No Phil, I do not.

There have been numerous examples where anti-smackers move from a smack on the hand in discipline to being described as child abuse.

Well, that same logic would see a 5 minute time out equated with forced imprisonment.

There is no doubt bad parents often inflict terrible emotional damage on their children, perhaps worse than the physical damage in some cases. We might decide to stop those parents by banning any punishment, and no doubt the zealots that are against punishment of any form would be likening even mild punishments as terrible indicators of abuse. Then there would be the people saying “well, some punishment, in the tool bag of child rearing techniques I have at my disposal is valid.”

No, no, no. Even threatening to punish a child is tantamount to mental abuse.

Oh, I’m being facetious by the way Phil.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 10:31 pm.

At the age of the children that this thread is about, (who would/may have been exposed to new concepts such as “Green thinking�!) the input of good parents would ALREADY be such that anything new that the child is introduced to, will be experienced through the “lens� of THOSE PARENTS’ attitudes and beliefs (which by “the age of seven� would be well “entrenched� in their child).
…………………….
“exposed to new concepts such as “Green thinkingâ€?”
interesting as the Green party trades on the environment… standing beside Forest and bird etc. This “Green Thinking” is perhaps what Sue might teach at the Kotare School (the Marxist educational institution)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

hah, smacking, when i finish my degree i will be qualified to walk around shocking people with a cattle prod, lol.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

There has been some discussion here on whether smacking is better or worse than other forms of discipline. That isn’t really the issue. It is up to the parent to decide what form of discipline they find best.

My biggest problem with the s59 repeal was that government was even trying to legislate how I may discipline my son. That should be my decision, based on the best information at my disposal.

What many people also forget is that the s59 repeal makes all forms of physical discipline illegal (which is why I understand it is the harshest anti-smacking law in the world). This makes most forms of “non-violent” discipline illegal too, including physically restraining a child to make them sit on a “naughty mat” – most discipline is physical in some way and could be considered assault under this law. Whether this would actually be prosecuted is another matter but the fact that it is technically illegal is a worry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

eredwen Says:
… It is the “smacked� child’s peer group (most of whom who will not be “smacked�) who will make the child who is smacked at home aware that they are “out of place� in their own group of classmates.

Eredwen, are you suggesting there is something wrong with being different to ones classmates? That there is something wrong with coming from a home which lives by a different culture?

Sometimes if you look into the homelives of the highest achievers and/or the most well-adjusted people you will see some rather odd cultural practices going on.

Parents do have more rights than teachers. That is why home schooling is a right enshrined in law.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

you really talk some drivel sometimes..

..don’t you zen..?

“..Anti-smackers continue to equate a smack with unacceptable violence.

It is that logic that makes time-out for 5 minutes the same as locking a child in a basement for 10 years..”

w.t.f. is that..?

..phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

… so how about thinking more about the individual child’s RIGHTS … before demanding your individual “rights” as a parent.

(Whatever our individual views on the matter, any child of yours or mine is a part of this society and will mingle (and share experiences with other children in this society.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

… and now that the topic has turned to “smacking” … It is the “smacked” child’s peer group (most of whom who will not be “smacked”) who will make the child who is smacked at home aware that they are “out of place” in their own group of classmates.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Having just read this thread, I am struck by the earnest statements about the parents’ (singlular or plural) “right” to teach their children on certain topics, I have to wonder if this is based on some kind of fear (?) that a teacher and/or classmates will have “undue” or “negative” influence on anthat child …

I assume that most of us will have heard the often quoted maxim:

“Give me the child until he (sic) is seven and I will show you the man.”

At the age of the children that this thread is about, (who would/may have been exposed to new concepts such as “Green thinking”!) the input of good parents would ALREADY be such that anything new that the child is introduced to, will be experienced through the “lens” of THOSE PARENTS’ attitudes and beliefs (which by “the age of seven” would be well “entrenched” in their child).

Do have more faith in:
(1)your ability to parent,
(2) the ability of any child of yours to absorb that fine parenting,
AND (3) the ability (and training) of the teacher to teach within appropriate parameters.

(AND never underestimate the ongoing importance of the input of the child’s peer group …

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The s59 repeal law was sold on the basis that of the 24 cases trying to use s59 to excuse physical abuse of varying degrees, something like 9 cases succeeded, and this should not be allowed to happen.

Never mind that the judge and jury presumably found good cause to pass “not guilty” judgment in these cases.

Never mind that this made the default of using a smack in physical discipline illegal, with the state able to remove children from homes on mere accusations.

Never mind that the “real agenda” is obviously to ban smacking as default, something Bradford was careful not to admit once she realised public opinion was against her.

Violent parents would have been charged under the previous law. Violent parents would have been found guilty under the previous law. If Bradford was worried that a judge and jury would fail to see abuse as “unreasonable” force, she could have tightened the definition. I haven’t seen the full details of all of those few cases that the judge determined “not guilty” (Family courts have such privacy laws we don’t truly know how many parents are put up on false charges or charges that are dismissed due to lack of evidence). The only one I have seen in detail was the infamous “horse whip” case, and the judge ruling not guilty was a fair determination.

Anti-smackers continue to equate a smack with unacceptable violence. It is that logic that makes time-out for 5 minutes the same as locking a child in a basement for 10 years.

Banning smacking to stop child abuse is nothing more than a dangerous social experiment where the law will waste resource intimidating the wrong types of parents in the hopes it can capture the minority abusive parents before they take things too far.

Back on topic though, the philosophical discussion here is on the basis of when children can make their own decisions. Perhaps at age 12? You will all use the same arguments as pedophiles justifying why we should let children decide what they think best for them. It’s the wrong question whilst you continue to ignore the primary interests and rights for the parents to be involved in some way in such decision making. Until I hear some respect for the role of parents in this equation, it seems to me the Greens are so pro-individual they become anti-family. Society has as many problems as it does because the individual is promoted over the family. What was once an issue of rights has become an issue of selfishness.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I just meant that smackers never argued for smacking as their only tool.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Jh, Im not quite sure I understand what you are saying? If the smackers argue for or against operant conditioning is irrelivant apart from for their individual opinions. Operant conditioning is strongly supported by experimental evidence.
Naughty mat would be a rather dubious form of positive punishment in my opinion, but it could also be positive reinforcement or negitive punishment depending on circumstances. Walking to the car instead of smacking or fussing over them is a negitive punishment and as such one would expect it to be more effective after all, so i dont really see what your getting at in this instance?
Their is no real (as in with correct experimental procedures) psychological evidence that all smacking is damaging, and there is even evidence that it may be positive by establishing the action/consequences relationship early on where the smacking is light. Though that is most likley more due to ‘mommy is mad with me’ than the accual smack.

Toad, Yup, a psych major planning to do a Dclin with a thesis in forensic psychology, so rational and ethical debates on a political blog are kind of helpful to my studies, even if it is just procrastination. spelling doesint seem to matter much in psych, though I always get pulled up on it, in my experiance its not terribly important in philosphy eaither. Though I can see why it would be in history and geography.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jh said: The point is that the section59 debate was sold as it is never ok to smack. The Otago study confirms what the majority believed.

Which is how the law ended up, jh. Hitting kids is prima facie a criminal offence, but the Police are specifically directed to exercise discretion to not prosecute parents when it is not in the public interest to do so.

I think that, at the end of the day, the debate resulted in a law that is fair to good parents but will ensure that violent parents, if charged with assault, will be convicted.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thanks, Sapient. I enjoy your posts too, even though I disagree with many of them, this is what debate on a political blog should be about – you challenge me, and I challenge you. I often don’t agree with the content of your posts, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate them.

As for the spelling, well I guess, from your last post, you are a psychology student, so I suppose spelling doesn’t matter in that context. It didn’t for me either, in my first couple of years of tertiary study when I was studying mathematics and physics. But when I diversified into history, geography and philosophy, it started to become more important.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t think smackers are arguing in favour of operant conditioning Sapient all the anecdotes are about the odd ocasions and are mostly quite well reasoned. The idea being put forward for everything by Nanny etc is a cumbersome “naughty mat”. Nanny took forever to get a tired kid to walk to the family car; other parents would pretend to ignore the kid and walk off when he/she has a tantrum.

The point is that the section59 debate was sold as it is never ok to smack. The Otago study confirms what the majority believed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

it is a rare occurance but I must agree with toad on this one. From a psychological behaviourist perspective it has been known since the time of B.F.Skinner and his research on operant conditioning that ‘positive punishment’ (eg: smacking) is far less effective in discouraging behaviours than ‘negitive punishment’ (eg: taking away toys, etc) and is applicable to a much smaller range of actions as positive punisment may be taken as ‘positive reinforcement’ under different circumstances (eg: a kid that misbehaves to get attention).
Although I do beleive smacking does have potential, when used correctly, of teaching a young child that actions have consequences, it rapidly looses that potential and can, in a loosely worded peice of legislation like almost all our laws, lead to severe abuse.

Greengeek – Thanks, its good to know someone other than myself gets enjoyment/entertainment from my posts. Really they are just one of my prefered forms of procrastination, lol.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Sapient Says:
alchemy may have gotten the base elements and mechanisims wrong but ultimatly they were corect that you can transform substances; that is after all how most large first world countries now get their power and how heavyer elements exist, and to a certain extent even how hydrogen exists. lol.

Hey sapient, I’m really enjoying your posts. I wish more people had your open mind and view of reality. I think your spelling might be improving too!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

jh: The Otago multi disciplinary health and development study results have been widely and deliberately misinterpreted by the spankers as justifying physical discipline.

What the study actually found was that there was little difference in outcomes between children who were occasionally lightly smacked, and those who received no physical discipline. It did NOT endorse smacking as being a more effective method of child discipline than non-violent methods.

Findings of the study included:

“One finding that stands out from the rest is that extreme acts of punishment are not controlled or clearly thought out beforehand. In many cases, extreme punishment presents in the form of ‘blind rage’ meted out to girls and boys indiscriminately, younger and older children, and, irrespective of the child’s characteristics or actions preceding it.”

Additional findings indicated that extreme physical punishment was more frequently: 1) directed at the child’s head and torso, as opposed to the limbs or bottom; 2) associated with lasting and/or serious injury (eg, lacerations, broken bones, loss of consciousness); and 3) associated with strong signs of emotional distress in the study members reporting it.

“When we examined the reasons for administering punishment, it was apparent that often, the punishment did not fit the ‘crime’,” she says.

Given the prevalence of at least a significant minority of parents to administer physical punishment with little thought for the severity of the indiscretion or the severity of the punishment (“not controlled or clearly thought out beforehand”), why can’t you agree that best guideline for parents is “don’t hit your kids at all”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m finding this discussion fascinating. What does anyone think about this protest group http://www.teardownthewall.org.nz/? Is it OK if it’s a ‘legal’ issue rather than a ‘political’ one?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The hypothsis behind the repeal of section59 isn’t backed up by the empirical evidence (the proof of the pudding)…. unless you can trump the Otago multi disciplanry health and development study:

“During an assessment, study members are brought back to Dunedin from wherever in the world they live. They participate in a day of interviews, physical tests, dental examinations, blood tests, computer questionnaires and surveys.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Health_and_Development_Study

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)