Mr Tips mentioned the quality of journalism we see from Paul Holmes, as he got stuck into Cheryl Savil and Bob McCoskrie about the smacking referendum. His line of questioning was aggressive, bordering on abusive. One wonders how he can be so judgmental.
Kiwiblog has the followup discussion on Paul Holmes on smacking. Some of the comments illustrate the problem in this debate.
From Phil U:
“..and of course the parent/child relationship is an imbalance of power..
..it is really fascist in nature..”
Maybe his family. His words sum up the warped viewpoint from those that equate a smack in discipline to child abuse. Yes, there is an imbalance of power. Also of maturity, responsibility and duty. Well, in most cases. And don't forget to bring the element of love into the picture of a family. What a comment.
From Hubris:
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Trying to make it about violence, then trying to imply force is a bad thing. Let's make it illegal to perform CPR. I know some of these people would also like to see rugby banned for the same reason.
Then others will claim either that you can't compel a stranger to eat their Greens, so you can't therefore insist your child eat healthy food. Hang on, I meant you aren't allowed to discipline a stranger, so why should a parent be able to raise their children with disciplinary techniques that require force (which under law includes threats) Are they insane? Vote YES for that one.
The rugby argument is often countered by this concept of "consent". Adults can consent to being hit in a game of rugby, but children cannot give consent to be parented.
Children, technically are incapable of giving consent on any issue.
Therefore, even if they say so, they don't consent to going to bed, they don't consent to eating the right food, they don't consent to stopping pulling the tail of the dog. Maybe a good parent just has to leave the kid on the doorstep until they are adults and can provide legal consent to be looked after?
And perhaps that's why families are fascist.
We are debating with idiots. Unfortunately, idiots like these make stupid laws.
Kiwiblog has the followup discussion on Paul Holmes on smacking. Some of the comments illustrate the problem in this debate.
From Phil U:
“..and of course the parent/child relationship is an imbalance of power..
..it is really fascist in nature..”
Maybe his family. His words sum up the warped viewpoint from those that equate a smack in discipline to child abuse. Yes, there is an imbalance of power. Also of maturity, responsibility and duty. Well, in most cases. And don't forget to bring the element of love into the picture of a family. What a comment.
From Hubris:
“Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.”
Trying to make it about violence, then trying to imply force is a bad thing. Let's make it illegal to perform CPR. I know some of these people would also like to see rugby banned for the same reason.
Then others will claim either that you can't compel a stranger to eat their Greens, so you can't therefore insist your child eat healthy food. Hang on, I meant you aren't allowed to discipline a stranger, so why should a parent be able to raise their children with disciplinary techniques that require force (which under law includes threats) Are they insane? Vote YES for that one.
The rugby argument is often countered by this concept of "consent". Adults can consent to being hit in a game of rugby, but children cannot give consent to be parented.
Children, technically are incapable of giving consent on any issue.
Therefore, even if they say so, they don't consent to going to bed, they don't consent to eating the right food, they don't consent to stopping pulling the tail of the dog. Maybe a good parent just has to leave the kid on the doorstep until they are adults and can provide legal consent to be looked after?
And perhaps that's why families are fascist.
We are debating with idiots. Unfortunately, idiots like these make stupid laws.
“..and of course the parent/child relationship is an imbalance of power..
ReplyDelete..it is really fascist in nature..”
I would be interested to hear what Phil U and others like him would argue is the alternative. Separate kids from their parents at birth and put them in institutions to be raised by the State? But hang on, isn't that just substituting "CYFS staff worker" for "parent" in the above statement, and for at least as much reason?
Or maybe kids should at birth be placed in a room with only other kids of the same age, so everyone is equal (at least until one particularly strong and bossy kid makes good his claim to be in charge). The prospects of feeding them and caring for them properly become interesting...
Having read DPF's post on the Holmes interview it would seem that all the silly arguments were put to bed by a very capable McCroskie an Savil.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when DPF strays from his social liberal tendencies, then it really says the idiots _must_ have it wrong!
Of course to show how much of a social liberal DPF is, he outlines other such issues he supports, even Abortion on demand. How can one say that? Not just 'pro-abortion', nor 'a woman's right to choose', but 'abortion ON DEMAND', like's its some commodity. Unbelievable. Anyway I have digressed, on the smacking issue he has done well to expose Holmes' bias.
Holmes violently exposed his own bias. Anyone watching the show who was against the anti-smacking bill would now be firmly against it and anyone supporting it would still be firmly supporting it. It was not an issues debate, designed to inform and enlighten, it was a series of inflammatory statements for both sides, and as a result, completely useless as a vote changing event.
ReplyDelete