by frog
Will the government adopt Sue Bradford’s citizen’s referenda bill?
Will the government adopt Jeanette’s biofuel sustainability bill?
Is voluntary food labeling a sham?
How long will Christine Rankin last?
Sooo many questions…
Published in THE GAME by frog on Wed, June 24th, 2009
Tags: general debate
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Fishermen are eagerly awaiting the outcome of High Court action that is attempting to have rules designed to protect threatened hector’s and maui dolphins set aside.
Eagerly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Will the government adopt Sue Bradford’s citizen’s referenda bill?”
Perhaps this deserves its own entry.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does smacking a child inevitably cause long-term harm?
Probably not.
Is that a reason to do it?
No.
Alexander McMillan Professor of Childhood Studies and Director of Otago’s Centre for Research on Children and Families.
(Otago magazine – Issue 23: June 2009
jh? photonz1? shunda? anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
More own goals by Family Fist and the no-voters!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The new bill will be passed by acclamation. If only they (Parliamentarians) could hold THEMSELVES to the same standard.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i would like to ask.. (for the third time)..
..when will metiria turei begin selling/promoting the ideas/ideals of medical marijuana..
.. to the great unwashed..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
The reason TO smack or spank is “because it works”. Invite HIM to explain why something that does no harm should be made illegal.
It takes a LOT of difficult and skilled parental intervention to provide a child with an environment that causes them to learn to respect and obey their parents without the use of force. I know of no parents who actually do/did that successfully. I am sure some will CLAIM to do so here and now but my personal experience and my personal circle of friends include no examples. A highly intelligent group too.
OTOH, almost anyone can work out how to properly train with an occasional spanking or slap on the hand. We know that operant-conditioning is far more effective when actions are immediately punished or rewarded. Slapping the reaching hand. The current law encourages poor practice.
I point again at the 40 million years or more of evolution of a finely tuned survival training aid used by everything that walks swims, slithers or flies. It works. It works WELL. It works without actually harming the child.
It IS possible to take it too far.
That is why support for an explicit law would have been almost unanimous and support for the law that actually got made was so difficult to gather.
Minimizing and placing limits on forceful interventions is fine. Making them ILLEGAL is not.
Making vague recommendations and letting the police sort out the winners and losers of the lottery while keeping most of NZ in the dark as to whether what they do IS illegal invites exactly what we got. I reckon that we Greens aren’t yet finished being hurt.
Toad… I don’t think “reasonable force for the purpose of correction” could have been stretched to cover the pushy papa, but you are DEFINITELY correct that McCoskrie is doing much of the scoring against his side of the argument.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good to see the sentence handed down to Dunedin thug Jeffrey Hurring for animal cruelty. But I fear we haven’t heard the last of this guy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly quotes “Does smacking a child inevitably cause long-term harm?
Probably not.
Is that a reason to do it?
No.
What is a good reason to do it?
Becuase it instantly stops dangerous behaviour
Because it teaches there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed.
Because it DOESN’T teach that no matter how bad you behave, there will only ever be a mild punishment.
Because it turns out adults that are as good OR BETTER in aspects like violence, criminal behavious, academic achievement, drug abuse etc.
I want my kids to have the BEST chance at life.
Second best might be ok for your kids – it’s not for mine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – I posted the quote from the Otago magazine in response to those who say that the study showed that smacking was not harmful, therefore we should smack. Professor McMillan makes a different assessment.
I do however, agree with your summation of the situation re. the Greens and the law as it now stands.
I took some enjoyment in the images that your
40 million years or more of evolution of a finely tuned survival training aid used by everything that walks swims, slithers or flies.
conjured up: slugs chastising their brood with a quick slap on the hand…
Everything that walks, swims, slithers or flies uses ‘immediate punishment or reward’ in raising it’s young?
The current law encourages poor practice.
It may indeed, but so did the previous law, with it’s Section 59 loophole. It was loose, messy, indistinct.
I think the focus that the repeal of the bill has brought has had good consequences. Perfecting the law is the next step. Laws can be perfect, right? Then, we’ll get all New Zealanders to follow that law strictly…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – you say you quote Alexander McMillan.
He died 42 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 – I quoted the Professor directing the Otago’s Centre for Research on Children and Families, for your clarification. He says smacking probably doesn’t cause long term harm. He believes that that finding is not a reason to call for the use of smacking.
The claims you make for smacking are all debatable, you’ll not be surprised to hear. For example, I’d be horrified if my children turned out to be BETTER at both academic achievement and criminal behaviour, as you propose. I hope also that your children (the ones you want the BEST for) aren’t BETTER at drug abuse and violence, than mine are!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj said..
