Hard News: The cane and the strap
104 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
On a lighter note:
I don't ever ROFL, but I came pretty close to it with this statement in the weekend's Sunday Star-Times:...
"I don't know why it is, but I definitely haven't noticed any gay couples coming in who are local. I think Mikey Havoc only said what he did because gay rhymes with Gore."Heh, me too. I don't know if there's a single word in the English language that rhymes with Gore as well as gay does.
-
I'd start with accuracy. Saying someone said something they didn't say, or is something that they are not, is unfair
Quite so. But summarising someone's case is often done by journalists, unless their job is to simply regurgitate press releases.
The arguement is therefore whether that summary was an accurate representation (as opposed to putting words insomeones mouth). My point is that given the context and supporting comments by FF, it was.
-
And how exactly can you tell a couple of good Southern men - or even better Southern ladies - are residents on the slopes of Brokeback Mountain?
Well, I guess this is the criteria:
Census results have revealed that there are just three gay couples living together in the South Island town, all lesbians.
Then again, there might well be hundreds of Sodomites and Sapphists in Gore who - like myself - don't actually think who they fuck is anyone else's business. God... I know the Sunday Star Times has to fill the pages somehow, but couldn't they at least try to come up with something that could be mistaken for actual news - and avoids the perception of up-themselves Jaffas sneering at the provincial hicks?
-
It's bold timing, certainly. On the day when the major child-related story is a beatiful little girl being shoved in a dryer, FF suggests the biggest problem in our country is not hitting children enough.
-
and avoids the perception of up-themselves Jaffas sneering at the provincial hicks?
Why hold themselves to a higher standard than PA's commentariat?
-
Hey, you've got a small problem there, rodgerd. Both you and I are up ourselves, sneering, Wellingtonians.
-
Being somewhat polar opposite to FF I must commend them on their collection of articles on the issues.
Held up as attacking the Family but I wonder if the amassed articles might have an impact on a few?
Gore does have a great little community art scene, a pretty homogenious population & a less is more style of conversation.
-
Whatever happened to violence begets violence? I thought that was still self-evident. Line up all those kids that have hit their teachers, then go check what kind of extra-curricular bashing they get. I bet there's a pretty strong correlation.
But a correlation it remains no matter how strong. There's a stronger correlation between the sex of those doing most of the teacher bashing and the sex of their father.
But I agree about empowering teachers. It's all very well do away with corporal punishment but if what we get is the current increase in violence than that's pretty good ammunition for the likes of FF no matter how spurious.
I would argue that kids, especially those with a Y chromosome, are not natural born angels and schools need to have a well developed disciplinary system that effectively prevents teachers and students being on the receiving end.
-
Both you and I are up ourselves, sneering, Wellingtonians.
Don't forget the chips on our shoulders.
-
Dismissing one comment with the ever-tiresome:
But a correlation it remains no matter how strong.
...and then writing:
. It's all very well do away with corporal punishment but if what we get is the current increase in violence
Stop and thing before you hit post next time. You can at least contradict yourself in different postings, not the same one. Unless you were aiming for Yes, Prime Minister irregular verbs for comedy value.
-
Interesting Herald article. Here's my take:
Sending your kids to school is a really bad idea.If that issue were addressed then perhaps some progress could be made with the smacking debate.
-
But a correlation it remains no matter how strong. There's a stronger correlation between the sex of those doing most of the teacher bashing and the sex of their father.
Well, fair do's, I can't prove anything, but I think a strong correlation would still be sufficient argument against corporal punishment. If the worst kids are already being hit at home, then I imagine that hitting them at school would likely prove just as effective.
-
Is anyone else a little uneasy that only women are victims of domestic violence under the hospital questions?
TV3 reported 16-65yr old women wud be asked if they get the bash.
I'm sure this is the bulk of the prob (but I have no stats).
Why are over 65s not asked? They're not valid? Why not guys?
Are lesbians exempt?
As this follows the assumption that only blokes hit. -
Is anyone else a little uneasy that only women are victims of domestic violence under the hospital questions?
Don't know if I really want to turn this into a gender issue, Michael, but I've certainly seen way too much evidence that culturally and legally we're still struggling with the notion that women are perpetrators - as well as victims and enablers - of abuse in relationships and within families. If we're really serious about being a 'zero tolerance' society towards child abuse and violence in relationships, then it strikes me as a no-brainer that we're got to look critically at the biases we bring to the table.
-
Stop and thing before you hit post next time.
well I did say that the FF opinion that there was a causal connection was spurious so I was thinging at the time.
but I think a strong correlation would still be sufficient argument against corporal punishment.
I agree, I wasn't implying any defense of coporal punishment just that there might be other factors causing boys to make trouble in class. Such as poor verbal skills compared to girls. The area of the brain related to language is late developing in boys.
A friend's sister went back to Uni as adult to study maths to become a maths teacher. After a number of years of teaching she now no longer wants to be a teacher because of the intimidation and violence from pupils.
