Could someone please post this in the "Smacking Referendum Campaign Starts" thread? (SC)

Good evening all; a message from Jesus here. I'll be back shortly (in a matter of four days, in fact), and when I return I can assure you I have a great deal of dirty laundry to air about the cumulative stupidity of the opinions you have all posted over the past month, all of which I have been reading intently and will deal with in one grand post upon my return. However, before my time is up, so to speak, I'd like to make a brief contribution to this thread via a medium (if one ever responds to my request to post this):

<b>Wren:</b> A couple of things. First of all, I disagree that the question is paradoxical. While you and I may agree that smacking is certainly not part of good parental correction, others may think it is. However, my problem with this question is that it only addresses those who think it is, and is clearly worded not to produce a helpful result that reflects public opinion on the relevant amendment, but rather to indirectly provide a mandate for ridiculous claims that the law is wrong and undemocratic. With this question, it is able to provide this mandate while bypassing the real issue, which is all too often left by the wayside. If anyone is unsure as to what that real issue is, I'm sure someone here would be happy to tell you while I'm at Banned Camp.

Second of all, I'd like to point out that the Government did not choose to spend 9 million dollars on this referendum. It is a citizens' intiated referendum; which means it has to be carried out by law due to the number of signatures received in a petition calling for it. This is actually an incredibly useful part of our democratic system, as it allows the public to provide an official forum through which to express their views if they are overwhelming in favour of something, or against it in this case. The fact that this is citizens' initiated also is the reason why the question is so slanted - I believe the question called for by the petition was drafted by dogmatic groups such as Family First. Had the Government carried out their own referendum, I think they would've done a marginally better job.

<b>Markslove:</b> How absurd of you to suggest that it wasn't broken before Sue Bradford came along! There was no end to the kind of things parents could get away with under the broad defence of "reasonable force". There should be absolutely no debate as to whether or not that was broken, even if you disagree with the solution.

<b>Dream Builder:</b> I'd like to point out, as I don't think I have before, how much of a great waste of space your opinions are on issues like these. I don't mean this as any personal offense to you, but politically your opinions may as well go unstated, because it's always obvious what they're going to be. You're always going to defend National and attack Labour. You are a partisan through and through. Instead of examining the world around you and then formulating an opinion, you first formulate your opinion, which is based upon this apparent idea you have of a dualistic war of Good vs. Evil between National (good) and Labour (evil), and then examine the world around you through these glasses you have made for yourself, paying attention only to that which supports your foregone conclusion.

To the rest of you, Merry Christmas and I look forward to flaying you all soon.

god dammit sc is retarded.

master5o1 wrote:god dammit sc is retarded.

Any response to your request to shorten your bran?

Jesus Christ wrote:

master5o1 wrote:god dammit sc is retarded.

Any response to your request to shorten your bran?

Not yet. But I don't expect one until Friday, let alone at all.


I might get a nice request denied letter from Sophie that will most likely make me want to rip off my clothes and spin around at seeing her awesome name written down and in my inbox.


Is it wrong to have a crush on Smile City's reply person?

Oh man! Just writing her name and seeing it written down once I posted that makes me horny. I'll just look at my avatar to calm me down a bit.


Edit: Oh good, the sc-contact-guy calmed me out of my super horny state. I do not dare write her name in this post for I might just jizz in my pants.

Thanks for posting it, Wren.

With Labour, National, the Maori Party and the Greens committed to the current law, I hope that doesn't send too many people (translation: 'anyone') off to vote for ACT (or Family First, etc) next election.

I don't know how committed National is to the law; John Key seemed to be extolling the virtues of the referendum in the House the other day. I can easily see them repealing the amendment in response to this referendum. It would not exactly be an unpopular thing to do, and the public seems to blame Sue Bradford and the Clark regime for the bill, despite National's compromise.

EDIT: That said, I do acknowledge National's current position of support for the amendment, but long-term, they could easily use the "this law is not working" excuse they have propped up for themselves.