“..It takes a LOT of difficult and skilled parental intervention to provide a child with an environment that causes them to learn to respect and obey their parents without the use of force. I know of no parents who actually do/did that successfully. I am sure some will CLAIM to do so here and now but my personal experience and my personal circle of friends include no examples. A highly intelligent group too..”
sorry bj..you are intellectualising yourself up the creek on this one..
..i have never hit my children..
..and i know many others..
..who the idea of hitting their child is abhorrent..
..maybe you need a wider ‘circle of friends’..
..and um..!..
..since when was intelligence a predicator of ‘good behaviour/practice’..
..as just one example..
..i am sure all those scientists/vivisectors..
..who mutilate/kill animals..’in the name of science/cosmetics/w.h.y..
..are also ‘highly intelligent’..
..on this one b.j..you are obviously locked into your own patterns..
..and are wrong wrong wrong..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 – heeeeee’s back!
Give us a break.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and as for the shock/horror over that piece of sh*t who tortured the dog in dunedin..
..this is a comment i threw up at kiwiblog..
..it equally applies here..
..so..in the interests of time/motion..
“..# philu (4327) 0 7 Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am
interesting concepts/benchmarks of ‘cruelty’ there..smaller…
..(and hey..!..of course..
..all those carnivores shedding crocodile tears over this..
..are doing just that..
..i know you all are going to love me for pointing it out..
but your carnivorous ways fund far worse/long-term/systemic cruelties than this..
..(would some vid ‘help’..?..)
..your ’sympathy’ for dogs/cats/w.h.y..
..while willing to tolerate/fund those vile cruelties against other animals..
..is called ’speciesism.’..
..and in abolitionist terms..
..is kinda like being ‘a kind slave-owner’..
..phil(whoar.co.nz)..”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I puzzle too, over the outrage expressed over animal cruelty by those who also favour cruel incarceration and treatment of humans. What gives?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – have anotehr cup of coffee – you are really getting mixed up this morning.
The person you say you are quoting died in 1967.
He is not a professor – he was a businessman.
And it’s pretty simple – when saying someone turns our better as an adult it is in REGARDS to various spects like criminal behaviour, drug abuse – not AT the actual activity.
I would have thought that would have been blindingly obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – returned home to check my facts, had my coffee, saw the error of my ways.
Professor Harold Gordon, Alexander McMillan Professor of Childhood Studies and Director of Otaago’s Centre for Research on Childen and Families.
(Shouldn’t try to write at work, from memory)
Prof Harold Gordon says:
“Parents have a responsibility to discipline their children. Those who do smack their kids usually regret doing so. What the very real interest and concern expressed about this most challenging aspect of parenting says to me is that the conditions are right for a good public discussion about effective, non-violent ways of managing children’s behaviour”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – re the kid pushed over for not playing rugby. I think he certainly needed to be taught some responsibility and respect to the team, the coaches, and all the player, parents and siblings who have gone to practice during the week, and got up on Saturday morning to come to the game.
We nearly had a game cancelled last week, because one seven year old had a tantrum, but luckily our team had a couple of extras to “lend” to the other team.
Anyway, I wouldn’t have done what that father did, nor do I agree with it.
However there is high risk that the damage done to the family by the state’s actions are far worse than the fathers actions. Especially considering the great irony of the situation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
No, but the pain mechanism operates in slugs and they respond to such sensations of pain as they are equipped to experience.
I wonder if they ever tried inverting the T-maze test with the flatworms and examining which method of teaching that most primitive of creatures operates fastest, and whether the knowledge is transferred by feeding it to the other flatworm in the same manner.
The point I was making is that pain is nature’s most important teacher.
Did that hurt? I don’t even have to think about not doing it again, I am automatically going to have a tendency to not do it.
If it hurts immediately when I’ve done the “wrong” thing, the lesson is more effective. I don’t understand why otherwise intelligent people can get the notion that this doesn’t work. They may not LIKE that it works but that doesn’t affect reality.
Not going to even answer you Phil. I predicted the response and you came through nicely. I hope your kids do too.
Now as to whether the Bill has brought “good consequences” I venture that if this is limited to parent on child assault it probably has. The police having discretion has limited the damage and the law isn’t entirely legless. That is why I reckon that Sue Bradford succeeded in her principle aim.
…and the bill Sue provided allows for most of the training methods I support. The quick spank on the bottom or slap on the hand that stop the behavior problems before they get well started ARE permitted. Nobody really understands that very well.
