Smackathon planned

44 comments on “Smackathon planned ”

• Comments are now closed

1. JustRight 1

   17 August 2009 at 1:49 pm

   This is scurrilous, judgemental rubbish.
2. lukas 2

   17 August 2009 at 1:50 pm

   AYB- I would suggest putting a humor tag on this post before someone takes you seriously.
   • lprent 2.1

     17 August 2009 at 2:11 pm

     Ummm I thought that the wingnut standard was that it was up to other people to prove that their
     scurrilous, judgemental rubbish
     was NOT true.

     If they could not, then it must be true…

     That could be the case in a quantum multiverse…. Any stupid stuff that the wingnuts think is right could be happening.

     climate change might not be happening
     there might be an electric car solution just around the corner
     public transport could be ineffective
     employers could be benevolent and not suckups to their shareholders.
     Rodney Hide could use his brains for something that wasn’t stupid…
     etc
     …..
     • lukas 2.1.1

       17 August 2009 at 3:30 pm

       IPrent, I am guessing that was meant for JustRight?

       AYB- good to see you have put this in the humor category now. I still think this post is going too far though.
3. Christopher Nimmo 3

   17 August 2009 at 1:50 pm

   This isn’t funny, and it certainly isn’t helpful.

   You’re giving the Yes vote a bad name.
   • all_your_base 3.1

     17 August 2009 at 2:33 pm

     I’m not speaking for the yes vote (though that’s how I’m voting). I am truly appalled by the concept of a victory party to celebrate the beating of kids. Clear enough?
     • Christopher Nimmo 3.1.1

       17 August 2009 at 5:57 pm

       I realise that you aren’t speaking for the Yes vote, but you are associating yourself with it, and this level of stuff is really not useful. Because this is such a high-profile blog, you risk tarnishing the cause’s credibility, as well as your own pretensions to being a better class of blog than Farrar.
4. But Seriously! 4

   17 August 2009 at 2:00 pm

   Oh that’s right, keep pushing the made up rubbish while ignoring the opinion polls! Have you not forgotten it was your indifference to the expressed will of the public that got your lot in to opposition!
   • Pete 4.1

     17 August 2009 at 2:12 pm

     That’s right BS! (nice acronym).

     Actually on second thought the opinion polls do not matter when they are so skewed – ask any statistician.

     Oh, and didn’t the National party support the repeal of Section 59?… Just sayin’.
   • Ken Shock 4.2

     17 August 2009 at 6:24 pm

     This is precisely correct, and their gal Helen was simply imposing UN Childrens Rights dogma against popular NZ wisdom – that has tossed Labour out. I guess she never figured out why William Golding got the Nobel for lit by authoring “Lord of the Flys”
5. Doug 5

   17 August 2009 at 2:20 pm

   A wonderful explanation of the Standard.

   Tinkerblogger. Noun. (Plural Tinkerbloggers)
   1. An author of a blog or ‘web log’ who believes that by writing about something with great frequency or conviction they will cause it to be true.
   • Killinginthenameof 5.1

     17 August 2009 at 2:33 pm

     A far better example of that is DPF’s continuing attempted myth creation over Helen Clark.
6. Inventory2 6

   17 August 2009 at 2:23 pm

   Not even a Humour tag excuses this kind of crap.
7. jarbury 7

   17 August 2009 at 2:26 pm

   Oh the uproar! Oh come on this is nothing compared to Farrar’s abortion post.

   Imagine if you were the child of someone going along to that:

   Parent – “hey you want to come to the smackathon?”
   Child – “ummmm…… maybe not”
   Parent – “right, where’s that wooden spoon!”
   • Swampy 7.1

     22 August 2009 at 5:13 pm

     Wrong, it is about the same level as Farrar’s post or worse.
8. Killinginthenameof 8

   17 August 2009 at 2:27 pm

   Does anyone know where they are having this this. Someone should set up a table outside selling various implements branded Smack-a-thon ’09
9. Ianmac 9

   17 August 2009 at 2:36 pm

   I do hope the convention will include “love” as in a “loving smack” as part of their celebration.
   “Darling. I love you. I love you heaps and that is why I smack you for not doing what I want. Now dear wife, shall I also deal to the kids with love of course.”

