alanmin4304

I can read perfectly well and I have done enough marshal arts and been beaten by my parents enough to know what violence is. You are kidding yourself if you think smacking is not violence. If it did not hurt why would you do it? I agree that "verbal asault" is not the way to go either. What kids need is clear rules and consistant consequences as I said earlier. Smacking can be a consequence but I believe there are better ones. We may have to agree to disagree (as I said earlier) but anyone who thinks smacking is not violence is trying to become an ostrich. If it was not violence then I would be able to give you a controlled open handed smack on the bottom without risk of being arrested and I don't think my chances would be good. Break the cycle and do your kids a favour. It actually feels realy good to be thanked by your adult children for not hitting them. Try it and do yourself a favour as well.

If smacking is not violence then what is it?

It does not matter what flavour you put on it smacking is violence. You can call it responsible parental correction, spare the rod and spoil the child, a disciplined and reasonable open handed smack on the bottom---it is violence. What else is it? Violence breeds violence and I believe society is becoming more violent so what is it that we are not doing right? If smacking our kids is the answer should we whack them harder and more often to reduce the violence in society? I doubt it.

Unfortunately the whole of society is becoming more violent. It is no good saying parts are becoming more violent (but not my part). The reality is that 80% of kiwis that voted want it to be legal for them to be violent with their kids. We need to look closely at our society but we refuse. As stated earlier we have some realy bad things going on here. We have a lot of abused kids (and it is not in any particular part of society). We have one of the highest figures in the world for people in jail (but we can't see that it is not working and still want to lock people up for longer but don't want to pay for it.) We want to make it legal to use violence on our kids so we can teach them that violence is the way to get what you want. We call an all out punch up on the rugby field a hard game. We have that many people in jail that we are going to put the next lot into containers and put the management out to private enterprise, yet we cannot see that something is not right. Lets face it---we live in a sick society. The only way to fix a problem is to firstly admit that we have a problem and I don't hear a lot of people saying that.

If the law change was so bad why are the politicians not willing to change it? It is alright blaming Sue Bradford but at least hitting your kids with a horse wip or a 4x2 is no longer regarded as smacking and acceptable " good parenting"

I think you are right in that the law change was proposed after a court decided that hitting a kid with a large stick was OK.

My views are pretty obvious I think. One of the biggest problems is that parents are not cosistant. The kids that play up in the supermarket have no clear guidelines on what is expected and what the consequences are if it doesn't happen. If the conseqences are enforced and the rules are clear life would be better for kids regardless. We do have a violent society and rugby is a war game.

It is normally caused by a bacterial infection where the bacteria are producing gas and pushing the eye out. Furan might be better.

The tank is still cycling and will take some time to settle down. The bacteria that convert ammonia to nitrite and nitrite to nitrate have not multiplied to the point where they are doing the job properly. Patience grasshopper.

If you can only get the big leaves with a bit of stalk then you can float them for a while and they get more light that way, grow roots and usually send out shoots. When the shoots have about 3 leaves break them off with a bit of root and plant them. I used to grow them emersed like a pot plant and break off the small shoots and that will keep you with a continuous supply.

We all obviously have different views, which is good---stops the world being as boring as. The problem is that smacking is not defined so people put their own interpretation on it. The people that beat their kids honestly believe that they are handing out good parental discipline. The law will not stop smacking or beating up kids but I think the world would be a better place if people looked at being consistant with their requirements and consequences and try to find another way. "Smacking" in my view teaches kids that violence is a solution and I think all it does is make society a more violent place. You are teaching your kids the way to get on and live in society and violence is not acceptable when they grow up so why would it be when they are young. I repeat---I never hit my kids and they came out a lot better than fine.

I'm happy to leave you two to play with the sharks. The only sharks I like being close to are the ones with the chips.

How come no one has answered my question from way back. How come you want the freedom to be able to hit (smack) your vulnerable young child but you do not complain about interfering nanny state saying that you cannot smack (hit) your your 22 stone bikie neighbour. Lots of kids have died from smacking---the perpetrator just had a different idea of smacking to you and probably learned it from being lucky enough to just survive "smacking" from their parents. Do your kids a favour and break the cycle. There are other ways to teach your kids. Kids need to know that what you say always goes and if you say there will be a consequence then they had better know that there definately and always will be. I used to have major disagreements with the mother of my children because she would say "wait untill your father gets home" and when I got home I would not smack the kids.The consequences of bad behaviour should not just be a threat but should be consistant. You cannot toilet train a dog by punishing it half a day later or it will not connect the punishment to the event.

Whetu for President (of NZ). I agree entirely. The people who want to smack their kids are often the same people who want to put 'bad" kids in the military to teach them disipline. Military discipline is learning to obey orders without question and has nothing to do with self discipline. What all kids need is boundaries, consequences and consistancy. If you say you will do something if they continue misbehaving then you had better do what you say, not give them a smack in the ear and have them wonder what it was for. I don't care what the law says, my father stopped "smacking" me with a copper stick when I was big enough to do it back. My kids have thanked me for not smacking them and now have little respect for their mother from whom they are both somewhat estranged. You pays your money and takes your pick but please think carefully when acting for those that are too young to defend themselves

Read your newspaper and look at your TV.The most vocal people wanting to bring back the legal right to smack their kids are the born agains (who I would define as the more conservative and literal believers of the Christian faith. I have no more against Christians than any other religion I just have the saying "spare the rod and spoil the child" indelibly beaten into my brain. Anyway thanks for your tolerance and thoughts, we may have to agree to disagree. By the way, I have never hit (smacked) my children and they are both fabulous. I vowed that if I did nothing else I would break the cycle of violence to children and it worked for them and me.

It does not matter what flavour you put on it but smacking is hitting and you would not "smack" your neighbour. The problem arises when people smack their kids around the head or beat them a little harder than they should. Kids that are beaten up by their parents were all subject to "parental discipline". The law does not define what is a reasonable smack and what is not. As you would not smack your neighbour, why would you smack your own children. I am curious why those who would smack their children would not smack their neighbour. Is it because it is ilegal? My father believed he was using good parental discipline when he broke a copper stick on my backside when I was 8 years old and when he smashed my head into my brothers when we argued and my mother broke a haibrush on my legs. The kids that are beaten are subjected to a little more "smacking" than the ones that are not beaten. Where do you draw the line. You cannot. You do not need to smack your children and it does not make you a better parent or a better christian if you do.

Thankyou for your interest ya all ---just thought I would put the other side of the arguement. I repeat --You do not need to hit your children or your neighbour so why should it be made legal?

You would not expect any other result by the way that the question is worded. It infers that smacking is part of good parenting. It makes as much sense as saying 60% of heroin addicts were breast fed. I am curious as to how people think smacking is not hitting and the charge is led by born agains---the very same people who justified slavery, white supremacy and the persecution of Jews with quotes from the bible. You may be able to tell that I was brought up in a Christian household as my father used to quote the bible as he beat the crap out of me. Where is the logic that convices you that it is OK to hit your children that you love when you would not even consider doing the same thing to your neighbour. The law means what the law says and if you allow smacking you are allowing hitting and there will be no guidelines (how could there be?) on how hard a hit is OK. I hope the born agains do a lot of praying for the kids that die or are severely beaten because misguided parents thought it was legal. You do not need to hit your children or your neighbour.

In my view it is even more yuck to watch it die a painfull death by trying to be kind to it. It is tuff love. Tuff on you but kinder to your pet.

Thanks for that info. Very useful.

I think the most humane way is to throw the fish rapidly onto a hard surface like a concrete path. Depending on the cause of course, it can be infectious and you may want to treat the remainder with an antibiotic like furan. I don't usually bother because as stated earlier it is hard to know what you are treating for. It is worth doing a good water change and making sure your water conditions are good.

I have fed heaps of frozen and live bloodworms to newts, fish and baby turtles for years without any problems. Tubifex worms could be a problem, but what we used to feed in large quantities live a few years back as tubifex were actually blackworms (lumbriculus variegatus). I think tubifex are available frozen but I have not used them.

Dropsy is the sign you see from water retention caused by kidney failure which can be from a number of causes, all of which for practical purposes can be considered incurable. Unless you know the cause it is very hard to treat and by the time it is looking like a pine cone it is too late.

Are they on motor bikes?

I use calcium with D3. Nocturnal lizards probably don't need as much D3 but beardies do a lot of basking.