Hard News: Smack to the Future
358 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
I suggest that it's not a term most people have too much trouble with. Only people who actually want to misunderstand it can find ways to quibble over this.
the question was subjectively loaded and vague. i would suggest that there is a very wide variation in the way people in new zealand define a "smack". it did not say "light smack". it said "smack". way too vague and subjective, let alone what the fuck "correction" and "good" are supposed to mean.
competent speakers of the language in NZ
i would also suggest that the people who wrote the question were not "competent speakers of the language in NZ". LOL
-
When you're pitting yourself against the anecdotal evidence of one interlocutor, you've got an easy win. When you pit yourself against 88% of people who could be bothered answering, then you've got a problem.
Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of the majority being wrong, from indigenous rights to comic books to homosexuality to Britney Spears selling lots of records.
I totally disagree that issues of morality should be decided by experts, I have never had the slightest time for this point of view. There are no moral experts. When you make something a crime, it's become an issue of morality, rather than practicality
Jesus, the question of what is moral is harder to define than what a smack is.
My view: go with the facts every time. Morality is far too vague and shifting and defined by the majority to ever let the majority decide.
-
I totally disagree that issues of morality should be decided by experts, I have never had the slightest time for this point of view. There are no moral experts. When you make something a crime, it's become an issue of morality, rather than practicality
I fail to see how you can jump from 'morally right' to 'the majority'. As James points out, the majority is often wrong, including on issues of morality. 30 years from now this debate will be dead, smacking will almost universally be a thing of history.
-
Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of the majority being wrong, from indigenous rights to comic books to homosexuality to Britney Spears selling lots of records.
And also of minorities being wrong. By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts telling them that actually they were harmed, but they're just too uneducated, or unscientific, or un-whatever it is that makes these experts special when it comes to questions of morality.
Jesus, the question of what is moral is harder to define than what a smack is.
That's why you don't try to define it. You let people judge it for themselves.
My view: go with the facts every time. Morality is far too vague and shifting and defined by the majority to ever let the majority decide.
You lost me there. There are no moral facts, there are only moral beliefs. You believe all violence is wrong. Can you prove it? When you say something should be against the law, you are saying it's wrong . You're not saying it's impractical. You're not saying it's unscientific. Our laws are not based on science, and never have been, nor will they. Scientific evidence may lend weight to some arguments, but when it boils down to whether you think something is morally right or wrong, there isn't any truth or falsity about it. Is it scientific to have a law against slavery? Is science even required to see that it's wrong? Science may inform some parts of the question, like perhaps what the statistical outcomes are for the slaves, the economics of the system, etc, but ultimately the rejection of slavery comes from feeling sympathy for the slaves, from believing that they are human beings worthy of rights. Should we eat animals? Science might be able to tell us how healthy it is for us, and whether or not the animals suffer, but if you don't believe animals have any rights, then it doesn't matter to you what science has to say on the matter.
But having cut down the idea that science can be the source of all our morals, I haven't shown that democratically selected laws are more moral. I can't show that. All I can say is that they are more likely to be palatable to more moral agents. I can't prove this, it's just a belief of mine, that the general will should prevail on moral questions, particularly when the numbers are stacking up one way big time. In a representative democracy, it's also usually prudent for the leadership to have them aligned. I don't much like the idea of politicians bringing in highly unpopular moral laws, instead of working to make the ideas more popular before forcing them upon everyone. If the feeling on the matter is closely divided, then sure, pollys can take the lead, but seriously a mandate of 12% is too much ground to cover, and it ends up harming the cause more than it helps.
-
I fail to see how you can jump from 'morally right' to 'the majority'. As James points out, the majority is often wrong, including on issues of morality. 30 years from now this debate will be dead, smacking will almost universally be a thing of history.
Where did I make that jump? I just said that this referendum is about a moral issue, and that criminalized smacking is highly unpopular and you should never ignore that. It's also quite possible for the moral views of minorities to be totally wrong, particularly powerful minorities, like pools of experts and minor parties getting their little shot at lasting fame in a coalition.
Perhaps smacking will end. If it does, I expect it will be because good help and education for parents exists, rather than because a whole lot of mums and dads are in the slammer.
-
By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking,
You're assuming a bit there. You could have been smacked and believe you were harmed by it, but still not believe it should be a criminal offense. Once again, the ambiguous question doesn't help us.
You lost me there. There are no moral facts, there are only moral beliefs.
When I said "go with the facts every time" I meant I was disagreeing with you that it is a moral issue. Experts say this thing is bad for children and society. The law should reflect that. Morals don't come into it for me (my belief in non-violence I guess has a moral element, but I wouldn't use that as my only support for the law). Especially because the the notion of smacking kids as a form of correction probably only hangs around today because of the Bible.
Perhaps smacking will end. If it does, I expect it will be because good help and education for parents exists, rather than because a whole lot of mums and dads are in the slammer.
I totally support good help and education for parents. And I agree with you the best way to implement a law is to educate people first. The amendment to Section 59 was not introduced well and not communicated by the media well at all.
However, I don't particularly want to see "mums and dads in the slammer" (I take it you mean "good" mums and dads?) either. To me, that's a red herring. Look, you agree corporal punishment isn't the most effective method, but don't think parents should be criminalised for smacking their kids, right? Well, the problem is it has to be a criminal offence (or more accurately, the defence for smacking for corrective purposes had to be removed) in order to help stop child abuse. It was the only way to a) remove the "reasonable defence" that allowed real child abusers a way to get off (and according to the police, not even get charged in the first place); b) teach people that while a smack might be a genuine light smack in your household, in another it's a closed fist, and it's impossible to allow one without opening the door for the other; and c) more generally, influence society through making something illegal, it is no longer acceptable.
Yes, a public education campaign would have helped. Yes, education in schools would be a massive help. Yes, addressing the issues of poverty and drugs and self-esteem would help. But as an immediate step to stop our awful rate of child abuse which the same 88% seem to get so upset about whenever it occurs, removing the defence for smacking for corrective purposes had to be done. Because that is what can, scientifically, lead to child abuse.
-
"No" voters, I guess, are saying it could be. At the very least, they're saying it's not a crime . Everyone had the opportunity to vote "Yes", putting it beyond a shadow of a doubt that correction is no excuse for smacking and that smacking would thus be a crime. But only 12% of the voters did. Could that mean the rest do have a shadow of doubt? I sure do.
Most people like to think they are law abiding and therefore any confusion created ( a hell of a lot of this via media and ff with fundamentalist backing) scares them. To think there is a possibility of them breaking a law, scares them. Many of them wouldn't dream of their parents breaking the law but to say no to hitting their children would show their parents were wrong. Kids dont ever wont to lose their parents so all of it becomes understandable when the mass will join together to say they are the good ones therefore a smack/hit is good. It seems to me to be a very simple philosophy which is why I suggested way back, ignorance, not a bad thing, just an ignorant thing.
-
By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking,
You're assuming a bit there.
Heh, I do quite carefully say if .
I can't agree that this set of laws isn't motivated by morality and appeals to science can only bolster some supporting claims. Experts can say that smacking is bad for some children, but if they say it's bad for society, they're slipping out of science and into moral opinion. If you rely on scientists to make all your moral judgments you're not being scientific, and nor are they.
I don't think the Bible is the source of all smacking. Nor, if it was, would that be any particular evidence against it.
Look, you agree corporal punishment isn't the most effective method, but don't think parents should be criminalised for smacking their kids, right?
Right.
It was the only way to a) remove the "reasonable defence" that allowed real child abusers a way to get off (and according to the police, not even get charged in the first place); b) teach people that while a smack might be a genuine light smack in your household, in another it's a closed fist, and it's impossible to allow one without opening the door for the other; and c) more generally, influence society through making something illegal, it is no longer acceptable.
It's not the only way. The laws could have been far more targeted at abuse. The solution to abuse is not to simply put everyone on the wrong side of the law and then cherry pick the abusers for police attention. Using the law as a method of education is a very poor method of communicating a social problem. And I generally believe that influencing society in this way is a seriously crap way of doing it. Far better is to convince society. This particular society is clearly not convinced. Few people actually supported the idea that light smacking as parental correction is a crime.
-
Seems like an easy one. No good husbandly correction could include a smack, indeed to try it would be a criminal offense.
Your answer is confused. To say “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” is a begging the question fallacy.
I think a better demonstration of the incredible complexity of the referendum question might be required
Why? I didn’t say it was incredibly complex.
They're divided on what to do about it. They're not divided on what the answer to the referendum question was. That one's come in pretty decisively. Which kind of suggests people didn't struggle to understand what it meant.
What the question means (and therefore what people mean by their answer) and what to do about it go hand in hand. Did people vote for the removal of the "key clause" banning the use of force for correction? Did they have in mind “transitory and trifling” open hand smacks but definitely not use of weapons or instruments? Or did they just vote to go back to the law exactly as it was before the Bradford changes? I know people who voted ‘no’ but are happy with John Key’s response and don’t really want any changes to the actual law. Useful referendum, huh. How much did it cost again?