   The referendum will come out with 75%+ for NO. I think that John Key will take note of the apparent popularity of NO and allow the “Smacking may be used for Correction” Bill to go ahead. There are future votes in it you know.
   • Rob 9.1

     18 August 2009 at 2:44 pm

     Obviously its a bizaar concept for you to actually have a Governement act on its community preference. I though that this was what its all about and obviously why the last Government were removed.

     You may not trust the majority of NZ families in their dealings, neither did the last Government, however I trust myself and do not need you to tell me what to do.
     • Maynard J 9.1.1

       18 August 2009 at 2:49 pm

       Does that explain why the current lot’s Big Cheese has said that he will keep the law since it is working? You all obviously voted for the wrong lot.

       I am not sure which party panders to reactionary lynch mobs and nut bars, apart from the ACT-SST coalition. Maybe you need to make your own party that will promise to overturn laws, no matter how well they are working, because you says so!
       • Rob 9.1.1.1

         20 August 2009 at 3:16 pm

         Sure, in what way do you think this law is working. Do you think that it is working because no parents have been prosecuted due to a smack on the bum, or that the rates of serious child abuse have fallen dramatically.

         I think that the law has produced a zero rating on both counts, so what is actually working here? Why do you feel that you are qualified to tell me what to do in raising my children?
10. Jem 10

    17 August 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Now you really do all sound a bit shrill and earnest – from both sides. I thought it was funny and what the Standard needs more of.
11. So Bored 11

    17 August 2009 at 2:58 pm

    Haha, Rankins enough to frighten the children to sleep, its what you tell your kids about in cautionary bed time stories so they wont grow up and work for Treasury.

    Going to be sending my two lads round to the party, anybody including Larry B who wants to discipline them is welcome to try. The result might resemble a car crash but……alternatively try being nice to them and they might buy you a beer.
12. ak 12

    17 August 2009 at 3:05 pm

    Great for our international reputation……

    “Christian” kiwi kiddie-belting fans plan victory knees-up for pointless $10million poll

    “No taxpayers money will be involved” said thrice-wed leather-clad spokesperson Christine Rankinstein: “we had a whip-round of the local kindergartens”
    • Swampy 12.1

      22 August 2009 at 5:14 pm

      Can you tell me which reputable media outlet would post such a title?
13. Thomas Beagle 13

    17 August 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Cor, I think this is the first time I’ve found The Standard’s humour to actually be amusing. Looks like I might be in a minority.
14. gobsmacked 14

    17 August 2009 at 3:39 pm

    Nice insight into some moral priorities here.

    A post on a blog is “going too far”.

    Personally I think hitting kids is “going too far”, but that’s just me.

    Perhaps it was a loving post? It hasn’t done me any harm.
15. Rex Widerstrom 15

    17 August 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Can the next referendum please be about criminalising further mentions of Christine SpRankin wearing leather?
16. greenfly 16

    17 August 2009 at 4:51 pm

    You’ve whipped up the smackers over this one. Nice use of the Queen of Smack, Ms Spankin’-Rankin (see above) to paint the tawdry picture.
    Somebody’ll be getting the paddle tonight, I can tell you!
    • lprent 16.1

      17 August 2009 at 5:53 pm

      Sure has, I spent a good chunk of the day emptying the spam trap of people who are banned here. I guess that they found they had something to say here after all. Perhaps they shouldn’t have abused our rules earlier.
17. irnswn 17

    17 August 2009 at 5:02 pm

    The beating of kids is just as bad as stoning. But its ok for Ashaf Choudery to support that as he is a Labour MP and that is being culturally sensitive.
18. Scott Yorke 18

    17 August 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Good work.

    I wrote something similar a couple of months ago:

    http://imperatorfish.blogspot.com/2009/05/anti-smacking-opponents-throw-big-bash.html
    • Ianmac 18.1

      17 August 2009 at 5:57 pm

      I found it great satire but could be true!!! Great stuff Scott
19. Not really Byran Spondre 19

    17 August 2009 at 6:57 pm

    I am so upset.
    I got smacked off No Minister.
    I am real unhappy.
    Police laughed at me today.
    I feel sick.
    I have a big pimple on my nose.

