Comments on: Video from electrify rail public meeting http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/04/16/video-from-electrify-rail-public-meeting/ hopping along the corridors of power Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:11:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: jh http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/04/16/video-from-electrify-rail-public-meeting/#comment-26261 jh Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:24:03 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/04/16/video-from-electrify-rail-public-meeting/#comment-26261 that comment was meant for Snippets. that comment was meant for Snippets.

]]> By: jh http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/04/16/video-from-electrify-rail-public-meeting/#comment-26259 jh Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:09:50 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/04/16/video-from-electrify-rail-public-meeting/#comment-26259 <i>Dr Sharples said their support for the bill was based on several principles but he acknowledged there was a lot of opposition to their stance. The first principle was that in New Zealand animals and adults are protected from being hurt by law, but children are not because of the loophole that the "reasonable force" section of the Crimes Act sometimes gives people who hurt them. Secondly, he argued that there was a clear link between smacking children and the development in children of violent tendencies. There were other ways of dealing with problems with children, such as talking problems through, he said. "Perhaps we should try a non-violent New Zealand. Why not? We lead the world in lots of other ways."</i> Good tactic, refer obliquely to the arguments, and avoid having to address whether those arguments were soundly made, or not. Ignore the fact that all these points have been chewed over and spat out before. <i>Appropriate Decision Making ???</i> , I think <b>not</b>, disingenuous debate, I think <b>yes</b>. jh Dr Sharples said their support for the bill was based on several principles but he acknowledged there was a lot of opposition to their stance.

The first principle was that in New Zealand animals and adults are protected from being hurt by law, but children are not because of the loophole that the “reasonable force” section of the Crimes Act sometimes gives people who hurt them.

Secondly, he argued that there was a clear link between smacking children and the development in children of violent tendencies.

There were other ways of dealing with problems with children, such as talking problems through, he said.

“Perhaps we should try a non-violent New Zealand. Why not? We lead the world in lots of other ways.”

Good tactic, refer obliquely to the arguments, and avoid having to address whether those arguments were soundly made, or not. Ignore the fact that all these points have been chewed over and spat out before. Appropriate Decision Making ??? , I think not, disingenuous debate, I think yes.
jh

]]>