Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said.. "reasonable force"?

Please define.

Unfortunately, the polititions do not set a good example www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/ex-wa-treasurer-troy-buswell-faces-court-charged-with-assaulting-his-partner-20200304-p546t9.html

Select to expand quote

hilly said..

Kamikuza said.. "reasonable force"?

Please define.

You said something to the effect of "not ok to respond with interest". I'm wondering if that means that "responding in kind" would be acceptable?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

hilly said..

Kamikuza said.. "reasonable force"?

Please define.

You said something to the effect of "not ok to respond with interest". I'm wondering if that means that "responding in kind" would be acceptable?

No best policy is not to hit people unless you are in danger of serious injury or death, self-defence. Then it is better to restrain, how police are trained. Turn the other cheek is the biblical reference I believe (I am not religious). Actually makes the person who initiates the violence look stupid.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
it's pretty simple really.

the blame lays at the feet of the people who commit the violence. it's overwhelmingly a gendered issue because men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of the violence. and what's more we know many of the drivers of that violence. read all about it here

www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-violence-against-women/causes-domestic-violence/

no amount of dissembling, hair splitting and outright lying will change the reality. here's some reality.

www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

It's not "pretty simple really" if you ignore the root cause of the problem.

No matter how much legal action is taken to punish perpetrators, no matter how much legislation is enacted to eliminate "gender norms" (whatever they might be), until you face up to the fact that we live in a highly dysfunctional society where violence is accepted as normal, domestic violence is going to occur.

And it will continue to occur until violence in all forms is eradicated.

Politicising the issue will arguably make the situation worse.

If legislation and politics worked we'd have been living in Utopia for thousands of years and there would be no jails.

Select to expand quote

hilly said..
No best policy is not to hit people unless you are in danger of serious injury or death, self-defence. Then it is better to restrain, how police are trained. Turn the other cheek is the biblical reference I believe (I am not religious). Actually makes the person who initiates the violence look stupid.

Indeed.

But ... "how police are trained". I can't speak for you, obviously, but I'm not trained like that and most of the population isn't.

And from personal experience and observation, attempts to restrain often end up being fairly vigorous, and you're back to where you started -- having to use some sort of force that is, under current law and vague definition, liable to be determined to be "violence".

So, how much violence should you apply? It sounds like the answer is not "always zero"... It's a bit of a sticky wicket eh, and we've got the luxury of sitting about discussing it at our leisure, not having someone up in our face screaming and throwing punches or waving a knife.

Turning the other cheek can get you put in hospital, and I don't think Jesus meant it to be taken literally. He was, after all, quite fond of using violence to make sure he got his own way...

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
it's pretty simple really.

the blame lays at the feet of the people who commit the violence. it's overwhelmingly a gendered issue because men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of the violence. and what's more we know many of the drivers of that violence. read all about it here

www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-violence-against-women/causes-domestic-violence/

no amount of dissembling, hair splitting and outright lying will change the reality. here's some reality.

www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

We've been through this before, dopey - White Ribbon is literally presenting only one side of the reality to suit their political point.

If those are The causes of DV... why do women commit the crime at all? Are those perps just not real women? And please, define DV for us ...

No amount of dissembling, hair-splitting or outright lying will get around the fact that both/all genders commit this crime and worse - surely the whole point of this discussion - is that both genders are the victims

I am however impressed with the utter callousness and disregard you have to the unpopular class of victims here. Perhaps there just deserved it, eh? Maybe their politics - or perhaps their identities - were just "****house".

I said it was overwhelmingly a gendered issue.......not exclusively male. FFS!

White ribbon is presenting the reality of the situation........you're trying....for some reason, to smear them by saying they're "presenting one side of the reality to suit their political point".......I spose if you go this low, you may as well keep going.

Select to expand quote

japie said..

log man said..
it's pretty simple really.

the blame lays at the feet of the people who commit the violence. it's overwhelmingly a gendered issue because men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of the violence. and what's more we know many of the drivers of that violence. read all about it here

www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-violence-against-women/causes-domestic-violence/

no amount of dissembling, hair splitting and outright lying will change the reality. here's some reality.

www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

It's not "pretty simple really" if you ignore the root cause of the problem.

No matter how much legal action is taken to punish perpetrators, no matter how much legislation is enacted to eliminate "gender norms" (whatever they might be), until you face up to the fact that we live in a highly dysfunctional society where violence is accepted as normal, domestic violence is going to occur.

