The argument you're making is a free-market (voluntarism) can not provide things like supercomputers that fit in your pocket and can access the entire world's information while making free video calls? In a free market, prices go down, quality goes up. It really doesn't matter what the market is trading - this is what happens.
Welcome to the Nanny State: Saints Row IV banned in Australia
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Firstly, 85% of parents ARE hitting their children.
Secondly, a society based on free market is unimaginable. No one CAN know what such a society would look like.
As a guess, I'd suggest that broken children become broken adults - this costs society 'money', there is therefore an incentive to create industries that cater to this. For example, perhaps parents who are willing to attend parenting course - receive a discounted price on their home, enough money to make a real difference in their standard of living. Perhaps people would charge them more for schooling if they refused to peacefully parent as their children will be disruptive. Society would have to determine how to deal with violent parents. As it is now, society has decided to relegate it's responsibility to "Government" which has results in a Grant Total of 85% still hitting their kids. Kind of like Public Housing - if you don't expect much, I suppose you can't be disappointed.
I agree. The truth is I just chose this fight because I get tired of Michael crying Nanny State and fascism and used this ban to bolster his belief. But Michael does not stop there, he then goes on to extol the virtues of a completely unregulated free market as the answer to all of societies ills. How can this be so? profit is their main objective and to hell with the environment, a living wage or health care. There is a history of some very bad behavior by Corporations and the Financial District and if Michael had his way they would get to continue unfettered and unregulated.
HA, let us just chalk this up to drinking and writing.
Balerion, calling me a bad parent because of events that I had no control over is really bad taste. I am not going to bore you with my sad story but suffice it to say that I did a damn good job with the choices presented to me.
Why is it silly? Simply asking for your ideas.
Maybe there is a meth problem in Australia and they saw it as glorifying it's use.
I was being sarcastic. Some doctors are nothing but legalized drug dealers IMO.
I am telling you I googled and found 3 studies that came to different conclusions. Having said that, I used my own personal experience as my guide not some study.
My kids could be rotten at times but not because I was an absentee parent, but because kids can be rotten sometimes. I am telling you that I noticed a spike in their aggression towards each other both verbally and physically when they started playing Grand Theft Auto at their friend's house. When I put a stop to it their behavior eventually got back to what was normal for them, so call me illogical.
Why does the Military encourage the use of violent video games?
And 85% [ probably more] of those termed as the "baby boomers" received corporal punishment from their parents, and administered that same corporal style punishment when needed and in moderation to their children....and guess what?...85% of those have turned out law abiding respected citizens.
As a guess, I would suggest that you actually have some form of agenda you are pushing. We have gone from Australia being a nanny state, to corporal style punishment, to the greatest health scheme in the world, to housing affordability in Australia and everything else.
You seem confused.
On housing affordabilty in Sydney, it was revealed that 82% of houses up for auction, have been sold at and above the reserve price.....That is referred to as a booming market.
Which once again highlights the crap you are trying to ply without any proof or documentation whatsoever.
Except some obnoxious video game of course!
I havn't been around this forum for too long, but yes, even blind Freddy can see this bloke has some sort of agenda.
I hear where you're coming from, and I assure you I don't share his views. I agree with him that the Australian government shouldn't ban video games--or any form of creative expression--unless that content is exploitative or legitimately dangerous. Actually, adding that caveat probably puts me at odds with Michael.
I didn't call you a bad parent. You said that you can't control whether or not your child plays M-rated games, which I don't agree with. I think if you can't stop your child from playing those games, then you're not doing your job.
It's far too broad of a question to answer here.
Even if that were the case, it's no excuse for censorship. Pretending the problem doesn't exist won't make it go away.
Which different conclusions might those be?
My kids could be rotten at times but not because I was an absentee parent, but because kids can be rotten sometimes. I am telling you that I noticed a spike in their aggression towards each other both verbally and physically when they started playing Grand Theft Auto at their friend's house. When I put a stop to it their behavior eventually got back to what was normal for them, so call me illogical.
So you know when they started and how long they played for? It feels like you don't have all the information and you've jumped to a conclusion.
I don't know that they do.
There's a couple points I'd like to clarify.
1) No rulers doesn't mean no rules. No one is talking about a lawless society. Exactly the opposite.
2) Profit serves a function in a 'FREE' market. It signals to entrepreneurs that there is demand for an item. When profits go up, others enter the market. When profits go down, due to competition, those in the market switch to new products, test the market, improve old products, or simply go bust. In a free market, there is nothing at all wrong with profit - it's a pillar of a peaceful civilization. Of course, this means you must have 'sound' money and 'free' access to the market / be allowed to compete.
Our society is highly regulated and does not have sound money. We are NOT a free-market society.
3) You mentioned "Corporations". These are legal entities, they can only exist under a State. Corporations are there to legally shield the owners and CEOs.
4) You mentioned the Financial District. Ummmm, you do know the Government stepped in a bailed out the top 1% (who own most of the stocks that were tanking, and banks that would have went under)? That would NEVER happen in a free-market. Too Big To Fail can only exist in a Fascist market. You can pull the LEFT/RIGHT lever all day every day, and at the end of the day, the top 1% are using the Government to steal from you and bail out them. They use it to prevent you from competing with them and reducing their power and ill-gotten profits. They have have you paying them - just for the privileged of being allowed to work.
Lastly, I do not find it surprising so many lined up to defend the State in it's right to restrict your Civil Freedoms. As if Australian adults can not be trusted to make their own decisions as to what they watch, read, etc.... Even when arguments (some your own) of being able to download, patch, buy on-line, etc... show this is all a bunch of bullshit. YET, you still stand up against the person who WANTS you to maximize your Civil Freedoms and defend the Institution who is taking away your freedoms?!? It's why I say this all seems like a case of Stockholm syndrome brought about by 12 years of Public Schooling and X number of years of MSM propaganda.
Michael:
One problem with video games is that they blur that line between story and action. In a game, you carry out actions. You make choices.
It's more a question of what kind of society Australians want. Obviously, it's not quite the same as the one you'd want, in your ideal world. So you rant and rave, yet go right on choosing to live in Australia anyway.
Maybe. Maybe Americans could do with a bit more Nanny, too. It's not like they have a particularly non-violent society, for example. Rape isn't uncommon. I wonder what role video games might play in that...
Our Nanny hasn't banned that, though. I wonder why. Maybe there's some point of distinction between your video game and that book. Go figure.
I think it's more that the majority don't trust some people to make good moral choices. And that kind of thing can affect the moral majority.
Well, laugh it up!
Look, if it's a game that involves a rape gun, it's most likely a pretty lousy game anyway. No great loss.
Would you like to extol the merits of this marvellous game, for the benefit of those of us who are forbidden from seeing it?
It's sounds like it's you who is all hot and bothered about this. It's your thread.
Strange. Game of Thrones is front and centre on the shelves of most bookstores in Australia. Breaking Bad is on free-to-air TV. And Fight Club appears regularly on free-to-air TV, too.
Who has called for any of those to be banned in Australia? And how have they gone with that? Not too well, by the looks of things.
Got any better examples?
One problem with video games is that they blur that line between story and action. In a game, you carry out actions. You make choices.
It's more a question of what kind of society Australians want. Obviously, it's not quite the same as the one you'd want, in your ideal world. So you rant and rave, yet go right on choosing to live in Australia anyway.
Maybe. Maybe Americans could do with a bit more Nanny, too. It's not like they have a particularly non-violent society, for example. Rape isn't uncommon. I wonder what role video games might play in that...
Our Nanny hasn't banned that, though. I wonder why. Maybe there's some point of distinction between your video game and that book. Go figure.
I think it's more that the majority don't trust some people to make good moral choices. And that kind of thing can affect the moral majority.
Well, laugh it up!
Look, if it's a game that involves a rape gun, it's most likely a pretty lousy game anyway. No great loss.
Would you like to extol the merits of this marvellous game, for the benefit of those of us who are forbidden from seeing it?
It's sounds like it's you who is all hot and bothered about this. It's your thread.
Strange. Game of Thrones is front and centre on the shelves of most bookstores in Australia. Breaking Bad is on free-to-air TV. And Fight Club appears regularly on free-to-air TV, too.
Who has called for any of those to be banned in Australia? And how have they gone with that? Not too well, by the looks of things.
Got any better examples?
Bells
Staff member
My cousin's daughter went to a public school and wanted to become a dentist, which has an OP1 and similar rank as that for medicine. She is currently in her first year at UQ, studying dentistry. Without extra tuition. Funny that, huh?
University placement is highly competitive. Not everyone is offered a position.
Everything is competitive. For example, not everyone can open a Dominoes pizzeria. The company, I am sure, has strict rules about where and who can open what. That's different than saying Dominoes will decide who can open ANY pizzeria - ever.
The limiting factor on who opens a successful pizzeria is the free market, not Dominoes. You don't HAVE to buy into the Dominoes. You are free to start your own pizzeria restaurant and it will be up to the free-market to decide if you are good enough to remain in business. This is based on the whether or not you add value to society.
Now, before you go off on a rant about lawless society. Or a rant about how making pizza's isn't the same as open heart surgery.
No one is suggesting you can defraud the market/people. You could not claim, for example, that you were certified as an MD from UQ - if you hadn't received that certification. And there would still BE limited placements. And while the University is doing away with the OP system because it's relatively useless, there would still be some sort of conditional entry.
Your cousin wanted to become a dentist. She could have gotten an OP1 and also not got into dental school. I see this happen to hundreds of students. While I agree, if you can't get into an institution - then you can't get in. This is not the same as saying you cannot become a dentist. To become a good dentist you need to be trained by a good dentist and be a person who works hard and cares about people's teeth. And this also would be limited. However, with a free market, that limit would be met by a demand in offering to train people to become dentists. Right now that doesn't happen because there is a fear there'll be too many dentists or doctors or lawyers and suddenly no one will want to pay for their undergraduate degree in an attempt to try to obtain those degrees. The University needs thousands of students to enter and only some to graduate and work in the medical field. There's an idea that if too many people become dentists, then there will be no market, not for dentistry - but for the undergraduate feeder programs.
This doesn't happen with computer programming. But, stop and imagine with you had to attend limited placement professional schools (say 100-300) and be certified to write code. Do you think the price of programs would sky rocket? Imagine if the Government had to licence coders. Do you think the price would sky rocket? Do you think the quality would go UP or go DOWN?
I know you were raised to believe one thing, and like 99.99999% of everyone around you - you believe what you were taught to think is true.
The limiting factor should be the free-market, that's who should decide who can and can not offer a service to society whether it's medicine or making pizzas. When the government steps in an regulates over that of the free market - if causes prices to go up and quality to go down. It also leads to huge wastes of resources and time, in this case, hundreds of lives are wasted in preparation for entry. Lastly, other people will meet demand - there's plenty of schools in China and the Philippines etc... who train wealthy Australians to be dentists and MDs. It's a booming business. You make think this is fair, I don't.
When I say "fair go", I mean, a fair go. The system we have created is not a fair go.
And there's probably far more wealthy Chinese and Philipinos among other Asians who are trained at Australian Universities.
You don't like the system? Well go somewhere where they have a system that you agree with.
I'm sure Australia will do OK without you.
Yeah, funny that.
As I said earlier in the piece, even blind Freddy can see he has an agenda to push,
Do you have some good evidence of this being a "problem"?
Please post the citation.
The fact is, as violent video games have become more accessible, this is correlated with a less violent society. Society is much less violent in 2010 compared with 1970 - as an example. Violence is reduced as society become more prosperous. Which is rather ironic, given you're making an argument that societies should have less civil freedoms - which is the very definition of decreased prosperity.
This is incorrect. It's up to THREE bureaucrats to decide what THEY want Australian society to be.
IF it were a question of what kind of society Australians want, then it's be LEFT UP TO AUSTRALIANS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. But you don't want that do you? It sort of says something about your view on society itself. Interesting that.
Yes, that's my point. Good, you get a Silver Star for coming close.
I know this is a bit difficult to understand being two sentences and all:
I'm the one arguing for YOUR Civil Rights.
You're the one arguing AGAINST your Civil Rights.
Simple enough?
I thought I'd go back to this just to reiterate the point one more time: Three people sitting in a room and deciding what THEY think is good for society - is not the same as society, deciding what's good for society - which actually doesn't happen. There is no 'collective'. While it may help you to think in terms of 'society' or 'Australia' or whatever - at the end of the day, this is a semantic shortcut. What's aesthetically 'good' for one person may or may not be the same for the next. Each person will have their own preferences. So long as they do not harm other people - then it's really none of yours or another else's business.
But, yes, we do communicate using the word "Society".
So, what IS the type of society "I" want versus "Australians" (of which I am one - as I'm also a part of "society").
Well, I'd like a society with maximum Civil Liberties based on the non-aggression principle, with sound money, Law and protection of private property - beginning with one's own body.
I'd like a society where children are not hit as a form of "discipline".
I'd like a society where people can move and live anywhere on the Earth they're welcome to.
I'd like a society where we're not in a 12 year forgotten War, where single individuals can unilaterally use drones to kill 10-12 women and children while attempting to kill a "Target". To me, any society who looks the other way while this is happening, is a very very sick society. Probably one that uses physical punishment as a means to 'Teach' children to be 'Good Patriotic Citizens' and to think of themselves in terms of 'Citizen'.
I'd like to live in a society where children are cared for and raised by their parents - not dumped off at the age of 6 weeks in an infant supervision center.
I'd like a society were people living in said society can communicate without their government spying on them.
But, we don't live in that sort of society - and, we are not going to live in that society for many many generations; maybe never.
I accept that.
As I've said in the past, and I'll say again, the ONLY thing anyone can do is raise their children peacefully and to think logically. Hopefully they'll then be able to see past semantic bs like "for the Glory of Australian Society", "The Glory of the Gods", "For Uncle Sam" and other such nonsense. Many people have died believing such childish fairy tales. Your Nanny is murdering woman and children in other countries, spying on 'its' people, tossing some of 'its' people in rape-cages for consuming an herb, sells 30 year bonds on your children, inflating away your savings, taxing your labor - BUT, it will pay you some 'labor tax credits' to 'help' you put your 6 week old infant into a day supervision factory so you can get back to work making those mortgage payments.
Yes, your "ideal" society - indeed.
Get your hand off it matey!
And as I said previously, if you don't like the way we define "çivil rights", then get out!
Get out, what a cute analogy. The only "We" is in your head. But, don't worry - you're welcome to 'get out' if you like. Don't let the 'door' hit you on way out.
look i'm a gamer. hell i own saints row the third( and enjoy wearing the gimp suit beating hookers with the penetrator) don't really have a problem with this ban saints row like postal before it is pushing boundries if other think they went to far its cool for them to ban it. again saying this as a gamer who is generally not for banning things but their are limits.
and micheal seriously taking your own damn thread off topic do you have a pathologically need to be a troll?
and micheal seriously taking your own damn thread off topic do you have a pathologically need to be a troll?
Not me..I'm a fourth, maybe fifth generation Aussie, and I'm extremely happy and contented in this lucky country, that I was born in.
And although I would like to see some changes, [who the hell wouldn't!] I would not swap it for anywhere.
It's your paranoid beliefs and agenda about snivel liberties that appear to have you one out.
Oh, and yes, I certainly mean "WE" ....We, myself and the majority of my fellow countrymen, put the current government in power, both state and Federal, and of course the same applies to local government/councils.
As most reasonable sensible people know, no government can come back to the people on each and every issue...That is just plain unreasonable and would only be pushed by someone such as yourself, with a highly unreasonable and unlikely alternative.
So the government we elect, then elect committees etc, to pass rules and regulations on matters that need rules and regulations.
I do not want carte blanche for every and all producers of video games, movies, or whatever to have free reign to release what they like.
And herein lies the crunch!
Your rowdy unreasonable paranoid and sanctimonious behaviour stems from the fact that no matter how long, or how hard you scream and shout about snivel liberties or the lack of them, you will not change the reasonable system we already have.
Australia[edit source | editbeta]
In Australia, corporal punishment of children in the home is currently legal,[12][13] provided it is "reasonable". Parents who act unreasonably may be committing an assault.[14][15] The Australian state of Tasmania is continuing to review the state's laws on the matter, and may seek to ban the use of corporal punishment by parents. The matter is also under review in other Australian states. A 2002 public opinion survey suggested the majority view was in support of retaining parents' right to smack with the open hand but not with an implement,[16] although as of 2010, there are no laws against using an implement in any state or territory. In New South Wales, S61AA of the Crimes Act (1900) allows a parent a defense of lawful correction.[17]
Canada[edit source | editbeta]
In Canada, parents may spank their children, but there are several restrictions.
In Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (2004) the Supreme Court upheld, in a 6-3 decision, the use of "reasonable" force to discipline children, rejecting claims that moderate spanking violated children's rights. However, it stipulated that the person administering the punishment must be a parent or legal guardian, and not a school teacher or other person (i.e. non-parental relatives such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles, as well as babysitters and other caretakers, are banned from spanking); that the force must be used "by way of correction" (sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour), that the child must be capable of benefiting from the correction (i.e. not under the age of 2 or over 12, etc.), and that the use of force must be "reasonable under the circumstances", meaning that it results neither in harm nor in the prospect of bodily harm. Punishment involving slaps or blows to the head is harmful, the Court held.[18] Use of any implement other than a bare hand is illegal and hitting a child in anger or in retaliation for something a child did is not considered reasonable and is against the law. In section 43 the Supreme Court of Canada defined "reasonable" as force that would have a "transitory and trifling" impact on the child. For example, spanking or slapping a child so hard that it leaves a mark that lasts for several hours would not be considered "transitory and trifling".[19] Provinces also legally have the authority to enact complete bans, although none currently does so.[citation needed]
United Kingdom[edit source | editbeta]
In the UK, corporal punishment is legal, but it must not leave a mark on the body and in Scotland it has been illegal to use any implements other than an open hand when disciplining a child since October 2003. The total abolition of corporal punishment has been discussed.[20] In a 2004 survey, 71% of the population would support a ban on parents smacking their children.[21] In a 2006 survey, 80% of the population said they believed in smacking, and 73% said that they believed that any ban would cause a sharp deterioration in children's behaviour. Seven out of ten parents said they themselves use corporal punishment.[22] In a 2012 poll conducted by Angus Reid Public Opinion, 63 per cent of Britons voiced opposition to banning parents in the UK from smacking their children.[23]
United States[edit source | editbeta]
Despite some opposition to corporal punishment in the United States, the spanking of children is legal in all states. Bans on the corporal punishment of children have been proposed in Massachusetts[24] and California[25][26] but have failed to secure passage.[27][28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
My parents disciplined me, my teachers at that time also used corporal punishment as did all schools. That generation,[born in the late 40s early 50s are now near retirement age, if not retired, and have had children of their own, who were also disciplined in the same manner.
That's two generations that have had the majority come through unscathed and unbroken by the use of reasonable corporal punishment.
I have no figures, but I would not mine betting that the softly softly approach with children today has not benefited society, in fact, I would suggest the opposite.
I vote for my local member because like me he advocates the use of reasonable parental corporal punishment, and he would vote against any bill coming foward banning it.
So, yes, I, we, do have a great say in how our society is run.
CMAJ: Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research
Conclusions: Spanking lowers IQ, fosters aggression and increase episodes of depression.
Murray Straus, Professor of Sociology: The research found that the stress of corporal punishment shows up as an increase in post-traumatic stress symptoms such as being fearful that terrible things are about to happen and being easily startled. These symptoms are associated with lower IQ. How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking, the slower the development of the child’s mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference. IQs of children ages 2 to 4 who were not spanked were 5 points higher four years later than the IQs of those who were spanked. The IQs of children ages 5 to 9 years old who were not spanked were 2.8 points higher four years later than the IQs of children the same age who were spanked.
Children are universalizing machines. IF you tell a child 'this is a dog' they will see another animal, like a kangaroo, and say 'dog'. It's natural. It's how human's evolved to learn - take short cuts. One lesson a children would learn from spanking, is that in order to resolve a dispute, bigger people are allowed to hit smaller weaker people. Then they'd universalize this to other things, like big 'countries' are allowed to attack 'smaller' countries.
It should also be noted, many children who were spanked on a regular basis, have little or no memories before the age of 8. I was never spanked. My earliest memories are from age 3.5 and I have many memories at age 4 and on wards. When children, actually adults as well, are hit, this activates their amygdala - which is strongly connected to the forebrain and hippocampus. Activation often heightens memories of the event, or at least that an event happened, but distorts any higher order thinking that may have taken place. This means any so-called 'moral' lessons told to the child following the physical punishment, would be distorted. This is just a simple fact of neurochemistry. Memories are best formed in a calm well rested manner when good numbers of coincidence action potentials can occur in the hippocampus (temporary short term memory) - which is absolutely required to form a structured long term memory. Thus, a better approach to 'learning' would be to calmly ask the child to explain what had happened. Not why. Not who. But to ask them to describe 'what' had occurred. From there a logical conversation at the child's level can begin to take place.
Conclusions: Spanking lowers IQ, fosters aggression and increase episodes of depression.
Murray Straus, Professor of Sociology: The research found that the stress of corporal punishment shows up as an increase in post-traumatic stress symptoms such as being fearful that terrible things are about to happen and being easily startled. These symptoms are associated with lower IQ. How often parents spanked made a difference. The more spanking, the slower the development of the child’s mental ability. But even small amounts of spanking made a difference. IQs of children ages 2 to 4 who were not spanked were 5 points higher four years later than the IQs of those who were spanked. The IQs of children ages 5 to 9 years old who were not spanked were 2.8 points higher four years later than the IQs of children the same age who were spanked.
Children are universalizing machines. IF you tell a child 'this is a dog' they will see another animal, like a kangaroo, and say 'dog'. It's natural. It's how human's evolved to learn - take short cuts. One lesson a children would learn from spanking, is that in order to resolve a dispute, bigger people are allowed to hit smaller weaker people. Then they'd universalize this to other things, like big 'countries' are allowed to attack 'smaller' countries.
It should also be noted, many children who were spanked on a regular basis, have little or no memories before the age of 8. I was never spanked. My earliest memories are from age 3.5 and I have many memories at age 4 and on wards. When children, actually adults as well, are hit, this activates their amygdala - which is strongly connected to the forebrain and hippocampus. Activation often heightens memories of the event, or at least that an event happened, but distorts any higher order thinking that may have taken place. This means any so-called 'moral' lessons told to the child following the physical punishment, would be distorted. This is just a simple fact of neurochemistry. Memories are best formed in a calm well rested manner when good numbers of coincidence action potentials can occur in the hippocampus (temporary short term memory) - which is absolutely required to form a structured long term memory. Thus, a better approach to 'learning' would be to calmly ask the child to explain what had happened. Not why. Not who. But to ask them to describe 'what' had occurred. From there a logical conversation at the child's level can begin to take place.