Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You're trying pretty hard to get this begging the question thing, but I didn't give you an "argument". I gave you a likely answer. The answer to “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?” would be uncontroversially "Yes".
The point of the hypothetical alternate question isn’t for you to posit the likely result. It is to highlight one aspect of the actual question that was problematic.
The reason is because people think smacking other adults is a crime. … They won't make an exception for "good husbandly correction".
The reason is (at least should be) that a smack cannot be part of “good husbandly correction”, and the notion is itself faulty. People would not be saying “Yes, it should be a crime, even if part of good husbandly correction”. They would be saying that the idea that a smack could be something that is “good husbandly correction” is absurd.
I don't mean they think that is the law. I mean they think it's bad and should be a crime.
You said in your answer to do it would be a crime. That’s either a pointless statement, or you’re appealing to the criminality of the matter as a support of your position on the criminality of the matter in question. If you don’t see how that’s begging the question, I don‘t know what else to say.
I’ll add here that I’m not against referenda per se. They’re especially useful for making the final decision about significant proposed changes to the mechanisms of our representative democracy
Why bother...have a survey.
Because surveys don’t make decisions. They inform whoever is doing the survey. In a representative democracy the reps themselves shouldn’t make the final decision on changes to the mechanisms that are used to run the democratic system. My objection to CIRs is on the 'C 'and 'I' parts, not so much the 'R'.
Harm is not as amenable to science as you seem to think.
Nor you, apparently:
Me: “The question of whether there is some detrimental effect from being smacked as a child is not a moral question. It is a scientific question…”
Ben: “Right”
Anyways,
Harm is a highly subjective notion. Is anal sex harmful? Ask science and you'll get an answer that will probably highlight the risks of physical damage. There could be any amount of 'scientific' analysis of the psychological impacts of it. But at the end of the day, I'd say anal sex is as harmful as the person who is engaging in it thinks it is.
Agreed, but two things: 1) you realise your focus on the idea of science as where you get your morals from is a straw man, don‘t you? Neither myself nor James W said that. (2) To paraphrase you: I'd say there a sense that anal sex is as harmful as the people who engage in it think it is. That doesn’t apply to the smacking issue, as the children aren’t asked if they consent to getting smacked, are they?
That always was illegal man. Because it would not be considered "reasonable" by either a judge or a jury.
I specifically choose the “bullwhip” example because it refers to a notorious case whereby the jury did consider it was reasonable. Thus, it wasn’t illegal.
Yes, why don't we go back to that incredibly poor example
Why is it so poor? No analogy is perfect, but they’re useful for making points, esp. in informal arguments. Confer your own use of an analogy when discussing a scientific assessment of harm. (I don’t think that analogy holds up, but note that I bothered to say why.)
In your hypothetical world, where husbandly correction is widely popular,
It wouldn’t have to be widely popular, just something that people considered to be a private matter, not something the Law or the Government should be poking its nose into. Much like the general attitude many people had to domestic violence. It’s not about changing attitudes about how most people actually treat their wives (or children), it’s about changing their attitude to what they see as ‘public’ and ‘private’ behavior. Today, no one would seriously say that a man forcing his wife to have sex was a private matter that the “nosey” state should stay out of. Once, that was society’s view (not sure if that was the case in NZ, but certainly in other countries.)
You'd start with women, it would be a fucking easy sell.
So by analogy you’re saying in the smacking debate we would start with children. Easy sell. Do they get a say in referenda?
-
Your answer is confused. To say “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” is a begging the question fallacy.
Could you elaborate? I'm giving an answer that could easily be consistent with the question and the views of society
On the fallacy? Wikipedia seems to have it right. In response to the hypothetical “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?” you answered, in part, “to try it would be a criminal offense.” So what? That’s the question: should it be a crime. You could just as easily have said “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” in answer to “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence”. That you said this suggests to me you found the very question a little odd and confusing, because there’s an assumption in the question that you fundamentally disagree with in the first place. If one answers the referendum question with a “yes’, what they are literally saying is “Yes, I do think a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence.” How weird is that?!
it's not required that the referendum question addresses some clause in the law. It's allowed to be a general statement of opinion. That's actually allowed. And it's also a good thing to know, sometimes, particularly if the law appears to be in conflict with this general opinion.
I know they don’t have to address specific clauses in the law, but that would at least make the referendum more useful. CIRs are crap democracy, and using them to get general statements of opinion is an especially bad way to address public policy. If you just want to know what people think, use a survey.
(I’ll add here that I’m not against referenda per se. They’re especially useful for making the final decision about significant proposed changes to the mechanisms of our representative democracy. But we do have a representative democracy, and we should adhere to that. There are other ways for the public to have input. We should not be deciding the moral issue du jour based on current public sentiment.)
Right, but the question was not "Are there some detrimental effects from being smacked as a child?". It was about whether it should be criminal. That comes right back to a moral judgment.
Yeah but you brought up the link. You wrote (my emphasis): “By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts …” Maybe that’s more true? You’re connecting the notion of what most people think with what is true, and doing so regarding a matter amenable to science (harm and smacking).
So "encourage" then. When you use the law, it's hiding behind a stick of your own. Which is not a direction I want to encourage. There is no debate about the efficacy of smacking when anyone who wants to present their evidence is a criminal. That is shutting down debate. Pretending that it's scientific to do so is bringing science into disrepute.
1) It’s not either/or: use the law or encourage and educate. It’s not like people thought “if we change the law, all parents who occasionally lightly smacked their child will immediately stop now that they no it’s illegal.” Do you seriously think anyone thought that would be the short term result? It’s certainly not about putting such people in prison. In that regard, it was more a statement of principal. Where it will have short term application is if someone beats their child with a bullwhip, for example, that parent will no longer have the old “reasonable force” defence. Surely that is a good thing?
2) Let’s go back to that hypothetical about “husbandly correction”. If the law changes under discussion here were to do with men’s treatment of their wives, would it occur to you to use the argument you have above? “So just try to encourage men to treat women better. But don’t go changing the laws. That’s just hiding and suppressing debate.” Really?
-
Seems like an easy one. No good husbandly correction could include a smack, indeed to try it would be a criminal offense.
Your answer is confused. To say “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” is a begging the question fallacy.
I think a better demonstration of the incredible complexity of the referendum question might be required
Why? I didn’t say it was incredibly complex.
They're divided on what to do about it. They're not divided on what the answer to the referendum question was. That one's come in pretty decisively. Which kind of suggests people didn't struggle to understand what it meant.
What the question means (and therefore what people mean by their answer) and what to do about it go hand in hand. Did people vote for the removal of the "key clause" banning the use of force for correction? Did they have in mind “transitory and trifling” open hand smacks but definitely not use of weapons or instruments? Or did they just vote to go back to the law exactly as it was before the Bradford changes? I know people who voted ‘no’ but are happy with John Key’s response and don’t really want any changes to the actual law. Useful referendum, huh. How much did it cost again?
My feeling is that "no" voters are saying...
Wait… your “feeling”? I thought you said what the ‘no’ voters were saying was clear?
By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts telling them that actually they were harmed, but they're just too uneducated, or unscientific, or un-whatever it is that makes these experts special when it comes to questions of morality.
The question of whether there is some detrimental effect from being smacked as a child is not a moral question. It is a scientific question, the answers to which inform our answers to moral questions.
There are no moral facts, there are only moral beliefs.
There are moral positions based on facts and reason, and moral positions based on whimsy and ignorance, (and a fair amount inbetween). I know which direction I want to encourage.
-
To opt out is to not be heard. That's why answered the question that was asked. It wasn't hard, it wasn't really confusing…
I wouldn’t say the question was really confusing, just poorly worded. (Confer the hypothetical posed earlier in this thread: “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?”)
If that was the only problem one had with the question, then I agree it was probably not a good idea to not vote or to cast an invalid vote just based on that. However, if (as is the case with Craig) you are also against CIRs in general then not voting is a very understandable option.
…and the opinions on it don't seem very divided.
-
Er ... does it have trouble running on non-Apple computers? I'm computer ignorant, sorry. It worked on my pc though.
The movie trailer looked a bit disappointing to me. The aliens look like the elves from LOTR crossed with the aforementioned Smurfs.
-
New Zealanders have overwhelmingly voted for the anti-smacking law to be canned.
That's contradicted by the actual story that links to, which says:
Almost 90 percent of people who participated ...
there was a 54 percent voter turnout. -
Those blue things are clearly all on drugs.
Yes folks, I linked to the new Smurfs movie trailer!!
-
I can see exactly where Brian Edward's is coming from. His position is a personal one based on his life experience and as such it is one he has a perfect right to hold.
I agree he has a “perfect right to hold” his view. I don’t see how it matters much that that view is based on “life experience”. Many people hold various views based to some degree or another on life experience. Not all those views are good views.
Whether or not it is useful to extrapolate from his particular to the wider general debate on gay adoption is another question entirely.
No, it is not another question entirely; it is the very question he raised. He wasn’t saying he wouldn’t oppose a law change, but he nevertheless had personal reservations. He was saying he actually opposed a law change.
-
It's Friday, so I can post what I like, right?
Have a look at this latest trailer for a low profile, small budget indie film that, word on the street is, might be the sleeper hit of 2009.
-
You're cope-tastic! Er, no ... Cope-ious?
I can't cope with puns. When it comes to puns, I'm copeless.