Hard News: Smack to the Future
358 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
I'll always go for the lazy cock-up theory over the advertising department lead conspiracy any day of the week.
Can't remember where I first heard it, but:
- "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by mere stupidity"
- "Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice" -
I just said that people would not only want it to be a crime, but would probably realize that it already is. One is not the supporting premise of the other.
So it was a statement of the obvious that was not intended to support a premise? Fine, I’ll take your word for it, and just note that it looked to me like an odd way of making your point, and move on.
It's really poor because if you want to create a statement that elucidates how confusing the referendum question was, you don't do it by making up an example that is even less confusing.
You're having trouble keeping track. I did not try to elucidate how confusing it was, as I told you before. I’m claiming it is a poorly worded question. That was were we started: you said "it wasn't really confusing…", and I replied "I wouldn’t say the question was really confusing, just poorly worded."
It’s poorly worded because it’s loaded, and it is vague. (You as much as admitted to the latter, when you started speaking of your “feeling” as to what the no voters were saying.)
You said laws should come from science, or be 100% informed by science with no question of morality.
I did not say that. I did, however, refute your appeal to popularity when you claimed “if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts”. Something like that isn’t “more true” because lots of people think it.
I was clarifying the idea of the non-scientific side of harm. To include consent, another moral notion, is only to play further into my hands.
Consent was implicit, so your analogy is poor. I agree there’s a generally accepted notion that adults can do things which are harmful (or allegedly harmful) in some way. In a sense, “harm” becomes subjective in such cases, as you said. However, that has no relevance to the smacking debate as the subject of the “smacks” are not consenting adults. So we assess harm as best we can with science.
At least in that case. Each case is new, with new jurors. Justice can be a bit like that, unfortunately.
So? You were still wrong when you responded: “That always was illegal man. Because it would not be considered "reasonable" by either a judge or a jury.” It was not always illegal. So let’s go back to what I asked you when you came up with that, now obviously wrong, response. I said: “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?” I trust we all now agree that it is.
As for the example I used, it’s not "set” anywhere in particular, it was a hypothetical situation brought up purely to address this response from you: ‘So "encourage" then. When you use the law, it's hiding behind a stick of your own.’ I do not think we should only “encourage” one group of people to respect the rights of another - we also expect the laws of society to reflect that. It’s not either/or.
-
I Do believe that there is far to much violence to wards children and that something needs to be done, But this crap arse law is not going to do anything worth while.
Yet somehow making it legitimate to smack children is? Personally, I don't think the media has made the issue clear for the punters. Until a Dompost editorial this week (after the referendum) I hadn't seen or heard anything on TV or newspapers (did on Radio NZ some time ago) that laid out the facts of what is & isn't allowed in the child discipline arena.
Hardly anyone seems to get that Bradford's bill was about removing a defence in certain assault cases.
Who first coined the name "Anti-smacking Bill" anyway? They should be held to account!
-
Who first coined the name "Anti-smacking Bill" anyway? They should be held to account!
Earlier in the debate someone looked that one up...
Greens draw up their own anti-smacking bill
Monday, 6 October 2003, 12:22 pm
Press Release: Green Party -
Though it was already an "anti-smacking debate".
-
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?
Actually if force used was not for "the purposes of correction" and "force was reasonable under the circumstances" they could still try the defence. Though can't think of any situation that would apply.
-
Getting your child our of the way of a speeding train from a distance when your trusty bullwhip was the only extensible option to hand? Of course, repeated whipping might be harder to explain..
-
yeah but "the purposes of correction" is what I'm referring to here. That's what Sue Bradford wanted to change the law to prevent.
-
I'd like to hear the views of a certain Nelson jury about that one.
-
What's the equivalent legal wording about not being allowed to "correct" pets?
-
Getting your child our of the way of a speeding train from a distance when your trusty bullwhip was the only extensible option to hand?
It's how Indiana Jones would've done it.
-
It’s poorly worded because it’s loaded, and it is vague. (You as much as admitted to the latter, when you started speaking of your “feeling” as to what the no voters were saying.)
I admitted to no such thing. Even if the question were crystal clear, I could only speculate about people's reasons for answering in a particular way. I say "I feel" when I'm speculating.
I did not say that. I did, however, refute your appeal to popularity when you claimed “if 88% of people think they weren't harmed by smacking, then maybe that's actually more true than an entire legion of experts”. Something like that isn’t “more true” because lots of people think it.
It can be if the subject in question is their feeling of harm. It's not an appeal to popularity. I'm actually saying "no other person can weigh up subjective harm better than the person experiencing it". Quite careful not to say that because 88% of people smacking is OK that makes it true, which is indeed an appeal to popularity. I'm saying that if 88% of people think it didn't harm them then that is most likely true in the case of those 88%, whatever any expert wants to tell them about their inability to recognize harm in themselves. I'm also careful to say IF in that claim because I am not claiming that 88% of people do actually think that. It's more a case of "Don't tell people what's harming them, and ignore their own experiences of the harm. That's totally arrogant, and a misuse of science".
