Flogging a dead horse

32 comments on “Flogging a dead horse ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ghostrider888 1

   18 March 2013 at 11:31 am

   “Framing” First. (as someone who was on the receiving end of a range of implements as a child, it is a fine line between pleasure and pain and you can never go back to the scene of a perfect crime; well you can, yet then the Law nails your ass)
   as an aside, was chatting with a former military soldier the other week, a man with Very strong wairua, and he described how being molested as a child suggested to him internally that it was OK to molest others (which he resisted). In later years he beat the sh*t out of his offending uncle. Karma Police comes to mind.(sadly, he has a substances issues though).

   Some Days “I’m all out of mercy.”
   • bad12 1.1

     18 March 2013 at 9:36 pm

     Lolz, yeah my mum was heart broken when she opened the box that the new electrolux came in and found with the new model she could no longer detach the power cord from it,

     Honestly She only wanted to correct my bad behavior…
2. fender 2

   18 March 2013 at 11:32 am

   Family First = Family Fist.
3. Rich 3

   18 March 2013 at 11:46 am

   More push polling from Farrar then.
4. AsleepWhileWalking 4

   18 March 2013 at 1:14 pm

   The problem with irrelevent fringe groups such as FF is that they are passionate about inflicting their beliefs upon others, and will get out there are rark things up while the normal people sit in apathy.
5. Raymond a Francis 5

   18 March 2013 at 2:40 pm

   The Greens would do well to remember that there was a Citizens Initiated Referendum on this subject with a 54% turn out that voted 87.4% against S.52 which the then government (quite rightly in my opinion) ignored

   I for one would be interested in if the Greens or Labour will insist on CIRs being binding in future
   • fatty 5.1

     18 March 2013 at 3:12 pm

     yes, binding referendums scare me. As you allude to, the anti-smacking referendum was worded inappropriately.
     • QoT 5.1.1

       18 March 2013 at 5:44 pm

       Inappropriately? There’s inappropriate and then there’s “so fucked up it’s barely English”.
       • McFlock 5.1.1.1

         18 March 2013 at 5:50 pm

         “should 43rd trimester miscarriage assistance, for the purposes of reasonable parental discipline, not be made not illegal?”
     • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2

       18 March 2013 at 6:46 pm

       Just put in place safeguards that prevent any of:

       Leading Question
       Suggestive question
       Loaded question

       And we should be right.

       I note the survey asked another leading question which Curia, being professional and all, should have disallowed.
   • vto 5.2

     18 March 2013 at 7:34 pm

     Referendums should be binding (done correctly).

     Power to the people.

     Better than power to John Key, or Bill English, or Peter Dunne winston peters richard prosser michael cullen helen clark nick smith stephen joyce. These people I do not trust to make the right decisions due to the incentives in place.

     Why do so many people who claim to advocate for the people not trust the people?
     • Descendant Of Sssmith 5.2.1

       18 March 2013 at 9:22 pm

       Cause majority rule is not the same as democracy.

       Despite democracy’s faults it’s still better than majority rule.

       Binding referendum are a distraction for reinforcing the tenets of democracy and the separation of powers that this, at at times previous governments, have abused.

       The majority and minority should be getting a say at select committee and their submissions should influence at that point.

       I’d much rather see our political system taught at school and politicians held much more accountable for using them properly.

       Too many people think that laws are made by the the executive and this government encourages that belief with their mandate bullshit.
       • vto 5.2.1.1

         18 March 2013 at 9:31 pm

         Binding referendums would be a way of “holding politicians to account more”. It strips the power away from them. There is surely a tyranny of the majority, but until such time that the tyranny of the minority is wrested back under control then it is the direction to push in, imo.
6. Treetop 6

   18 March 2013 at 2:59 pm

   Has anyone at Family First actually got a brain they use for the good of infants/children?

   Had family First actually asked When and what would you smack for were smacking permissible? this would be telling.

   One of my golden rules when it comes to the welfare of children is: An infant/child needs to be organised according to their physical and cognitive level of development. When this is done, pressure is taken off the infant/child and the carer of the infant/child. When this is not done by the carer, the carer places them self in a situation that they will become angry due to emotional discomfort e.g. the infant/child is unsettled/hurt/requires attention.

   I find any use of force to be unacceptable on an infant/child unless they need to be restrained from a situation where injury will occur. When infants/children are organised according to their physical and cognitive development they are less likely to be harmed and carers are not so wound up from tension and pressure.
   • ghostrider888 6.1

     18 March 2013 at 4:50 pm

     Amen
7. RedBaronCV 7

   18 March 2013 at 8:17 pm

   Yep the kiddie bashers ride again. What is it with these guys wanting to hit people smaller than themselves. Are they bullies looking for some one smaller to bully?

   As far as I can see most of the stories in the paper and the ones FF chooses to highlight are where some third party bystander has reported an incident to the police. Yep, that’s right, the prosections are based on third party complaints. Makes a mockery out of FF’s spin of children dobbing in parents etc. .
8. Morrissey 8

   18 March 2013 at 9:09 pm

   How closely allied is Family First to the Sensible Sentencing Trust?
   • paul andersen 8.1

     19 March 2013 at 6:15 am

     probably best mates.
     • Morrissey 8.1.1

       19 March 2013 at 7:02 am

       No doubt about that, but I wonder if they are formally allied in some way? For example, if you join up with Bob McCoskrie’s Spankers League, do you get an associate S.S. membership, and vice versa?

