Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There are many people who, for a variety of informal reasons, do not fully participate in our society. Many of these people go off the rails in a variety of non-violent and violent ways - some take it out on themselves, some people take it out on others.
I'm not suggesting that formal intervention is appropriate, but its clear that positive outcomes become increasingly unlikely as people become become increasingly alienated from their peers. Unfortunately, our collective response is to keep as far away from the socially radioactive as we can.
-
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.Just to pick up on what someone else said about one of the victims, Professor Liviu Librescu. I always feel the need to cling to some sense of humanity in the face of moments like this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/vatechshootings/victims/Liviu_Librescu.html
I thought one of the more worthwhile reflections after Columbine was on the role social exclusion and ostracism plays in these tragedies.
-
Yep. So you just try and apply some of the usual gauges of credibility. So it's our two major national climate science organisations, the G8 science academies, NASA, the IPCC, etc, etc versus small, shifty, largely non-expert lobby groups prone to misrepresenting their credentials and their funding sources. I mean, really ...
I agree. You don't have to be a scientist to read and undertand the basic conclusions of the IPCC policy maker's guide (which was, after all, written to be acted upon by non-scientists), or make an assessment of where the balance of scientific opinion lies.
It seems to me that you do need to be a scientist if you are going to dismiss the IPCC's conclusions as some sort of UN inspired hoax. Even if there's a 10% chance that Garth is right, there is a 100% chance that he is talking out of his... um, hat.
-
I'm clearly in no position to adjudicate there.
I think this is an important point. On what grounds does someone like Garth or Leighton discard the findings of the IPCC? It is absurd that some people presume to make authoritative claims about the truth or falsity of scientific theory without a command of the science. Its absurd to invite us to try.
-
Russell and Deborah,
I would support an long term effort to teach parents, and prospective parents, the skills they need to raise their kids properly. What I do not support, at this stage at least, is a smacking ban that will be imposed before such an effort is undertaken.
I'm not qualified to comment on the empirical evidence Russell has put forward, save to note the differences of professional opinion and criticisms of methodology cited therein. While I must admit to a little scepticism about studies undertaken in the social sciences, I am open to persuasion on this point. Thank you for pointing this article out to me.
If there is anyone the state ought to try to protect, it's the vulnerable
This is a sentiment I can only respect, even if we disagree on precisely how it should be applied.
What say we settle this on the runway... Han-Solo? Are you challenging me to a walk-off... Boo-Lander?
Hey has anyone seen Riddley? :)
-
Riddley,
mostly because some people keep trying to pretend its about smacking, which is never was
I believe that legislation should mean what it says. It seems to me that you haven't grasped the distinction between criminalisation and prosecutorial discretion. The purpose and effect of the proposed s.59(2) and (3) is clear:
Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we have recommended
amendments to the bill to clarify that parents may use
reasonable force in some circumstances, but not for the purpose of
corrections.59(2): Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
I think the minority Parliamentary view on this bill is correct and that the Burrows amendment not only better reflects public opinion and our society's ideas about liberalism and freedom of religion, but it represents a technically superior approach to the drafting of legislation. You may disagree about all of this.
However, on the factual question on whether this bill is about smacking, Riddley, you are mistaken.
-
This is quite funny (well, depending on your point of view).
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2047498,00.html
As a result he is believed to have received numerous offers to send himself up in the finale of Ricky Gervais's Extras, a new Only Fools and Horses Christmas special and a proposed Doctor Who storyline in which a Prime Minister goes back in time to correct his past mistakes.
-
Hi Deborah,
I'm not at all concerned about you quoting Professor Waldron, but it would be good if you could tell us how you see the quote applying to the current situation in NZ
I intended to say that it is often unhelpful to reduce genuine differences of opinion to the inability of your opponents to properly grasp moral reality. The 85% of the public that supports this bill encompasses more than half of Labour's constituency. The suggestion that we are talking about a fringe viewpoint here can be discarded.
Unless Riddley can demonstrate to me that smacking is genuinely harmful to children, I don't accept that there is a liberal justification for this legislation. His attempt to portray smacking as some dubious practice of US religious conservatives must yield to the idea that our society embraces freedom of religion, even in situations where he may not like it.
who just want to interfere in other people's families
Whatever the merits of their position may be, I don't see how supporters of this bill can evade this criticism.
-
There is a middle ground here. You don't have to be an apologist for either Islamic fundamentalism or Western injustice - unless you choose to be. In opposing one, we need not accept the other.
He said she also underwent stringent psychological evaluations, a step not usually required during the investigations.
-
Hey Jackie - I enjoyed the clip. I suspect you are right about this:
Far be it from me to tell people how to raise their kids, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again - life is about connection, and as a teacher, I can change one child's disruptive behaviour quicker with lots of hugs and kindness than I could by yelling and being all standover about it
Riddley, the following comes from Jeremy Waldron's Law and Disagreement
The more dangerous temptation is not to pretend an opposing view does not exist, but to treat it as beneath notice in respectable deliberation by assuming that it is ignorant or prejudiced or self-interested or based on insufficient contemplation of reality. Such an attitude embodies the idea that since truth in matters of justice, right or policy is singular and consensus is its natural embodiment, some special explanation - some factor of deliberative pathology, such as the lingering taint of self interest - is required to explain disagreement, which explanation can then be cited as a reason for putting the deviant view to one side.