Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hell I think one should be able to smoke pot, but I personally don't need to have a hooha about it all, and at the same time I just wish people didn't smack their kids.
I wish both of those things too. If it was even the least bit likely that a pot reform referendum could get this kind of result then it should probably be held, and if it got the result, the laws should change.
Matthew
what kind of smacking does the law allow? How do you know this to be true? I'm not arguing with you here, just curious.
Whilst you may be right about the intentions of the instigators of the referendum, at the end of the day, people answered the question they were asked. If that, as you suggest, is already the law, then a yes vote is taking an even more extreme position than we have currently?
I'm not entirely sure that smacks in the heat of the moment are better than cold calculated ones. But they do seem more 'excusable'. That's part of what I don't like about them - then instead of a discipline defense it's like a provocation defense.
I do think smacking is/was a problem in NZ. I just don't think the current laws solve more problems than they create.
-
The question was not "Is smacking the only form of parental correction?". It wasn't even "Is smacking the best form of parental correction?". It was "Should it be a criminal offense ?". You don't have to be ignorant of the alternatives to disagree with this statement. You don't have to be a sadist. You don't have to even like smacking. You just have to think that this set of laws is in some way fundamentally unreasonable. It takes an extreme position, probably not held by the majority of NZers, on the level of wrongness attributed to all smacking. Most assuredly there is a lot of smacking that is wrong. But is it all? And even if it is, is it always a crime ? Crime is a pretty large stigma to put on something so commonplace as smacking.
"Breast is best" but is it a crime to bottle-feed? It's best not to have sex with too many people without protection, but is it a crime to? It's best to exercise and eat in moderation, but is it a crime not to?
Ultimately I have come to see this as much more of an education issue than one for the courts. So long as people know that smacking is not the only option, and can be a bad option, then they get help. But no-one is going to seek help under the current laws, because they have to admit to criminal behaviour, rather than just "incompetence".
It's also one of the most invasive laws ever passed. It invents a whole new brand of criminality that chases people right back to their core personal and cultural beliefs. To have had this thrust upon the entire nation without even asking is actually a pretty big thing. So this week seems to say, anyway.
-
by voting that way they are excusing the people who are
That's the *effect*, but I imagine it's not the *intent*.
It certainly was not my intent. I can't see that the effect is so clear cut. I don't excuse sadists. I just don't see that smacking is always sadism. If it is sadism, it needs to be stopped. Could it be stopped in any other way than stopping all smacking? I think so.
I don't think it's necessarily a poorly worded question either. It does ask, quite clearly "Is smacking sometimes OK?". The results seem to indicate that is exactly what a clear majority of NZers think. This is directly in opposition to the current laws. It's an important problem when the opinions of society are like that. It should probably be known, at the very least. I don't think it's wasted money to find out the opinion of NZ on this matter.
-
I voted "no". The reason was pretty simple: I felt compelled as a civic duty to answer the question honestly. Perhaps it plays into the hands of people who want to open the door to a lot more than "a light smack as part of good parental correction", but that wasn't what the question was asking, and I seriously do not think that is something that should be a criminal offense. By exactly the same token, the government is not obliged to read anything more into the results than the answer to the question.
But it is a thumping. I'm sorry, it really is. If people wanted to vote yes, they had the opportunity. Their failure to do so means either they don't care, or they don't agree with saying "yes" to that question. Either way it's a very strong win for those saying "no" to that question.
Perhaps it is way out of whack with "child welfare agencies, newspaper editorial columns and Parliament itself.". Or then again, perhaps it is they who are out of whack, since whilst only 88% of 54% = 48% of registered voters said "No", you have to also accept that only 12% of 54% = 6% of registered voters said "Yes". So those agencies, columns and Parliament are really aligned with a pretty fucking small slice of our population.
-
I don't like the idea of a scheme that's supposedly about road safety being used as a fishing expedition for drug use.
It seems pretty fucked, particularly if the police have absolute discretion over who they pick to waste a whole bunch of time for. Anyone can claim they smelled pot. Just recently I had a cop waste about 25 minutes of my time because looking in from the passenger side he smelled "something". He never said what. But I'm sure the reality was that he felt that anyone driving around at midday on a weekday with a mate in a hotted up muscle car must be up to something, and a breath test can always be demanded, and he arsed around like anything getting hold of his breathalyzer, during which his partner ran me through all their databases, and the guy asked me any number of totally irrelevant questions. I can hardly imagine how much further they go with their favorite target demographics.
-
Ponsonby Intermediate School suffered from acronymphobia when I was there.
-
Large bushy shrubs growing up and around the wires have also been suggested - a whole bunch of small branches would act as 'springs' to absorb any impact. Advantageous from a green perspective, but would require a wider central strip, and would make maintenance difficult.
Or even dual carriageway, like most highways in rural Australia. The biggest danger with such lovely designs is that the feeling of safety leads people to fall asleep at the wheel, sober or not. Also, smashing into a eucalyptus or flying off into a billabong are both quite fatal.
I tend to agree that it's easier to fix the roads than it is to fix human foolishness.
-
Ah yes but there are more choices - Carrington was the replacement name post-1974 trying to get over the stigma of "Oakley Hospital", which was the new name ditto "Avondale Asylum" from which one of my great-great grandfathers graduated, and further back before all this PC nonsense started with the 1890s Liberals they called it the Whau Lunatic Asylum.
If it wasn't for those 1890s Liberals I might never have been conceived.
-
Well I still call UniTech "Carrington". My parents met there, long before it was either a Uni or a Tech. Locals will know the significance of this.
-
Varsity was Uni over in Australia. I wonder if it's a creeping Ozzism. Or maybe it just makes more sense.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 862 863 864 865 866 … 1066 Older→ First