However, when I consider the overall consequences it has had on the Green Party, the Labour party, the political climate in NZ and all the things related to that, it is quite another thing. A more explicit law could have done exactly the same GOOD things and been popularly supported by 90% or more of the population. It would have provided the Green party with enhanced credibility in mainstream NZ. It would not have triggered the referendum or the backlash against the “nanny state”. Helen Clark might still be Prime Minister…. shall I go on?
…and the bill Sue provided STILL allows me to claim a quick slap to the face, punch to the eye or whack with the tire-iron is reasonable just as was possible under the old law. Nobody really understands THAT very well either.
Which makes the whole exercise a lot less effective in teaching people how to behave towards their kids and a lot more effective in giving us the negative consequences noted above.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – do you think the ‘rugby-kid’ needed to
“be taught some responsibility”
or needed to
“learn some responsibility”
There is a significant difference and it’s one that pertains to the greater issue of child discipline.
Do you think that the 7 year-old child of your experience needed to be pushed over several times by his/her father or learn through the (non-contact) reactions of his/her peers, coach etc.
If you choose the non-contact solution, you’ll understand why people want to see non-contact solutions to other child-behaviour management situations. Won’t you.
I do agree that there is risk that the actions of the state can result in greater harm in some situations. I don’t believe that returning to a Section 59 ‘state’ will solve that issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj – pain is natures most important teacher – yes, but not Her only method. Are you wanting straps back in the primary school, pain being natures most important teacher, or do you feel that there are better strategies, given that there are wider issues?
As to pain (To the Pain, Westley!) a smack is not just a vehicle for pain is it? There is fright in there too and shock , surprise, sound etc. Are parents really asking to be able to use pain as the method of behaviour management for their children? (I wan’t to be allowed to inflict pain on my children so I will vote “No” in the referendum)? Is that a widely held view?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What gives?
The matter of innocence, probably.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly says “do you think the ‘rugby-kid’ needed to
“be taught some responsibility”
or needed to
“learn some responsibility”
My kids go to school to “be taught” (by teachers) – do yours go to school to “be learned”? (by learners?).
As I said previously, I don’t agree with what the father did.
But there are situations where mild physical discipline like a light smack works so much better than non-physical methods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – my kids go to school to learn. I can’t help but think that your argument is vacuous. What they don’t go to school for is to be smacked by teachers, nor do they stay at home to be smacked by their parents.
I don’t disagree with your last sentence at all and know that the law allows for that already.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
vacuous? Exactly my point.
Kids learn things from being taught. They go hand in hand – it’s not either or.
So if they are not taught responsibility, will they leanr if by themselves? Some won’t, some might do, but probably not for a very long time,
greenfly “I don’t disagree with your last sentence at all and know that the law allows for that already.”
Who knows. You say it doesn’t , Sue dissagrees with you, Phil Goff says it doesn’t. Lawyers don’t agree, even polititians who voted for it don’t agree,
Who knows what it means, or where they stand.
A great example of an appalling law.
No one can agree on what it really means.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Photo said: Kids learn things from being taught.
A child sees a mother bird feeding it’s young and learns that baby birds eat grubs. Were they being taught? Nope. Children can learn by ways other than being taught .
As to your final statement re ‘the law’: No one can agree on what it really means
My friends and I agree on what it really means. Your claim is wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Theres an interesting point! Physical discipline by teachers.
), the hamper the learning of others and do significant harm both through this hampering of education and in some cases through bullying. Pain administered by a teacher is safer than that administered by a parent even when a impliment is used simply because the teachers have so much more on the line. Im all for reintroducing the cane. Could work wonders. And like I said, many teachers do make use if physical force, atleast in boys schools. I imagine it would be alot more difficult to get away with in co-ed schools.
It works wonders, i doubt anyone would argue that. Many teachers still use it in all boys schools. Should it really be illegal? The strap/cane that is.
That kids can be out of control is hard to deny, esspecially among the lower deciles and those not smacked (i realise they are normally mutually exclusive
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Teachers used to use the strap to raise standards of handwriting – if your writing was poor, or if a mistake was made, you were belted (literally). Handwriting quality was far better in the days that this was practised. It could be argued that the strapping of children is the BEST way to improve handwriting, however, most people would be appalled to hear that their children were being taught in this way. Most effective is not ‘best’.
Sapient – I’m surprised that you are arguing for the use of the cane in schools – surely the precise application of potasium/lithium (whatever) would be the better way, in accordance with your previous statements
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Children can learn by ways other than being taught .”
says greenfly, stating the blindingly obvious.
But they learn a lot of things faster if they are taught – hence the reason we have teachers and schools.
How long does it take a seven year old learn responsibility, if they are never taught and if you let then pike out and let the team down any time they want.
They don’t learn responsibility – they learn the opposite – that they can do what they want.
My guess is using this method they would not learn repsonsibility until some time after they turn 25 – if at all..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “My friends and I agree on what it really means. Your claim is wrong.
You say the law allows for a light smack.
Sue was quoted last week saying it doesn’t
So there’s someone you disagree with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
the potasium way is more expensive, leaves too many syringes, and lacks the symbolism
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – someone disagrees with me? Cripes!
Sapient – that’s a shame, potasium is such a clinical solution
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly
There is no fright when I do it. There is little surprise either, except for the surprise that I really will follow through on my warnings. It is administered in much the same way as a “naughty chair” punishment as far as is possible…. warnings and explanations and all the rest come into it so that the child is never in any doubt as to what EXACTLY is the problem that causes the spanking. You are describing angry responses on the part of a parent, not teaching.
…and you ARE correct. Positive reinforcement also teaches. It is perfectly reasonable to use it and to prefer it in most instances. I don’t punish by preference. In addition to positive reinforcement more intelligent animals can also learn by imitation. There are MANY tools.
I just resent being told by people who ought to know better that the most powerful tool is somehow immoral. Bnllsh!t.
Bringing it back in the schools would not trouble me, though using it to punish lack of performance would I think, be wrong. The line I draw is between punishing disruptive and inappropriate behaviour and punishing lack of performance. Note that there is nothing in the current law that prohibits reasonable force from being used to stop inappropriate and disruptive behaviour.
Punishment should be unusual and it needs to be painful in some way or it is simply not going to work…. AT ALL. Public embarrassments are painful.
Locking a criminal up in a jail with other criminals is only effective at changing his/her ability to commit crimes against the rest of the society for the duration of the sentence. Its chances of altering behavior are not significantly different from zero. It teaches nothing.
(I wan’t to be allowed to inflict pain on my children so I will vote “No” in the referendum)?
I suspect you are being intentionally impervious to reason here. Try –
(I want to be allowed to control my children effectively and efficiently so I will vote “No” in the referendum)?
or FAR more likely
(I am not letting those idiots tell me how I can raise my children so I will vote “No” in the referendum)?
Explicit law would have avoided this mess.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>But they learn a lot of things faster if they are taught – hence the reason we have teachers and schools.
Can we be so sure? There are many reasoned criticisms of our modern teaching methods and the very concepts of schools as sound learning institutions (e.g. Ilich’s ‘Deschooling Society’ and Postman and Weingartner’s ‘Teaching as a subversive activity’).
Are facts just ‘out there’ waiting to be pointed out by a teacher? Or is a lot of ‘self discovery’ involved? After all, very few seem to need to be ‘taught’ how to walk or partake in (non-verbal) communication. Perhaps providing the opportunity and incentive to learn takes precedence over any formal education as such?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv – surely you would not be happy just having your with your children being able to walk and communicate non-verbally, and perhaps a few other skills they can learn by themselves without being taught.
I’d like mine to also be taught to read, write, and do maths.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..Not going to even answer you Phil. I predicted the response and you came through nicely. I hope your kids do too..”
just a smarmy/messanger-attack response..?
that was the best you could do bj..?
..no answers to the challenge..to your theorem..eh..?
meh..!
on some things you make sense..
..but you stand naked on both this .. and the cruelty to animals issue..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see the House passed this motion today moved by Keith:
That this House expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who strive for a free and democratic society; asks the Iranian government not to use force against peaceful demonstrators; calls for an end to government restrictions on the media; and supports an impartial examination of the recent Iranian election result in the light of widespread concerns.
http://www.greens.org.nz/node/21400
I think that hits the right note, as there seems to be a legitimate difference of view on whether vote fraud actually occurred.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gee Phil… I didn’t know it would be you who would give the response, I simply knew someone here would provide it. You didn’t actually challenge anything. You asserted something I have no way of examining. Further discussion will not reveal any new truth or dismiss any existing idea.
Have a nice day.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you just keep those blinkers on..eh bj..?
“..there’s none so blind..etc..etc..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and really..
..the benchmark for those “..as those who don’t want to see”..
..has to be carnivorous/meat-addict ‘greens’..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey greenies Wazzzzzz uuuuuuup!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The great irony with the “rugby kid” is that what his father did is unlikely to have made the harshest 100 contacts in the actual game, or any actual rugby game – possibly not even in the hashest 200.
And it was done for a reason.
