Sue Bradfords Anti-Spanking Bill

[mstriumph]

.. sometimes everybody needs one ..

I dunno what to think. It's too complicated for me, and I think that in hindsight it would have been better if I wasn't a parent. Probably makes sense - anyone who's a sorry excuse for a human will be a sorry excuse for a parent, and anyone who's had poor parenting is fighting a losing battle to be a good parent themselves.
I don't remember any of the corporal punishment meted out to me, apart from that which was blatantly unjust. Maybe it all was.

[mstriumph]

Churchill said "Rather jaw, jaw, jaw than war, war, war" ..... or, if he didn't, he should have

Perhaps because it presents a forum where diplomacy can avoid major wars. The last one was 60 years ago, probably the longest ever period between international conflicts.

[Lou Girardin]

Except for when the Americans attacked Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf and Iraq, the poms fought the Argentinians in the Falklands - both good diplomatic members of said UN council and able to veto any attempts at being charged with war crimes - which is what should happen to GW Bush and a large number of the US Military. Will never happen because the US would veto any move by the UN to bring such charges to bear - the US can do that despite the fact GWB blatantly disregarded UN rulings re Iraq and unilaterally created a "Coallition of the Willing to Murder" including the UK and Australia.

I have no respect for the UN as they are nothing but a pack of ineffectual wankers. Suspend the right to veto, kick the US out of the UN for flagrant breach of UN rules and hang GW Bush by the neck in public as a war criminal on a par with Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein - then I'll have some respect for them.

LiasTZ will be puzzled by the above as I am generally against Capital Punishment, but I am all for it for war criminals - which is what Bush Jr is - even though he will never be convicted of it because the UN is useless.

'Major' wars, not little brushfire affairs. Those are all hiccups compared to WW1 or WW2 or if there had been a war between US and USSR.
Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?

[Wolf]

'Major' wars, not little brushfire affairs. Those are all hiccups compared to WW1 or WW2 or if there had been a war between US and USSR.
Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?

Dunno if the poor buggers that got stomped in said "brushfires" would deem them to be minor.

And I'm saying the UN needs to grow some balls and seriously kick arse when its rulings are ignored by inbred morons with a lust for blood and glory. I have no respect for an organisation that purports to be a World Police Force that cannot even police its own members.

The founding countries of the UN all granted themselves immunity from the actions of said organisation with their power of veto - it was corrupt and diseased from day one. That should be rectified or it should be disbanded and replaced with a more impartial Multinational Organisation.

Would we put up with a judicial system here in which a High Court judge, say, could say "No, sorry, I am not going to allow you to try me for crimes that have been alleged against me."?

No one should be above the law - and that includes International Law. The League of Nations ceased to exist after failing to prevent WWII, perhaps the UN should cease to exist for failing to keep it own founding members in line.

The US is not just any "rogue state" - it is one with the ability to hold itself above the law. If it were some rogue non-foundational banana republic, they'd be facing war crimes tribunals by now.

The UN is diseased, kill it, get something better.

[ManDownUnder]

No one should be above the law - and that includes International Law. The League of Nations ceased to exist after failing to prevent WWII, perhaps the UN should cease to exist for failing to keep it own founding members in line.

The US is not just any "rogue state" - it is one with the ability to hold itself above the law. If it were some rogue non-foundational banana republic, they'd be facing war crimes tribunals by now.

The UN is diseased, kill it, get something better.

If I recall one of the reasons for founding the UN was that nuclear devices held the possibility of giving extreme and unbalanced power to any one nation.

To counter any one nation hving an unreasonable influence on world politics a union was formed. Not of States - of Nations.

Now it seems the Union of States seeks (or wields) more power that the Union of Nations????

Yeah - not right.

[ManDownUnder]

Are you saying that because a rogue state (US) ignores the UN, everyone should?

If anyone ignores the UN they should do so at their own peril - even moreso if they are a member.

Like the a Police Officer breaking the law... they MADE the law, they promised to uphold the law, so breaking it is an extreme offense.

