10 hours ago, Nasher said:

I wonder if I sent a death threat to the Prime Minister, whether the police would go "hah! It's okay, he didn't *actually* kill the Prime Minister..."?

Should have done it when Abbott was still there!

 

 

1 hour ago, AngryAtCasey said:

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,

My point with that is that women should be safe to walk at night, and to focus the message on telling them to not walk alone rather than telling men not to attack them is the crux of the issue for me.

 

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

My point with that is that women should be safe to walk at night, and to focus the message on telling them to not walk alone rather than telling men not to attack them is the crux of the issue for me.

 

I agree with sentiment but unfortunately acknowledge the reality.

I do agree with the focus of the PUBLIC message should strongly be  "if you attack you will be dealt with". Privately I tell my daughters how to stay safe from what is an unfortunate reality.  

I suppose the other issue is  - do we really need to tell men not to attack women ? or more precisely - do you think that a message to a guy who attacks women would make any difference. So it's a case of message of how rational, normal woman can stay safe as opposed to a message to deranged individuals who think it is acceptable to attack women.

 

Stuie - I agree with everything you have said. Whilst there are many issues in this debate anything that deflects from THE issue or lessens its centrality- being a (drunk) bloke threatening a woman ( with violence) is wrong in my mind. I just have to acknowledge that we live in sad times that we find it necessary to consider changing  our "normal" behaviors because of the "Abnormal ( read abhorrent)" behaviors of others.

15 hours ago, Nasher said:

This thread is already really long and I haven't had time to add my thoughts, but since stuie seems to be taking everyone on all on his own, I thought that I'd just say that I have agreed with every word of his that I've read so far.  

Short summary of my views which I'm too tired to really debate:

• Martin is out of control and anything less than a sacking is getting off lightly
• It is in absolutely no way, shape or form the woman's fault for provoking him or such
• You're contributing to our culture of excusing violence if you think it is in any way, shape or form her fault
• If you think she should have gone to the police and kept her mouth shut in public, you're woefully naive about how much interest the police would have in this kind of matter
• If you started a post with "he shouldn't have done it, but...", you've said all I needed to hear and I read no further
• All violence is bad and is a problem, but male (domestic) violence against women is issue #1 at present.  That isn't devaluing the issues others face or mean others don't need/deserve support, but this is the most prevalent issue and therefore the most urgent issue

There are a few sides to this story 'Nasher', and in most cases I don't thinks it's an either/or answer.

The first is the generational and/or cultural issue, handed down through families/cultures and seen as the way things are done. The women as subservient, often treated with contempt, bashed, battered and abused for any perceived reason or for no reason at all.

I hear a lot of noise but nothing positive seems to be being done to break the cycle of abuse. It will take a lot of time and action to fix this but all I'm hearing is talk and statistics. I'm not sure how you break this cycle and some of it is linked to other issues that make it impossible to fix unless they are dealt with.

I think at the moment any awareness campaigns would only preach to those who already hold solid values in relation to not abusing women. Peer pressure seemed to be around when I was growing up, maybe an effort could be put into this area.

So the other issues, and these are not gender specific. Also why I don't think this, apart from the first issue above should be treated as such. Even then they are often so interlinked.

Alcohol & drugs; what do you do? So much domestic violence & violence in general is linked to this problem. It's a massive issue and if we could sort it then we would be a long way down the track to sorting out domestic and other violence issues, male or female.

Mental illness is another real problem for us as a society but is often swept under the carpet. The system is broken and there are a lot of very broken people out there who are ticking time bombs.

To me, violence for any reason whether by male or female is not acceptable. It's not something that comes with a pecking order such as violence against women is number 1. Unless we address the reasons/causes for violence in society as a whole we have no chance to fix the violence against women problem. It is all interconnected.

 

This thread, while partly a good, respectful discussion about a very sensitive issue, also has thrown up some interesting tidbits from a range of posters...

Posters on one side of the argument stating a poster on the other side has been "backed in to a corner".  Poster/s constantly arguing a point ad nauseam (both for and against not fully for) to the point where they are getting personal.  Stuie alone has contributed (and I use that term loosely) 85 posts to this thread.  Axis of Bob is chipping away at C&B.

All this in a thread about an alleged drunken/drugged grub allegedly threatening a female by using intimidating tactics.

Anyone else seeing the irony on display?

All violence is abhorrent to anybody living a positive enjoyable life, and I'm sure 99-100% of posters in this thread subscribe to this lifestyle, but when the microscopic focus on what he or she has written causes posters to defend against expert nit pickers who can pick a post apart word by word, it becomes too irritating to read. This isn't the only thread cursed by it.

It would be nice when you have a post removed to be informed why it was removed. 

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

It would be nice when you have a post removed to be informed why it was removed. 

I didn't get the chance to read your response.

Having said that I know why mine was removed.

Just now, Bombay Airconditioning said:

I didn't get the chance to read your response.

I was being condescending, so it is probably better that way. It is a matter of semantics really, we all think Martin is a ........bag. Let's let it rest.

2 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Having said that I know why mine was removed.

I quoted you so that is probably why mine was removed. It's a good thing that we all love the same footy team or we would be at each other throats.  

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I quoted you so that is probably why mine was removed. It's a good thing that we all love the same footy team or we would be at each other throats.  

Back to the Sam Frost thread....

3 minutes ago, Bombay Airconditioning said:

Back to the Sam Frost thread....

 

How is that toe? 426?

10 minutes ago, ManDee said:

It would be nice when you have a post removed to be informed why it was removed. 

ManDee it was hidden by a mod because it BA's post deemed contained abuse, your post quoted that post, hence removed as well. When mods are on the fly they may get back to explain sooner or later. You guys have worked out why anyway. 

Playing the ball and not the man - post will often stand up. BA knows this as he indicated. Cheers boys.

10 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

10 hours ago, Axis of Bob 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.

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.

I agree with everything you've said except the bolded bit. It is very obvious that several DID in fact argue this point, which is of course why I was forced to continue  -  you must have seen those posts, having read the thread so carefully and through being just generally so much smarter than everyone

10 hours ago, Akum said:

 

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. 

I don't understand how I can give the impression of something when I have categorically stated the opposite, without ambiguity, on 5 or 6 occasions now.

1 hour ago, rjay said:

 

To me, violence for any reason whether by male or female is not acceptable. It's not something that comes with a pecking order such as violence against women is number 1. Unless we address the reasons/causes for violence in society as a whole we have no chance to fix the violence against women problem. It is all interconnected.

 

 

I absolutely and unequivocally agree with your opening statement.

I don't like the idea of pecking orders as it is such a subjective argument as to issue is most important. Needless to say violence in society in general is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Violence of any sort is connected by the simple fact of it being violence however I do believe that there are some stand alone underlying attitudes, causes and actions in regards to violence against women that require it to be examined in it's own right ( to repeat though  - that does not mean that violence is general does not need urgent attention).   

1 hour ago, billy2803 said:

This thread, while partly a good, respectful discussion about a very sensitive issue, also has thrown up some interesting tidbits from a range of posters...

Posters on one side of the argument stating a poster on the other side has been "backed in to a corner".  Poster/s constantly arguing a point ad nauseam (both for and against not fully for) to the point where they are getting personal.  Stuie alone has contributed (and I use that term loosely) 85 posts to this thread.  Axis of Bob is chipping away at C&B.

All this in a thread about an alleged drunken/drugged grub allegedly threatening a female by using intimidating tactics.

Anyone else seeing the irony on display?

The irony being that Axis of Bob and Stuie are just mean-spirted bullies who thrive on attacking others, yet they want to see Martin lynched in the town square because they are just these noble enlightened protectors of women? Yeah I noticed it too.

1 minute ago, Curry & Beer said:

The irony being that Axis of Bob and Stuie are just mean-spirted bullies who thrive on attacking others, yet they want to see Martin lynched in the town square because they are just these noble enlightened protectors of women? Yeah I noticed it too.

 

C & B I disagree with you about Axis & Stuie in relation to this topic. Most of their posts have been on target and not disparaging of other posters (most). My reading of this thread would show that quite the opposite is true, that they have been on the receiving end as you have so poignantly shown above. 

 

NB:- IMO Stuie often goes off the rails, but not so much in this thread. That is my opinion, we all have opinions.  

 

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

 

C & B I disagree with you about Axis & Stuie in relation to this topic. Most of their posts have been on target and not disparaging of other posters (most). My reading of this thread would show that quite the opposite is true, that they have been on the receiving end as you have so poignantly shown above. 

 

NB:- IMO Stuie often goes off the rails, but not so much in this thread. That is my opinion, we all have opinions.  

I can't be bothered reading through but I think this thread has been 'furnished' by moderators. Trust me that stuie did as he does 100% of the time, day in day out, which is just be a terrible human being to anyone that doesn't agree with him. Axis of Bob chimed in with some gut-wrenchingly bad condescension and arrogance.

I'm just passing this on and not making comment on it or trying to imply anything....ok

It has been reported on radio and other media that a number of witnesses have come forward disputing the account of events as described by the woman involved

furthermore it has been intimated that because this has caused some uncertainty the afl effectively have handed it over to the police and that they and richmond will WAIT on the outcome of the police findings before deciding on their actions. I say intimated because as of yet neither the afl or richmond have made a definitive media statement (at least not that i have heard)

 

Sounds like the Forces of Dusty trying to mitigate the seriousness of events.

11 hours ago, Axis of Bob 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.

Appreciate it if you could provide this service on every thread - very useful, thanks.

9 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

 

I can't be bothered reading through but I think this thread has been 'furnished' by moderators. Trust me that stuie did as he does 100% of the time, day in day out, which is just be a terrible human being to anyone that doesn't agree with him. Axis of Bob chimed in with some gut-wrenchingly bad condescension and arrogance.

 

And you think you are better?