My feeling is that "no" voters are saying...
Wait… your “feeling”? I thought you said what the ‘no’ voters were saying was clear?
By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts telling them that actually they were harmed, but they're just too uneducated, or unscientific, or un-whatever it is that makes these experts special when it comes to questions of morality.
The question of whether there is some detrimental effect from being smacked as a child is not a moral question. It is a scientific question, the answers to which inform our answers to moral questions.
There are no moral facts, there are only moral beliefs.
There are moral positions based on facts and reason, and moral positions based on whimsy and ignorance, (and a fair amount inbetween). I know which direction I want to encourage.
-
Your answer is confused. To say “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” is a begging the question fallacy.
Could you elaborate? I'm giving an answer that could easily be consistent with the question and the views of society.
Steve, it's not required that the referendum question addresses some clause in the law. It's allowed to be a general statement of opinion. That's actually allowed. And it's also a good thing to know, sometimes, particularly if the law appears to be in conflict with this general opinion.
Wait… your “feeling”? I thought you said what the ‘no’ voters were saying was clear?
And I stand by that. But I can speculate about what is behind that, can't I? Everyone else is.
The question of whether there is some detrimental effect from being smacked as a child is not a moral question. It is a scientific question, the answers to which inform our answers to moral questions.
Right, but the question was not "Are there some detrimental effects from being smacked as a child?". It was about whether it should be criminal. That comes right back to a moral judgment.
There are moral positions based on facts and reason, and moral positions based on whimsy and ignorance, (and a fair amount inbetween). I know which direction I want to encourage.
So "encourage" then. When you use the law, it's hiding behind a stick of your own. Which is not a direction I want to encourage. There is no debate about the efficacy of smacking when anyone who wants to present their evidence is a criminal. That is shutting down debate. Pretending that it's scientific to do so is bringing science into disrepute.
-
Where did I make that jump?
Here:
When you pit yourself against 88% of people who could be bothered answering, then you've got a problem. I totally disagree that issues of morality should be decided by experts, I have never had the slightest time for this point of view. There are no moral experts. When you make something a crime, it's become an issue of morality, rather than practicality.
Ben your argument (majority decides moral issues) feels like the same argument that slowed down law changes that improved the lot of every minority group in history - slaves, homosexuals, womens rights, indigenous people. It feels distasteful.
Sometimes if law makers showed initiative and were ahead of popular opinion, the result would be better and history would shine a brighter light on them and the affected people.
-
Hammer time?
Rofflenui
My parents want to hit me, so hard
Makes me say, oh my Lord
Thank you, for giving me
Amended Section 59 supported cross-party.You can't touch this (child).
-
Just so y'all know.
A members' ballot was held today.
The Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill in the name of John Boscawen was drawn.
hat-tip Trevor Mallard.
-
FFS.
-
Ben your argument (majority decides moral issues) feels like the same argument that slowed down law changes that improved the lot of every minority group in history - slaves, homosexuals, womens rights, indigenous people. It feels distasteful.
Yes, democracy is a slow system. Convincing people to change is indeed much harder than forcing them to. But it's a much more lasting and effective method. It's rather like the alternatives to smacking, in that respect. Note that most of the changes you describe started in democracies.
Sometimes if law makers showed initiative and were ahead of popular opinion, the result would be better and history would shine a brighter light on them and the affected people.
Until they get so far ahead of popular opinion that they're just unpopular on every front, rather like communist Russia. I seem to remember them continually using arguments from science as an excuse to avoid democracy. Once you start down the path of thinking you're right just because you're progressive, and having the power to enforce it, it's becomes addictive and leads rapidly to considerably worse tyranny than the problems that it was trying to solve. They tyranny of the minority is a considerably worse problem than the tyranny of the majority (which is still a problem, of course, and the solution is to keep hacking away at your cause until people agree with you).
-
Yes, democracy is a slow system. Convincing people to change is indeed much harder than forcing them to. But it's a much more lasting and effective method. It's rather like the alternatives to smacking, in that respect. Note that most of the changes you describe started in democracies.
They all went through over great popular opposition, and have subsequently been proven to be non-controversial long term. The same end result would have occurred if they'd happened years earlier.
Until they get so far ahead of popular opinion that they're just unpopular on every front, rather like communist Russia.
Because pushing through unpopular laws in New Zealand is exactly like communist Russia. I think there might have been a couple of other problems going on there.
-
Your answer is confused. To say “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” is a begging the question fallacy.
Could you elaborate? I'm giving an answer that could easily be consistent with the question and the views of society
On the fallacy? Wikipedia seems to have it right. In response to the hypothetical “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?” you answered, in part, “to try it would be a criminal offense.” So what? That’s the question: should it be a crime. You could just as easily have said “indeed to try it would be a criminal offense” in answer to “should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence”. That you said this suggests to me you found the very question a little odd and confusing, because there’s an assumption in the question that you fundamentally disagree with in the first place. If one answers the referendum question with a “yes’, what they are literally saying is “Yes, I do think a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence.” How weird is that?!
it's not required that the referendum question addresses some clause in the law. It's allowed to be a general statement of opinion. That's actually allowed. And it's also a good thing to know, sometimes, particularly if the law appears to be in conflict with this general opinion.
I know they don’t have to address specific clauses in the law, but that would at least make the referendum more useful. CIRs are crap democracy, and using them to get general statements of opinion is an especially bad way to address public policy. If you just want to know what people think, use a survey.
(I’ll add here that I’m not against referenda per se. They’re especially useful for making the final decision about significant proposed changes to the mechanisms of our representative democracy. But we do have a representative democracy, and we should adhere to that. There are other ways for the public to have input. We should not be deciding the moral issue du jour based on current public sentiment.)
Right, but the question was not "Are there some detrimental effects from being smacked as a child?". It was about whether it should be criminal. That comes right back to a moral judgment.
Yeah but you brought up the link. You wrote (my emphasis): “By my claim in particular there was that if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts …” Maybe that’s more true? You’re connecting the notion of what most people think with what is true, and doing so regarding a matter amenable to science (harm and smacking).
So "encourage" then. When you use the law, it's hiding behind a stick of your own. Which is not a direction I want to encourage. There is no debate about the efficacy of smacking when anyone who wants to present their evidence is a criminal. That is shutting down debate. Pretending that it's scientific to do so is bringing science into disrepute.
1) It’s not either/or: use the law or encourage and educate. It’s not like people thought “if we change the law, all parents who occasionally lightly smacked their child will immediately stop now that they no it’s illegal.” Do you seriously think anyone thought that would be the short term result? It’s certainly not about putting such people in prison. In that regard, it was more a statement of principal. Where it will have short term application is if someone beats their child with a bullwhip, for example, that parent will no longer have the old “reasonable force” defence. Surely that is a good thing?
2) Let’s go back to that hypothetical about “husbandly correction”. If the law changes under discussion here were to do with men’s treatment of their wives, would it occur to you to use the argument you have above? “So just try to encourage men to treat women better. But don’t go changing the laws. That’s just hiding and suppressing debate.” Really?
-
Just so y'all know.
A members' ballot was held today.
The Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill in the name of John Boscawen was drawn.
See my exclusive advance report on page 2 of this thread ;)
Very bad luck for Key. Perhaps it was the power of prayer.
-
They all went through over great popular opposition, and have subsequently been proven to be non-controversial long term. The same end result would have occurred if they'd happened years earlier.
That's highly disputable. They could have led to colossal strife, and retrogression. How do you know? It's also a false claim in at least 2 cases. Homosexual law reform was not unpopular, at least in NZ. And indigenous rights are not non-controversial. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Because pushing through unpopular laws in New Zealand is exactly like communist Russia. I think there might have been a couple of other problems going on there.
Mmmm and criminalizing smacking is exactly like freeing slaves and emancipating women?
-
Homosexual law reform was not unpopular, at least in NZ.
Umm.
And indigenous rights are not non-controversial.
Basic human rights like voting, equal protection under law, etc for indigenous people are controversial these days? They were often controversial at the time, not so much now.
Mmmm and criminalizing smacking is exactly like freeing slaves and emancipating women?
It's an example of progressive movements winning hard fought battles which then become widely popular with everyone 30 years later. Hardly anyone would stand up now and say that African Americans shouldn't vote now, it was widespread sentiment in some parts of the USA in the 1950s and 1960s. Same thing with homosexual law reform in the 1970s - 1980s (as per the above link). Legalizing same-sex activities was going to bring about the end of the world. Not so much as it turns out. Progressives won those battles, they'll win this one too, it'd just actually be easier if everyone moved on. Cheers.
-
Key says he will make an announcement on Boscawen's bill at 4 p.m.
Presumably he'll go for more consulty-wulty, maybe supporting it to a select committee or whatever it is with private members' bills.
For the first time ever, I find myself half-hoping National's polling numbers remain high. Somehow I think Key at 55% will have a lot more backbone than at 45%.