    IrishBill: You’re not really Bryan. He’s been banned from here for a long time. But I figured I better make that clear by slightly adjusting your handle, we wouldn’t want him troubling the Ponsonby police with nuisance identity theft complaints 😉
    • Not really Byran Spondre 19.1

      17 August 2009 at 7:18 pm

      Thank you Irish.
      Wonder if Bryan Spondre made his police complaint against poor d4j?
      I am glad he is banned as he makes my skin crawl.
      Do you think he is human?
20. Ron 20

    17 August 2009 at 7:00 pm

    I’ve got to agree. That’s funny. What on earth is getting up people’s noses? You know what’s REALLY offensive? A bunch of fundamenatlist christians twisting the debate so that they can get apparent approval for the “right” to hit their kids.That’s what.
    • JustRight 20.1

      17 August 2009 at 7:53 pm

      No Ron, what is really offensive is a bunch of fundamentalist atheists “you can’t tell me what is right & wrong” types dictating to others how to raise their children.

      Just to be clear, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. What do you stand for Ron? Do you have children?

      On reflection, I over reacted to the initial article this morning… a bit like I reacted to Farrar’s abortion satire. It is kind of funny I guess…
      • Ron 20.1.1

        17 August 2009 at 8:56 pm

        JustRight – yup I have kids. And yes on occassion I smacked her and yes I wish I hadn’t but I don’t worry too much about it. Yup she turned out ok.

        What do I stand for? What kind of question is that? It’s unanswerable unless there’s context. Except of course if one follows a doctrine of some sort which dictates ones answer to a question no matter what the facts, context or situation.

        And I wasn’t suggesting you or any particular individual who voted No of being a fundy christian. I am accusing the fundies of being a driving force behind twisting this debate from one about the rights of children to be protected from un”reasonable force” to one about the right of adults to hit their kids.

        On top of all that there are many examples in this campaign of the sort of dishonest approach many of us have experienced from fundies. The same sort of dishonesty that bills an event as a “dance” or “concert” when in fact it’s a evangilistic event aimed at luring a captive audience for conversion.

        Examples of the dishonestyy of No vote campaigners:
        1 When the debate started it was all about “what of the kid is running towrd a moving power socket ith sharp edges?!” When the message finally got through to the public that thios situation was clearly defined in the law and no parent would be crimanilsed for protecting their child, the No vote campaign changed to a “parental rights” campaign and the mythical list of criminalised parents.
        2 In this campaign there were the claims that a list of parents who had been criminalised by the new law would be made public. When interviewers asked for proof we were told it would be forthcoming before the vote. Campaigners insisted they had proof this was happening and have never produced the proof. Interestingly the pathetic media we have in this country has never called them on that.
        So Fundies AND Liars.
    • Swampy 20.2

      22 August 2009 at 5:19 pm

      No no, we can see what your lot abhor is anyone telling children what is right and wrong. The whole debate is a fairly straightforward one, Comrade Sue and her fellow brethren/sistren are opposed to any kind of moral pronouncement about anything.
21. Greg 21

    17 August 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Its all well and good to get on your moral high horse about Farrar’s questionable ‘satire’, but then you go and write this.

    Its slightly hypocritical.
    • Ron 21.1

      17 August 2009 at 8:59 pm

      Except Farrar was offensive. This is funny.
22. Swampy 22

    22 August 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Last week you were complaining about Farrar’s “humour” now it seems you just want to have a buck both ways with this complete and utter tripe and baseless smear.

    Is it reasonable to post a fake link to a non existent news article in a message?

Links to post

1. Ken Perrott: posted on 17 August 2009 at 2:24 am
2. Ken Perrott: posted on 17 August 2009 at 2:20 pm
3. werewolf » From the Hood: posted on 3 September 2009 at 9:11 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS