facie case.
We voted for a change of policy and a change of the way things are done not just a change of government.
Is too much to expect a Prime Minister to know the proper function of government and respect the rule of law?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@lofty(308) 2:02pm
From my perspective, Cerium, far from being a troll, has quoted the most detailed research with a compelling argument against smacking. Kris K quoted a Herald article of a Ministry of Education report which quoted a worrying increase in suspension for young children in schools from 2000-2008. He then used that as a piece of evidence for why banning corporal punishment was a dumb idea. Corporal punishment was made illegal in 1989, however, so it wouldn’t necessarily explain the later increase between 2000-2008. Kris K then quoted some anecdote about how kids are better behaved with their fathers because they set boundaries, rather than their mothers, who are more lenient. Unfortunately, there was no research to back this one up…
Since there is limited data at hand in this discussion and few of us study or research this topic can we just be a little bit more honest about how much our individual opinions are worth — everyone seems to imply that they know the answers. Come on, the world is a complex place, if you have a simplistic solution for anything chances are you’re wrong (IMO).
@Kris K — I agree, boundaries are crucially important but I have seen people that bring up their children with boundaries but without physical discipline. You can indicate a lot by the tone of your voice–most of my friends were brought up without violence and they are doing very well. I don’t doubt that people can turn out well with physical discipline as well but in terms of a basic logical argument, physical violence is not a ‘necessary’ or ‘sufficient’ condition for a kid turning out good. i.e. you don’t need to do it, and using it by itself (i.e. without care, love, verbal warnings, explanation) your kid wouldn’t turn out very good either.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Cerium,
Of course we can have all the sociologists reports in the world [most of them I believe to be agenda driven and godless contrivances].
Most people carry out their own ‘studies’ by observation. Comparison between families who smack when necessary and those who use no physical discipline [who are often slack in other areas too], all other things being essentially equal [ie no parental alcoholism, domestic violence, physical abuse of the child, and child sexual abuse], reveals that children who receive no physical discipline are often more naughty, violent, etc compared to those that do receive the occassional ‘smack’ if required.
I recall some friends of mine, they would pick up there own 4 year old and their neighbours 4 year old from daycare after work. They stipulated to the parents that they would apply the same rules to both children when in their care. The other parents agreed to this. Now the other little girl was never smacked; the parents had timeout and reasoned discussions with her instead. As a result she was naughty and would often hit other children and her parents. On day one my friends sat the other little girl down and laid out the ground rules: we smack out daughter if she is naughty and deserves it, and while you are here you will be treated the same as our daughter. The little girl tried it on once, got a smack, and never needed another one. She also became the model of good behaviour within a few days.
After a few weeks the parents arrived a little early one day and so came in for a cuppa before taking their daughter home. The two girls played on while the parents talked, etc. The other parents could not believe this was actually their daughter; her behaviour, respect for the other little girl and adults, and her instant obedience were testimony to a marked change in her. And yet while at her own home the parents had noticed no difference in behaviour over the last few weeks.
The little girl modified her behaviour when a guest in the other house; she responded to the ‘new’ rules and accepted the consequences for breaking them. And yet at home, because the rules hadn’t changed, her behaviour was as naughty and rebellious as ever. The only difference between her homelife and that of the home of my friends was the means of discipline administered and the consistency of enforcing acceptable behavioural boundaries.
I put it to you Cerium, that these kinds of ‘studies’ carry more weight with most thinking individuals/parents than any agenda driven contrivence that is promoted by the latest pop psychologist/socialist study.
87.4% of those that took part in the referendum, I would hazard a guess, know the difference between appropriate corporal punishment, whether in the home or the school. Maybe we should have a referendum on reinstating corporal punishment in schools as well – now that would be any interesting result I’m sure.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Kris,
That anecdote is from your own life? About the little girl?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Kris k:Maybe it’s the increasing levels of violence in schools since corporal punishment has been removed?
