Hard News: The Arguments
251 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
and forgive me for shooting fish in a bucket
Eh, what, is that frowned upon here?
Didn't we have a handful of enjoyable threads doing just exactly that on Coddington's thin understanding of of the mechanics of statistics?
-
yes, i guess i was being disingenuous. the coddington "corrections" were very enjoyable although that is one thick skinned fish.
-
the "hitting kids is god's way of showing we love them" lobby had a great success with duping the msm into dubbing this the "anti-smacking" bill though. the ignorant outcry would've been a bit more muffled had it been rightly coined the "anti-thrashing" bill.
It is the anti-smacking bill.
It might not be the send good parents to prison bill.
It might not be the CYFS will take your children bill.But it is not pro-smacking, nor neutral on smacking. Chester Borrows amendment is anti-thrashing. Sue Bradford's bill is anti-thrashing and anti-smacking.
Whilst police will certainly treat smacking and thrashing differently, and so will the courts, this bill does not.
Many of the arguments against the bill are appalling; many in favour nonsense. Calling this bill anti-smacking is neither. This bill is a total legislative ban on smacking. You can certainly argue that such a ban is good, but that doesn't mean it isn't a ban.
Or that the bill isn't anti-smacking. Even if it really is all about just sending a message to NZ parents that message - "look for alternatives to smacking" - is anti-smacking.
-
yes but both the spirit and the practicality of the bill are actually anti thrashing.
-
"yes but both the spirit and the practicality of the bill are actually anti thrashing."
Then, why, are many of the proponents of the bill so vehemently against making it more clearly, and only, anti-thrashing?
Should we set a speed limit of zero, with the intention of it only being enforced when 50 in some situations or 100 in others is exceeded?
-
And if you were to trying to pass a speed limit of zero into law...
Is it reasonable to get upset when your oponents call it an anti-travel law, when you only claim to be passing an anti-excessive-speed law?
I agree that the proposed change to S59, with or without Chester Borrow's amendment will in all likely-hood end up being policed in similar manner, and end up with much the same outcomes, both better than the status quo...But its a matter of honesty to admit you want to ban smacking, rather than claiming you dont.... Or, if you really dont, then accepting amendments that will make it so it doesnt, and still acheive your claimed goal.
Or is it all just politics? Is winning more important than the outcome?
-
whoaarrr, go Fletch with all those speeding metaphors and jesuitical semantic deconstructions.
I guess in politics if you don't win you don't get any outcomes.
-
Three months' prison for anyone smoking.
The police have better things to do than enforce it - so it won't suddenly result in lots of unreasonable prosecutions, but what kind of message are when sending when there are laws permitting the sale of tobacco products, and laws telling people they can smoke inside their homes?
[shrill Helen Lovejoy voice]
"Won't somebody think of the children?!?"
-
"...jesuitical semantic deconstructions."
Wow... I dont even know what that means, so you're obviously more educated than me... I just call it as I see it.
"I guess in politics if you don't win you don't get any outcomes."Its thinking like that that makes most of us plebs have such a low opinion of politicians.
I note you didnt actually argue the case I made? I've made other comments in this thread, and others have helpfully pointed out flaws in my thinking. I really am open minded, and look forward to genuine debate or even enlightenment? I thought name-calling was for KiwiBlog or other places :)
Yes, these arguments ARE nit-picky... and an anti-thrashing law, in any guise, is a good thing. So, maybe I am just getting caught up in the politics of minor wording?
-
yes my apols Fletch, you are quite right and the points you make are valid. just had an attack of antinitpickiitis and i would never want to see that invoke KiwiBlogism in these halls. please excuse my foolishness.
-
Hi ya'll: Thanks for all the comments, and my apologies for views I've misatrributed to people. Yikes, before any proper name used insert "If I've understood him/her correctly..."
A couple of people have mentioned that "system installation" is bit grating. I agree, at least to some extent. I use it, however, because it's relatively un-hackneyed, suggestive, and short! It doesn't imply a "blank slate" (very roughly, I agree that you have to already know a lot to acquire a first language or a range of gestures, etc.. Face-tracking, object occlusion, imitation/mirroring propensities: you name it we probably have to have it from the get-go for any interesting post-natal development to occur.) but it does embody the idea that there's some important first stage in a human life - call it development - that is different from later learning stages.
