Hard News: Feckless Solutions
178 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
if someone wanted to maximise the financial benefit to themselves of something like the DPB, it would involve having as many children as possible, and neglecting them as much as possible
The DPB is, I would assert, the worst possible thing to chop if you want kids out of abusive situations. An abused person with kids to care for faces enough barriers to getting out without adding even higher financial ones than already exist.
-
Cheap shot at the mentally ill Brent.
-
Um, drawing a meaningful distinction between being on a rugby field with 29 other adults and a referee and treating your children like a football?
It's a valid distinction, and I say that as someone who's main sporting hobby is a martial art. But it's pretty hard to deny there's a huge affection for thuggery in the game - it's not too hard to find people bemoaning the loss of a better, bygone era when there were more punch-ups and they were treated more leniently.
The rugby players are at least bashing those of roughly equal physical development.
Yes, because the mystery person who broke Mark Allen's jaw from behind was, you know, just playing the game as it was meant to be played. Prop Richard Loe assaulting an Aussie back and breaking his nose was a fair fight, as was his classy eye-gouge. England are addicted to playing that thug Grewcock, no matter how many times he gets banned.
-
Russell's point that none of the pundits seemed to realise that the mother was in fact in gainful employment is important.
Socially entrenched poverty, a side-effect of economic polices and decisions of the last 20 or so years, have had a huge effect but just don't seem to be enough alone to cause this.
Middle class people violently abuse and kill their kids as well, just not so often (or are better at covering theri tracks).
How this can be stopped, well i dn't have the answer.
But cutting benefits, no, that's just typically idiotic rubbish.
-
I find the rugby thing quite disturbing. The violence is accepted by far to many.
I wouldn't have any problem with sending players off for taking a swing at another player. The defence of provocation or that it was an instinctive reaction doesn't sway me. That seems to boil down to 'I should be allowed to hit people if I'm angry enough'.
I get particularly steamed up about people who take the attitude of 'If the ref doesn't see it then it is legal' . As far as I'm concerned, that's an invitation for anything goes. If they complain because you snipped one of their tendons with a razor blade, ask to see their list of rules of acceptable illegal behaviour.
-
Those who think rugby leads to violence should go and visit one of the scarier UK soccer grounds, Millwall springs to mind. Despite the actual game being one where a touch on the ankle leads to tears, the crowd more than make up for it in biffo..
-
ron,
Police say they've received a number of calls about the anti-smacking law. There was an article today referring to a cop who said that it was OK to smack because it was reasonable force. I'd have to agree.
-
ron,
A factual problem with that is that it's not just a Maori problem and any group claiming to be immune is flying in the face of statistics.
Lyndon, of course that is true. But as you know they have child abuse in Sweden and in every other country. And our rate of child abuse is only marginally inferior to Switzerland's and Austria's and is half that of the States. Would you call Switzerland and Austria hotbeds of child abuse? Who would have thought!
But I suspect that if you looked at the rate of non-Maori child abuse in this country, we'd find ourselves in the top half of the OECD. Sure, that's not necessarily anything to write home about, but neither is it a reason to be ranting on the subject either.
-
rogerd:
The DPB is, I would assert, the worst possible thing to chop if you want kids out of abusive situations.
Thought experiment: let's double the DPB. What do people think would happen to child abuse rates? Increase, decrease, stay the same?
-
I suspect it would stay the same - but then I've always womdered, if it costs $92k each year to keep an offender in prison, would they behave if we let them out & just gave them say, $80k a year? Win/win, surely?
-
Thought experiment: let's double the DPB. What do people think would happen to child abuse rates? Increase, decrease, stay the same?
well, I suspect it would have absolutely no affect on the numbers of people who think its acceptable (or at least defensible) to use violence when they are under stress....
It may well reduce the number of people who are under stress (due to financial matters)...
-
Why are you proposing such a thought experiment?
The issues are bit wider I would have thought. It is an artificial kind of thought experiment because it would never happen. Well not in isolation.
-
David Cohen was on Breakfast this morning talking about autism, and he said that whenever a family tragedy like this happens, everyone starts wailing and offering opinions and saying things must change, "and then, suddenly, nothing happens."
That's because the solutions tend to coincide with peoples political hobby-horses. Clowns like Laws and Hopkins are insistent that _something__ must be done, but were also on the front line fighting against the Bradford ammendment, and the recent initiative to survey hospital patients about a history of abuse. What Laws et al really mean is that something must be done as long as it doesn't affect or inconvenience them in any way whatsoever.
-
It is an artificial kind of thought experiment because it would never happen. Well not in isolation.
That's why it's called a thought experiment, it doesn't have a real-life application.
-
I do know what a thought experiment is, I have a philosophy degree ; )
-
As a result I don't have the economic terms at my fingertips to say what I want to say......
-
I think free, universal childcare from when a baby is born would be a start.
It would mean that kids get to spend some time a day in a caring environment. It would remove stress and hassle for families who find it hard to get childcare in order to work (or not work). Plus, kids would be monitored, and if any alarm bells ring, the daycare staff can talk to the parents or carers, or contact authorities.
Also, we need a societal change of attitude towards children. they are not our chattels, do do with as we want. We need to lose the "no one's gonna tell me how to raise MY kid" attitude, and remember it takes a village to raise a child. -
"People are not for hitting" "We don't hurt people"
Look I know it seems daft to suggest such an apparently simplistic action as constantly saying this at your house, or school , or church etc, but I have seen it work. Instead of a complicated wordy advert on TV, imagine a slogan stated by respected sportsmen/women: "We don't hurt people!" Unfortunately the message gets buried in the swirl of verbiage. Mind you the mum/dad, family/town has to live up to it eh? -
I don't find that thought experiment useful because it is too artificial. Although I can see what he is getting at and it is always good to give all kinds of ideas a good airing.
Addressing poverty as one of the factors in child abuse is very relevant and useful, but issues surrounding the DPB are more complex and nuanced than could be explored in this kind of simplistic thought experiment.
I am not trying to overly critical of the poster, I was just curious about why he proposed this thought experiment and what he actually thought.
-
<quote>I think free, universal childcare from when a baby is born would be a start.
It would mean that kids get to spend some time a day in a caring environment. It would remove stress and hassle for families who find it hard to get childcare in order to work (or not work). Plus, kids would be monitored, and if any alarm bells ring, the daycare staff can talk to the parents or carers, or contact authorities./quote>That is a good practical suggestion I think.
-
I think free, universal childcare from when a baby is born would be a start.
It certainly might have worked in this case, and I would support it for other reasons anyway. I can't see the Michael Lawsssss of this world going for it though.
-
3410,
Those who think rugby leads to violence should go and visit one of the scarier UK soccer grounds, Millwall springs to mind.
We're talking about New Zealand. No-one's saying that Rugby, as such, leads to violence, but that inside the culture of Rugby in NZ, violence on the feild is acceptable (which is, I'd suggest, pretty much self-evident, or else why do assault charges never transpire).
Punching someone in the face is not part of the game of Rugby, yet when it happens it's often celebrated by the crowd, commentators and promo editors. How many Black Caps get busted for "late night altercations" in bars, compared to All Blacks or Warriors? Coincidence?
BTW, "violence" means "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power". Hence, Martial Arts doesn't count as violence.
-
BTW, "violence" means "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power". Hence, Martial Arts doesn't count as violence.
Hence, a bit of biff on the rugby field doesn't count - just ask the crowd if it was "just" or "warranted".
How many people on assault charges use the defence "he/she deserved it" or "he/she was asking for it"?
The definition of unjust and unwarranted changes depending on context.
-
kowhai montgomery:
[quote]I am not trying to overly critical of the poster, I was just curious about why he proposed this thought experiment and what he actually thought.[/quote]Well, most of the op-eds I've read seem to be heavy on the vaguely-well-meaning-but-practically-useless suggestions.
Ask yourself: which is the easier place to start:
1) examining and potentially correcting a particular policy, which may through poor design be contributing to the problem it is supposed to solve, or
2) trying to redesign a culture or societyI'd pick 1) as the place to start, personally...;-) And then if you're going to design a policy that has economic effects, you better start by making sure you've got the incentives pointing the right way, otherwise you are going to get perverse effects.
My guess is that on a simple model you'd get more child neglect if you doubled the DPB. This is because you would be adding incentives for people to treat kids as means, not as ends in themselves. So you'd see an increase in kids who are basically unwanted, and are subsequently treated as such.
I mean it's totally obvious the situation is nuanced and complex, and lots of other factors come into play around this simple engine. But sometimes simple models can help us at least begin to understand complex problems.
-
Martial Arts doesn't count as violence
- so a fair tackle in rugby isn't violent, but a punch is?
- can one foul at Judo or kickboxing? Does that become violence when a fair strike isn't.
- or tripping someone in a soccer match?
- or a bouncer in cricket, provided it isn't bowled a third time in the over?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.