Monday, September 10, 2007

Lucia Decline of married Mum and Dad families in NZ linked to child abuse

Today on NewsTalk ZB from after 12pm there was a very interesting discussion involving the talkshow host, Danny Watson and many callers, many of whom had noticed that the decline of the married Mum and Dad family is linked to a decline in the care for our children, which has then give the Cindy Kiros of this world an excuse to nationalise the nation's children.

Unfortunately, I had to go out, so didn't listen to it beyond 12:55pm. However, my point really is that they types of issues we post about here on NZ Conservative are being noticed by middle NZ.

13 comment(s):

Anonymous said...

I totally agree, The liberal policies of the last few decades are causing the chickens to come home to roost

Anonymous said...

Mmm, anecdotal

I.M Fletcher said...

Definitely. Instead of promoting more and more Government intervention into the lives to families it is family life itself that should be promoted and protected.

As usual, the Govt. is going the wrong way about it.

Anonymous said...

Where is the research that proves the link Lucyna? Comments to talkback is anecdotal at best and talkback listeners are not "middle NZ" Sorry try again. Jeff

ZenTiger said...

So what's wrong with anecdotal evidence exactly? It has its place.

fugley said...

Anecdotal evidence is produced whenever there is no verifiable evidence to prove a claim.

Is anecdotal evidence permitted in court? No, because it has no veracity.

Is anecdotal evidence permitted in science? No, unless you believe in young earth creation and deny scientific evidence.

Is anecdotal evidence permitted in religion? Yes, becuase everything unproven must be believed if it happened to a believer.

Anonymous said...

Fugley, I don't know if you have noticed, but this is neither a science lab or a court of law.

fugley said...

yes rags, I had noticed; its much more like a church, a palce where evidence is not only not required, it is not welcome, either.

Mustn't let knowledge come between believer and belief, must we?

KG said...

Seems to me that anecdotal evidence often expresses the "wisdom of crowds".
There's all kinds of evidence not allowed in a court of law--I once waded through a whole textbook on the rules of evidence and it was mind-numbingly complex.
But so what? That something can't be used in a court of law in no way invalidates it.
Same for science, which has its own rules formulated for specific reasons but there are plenty of scientists who nonetheless express a faith in a higher being.

KG said...

No doubt people arriving in leaky boats, telling their hosts tales of barbarities in the place they've fled are merely recounting anecdotal evidence too.
Perhaps we should send them back on that basis?
Of course not--and lefties would be very quick to accept their evidence in such cases.

Anonymous said...

Anecdotal evidence is accepted in court. You see it with the former S59 smacking legislation where the degree of public acceptance or disapproval determined how cases were handled. The same thing applies in public decency standards which determine whether you get charged or not.

And taking the highest court in the land, Parliament, laws are made and unmade not always on evidence, but on the whims and feelings of the lawmakers and their electorates who use anecdotal evidence that it's a good thing to do.


Forensic morsels said...

For two basic points you raise: increased abuse and increased government invention, you could also argue that an increased level of intervention by the government and a wider provision of social work resources is bringing more incidents of abuse to light. I don't know if that's actually the case but its an equally plausible one.

Anonymous said...

Evidence is very welcome in the church Fugley. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. On the contrary it is the atheist who is running scared and has given up the search for truth. But just keep telling yourself that atheism is a respectable intellectual position, but it has become apparent that it is just as dogmatic and narrow minded as any dyed in the wool backwoods fundamentalism.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.