However, that has no relevance to the smacking debate as the subject of the “smacks” are not consenting adults. So we assess harm as best we can with science.
Again, the anal sex point was entirely to show that harm is subjective to a great extent. If you want a better analogy, I should probably refer to a whole lot of things children are forced to do, which they don't consent to, feel miserable and bitter about, and then, upon reflection as adults, decide didn't harm them at all. Going to school for example. Now I'm sure in quite a few cases, going to school was considerably harmful to some children. They might have got bashed up on a daily basis by some bully. They might have been made to feel inferior and inadequate by all their teachers. But at the end of the day, few people argue that children should not be made to go to school, because they can see that the benefit outweighs the harm in the majority of cases. The case most people are most familiar with is their own case. If 88% of people think they were not harmed by going to school, then that is probably true.
So? You were still wrong when you responded: “That always was illegal man. Because it would not be considered "reasonable" by either a judge or a jury.” It was not always illegal.
I'll give you that. It's only illegal at the discretion of what a jury considers reasonable. I don't know the exact details of this case you are referring to, the extent that a bullwhip was actually used (there's a big difference between flaying someone half to death and rapping them over the knuckles with the handle). Can't find references to it anywhere, could you link to the details?
-
errata: read "If 88% of people think they were not harmed by going to school, then that is probably true." as "If 88% of people think they were not harmed by going to school, then that is probably true, for them ."
-
I think the bullwhip case details may have been legally suppressed to protect the victim. No links to offer right now, anyway. Others may find some.
And I would like someone who knows more to pick up on the equivalent rules around correcting animals.
-
Ben, I have some sympathy with trusting people to know what's right for them in many cases.
However if people believe something then it is true that they believe it. That's all. The world was not actually flat just because most medieval europeans thought so (or were told to think so).
With harms and risks in particular, there is an interesting relationship between perception and evidence. Our primitive lizard brains often lead us astray.
For instance as we were discusing on another thread, men are far more likely to be assaulted in public than women are. Yet who feels more at risk when surveyed?
One question is therefore whether public policy should be based on evidence.
-
Sacha, I have no problem with objective evidence informing policy. I just draw the line at saying it's the only evidence that could or should be taken into account. Laws should also square with our moral intuitions, which are mostly subjective evidence.
Being subjective does not put them in the 'entirely irrational' basket. It just means that sometimes more than just science is needed to show why a law is right or wrong. It takes a lot of arguing around the consistency of the underlying principles. Consistency is something people like in their morals. But, in a great many cases, principles are seen to be lacking because they don't square up with basic examples, and exceptions are made, or alternative principles are proposed.
Many intuitions are so widely agreed upon that you stop noticing them and think they are facts. Except, of course, when they come into conflict with other intuitions. Then we find that people don't actually weigh these things up the same way as each other.
This debate is a classic example, where basically the idea of hurting children is generally perceived as a wrong, but the idea of 'correcting' them can be seen as a counterbalancing 'right' that could, at least, reduce the level of wrongness, and at most, by the more extreme smacking advocates, it could turn wrong into right, on that balance. Different people weigh up the harm from the hurting and the good from the correction differently.
When I say 'weigh up the harm', there are 2 prongs to that. Firstly the question of actual damage, which is highly amenable to objective evidence. Then there's 'how important is that damage?', which is mostly subjective.
People also weigh up the efficacy of the alternatives differently. In that case I'm fairly willing to agree that science has a lot to say, and many people are just lazy or irrational or whimsical about it. Trained professionals seem to be able to handle kids without smacking them, which suggests it's a skill that can be learned. Since it would reduce a wrong, the hurting of children, it would be a bloody good thing for more people to learn. Government could and should lead the charge on such an education program. Which is no excuse for people not to also try to educate themselves, and each other.
-
(there's a big difference between flaying someone half to death and rapping them over the knuckles with the handle). Can't find references to it anywhere, could you link to the details?
Sorry, Sacha and Ben, I was typing from memory. It was a riding crop.
-
-
I admitted to no such thing. Even if the question were crystal clear, I could only speculate about people's reasons for answering in a particular way. I say "I feel" when I'm speculating.
You were speculating on what the no voters were saying with their no vote. I don’t think it useful to separate these issues: their reason for answering speaks to what they actually want to have happen as a result. There’s clearly still debate (even amongst the ‘no’ camp!) as to what, if anything, should actually change about the law. As I said, I’m not in favour of CIRs, but if we must have them is it too much to ask that after the darn things are over everyone knows what we’re supposed to do next? We have in a sense a clear result (in the sense of the percentages themselves), and yet, we don’t have a clear outcome. To me, this is further evidence that CIRs are fundamentally not useful.
It can be if the subject in question is their feeling of harm. It's not an appeal to popularity. I'm actually saying "no other person can weigh up subjective harm better than the person experiencing it".
