Comments on: Smacking Referendum – Online Poll! http://www.hartnall.com/2009/08/smacking-referendum-poll/ Attempting to convert random thoughts into sentences. Mon, 03 May 2010 08:46:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Share Investor http://www.hartnall.com/2009/08/smacking-referendum-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-798 Share Investor Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:28:13 +0000 http://www.hartnall.com/?p=488#comment-798 I suggest you do some more reading about the effects this awful law has had on parents and their children. One only has to look at what removing corporal punishment from schools has done to discipline and attitudes. The law needs to be repealed and parents given their rights to parent back. I voted NO in the referendum. The referendum question is unambiguous and neutral. I suggest you do some more reading about the effects this awful law has had on parents and their children. One only has to look at what removing corporal punishment from schools has done to discipline and attitudes. The law needs to be repealed and parents given their rights to parent back.

I voted NO in the referendum. The referendum question is unambiguous and neutral.

]]> By: Kelvin Hartnall http://www.hartnall.com/2009/08/smacking-referendum-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-783 Kelvin Hartnall Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:34:36 +0000 http://www.hartnall.com/?p=488#comment-783 Yes, you are completely correct, I chose my question to reverse the bias to emphasize how the choice of language can significantly alter the question and hence also the outcome of a referendum. I was purposely provocative in my choice of language. But I would argue that my poll question is less sentiment laden and a better framing of the issue than the referendum question. When the amendment to Section 59 was made, the intention was to ensure that it was still legal to give a child a light admonitory smack, but at the same time stop parents who come home from a bad day at work and bash up their children from escaping prosecution. They purposively drafted the Act so it wouldn’t be subjective and I believe the controversy has stemmed from the wording of the Act. The purpose of the amendment was in response to a number of legal cases where abusive parents escaped penalty. So even though I was being purposively provocative and emphasizing language choice, I don’t think that my question is actually as sentiment laden or as biased as the referendum question. If I was to answer your question I would answer (b). I believe that parents sometimes need to use physical force, but at the same time I don’t believe that we should make it a parent’s right to be able to bash their kids if they have a bad day at work. Yes, you are completely correct, I chose my question to reverse the bias to emphasize how the choice of language can significantly alter the question and hence also the outcome of a referendum. I was purposely provocative in my choice of language.

But I would argue that my poll question is less sentiment laden and a better framing of the issue than the referendum question. When the amendment to Section 59 was made, the intention was to ensure that it was still legal to give a child a light admonitory smack, but at the same time stop parents who come home from a bad day at work and bash up their children from escaping prosecution. They purposively drafted the Act so it wouldn’t be subjective and I believe the controversy has stemmed from the wording of the Act. The purpose of the amendment was in response to a number of legal cases where abusive parents escaped penalty. So even though I was being purposively provocative and emphasizing language choice, I don’t think that my question is actually as sentiment laden or as biased as the referendum question.

If I was to answer your question I would answer (b). I believe that parents sometimes need to use physical force, but at the same time I don’t believe that we should make it a parent’s right to be able to bash their kids if they have a bad day at work.

]]> By: Kelvin Hartnall http://www.hartnall.com/2009/08/smacking-referendum-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-782 Kelvin Hartnall Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:05:58 +0000 http://www.hartnall.com/?p=488#comment-782 Yes, I think it is good to separate the wording problem from the underlying issue. This particular campaign goes to show how powerful choice of language can be. I've noticed over the last few years how powerful slogans or particular words can be in framing the discussion of an issue, and this is a good example. Yes, I think it is good to separate the wording problem from the underlying issue. This particular campaign goes to show how powerful choice of language can be. I’ve noticed over the last few years how powerful slogans or particular words can be in framing the discussion of an issue, and this is a good example.

]]> By: Greg Day http://www.hartnall.com/2009/08/smacking-referendum-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-762 Greg Day Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:00:42 +0000 http://www.hartnall.com/?p=488#comment-762 But isnt your example simply doing what the referendum organisers have done in reverse? Both are sentiment laden, perhaps the ideal question is something like: should physical punishment as part of parental correction be a criminal offence? a) in all cases b) in some cases c) in no cases d) its not the role of government to decide. Of course, in this case, everyone will either vote b or d. But isnt your example simply doing what the referendum organisers have done in reverse?

Both are sentiment laden, perhaps the ideal question is something like:
should physical punishment as part of parental correction be a criminal offence?
a) in all cases
b) in some cases
c) in no cases
d) its not the role of government to decide.

Of course, in this case, everyone will either vote b or d.

]]> By: Shane Legg http://www.hartnall.com/2009/08/smacking-referendum-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-755 Shane Legg Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:41:34 +0000 http://www.hartnall.com/?p=488#comment-755 Yeah, wording like that would piss me off too... independent of what the issue was or whether or not I supported it. Yeah, wording like that would piss me off too… independent of what the issue was or whether or not I supported it.

]]>