Hard News: Stop the Enabling
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Thanks Heather.
Its just that it seems so sick to me but then that's just how I felt last time I heard More FM. -
... do you have any evidence of even the existence of such a competition and if so, what the outcome was? because the only thing I can find is your Scoop story. I would have thought a stunt like this would have hit the MSM at some point
Man that's cynical.
I remembered the story from someone, which I why I went looking for it. It's not my habit to read every media release on scoop, so I don't imagine it was there.
In your vein ... if Family First were doing stunts like putting out media releases falsely implicating major broadcasters in running tasteless campaigns, I would have thought it would have hit the MSM at some point.
Yes, Graeme, those things were "nice" -- but for me they don't compare to the real day-to-day work of child welfare agencies...
I wasn't comparing them, I was using it to dispute the allegation that Family First "have done NOTHING to justify their existence".
I'm open to correction, but I don't believe that the Families Commission does the "real day-to-day work" of a child welfare agency. In the past, you have rightly lauded its "it's not okay" campaign as worthy (... despite its lack of real day-to-day work). I don't believe your words of praise had dismissive quotation marks then.
-
someone = somewhere
But Heather to the rescue anyway :-)
-
Russell,
Studies can show links to anything if you want it to. You may not have read that study you linked but, the sample was taken from just two states and is hardly representative, as the study itself points out.... Studies have to be reliable, valid and transferrable to carry any weight. that one doesn't Just mothers were interviewed, raising the the possibility of shared method variance that may overestimate the observed relationships - which, interms of light smacking were weak enough to be practically useless.
If you are going to link research, link some decent ones.
-
Graeme, is your position that overall Family First are a worthwhile organisation doing good things?
-
I don't believe your words of praise had dismissive quotation marks then.
Yeah, people shouldn't use dismissive quotation marks just to suit their case. Ain't that right Dave?
seven if you count the police "witness". - Dave Crampton
-
Man that's cynical.
Yeah, having to read the drivel from the likes of Crampton, Dexter and Bird have that effect on me.
I didn't mean to cast aspersions on your trustworthiness. I'll have you know that I hold lawyers in high esteem, honest.
;-) -
If you are going to link research, link some decent ones.
Most studies have weakneses. I didn't claim the study was definitive, but I don't believe it was as worthless as you say.
The association between frequency of smacking and abusive punishment seemed alarming to me.
As MedPage noted:
Dr. Zolotor and colleagues also found an association between frequency of spanking and reports of harsher abuse. For each additional spanking episode per year, they reported, there was a 3% increase (95% CI 1% to 6%) in the likelihood that stronger punishments were also used in the household.
It seems worthwhile to point out that not all researchers see the clear and obvious demarcation between smacking parents and abusive parents that you and Graeme saw in the longitudinal study.
I have to say, Chuck's "light punch" has rather ruined the phrase "light smack" for me ...
-
Yeah, I refer to " light punch" as some sort of drink, myself. But it does seem worthwhile to point out that not all researchers of your persuasion conclude that light smacking leads to child abuse. You appear to have done so based on ideology and use substandard research - some off the Yes Vote site - to back up your ideology. And it's not convincing, really.
Next you'll be agreeing with this ....
http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/05/25/anthea-simcock-its-not-about-smacking-or-ear-flicking/ -
...not all researchers of your persuasion conclude in their research that light smacking leads to child abuse
-
It seems worthwhile to point out that not all researchers see the clear and obvious demarcation between smacking parents and abusive parents that you and Graeme saw in the longitudinal study.
Didn't I pull out of the smacking part of this discussion a while ago?
-
Personally I think that the amendments to S92 will facilitate our transition into the 21st Century and .....
Oh wait. Wrong thread. Easy mistake, eh?
-
-
Didn't I pull out of the smacking part of this discussion a while ago?
Heh. I guess, with your rather odd comparison with smoking, you mean?
-
what's the definition of a punch in this context?
ps I'm pro anti smacking bill.
I think no amount of physical violence should be used against kids, but what is the difference between violence and force. is it intent?reason I ask is when you colour this quite strong man's actions with the term punch to the face I feel I'm supposed to gauge what a punch in terms of mason is, and then contemplate that in relation to his small child.
mason seems a pretty powerful guy, I'd do what I was told if I was his kid, having said that I'm not out there trying to control 3 children in central city traffic, for what ever reason he got himself into that situation for.
in an argument that is about degrees of force the specific definition of those forces would be all important one would have though otherwise we get emotional hyperbole,
-
Didn't I pull out of the smacking part of this discussion a while ago?
Sorry, hadn't realised you were that far out of it.
And, to be clear, I do understand your point. My personal preference would be for fewer laws, enforced as they're written down. To some extent, the removal of the Section 59 defence, fails that test.
But I've thought about it, and I cannot countenance the law saying the only people who can be assaulted are children. I cannot see a clear justification for that, certainly not because some adult claims it as a "right", and still less if that claim is made on the basis of some religious belief.