The first language acquistion step which is also the step of acquiring ones body and a wider culture and world is different, so differrent that you're helpless and dependent until that step is completed. I know you can keep learning and developing for the rest of your life, but surely all of that builds on the original set of competencies you acquired in innumerable ways. After that first step you're not a helpless and dependant creature any more and that's why you then get to vote, sign contracts, have your own dependants, feel the full weight of the criminal law, and so on.
I see no prospect of being able to do without a distinction of this kind... and regard all attempts to undermine it as seriously confused. I alluded to this at the beginning of my very first post in this thread here. Anyhow, hope that helps a bit.
In my second post in this thread here I mentioned what strikes me as backsliding by people.... If it's not boring people to tears... I'd like to have another crack at this.
Example: Screaming, protesting figure is lifted up and carried out of the restaurant by an adult
Is an assault taking place? "Assault" is a very broad notion about infringement on people's bodily integrity and personal sovereignty (no physical harm as such as technically required). Here's a standard commentary on this idea:
"Is it right that the criminal law should extend to mere touchings, however trivial? The traditional justification is that there is no other sensible dividing line, and that this at least declares the law’s regard for the physical integrity of citizens."(A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (4th ed. 2003), at p. 319)
And it's easy to see the sense this makes. Think about yourself on your next date. And a hell of a lot of property law turns on extending this idea of absolute integrity out from one's own body. If someone comes in and snoops around your place while you are out but is very careful not to disturb, break anything etc. then, even though there's no actual harmful effect of their entry on you or your property - you'd have nothing to complain about if they'd only gotten your permission! - as it stands they violate and wrong you, and the law can help you out on that (trespass etc.).
So what's going on in the restaurant case? Well, who knows, but if the screaming, protesting figure is a kid (as it almost will be - I've never actually seen another adult hauled away by someone as in the example!) then the answer is, almost certainly, "parenting as usual, nothing to see here, move along".
Now, you can try to regard this result as a great injustice, and as a child being "targetted for assault" (Ian said something like this - it was so harsh!) in a way that adults aren't. You can, if you like regard childhood as one long technical assault, and also just one long wholesale technical violation of broader child sovereignty.
But that would be strange. The image of children as umbarge-taking, frustrated adults-in-childrens' bodies biding their time before they overthrow the adult despots who rule them does, however, make for good comedy!
Like it or not, as I see it, independently of issues of smacking, what we absolutely have and need is the following transaction: Q. Is there an assault going on? A. No, just parenting as usual.
Regardless of what it looks like the law is saying when it allows for this sort of possibility, it's not saying that there's an assault that we're choosing to ignore, or to excuse, or to allow to take place as the lesser evil... or any such thing. (Let alone that in that case the child has fewer rights than an adult being hauled away.) No, the law's saying what we all in fact say: that there is no assault and more positively that some parent is probably doing a bang up job. Give those people a star. There but for the grace...
Well, the point's a very general one, and it's about authority in general and parental authority in particular. I addressed this at length in my very first post in this thread here.
Now we can start to argue about what good parenting is and what the responsible exercise of parental authority is. And about whether smacking ever has any place in that. Broader norms of anti-cruelty, anti-degradation, and so on can guide that discussion. Questions about how to fit together smacking of kids with non-flogging of prisoners can be pressed. Empirical issues can show up big time. And so on.
The thing you absolutely must not do, however, is backslide and start immediately talking about assaults being rained on kids etc., or their having fewer rights. That was all provisionally answered at the previous stage. It's true that one probably will want to go back after concluding the norms-/rights-guided discussion and codify in the criminal law what the actionable rights-violating parenting looks like. But one musn't do that first, i.e., when one's trying to calculate what's beyond the parental pale.
Or at at least, that's how things seem to hang together to me!
I've introduced a couple of abstract points - personal-ness, system-installation - that at least formally distinguish parental authority from authority over prisoners (and over aged relatives etc.). I have one or two ways to flesh those points but they're not quite ready yet. David, Rob, Deborah, Graeme and others have given me too much to think about damn it! Thanks.
Briefly though on Deborah and Rob's "err on the side of caution" suggestion. I don't like such moves in general: Down that path lies no meat, no pets, no abortions, no same-sex couple adoptions, no GE, and who knows what else. We can't really live like that, can we? (See also the criminalization of all of childhood point above.)
