Child discipline and the anti smacking law

Forums › Off topic › Child discipline and the anti smacking law

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2382336 29-Dec-2019 06:31

I would appreciate it if @nunz changed the title of the whole thread from "anti smacking law" to "repeal of child abuse defense law"

As anti smacking law was how it was framed by those apposed to it being repealed.

Whereas "repealing of child abuse as a legal defense law" is actually what happened.

To me when it's framed correctly there doesn't seem to be much disagreement that repealing the law was the right thing to do.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382347 29-Dec-2019 08:42

dejadeadnz:
Rikkitic:

Agree totally with above. Violence of any kind, even mild violence, is the last resort of the inarticulate.

Yep. As expected, pretty much the usual sorts who defend any kind of physical violence on children do so by appeal to some kind of instrumental/consequentialist defence (e.g. it is effective for them as the adults). The interest of the child or the inherent dignity of the person rarely figure in the discussion.

It’s pretty scary that behind the thin facade of general reasonableness, there are still so many people exhibiting frankly prehistoric tendencies.

And again you fail to define between pain and violence and reasonable force.

I defended the interest of the child above.
Dignity has nothing to do with it ... people forsake dignity regularly vis a vis force applied by police, bouncers etc.

The idea that the pleasure (not happiness or safety or growth) of a person is paramount is a flawed argument. Let them chew chocolate covered cyanide .. it makes them feel good and we wont disturb their dignity... but they will still die.

Tell me how I should have stopped my son risking peoples health without dropping him to the floor as above and I'll believe you.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382350 29-Dec-2019 08:45

BarTender: I would appreciate it if @nunz changed the title of the whole thread from "anti smacking law" to "repeal of child abuse defense law"

As anti smacking law was how it was framed by those apposed to it being repealed.

Whereas "repealing of child abuse as a legal defense law" is actually what happened.

To me when it's framed correctly there doesn't seem to be much disagreement that repealing the law was the right thing to do.

And yet it has vilified reasonable force including restraint, resistence etc and led to so much police investigation of reasonable parents while doing nothing to stop true child abuse.

If it was an effective law child abuse would have declined ... but it hasnt.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382354 29-Dec-2019 09:01

dafman:
nunz:
BTW find me a verse where God says to abuse kids.

Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him often.”

Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

Prov 23:13-14: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (i.e. death).”

Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”

The same proverbs say it's better to live on the corner of a house than with a contentious wife.

I think you have mistaken the literature type .saying this is a command of God. It's not. Its wisdom literature. Not law.

Yes it does mention beating with the rod do you know what a rod is or in this case The rod? Probably the same as psalm 23 they rod and they staff comfort me. .. a shepherds rod. What were they used for? Abusing sheep? Nope. Something else. I think you've run into a cultural misunderstanding.

No mention of abuse as a goal or outcome in those verses. Chasten to give hope, remove foolishness, save him from hell, give wisdom. None of things advocate abuse. Quite the opposite.

Still waiting on a verse where God says to abuse kids.

GOD on earth said the opposite... if you harm kids .. you are better off tying a large stone around your neck and jumping in the lake than letting God catch you up. -Jesus

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382357 29-Dec-2019 09:18

Heres an example of how a flawed ideology is make criminals out of okay parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_day_i_left_my_son_in_the_car/amp

No child abuse present but prosecuted as a good parent...not in nz but its indicative of issues we face where the moral up them selves judge what they dont know.

What is acceptable? When? It's this fallacy of removal of all potential harm and pc absolutism that's criminalising good parents.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2382359 29-Dec-2019 09:21

I don't understand why this argument is being relitigated. It went around and around when the legislation was originally passed. There is nothing new to add.

People can always find exceptional cases to justify any argument. It may sometimes be necessary to forcibly restrain an out of control child, but I cannot think of any circumstance that would justify striking one. I just cannot.

I don't see a reason to bring the bible into it on either side. If people need that kind of legitimacy, maybe they should re-examine their own motives.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2382365 29-Dec-2019 10:08

I also don't see the point of trying to compare a highly litigious, gun crazy society with what happens here.

While we only have one side of the usual "I was only gone for 5 minutes" story, the circumstances as set out in the above saga would likely involve a notification being sent through to Oranga Tamariki and an investigation into the circumstances, but would most likely culminate in a 'don't do it again' letter.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2382403 29-Dec-2019 11:17

nunz:
dafman:
nunz:

BTW find me a verse where God says to abuse kids.

Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him often.”

Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

Prov 23:13-14: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (i.e. death).”

Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”

The same proverbs say it's better to live on the corner of a house than with a contentious wife.

I think you have mistaken the literature type .saying this is a command of God. It's not. Its wisdom literature. Not law.

Yes it does mention beating with the rod do you know what a rod is or in this case The rod? Probably the same as psalm 23 they rod and they staff comfort me. .. a shepherds rod. What were they used for? Abusing sheep? Nope. Something else. I think you've run into a cultural misunderstanding.

No mention of abuse as a goal or outcome in those verses. Chasten to give hope, remove foolishness, save him from hell, give wisdom. None of things advocate abuse. Quite the opposite.

Still waiting on a verse where God says to abuse kids.

GOD on earth said the opposite... if you harm kids .. you are better off tying a large stone around your neck and jumping in the lake than letting God catch you up. -Jesus

You should try arguing these things are not the word of god with a Muslim, since the Quran is believed to be the literal word of god.

nunz

1421 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382431 29-Dec-2019 13:10

Geektastic:
nunz:
dafman:
nunz:

BTW find me a verse where God says to abuse kids.

Prov 13:24: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him often.”

Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

Prov 23:13-14: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (i.e. death).”

Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”

The same proverbs say it's better to live on the corner of a house than with a contentious wife.

I think you have mistaken the literature type .saying this is a command of God. It's not. Its wisdom literature. Not law.

Yes it does mention beating with the rod do you know what a rod is or in this case The rod? Probably the same as psalm 23 they rod and they staff comfort me. .. a shepherds rod. What were they used for? Abusing sheep? Nope. Something else. I think you've run into a cultural misunderstanding.

No mention of abuse as a goal or outcome in those verses. Chasten to give hope, remove foolishness, save him from hell, give wisdom. None of things advocate abuse. Quite the opposite.

Still waiting on a verse where God says to abuse kids.

GOD on earth said the opposite... if you harm kids .. you are better off tying a large stone around your neck and jumping in the lake than letting God catch you up. -Jesus

You should try arguing these things are not the word of god with a Muslim, since the Quran is believed to be the literal word of god.

As do I belive The Bible is literal word of God. I believe ALL scripture is God breathed... but that doesnt nullify my brain and common sense.

To treat a book like the Psalms or Song Of Solomon the same as Dueteronomy or Wisdom literature like Ruth as the same as prophetic /apocalyptic literature like Revolution is a blasphemous denigration of the brains and intelligence God gives us. Scripture tells us to be mature, grown up, wise, discerning. It tells us to think and learn.

It does not tell us to treat as literal every word of every book. The Bible thrives on ambiguity at some level as both the Hebrew language and God love word play and riddle.

The Bible isn't a set of Black and White commands covering every situation. I have no command on brushing my teeth or the best position to have sex with my wife. In fact sex with the wife is a wide open wonderland of discovery .. as long as I consider her needs lovingly.

You seem to think literal means stupid. I literally believe every verse of scripture comes from God. I literally believe God calls us to develop wisdom and to work with Him/Her towards maturity. Genesis tells us God gives humans the dignity of coworkers and cocreators. God created us to be creative and wise...not dumb ass idiots.

Part of that is the simple skill of realizing I'm not meant to live on the corner of my house if my wife I'd contentious.

The Muslim understands wisdom literature as a genre better than the culturally knobnish stereotype you just plastered them with. Bigoted much?

Ps the Quran is not the Bible or Jewish scripture ... you quoted The BIBLE. Not the Quran.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18660 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2382495 29-Dec-2019 14:33

Arguing religious belief on any level is descending into a rabbit hole that is beyond my energy and patience. I will confine myself to gently pointing out a logical fallacy in your reasoning, which is to assume that every other believer is as nuanced as you. I don't doubt that your belief doesnt nullify your brain and common sense. But for far too many, religion is an excuse for dogma and intolerance. It is a bulldozer that gets driven through reasoned debate and polite disagreement. That is my objection to it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handle9

11390 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2382508 29-Dec-2019 15:48

dafman:
nunz:

The AS law has stopped appropriate physical disciplines being used. A grandmother prosecuted for grabbing her grand-son by the collar and dragging him back off the road, away from traffic.

On the face of it, seems highly unlikely. Can you provide a link to more information on this?

Despite the wall of words following the OP hasn't provided it. Sounds like nonsense.

FineWine

2981 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Nurse (R)

Lifetime subscriber

#2382518 29-Dec-2019 16:05

I have said it before in other Topics:

Faith is individualistic and immutable and incorruptible. But Religion is a social construct, made by Man for Man to explain Faith, therefore it is fallible.

People often use religion as a justification for violent actions and many religious institutions passively tolerate violence and in so doing so they are actually promoting it. So it is upto the followers and believers whether they interpret Religious texts to support any form of violence. Religion does not hurt people, people hurt people. Using Religion ANY Religion as a justification for violence should NOT be tolerated in ANY society.

The reality is that religion can and does exist without promoting violence. It is up to the followers and believers of that religion to interpret the religious texts in a humanely and loving manner and refrain from using Religion as a teaching and ethical code to justify violence of any kind.

But let us not forget that Tradition and Culture are also a facilitator of violence and jointly and individually can be far easier to change than a Religion.

Whilst the difficult we can do immediately, the impossible takes a bit longer. However, miracles you will have to wait for.

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2382587 29-Dec-2019 17:40

I think a number of people in the thread need to read the actual law:

59 Parental control
(1) Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of the child is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or

(b) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence; or

(c) preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour; or

(d) performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).
(4) To avoid doubt, it is affirmed that the Police have the discretion not to prosecute complaints against a parent of a child or person in the place of a parent of a child in relation to an offence involving the use of force against a child, where the offence is considered to be so inconsequential that there is no public interest in proceeding with a prosecution.

Also worth noting, We had a referendum on this 85%+ said no to smacking

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2382628 29-Dec-2019 19:12

Beccara:
I

Also worth noting, We had a referendum on this 85%+ said no to smacking

Not true!

85% voted no to the stupid “anti smacking” law!

DescriptionThe New Zealand corporal punishment referendum, 2009 was held from 31 July to 21 August, and was a citizens-initiated referendum on parental corporal punishment.
It asked: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Voter turnout was 56.1%. 87.4% of votes answered 'no'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_Zealand_citizens-initiated_referendum

dafman

3927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2382653 29-Dec-2019 20:42

nunz:

Scripture tells us to be mature, grown up, wise, discerning. It tells us to think and learn.

It does not tell us to treat as literal every word of every book.

Except for, say, homosexuality ... then it's 100% literal (and 0% for the combination of mature, grown up, wise, discerning, thinking and learning).

Oops, sorry, off topic.

Back on topic - still waiting for a bit more information on the grandmother prosecuted under the current law for pulling her grandson to safety from oncoming traffic?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8