-
For those who get their news via PA system, John Boscawen's insconsequential smacking bill was been drawn from the ballot today.
Wheee.
-
In response to the hypothetical “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?” you answered, in part, “to try it would be a criminal offense.” So what? That’s the question: should it be a crime.
You're trying pretty hard to get this begging the question thing, but I didn't give you an "argument". I gave you a likely answer. The answer to “should a smack as part of good husbandly correction be a criminal offence?” would be uncontroversially "Yes". The reason is because people think smacking other adults is a crime. I don't mean they think that is the law. I mean they think it's bad and should be a crime. They won't make an exception for "good husbandly correction".
I'm fully aware of what begging the question is, I just wanted you to explain why you thought I was doing it. I have a degree in Philosophy, and I took Logic to Stage 3, btw.
CIRs are crap democracy, and using them to get general statements of opinion is an especially bad way to address public policy. If you just want to know what people think, use a survey.
but
I’ll add here that I’m not against referenda per se. They’re especially useful for making the final decision about significant proposed changes to the mechanisms of our representative democracy
Why bother...have a survey. Personally I don't think CIRs are crap democracy at all. I think representative democracy is crap. CIRs are far, far more credible than surveys. They follow due processes and involve a lot more people. They ask people what they want, rather than who they would like to abdicate responsibility for the decision to. They're probably not particularly practical for running quite a lot of government, but in this technological age, they could be used a lot more often to lend credibility to claims of mandate.
Maybe that’s more true? You’re connecting the notion of what most people think with what is true, and doing so regarding a matter amenable to science (harm and smacking).
Harm is not as amenable to science as you seem to think. Harm is a highly subjective notion. Is anal sex harmful? Ask science and you'll get an answer that will probably highlight the risks of physical damage. There could be any amount of 'scientific' analysis of the psychological impacts of it. But at the end of the day, I'd say anal sex is as harmful as the person who is engaging in it thinks it is.
Where it will have short term application is if someone beats their child with a bullwhip, for example, that parent will no longer have the old “reasonable force” defence. Surely that is a good thing?
That always was illegal man. Because it would not be considered "reasonable" by either a judge or a jury. OK, they get their day in court, but they also, on the whole, get busted.
Let’s go back to that hypothetical about “husbandly correction”. If the law changes under discussion here were to do with men’s treatment of their wives, would it occur to you to use the argument you have above? “So just try to encourage men to treat women better. But don’t go changing the laws. That’s just hiding and suppressing debate.” Really?
Yes, why don't we go back to that incredibly poor example, which will fail any test of popularity on account of the fact that almost all women will all oppose it, let alone most men. In your hypothetical world, where husbandly correction is widely popular, I would indeed say that the best way to go about changing the situation would be to change attitudes. You'd start with women, it would be a fucking easy sell. Then you'd work on the men, until you had the numbers. That's democracy, how she is.
I actually think changing general attitudes to smacking would be a much more positive step than criminalizing it. "There is another way" as a campaign would probably work. I'm inclined to think Supernanny has done much more to stop smacking in NZ than Labour did. A "help quit smacking" team would also be of great benefit, if people didn't think there was a good chance of ending up getting prosecuted instead of helped.
-
Random thought, on randomness of life:
Will two years and hundreds of thousands of signatures and over a million votes, achieve less than a lottery?
-
Umm.
Yeah, Um. Your link serves to show that the anti-reform people struggled to even get the signatures for their petition. It does not show that "the public" was against legalized homosexuality, just that some members of the public were.
Basic human rights like voting, equal protection under law, etc for indigenous people are controversial these days? They were often controversial at the time, not so much now.
Right, those equality laws are widely upheld. But 'special rights' are nowhere near so much. I guess I should have been clearer there.
It's an example of progressive movements winning hard fought battles which then become widely popular with everyone 30 years later.
Yup, but on a whole different scale. You were sort of accusing me of hyperbole by mentioning communist Russia as a good example of where "progressive" legislation got too damned progressive for everyone's liking. I speak of things like banning religion because Marxism was more scientific. These days it's fairly uncontroversial that freedom of religion is a fundamental right.
The problem with speaking of progressive movements of the past and extrapolating them to now, is that it presumes you have some kind of crystal ball about exactly what will be considered progressive in the future. Just because something is a big change that has never been tried before doesn't make it a good idea that must through inexorable laws of human nature eventually become gospel. For every good idea there's a thousand stupid ideas. You have to convince people your ideas are not stupid. Failing to do so, but insisting you should be obeyed is one of those stupid ideas. Epic fail.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.