Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yeah, I refer to " light punch" as some sort of drink, myself. But it does seem worthwhile to point out that not all researchers of your persuasion conclude that light smacking leads to child abuse. You appear to have done so based on ideology and use substandard research - some off the Yes Vote site - to back up your ideology. And it's not convincing, really.
Next you'll be agreeing with this ....
http://yesvote.org.nz/2009/05/25/anthea-simcock-its-not-about-smacking-or-ear-flicking/ -
Russell,
Studies can show links to anything if you want it to. You may not have read that study you linked but, the sample was taken from just two states and is hardly representative, as the study itself points out.... Studies have to be reliable, valid and transferrable to carry any weight. that one doesn't Just mothers were interviewed, raising the the possibility of shared method variance that may overestimate the observed relationships - which, interms of light smacking were weak enough to be practically useless.
If you are going to link research, link some decent ones.
-
Have you ever met anyone from Barnaodos?
Not that it means anything , but yes, I know Murray Edridge and get on with him pretty well, actually. I'm not demeaning what they do, You're being a bit silly now.... Yes, I've no doubt the prevalence of the most low-impact corporal punishment informs their views.
-
Save the Children and other agencies that deal directly with child welfare backed the removal of the S59 defence and now support the "yes" vote in the referendum
So? Let them deal with child welfare then. Wouldn't it be nice if they put their energies into addressing child abuse in a way that is going to do something about it thus dealing with an aspect of child welfare, rather than spending enormous amounts of time, money and energy in an attempt to continue to make criminal 'the most low-impact corporal punishment' .
-
Well if you want to discuss research….
From the linked articleThe high association between corporal punishment and physical abuse does not imply a causal link as Gershoff seemed to suggest when she said, “Child abuse in any form is a tragedy and deserves our best prevention efforts, and thus the potential for corporal punishment to escalate into physical abuse must be seriously considered at the levels of scientific research and public policy
That’s because its not causal, it is dictinct, (but could be co–related). Russell said:
Baumrind's solution for the problem of non-perfect parents is not exactly of the real world either. From the linked article above:
No, not “non-perfect parents; Parents disposed to abuse. No all “non-perfect” parents are disposed to abuse. The article which Gershoff responded to [it’s late.. so cant be bothered to find it online] said Gershoff failed to acknowledge the necessity to distinguish between the harsh and light smacking in her studies, (bringing into question the study’s validity).
Because her measure included many instances of extreme and excessive physical punishment, her analyses are not relevant to the current political debate about whether [light physical punishment] is harmful for children.
Gershoff’s response [linked above] to that point wasn’t particularly compelling. But finally said
education campaigns aimed at emphasizing alternatives to corporal punishment are likely to be the most acceptable and effective way of decreasing the use of corporal punishment
Like, more effective than changing the law.Here in New Zealand parents like Mason aren't exposed to education campagns to the extent of changing behavior, just the effects of the law, because that's what Sue Bradford and her friends wanted to emphasise.
-
Oh Russell, Ive jsut seen your veiled attack on me ( and the pithy response from the fool above who can't back up his statements). You you don't need to misrepresent me. Like MSM journalists, I did convey the account, but, like these MSM journalists, I have never "enabled" Bishop with respect to the assault on her son that you linked to. Ever. So appreciate it if you would amend that last comment to reflect that. You say "enabling" is making her out to be a hero. I never did that once, ever. And you know that - well, you__should__ know that. Why would I enable anyone? I was reporting an account, not writing for a tabloid. As I've said to you some time ago, I even noted that it was a one sided story as I was unable to get the other side because nobody would speak - and I did that because I believe balance is important. And no, I haven't " stuck with her". What makes her a hero? If you claim that McCoskrie made out Bishop to be a hero, why then did you imply that he - and For the Sake of Our Children Trust - has done so with Mason when they haven't even spoken with Mason. Mason is no hero. Ask Chuck.
Unlike you or McCoskrie ( apparently), my view - relayed consistently on my blog - is that Mason was equally guilty of both parts of the count. But I have no proof, it is my opinion. I only raised the possibility if it could be one account of the other as others were emphasising one of the two counts to the charge - you the punch and McCoskrie the ear flick. Solely on media reports p while the Yes Vote people were erroneously saying teh Masoin case was a test of the anti-smacking legislation.
You can't minimise a guilty verdict, and I never did, even though you claim that I did. I actually said on my blog I believed he was guilty all along. You can't be "half guilty" any more than you can conclusively say that a punch was what did Mason in without talking to at least one of either the judge, jury, witnesses or accused. And, as far as I am aware, you haven't dome that. It is you who should be ashamed of yourself. But next time you are in Welli give me a call and we can have a drink.
-
No all I am doing is to ensure you back up your so-called facts with proof. And it seems that since you cant, you`re gonna bail out. Perhaps next time you wont dress something up as fact when you have not the slightest idea whether it is true.
Now, just off to sort out my kids - one of them needs a good clip over the ear ( heh).
-
Thanks Paul..glad that's cleared up. You said.
I did say the judge believed the witnesses who claimed he'd punched his four-year old
Yes, you did. He may well have done so. He may well not have. But how do you know? You don't. So why did you say it?
-
You appear determined to argue taht a man who assaults his kids might be a decent father
And I argued that? Is that what you are saying I did?
-
The guilty verdict proves Mason's various denials and PR bullshit didn't stand up to the scrutiny of a criminal court case.
No, the guilty verdict doesnt prove that at all in this case. I wish you wouldnt act so ignorant. PR is not evidence.Denials and admissions in courtr are pleas. And dDenials and admissions do not come into it when you have broken the law and have no real defence. Whatever the plea he was guilty. Go back to sleep.