I do think that the sort of winnowing down that Borrows attempts is cautious in spirit, and I'd personally be happy to exhibit further caution by pushing smacking ages down at the top (the way Canada did in 2004). All systems are pretty installed (!) by the time anyone's a teenager, right? The niche of smacking therefore seems to me to be as last ditch parental tool for ages terrible twos- to-11. But maybe that sort of thing's best left for general parental guidlines/advice? An occupational hazard of thinking about this topic is starting to think almost as though one is going to raise other people's kids for them! Since that's absolutely not the case, there's a clear argument for caution going the other way. In any case, the empirical literature looms as a big reading project to get clear(er) about such details wherever they might ultimately go.
-
The tone on PA is usually quite polite (c/f other NZ blogs), and usually I try to adhere to that, but really, Stephen - what a crock. Talk about muddling by metaphor, and engaging in philosophical obfuscation. I have had enough.
Let go of the system installation metaphor. It adds nothing to the discussion. We all know that children need teaching: what is at issue here is the method(s) we use to teach them. Wittering on about 'system installation' is just a red herring, and it smacks of an undergraduate philosophy essay. Although this is nicely argued, it proves only a small point (children need teaching) and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
We do ignore assaults all the time. A friend gets into a heated situation at a pub: we grab them by the arm and pull them away. A stranger steps out in front of a bus: we push them back, roughly. A yoof starts hassling other people at a nightclub: a security guard hustles them out. No one ever, ever prosecutes these sorts of assaults.
And let's be quite clear that we have not, for a long time, accepted that the personal nature of a relationship somehow makes violence more acceptable. Remember the 'It's not just a domestic' campaign? It used to be that giving the missus the biff was thought to be just a private matter, deplorable maybe, but nevertheless not something the police needed to worry about, even if the missus had bruises and broken ribs. We do care about what happens in personal relationships, we do think that physical violence is unacceptable, and we do not think that it is right for one person to impose their will on another by the use of force. But before you say, "Oh, so the police will interfere in every case," remember that the police do not turn up every time a wife pushes a husband, or a husband pushes a wife. The police turn up, and prosecute, when bodies are bruised and broken, and then it is simply not acceptable to claim that you were using reasonable force to correct your partner's behaviour.
As for erring on the side of caution - we do, in general, accept this principle. We have a speed limit of 100kph, even though in some cases, it would be safe to drive faster. Abortions are generally limited to the first trimester, because we are just not sure enough about the status of the fetus past about say, 23 weeks (the first trimester ends around 13 or 14 weeks). We eschew capital punishment, just because it is too easy to get it wrong. And if a principle of caution operates anywhere in this debate, it operates in favour of overturning section 59, because it would lead us to protect the vulnerable i.e. children.
Claiming that the principle of caution leads us down some slippery slope is a cheap debating trick - it is dead easy to make judgments at either end of a slippery slope, and very difficult in the middle. But that's what we are being asked to do here. Just becuase we can analogise to one end or the other of the slippery slope, and make an easy judgement there, doesn't mean that our judgements about the middle are correct. So quit playing around with pseudo philosophical structures, and start telling me exactly why you think we should be able to hit children, without any jargon or labels. What is it about children that makes it acceptable to hit them? Lose the hi-falutin' tone, and start arguing directly, and trying to prove exactly why children should not have the same basic rights as other New Zealand citizens.
And while I am at it, Graeme... if we were labelling this bill correctly, it would be the 'removing the reasonable force defence bill'. It's not an anti-smacking bill. It does not say you may not smack your child. All it does it is say that when you are charged with assault against a child, you may not use the defence of reasonable force.
Tell you what, if you don't agree with my views, why don't you come around and smack me to set me right and teach me how to behave?
-
if we were labelling this bill correctly, it would be the 'removing the reasonable force defence bill'
Except you're still allowed to to use reasonable force:
Against children to prevent or minimise harm, stop crimes or offensive or disruptive behaviour, or perform tasks incidental to good parenting.
Against anyone: (as a pilot or captain) to maintain discipline on an aircraft or ship, or in self-defence etc.
The provisions of the Crimes Act that prohibit murder don't expressly prohibit shooting people, that doesn't mean those provisions aren't anti-shooting. Yes this bill is the "removing correction of children as a defence to assault bill", that does not mean it is not also both anti-thrashing and anti-smacking.