So it should go with a founding member of the UN, when breaking the UN rules/mandates etc.

[MSTRS:Me]

Nobody ever died from a swift smack on the butt cheeks and nobody ever will! It is definitely NOT child abuse, in fact those parents who choose NOT to discilpine their kids are the ones who are abusive.

Absolutely right. HOWEVER..... just playing Devil's Advocate here....although firm, fair discipline will normally produce a 'good' result, I don't believe that it's application or lack of will always have the desired effect. Some kids are just 'born bad', for want of a better term. Discipline in and of itself is not the answer. Parents absolutely must involve their kids in the parent's lives & themselves in their kid's lives too. Unfortunately there are too many parents out there who expect their kids to grow & develop without active input. These are the kids most at risk of growing up bad.

[mstriumph]

..... I am uncomfortable with the thought of anyone being 'born bad' ...... yep, people do grow up self-centred, cruel, unempathetic, selfish but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that was the result of nature and not nurture?

[mstriumph]

however [she was quick to add] that's absolutely no excuse for it!

[MSTRS:Me]

..... I am uncomfortable with the thought of anyone being 'born bad' ...... yep, people do grow up self-centred, cruel, unempathetic, selfish but I haven't seen anything to suggest that that was the result of nature and not nurture?

What I was trying to say was along the lines of ...if everyone was raised absolutely identically, some would be 'perfect', most would be 'ok' but some would be 'evil'. See what I'm getting at? It's called 'free-will' I think. Anyway, nature plays a bigger part than we'd care to admit but since we can't control that, we must use love & discipline to nurture our kids in the right direction. And too many parents don't. And too many PC laws etc are cramping parent's rights.

[mstriumph]

I'll go along with some people being born with a tendancy towards .. call it 'evil' if you will [same way as some of us are left handed ] but i'd be hesitant to say that couldn't be influenced/amended/altered?

[MSTRS:Me]

but i'd be hesitant to say that couldn't be influenced/amended/altered?

Of course it can. But is it being done effectively nowadays (as I understand it from my upbringing).
My dictionary states - Discipline (n) A state of order maintained by training & control, a particular system of regulations for conduct, instruction & excercise designed to train to proper conduct or action, drill, chastise, punishment inflicted by way of correction and training, the training effect of experience or adversity.
It is worth noting that the term 'discipline' derives from the word 'disciple' (meaning follower).
So - smacking a child should be considered one of the means at our disposal for keeping that child on the path we intend for them. In no way do I condone a 'hiding' using fists or the like. I see no problem with using an open hand slap on the bum.
If Section 59 was clarified to reflect this, then I do not oppose that change. But if the section is repealed altogether then that is an entirely different matter.

[stevedee]

Have a laugh about the law change if comes, it won't change anything, the type that beat their kids will continue to do so, and the rest of us "nice" folk will worry about reasonable force and debate it till the cows come home.

For the most part the laws are made for us nice folks to feel safe and in control. The minority who the law was made to control don't and never will give a rat's ar@e about it until they get caught, and in this country it looks like there is a very slim chance of that.

With all the possible security issues any country faces right now regarding terrorism I would have thought the government could use their time more productively, but then again I guess to get re elected you need to be seen on TV. What a load of bollocks politics is.

spd:-)

[FROSTY:Me]

Wolf I like your attitude. I dissagree with the priciple of NEVER smacking a child but I do agree there are alternatives to smacking.
I feel that child punishment/control is about having a full armoury of rewards and punishments.Certainly what you do is what I do except smacking is included.
With baby bikie there were certain actions that could result in him being seriously hurt. walking out onto a busy road,playing with electrical sockets and to a lesser extent touching the exhaust on my bike are just three that came to mind. At a young age the smack on the back of the hand was used to remind him---to do this hurts.Now hes 6 and that principle doesn't apply

[mstriumph]

Amen to that...

....................With all the possible security issues any country faces right now regarding terrorism I would have thought the government could use their time more productively, but then again I guess to get re elected you need to be seen on TV. What a load of bollocks politics is.

spd:-)