Whereas we allow – even encourage – much much harsher treatment on the field, not for any particular reason except to try to take a pig skin full of air from another player in a game.
So harsh, even brutal reatment of each other is allowed and encouraged for no real reason at all, but more minor treatlment for a good reason ends up in court with family distress and a criminal conviction for life, with all the ongoing problems that causes for travel, job etc.
I still don’t agree with how the father acted.
But the point is we have a group of people so screwed up by their ideology that they’re happy causing far MORE damage to families, just so they can punish someone – than the intitial perceived criminal act.
Clearly protecting the kids is not their top priority – punishing people who disagree with their ideaology is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Q:Will the government adopt Sue Bradford’s citizen’s referenda bill?
A: Only if there is mileage in it for them
Q:Will the government adopt Jeanette’s biofuel sustainability bill?
A: Not if it inhibits their mates in any way.
Q:Is voluntary food labeling a sham?
A: Of course it is; in fact it is a bluidy great sham.
Q:How long will Christine Rankin last?
A: As long as it works for the Govt the way it was meant to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo said:
The great irony with the “rugby kid” is that what his father did is unlikely to have made the harshest 100 contacts in the actual game, or any actual rugby game – possibly not even in the hashest 200
which may indeed be ironic, but it is also irrelevant to the discussion. Photo might just as well argue that it doesn’t matter if someone horse-whips their child because the’ll get much worse than that out there in the real world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s totally relevant when we’re destroying families, handing out criminal convictions, taking the police and courts away from serious cases – all for cases that are trifling compared to everyday real life –
All just to satisfy someones idealology because they feel the need to force their ideas onto everyone else, and punish them way out of proportion if they don’t agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo said: It’s totally relevant when we’re destroying families, handing out criminal convictions, taking the police and courts away from serious cases –
are you refering to the way recreational cannabis users are being treated, photo?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly… if that treatment is wrong for the RC users, then it is wrong for the parents too…. and it is – BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Had the feeling you would say that bj, but RC is a victimless ‘crime’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
And not smacking is a legal activity with victims
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient –
There are victims with ‘not smacking’ (legal activity that it is)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Well consider this,; Child A beats up Child B. Child C, D, and E respect Child A for beating up Child B. Child A continues to beat up Child B because the worst punishment is being sent to his room (which he likes anyway). If in smacking Child A the beating can be avoided then ultimatly the failure to smack results in the victimisation of Child B.
Or more dirrectly; If Child A is not smacked and fails to learn that consequences escalate with the severity of the action and indeed that actions ahave consequences then Child A may, latter in life, beat Child B and be sent to jail. Therefore Child A is a victim of the non-smacking. (yeah im too tired to argue it all properly, but you get my point)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly “are you refering to the way recreational cannabis users are being treated, photo?”
That depends on if they are -
- beating up their kids – it’s a common factor
- crashing their car into my wife and kids
- stealing my stuff to pay for the habit
- filling the psych wards
- or just eating up all the planets food
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm Sapient, tenuous, but of course, your original statement can be true. To solve the problem of not-smacking creating victims, there’s no need to smack. How about replacing smacking with effective behaviour management of another sort (the non-contact sort) and remember too, that smacking creates victims as well. Round and round we go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“How about replacing smacking with effective behaviour management of another sort (the non-contact sort”
What sort!!!!!
Please tell!!, how does it work for the super nanny without the editing room?
I think Sapient has hit the nail on the head with this one, and I have huge experiencial evidence to prove it.
Non smacked kids are always more likely to be violent in my experience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly – because Child B might be beaten up ten more times before your alternative correction starts to have an effect.
And Child A learns that the punishment for beating someone up is no worse than for something minor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Greenfly – because Child B might be beaten up ten more times before your alternative correction starts to have an effect.
And Child A learns that the punishment for beating someone up is no worse than for something minor.”
That is exactly what is happening to my 7 and 9 year old boys at school.
Me teaching them to respect the bodies and rights of others has left them at a competitive disadvantage, I am now teaching them how to defend themselves for their own safety.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
There are many instances where smacking cannot or should not be replaced. It is the most effective meathod of opperant conditioning; It is immediate, it is to the point, and it is tangable. Being sent to the naughty step just cant replace that. Esspecially where the pleasure or other gain from an action exceeds the punishment.