What would an anti-smacking bill look like? Surely exactly like this?
Tell you what, if you don't agree with my views, why don't you come around and smack me to set me right and teach me how to behave?
Well, consent is also a defence...
Also, as I've pointed out earlier, I'm not pro-smacking, much like I'm not pro-smoking (and certainly not pro-smoking-in-a-house-where-children-live). I just don't think either smacking or smoking should be illegal. And I don't think Parliament should pass a law it doesn't want enforced under any circumstance.
-
merc,
Deborah, well put. The method of using enjambed yet unrelated analogies really puts into question the intent of the arguer and nullifies their argument...for me.
-
Yay Deborah. You summed it all up beautifully.
-
I've just posted a new article on Southerly:
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,3984.sm
This responds to some of the email messages I've received (RE: my previous post on Section 59) which argue that physical punishment is necessary and beneficial for the child. I don't think anyone has necessarily made such claims on this discussion thread.
The new post is obviously related to the whole Section 59 debate, so I've kept the 'Discuss' button pointing to this thread.
As with the 'Modest Proposal' post I'm not trying to prove anything -- just leave the reader with a mildly interesting question.
-
I have always said that raising a puppy is excellent preparation for having children. For starters anything fragile and chewable is already out of reach...
I am also irresistably reminded of this article from the NYT, which was in the NYT website's top ten most emailed list for many, many weeks:
What Shamu Taught Me about A Happy Marriage
The central lesson I learned from exotic animal trainers is that I should reward behavior I like and ignore behavior I don't. After all, you don't get a sea lion to balance a ball on the end of its nose by nagging. The same goes for the American husband.
Back in Maine, I began thanking Scott if he threw one dirty shirt into the hamper. If he threw in two, I'd kiss him. Meanwhile, I would step over any soiled clothes on the floor without one sharp word, though I did sometimes kick them under the bed. But as he basked in my appreciation, the piles became smaller.
-
And I don't think Parliament should pass a law it doesn't want enforced under any circumstance.
Well, parliament already has a whole heap of laws which are not always applied - most of the crimes act this applies to. You can steal something trivial from work and not get charged, you can kill someone in self defence (sometimes), and you can break the speed limit if you're rushing to the hospital in a life and death situation. They are only sometimes applied, and assault on children, similar to assault on adults, will only sometimes be charged.
Laws are written in a time and a place, and can't account for every situation that society faces. That's why discretion is given to police in these situations. Pete Hodgson grabbed Madeline Flanagan here in Dunedin and admitted that it was a mistake. No charges were laid even though technically it was assault.
Exactly where the boundary will lie if this law gets passed, between 'prosecute' and 'not', isn't entirely clear. No doubt there will be some people up in arms that people are being prosecuted who shouldn't, and possibly some who say that more should be prosecuted. At least the police will have the law backing them up when they choose to take action, rather than having to worry about 'just how hard you can hit a child'.
-
Stephen Glaister wrote:
... my apologies for views I've misatrributed to people.
I may not necessarily agree with what you say, Stephen, but I appreciate that you've tried to make your points in a less confrontational manner than in your previous post. This makes your train of thought much more readable, in my opinion (for what that's worth!).
-
Ok just want to give Kudos to David Haywood for the best Public Address blog entry I've read in the 2 years I've been coming here.
Thumbs up for you
-
David Cormack wrote:
Thumbs up for you
Cheers, mate! Nice to be appreciated...
[BTW: This isn't positive reinforcement is it? You know, praising the things I do right, and remaining silent on the (many) things I've done wrong over the past two years?]
-
Well I was gonna offer you some candy
But that's a bit predatory now isn't it?
-
Well I was gonna offer you some candy
But that's a bit predatory now isn't it?
Oh dear. And now we'll have someone claiming that because paedophiles use positive reinforcement, parents can't possibly (along with campaigning for a restriction on the ability of male primary teachers to purchase candy).
-
Is it positive reinforcement? Do they reward them after the act? Or is it more positive coercion?
I'm not sure if I gave my dog the biscuit first if he'd sit...
-
merc,
And what of negative reinforcement while we're glibbly running roughshod over year one psych...what is it with behaviourists and pidgeons?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.