Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
As long as you take out the bad smacking before you count.
No. Rather, you use the study to determine what bad smacking is. Then you ban that .
But I think we've had this argument before, and I'm not minded to repeat it.
In short, don't take a high daily dose of aspirin to avoid heart attacks.
And don't drink a bottle of wine a day because some study suggests that half-a-glass of red is beneficial (but only if you take out the bad drinking before you count ... it's not that we're drinking...?).
-
But I think we've had this argument before, and I'm not minded to repeat it.
Yeah, I kinda felt the same ;-)
But it does seem to me that it's characteristic of bad smackers to believe they're good smackers. One thing I think the last couple of pages has helped establish is that the behaviour of the likes of Jimmy Mason is not good or responsible, however much they believe that to be the case. That's the problem.
It's not quantifiable in the sense that you'd count out your aspirin tablets. I suppose you could legislate to the effect that, say, six smacks is good, but any more is not. But that gets you into some weird territory.
it's not that we're drinking...?
It's how we're drinking ...
-
... that gets you into some weird territory.
it's not that we're drinking...?
It's how we're drinking ...
"It's not that we smack - it's how we smack" would be a decidedly odd public information campaign.
-
Despite my years in student politics etc I've never been arrested or even cautioned.
Clearly you weren't doing it right. Twice. Twice I tell you!
There's also the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study.
People wave that around a lot. There's some things to be aware of in relation to this study:
1. It's self-reporting. The subjects are interviewed regularly and asked questions, about which they answer honestly (we hope). Are you using drugs, do you do this, have this ever happened to you etc. It's not the same as 'smacking led to the same outcomes', it's 'their/their parents memories of whether or not they were smacked as children led to these answers about their later life'. Cue all sorts of research about memory and the way people answer questions about their past and their current life.
2. The researchers aren't experts in this field. It's an incredibly broad study and no doubt will provide lots of useful early pointers for further research but they're not experts in child development, behaviour, health etc.
3. The same university has a children's issues center. Their research contradicts this finding. As far as I know they're not involved in this research by the multidisciplinary unit at all.
4. As the Herald story says, this research 'refutes' thousands of international studies. Which is interesting, but doesn't make it correct. It's quite likely that its methodology means that its not correct, and the thousands of other studies are correct. Or something in between the two.
-
As the Herald story says, this research 'refutes' thousands of international studies. Which is interesting, but doesn't make it correct.
Um, I think you'll find that the Herald article was quoting the Otago Uni psychologist as saying that not one of the thousands of international studies was inconsistent with this study's findings:
"I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids," she said.
-
There you go, the kids were well adjusted even without being smacked as preschoolers. So why are you so obsessed with wanting to smack children, Chuck?
Steven, I am not obsessed with wanting to smack children anymore that the majority of those who oppose this bad piece of legislation that undermines parental rights.
I suspect many on this blog support abortion on demand with no consultation. I do not support that view. However, I think it disingenuous to label them as pro abortion.
If you meant why do I oppose this new legislation I will try to explain briefly.
My position is that Section 59 was not perfect anymore than the new legislation is. I do not think that John Boscawen’s proposed bill is perfect either.
Many others who oppose the new legislation also oppose Boscawen’s bill and believe we should just lobby for Section 59 to be restored as it was. I therefore think my position that Boscawen’s bill should go to a select committer is balanced.
I was aware that the study I quoted did not claim that a smack had positive benefits. I was also aware of other studies such as the one Graeme Edgeler mentioned claimed positive benefits. Even if it cannot not be proved that a light smack occasionally has positive benefits that does not justify outlawing parents using a smack on the legs to discipline a naughty and defiant child.
It is argued that the police will not prosecute light smacking. This may be true most of the time. Under Boscawen’s bill anything more than a light smack could be considered excessive and therefore illegal.
One of my main concerns is due process of law. I believe a judge or a judge and jury should decide if someone breaks a law that carries a penalty of two years imprisonment. This should not be left to the whim or ideological beliefs of an individual police officer.
Another concern is that under current legislation even a light smack on the legs is a criminal offence whether or not there is a prosecution. A parent can have a black mark against their name with the police, CYFS or the school. Teachers are telling young children that now their parents are not allowed to smack them no matter what they do. I know for fact that children are coming home telling their parents that their teacher told them they cannot smack them. It harmful to children when their parents do not work as a team when it comes to rules and discipline. It is also harmful to children when teachers and parents undermine each others authority. Teachers do not like it when parents go against schools rules regarding dress or hair colour. In my opinion this is not good parenting. It is also harmful when teachers undermine parental authority in various ways.
I obviously have no desire to smack or as the anti-smackers like to call it hit or assault any children. However, my adult children in my view are very good parents as are their partners. I would hate to see them investigated let alone prosecuted because of some busybody who viewed any form of physical discipline as assault. While I think that it is unlikely it is bound to happen to other good young parents.
Yet another good reason for opposing this law is that good parents want to bring up their children to respect the law and police. This is very hard to do when Parliament passes a law opposed by about 80% of the population.
A good law is respected by the vast majority of the public. John Boscawen’s proposed bill would not be perfect but would be respected by much more of the public and be much more effective.
I hope this addresses you question.
-
Um, I think you'll find that the Herald article was quoting the Otago Uni psychologist as saying that not one of the thousands of international studies was inconsistent with this study's findings
Probably not this research which Russell raised in 2007, by the Children's Issues Centre at the University of Otago:
A research team from the Children’s Issues Centre recently reviewed research on the guidance and discipline of children (Smith et al. 2005). This paper summarises and updates a section of that report. The research suggests that physical punishment is both ineffective and harmful as a method of disciplining children. This paper provides both an overview and specific examples of recent research on physical punishment relating to the following topics: social, cognitive and mental health; moral internalisation and family relationship outcomes; and the interactions with culture and ethnicity.
Not-with-standing this 'your research isn't as good as my research', find me someone who's doing research on whether a light smack is harmful to women by their partner. Like Emma is sick of justifying why same sex partners should be able to get married, I'm sick of having to justify why children shouldn't have the same rights not to be hit as adults.
-
One of my main concerns is due process of law. I believe a judge or a judge and jury should decide if someone breaks a law that carries a penalty of two years imprisonment. This should not be left to the whim or ideological beliefs of an individual police officer.
No doubt you'll be rushing around the country's rugby fields on Saturdays and taking copious notes of the occasional punch that players throw, and then taking them directly to the authorities.
When, no doubt, the police will tell you to stop wasting their time.
-
Save the Children and other agencies that deal directly with child welfare backed the removal of the S59 defence and now support the "yes" vote in the referendum
So? Let them deal with child welfare then. Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it thus dealing with an aspect of child welfare, rather than spending enormous amounts of time, money and energy in an attempt to continue to make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment' .
-
So? Let them deal with child welfare then. Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it ...
I believe you're confusing those agencies with the For the Sake of Our Children Trust.
Have you ever met anyone from Barnaodos? These are coalface organisations, and it's that that informs their views.
I think you'd do well not to demean what they do, frankly, even if it doesn't suit your beliefs.
-
So? Let them deal with child welfare then. Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it thus dealing with an aspect of child welfare, rather than spending enormous amounts of time, money and energy in an attempt to continue to make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment' .
So, you mean.. exactly what they do? How much money do you think the Yes Vote campaign has spent?
Do they put full page ads in all the major newspapers on a regular basis to support people like Mason?
If you want to accuse somebody of wasting time and money on this - accuse Family First. Who have done NOTHING to justify their existence.
-
I was aware that the study I quoted did not claim that a smack had positive benefits.
Do you also accept that it shows very negative outcomes as a result of the kind of "discipline" dished out by Jimmy Mason and the others we've discussed on this thread?
Because that is what the research you quoted does say.
-
Have you ever met anyone from Barnaodos?
Not that it means anything , but yes, I know Murray Edridge and get on with him pretty well, actually. I'm not demeaning what they do, You're being a bit silly now.... Yes, I've no doubt the prevalence of the most low-impact corporal punishment informs their views.
-
I'm not demeaning what they do, You're being a bit silly now....
Yes you were, and no I'm not ...
-
If you two are the best the 'No' campaign can offer, then put me down as a locked-solid 'yes'.
-
Dave, you said:
I'm not demeaning what they do
That was after you said:
Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it thus dealing with an aspect of child welfare, rather than spending enormous amounts of time, money and energy in an attempt to continue to make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment'
You won't win any arguments by insulting and demeaning the tireless work these underfunded agencies are performing.
As for the enormous amounts of money being spent on this issue, I'm sure you'll find the majority of it's being spent by groups opposing the current law.
-
Family First ... have done NOTHING to justify their existence.
Justify to whom? It's not like they're taxpayer funded...
And I happen to really like their campaign for family dinners.
"What your kids really want for dinner...is you!" is a great message.And this response to an ill-conceived More FM promotion was just a nice thing to do.
-
They also waste hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on helping children/families and take away media attention from real charitable organisations that could desperately use it.
And support people like CRankin when they call for these organisations to be boycotted. -
*plonk*
-
Yes, Graeme, those things were "nice" -- but for me they don't compare to the real day-to-day work of child welfare agencies, and they certainly don't trump McCoskrie's horrible dissembling and equivocation on behalf of people who really hurt their children.
-
They also waste hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on helping children/families and take away media attention from real charitable organisations that could desperately use it.
And support people like CRankin when they call for these organisations to be boycotted.When I was kid I tried to dig through the cement surround of the fireplace with a plastic spoon. I am sure the feeling I had then is the same one Russell Brown is having now.
-
Chris N:
They also waste hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be spent on helping children/families and take away media attention from real charitable organisations that could desperately use it.
And support people like C Rankin when they call for these organisations to be boycotted.Russ:
Yes, Graeme, those things were "nice" -- but for me they don't compare to the real day-to-day work of child welfare agencies, and they certainly don't trump McCoskrie's horrible dissembling and equivocation on behalf of people who really hurt their children.
Some people are still trying to flog a horse that died in 1960.
It's been said before, but those same people are hiding behind children's issues as an excuse to farm culture war pigs.
-
Anyway, some more research from last year ...
Spanking has been, and still is, a common method of child discipline used by American parents.
But mothers who report that they or their partner spanked their child in the past year are nearly three times more likely to state that they also used harsher forms of punishment than those who say their child was not spanked, according to a new study led by the Injury Prevention Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Such punishments included behaviors considered physically abusive by the researchers, such as beating, burning, kicking, hitting with an object somewhere other than the buttocks, or shaking a child less than 2 years old ...
“This study demonstrated for the first time that parents who report spanking children with an object and parents who frequently spank children are much more likely to report other harsh punishment acts consistent with physical abuse,” Zolotor said.
The study concluded that efforts to reduce spanking, especially with an object, through media, educational and legislative means may reduce physical child abuse.
-
And this response to an ill-conceived More FM promotion was just a nice thing to do.
Yes it does sound "nice" but do you have any evidence of even the existence of such a competition and if so, what the outcome was? because the only thing I can find is your Scoop story. I would have thought a stunt like this would have hit the MSM at some point but it looks like just a family First media plant.
-
Steve,
Yes, that head/tails competition did exist. I can remember listening to some of it. MoreFM tried it and several similar (e.g. heads = trip / tails= wedding dress destroyed) in early 2008. Not a lucky one, as most of the time result was tails. It did hit MSM at the time, but can't find references now.
The actual coin toss is on a youtube clip.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.