Correlation does not imply causation. Antisocial behaviour appears to have increased in recent years but there are other possible explanations. For example, we know that vitamin D levels are declining in populations around the worls as they spend more time inside watching TV, surfing the net, or playing xbox games etc. Yet vitamin D is important in brain function – it influences mood and there is, from memory, indirect evidence that low levels promote antisocial behaviour. This effect would be more pronounced in ethnic groups with darker skins, due to their impaired vitamin D making capability, and indeed criminality rates are higher in such groups.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“Maybe we should have a referendum on reinstating corporal punishment in schools as well – now that would be any interesting result I’m sure.”
A poll on it would probably be good enough, it would be very interesting. I have no idea what it would show. A binding referendum would definitely not work for this, what if 51% voted for reinstating corporal punishment? Only for their kids? or enforced on all kids? Or optional (as some schools in the US have it).
Anecdotes don’t show a lot – I have seen good non physical discipline – just the right sort of look can be effective for kids that have been taught to respect that sort of signal. And I have seem plenty of ineffectual or counter productive smacking (and before I’m labeled again, I have seen whacks that have the desired non-harmful effect as well). Actually I suggest that a very occasional smack is a lot more effective than frequent smacking as kids can get used to tolerating it, but a whack out of the blue can have a much bigger impact (non-physically).
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Ryan Sproull 2:50 pm,
Indeed.
Vote:The couple were some friends of mine. I used to work with the husband, and the account given was what he told me at the time.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Kris,
Would you consider yourself agenda-driven at all?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Chiz reminds me of something on tv last night, a school for problem kids I think (only caught bits of it) – they had to teach kids how to eat properly, how to chew meat, because they had only eaten junk food.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Cerium 2:57 pm,
I think I’ve mention this to you before: My brother and I got a smack up to about five; after that ‘the look’ was all that was required. Being told that we had disappointed our parents became the ‘discipline’ over the age of about five – and let me tell you that was even worse than any smack either of us had ever received.
While there are inappropriate forms of physical discipline, I believe most parents know the difference, and really do discipline from a foundation of love and of wanting the best for their children. I believe that the majority of parents in NZ fall into this category.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Mr. Latta was running down parents on a TV 1 debate in favour of Sue Bradford’s cause a little while ago. He is lying about his position only to justify the massive conflict of interest among other things.
But someone is claiming the Anti Smacking Law is a huge ‘cover up’ of GE/GM Biotechnology cause of violence among young children, mental health and suicide. If you google the term ‘Seeds of Deception’, there is also a Video (http://www.gihtrust.co.nz/Antismacking.html) of research results on it, you will find that the cause of violence lies elsewhere in foods and not in the homes.
Farmers, Dairy Products, and Media productions are responsible and the government is covering it up by the controversial smokescreen of the Anti Smacking Law.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
“Cerium
“I mean to state that psychological studies that anti-smackers like you shouldn’t be taken seriously.””
Falafulu Fisi is an engineer, because of this he has an obscure and inaccurate objection to psychology, emanating mainly from the statistical process used. Most people ignore people who make that claim, psychologists continue to to their work, they are mostly accurate, the world goes on.
The real problem is Kris K, he hasn’t even considered that he may have some internal bias, which he should maybe consider correcting for.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
This is not evidence. Evidence should involve actual data.
See, this is data:
Of course, it would be more useful for your point if 2000 was the year that corporal punishment ended. But I’m pretty sure it was earlier than that – maybe you can find more relevant numbers?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Farmers, Dairy Products, and Media productions are responsible and the government is covering it up by the controversial smokescreen of the Anti Smacking Law.
Maybe it’s the same food problems that are causing constituent deafness amongst the politicians. And reality delusions amongst tv producers. And advertising deficiencies in newspapers. And factless ravings amongst blog posters. It could be the answer to all ourtheir problems.
It is probably food related – this story takes the cake.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“psychologists continue to to their work, they are mostly accurate, the world goes on”
Repressed memory syndrome anyone? How many families and lives did that wreck before it was exposed as a gravy train for the psych profession.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
all very nice but takes us away from the core of the subject.
John Key and National foisted the law change on us.
they ignored us twice.
The law means that parents who give their kids a smack for correction break it and are criminals.
