Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ben your argument (majority decides moral issues) feels like the same argument that slowed down law changes that improved the lot of every minority group in history - slaves, homosexuals, womens rights, indigenous people. It feels distasteful.
Yes, democracy is a slow system. Convincing people to change is indeed much harder than forcing them to. But it's a much more lasting and effective method. It's rather like the alternatives to smacking, in that respect. Note that most of the changes you describe started in democracies.
Sometimes if law makers showed initiative and were ahead of popular opinion, the result would be better and history would shine a brighter light on them and the affected people.
Until they get so far ahead of popular opinion that they're just unpopular on every front, rather like communist Russia. I seem to remember them continually using arguments from science as an excuse to avoid democracy. Once you start down the path of thinking you're right just because you're progressive, and having the power to enforce it, it's becomes addictive and leads rapidly to considerably worse tyranny than the problems that it was trying to solve. They tyranny of the minority is a considerably worse problem than the tyranny of the majority (which is still a problem, of course, and the solution is to keep hacking away at your cause until people agree with you).
-
Your answer is confused. To say “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” is a begging the question fallacy.
Could you elaborate? I'm giving an answer that could easily be consistent with the question and the views of society.
Steve, it's not required that the referendum question addresses some clause in the law. It's allowed to be a general statement of opinion. That's actually allowed. And it's also a good thing to know, sometimes, particularly if the law appears to be in conflict with this general opinion.
Wait… your “feeling”? I thought you said what the ‘no’ voters were saying was clear?
And I stand by that. But I can speculate about what is behind that, can't I? Everyone else is.
The question of whether there is some detrimental effect from being smacked as a child is not a moral question. It is a scientific question, the answers to which inform our answers to moral questions.
Right, but the question was not "Are there some detrimental effects from being smacked as a child?". It was about whether it should be criminal. That comes right back to a moral judgment.
There are moral positions based on facts and reason, and moral positions based on whimsy and ignorance, (and a fair amount inbetween). I know which direction I want to encourage.
So "encourage" then. When you use the law, it's hiding behind a stick of your own. Which is not a direction I want to encourage. There is no debate about the efficacy of smacking when anyone who wants to present their evidence is a criminal. That is shutting down debate. Pretending that it's scientific to do so is bringing science into disrepute.
-
By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking,
You're assuming a bit there.
Heh, I do quite carefully say if .
I can't agree that this set of laws isn't motivated by morality and appeals to science can only bolster some supporting claims. Experts can say that smacking is bad for some children, but if they say it's bad for society, they're slipping out of science and into moral opinion. If you rely on scientists to make all your moral judgments you're not being scientific, and nor are they.
I don't think the Bible is the source of all smacking. Nor, if it was, would that be any particular evidence against it.
Look, you agree corporal punishment isn't the most effective method, but don't think parents should be criminalised for smacking their kids, right?
Right.
It was the only way to a) remove the "reasonable defence" that allowed real child abusers a way to get off (and according to the police, not even get charged in the first place); b) teach people that while a smack might be a genuine light smack in your household, in another it's a closed fist, and it's impossible to allow one without opening the door for the other; and c) more generally, influence society through making something illegal, it is no longer acceptable.
It's not the only way. The laws could have been far more targeted at abuse. The solution to abuse is not to simply put everyone on the wrong side of the law and then cherry pick the abusers for police attention. Using the law as a method of education is a very poor method of communicating a social problem. And I generally believe that influencing society in this way is a seriously crap way of doing it. Far better is to convince society. This particular society is clearly not convinced. Few people actually supported the idea that light smacking as parental correction is a crime.
-
I fail to see how you can jump from 'morally right' to 'the majority'. As James points out, the majority is often wrong, including on issues of morality. 30 years from now this debate will be dead, smacking will almost universally be a thing of history.
Where did I make that jump? I just said that this referendum is about a moral issue, and that criminalized smacking is highly unpopular and you should never ignore that. It's also quite possible for the moral views of minorities to be totally wrong, particularly powerful minorities, like pools of experts and minor parties getting their little shot at lasting fame in a coalition.
Perhaps smacking will end. If it does, I expect it will be because good help and education for parents exists, rather than because a whole lot of mums and dads are in the slammer.
-
Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of the majority being wrong, from indigenous rights to comic books to homosexuality to Britney Spears selling lots of records.
And also of minorities being wrong. By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts telling them that actually they were harmed, but they're just too uneducated, or unscientific, or un-whatever it is that makes these experts special when it comes to questions of morality.
Jesus, the question of what is moral is harder to define than what a smack is.
That's why you don't try to define it. You let people judge it for themselves.
My view: go with the facts every time. Morality is far too vague and shifting and defined by the majority to ever let the majority decide.
You lost me there. There are no moral facts, there are only moral beliefs. You believe all violence is wrong. Can you prove it? When you say something should be against the law, you are saying it's wrong . You're not saying it's impractical. You're not saying it's unscientific. Our laws are not based on science, and never have been, nor will they. Scientific evidence may lend weight to some arguments, but when it boils down to whether you think something is morally right or wrong, there isn't any truth or falsity about it. Is it scientific to have a law against slavery? Is science even required to see that it's wrong? Science may inform some parts of the question, like perhaps what the statistical outcomes are for the slaves, the economics of the system, etc, but ultimately the rejection of slavery comes from feeling sympathy for the slaves, from believing that they are human beings worthy of rights. Should we eat animals? Science might be able to tell us how healthy it is for us, and whether or not the animals suffer, but if you don't believe animals have any rights, then it doesn't matter to you what science has to say on the matter.