And it will continue to occur until violence in all forms is eradicated.

Politicising the issue will arguably make the situation worse.

If legislation and politics worked we'd have been living in Utopia for thousands of years and there would be no jails.

This is your response to any serious social issue though isn't.

Just avoid the issue.

If it's political it's some unseen force directing the pieces........nothing we can do

if it's DV.......aw it's all to hard and it's society wide and there's really nothing we can do.

Pretty poor I reckon.

Select to expand quote

hilly said..

Kamikuza said..

hilly said..

Kamikuza said.. "reasonable force"?

Please define.

You said something to the effect of "not ok to respond with interest". I'm wondering if that means that "responding in kind" would be acceptable?

No best policy is not to hit people unless you are in danger of serious injury or death, self-defence. Then it is better to restrain, how police are trained. Turn the other cheek is the biblical reference I believe (I am not religious). Actually makes the person who initiates the violence look stupid.

Are you saying this with women victims in mind, are they complaining too much or are you really saying DV against women is wrong but men just be quiet about it?

www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/why-arent-we-talking-about-abusive-mums/news-story/e63f09954f771ff8e515450f3ecc095f?nk=4fe510e8118d1991221f7c9944f4dcd4-1584700472

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..

hilly said..

Kamikuza said..

hilly said..

Kamikuza said.. "reasonable force"?

Please define.

You said something to the effect of "not ok to respond with interest". I'm wondering if that means that "responding in kind" would be acceptable?

No best policy is not to hit people unless you are in danger of serious injury or death, self-defence. Then it is better to restrain, how police are trained. Turn the other cheek is the biblical reference I believe (I am not religious). Actually makes the person who initiates the violence look stupid.

Are you saying this with women victims in mind, are they complaining too much or are you really saying DV against women is wrong but men just be quiet about it?

Sorry question does not make sense

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..
www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/why-arent-we-talking-about-abusive-mums/news-story/e63f09954f771ff8e515450f3ecc095f?nk=85bc8738e67b35d65cfd39ddc640017c-1584700472

Hear Hear

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..
www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/why-arent-we-talking-about-abusive-mums/news-story/e63f09954f771ff8e515450f3ecc095f?nk=c34cc62054d536725e575c16d89cc1ff-1584700472

You do realise that children spend way more time with their mothers than fathers. So 40% to 47% could be viewed as a fail for men. I am sorry you and VBman have had really bad experiences with women. The hate is obvious. Have you sort help? Are you ok?

Select to expand quote

log man said..

japie said..

log man said..
it's pretty simple really.

the blame lays at the feet of the people who commit the violence. it's overwhelmingly a gendered issue because men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of the violence. and what's more we know many of the drivers of that violence. read all about it here

www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-violence-against-women/causes-domestic-violence/

no amount of dissembling, hair splitting and outright lying will change the reality. here's some reality.

www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

It's not "pretty simple really" if you ignore the root cause of the problem.

No matter how much legal action is taken to punish perpetrators, no matter how much legislation is enacted to eliminate "gender norms" (whatever they might be), until you face up to the fact that we live in a highly dysfunctional society where violence is accepted as normal, domestic violence is going to occur.

And it will continue to occur until violence in all forms is eradicated.

Politicising the issue will arguably make the situation worse.

If legislation and politics worked we'd have been living in Utopia for thousands of years and there would be no jails.

This is your response to any serious social issue though isn't.

Just avoid the issue.

If it's political it's some unseen force directing the pieces........nothing we can do

if it's DV.......aw it's all to hard and it's society wide and there's really nothing we can do.

Pretty poor I reckon.

So I write a post in reply to the dribble you wrote politicising the issue of domestic violence.

Stipulating that in order to eliminate domestic violence it is pointless to attempt to do so without addressing the all pervasive endemic violence within our society and you conclude that I'm avoiding the issue?

Let me give you a little example by way of a gardening simile.

If you have paspalum invading your lawn spraying it with weed killer ain't going to do no f^cking good whatsoever if your neighbours lawn is not treated at the same time.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
it's pretty simple really.

the blame lays at the feet of the people who commit the violence. it's overwhelmingly a gendered issue because men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of the violence. and what's more we know many of the drivers of that violence. read all about it here

www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/what-is-violence-against-women/causes-domestic-violence/

no amount of dissembling, hair splitting and outright lying will change the reality. here's some reality.

www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/march/1425128400/jess-hill/home-truths

I had no idea that marital rape wasn't considered a crime in Australia until 1990. WTF. It goes some way to explaining some of the depravity that exists in our culture. And, as a side, it also means myself and many of us may just be the result of rape.

Select to expand quote

Little Jon said..

hilly said..

Kamikuza said..

hilly said..

Kamikuza said.. "reasonable force"?

Please define.

You said something to the effect of "not ok to respond with interest". I'm wondering if that means that "responding in kind" would be acceptable?

No best policy is not to hit people unless you are in danger of serious injury or death, self-defence. Then it is better to restrain, how police are trained. Turn the other cheek is the biblical reference I believe (I am not religious). Actually makes the person who initiates the violence look stupid.

Are you saying this with women victims in mind, are they complaining too much or are you really saying DV against women is wrong but men just be quiet about it?

Why should Hilly reply to your post when you don't reply to posters who point out that you post misleading links and claims?

Select to expand quote

log man said..
I said it was overwhelmingly a gendered issue.......not exclusively male. FFS!

White ribbon is presenting the reality of the situation........you're trying....for some reason, to smear them by saying they're "presenting one side of the reality to suit their political point".......I spose if you go this low, you may as well keep going.

A distinction without a difference. Slippery.

Please point out to us on the White Ribbon page, any statistics that acknowledges male victims. Or child victims of domestic violence. We'll wait...

It's not a smear, it's a description of their mandate. Google "white ribbon Australia". The first link is titled: "White Ribbon: Prevent Men's Violence Against Women".

Of course I'm going to have to spell this out for you, so I may as well keep going: the issue isn't that the charity specialized in such a role or demographic, the issue is that it's literally only one side of the story and muppets like you consider it the whole story.

WR was not anti-domestic violence, they were -- in their own words -- anti-violence against women.

1 in 5 male victims over 15 years of age, literally millions of people in Australia, just didn't factor into their world view.

It's not really overwhelmingly a gendered issue, is it, when you look at reality.

Select to expand quote

hilly said..
you and VBman have had really bad experiences with women. The hate is obvious. Have you sort help? Are you ok?

Sounds like you've had your fair share of bad experience with women too. Why on earth would you be a bouncer?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
I said it was overwhelmingly a gendered issue.......not exclusively male. FFS!

White ribbon is presenting the reality of the situation........you're trying....for some reason, to smear them by saying they're "presenting one side of the reality to suit their political point".......I spose if you go this low, you may as well keep going.

A distinction without a difference. Slippery.

Please point out to us on the White Ribbon page, any statistics that acknowledges male victims. Or child victims of domestic violence. We'll wait...

It's not a smear, it's a description of their mandate. Google "white ribbon Australia". The first link is titled: "White Ribbon: Prevent Men's Violence Against Women".

Of course I'm going to have to spell this out for you, so I may as well keep going: the issue isn't that the charity specialized in such a role or demographic, the issue is that it's literally only one side of the story and muppets like you consider it the whole story.

WR was not anti-domestic violence, they were -- in their own words -- anti-violence against women.

1 in 5 male victims over 15 years of age, literally millions of people in Australia, just didn't factor into their world view.

It's not really overwhelmingly a gendered issue, is it, when you look at reality.

You could easily have found that page presenting stats on male victims - the one you claim does not exist - by yourself. It's at
www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/violence-against-men/

shall we finish this topic here?

Select to expand quote

log man said..
shall we finish this topic here?

But it is the women's fault


Disclaimer - this emoji means it is a sarcastic comment aimed at the people here who are trying to deflect that DV is not a mainly male issue.

And yes I agree nuff said.

Select to expand quote

log man said..
shall we finish this topic here?

No thanks.

Emu Export was known as wife beater not wife basher.

What sort of people live in that area that they would sell out of stock instantly.

amp-9news-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/e94ed8c7-2a43-4232-9092-8f514d7505f5?usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D&_js_v=0.1

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

log man said..
shall we finish this topic here?

No thanks.

Emu Export was known as wife beater not wife basher.

What sort of people live in that area that they would sell out of stock instantly.

amp-9news-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.9news.com.au/article/e94ed8c7-2a43-4232-9092-8f514d7505f5?usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D&_js_v=0.1

Thats why you cannot buy emu at Fitzroy Crossing

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
I said it was overwhelmingly a gendered issue.......not exclusively male. FFS!

White ribbon is presenting the reality of the situation........you're trying....for some reason, to smear them by saying they're "presenting one side of the reality to suit their political point".......I spose if you go this low, you may as well keep going.

A distinction without a difference. Slippery.

Please point out to us on the White Ribbon page, any statistics that acknowledges male victims. Or child victims of domestic violence. We'll wait...

It's not a smear, it's a description of their mandate. Google "white ribbon Australia". The first link is titled: "White Ribbon: Prevent Men's Violence Against Women".

Of course I'm going to have to spell this out for you, so I may as well keep going: the issue isn't that the charity specialized in such a role or demographic, the issue is that it's literally only one side of the story and muppets like you consider it the whole story.

WR was not anti-domestic violence, they were -- in their own words -- anti-violence against women.

1 in 5 male victims over 15 years of age, literally millions of people in Australia, just didn't factor into their world view.

It's not really overwhelmingly a gendered issue, is it, when you look at reality.

You could easily have found that page presenting stats on male victims - the one you claim does not exist - by yourself. It's at
www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/violence-against-men/

Guessing you didn't actually read it. Point me to the stats about male victims? I've given one, and that's one more than they have.

It says, everyone can experience DV, but did you know 95% of perpetrators of violence are male?

They're mixing their stats there, IIRC.

And ignoring male victims -- which is fine, that's not their mandate.

So to say that they only present one side of the story regarding victims is not smear, it's exactly what they did.

That was easy, wasn't it.

Select to expand quote

hilly said..
But it is the women's fault


Disclaimer - this emoji means it is a sarcastic comment aimed at the people here who are trying to deflect that DV is not a mainly male issue.

And yes I agree nuff said.

Said nobody in this thread ever

I use this emoji to mean I'm rolling my eyes.

Sure, you don't get it -- enough said.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Chris 249 said..

Kamikuza said..

log man said..
I said it was overwhelmingly a gendered issue.......not exclusively male. FFS!

White ribbon is presenting the reality of the situation........you're trying....for some reason, to smear them by saying they're "presenting one side of the reality to suit their political point".......I spose if you go this low, you may as well keep going.

A distinction without a difference. Slippery.

Please point out to us on the White Ribbon page, any statistics that acknowledges male victims. Or child victims of domestic violence. We'll wait...

It's not a smear, it's a description of their mandate. Google "white ribbon Australia". The first link is titled: "White Ribbon: Prevent Men's Violence Against Women".

Of course I'm going to have to spell this out for you, so I may as well keep going: the issue isn't that the charity specialized in such a role or demographic, the issue is that it's literally only one side of the story and muppets like you consider it the whole story.

WR was not anti-domestic violence, they were -- in their own words -- anti-violence against women.

1 in 5 male victims over 15 years of age, literally millions of people in Australia, just didn't factor into their world view.

It's not really overwhelmingly a gendered issue, is it, when you look at reality.

You could easily have found that page presenting stats on male victims - the one you claim does not exist - by yourself. It's at
www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/violence-against-men/

Guessing you didn't actually read it. Point me to the stats about male victims? I've given one, and that's one more than they have.

It says, everyone can experience DV, but did you know 95% of perpetrators of violence are male?

They're mixing their stats there, IIRC.

And ignoring male victims -- which is fine, that's not their mandate.

So to say that they only present one side of the story regarding victims is not smear, it's exactly what they did.

That was easy, wasn't it.

They are NOT ignoring male victims. The page heading says "violence against men". There is also text about make victims. The simple fact of the plain English shows that you are wrong.

The stats are on the hyperlink, which takes you to an analysis of ABS stats on female AND male victims of violence by men AND women. Guess you didn't read the page

Select to expand quote

Chris249 said..
They are NOT ignoring male victims. The page heading says "violence against men". There is also text about make victims. The simple fact of the plain English shows that you are wrong.

The stats are on the hyperlink, which takes you to an analysis of ABS stats on female AND male victims of violence by men AND women. Guess you didn't read the page

"There is also text about male victims".
Yes there is, the statement "men are also the victims of DV" is the sum total of their acknowledgment, and it's instantly marginalized by the following text about other victims and then the bonus statistic about male perpetrators of all violence, not just DV. (IIRC)

There are zero statistics about male victims on that page/site, unlike the immediately accessible presentation of statistics for women victims.

You don't expect the average punter or people like jog lam to go wading through pages of pdf data to ferret out the details, when their confirmation bias is satisfied right there on the front page, then the "other side" of the issue hand-waved away with a brief acknowledgement, then marginalized, then further downgraded by another statistic? Honestly.

Which is all fine, that's their mandate, their area of interest. But point out that they're doing it, isn't a smear. THAT'S my point.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

Chris249 said..
They are NOT ignoring male victims. The page heading says "violence against men". There is also text about make victims. The simple fact of the plain English shows that you are wrong.

The stats are on the hyperlink, which takes you to an analysis of ABS stats on female AND male victims of violence by men AND women. Guess you didn't read the page

"There is also text about male victims".
Yes there is, the statement "men are also the victims of DV" is the sum total of their acknowledgment, and it's instantly marginalized by the following text about other victims and then the bonus statistic about male perpetrators of all violence, not just DV. (IIRC)

There are zero statistics about male victims on that page/site, unlike the immediately accessible presentation of statistics for women victims.

You don't expect the average punter or people like jog lam to go wading through pages of pdf data to ferret out the details, when their confirmation bias is satisfied right there on the front page, then the "other side" of the issue hand-waved away with a brief acknowledgement, then marginalized, then further downgraded by another statistic? Honestly.

Which is all fine, that's their mandate, their area of interest. But point out that they're doing it, isn't a smear. THAT'S my point.

I think we stopped mate

Select to expand quote

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

Chris249 said..
They are NOT ignoring male victims. The page heading says "violence against men". There is also text about make victims. The simple fact of the plain English shows that you are wrong.

The stats are on the hyperlink, which takes you to an analysis of ABS stats on female AND male victims of violence by men AND women. Guess you didn't read the page

"There is also text about male victims".
Yes there is, the statement "men are also the victims of DV" is the sum total of their acknowledgment, and it's instantly marginalized by the following text about other victims and then the bonus statistic about male perpetrators of all violence, not just DV. (IIRC)

There are zero statistics about male victims on that page/site, unlike the immediately accessible presentation of statistics for women victims.

You don't expect the average punter or people like jog lam to go wading through pages of pdf data to ferret out the details, when their confirmation bias is satisfied right there on the front page, then the "other side" of the issue hand-waved away with a brief acknowledgement, then marginalized, then further downgraded by another statistic? Honestly.

Which is all fine, that's their mandate, their area of interest. But point out that they're doing it, isn't a smear. THAT'S my point.

I think we stopped mate

I thought I made the point but people keep wanting it repeated.

Pretty embarrassing, when even you got the point.

But I see you've set yourself up as The Ultimate Arbiter of All Conversations again. Is that an elected position or do do self-appoint via bloody revolution?

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

log man said..

Kamikuza said..

Chris249 said..
They are NOT ignoring male victims. The page heading says "violence against men". There is also text about make victims. The simple fact of the plain English shows that you are wrong.

The stats are on the hyperlink, which takes you to an analysis of ABS stats on female AND male victims of violence by men AND women. Guess you didn't read the page

"There is also text about male victims".
Yes there is, the statement "men are also the victims of DV" is the sum total of their acknowledgment, and it's instantly marginalized by the following text about other victims and then the bonus statistic about male perpetrators of all violence, not just DV. (IIRC)

There are zero statistics about male victims on that page/site, unlike the immediately accessible presentation of statistics for women victims.

You don't expect the average punter or people like jog lam to go wading through pages of pdf data to ferret out the details, when their confirmation bias is satisfied right there on the front page, then the "other side" of the issue hand-waved away with a brief acknowledgement, then marginalized, then further downgraded by another statistic? Honestly.

Which is all fine, that's their mandate, their area of interest. But point out that they're doing it, isn't a smear. THAT'S my point.

I think we stopped mate

I thought I made the point but people keep wanting it repeated.

Pretty embarrassing, when even you got the point.

But I see you've set yourself up as The Ultimate Arbiter of All Conversations again. Is that an elected position or do do self-appoint via bloody revolution?

Yeah, no worries.