Now what do you propose we should do about this.
make another referendum demanding the govt change the law so that parents don’t break the law if they smack for corrective purposes
Vote:or
have meetings in all the electorates to educate people to the constitutional issue Key and National’s behaviour highlights.
or
what?
September 8th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“mostly accurate” see “mostly”, cf; always.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Cerium said…
It is probably food related – this story takes the cake.
That’s the problem with behavioral studies. You can use 2 different sets of supposed causal variables , regardless of how absurd they might be, and you can still come up with the same conclusions about a single common effect, such as that being highlighted above (food or home environment – which sets?).
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
kris k has lots of ‘anecdotes’..
smaller relies on them a fair bit too..
“..why..i once knew a chap..etc etc..’
(heh..!)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
So, does Nigel Latta have any expertise in “the policies and procedures of the Police and CYF, including the referral process between the two agencies” or is this like getting Mai Chen or Geoffrey Palmer to assess ethical standards for psychotherapists? He might have something useful to contribute, but I have a funny feeling that Howard Broad and Peter Hughes are going to be doing all the substantive heavy lifting.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Cerium, I’d rather you see the video or read the book before you run down my argument. On second thought, it’s probably a waste of time for its seems that you’d already made up your mind. At least you can support it with something worth noting than hissing at everything that moves…
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Kris K,
“While there are inappropriate forms of physical discipline, I believe most parents know the difference”. I’m happy you have your beliefs, just like a seven year old believes in the tooth fairy. But I would think a very high rate of child abuse in this country would be a fact which would beg to differ with your ‘belief’?
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Edward, that assertion depends on the definition of “most”. By “most” dictionary definitions your argument is a logical failure.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Alan Wilkinson,
How so? The claim that “most”, being the majority, know the difference seems at odds with the reality of high child abuse rates in this country. Pretty simple logic there I would have thought. Or, are you suggesting that “some”, being the minority, are abusing other people’s children as well just to throw the stats? I think, Alan, you might need to learn what logic is before suggesting dictionaries. Oh, and here’s another pointer, when someone puts the accent on ‘belief’ to highlight a point, returing with a focus on ‘most’ seems a little, well, illogical
Keep trying though.
Vote:Hugs.
September 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Edward 6:51 pm,
Edward, are you as much of a moron as you appear?
Until half of the children in NZ are abused, and on balance half of the parents are the abusers of children, then ‘most’ is an apt descriptor when someone says, “While there are inappropriate forms of physical discipline, I believe most parents know the difference”. Until such a time I will continue to use the word ‘most’ in such phrases.
Now run away and steal someone elses oxygen, we’re all out here.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Tassman, I have watched the whole video. I get your angle now, it wasn’t clear.
Most of it was about the potential dangers of GM food and additives, yeah, I know about that, that’s one reason why I am working towards producing as much of my own food as possible.
But two aspects seem totally out of place, that is what sparked my initial skepticism.
I don’t see what link the smacking debate has to it at all. It is possible but very very unlikely.
And the angle that it is a communist plot doesn’t add up either, the video was about large companies (ie capitalists) pushing this stuff on people, and a bit about tv brainwashing – private media companies being used by more capitalists. So to say this is attempting socialist control of the people doesn’t make sense.
The suggestion that gm and junk food contributes to increased levels of violence in schools is possible (in conjunction with other things) but where is the evidence of that, the video provides no more than Kris and co provided linking to no corporal punishment causing more violence.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
The biggest problem about the new law is if you lightly smack your child for correctional purpose the police and cyf will be on your doorstep. I know that what happens in my family is none of the police or cyf’s business!! It is that simple. John Key is a complete idiot and hopefully he shot himself in the foot with his arrogance or stupidity, I haven’t figured that out yet. Nigel Latta is only a gimmick to calm the voter’s anger. “if the law doesn’t work” attitude is too late. We voted.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Edward said…
learn what logic is before suggesting dictionaries.
