Hard News: The Arguments
251 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Thanks Neil, I stand corrected.
I've read recent articles discussing whether much of the benefits to depressive patients are due to a fear over the ECT rather than the actual benefits of the ECT, so I assumed they must have directly experienced the actual ECT. In retrospect, I must guess that they were referring to some of the after effects rather than the direct experience of the ECT itself.
-
Apologies for double posting (and generally being a loud mouth about the whole subject) - but for the wrist lock thing, are we just talking about the aim being restraining a person, or are we talking a endorsed procedure to deliberately inflict pain, specifically as a sort of punishment? Because with smacking, we're certainly talking about the latter.
With the elderly, if they are capable of reason then this is not justifiable.
So how does this same logic not apply to children?
-
Out of curiosity, how would people feel about a parent forcing a child to stand on one leg, or hold an arm above their head, for thirty minutes until it started to cause pain?
When I was a kid we knew a perfectly nice family where the punishments for naughtiness included having hot mustard put on your tongue, and having your head flushed in the toilet. This could happen while we were visiting.
I recall feeling grateful I didn't have to put up with that. We would very occasionally get a smack with the wooden spoon. I don't recall feeling chastised so much as resentful.
-
Just to pour a bit more petrol onto the flames:
-
Well David, is your own "DISCUSS" button broken or what?
I have a child. I am not a perfect parent. I am at times a poor one. I am sure sometimes I would end up stealing the pen, which is still *legally* theft BTW. Given that analogy, plus the fact that so many fuckwits seem to be lined up against the bill places me more in favour than against.
Someone said:
its about breaking their will.
God, ain't that the truth. No matter what the punishment it is their will that needs to survive our parenting.
-
Colin said:
Hmm, as I've pointed out before, it becomes interesting when you apply the justification for smacking children (diminished understanding of the consequences of their actions, have limited insight and are not responsive to other means of persuasion including verbal), to smacking elderly people.
When care givers are caught doing this, no-one has a problem with the law coming down on them. Why the distinction?When the care-givers aren't relatives it's impersonal. And in all cases it's not system-installing. (See earlier notes)
David said:
In my household we actually did have reward pills -- we called them sweets! And, no, I don't think that this approach to parenting stinks or makes me squeamish. I understand Deborah is in favour of reward pills made of chocolate and shaped like frogs.
So I don't think the physical reward vs. physical punishment cases are parallel.
They're parallel alright. Enter spoonfuls of cod-liver oil and being sent to bed without supper! And it remains true that (a) arbitarily arcane technologies of impersonal rewarding/pleasure (e.g., pleasure-prods) like those of impersonal punishment/pain children rightly give us the creeps, and (b) If you never or rarely hug your children, and say instead "No, that's the sweets' job" or "No, we stick to the pleasure-prod" or "We leave leave that to Hugging Services" it's clear that your parental agency is seriously diminished and we are and you should be squeamish about what you are doing.
There are, however, some important differences. Rewards and punishments have different false positive costs/characteristics (over-rewarding is almost cost-less/a non-event, whereas over-punishing carries a high price/causes anguish). Hence we can be flippant about rewards in a way we can't be with punishments. And reward mechanisms themselves can, to some extent float free from any context at all for that reason.... (That creates a slight technical problem and inconvenience for my overall anti-reductive analysis...oh well.)
Final point: The "chocolate frog" technique is a classic case of emulating loss within an overall gain framework by getting someone/the child to reset its reference/status quo point so that it thinks of itself as already having all the froggies! It gets all the pain of loss within a reward/gain setting. We'd feel very differently about the case if Deborah were throwing the child's (prior) favorite toys out the window one by one as the trip progressed - so that it was real loss/pain being inflicted.
It's a good bet that most parents won't be able to stay exclusively in emulated loss la-la-land (a la Deborah) or strict bribes-ville (a la David)... Rather, real loss/pain will have to be inflicted at some point. But then whether it's worse in every case to smack rather than to dream up some elaborate exclusion/ostracization/property destruction/psycho-torture ritual (from "Kid A doesn't get to go to the movie with everyone else" to god knows what) isn't obvious to me at all.
-
Don Christie wrote:
... is your own "DISCUSS" button broken or what?
Just thought that two threads on this subject might be one too many!
... the fact that so many fuckwits seem to be lined up against the bill places me more in favour than against.
A really interesting observation. I've heard similar statements maybe a dozen times over the last week -- people who initially favoured the status quo, but then changed their minds when they saw the arguments presented by their own side.
The vast majority of people who support the status quo aren't fuckwits, of course. They are just as concerned about child welfare as people on the other side of the debate. But the fuckwits do seem to do the loudest shouting, and in the process they manage to score a lot of own goals.
Stephen Glaister wrote:
[this] creates a slight technical problem and inconvenience for my overall anti-reductive analysis...oh well.
Don't beat yourself up over it, dude! No one expected you to be omniscient all of the time.
-
WH,
Hey David,
I enjoyed your post. Just a couple of my own thoughts:
I would reframe the respective positions in this way:
Bradford's principle: All [child abuse] is wrong, but [mild smacking, although it technically contitutes child abuse/assault] is too trivial to be prosecuted.
Burrows's principle: All [child abuse] is wrong, but [mild smacking is not child abuse].I think the human rights argument, while valid, has the potential to theoretically muddle the real nature of the parent/child relationship and understate the practical importance of the instillation of discipline and socialisation in children.
It has even been claimed that the abolition of physical punishment will result in a generation of 'girly-men' who will be unsuitable All Black material.
Ha ha - I caught myself thinking this yesterday. Its interesting that the ability to withstand pain and hardship is such an important part of the male gender role.
-
It has even been claimed that the abolition of physical punishment will result in a generation of 'girly-men' who will be unsuitable All Black material.
There's an interesting, but irrelevant survey I want to see done! Proportion of All Blacks who were smacked as children vs proportion of the general population.
And a breakdown. Keith Robinson, I bet he got smacked. Carter - bet his Dad couldn't lay a hand on him he was so slick. Richard Loe - he probably beat his parents.
-
WH wrote:
Bradford's principle: All [child abuse] is wrong, but [mild smacking, although it technically contitutes child abuse/assault] is too trivial to be prosecuted.
Burrows's principle: All [child abuse] is wrong, but [mild smacking is not child abuse].Yep, I'd probably agree with the way you've reframed this. I had initially written something along these lines, but then I read Nicky Wagner's (National Party colleague of Chester Borrows) opinion piece in The Press and wondered if I was entirely correct in representing their views:
We believe that this debate is not about whether smacking children is the best form of correction – it is about whether parents should be safe from prosecution if they decide to smack their children.
From:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/3971281a12935.html
But perhaps I should have stuck with my draft version?
-
WH,
David,
Despite the natural tendency to focus on differences in discussions of this kind, I mostly agree with what you've said.
I hope that our societal debate on this will eventually come to focus on ways of providing parents the personal and parental skills they need to raise their kids properly. Peace out.
-
A couple of points:
Teachers have, as David points out, been banned from hitting kids for many years. A typical teacher doesn't have one or two kids to control - they have 30+ of the little sods - and they don't have the parental displeasure thing that brings a lot of recalcitrant brats into line. Yet they mostly manage. They do of course have training - and maybe that's what's needed to help parents manage without bashing kids.
On the argument that we "shouldn't have laws that we don't intend to enforce" - this is a very NZ idea. Other countries have lots of such laws. Driving between 70-90mph on a UK motorway springs to mind, as does trading cannabis in the Netherlands, working excessive hours in Germany, etc.
-
I hope that our societal debate on this will eventually come to focus on ways of providing parents the personal and parental skills they need to raise their kids properly. Peace out.
Yep. We've just passed 5000 views and 160 posts in this thread. I think it's been useful.
-
I've just read David Heywood's Southerly blog.
And it provoked some thoughts... I then picked up where I'd left this thread a couple of days and 5 pages ago... and see that some of these thoughts had been mentioned... but I think they bear repeating as they were mostly ignored....
I think Stephen Glaister is onto something where he's suggesting that the parent/child relationship is "special" and cant be juudged on the same adult/adult terms.
Many of those saying that assualt is as wrong for a child as it is for an adult, are suggesting alternative punishments/teaching methods that are just as wrong if used adult/adult.
Forcing another adult to accompany you against their will is kidnapping/abduction.
Forcing another adult to stay where you tell them is detention without trial... like the "naughty chair" or locked room?
This doesnt prove that corporal punishment is acceptible.... But it suggests that deciding whether its acceptable or not, based on other adult rights, is false logic.It's not just a parents right, but thier JOB to make children do things, or not do things against thier will. It's how you train them to be good adults.
I have smacked my children before... due to factors unrelated to the current public discussions, I've decided I wont be doing that any more. I'm still undecided whether smacking (lightly) should or should not be illegal. Its a very complicated issue.
But suggesting that kids rights should be the same as adults ones, is bogus.... if you carried that out to its fullest.... thered be no way you could teach them anything.
Unfortunately, you DO have to break their free will at times, no matter whether the method is "acceptable" or "unnaceptable".
Whether they should or do gain adults rights at 16/18/21 is not clear to me... but children are not just small adults, and as much as we'd like to, they cant be treated as such all the time.
-
Also, people who take the anti-anti-smaking debate, or the pro-light smaking debate, and rephrase it to "people who think its OK to bash kids" are being entirely unhelpful.
Nobody here has suggested that anything leaving permanent or healable marks/injuries is good or acceptable.
To suggest that someone who thinks its OK to lightly smack is also saying its OK to "bash" is as idiotic as saying people who think its OK to drive at 55kmh also think its OK to drive at 200.
We're trying (and mostly succeding) at having a rational debate.... Please dont muddy the waters more than they need to be?
Cheers!
-
FletcherB wrote:
Whether they should or do gain adults rights at 16/18/21...
I think you are misunderstanding a very key issue in the human rights argument. To quote what I said in my post:
note: we are only talking about the specific case of human rights with respect to physical punishment -- we are not talking about all human rights.
Bradford is not suggesting that children have all the same human rights as adults. She's not, for example, suggesting that children have the right to vote, etc.
Her amendment only relates to giving children adult rights in terms of physical punishment, i.e. Article 5 rights.
There's nothing in her bill to prevent parents from exercising all the normal punishment rights they would otherwise have -- including time out, etc. Only physical punishment is prohibited.
As you say, this is a complicated subject, and -- given all the shouting in the media -- it's very easy to get confused. In terms of coming to a decision it might be helpful to re-read this paragraph from my post.
An important question in settling [Bradford's human rights] argument is whether non-physical forms of punishment are truly effective in disciplining children. If they aren't effective, then children are in a special human rights category (with regard to punishment) that is different from adults. They must be physically punished for their own good. In other words, the harm they might experience from ineffective parental discipline is worse than the "cruel, inhuman or degrading" punishment.
-
But why ARE we only discussing one aspect of childrens rights.... and then using the if its good enough for adults, then its good enough for kids too argument?
If its a good or logical argument, surely it applies to the all types of rights?
The fact that it clearly doesnt apply to all types of rights suggests maybe it doesnt apply to this one, or even any?
Discussing whether its right/wrong is all good with me.
Discussing whether its right/wrong BECAUSE its wrong for adults seems wrong/bogus/ill-informed, is all I'm saying.There are definitely valid grounds for discussion... I'm just suggesting the more invalid ones we can get rid of, the clearer it will be for all of us.
-
But why ARE we only discussing one aspect of childrens rights.... and then using the if its good enough for adults, then its good enough for kids too argument?
If its a good or logical argument, surely it applies to the all types of rights?
The fact that it clearly doesnt apply to all types of rights suggests maybe it doesnt apply to this one, or even any?I would have thought the presumption runs exactly the other way, FletcherB. Human rights are supposed to be universal, so oughtn't we assume that all human rights apply to children (they are human, after all.... 'though mine do have a good go at proving they are not, from time to time) and then make case by case arguments for exceptions. So we need to hear the case for allowing physical violence to be applied to children as a special exception from universal human rights, rather than having to make a case in favour of extending human rights to children.
-
Ok, thats a fair point Deborah.
So why dont the rights to freedom from abduction and detention without trial (by thier own custodial parents), equally apply to children too? Are these the next parental controls to be removed by law? Is this possibility good/bad/rediculous?
I think some "human rights" are not applicable to the parent/child relationship. Is (mild) physical violence one of them? I'm not sure.
I dont claim to hold some ultimate truth that I'm slowly revealing... I'm just thinking this through as we go.
And yes.. I can see the logical endpoint to my slippery slope argument. Theres no way I could ever suggest freedom to life is a right parents can ride over... Thats just way too far past "reasonable force" for anyone to argue for.
-
David:
I like your careful argument and the reference back to the wording of the present law, the Bill and Chester's proposed amendments. However, it all unravels a bit at the end I believe. Sue Bradford's withdrawal of the Bill if Chester Borrows' amendments are passed, won't be a result of a hissy fit. It will be a long-planned and justified withdrawal in the face of amendments which nullify the effect and purpose of the Bill.
It may seem a small matter but the difference is the acceptance of 'correction' as a motive for force in Chester Borrows' amendments and its prohibition in the Bill. On the one side is a view of children as unworthy of full human rights status in protection from assault and on the other is full human rights status with acknowledgement of the realities of being a parent.
