The Evil Bastards come out of hiding again

[Murray]

Actually the shitty vodka and similar sales dropped quite dramatically but the sales of shitty wine etc went up

[puppykicker]

exactly, the total number of drunk kids didnt change at all. pulling booze from supermarkets wont fix it either.

[devnull]

methinks ol' puppylicker needs to use the search facility...

I suggest starting with this:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...43#post1312843

Obviously a fundy religious organisation publication (British Journal of Social Work)

Another religious nuthouse publication... Will it never end?
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/200...s_release.html

Plus, if you really believe the spin that crime has decreased, I have a bridge I can sell you with great harbour views...

[devnull]

Something to sum up this thread:

"Private Jenkins!" yelled the Captain. "Get over here
immediately, there's something you need to see!"

"Right away, sir!" Jenkins shouted back, crossing the open area
in the center of their camp at a double march.

"You see these tracks, Jenkins?" the Captain asked, neither
requesting nor expecting a reply. He continued, "And that smell?
Private Jenkins! Are you paying attention to me!?"

"Sir, I am positively brimming with attention, I assure you."

"Don't be a smart-ass, Jenkins."

"I blame my parents, sir."

"Don't we all, Jenkins. Don't we all." the Captain sighed. "Tell
me, Jenkins, in light of my on-going efforts to provide you with what
we in the army like to call An Edjukayshun, what creature leaves
tracks like these, accompanied by such a horrific stench?"

"A troll, sir?" Jenkins replied cautiously.

"Bang on, Private Jenkins. Nicely done. A troll. You must be on
your guard at all times. They are Very Very Nasty." the Captain
warned.

"But what shall I do if this creature attacks me? Shall I feign
death? Shall I hurl pomegranates, in the manner so effectively
demonstrated by you last week when we were assaulted by nuns in the
market?" asked Jenkins, noticably agitated.

"No no," the Captain replied, "pomegranates will just make
things worse, and feigning death is a bit extreme under the
circumstances. Mark my words, boy, if you are ever confronted by a
troll, there is only one thing you can do..."

"Tell me, tell me!" pleaded Jenkins, interrupting.

"You must ignore him. The troll feeds on attention, Jenkins.
Ignore him and he will die. It will not be pleasant. You will be
tempted to watch the squirming, the cries of agony will reach deep
down into your underpants and grab you by the ... well, you get the
idea, Jenkins. Trust me: ignore the troll, be strong, and perhaps you
will live to hurl pomegranates at nuns another day."

"Thank you, sir. It is truly an honour to serve with you."

"You're right about that, Private. Dismissed"

[puppykicker]

once again you failed to address any of my points. and i asked for a source on the annecdotal evidence you provided, not the statistics. i googled for it, but couldnt find anything, as for searching kiwibiker, i was unaware this was a reputable source of news...

as for claiming i think crime has decreased, your parents hit you too much as a child, they may have damaged your brain. A: the law has been in effect for such a short time that any conclusions on its effect would be impossible and B: i never said that, and neither did anyone else

you've also failed to address the fact that the law change has not changed cyfs handling of potention abuse cases in any way, and that the only person who will see the business end of the change are those the police charge with abuse, who will no longer be able to claim beating a child with a stick or a jug cord is reasonable discipline. if you have anything at all to refute this then please by all means show it to us.

but you keep arguing your point without actually making one, it makes you look really smart.

[mstriumph]

..........while the elected government goes about representing the people that voted for them.

if ONLY........ *sigh*

[devnull]

once again you failed to address any of my points. and i asked for a source on the annecdotal evidence you provided, not the statistics. i googled for it, but couldnt find anything, as for searching kiwibiker, i was unaware this was a reputable source of news...

Google is your friend.
Or you could go have a read of selected cases on the FamilyFirst website. This forum also supports a wonderful thing called hyperlinks, that will connect you to other sites...

as for claiming i think crime has decreased, your parents hit you too much as a child, they may have damaged your brain. A: the law has been in effect for such a short time that any conclusions on its effect would be impossible and B: i never said that, and neither did anyone else

Then don't imply it as you did in post #92

you've also failed to address the fact that the law change has not changed cyfs handling of potention abuse cases in any way, and that the only person who will see the business end of the change are those the police charge with abuse, who will no longer be able to claim beating a child with a stick or a jug cord is reasonable discipline. if you have anything at all to refute this then please by all means show it to us.

but you keep arguing your point without actually making one, it makes you look really smart.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00121.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0703/S00325.htm

I also remember the "stick / length of wood" spin, that turned out to be a 12" wooden ruler - the same ones you buy for your kids in primary school

So, please state
a) How many times was the original S.59 used in court as a defence since 1961?
b) How many times did a jury agree?
c) What, if any, research has ever been undertaken that supports your view in any way whatsoever?
d) If the answer in c) is none, what makes you think that others should live their lives according to your opinions?

Bob McCroskie: "So you do not want to see smacking banned?" Helen Clark: "Absolutely not, I think you are trying to defy human nature."

[puppykicker]

well played sir, you just provided a quote that proved my entire point. thank you for playing.

p.s. family first is a religous org with a clear agenda, not the best place to point if you want to be taken seriously

[puppykicker]

before i leave you to your manly whining, one more thing

Then don't imply it as you did in post #92

exactly, the total number of drunk kids didnt change at all. pulling booze from supermarkets wont fix it either.

...what?

[devnull]

well played sir, you just provided a quote that proved my entire point. thank you for playing.

p.s. family first is a religous org with a clear agenda, not the best place to point if you want to be taken seriously

Typical bleeding heart liberalist bullshit. Attack the messenger because you can't attack the message.

Is Otago Uni a religious org as well?

BTW, how many children have you raised?

[RantyDave]

and how about we talk about the petition wording? "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand" funny that they would have to be that disingenuous just to get people to sign.

Exactly. You can get gullible cun... most people to sign anything you want if you spin it right.

I wish I could stop being so revolted by the whole thing, but it's just not going away. I'd like to see how the referendum is going to be worded. I suspect the pro child beating lobby are going to be disappointed.

Dave

[RantyDave]

It WAS used successfully as a defence 8 times in the last 42 years i.e. a jury decided that the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

And here lies one of the more amazing things about the whole debacle. This is not some huge sweeping change bought down by an oppressive government. This is a second tier MP in a second tier party mopping up a pathetically small avenue through which people had successfully been assaulting children. Not very many, but some. With any luck the law change means that the 'riding crop lady' doesn't become 'James Whakaruru's Mum' (link, for the short of memory). Point is that had the conservative/Christian world (who could do other Christians a favour and kindly shut the fuck up) kept their mouths shut then it would have passed without a murmur and almost nobody would have any idea who Sue Bradford was. But noooooo.

Bradford's amendment was not just anti-smacking, it was anti anything involving "force". Your kid won't go to their room? You can't make them. If you do, you're a criminal.

Oh please. Come back to me when someone does time for picking a kid up and putting them in their room.

I'm not going to bury my child because some mad commie dipshit thinks she's a model parent.

My point exactly. You're not. We may, however, reduce the number of violent members of society your child is expected to hang out with on a daily basis for the rest of their lives. Which would be nice.

I note that the PC** brigade stick to pseudo-religious prattle concerning the anti-smacking debate

The pseudo religious prattle comes from the pro-violence side of the debate.

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

And this, is the truth

Dave

[RantyDave]

This quote seems appropriate to NZ today:

AGHGHGHGH! Devnull godwinned the thread. Oh well, better go do something fun instead.

Dave

[RantyDave]

Oh OK, just one more.

do you really think that the problem with all the hoodlums running around south auckland is that their parents didnt hit them enough?

Nope. The problem is their parents didnn't do anything. Given a choice between parents hitting their kids and parents not doing anything at all, I'll go for the former any day.

Dave

[devnull]

Dave, you advocate child abuse with your avatar, you offer up nothing other than the fact that everybody needs to live their lives in accordance with your personal views...

You also appear to be woefully ignorant of the paw that you're talking about - I'd suggest you go and read it then come back. Pay particular attention to the third paragraph.

There has been nothing other than opinion, innuendo, emotive rhetoric devoid of any real content (e.g. post #101), from the lefty, kaftan-wearing, tofu-munching brigade. Yet on the other side, we have many non-religious scientific organisations producing data that clearly shows that the kaftan wearers need to stick to hugging trees.

The "slippery slope" theory of violence has been disproved ad nauseum. Those offering it up are a bit of a joke now. It's like saying that drinking coffee (a drug) leads to herion addiction. Or that riding a bike encourages gang activity - ban bikes and the gangs will disappear...

Ironically, it's not like there aren't examples of how damaging this legislation has been elsewhere. Look at how bad Sweden has become.
I guess for some, it's easier to pretend that such things don't really exist, so that they don't have to confront the reality that their ideals are destructive.

After all, the removal of corporal punishment in schools worked so well... unless you're a teacher, that is
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...05-421,00.html