Edward, that’s a daft comment from you. Alan Wilkinson is a software expert who writes codes for a living and for anyone to able to do that , the person needs to understand logic inside out. In fact Alan’s software company (MailMarshal) was acquired by NetIQ (US company) for around $40 millions about 5/6 years ago. Alan can confirm the exact figure himself (which is something to be proud about Al) but that’s just a distraction from the argument, and that is Alan knows logic inside out. Edward, before you spewed out idiotic comment like that, always check first who you’re targeting your comment towards.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Kris K,
How do you account for disproportionately high rates of child abuse if most parents here are as fantastic as you claim? Would you rather we sweep it all under the rug? Sorry, doesn’t add up, and it is of no consequence how much you wish it would.
Falafulu,
I don’t see at all how Alan being a software expert holds any weight whatsoever in this matter. Likewise I do not need to know, nor do I care, how much money he has made in software. This has nothing whatsoever to do with epistomological or philosophical argumentation. Or, Falafulu, are you telling me a software designer has extensive insight into the nature of argumentation, debate, and philosophy? You are confusing computer logic wigth philosophy my friend. I know, I know, you have a bit of hero worship for someone who made some money, so think on the weight of that accomplishment alone he must hold expert opinion on everything. Sorry, but doesn’t work that way. So, perhaps you should take your own advice before “spewing out idiotic comments” like that, and check that you’re sure you know what you are talking about? Ta.
Anyway, i’d better go and steal some more oxygen right guys, because I must be thick because I disagree with you, and god knows adults incapable of reading the piece of legislation they are actually pissing and moaning about must be super-duper smart.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 9:58 am
I can’t help but think you should have taken that plate with your ass on it and left the first time it was handed to you Edward.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Edward said…
Or, Falafulu, are you telling me a software designer has extensive insight into the nature of argumentation, debate, and philosophy? You are confusing computer logic wigth philosophy my friend.
Philosophy is built on logic. Take away logic and you’re standing there naked. I can talk to you about philosophical logic that you have no clue about, and yes, logic that are universal, be it mathematical , computational, epistemological, etc, etc,… Computer logic is a sub-branch of logic in general, be careful of what you think you know about logic man, because you ain’t. I answered directly to you about your comment that Alan should learn about logic, then you came back with a comment that’s evading. You’re weaseling man.
Edward said…
a bit of hero worship for someone who made some money,
No, I don’t worship Alan, however I applaud local capitalists like Allan. I admire the efforts of the likes of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Brin/Page, and many other similar entrepreneurs. WHY? I have a desire to succeed like them, which is a good thing and I am working towards it (ie, just a success and not necessarily a multimillion acquisition like Alan’s business – but it would be nice if it gets to that).
If you have any aspiration to succeed in life, then I suggest you listen to a very good song from “50 Cent” called:
“Get Rich Or Die Trying”
It may perhaps inspire you to work towards a similar success of what Alan had achieved, or otherwise, you’re going to get stuck in being a toilet cleaner as a job all your life and eventually die while still doing that? Hurry man, go and buy that CD from “50 Cent”.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Thanks for the nice comments, Falafulu. Success as we had needs some luck and good timing as well as hard work and a great team.
I wish all hard-working people the same chances and good fortune. I only wish our education system better equipped most of our children to take the opportunities. The recent reports that most NZ children enter secondary school innumerate and leave it financially illiterate are no surprise but a sad indictment of lost possibilities.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I was waiting in the Doctors waiting room this morning (as is normal in doctors waiting rooms I was on time he was late) and was skimming through the April 2009 N&S and read and article on child care and the effects it is having and and that Sweden the home of no smacking and child care and child rights are revisiting their laws as child violence is so bad there now. Sweden was , if I’m not mistaken, held up as the Utopia of child rearing, no smackings, children in care while Mum works, well seems Utopia has turned to Hell in a handcart and even Sweden appears to be admitting they were wrong in the Child care, no smacking experiment and are looking at revising their law on children. Now I admit it was a skim read as one never knows when the doctor will want to have some more practise on my battered beleaguered body, oh how I pray for the day he no longer needs to practise as he has mastered the doctoring profession, and I may have missed something
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Falafulu/Edward
I’m also a software designer in the exact same business as Alan. Furthermore I majored in Computer Science and Philosophy (specializing in Logic), at university. None of that makes my arguments or anything about the way I chop logic better than any other person’s way of doing it. Quite the opposite, it is very tempting when you understand logic quite deeply to think that makes you a more logical person in every way. IT DOESN’T. Sweet fuck all of human debates about matters political has any logic in it deeper than old fashioned syllogisms. Most of the real meat of human arguments begins well before any logic is even required, at the point where we attach meaning to our words. That’s where most of the conflict arises, and the logic goes nowhere, when the basic meaning of the propositions or predicates is not settled. It’s usually a distraction, at best.
Just to make this point clear, the referendum is a very easy place to start. It uses a bunch of terms whose meaning is not clearly defined. “Smack”, “Light”, “Correction”, “Good”….etc. If you forge off making “logical” inferences about what most people think based on the referendum result, then you’re not being logical, you’re just making assumptions about how most people interpret those words. Which everyone is perfectly entitled to do, but they’re pushing shit uphill to call it logical, or even worse, scientific.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Ben, you are being disingenuous.
That New Zealand has a relatively high rate of child abuse internationally – even assuming (dubiously) that the international comparisons are valid and based on equivalent measurements – does not determine the truth or falsity of whether most NZ parents discipline reasonably.
Logic is never the whole story but it is certainly a part of it.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Alan, you are suggesting that Edward was using logic in the first place in his point. In particular, a logical argument you have constructed which you posit to be his point. But I’m willing to bet you, that if you go ahead and try to actually state this argument, you’ll find that Edward will disagree that that was his argument at all. Then where are you?
To make this clearer, you are suggesting that Edward is saying that the high rates of child abuse in this country *logically entail* that most parents don’t know the difference? But Edward might only be saying that it *lends weight to the idea that* most parents don’t know the difference. And that is quite a valid point (although I disagree with it). Now I’m willing to agree that Edward is not being logical in the sense that you and I probably understand in quite a similar way. But again, it’s also quite possible by logical that Edward has a different meaning to us (and closer to most people’s understanding of it). He probably means something more like “reasonable” or “rational” or “probable”.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Ben, I still think you are twisting language as well as logic beyond allowable limits. You can, if you wish, be like Alice’s Queen and say words mean whatever you want them to mean. But that is not the way language works – without agreed commonly-shared meanings it doesn’t work.
And not all “logic” is created equal. The logic (and mathematics) of science is tested against the real world and gets a pass or fail. Many other “logics” are possible but they fail the usefulness test.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Alan, you don’t get to set the limits by which other people use their language, I’m sorry. If you want to use a word like logic with the specific connotation of mathematics, then you really need to say so. But that doesn’t give you the right to insist that everyone else means that. To be honest, I highly doubt that most people would actually mean that, because most people are not trained in mathematical logic.
I agree that the ‘common-or-garden’ version of logic is not the same as the formal kind, and lacks a lot of the power of it. But it also has its own power, which is that humans can use it in arguments which still have meaning, despite lacking formality.
The idea that words must have commonly-shared meanings for language to work is highly contentious. It’s less contentious if you say that we should come to an agreement on how to use a word before trying to use it formally in some context. It’s also something that seldom succeeds outside of technical fields. That’s why I say the bulk of political argumentation is not logical. It’s all about trying to seize control of the words. Which is assuredly frustrating to people who have the power to chop logic but don’t get the opportunity – but that’s the nature of the beast.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Ben, now you are twisting my words as well as the language. I never anywhere claimed to be setting limits. I merely recognise those set by common usage whereas evidently you don’t – or at least you don’t wish to for the sake of this argument. Though I suspect for practical reasons of living in our society you are compelled to in practice.
And so far as Edward is concerned, I have little interest in his argument since he cannot express it in a way that carries any weight with either of us – for entirely logical and consistent reasons.