       Or do you have to join up separately?
9. UpandComer 9

   18 March 2013 at 9:22 pm

   Well, this just shows that you guys support referendums or ‘fringe’ groups that support your views. Green-peace is more of a fringe group then family first, in that they actually break the law, whereas Family-first abides by it, yet all of you would state that Greenpeace is legitimate in what it does because it supports your views. Also, if this referendum above which was actually citizens intiatied isn’t binding, and was ‘leading’ etc, how can you then claim that a referendum in which union officials, young (well 40 year old median age) labour ppl and SJS students were incentivised with taxpayer money to accost people on the street re asset sales possibly be legitimate? Again, you will say that it was ‘legitimate’ (though it obviously isn’t, a referendum is supposed to be organic, not bought and paid for and run by political parties) because it supports your incorrect views 🙂 That the above referendum is deemed illegitimate and the Labour/Green voter spam contact details collection is deemed legitimate, says a lot about the worth of the arguments presented here..
   • Draco T Bastard 9.1

     18 March 2013 at 9:52 pm

     That the above referendum is deemed illegitimate…

     The leading question makes it illegitimate.

     yet all of you would state that Greenpeace is legitimate in what it does because it supports your views.

     No, it’s because Greenpeace happens to be right – we do need to protect the environment same as we need to protect children. Family First is wrong because they’re failing in that latter charge – in fact, they’re standing up for more abuse of children.
   • Descendant Of Sssmith 9.2

     18 March 2013 at 10:11 pm

     No I support the law change for the same reason I would have supported the removal of the ability to beat your servants had I been around at the time and for the removal of the law that allowed you to beat your wife to correct her as well.

     The law was a hangover from Victorian male ownership of wives and children and biblical bullshit about spare the rod spoil the child.

     It’s no surprise that it’s strongest advocates are both men and religious bigots.

     If it’s good enough to no longer beat your servant or your wife for correctional purposes why could we even think it’s OK to do the same to people who are more vulnerable and less able to fight back than those two groups.

     Conversely if those who advocate that it’s all right to smack kids for correctional purposes then it should be alright to do it for anyone for correctional purposes should it not?

     At least be consistent and say “let’s have a law that says it’s ok to smack whether child or not”.
   • Morrissey 9.3

     19 March 2013 at 7:09 am

     Something calling itself “UpandComer” has unwisely attempted to be clever….

     Green-peace is more of a fringe group then family first, in that they actually break the law, whereas Family-first abides by it

     I won’t even bother addressing your ignorant/dishonest claims about Greenpeace. But your claim that Family First “abides” needs to be refuted. I’m sure many other people have told you this, assuming you are foolish enough to have verbalised your nonsense in the company of intelligent and reasonable people, but Family First actually enthusiastically endorses and advocates for people to hit children, including with straps, sticks, clubs and hairbrushes. That is against the law, which everybody on this forum except you can see and understand.
     • UpandComer 9.3.1

       19 March 2013 at 2:43 pm

       Actually speech in NZ isn’t a crime yet, although your ilk have rendered it a crime in Europe. So no, you are simply incorrect re family first. With regards to Greenpeace please don’t be so silly – their vandalism, trespass, assault, etc are well documented and even recorded on camera, and their members have been before the courts on these matters.
       • millsy 9.3.1.1

         20 March 2013 at 9:36 pm

         I dont see Greenpeace calling for homosexuals, single mothers and abortion doctors to be strung up with piano wire.
   • ghostrider888 9.4

     19 March 2013 at 11:46 am

     Gr8 to see Greenpeace advertizing (for the future of our children) on the tele now.
10. Visubversaviper 10

    18 March 2013 at 9:46 pm

    The repeal of S59 of the Crimes Act basically gave your child the same rights as your dog. You can’t beat your dog with a broom handle and when the neighbours ring the cops and the SPCA prosecutes you say that it was reasonable force for the purposes of correction.
11. felixviper 11

    18 March 2013 at 10:12 pm

    Why does the post refer to Family First as an irrelevant fringe group?

    We all know it’s really just Bob McCoskrie, irrelevant fringe man.
12. millsy 12

    18 March 2013 at 10:57 pm

    Family Fist and the “SS” Trust, desire nothing less than the roll back of progressive social legislation and the impostion of biblical and old testament law.

    I see no distinction between these 2 groups, and the brownshirts that terrorised minorites in 1920’s and ’30 Germany.

    Family Fist has defended parents and caregivers who have:

    stabbed children with broken pens
    pushed children to the ground
    tipped children out of chairs
    shaved childrens hair off and make them suck on soap before seeking to strangle them with church ties
    beating children with all sorts of implements.

    These groups are very very dangerous to those who believe in progressive ideals.
    • Morrissey 12.1

      19 March 2013 at 7:10 am

      These groups are very very dangerous to those who believe in progressive ideals.

      These groups are dangerous to children.
      • ghostrider888 12.1.1

        19 March 2013 at 11:49 am

        Amen Mozza (and if it were not for the Lord…)
        “Revenge proves its own executioner”- John Ford
13. ghostrider888 13

    19 March 2013 at 11:52 am

    speaking of “flogging a dead horse”…
    http://www.vinylonthe.net/images/stockpix/2012-11-27_sex-pistols-flogging-a-dead-horse.jpg
    ooh wee, that’s Somethin’ Else

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS