Comments for Vote No

Comment on Treat kids like adults - don’t treat kids like adults. Huh? by Bob

Bob — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:30:43 +0000

Of course that is inconsistent…

Age does matter in both of those cases. It is inconsistent to say age matter in one and not in another. A light smack to 12-13 years old will not harm them physically. On the other hand, just about any kind of smack on newborn will of course likely to do serious physical harm. So age does matter and Barbara was being inconsistent.

And traumatic? Oh please, if causing trauma is illegal, most politicians will be in jail by now.

Anyone who can not differentiate light force and assault is just plain idiot, do you sue your work mate for assault when they give you a pat on the back?

At the end of the day, it should not be illegal to use reasonable force for correcting our children.

But some people will say what is reasonable?

Well, that’s what judges, lawyers, juries, etc are for! If we can define law in black and white, we’d just need a computer program to decide if people go to jail or not.

Most of us know how to differentiate assault and non-assault, it’s not our problem that the anti-smackers don’t have the same common sense.

Comment on Barnardos Founder Would Have Voted No by Peter Gerrie

Peter Gerrie — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:49:13 +0000

Tom Barnardo did much for the children of his time- Remember however he died in 1905 after a life of working tirlessly for children. For his time he was a forward thinking man not locked into the centry prior to his own like the people who are fighting so hard today for the right to hit children - if he were alive today Tom Barnardo would have proudly voted Yes for a law that is working well.

Comment on Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed by pro-choice

pro-choice — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:57:06 +0000

fatboy,
1.jesus isnt in question here, what about people who don’t share ur religion so lets just not go there.
2. i would spend 9mil on lots of things actually but if ur talking about in relation to this, i would spend 9mil on better and more resources in order to PREVENT abuse rather than dealing with the result. this law currently puts more strain on our all ready backlogged underresourced system, and you answer me this when constble smith is dwn the road with social worker in hand (bcause hel have to have one) responding to a report of a smacked bum (bcause hel have to investigate) then wats happening to poor bashed up billy down the road whose waiting his turn to be seen?

Comment on Ex-Labour Cabinet Minister “Referendum needs no correction” by fatboy

fatboy — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:37:36 +0000

This is comic gold, I saw the title and thought an ex-labour minister? I wonder who it is, then I saw its Tamihere!
Hahahaha, since when was anything he thought level-headed?
You’re shooting down your own argument!
Next you’ll have Don Brash giving his seal of approval.

I’m sending this link to everyone I know….

Comment on Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed by fatboy

fatboy — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:16:38 +0000

Come on zen tiger, 50% increase? If you are allowed to make up statistics then so will I……
80% of smackers like to listen to Prodigy when they smack their kids.
(smack my b#$ch up!)

If you can’t argue your view without lying, don’t bother.

I’ve got 2 questions I’d like answered from a smacker:
1. Who would Jesus smack?
2. If you had $9million to spend on making this country a better place, what would you spend it on?
(other than having the right to inflict fear into your children)

Comment on Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed by hana

hana — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:39:08 +0000

“The court is not stupid and the people making the determinations of guilt or innocence in our courts are normal, everyday people. If it is so obvious to all of us that hitting a child across the face with a soup ladle is child abuse, and it is obvious to all of us, a court, made up of people like us, is not going to rule that such an action is an example of reasonable force.”

But these normal, everyday people still have to follow the law. If the law states that it is okay to use force as a means of correction, than the courts have to follow that. No one, to my knowledge is claiming that all defenses should be removed, they shouldn’t, like you say, it is what our society hinges on. But we can still discuss whether a defense should be accepted under the law or not.

Also, in response to Zentiger’s comments about the 50% increase in notifications, I wish you would talk to those who answer the police phones. It really annoys me when claims are made about the police which are not based in fact. Increases in notifications are a good thing, it means more people are standing up for the children. And if you do talk to a call taker at the police, ask them when the last time they got a call about a smack was. Then ask when the last call about a child who has a broken bone from “correction”.

Comment on The ‘face’ of the anti-smacking lobby!! by Grrr

Grrr — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:37:21 +0000

Way not to post critical comments.

Comment on Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed by Theology Geek NZ » Blog Archive » MandM featured on Vote No

Theology Geek NZ » Blog Archive » MandM featured on Vote No — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:20:32 +0000

[...] first one, published today, was my “No Defences Permitted For The Accused,” which is already drawing comments – feel free to jump [...]

Comment on Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed by Max

Max — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:46:51 +0000

“Right… so a light smack is a criminal offence then?”

Yep! ….now a word from Otago…. “Get over it!”

Comment on Classic Anti-Smacking Argument Exposed by ZenTiger

ZenTiger — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:57:26 +0000

PS: And statistically, most kids of the previous generation have had the occasional smack as they grew up.