Just now, Curry & Beer said:

 

It would seem you are the one who has not comprehended Nasher's post

I have an idea, run a poll and ask if it is the same or worse to hit somebody than to just threaten to do it. Love to see the result.

The results would be like an "Islam should be banned" vox pop in the Herald-Sun.

 

 

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

No, that's not the point. The point is that by focusing on what he didn't do you devalue what he did do.

Maybe you can get that 5 year old to explain it to you.

 

Sums up at least half of this thread, unfortunately.

Just now, mo64 said:

The results would be like an "Islam should be banned" vox pop in the Herald-Sun.

 

 

lol the stuie move again.. hey as long as youre accusing people of being sexist, might as well call them racist too, just pile on the outrage, t's all the same isn't it

i would like to see you explain to the family of somebody  who was actually murdered in a domestic violence incident, that this restaurant woman is just as much a victim as their deceased loved one.

14 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Did you actually comprehend what Nasher wrote? Clearly not. The point he was making is that in some instances the mental anguish of a threat can have more lasting effects than an actual physical assault. It's an individual issue, and not up to the likes of yourself and others to determine what's worse. 

Sadly it's seems that many on this forum have a "harden up" mentality.

 

 

actually, that is not what nasher said

here is what he said

" Threats of violence aren't akin to actually inflicting violence, but psychologically they can have a similar effect. "

no where in that quote does he say  " can have more lasting effects than an actual physical assault. "

since when did "similar" become "more lasting"

if you are going to quote someone, get it right

1 minute ago, Curry & Beer said:

lol the stuie move again.. hey as long as youre accusing people of being sexist, might as well call them racist too, just pile on the outrage, t's all the same isn't it

i would like to see you explain to the family of somebody  who was actually murdered in a domestic violence incident, that this restaurant woman is just as much a victim as their deceased loved one.

The fact that anyone would suggest to "run a poll" on a football forum to determine right and wrong on such an issue like this beggars belief. Like all issues of this nature including racism and homophobia, breaking down stereotypical thought processes of the masses takes time. 

BTW a family of someone who was murdered in a doemestic violence incident would have empathy for the woman at the restaurant, and would understand her anguish. Nobody of any intelligence would try to quantify anguish and grief.

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

actually, that is not what nasher said

here is what he said

" Threats of violence aren't akin to actually inflicting violence, but psychologically they can have a similar effect. "

no where in that quote does he say  " can have more lasting effects than an actual physical assault. "

since when did "similar" become "more lasting"

if you are going to quote someone, get it right

OK, similar then. Are you happy now. 

38 minutes ago, Biffen said:

May I just remark,in approbo of nothing,that I have done the old Walrus with the chopstix several times and it has never failed to raise at least a titter.

Must have been a very tough room.

Still ,Dustin  has time to work on his culturally insensitive gags at ethnic restaurants.

There are a myriad of different peoples to offend in Melbourne which contributes to the pleasure of eating out.

One only hopes he can find a more receptive audience in his next culinary expedition.

Apropos of nothing you might need spell check!!

4 minutes ago, mo64 said:

breaking down stereotypical thought processes of the masses takes time. 

Translation: Yes, I am in the minority with this argument - but that's only because average people are so dumb and I'm a level above them all

obviously you think you know better then the law of the land, which, last time I checked, imposes a far more severe penalty for murder than it does for threats and intimidation. Maybe because its basic bloody common sense.

Just now, mo64 said:

I actually did, but you couldn't grasp that.

Popular opinion on a football forum doesn't sway my moral beliefs. In plain English, I couldn't give a fat rats tossbag on what the masses may think on an issue such as is.

 

we were typing at the same time but your new response has matched mine perfectly

your position is nonsensical and despite the fact you know most disagree with it, you choose to pass that off as them being illectually inferior to yourself. It's little surprise you are holding an oar on the SS STUIE

2 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

we were typing at the same time but your new response has matched mine perfectly

your position is nonsensical and despite the fact you know most disagree with it, you choose to pass that off as them being illectually inferior to yourself. It's little surprise you are holding an oar on the SS STUIE

You know what, I'm happy to wear that.

14 minutes ago, mo64 said:

OK, similar then. Are you happy now. 

i don't see anything to be happy about in this thread. ymmv

9 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

 

obviously you think you know better then the law of the land, which, last time I checked, imposes a far more severe penalty for murder than it does for threats and intimidation. Maybe because its basic bloody common sense.

so I take it you have no valid rebuttal for this point, maybe you missed it

Just now, Curry & Beer said:

so I take it you have no valid rebuttal for this point, maybe you missed it

 

42 minutes ago, stuie said:

No, that's not the point. The point is that by focusing on what he didn't do you devalue what he did do.

Maybe you can get that 5 year old to explain it to you.

 

And you have no rebuttal for this one?

You have completely missed the point and are only furthering to make yourself look dumber.

Just stop. If it's not clear by your mysoginyst ranting or sheer blindness to the actual point, it's obvious by your avatar how much you respect women and should be listened to on this topic. 

6 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

And you have no rebuttal for this one?

You have completely missed the point and are only furthering to make yourself look dumber.

Just stop. If it's not clear by your mysoginyst ranting or sheer blindness to the actual point, it's obvious by your avatar how much you respect women and should be listened to on this topic. 

you're 'devaluing' the actual victims of murder by suggesting people have merely been threatened are just as big victims

ps what's the link between appreciating an attractive woman and not respecting her?

 

pps as already established, youre insane, downright nutbar

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Curry & Beer

1 minute ago, Curry & Beer said:

you're 'devaluing' the actual victims of murder by suggesting people have merely been threatened are just as big victims

No, I never said that, that's another thing you've made up in your tiny little mind.

You're clearly just either too stubborn, dumb or both to comprehend the actual point, so I'm going to put you on ignore now and not let you dilute the topic further with your archaic views, sexist rhetoric, victim blaming and half naked girl avatar. You're a walking example of why this problem has gotten so bad, be proud, I'm sure you are.

 

C&B, your are sorely out of touch with this issue.

Stuie is right; by focusing on what he didn't do (commit murder) you are devaluing what he actually did do (a serious crime).

 

If I called up your family and threatened to kill them by detailing graphically what I would do to each one of them, then I have committed a very serious crime - End of story. Arguing that I didn't fly a plane into the twin towers is completely irrelevant .... as is your argument.

4 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

C&B, your are sorely out of touch with this issue.

Stuie is right; by focusing on what he didn't do (commit murder) you are devaluing what he actually did do (a serious crime).

 

If I called up your family and threatened to kill them by detailing graphically what I would do to each one of them, then I have committed a very serious crime - End of story. Arguing that I didn't fly a plane into the twin towers is completely irrelevant .... as is your argument.

i nor anyone else has ever suggested that what he did wasn't a serous crime. Show me one single post where this has been said. I'm simply pointing out the obvious that the likes of stuie who are equating a threat with an actual murder are being nonsensical and frankly absurd - but i and others have re-clarified this point several times already but apparently some people simply can't read.

we are being told his crime has a max penalty of 10 years, right? What's the penalty for murder? Max life in prison isn't it? So if you can explain to me why the law doesn't give people life for threats to kill I will concede the argument. But of course, you can't and won't do that.

Just now, Curry & Beer said:

we are being told his crime has a max penalty of 10 years, right? What's the penalty for murder? Max life in prison isn't it? So if you can explain to me why the law doesn't give people life for threats to kill I will concede the argument. But of course, you can't and won't do that.

Who cares what the penalty for murder is? It's completely irrelevant. It's like asking what the fine for jaywalking is .... it's not relevant to the argument at all.

You have tunnel vision because you're worried that you look foolish in this thread. You are going harder at people now than you did at the start because you're cornered and scared. If you took a step back from it then you would understand it better, rather than simply opposing things because you're afraid of being on Stuie's side. 

27 minutes ago, stuie said:

No, I never said that, that's another thing you've made up in your tiny little mind.

 if you neversaid that, and that's not your position, then what in god's name are you arguing with me about? because that's the ONLY thing i have ever argued for.

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by Curry & Beer

10 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Who cares what the penalty for murder is? It's completely irrelevant. It's like asking what the fine for jaywalking is .... it's not relevant to the argument at all.

 

How can you say it's not relevant? The question is if threats to kill equal actual killing

threats - 10 years

murder - life

how could a point possibly be MORE relevant to the discussion?

10 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

etc.

10 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

 

My position on the bolded bit is the same as the 990 people; that's why the legal system has different sentences. My position on puppies is that I find them cute and adorable. My position on anchovies is that I think they have their place, but I don't want to overdo them because they have a very strong taste.

Nobody is arguing that point .... you only think they are because you need to find something to oppose Stuie on. Unfortunately you are fighting a war that nobody else is bothering to fight, because it is irrelevant. You are getting indignant that nobody is answering your question, but nobody is answering it because it isn't a very good question. 

In dot point form:

• Dustin Martin did something bad.
• You said that at least he didn't do something worse.
• Everyone said, "Who cares, because what he did was really bad"
• You then got into a huff and said "Why don't you agree that murder is worse than threatening to kill?"
• Everyone ignored your question because it was irrelevant.

I hope I've made this thread easier for you to follow.

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by george_on_the_outer
quote referring to abusive language

2 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

How can you say it's not relevant? The question is if threats to kill equal actual killing

threats - 10 years

murder - life

how could a point possibly be MORE relevant to the discussion?

Sorry C&B, I'm also with Bob here, and with those he's supporting.

Nobody has said that he should be punished as if he actually had stabbed her, or killed her, which he apparently threatened.

One poster made the point that in some circumstances the threat of violent assault can have similar psychological effects as if the assault had actually occurred. But that's not the same.

Another poster made the point that the line between threatening to assault and actually carrying it out can be very fine, especially in someone who's intoxicated. But that's not the same either. Both of them are very good points.

A number of us have a problem that you're giving the impression of wanting to minimise what he did. That may not be the impression you want to give, but that's what's coming across loud and clear. Mainly because you seem to want to hammer the point again and again and again. If you don't want to keep giving the impression that you're trying to trivialise Dusty's actions, then it's wise to top hammering this point. 

9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

"Orange Whip...?"

 

18 hours ago, stuie said:

No one has said you're defending Martin.

What I disagree with is some of your "preventative measures", to me it all just sounds a bit like telling women not to walk alone or go anywhere by themselves at night. You're putting the onus in the wrong direction.

 

Have agreed with nearly everything you say on this topic stuie.

However on the subject of suggesting to  woman not to walk alone at night is victim blaming,  I don't agree with that.  For me it's just common sense safety advice. I say the same thing to my wife. My parents even said it to me many a moon ago when i first started going out after i turned 18 and i'm a man.

 

Telling someone not to walk alone at night isn't anymore victim blaming then telling someone to buckle up when they get in a car.

 

Edit: Restructure of sentence.  Didn't make sense,

Edited December 10, 20159 yr by AngryAtCasey

11 hours ago, Curry & Beer said:

Let's not lose grasp of the fact that there is a gigantic difference between threatening something and actually doing it

Whilst I understand in law there is a difference between a threat and actually carrying through with the threat, the problem for me with this is you are only dealing with the outcome.

I think we should not lose grasp of the fact that a woman had Martin standing over her and aggressively asserting that he was going to kill her. That's where you need  to "stop the clock". Let's not look at what Martin subsequently did or didn't do. You need to put yourself in her shoes at that moment. I have no idea as to her state of mind at the time but it could have ranged from "pffft - this bloke is all hot air" to " he is out of control  - I am going to get a chopstick through the eye".

Again, a personal experience - I was bailed up by two very intoxicated bikies ( this is not attempting to disparage bikies - it is disparaging two drunken idiots) when I was 17 and was terrified. To this day I still have nightmares about it and will irrationally walk across the opposite side of the road when I see bikies.

My point is to cause long term damage to a person, it doesn't necessarily need to include an actual physical assault.