Bradford Bitch gets her first conviction.

[MSTRS:Me]

As a result of Bradford's bill there is at least one child that has been afforded the protection that both you and I have as of right.

Did you think about that before you typed it? The fact that the child was assaulted, if that's what it was, refutes your statement.

[Skyryder]

Did you think about that before you typed it? The fact that the child was assaulted, if that's what it was, refutes your statement.

The protection that you and I have as of right refers to the protection of the Court not the parent that you post implies.

If you are going to comment on my posts try and understand them first.


Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

The protection that you and I have as of right refers to the protection of the Court not the parent that you post implies.

If you are going to comment on my posts try and understand them first.


Skyryder

Stop trying to be disingenuous....
Protection implies that the 'bad thing' will be stopped from happening...it wasn't.
It would be correct to say that any sort of law allows legal consequenses for whomsoever may break that law. That is different.

[Skyryder]

Stop trying to be disingenuous....
Protection implies that the 'bad thing' will be stopped from happening...it wasn't.
It would be correct to say that any sort of law allows legal consequenses for whomsoever may break that law. That is different.

No it is not.

The victim of these 'legal consequences' is given protection of the law by the courts by way of the guilty plea (that's the child in the case in question) The protection of the court is also applied by way of sentance. No law isgoing to stop perpetrators from breaking it. It just means that it becomes unlawful. Jeeeezzz are you that dumb? I mean realy.

If you are going to use fancy words use the right ones. Disingenuous=having secret motives, insincere. Nothing secret about my support for for Bradford's bill and as for me being insincere...............not too sure just how you arrived at that conclusion............been reading your tea leaves. Try a tea bag in future that way there are no leaves for you to misinterpret.


Skyryder

[Pixie]

THAT is exactly what we have to worry about...I have spoken myself to little 9 year old tough guys who told me to "fuck off" and when asked what sort of language this was, their answer was very quick to come back as :

"what are you going to do about it?"

If no longer any consequences to bad behaviour, then there no longer any limits.

I am not condoning violence, but consequences have to be kept to retain respect. We are going too far one way or the other: what's wrong with finding a right balance? People think it's too hard and therefor put it in the "too hard" basket.

What these pinko pc fuckwit academics don't understand is that kids instinctively push the limits to establish their place in the hierarchy.On top of that they are egocentric up to the age of 7 or 8 and only respond to whatever affects them directly.Even if they seem to want to please others it is only for the benefit they can gain for themselves.This is a unconsious behaviour trait in all mammal offspring.

If they are not reprimanded with the most effective penalty - minor physical or emotional pain as all other mammal parents do, they realise that they don't need to do as they are told and remain self centered little shits as they enter adulthood.

[MSTRS:Me]

No it is not.

The victim of these 'legal consequences' is given protection of the law by the courts by way of the guilty plea (that's the child in the case in question) The protection of the court is also applied by way of sentance. No law isgoing to stop perpetrators from breaking it. It just means that it becomes unlawful. Jeeeezzz are you that dumb? I mean realy.

If you are going to use fancy words use the right ones. Disingenuous=having secret motives, insincere. Nothing secret about my support for for Bradford's bill and as for me being insincere...............not too sure just how you arrived at that conclusion............been reading your tea leaves. Try a tea bag in future that way there are no leaves for you to misinterpret.


Skyryder

Sigh....the legal consequences apply to the lawbreaker, not the victim.
I'm not stupid - I know what you mean, but like many laws, it could have been worded better. Just like this stupid law. There was nothing wrong with how it was (S.59) but Chester's attempt was just too sensible.
American Heritage Dictionary
dis·in·gen·u·ous (dĭs'ĭn-jěn'yōō-əs) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.

[Skyryder]

Sigh....the legal consequences apply to the lawbreaker, not the victim.
I'm not stupid - I know what you mean, but like many laws, it could have been worded better. Just like this stupid law. There was nothing wrong with how it was (S.59) but Chester's attempt was just too sensible.

Look up pedantic. Futile springs to mind too but I suspect that you already know the meaning.

Skyryder

[MSTRS:Me]

Look up pedantic. Futile springs to mind too but I suspect that you already know the meaning.

Skyryder

I'm well aware of the meanings of both those words.
If meaning of pedantic includes 'say what you mean', then we agree on something.
As for futile...yes, I'm arguing with an idiot

[007XX]

If they are not reprimanded with the most effective penalty - minor physical or emotional pain as all other mammal parents do, they realise that they don't need to do as they are told and remain self centered little shits as they enter adulthood.

Most definitely...what pisses me off the most though I think, is that those supporting this law are basically saying that no parent is ever capable of restraining themselves in how far they go with the intensity with which they restrain or correct their child.

So what? we are all child beaters??? C'mon, give me a break...

[Storm]

Dont ya know? We're all child bashers, and dont get me started on what I am- as a middle class white male who works for his money, I'm well known as a racist chold molesting scumbag with no concern for anyone except himself. And I am also one of those smelly, lawbreaking "biker" types to top it all off

Sadly, that seems to be the way NZ is going these days

*shrugs, stops beating head futily against wall and goes back to life*

[devnull]

Most definitely...what pisses me off the most though I think, is that those supporting this law are basically saying that no parent is ever capable of restraining themselves in how far they go with the intensity with which they restrain or correct their child.

So what? we are all child beaters??? C'mon, give me a break...

Agreed.

What also pisses me off is the number of people that don't have kids yet think they're experts on raising them

[mstriumph]

so acording to the law someone posted up, I can smack my child if they are disruptive, but not for correction?
...................

-Indy

you have CHILD?? sheesh, that's scarey!!

[007XX]

Agreed.

What also pisses me off is the number of people that don't have kids yet think they're experts on raising them

Based on section 4, any member of the Police Corp is....Really makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Usarka]

What also pisses me off is the number of people that don't have kids yet think they're experts on raising them

Yeah Helen Clarke pisses me off too....

[Skyryder]

I'm well aware of the meanings of both those words.
If meaning of pedantic includes 'say what you mean', then we agree on something.
As for futile...yes, I'm arguing with an idiot

Pedantic does not mean 'say what you mean' It's meaning is 'to the strict adherance.......... and to the literal meaning at the expense of the wider view.'

The word that you are wanting is articulate. Able to speak or write fluently or coherently. That means using the correct word or words for what you want to say or describe accurately etc.

As for me being an idiot I can only assume that this is based on the fact that I do not agree with you. Once again wrong word.

Skyryder