Vote:September 9th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Alan, you twisted yourself into this position. I don’t accept the same ‘common usage’ as you on any number of words. Logic oversimplifies what is very often much more complex.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Well then, Ben, write your own dictionary definitions and talk amongst yourself. That should keep you happy.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Falafulu,
I’m not weasiling at all. As you suggested, I googled you to “see who I was up against”, and the result is you seem to have had some training in physics, computer science, or economics. I’m not sure which, this is just an assumption based on your subjects. What I have noticed however, is that you like to steer out of these topics into political diatribes armed with what you seem to think are superior or relevant analogues to your specialist field. While i’m sure you are mighty impressed with your own accomplishments, many of your arguments (for lack of a better word) appear to be little more that a series of text book models which i’m pretty sure you use because you think no-one else will catch on, but in reality, they appear to have little to nothing to do with the matter at hand. Now, while i’m sure you and Alan think that having training in an area with the use of logic carries with it the assurance of possitive assertion, you both seem to merely bludgeon people with completely irrelevant use of it.
Also, it is rather rude of you to assume I know nothing about logic. You don’t know my background at all. I know computational or mathematical logic are related to logic in general, but they are applied in differing ways you smug ass. My reply to you was not evasive, it was to the point. I laid it out bare. A high abuse rate is an anomaly worth consideration at least against the assertion that most parents know the difference. You’re reply was the one which in fact avoided the issue alltogether and merely fired back with rhetoric by calling me “idiotic” and raving on about Alan’s credentials, as though that even carried any weight or had anything whatsoever to do with the debate. A poor rhetorical tactic by someone overly sure of themselves, who, I suspect, is lacking the goods he wishes others to think he has. Again, this debate is not about compter logic or logic at all. You and Alan are the one’s who directed it that way, I suspect because you have little else in the way of argument to offer, so you make it an epistomological issue. Or perhaps you two merely like the sound of your own typing?
Further, your advice about success is inherently abhorant to me. If you measure success by money than I pity you. I measure it by what I can contribute to society through my personal life and my academic research (yes, I am an academic, so you can stick your superiority complex where the sun don’t shine). So, you can listen to your 50 cent song by yourself thanks.
For the record, while falafulu seems like he’s suffering an inflated ego, I agree with Alan’s post on the 9th at 10.59, about the education system.
Ben,
I fully agree with you. I’m no master of logic and i’ll readily admit it. I see this “debate” between falafulu, Alan, and myself, as largely superfluous. Rather than an argument about logic, my post was simply pointing out an anomaly which doesn’t seem to stack up with a populist view of fantastic parenting in NZ. I might be wrong, correlation need not mean causation. But it is a point worth raising. And central to the ‘anti-smaking’ law. I would like to thank you for clarifying the issue with a reasoned mind and also pointing out that an understanding of logic does not automatically mean that the wielder is always correct.
Also, you are right to point out to Alan that he is the one who has effectively tried to re-construct or package my argument in a way that suits him rather than dealing with the content. Again, this is not a ‘debate’ about logic, I was simply pointing out that a phenomena seems at odds with a certain statement.
If Alan, in his self possessed authority, has little interest in my argument because i’m not using mathematical logic, is this not just a tad ‘precious’? He seems more than happy to wade into discussion with others who are not using mathematical logic, so long, it seems, as they are arguing on his side of the fence. Funny, isn’t it, that such a devout follower of logic can’t even see the paradox he creates through his hypocrtical double standard. Just someone backpeddling ferociously to keep his own supposed intellectual superiority intact. Pathetic excuse for a debate. An expert in logic should know what a strawman is. Followed up by more ad hominems against Ben, who was arguing in the manner Alan set out in the first place.
Alan and Falafulu, if you spent less time honouring yourselves and more time tackling issues at hand, perhaps you wouldn’t be such lousy debaters.
Hugs and kisses
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
That wasted far too much oxygen, Edward.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Whats the matter great and powerful sourpuss? Lost for words? Why not use your computational logic to address the points I raised? Ecpecially about your double standards. I think you’ve just been shown up for the excuse for a debater you are.
Vote:Have a fantastic day Alan.
September 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“Why not use your computational logic to address the points I raised?”