We should take a approach which minimises harm. To allow abuse of children will not minimise harm but nor will making illegal any use of force. We must find a balance. To outlaw smacking will create far more victims than it prevents and far more than will be created if smacking is allowed within certain bounds. Not only will outlawing smacking result in more criminality due to the learning resulting but more child abuse as would of other wise fallen under section 59 as people will continue ot smack and once breaking the law it becomes easier to break the law more. So in making smacking illegal, as it is at the moment (JH provided audio evidence of bradford saying clearly that it is illegal), there are many many many more victims that a solution such as proposed by BJ. I can only assume that eaither bradford was ideologically driven to eliminate smacking or she was just plain lazy. I doubt it was the latter. Ideology is foolishness always.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They reckon playfighting (with boys in particular) is very important. They get to know how far they can go before they start to hurt sonmeone, and vice versa.
A lot of kids don’t learn those sort of limits these days. One reason for more out of the blue violent actions by kids these days
Of course if you playfight with your kids – that’s going to be more serious offence than a light smack.
It sounds like you’re teaching your boys common sense – there seems to be a big lack of that these days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Playfighting, that makes me wonder if tickling would be illegal. lol. It is after all the first teacher of basic defensive meathods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient “that makes me wonder if tickling would be illegal”
That depends on whether you’re talking about a stranger on the street or….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – you seem narrowly focused on reactive methods to be employed after ‘bad behaviour’ in children and have made no mention at all of preventative measures put in place to reduce or eliminate those behaviours. Why is this?
btw – your ‘Child A, B, C, D’ example has me thinking, on reflection and instinctively, that child A has been raised under a regime of smacking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda – Non smacked kids are always more likely to be violent in my experience.
Nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I hestitate to interrupt this ongoing argument between this small group of people (who appear to keep arguing their entrenched positions, to what end I can’t fathom), but I thought I would respond to the challenges and questions put to me by photonz1 and bjchip, before leaving you to it.
Yes, I do have three adult children all successfully raised without “physical discipline”, but loving firmness and the experience of natural consequences. They’re now raising their own children the same way. That isn’t to say that we and they haven’t had problems. We simply saw that causing pain to our children wasn’t a useful way to help them learn.
A small proportion of the hundreds of clients I have worked with during my career have belonged to the highly disturbed or criminal group. Most have been very ordinary people like you and me, who were having a wide range of life problems – like how to raise their children, and how to deal with the legacy of their own parenting! I have worked with a wide age range, from tiny children through to very old people.
Yes, I understand about operant conditioning, bj. I learned that over 30yrs. ago in Psych.101. I’ve also learned that behaviourists don’t have the last word on human development (although many of them think they have). Neuro-science is currently adding much to our collective wisdom about it, as does narrative theory. By the way I have tertiary level qualifications in social work, counselling and psychotherapy. I have attended countless workshops and seminars, and have received and conducted training in several other countries. And the best training of all? – twenty years doing my own therapy.
Of course there are millions of people who have experienced ‘physical discipline’ and have become reasonably functioning adults…at least on the face of it! However, my experience with hundreds of adults who function adequately in the world, is that they also suffer from conditions like depression and anxiety, which are often rooted in the harsh treatment they received as children – from ordinary parents doing their best within their limitations.
I know what the Otago research says. I do not agree that the researchers controlled (and nor could they)for all the myriad of factors which influence how people turn out and would mitigate the effects of ‘smacking’. So I don’t give much credence to their findings.
You can argue all you like for the naturalness of pain as a ‘teacher’, bj. There are plenty of people who will enthusiastically agree with you. Humans have been using it in the grossest ways for thousands of years, and many will argue that we should return to it. “We’ve gone too soft and should return to more severe punishments”. My knowledge of most of those who are our most violent criminals is that they have already received harsher treatment than any of us can imagine. This was meted out by parents who believed that what they were doing was right. It was based on exactly the premise that you propose – hurt them and they’ll behave.
I prefer to stay with the experience of my many years in practice, which is that the vast majority of people want to learn ways to be more loving, more effective and happier parents and human beings. And they can. It is my daily experience. It’s also the experience of many practitioners like me. I have never heard from any of my colleagues that they believe people (including children) need more physical punishment. It isn’t surprising that none of the child advocate organisations in the country want a return to Sec.59. The only ones who do are those who hold a particular belief about children, that they are essentially little demons whose wills need to be forced away from their essential depravity. I know because I was raised in that culture, and members of my family are still there.
So I’m standing on my experience not on theory.
One final thing…..you said I was in for a hard time here, bj! I suspect that you want to give me a hard time – which says more about you than it does me.
‘Bye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photo – Of course if you playfight with your kids – that’s going to be more serious offence than a light smack.
Nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly is in a no nonsense mood tonight.
Spongefly serious pants
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nicely put Philip.
I too will retire (for the night).
I live in a pineapple under the sea …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I know what the Otago research says. I do not agree that the researchers controlled (and nor could they)for all the myriad of factors which influence how people turn out and would mitigate the effects of ’smacking’. So I don’t give much credence to their findings.”
Of coarse you don’t, it dosen’t fit your preconcieved agenda.
If I tell my child “if you continue to do that you will get a smacked bottom”
there is a predetermined outcome that the child is aware of. You let the child know the rules, then you enact them.
When people like you put this method down to ” hurt them and they’ll behave” you imply some random unpredicatable lashing out at bad behaviour, this is not what is happening at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
philip – in your examples of why smacking is bad, you talk of “harsh treatment” and “harsher treatment that any of us can imagine”.
No one would disagree with you that this is bad, and leads to problems.
But where are all your examples that any of these problems were caused by an occasional and mild smack?
You also say that the milllions of people who have expericenced physical punishment, and seem to be reasonably functioning adults, but that’s really only on the face of it. That’s a rediculous statement.
As has been said many times, including by experts – if you lump in mild physical discipline with harsh beatings you are going to come to wrong conclusions.
In fact they went further and said it is “unethical” to do this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Paula Bennett has a new partner.
David Garrett keeps digging.
Help save Enviroschools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Philip
I do not doubt that you found ways to punish them… you simply avoided using physical pain. That it is possible to do I have no doubt. I simply doubt that it works as well as my methods.
Moreover, you admit that the people you see ARE already in trouble “Most have been very ordinary people like you and me, who were having a wide range of life problems”. . You have a self-selected sample of people with problems and some worse, and from this experience base you are offering us that you know how NORMAL people which is to say, the billions of people on the planet who are raised with appropriately timed spankings rather than life-threatening beatings or naughty-steps, function.
Then of course, you exaggerate the point. “those who are our most violent criminals is that they have already received harsher treatment than any of us can imagine” when all we argue for is the right to spank a child’s bottom or slap his hand when he reaches for the electrical plug, and when examining the class of criminals tells you nothing about the class of normals.
I argued before (internally in the party) for an EXPLICIT law that made clear what abuse actually was… this was rejected. The reasoning was that we weren’t going to tell parents HOW to beat their kids. Note the changed description. Suddenly it is a beating. No. That wasn’t what was going on, and that was a clear signal that illogic would follow. It did.
they are essentially little demons whose wills need to be forced away from their essential depravity. I know because I was raised in that culture, and members of my family are still there.
This explains your objections with using pain to teach your kids.
I earned my occasional spanking and I wasn’t demonized, just given the “what-for” and I always knew what it was for and I (pretty much) always deserved it and KNEW I deserved it. It wasn’t done in a fit of temper, it was judicious.
This explains my lack of objection to using the same tool.
Operant conditioning works on the smallest children… it is not the first choice of tool when you are talking about a 10 year old. I pointed out the need to establish limits… including age limits. The current law has NO limits. I can claim that it was reasonable to whack my 14 year old with a baseball bat to keep him from doing something disruptive. The law is mute. An explicit law would be better… AND easier to inform people about.
Do you want to argue the law or whether there is any reason not to use limited force to teach kids? Is imprisonment force? This is a very fuzzy subject.
If you wonder, I have my own degree in Psychology (never used until now), earned at the University of Rochester.
respectfully
B J
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How about an 80% Capital Gains tax ?
http://www.kitco.com/ind/nadler/jun252009A.html
It appears to have been suggested by that notable socialist Louis Gerstner, the former CEO of IBM.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Certainly interesting, dont know if its very practical though. Unless it was implimented on a global scale one would think that exchange opperations would just take place from foreign locations, in foreign currencies, or on foreign markets rather than the location with the high tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ahem..i borrowed/purloined yr link..bj
..it fitted over at kiwiblog..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
Over our late friday dinner we discussed what the 80% sales tax would do.
Conclusion was very little. Reason, the people with the capital gaining asset would never sell. Simply hand the asset over to the next generation.
Only thing that would stop that would be a death duty tax. But even that is easily overcome by having the asset in a trust or a company.
Then you get the prickly situation of having to value each and every transaction. More unproductive state workers, each one requiring four tax payers to support.
Not to mention the court cases when one sells an asset at what the IRD might consider “below valuation”.
As a member of a party that does not support market setting the value of property, would you see any problems with not having a market to set the value? If the market is not allowed to set the capital gains taxable sales value, what will?
Another consideration is the huge increase in cost for new housing (presuming that the capital gains tax was not confined to housing units alone but on every transaction). Every bit of raw material used to say build a house would have an 80% capital gaisn tax component.