Once 'correction' is allowed as a purpose the legal argument if the matter is brought to court hinges on how much injury is permissible and Chester Borrows' definition (trivial and trifling) is not substantially different from the status quo (reasonable in the circumstances).
-
Ian wrote:
I like your careful argument... however, it all unravels a bit at the end I believe.
I guess the bit where it all unravels is the bit where our opinions diverge!
Ian wrote:
Chester Borrows' definition (trivial and trifling) is not substantially different from the status quo (reasonable in the circumstances).
It seems to me that there is a considerable difference. Borrows's proposal would explicitly prohibit bruising, welts, cuts, or any punishment involving an implement.
The current Section 59 has allowed all of these things in the past (in fact, I have unfortunately witnessed all of the above being legally enacted on children). It all depends on a jury's definition of "reasonable force". Borrows's amendment puts a concrete definition on the specifics of what can be legally inflicted: it's not open to interpretation. Either the punishment involves bruising, welts, cuts, and/or implements, or it doesn't.
I note that Sir Geoffrey Palmer from the Law Commission gave the opinion that the amendment would "lower the bar considerably on what is covered by section 59, and would be a very significant change to the law as it currently stands". See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/3971281a12935.html
Sue Bradford's withdrawal of the Bill... won't be a result of a hissy fit. It will be a long-planned and justified withdrawal...
Perhaps I was being rather provocative when I used the phrase "hissy fit". But I did soften it by adding: "I have considerable sympathy for Bradford's argument, and (for what it's worth) I think she has a point..."
What I was trying to say is that (in a democratic situation) you sometimes can't get the outcome you want. But isn't the second-best result still better than the third-best result?
-
What is the difference between democracy and mob rule?
-
Ian wrote:
What is the difference between democracy and mob rule?
Human rights -- sure. I don't disagree with your point.
But you must admit that we limit the human rights of children in other ways, e.g. they can't vote.
Well-intentioned people on the other side of the argument genuinely think that children's human rights should be limited when it comes to physical punishment. I don't necessarily agree with them -- but that's what they genuinely believe.
If you can't persuade these people to agree with you in the context of a democratic decision-making process then you're a bit stuck.
So you have to ask the question: is it better to end up at a half-way position (i.e. the Borrows's amendment), or to reject compromise altogether and end up with a status quo that's even worse.
Is it really worth ending up with what you least desire just for the sake of principle? Some people might be inclined to call that a hissy fit.
-
David:
Self-definition is perilous but I do see myself as a pragmatist. I have given careful thought to what, if anything, I would be prepared to die in a ditch for.
The Bill at present before Parliament is not Sue Bradford's but the Select Committee's modification. It is already a compromise, something that I haven't seen recognised by the media. There are those who believe it is a compromise too far and that the best and simplest thing would have been to simply repeal S59 and place children on the same footing in relation to assault as adults. Police prosecution rules and long-standing precedent in law against pursuing trivial things would have dealt with the 'criminalisation' issue as it did in the case of the Tana Umaga Christchurch handbagging incident. That is even supposing a minor assault on a child had got to the point of someone drawing it to the Police's attention.
I can sympathise with the purist repeal view but don't believe it was acceptable to the majority. I like to believe that New Zealanders are fundamentally decent people and if they are fully informed about the operation and consequences of the present Bill, a majority will support it. Perhaps in that respect I'm an idealist.
You might ask if Police are not going to prosecute minor assaults, what's the point of repealing the law anyway and the answer from my perspective is that a law that singles out children as legitimate targets of assault is an unjust law, contributes to their status as chattels and makes them vulnerable.
Where the voting age should be set is another issue but let's not get into that.
I believe clever lawyers would soon have juries interpreting Chester Borrows proposed amendments in much the same way as the present law is interpreted.
-
So why dont the rights to freedom from abduction and detention without trial (by thier own custodial parents), equally apply to children too?
Interesting point, FletcherB, and it makes it clear to me that what we are involved in here is a line drawing exercise. And like many line drawing exercise, it's very easy to make judgements at either end of the scale, but bloody difficult to acutually draw the line, between what is permissable and what is impermissable.
I am tempted to argue next that given that it's very difficult indeed to draw the line, I'm inclined to err on the side of caution, and that means protecting the vulnerable, and supporting the repeal of section 59. However, that would be disingenuous of me - I am flatly opposed to section 59, and I support Bradford's bill, without the Burrows amendment.
Even so, I think that a principle of caution, and a principle of protecting the vulnerable, should lead us to supporting the bill.
(I should add here that I am no moral saint, I have smacked two of my children, once each, and I regard those acts as among the most morally shameful things I have ever done.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.