-
Is anyone else a little uneasy that only women are victims of domestic violence under the hospital questions?
It could be more an issue of priorites and resource allocation but I suppose it would be logical to ask everyone these questions. It does seem quite odd that if you're over 65 no one is interested. The abuse of the aged is not uncommon.
Are lesbians exempt?
My understaning is that in most cases lesbians are women so presumably they won't be.
-
ron,
ron - children can drink alcohol at home. And smoke. And have sex. All without breaking the law.
Really? My 10 year old will be very happy to hear that!
-
ron,
I'll bet the people who beat them started with smacking and escalated from there when they didn't get the result they thought they should get.
I see. So smacking is analogous to cannabis. Smoking the latter eventually leads to hard drugs, the former to beatings and eventually manslaughter/murder. Hmmmm.
-
ron,
So what's the rate of child assault in homes where children aren't hit at all, ron?
That's like asking what the rate of alcoholism is in homes where people don't drink.
I'm sure you've read Chris Beckett's paper on the Swedish myth that a ban on corporal punishment has worked wonders. Anyway, your readers might appreciate it.
http://www.storesonline.com/members/846699/uploaded/Child_deaths_in_Sweden.pdf
To quote Beckett:
"a narrative which has no real world validity is, in the end, a distraction - an instance of 'symbolic placation' which gives us a comfortable feeling because it makes us feel that we have done something and because it temporarily absolves us from trying to find solutions that will actually work and/or facing up to the limits of what we can achieve".
-
__So what's the rate of child assault in homes where children aren't hit at all, ron?__
That's like asking what the rate of alcoholism is in homes where people don't drink.
Yes. Thanks for making my point.
I'm sure you've read Chris Beckett's paper on the Swedish myth that a ban on corporal punishment has worked wonders. Anyway, your readers might appreciate it.
Beckett specifically addresses a claim that child maltreatment deaths in Sweden fell to almost zero after corporal punishment was banned in 1979, which he regards as unsustainable. But to adopt him as a smacking advocate -- as you, Families First, etc seem to want to do -- is ludicrous. As he says:
There are good arguments for banning corporal punishment. Protecting children, after all, is not just about preventing fatalities. But a decision on whether to introduce a ban here should be based on a realistic assessment of the pros and the cons. Let's be clear that, whatever other pros might exist, the abolition of child maltreatment deaths cannot be included among them.
-
So smacking is analogous to cannabis. Smoking the latter eventually leads to hard drugs, the former to beatings and eventually manslaughter/murder. Hmmmm.
I think you should really re-word this to make it more sensible; my suggestions are in italics -
"So smacking is analogous to cannabis. Smoking the latter may eventually lead to hard drugs, the former may lead to beatings and possibly eventually manslaughter/murder."
I certainly wasn't suggesting that smacking always led to extreme violence or death, or even often. And just about everyone I know who has smoked cannabis have never tried heroin or cocaine. But you are right to point out that correlation is not the end of an argument - but it's a bloody good place to do some more research.
Actually I think using drugs as an analogy - taking drugs is inherently risky, as you may misjudge the dose you are taking, or the dose you take may be of uncertain strength, leading to overdose. Likewise, when inflicting violence there is an inherent risk, firstly of doing more damage than you intended, and secondly of losing control in the heat of the moment.
But then the key difference between illegal drugs and hitting your kids is that with the former I am only risking my own health and well-being; with the latter you are risking someone else's.
-
Hear, hear Frank S thank you for saying what I wanted to so I can get back to lurking.
-
ron,
__Smoking the latter may eventually lead to hard drugs, the former may lead to beatings and possibly eventually manslaughter/murder.
So, you have no evidence to support this? Given the relatively few kids that are seriously hurt or killed at home, I suspect your theory will never fly.
-
ron,
Beckett specifically addresses a claim that child maltreatment deaths in Sweden fell to almost zero after corporal punishment was banned in 1979, which he regards as unsustainable.
Russell, you appear to be (deliberately?) missing the point. There is no evidence to suggest that banning corporal punishment/smacking will have any positive effect on reducing maltreament/deaths. But this, or a variation on it, is the sort of rubbish that was heard during the anti-smakcing debate that we had several months ago. How many times did we hear that we have one of the worst child abuse rates in the world? That may or may not be true - but it's irrelevant to the debate.
But to adopt him as a smacking advocate -- as you, Families First, etc seem to want to do -- is ludicrous
Excuse me? I did no such thing; try keeping to the topic. Beckett makes it clear that a ban on smacking or corporal punishment might may us all feel better, but it won't have the desired effect. And it's nothing more than a distraction because such action uses resources that could be better used finding real solutions.
-
So, you have no evidence to support this? Given the relatively few kids that are seriously hurt or killed at home, I suspect your theory will never fly.
That's the cunning thing about the words 'may' and 'possibly'. 'Relatively few kids' fits well with 'may' and 'possibly'.
You just provided the evidence to prove his theory.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.