Take wood for example, the tree grower makes a capital gains so pays the tax, the saw miller makes a capital gain so pays the tax, the trucking company that delivers the timber to the supply yard makes a capital gains so pays the tax, the builder who buys the timber makes a capital gain so pays the tax. How much do you think the price of housing will increase?
And you want to make it more afforable? Nah.
Problem in New Zelaand remains to many tax recpeint, not enough tax payers. Increasing the volume of taxation from the productive sector will do just one thing. Make people ask why get out of bed for such a little return.
The denial of the Greens to reckonise that the New Zealand economy cannot afford to carry the tax recipeint any more is quite staggering.
Lets see some sensible policies that get people being tax payers and less on how to increase taxation to carry an over stretched economy.
While the Greens label any climate change skeptic a “denier”, the same must be said for the Greens in regards the New Zealand economy. They are in denial that a major economic revamp is required.
Unfortunately they join the National and Labour parties in that regard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Does smacking a child inevitably cause long-term harm?
Probably not.
Is that a reason to do it?
No.
…………………
this doesn’t sound like the Professors most profound piece of reasoning to me, is he saying that there is never a good reason to smack (i.e. does he think that there is always a better way given that a smack is just one tool parents have available to them but one which stands out as quick and convenient). Those who argue that smacking shouldn’t be illegal are probably overwhelmingly occasional smackers who may have only smacked a few times but don’t feel that they should , or needed to go down some convoluted behavioural regime so they can say they never smack.
paste more of the article if you can Greenfly
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frogblog readers might like to know more about the Otago Multidisciplinary Health and development Study so they can confidently reject Sue Bradfords authority on the matter:
http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3532/features/10321/show_me_the_child.html
http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/news/childhd.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jh – I’d like to but I was quoting from the “Otago” magazine, sent to past students. The comments you found ‘not his most profound’ were nonetheless, his and seemed to me a fair comment covering his view of the work he and the ‘team’ had done. Guess you’ll have to get hold of a copy, sorry. Those comments did cast claims about the study that I had heard on this blog, into a different light. Nice to hear personal comment from someone actually involved at such a high level with the work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Study members in the ‘smacking only’ category of punishment appeared to be particularly high-functioning and achieving members of society,” [Dr Millichamp]
I suppose the reason is that these kids are the boundary pushers, unlike (for instance) the Greens, who (apparently) are too timid to have their own opinions since all (must?) agree with Sue Bradford?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The comments you found ‘not his most profound’ were nonetheless, his and seemed to me a fair comment covering his view of the work he and the ‘team’ had done.”
I wonder if he was to take parents experiences in a myriad of different situations could he show that there was a better way on each occasion?
In addition does “work he and the ‘team’ had done” contradict the findings of the Otago Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (or is it undermining his professoriality)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
If you read the article you’d see that he was providing a sliding scale on the tax, applying it to the sharemarket and that it would go to zero within 5 years. Basically he was pushing the idea out to accomplish a reduction in speculative trading behaviour, to force people to examine underlying market fundamentals and corporate fundamentals rather than the market short term psychology.
I just put it that way to get your attention.
OTOH, I WOULD support a Capital Gains tax, not applying to the family home and/or a ring-fencing of the LAQC with the tax being made revenue neutral by a reduction in the base income tax rates.
The idea that some would “never sell” is not really going to hold true. The market velocity would decrease, and the speculative buyer would be less common, but the prices would decline in the longer term and people who are NOT speculating would be able to buy houses.
The fact is that the “market” is not setting the value of property now. It is being set by speculation. It has been set by speculation for several years and the speculators are only now seeing that it CANNOT GO UP IN DOUBLE DIGITS FOREVER and a correction is setting in. The speculative bubble in property was created by speculation in currencies as well as simply bizarre interest rates for foreign investors to take advantage of our wide-open system. Easy money. Interest paid to foreign banks, and behind it all, the interest being deductible on that rental property.
That little subsidy for the speculator at the expense of the taxpayer with no countervailing tax or offset to the ordinary taxpayer made it easy for people to pay more for a property than an ordinary owner-occupier could afford.
No Gerrit. We are quite happy for the MARKET to set the prices. We just would like the state to fix the tax regime so that the actual market is doing so.
There are some in the “social-justice” wing who might reckon that the tax recipients are somehow entitled to everything, but I don’t think you can point to the party as a whole and make that sort of broad assertion.
On the whole the party seems to favor more equality than ACT or LabNats, but it doesn’t AS A PARTY stand for complete overthrow of the idea that people should earn their keep.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)