Ah, I see what you mean now. What you did was not an appeal to popularity, I’ll grant you. However, I don’t see this issue as a simple “subjective harm” case (i.e. if you think you’re harmed then you are harmed; if you don’t then you aren’t). An argument can be made that that is the way to look at it if you’re referring to a consenting adult judging harm to themselves from an activity they voluntarily entered into while they are adults.
We’re talking here about a past event (well, practice) imposed on someone as a child without their consent. Purely relying on self-assessment of harm later in life in that regard would be dubious.Regards your school example: It seems to me you just need to separate out the general notion that children are forced to go to school - more correctly, forced to engage in schooling - and the bad things that might be encountered during said schooling. Few would argue that bullying itself were something they should have to endure. That is a separate issue to why children need schooling. (Also, there'd be no bullying at home-schooling, unless the parents were allowed to smack as part of good teacherly correction.)
One question is therefore whether public policy should be based on evidence.
Quite, Sacha. Without wanting to get too side tracked, I don’t think there’s much public policy aspect to adults agreeing to engage in anal sex, for example. That’s a private matter, so the “subjective harm” principle applies . It’s not a purely private matter to decide whether there are detrimental effects from children being smacked in a disciplinary way.
-
the idea of hurting children is generally perceived as a wrong, but the idea of 'correcting' them can be seen as a counterbalancing 'right' that could, at least, reduce the level of wrongness, and at most, by the more extreme smacking advocates, it could turn wrong into right, on that balance. Different people weigh up the harm from the hurting and the good from the correction differently.
I agree with your assessment of that key driver of the debate.
Laws should also square with our moral intuitions, which are mostly subjective evidence. Being subjective does not put them in the 'entirely irrational' basket. It just means that sometimes more than just science is needed to show why a law is right or wrong.
Can I clarify that I do not mean just "science" when I talk about "evidence". But nor do I mean randomly aggregated or divined intuition. I'm big on story but only when it has some context around it.
When I say 'weigh up the harm', there are 2 prongs to that. Firstly the question of actual damage, which is highly amenable to objective evidence. Then there's 'how important is that damage?', which is mostly subjective.
I do not think it is that clear cut either. "Actual" damage might be internalised psychological and social effects, not just measurable bruises. The "importance" of that is a legitimate subject of research and policy development, not just talkback radio opining.
-
Much respect to John Key. It would have been very easy for him to take the 'popular' route on this, especially with that member's bill landing on his table. For the first time in ages, a politician has gone with the facts instead of... well, acting like a politician.
Now we just need the media to move on as well.
-
Much respect to John Key. It would have been very easy for him to take the 'popular' route on this, especially with that member's bill landing on his table. For the first time in ages, a politician has gone with the facts instead of... well, acting like a politician.
Come on. This isn't an incredibly rare event. Bill English came out not all that long ago and said they weren't going to be cutting taxes. He even suggested they might raise some taxes. etc.
-
Come on. This isn't an incredibly rare event. Bill English came out not all that long ago and said they weren't going to be cutting taxes. He even suggested they might raise some taxes. etc.
The difference is I don't believe National ever really intended to keep to its tax cut election promises, so that just makes that move cynical and hypocritical.
-
I want to go to the library and read Richard Dawkins now.
-
Maybe it's to late for my 2c (well, 2p), but:
Much like 'have you stopped beating your wife yet', the referendum question contains an assumption - that smacking can be a part of good parenting (contrasting to what numerous child welfare agencies and experts believe).
I can't help but notice that in answering the question in either the affirmative or negative, the proposition that smacking can be part of good parenting is affirmed - the yes/no answer merely refers to whether this should '...be a criminal offense in NZ'.
This could have been a result of two situations - the 'cock-up' (1) or the 'conspiracy' (2):
1) The authors of the referendum lack profiency in the English language, and the NZ public spent $9 million on answering an uninformative, loaded question, or:
2) The authors of the referendum deliberately and cunningly asked a loaded question, and everyone who returned the referendum, in the affirmative or negative, has (consciously or not) affirmed that a smack can be part of a good parenting - differing only on the question of whether this should be a crime in NZ.Explanation (2), if it is the case, would have to be a PR masterstroke - it frames the issue, and drags attention away from the real debate:
(a) whether the law as it stands has led, or will lead, to a gross miscarriage of justice, and (perhaps more importantly)
(b) whether smacking is actually an effective form of correction.Both (a) and (b) are empirical questions, able to be answered by lawyers and scientists/health professionals respectively. It would seem that the authors of the referendum would prefer that the question is framed in moral terms rather than legal/scientific terms - as involving lawyers & scientists would probably result in retaining the law as it stands. I note the parallels to the U.S. culture wars...
Of course, the scientist in me would suggest adhering to Occam's razor, and to the heuristic that a cock-up is more likely than a conspiracy. Still, I believe that there has been a conscious attempt by the 'no' movement to frame the debate in moral, populist terms rather than use rational, empirical and legal arguments.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.