I'm also cognisant of the harm done by abusive physical punishment, and I am dubious as to the clear bright line between "smacking" and bad hitting. It seems to me that the only real way forward is for no one to hit children. Much of the civilised world seems to be taking the same view.
My resolve in this view has been strengthened by two things.
One is essentially a reaction: I am honestly appalled at the tendency by the likes of McCroskie to consistently take the side of abusive parents . His refusal to criticise the Masterton father was simply appalling. He was taking the side of a man who had thrown around his son with enough violence to leave bruises that the boy's mother felt the need to photograph, and leaving the boy, in the words of a senior policeman, "traumatised". That's why I call him an enabler of abuse against children, and I don't care of that offends him. In fact, I really hope it gets under his skin.
I'm similarly unimpressed by the equivocating and diversion around the Mason case.
The other reason is personal. Both my sons are Asperger Syndrome -- mildly autistic -- and the younger one has been prone to violent autistic meltdowns through his life. He has, at times, been what other people might see as a "brat".
It's been really, really hard over the years, but we have gradually established a good, happy and respectful family life without resorting to violence. I feel sick when I think of how it might have been if we'd done that. I feel sick when I think about other kids in his position being hit constantly for something they can't understand. That's why I feel so strongly about fucking Barbara Bishop being hailed as some sort of parenting hero for hitting her already disturbed son.
So that's where I'm at. Good to get it off my chest, really.
-
Heh. I guess, with your rather odd comparison with smoking, you mean?
Is it that odd? I can't ever see myself smoking a cigareete, but don't think it should be illegal. I can't ever see myself smacking a child, but don't think it should be illegal.
Smoking inside your house, with your children around, is demonstrably, indisputably harmful to them, even if it's just a few light cigarettes; but I'm guessing few here would want it made a crime punishable by imprisonment.
-
not all researchers of your persuasion conclude in their research that light smacking leads to child abuse
Read the above Dave. Perhaps you'll understand my "persuasion" then.
-
Personally I think that the amendments to S92 will facilitate our transition into the 21st Century and .....
Oh wait. Wrong thread. Easy mistake, eh?You spake the curse. And now look who's turned up ...
-
I've wondered about similar issues, Rob.
Under the old law, couldn't "reasonable force" have been argued in this case, by a lawyer claiming something like "the strike to the face was not even sufficient to cause bruising - therefore the amount of force used was not unreasonable. That is the issue before you... " etc...
One might think a jury would not fall for such an argument, and I suppose so. But then, I wouldn't have thought the jury would have accepted the "reasonable force" defense in the bullwhip case, either.
-
You spake the curse. And now look who's turned up ...
That's actually a bit creepy. Candyman, Candyman, Ca....
-
by a lawyer claiming something like
my concern here was not so much what the lawyers said but in how it is used in media in an emotive way.
if I was to get punched in the face by mason I would expect at least a broken nose and some serious bruising, a punch is a serious physical assault and using it as a descriptive word gives it that level of power.
I commend and respect Russell for his path which he has just explained above. bloody hard work and the enlightened path it is too.
but I don't know that I can bring myself to believe Mason is a bad man. he may not be as enlightened as other parents, and I know of his family and they've had a rough background so for him even to be in a loving relationship with kids who seem to love him is a major success.I'm not going to hate him for the position he got himself into, I'm not going to adopt his behaviour either, and won't condone it but I'm not going to see it in black and white evil either. its about education,
it'd be good to see Mason get access to the skills he needs to be a loving parent (as he seems to already be), control his kids and do it in a peaceful way. apparently its not as easy as some wish it to be, sometimes. -
You spake the curse. And now look who's turned up ...
:) I have better things to be doing than getting into a bitch fight on this topic but its an interesting read to see the debating skills go down.
personally I think you're a curse but its your site so curse away.
get back to me when you've clocked 103 pages of meaningless iscussion :) -
Rob:
A soft punch by a strong man is still a punch.Mason may not be a "bad man" in some wider sense, but he is a person who committed assault.
I'm not sure anyone here is arguing he should be the subject of hatred "for the position he got himself into". But he should be judged by his actions.
-
I'm not going to hate him for the position he got himself into, I'm not going to adopt his behaviour either, and won't condone it but I'm not going to see it in black and white evil either. its about education,
As I've said before, my overwhelming interest in Mason going to court was the hope that he'd be ordered to anger management counselling.If that happens, I don't care if he's dscharged.
I don't hate him (although he seems fairly arrogant) but what he did was not cool at all -- even the research presented by the pro-smackers in this thread makes that clear.
As for the position he's got himself into, well, no one made him cultivate the news media the way he has. That exclusive deal he did with Sunday was a shabby look for that programme.
And face it Rob, you turning up just after someone said "Section 92A" was quite funny ...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.