Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That second Geekzone link appears to go somewhere other than an official FAQ -- does it need fixing?
It's un official ...
-
A number of WCDMA 850 MHz capable mobiles will work on the XT network as long as they have been unlocked by their original provider. Telecom will not restrict which phones can be used on the XT Mobile Network so if you purchase a Telecom SIM you can do with it what you like, but Telecom cannot guarantee the customer experience of a phone that is not sourced from and supported by Telecom.
So, on the assumption that Vodafone ain't going to unlock my iPhone for me, I'd need to jailbreak it to use it on XT with a Telecom SIM?
That sounds sort of ... rebellious.
Is there the prospect in the near term of the iPhone becoming non-exclusive to Vodafone in NZ?
-
But I think we've had this argument before, and I'm not minded to repeat it.
Yeah, I kinda felt the same ;-)
But it does seem to me that it's characteristic of bad smackers to believe they're good smackers. One thing I think the last couple of pages has helped establish is that the behaviour of the likes of Jimmy Mason is not good or responsible, however much they believe that to be the case. That's the problem.
It's not quantifiable in the sense that you'd count out your aspirin tablets. I suppose you could legislate to the effect that, say, six smacks is good, but any more is not. But that gets you into some weird territory.
it's not that we're drinking...?
It's how we're drinking ...
-
About as good, or better, was the conclusion.
Possibly slightly better, in one, albeit robust, study. As long as you take out the bad smacking before you count.
-
In light of the copyright discussion, can I ask permission to use this in my class?
It's not strictly mine to give, but I do think that use in education is both fair and in line with the goals of the programme. So go for it.
-
Like, more effective than changing the law.Here in New Zealand parents like Mason aren't exposed to education campagns to the extent of changing behavior, just the effects of the law, because that's what Sue Bradford and her friends wanted to emphasise.
However convenient it is to demonise Bradford and her "friends", it rather ignores the fact that Plunket, Barnados, Unicef, Save the Children and other agencies that deal directly with child welfare backed the removal of the S59 defence and now support the "yes" vote in the referendum
If you're going to trivialise it with that sort of language, Bradford has more impressive "friends" than the other side of the argument does.
-
As for there being "very few supportive studies" ... the lead author of that component of the Dunedin Longitudinal Study offered the following, which may explain that "... psychologist Jane Millichamp, said the project appeared to be the first long-term study in the world to separate out those who had merely been smacked with an open hand."
The other way of looking at it is that if you separate the most low-impact corporal punishment from the rest, your results improve to the point where they're about as good as not using corporal punishment at all.
-
No, not “non-perfect parents; Parents disposed to abuse. No all “non-perfect” parents are disposed to abuse.
And according to Baumrind, those disposed were inclined to be easily frustrated or had a controlling nature. They were supposed to self-diagnose and self-regulate themselves into not smacking.
[Insert Tui billboard here.]
As Gershoff said, the idea of the government doing it for them is more than a little problematic. It would seem more straightforward for hitting children to be unacceptable.
-
Baumrind is always cited by pro-smackers -- there are very few supportive studies available to them. You don't hear so much of the criticism by other researchers that appeared in the same journal.
She also didn't find "spanking" improved outcomes, only that children who were only seldom hit weren't significantly worse off than the ones who were never hit.
She's been criticised for her unrealistic concept of "normative spanking", only seldom, never done in anger, etc. Certainly, not a single one of the cases we've discussed in this thread looks anything like that.
And the bad smackers, who demonstrably damaged their children's future lives? From your pasted-in text above:
She said intensity was rated high if the parent said he or she used a paddle or other instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifted to throw or shake the child.
Hey, you know, I think there's been a court case just lately for a dad who hit his small child in the face, and repeatedly lifted his even smaller brother up and forced him down to the ground. What was his name? Oh , yes: Jimmy Mason.
Baumrind's solution for the problem of non-perfect parents is not exactly of the real world either. From the linked article above:
The solution, according to Baumrind et al (2002), is that parents disposed to abuse because they are easily frustrated or inclined toward controlling behavior “should not spank” (p. 585). Their suggestion is both unrealistic and unimplementable as public policy. For one, their directive requires either that parents police themselves or that there be some kind of screening test that identifies parents at risk for abusive behavior. All parents experience anger and frustration at their children, and all parents are bigger and stronger than their young children; it would seem, then, that all parents have the potential to be physically abusive. Even if those parents at “true” risk for abuse could be identified (such as by already being reported for physically abusing their children), how would this policy be enforced? Would those parents at risk for abuse be required to attend parenting classes? What would the penalties be for not attending the classes? Indeed, what would the consequences be if such parents used corporal punishment after all?
Mr Mason, with his "angry dad mode" would not seem to fare too well.
Can I have my life back now?
-
Now I am a model citizen.
You even make models!
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 … 2279 Older→ First