Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And that is the key to this debate, is violence always harmful to people? If not, in what context can it be acceptable?
The left have done a typical generalization and confused criminal violence with all forms of physical force. It’s like saying we must ban fire for all uses because fire can inflict nasty injuries on people.
The only thing one can conclude is that the incredible energy devoted to anti smacking is based more on a religious like devotion to an ideology, than anything to do with reality.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If we are non violent everyone else will be (except that there are many subcultures within our own society).

In the Green argument there is only one “violence” so anyone advocating “violence” is a religious nutter or “child beater” (in this case).

One of the risks for those defending the “achievement” of Sue Bradford etc is that if the community gives it the thumbs down then maybe they will look at “welfarism”…. from memory there is some merit to the argument that /people who have babies having factored in their own sweat are more likey not to abuse them/ or is it the other way round: children born to teenage mothers are more likely to end up abused?

*As Dave says: “define violence. Go on!”

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Meanwhile, whanau torture a family member for three days, then kill her, then try to do the same to a 14 year old, and then get off with home detention and a few night classes, and not a word is said?

Don’t want to offend the REAL bashers, eh.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Smacking is bad, because it is.

The scientific proof (the Dunedin study) disproves this notion. They can show no science that shows a causal link between smacking and the Kahuis.

The Geeens position is not based on science or reason. It is based on religion.

And they have the arrogance to call themselves “the smart party”.

Comical, really.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Because it was abusive, there is no link to smacking.
Should we ban axes because sometimes people use them to kill?
The problem with the extreme lefts approach is that they seem to see no requirement for a “right”.
The left have championed a number of worthy causes, the problem is some people don’t know when to stop. Action was needed in order to correct some societal ills, now we are headed for over correction.
Smacking does not lead to a more violent society it is not harmful and studies show that clearly, to remove it is an over correction and almost certainly harmful to society.
You seem to think I am doing this to get at the greens, I am not.
I am doing it because your parties laws and direction are having a negative effect on my families life, and I have a right to object.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“SPC, you are in effect blaming all the worlds violence ills on smacking?”

Only in your strawman arguement creating imagination.

“If I say to my kid, “if you do this again you will get a smack on the bottom” and they get the smack, they don’t receive it as an assault, they know the context!!

And the same was said about discipline to correct wives and schoolchildren who were beaten for disobedience. Now it is no longer done.

Parents in the past did much more than smack with the open palm – just as teachers did. It was normal then. Now half do not smack and those who do use physical discipline to correct/order about children are being required to limit it to the smack.

Why do you confuse being limited to the smack being criminalised for smacking?

It’s nonsense.

“The left have been developing the majority of social policy for some time now and what do we find? society becoming more violent, children getting into difficulty at a younger and younger age, basic law and order becoming harder to maintain. Your approach is not working, what is your answer to this?”

The BSU of the FBI did some research back in the 1980’s – where is this problem the least, where the society is monocultural and egalitarian. Where there was a society based around wealth disparity and or where this wealth disparity was centred around separated out ethnic groups there would be the society stresses that result in crime and violence.

You can add to that a more intensive global media society (including earlier social awareness maturation) focus as making us more aware of the issue and the victims awarenwess of their relative plight (a stress multiplyer for them).

Frankly liberalism, or social conservatism has little to do with it. Children from all sorts of families and socio-economic groups live in the society impacted by this.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“I agree with banning unsustainable hardwoods, home insulation, fisheries, enviroschools, and most of the other issues that involve a common sense approach to the environment.”

So does the National Party and the BR.

This reminds me of the Herald defending their editorial policy by saying it was even handed because half the time it was favourable to the Labour government (so was the National party – they did not disagree on everything).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Why the test? we are not debating other policy we are debating the underlying ideology behind social policy, I don’t have to prove my “greenness” to disagree on non environmental policy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I agree with banning unsustainable hardwoods, home insulation, fisheries, enviroschools, and most of the other issues that involve a common sense approach to the environment.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

1. You are here to label the Green Party liberal and socialist and say that this “focus” gets in the way of its environment policies
2. to claim that conversion to this liberal and socialist focus is somehow required to be a member
3. that those whose focus is the environment are left outside the party

“The real question is could YOU work with someone like me on environmental issues?”

There is nothing to stop blue greens and social conservative greens joining the party and becoming the majority of the membership. Or for them to form another party sans right wing economic or social conservative policies and asking “moderates” from the existing Green Party from joining them.

But if pro environmentalists like yourself are unable to name one Green Party policy they support, there might be some difference on environment policy too which would maintain division.

In the end people whose focus is the environment and who support the Green Party on environment policy join and those who do not don’t. The rest is nonsense.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

You wrote that “The effect of further reducing parental authority, (which is a term I assume you would find abhorrent), will be to create a vacuum which will be filled by destructive behavior, things always go from order to disorder.”

I raised one form of past order which you rejected with.

“Why the hell do you think I would see this as a good thing? this is why this social policy is such a dangerous thing, you link smacking to this?”

Then state from what order you mean when you say we are falling away from some order.

“You sound full of fear and completely incapable of taking the middle ground on anything.”

Yeah right.

Your agenda is obvious, its just a sustained attack on the Green Party.

You claim to be a moderate supportive of Green policies but you are clearly either personally or professionally unable to name any Green Party policy you support.

“Do you think maybe a bit of both social justice and correct authority could be part of the answer?”

Well injustice and incorerct authority is not part of the answer.

Is violence except for the protection of others just and is it the correct use of authority?

“there is no evidence to suggest that smacking is bad or even all physical violence is bad towards people, ever heard of play fighting?”

So smacking is joined by play fighting as the poster child of the acceptable forms of physical violence – why not mention sport. We are discussing the issue of protecting children from being assaulted. Smacking itself is not the issue, it is the principle of using force for the correction of those under some authority.

If you do not accept the premise you remove such force from prisons and from the homes of wives and children and the schools. Then you oppose the use of force by regimes against their own people and by terrorists. And you advocate for limiting the use of force in inter-national affaiors to the protection of people (collective security of the UN).

But if you do accept the premise, you only apply it against children? What’s with that. Or do you allow all in authority to resort to it to maintain some sort of obedient order?

Which side of the philosophical fence is your form of moderate Cristianity on Shunda?

If you accept the premise anyone with authority can use it

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No, it would be a green party with a decent shot at changing attitudes to the environment and actually bringing some healing to the land.
You guys claim the environment is the main objective, but the real passion lies more in liberal socialism, you can’t hide it to save yourselves. I will always be supportive of sound environmental direction, but like you have shown the social aspect is so entwined in the “green” belief system that you have to be converted in order to take part.
The real question is could YOU work with someone like me on environmental issues?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Still no expression of support for any Green Party policy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Perhaps you could explain

“the greens seem to be more favorable towards radicals than towards people that are interested in green issues but perhaps have more conservative social beliefs.”

Why is it “radical” or “moderates with conservative social beliefs”?

And how can the Greens show lack of favour to these radicals – by losing any left wing aspect to their policy (the line of some critics) or any liberal aspect (your own criticism)?

Are you not suggesting a Green Party nuetral on liberal conservative divide, just as others suggest a Green Party neutral on the left right divide. This so they can appeal to “moderates” (who are social cosnervatives and or right wing on economic policy).

Is that not a Green Party without a liberal social programme and a Green Party without a left wing economic programme?

Would then the liberal and or left wing Greens consider other options, as social conservative and pro capitalist free market ones do now (without forming their own environment Party).

A Green Party nuetral on the left right wing and liberal conservative political divide is an interesting idea. All it would take to achieve it would be people of this point of view who joined the party and became its main constituency. The party is quite democratic. So why has the party not been inundated with new members. Because the advocate for liberal and left free party have not had a mandate within the party for their point of view. The Green Party is representative of its members.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Have you ever thought that the only thing moderating both the extreme left and right may have been Christianity?
Christian doctrine is full of warnings against the greedy and in helping the poor.
Is the Salvation army a bad thing SPC?
You seem to have seen only the worst of one side of the Christian faith, there is another side to the story.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Why do you do it Phil? why do you have such a seething contempt for some one such as myself?..”

seeing as you asked..

you talk absolute mindless drivel..

you are double-faced..

..you display not one iota of intellectual rigor..

..and you seem to have been here forever..

modus operandi:..?

choose topic..

talk troll-drivel..

get shot down/answered..

move onto next tack/subject..

(repeat..endlessly..)

you are like a less intelligent owen mcshane..

(he has learnt some psuedo-science..so spouts that..)

you are a total waste of space/time..

..yet somehow seem so smug/self-congratulatory..

..without absolutely anything of substance behind those pretences..

(you did ask..eh..?..)

and..you are on ignore-function again..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)