Because you have shown yourself incapable of comprehending logic and I have no wish nor need to waste my time. Nor do I give a proverbial about your silly ad hominem attacks.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Still not addressing any points, and merely firing back with ad hominems (which you were the first to use). Mine on the other hand, merely point out your hypocricy. Seems more like you just spat the dummy to me. Again, pathetic debating skills.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Stop snivelling, Edward. Just accept not everyone cares what you think.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I can suggest the same to you. Anyway, seems like the ‘debate’ is dead, insofar as it never actually began. So, I guess i’ll do likewise and stop wasting my time. No hard feelings meant, i’m sure you’re an intelligent guy. But I think you could’ve done better, Falafulu too.
Vote:Bye.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Edward said…
series of text book models…
Sorry, Edward, your assumption is wrong, which makes you look stupid. I read peer review journals, yep newly arrived journals on display at Uni library. So, what I often talk about, is unlikely that anyone would understand, because, lets face it,most people do read textbooks bought from Uni bookshop, where material published in journals is nowhere to be found on textbooks. I do this because I am a consultant in the industry, and consultants have to be on top of their game, ie, they don’t read textbooks . Textbook materials lag behind published material in the journals by about 7 to 10 years. It means that what appears today in the journals, will come out perhaps in 10 years time (at most), which appear new to the likes of you, but old hats to people like me.
Edward said…
which i’m pretty sure you use because you think no-one else will catch on,
As I stated clearly above, I stated facts (based on recent publications) and mostly or all the times, no one catches on since it is new or unknown to them. WHY? Because not everybody reads journals, however everyone reads textbooks, and if it is not textbook stuff, then what do you expect? Yep, people wouldn’t know especially if it is new material such as available from journals and that’s fact. I have argued on many blog sites and I always backed up my arguments with published (peer review research) papers by pointing to those links but those who often debated with me, don’t have a clue (or able to read the web references I pointed them to). They usually come back and accused me of having an ego (exactly as you did), some sort of cry-baby just to avoid debating since the stuff I referred them too is beyond their comprehension.
Edward said…
Just someone backpeddling ferociously to keep his own supposed intellectual superiority intact.
Do you have a problem with intellectual superiority? I don’t. I am proud of my capability. What are you proud about yourself ? Do you have anything? See that ‘s the problem with people like you. When someone has intellectual superiority, you cry-baby, oh no, don’t throw me all that stuff because I don’t understand and have no clue about them, but if the person is intellectual inferior that person is being trembled on and told , hey look buddy, you don’t know what you’re talking about, so just piss off. Now, do you see the logic? Ok, where have I backpeddled on this thread? As far as I know I haven’t. You probably meant that I veered slightly off topic, which I think I have, but that was a direct reply to your comment to Alan.
Now back to the anti-smacking law. State with reasons of why you oppose them?
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Falafulu,
You missed the point again. Text book or peer-reviewed I don’t care, my point was the relevance. Which, when you drift into politics, seems a little tenuous.
Secondly, i’ve no problem with you citing the facts. That’s good. And I also know that many people won’t understand everything you say. I know I for one wont sometimes because i’ve a different speciality to you. The point, again, is that it seems to me like you drop an info bomb on people that is neither relevant to the discussion at hand or useful. As for your blog experience, you do have an ego, it is plainly obvious due to the way you put forward irrelevant arguments while claiming anyone who says so is ignorant. Another ad hominem with the “cry baby” point while ignoring the issue at hand. I haven’t avoided debate at all, or, are you incapable of reading my rather long post above? Your points were simply irrelevant. After all of your rhetoric about Alan’s credentials and computational logic you didn’t address a thing about what I said, but rather constructed a strawman with which to frame my point in a manner in which you felt comfortable.
Lastly, I was talking about Alan. So your last paragraph is irrelevant (a common theme with you apparently). I have a problem with arrogance, not intellect. As I said, i’m sure (and everyone else is too) that you are more than happy with the inflated self-image you have constructed for yourself. You shouldn’t in fact be proud though, because you belittle others (i.e. “what are you proud of? do you have anything?”) and assume they are ‘lesser’ than you. I am proud of my accomplishments, I am a researcher at Auckland University and live an emphatic life where I respect others around me (yes, even the ‘lowly’ cleaner you looked down disgracefully upon before). And who are “people like me” exactly? People who disagree with you? You assume you are intellectually superior, and then berrate me with pathetic condescention. Yours is only one of many specialist disciplines, and with its own specific scientific and social value. You are as much the imbecille you accuse everyone else of being if you are put in a position where they know something you don’t. In short, you are an arrogant, pompass blowhard.
All of this aside, despite your self proclaimed ‘intellectual superiority’ over myself and no doubt nearly everyone else who has the misfortune of meeting you, you have again addressed nothing of my original comment and completely missed the point yet again. Pretty poor for an ‘intellectual god’ is it not?
Finally, I have many issues with the ‘anti-smacking’ law. I raised one point which I think is worth at least consideration. Perhaps you can finally deal with that one first? Or is that too hard for you? Perhaps I should re-address your own question: State with reasons of why you are for it?
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I am pro-smacking by the way (not anti). There are many reasons, but I’ll give you a blog post, that I agree with as one example:
The Art Of War For Parents
BTW, Edward, are you a researcher at Auck Uni from Department of Anthropology or Sociology? Which one? If you think that I am arrogant, then so fuck’n what?
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
FF, I was wondering that too in a shocked kind of way. Climate science, perhaps, judging by some of the papers I’ve seen?
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
That’s a very good link FF. Very similar to my approach. Choosing battles is important (as is winning those battles, they are the lines being drawn). A lot of other good ideas.
I note that it didn’t use the words smack or spank at all. That makes it a good general article, suitable for parents who smack a bit and parents who prefer not to smack.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Falafulu,
Thanks for the link. While I still think people are missing the point of the legislation, I can appreciate an approach like that in the link. Ultimately, the point of the law was to remove the ‘reasonable force’ justification, not attack light smacking. Hence why I bought up the point that, in a country with a high child abuse rate, it seems rather odd to vehemently reject a child protection law. However, i’m sure you’ve already heard this so I won’t bother to go further with it.
Anyway, I don’t see the point in telling you which department i’m associated with, as it is again completely irrelevant (for the life of me I don’t know why you keep making irrelevant arguments!?) and no matter what my speciality is i’m sure you and Alan have already decided that you’re at the forefront of intellectual discource by leaps and bounds. What exactly are you trying to accomplish, some sort of qualification co#k-fight? Seems like you have the attitude of an undergrad or maybe a PGDip rather than a scholar but this too is irrelevant.
As for me thinking you are arrogant, i don’t think, I know. You’ve made it abundantly clear for all to see. What was it again? “intellectually superior”? But you’re right. So f*cking what. Except for the case that you don’t actually offer anything substantial, but rather perfer to ramble on about Alan’s money and computer logic. What this has to do with intelligence is beyond me, and what intelligence has to do with the anti-child abuse law is also unclear. In point of fact, what the fu*k computer logic or whatever you pride yourself on has to do with this issue is likewise beyond me. Apparently you would like us all to believe it makes you and Alan experts? I am happy to admit when I don’t know something, and am eager to learn. I am also happy to admit i’m no expert in fields other than my own – and this is one of those instances. Apparently this differentiates me from blow hards like you and Alan. I would have though a child psychologist (unlike Nigel Latta the sensing murder specialist) would be someone experienced here, but apparently I should just go an ask Alan the software designer or Falafulu the consultant.
Laslty, instead of deriding people who may not understand some of the content of your posts, perhaps you could be a little more gracious and try and explain it to them rather than merely writing about how great you are are scoffing at their lack of intellect. It merely shows you probably have an underlying inferiority-superiority complex where you act like a complete tool by throwing around irrelevancies in the vain hope of lending credence to your misdirected rambling rhetoric. Again, pathetic. Both of you. I’ve had enough of even trying to discuss this with such blatantly arrogant fools. You and Alan go ahead and blow each others trumpets, i’m sure its facinating for everyone else interested in open dialogue. ta ta.
Vote:September 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Edward, please don’t go away. Come back Edward, so we can listen to “50-Cent”.
Vote: