International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘The Ranting Raving Left’

To Transfer to Political Left, Take Wall, Apply Head violently Multiple times

What on earth can you say about people who think like this?

But there’s another…, to oppose social distinction and knighthoods: because they kill people. That was the conclusion of the famous Whitehall II study, which found that social distinction in and of itself led to a gradient of health, with those at the bottom living shorter, less healthy lives than those at the top. The study was controlled for standard risks such as obesity, smoking, and reduced leisure time and physical activity, and for wealth – none of the British civil servants studied was poor in any absolute sense. There mere fact of hierarchy alone meant that people at the bottom were twice as likely to die of heart disease as those at the top. Larvatus Prodeo sums up the political conclusions:

The most obvious such consequence is that the study lends empirical support and an additional line of argument for the radical democratic critique of hierarchical and inegalitarian social structures of all kinds – whether corporate capitalist, Stalinist state socialist, state bureaucratic, patriarchal, clerical or military – and in favour of social democratic policies of redistribution of wealth and opportunity, and radical democratic projects of extending deliberative democratic and egalitarian modes of organisation to all spheres of social life.

And we could start by ditching knighthoods again.

So people who were honored by society (and thus feel better about themselves) live longer than those who have the same health and wealth factors but are no so honored.

Therefore we must make sure that no one is ever made to feel better about themselves lest they get a better deal than anyone else.

Oh, and this proves that taking money from rich people is a good idea.

With logic that bad, how on earth does this guy ever manage to get out of bed?

That’s the left for you – “Let’s all be equally poor and equally miserable and live exactly the same short, miserable, poor lives.”

Frankly, it is a bit of a bumber that there’s equality in the world. But the best way to get what Jim has is not to take it from him, it’s to strive to earn that yourself. This is because trying to take what Jim has tends to destroy not just what Jim has, but Jim too, not to mention the people who are taking it and everyone who’s supposed to share in it.

Without variation, the solution I/S sees to this “problem” has lead to poorer outcomes for everyone involved than the worst outcomes of the solution it replaced. Because it’s a funny thing what happens when you punish success…

Of course, the other possibility for the “knighthoods kill” post is that I/S wants a nighthood and realises that the only people who can now give him one would rather he shuffled off.

More seriously, one is left wondering if he has it in for someone trying to improve his local community. Now that would be sick.

What is Reasonable?

One of the worst/saddest/stupidest things about the Section 59 debate is the complete and utter change of the word “reasonable” when used in conjunction with the word “force”.

In the past, it was possible to use reasonable actions that used force to discipline children. This usually involved taking a child across the parents knee and applying an open hand. Sometimes it might have involved the wooden spoon, and times the cane. Temporary pain was the result.

Now, thanks to a handful of borderline cases, anyone who dares suggest that parents have the right to perform reasonable actions is called a “child beater”, who wants to hit their children with “weapons”, “bits of wood”, “large pipes”, or “horse whips”.

Never mind that none of those descriptions is a sober description of what was used in any borderline case.

Never mind that these borderline cases are so rare, and cases that are quite clear cut are thousands of times more common.

Never mind that for every borderline case that “got off” there was another that did not, and thousands who didn’t even bother to use the S59 defense because they’d simply have been laughed out of court.

Never mind that there were plenty of options to refine the law to do away with the worst practises, while leaving practices that we could all agree were reasonable.

So the other day we had this case.

In the latest incident, the child was having a tantrum so Lagataua put him into “time out”. When the child failed to calm down, Lagataua leant over and pinched the child around the neck, lifting him off the floor slightly, the court heard. The child screamed and was left with a small abrasion and minor bruising to his neck, according to evidence presented.

Seems clear-cut to me. Lashing out at a child’s neck, with force sufficient to lift a child off the floor seems quite unreasonable. I have severe doubts that this man would have escaped conviction under the old law, indeed, it seems that he struck his wife too, which can never be reasonable nor legal.

As an aside, it seems to me that this man would have benefited greatly from education on better ways to discipline, but nanny state tells that that we really shouldn’t discipline at all.

Sadly however, some people seem to think that this is a good example to get really worked up over.

Well here is your poster boy conservative NZ, where is the howling for his freedom? He only picked his child up by the neck and bashed mum, come on, where are the pro-abuse lobby to tell us how the law should be reversed so this guy can abuse his kids legally?

Time to admit maybe NZ that the Nanny State thing is a bullshit myth and that perhaps a lot of NZers jumped to a conclusion over the repeal of section 59, or do you wanna let this guy walk free?

This is the hate that gets thrown at you if you suggest giving mum and dad average reasonable rights. News flash: no one is campaigning for this guy to be let off scott free, just for a simple test of reasonableness to be applied.

Later on in comments, Bomber actually insists on sticking to a direct lie, even after being corrected.

…If Sue’s law hadn’t passed this guy could escape the assault charge just like the father who took a horse whip to his teenage daughter did.

At 3/2/09 10:44 AM, Blogger Dave said…
If Sue’s law hadn’t passed this guy could escape the assault charge just like the father who took a horse whip to his teenage daughter did
That’s rubbish Bomber. And do you mean the riding crop case? From media reports of this latest case I would think that pinching a kids neck and lifting him off the ground in the process is not reasonable in the circumnstances and is a lot worse than a hit on the bum with, say, a riding crop. The defence would have failed under the old law.

At 3/2/09 10:55 AM, Blogger Bomber said…
That’s rubbish Bomber.
No it’s not

And do you mean the riding crop case?
Yes the horse whip case.

I’ve been disciplined with both – they’re quite different. A riding crop on the nether regions like a bamboo cane – solid. A whip is more flexible and depending on the type, may bend to produce pain across a wider area.

Of course, “a whip” conjures up all sorts of images… It’s patently clear that Bomber insists in sticking with the lie because it sounds more dramatic and easier to sell.

But even more bizarre than that, he has the facts of the case completely wrong – he confirms to Dave that it’s the same case, but it was a mother, not a father and a son, not a daughter. Again, the facts seem to change in favour of a more dramatic telling. Mother controlling son becomes father beating daughter.

Oh, and never mind that the discipline came to light because it worked when nothing else would.

So let’s thank the government for telling parents that they can’t even do the most reasonable thing, let alone anything that might sound painful, just because this guy just might have gone free.

He’s not the poster boy. He’s the guy who isn’t even on your team, can’t run 10 feet, but insists in turning up and trying to get on the bus with people who have been training for months.

One last thing, and you can quote me on this one.

Supernanny might never smack, but real life can’t be edited to create happy endings.

Update: I will say one more thing. I had several conversations a few months back with a colleague. She thought that the S59 law was wrong, and that parents should have education on good ways to use physical discipline.

It was immensely frustration to try and explain that I agreed with her on that point. There’s far too much shouting in this particular debate. Most of us want the same thing – safe children, and parents who can parent properly. Some however, just focus on the first, ignoring the need for the second and deteriorate into abusing anyone who dares oppose them.

Also fixed spelling 🙂

Tag Cloud