But having cut down the idea that science can be the source of all our morals, I haven't shown that democratically selected laws are more moral. I can't show that. All I can say is that they are more likely to be palatable to more moral agents. I can't prove this, it's just a belief of mine, that the general will should prevail on moral questions, particularly when the numbers are stacking up one way big time. In a representative democracy, it's also usually prudent for the leadership to have them aligned. I don't much like the idea of politicians bringing in highly unpopular moral laws, instead of working to make the ideas more popular before forcing them upon everyone. If the feeling on the matter is closely divided, then sure, pollys can take the lead, but seriously a mandate of 12% is too much ground to cover, and it ends up harming the cause more than it helps.
-
I'm not sure even the experts think smacking should be a crime. They are pretty close to unanimous on it being much less effective than other techniques, though, when those techniques are executed properly. Whether the public agrees with that is not something the referendum dealt with. Perhaps they do.
I believe people better qualified than I should decide what the answer is, and our laws should reflect that. I can never go on anecdotal evidence like "I was smacked as kid and I turned out fine", or "I smack my kids and it works" because to me that's the same logic that allows psychics to make craploads of money.
When you're pitting yourself against the anecdotal evidence of one interlocutor, you've got an easy win. When you pit yourself against 88% of people who could be bothered answering, then you've got a problem. I totally disagree that issues of morality should be decided by experts, I have never had the slightest time for this point of view. There are no moral experts. When you make something a crime, it's become an issue of morality, rather than practicality.
There's also my gut instinct that violence of any kind is abhorrent, but ultimately it really is a Science vs Belief argument for me.
I respect your right to have a gut instinct but my own one disagrees very strongly with that. There are times for violence. This is not a question for science. It's Belief vs Belief.
-
if the writers of the question really wanted to remove ambiguity, they could have asked: "Should assualting* a child be a criminal offence? *There is the legal definition of assault: ..."
but the writers wanted subjectiveness and ambiguity. in truckloads. so, a completely meaningless exercise was the result.
That would not have helped one little bit, because the writers want smacking back, and the way that is enabled is as an exception to the assault laws. They had to ask about smacks because that is what they want. I suggest that it's not a term most people have too much trouble with. Only people who actually want to misunderstand it can find ways to quibble over this. There is absolutely nothing in the way of an amendment which details in ludicrous detail exactly what a smack is. That might even be a good idea. The referendum was not asking about an exact wording of a legal document. It was asking for competent speakers of the language in NZ to answer as they saw fit. The details are for lawyers to tidy up, and if they don't take account of what NZers actually want in doing so, then this law will continue to be a sore spot.
-
James, most assuredly a smack could be better defined. Your requests for clarity are just the start. If you go for the open hand, you could quibble about the meaning of 'blow'. Exactly what velocity is a blow? Does it matter just how much weight and follow through? What zones of contact would be allowed? Should a curved hand be allowed, must the child be stationary at the time, exactly how old are the children allowed to be, what warnings are required, what follow ups, exactly what situations call for it (that's going to be a tough one to keep under a page), how many smacks can be given during what time period, etc etc etc.
But you can't deny that "a light smack" is more specific than "reasonable force", which in the case of self defence can go as far in the law as actually killing someone. My understanding of the use of the word "reasonable" is basically a catch all for that which it is too difficult to specify. My feeling is that "no" voters are saying that it should be fairly explicit that it includes smacks, for the purposes of correction.
Who says a smack is part of good parental correction?
"No" voters, I guess, are saying it could be. At the very least, they're saying it's not a crime . Everyone had the opportunity to vote "Yes", putting it beyond a shadow of a doubt that correction is no excuse for smacking and that smacking would thus be a crime. But only 12% of the voters did. Could that mean the rest do have a shadow of doubt? I sure do.
it was Section 59 that allowed a defence after the fact specific to children. So I felt the question - once you get past the loaded nature of it - was basically asking me something redundant.
Hardly. It's asking about whether you feel that something that is a criminal offence in NZ should be. Something that is extremely commonplace, something that has happened to most people, something that makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. For it to be a criminal offense is a relatively new thing and it was absolutely a very controversial call. It's not redundant to ask how you feel about something like that, unless you think that the opinion of NZers on what their laws should be is redundant. If you feel your opinion on the matter is redundant then fine, but I really don't think this is the case, otherwise you wouldn't bother to tell anyone what it is online.
The problem is, the question didn't ask what it's makers wanted it to ask because they knew they wouldn't have got such large support - namely, "Do you want to repeal the amendment to Section59?"
Yes, they lacked courage, and went for a more nuanced question. More fool them. They got an answer, but to a question that can be read more widely than a simple repeal. But no matter how you wriggle around you can't avoid the point that "no" voters believe 'correction' can warrant a smack, at least enough to mitigate the offense right out of any contention for being a Crime. This is in direct conflict with Section 59 Subsections 2 and 3.
Perhaps this is exactly how the laws would be interpreted anyway. If so, then this is a confirming vote. If not, this is a protest vote. Personally I don't know how they are or will be interpreted. I just know what I think they should be.
-
You're definitely way too wasted. If you haven't noticed that , then you definitely deserve to face the music.
-
One good thing about the impairment test is that you can do it on yourself. It's probably a good idea too. If your body control and perceptions are out by that much, then that's a good reason not to get behind the wheel.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 860 861 862 863 864 … 1066 Older→ First