Society/Culture Bettina Arndt a step too far

[ferball]

Well that's not my doing is it. I don't have control of how the qld system views it and or how it uses it such cases.

That doesn't take away from the fact that motive may have been a factor, so what? Am I not or anyone else not allowed to mention this now? Because some lower than a snake lawyer might use it in a qld court?

Couldn't give a flying!

'Language is important.' Sooorryyy! How dare I not use the best possible language unintentionally for my point ! Probably best I say nothing to avoid not using the best possible language, would that suffice?

'You cannot provoke someone to burn your children alive' So what? Does NOT mean that there was not provocation.

Bettina Arndt should've know better that hysterical f***wits would've taken this and run it as a campaign against her and her beliefs. One of those beliefs is in support of men of who she feels are unfairly labeled.

She's set back any good promotion of that group by years with her involvement. A step too far!

Best possible language?

Provoking something means you bear some responsibility for the consequences of provoking it.

What responsibility does that woman bear for having herself and her kids burned alive?

Its *en barbarism.

Do you ever hear of honour killings in south Asia where the victim is burnt alive and think "I wonder what provoked that?"??

Also..

If you use a legal term from the jurisdiction where a crime happened in reference to the crime you shouldn't be surprised when people assume that's what you mean.

How about you understand what words mean before you use them.

Provocation - 1 action or speech that makes someone angry, especially deliberately.

Provocation (law) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Carringbush2010]

Best possible language?

Provoking something means you bear some responsibility for the consequences of provoking it.

What responsibility does that woman bear for having herself and her kids burned alive?

Its fu**en barbarism.

Do you ever hear of honour killings in south Asia where the victim is burnt alive and think "I wonder what provoked that?"??

Also..

If you use a legal term from the jurisdiction where a crime happened in reference to the crime you shouldn't be surprised when people assume that's what you mean.

How about you understand what words mean before you use them.

Provocation - 1 action or speech that makes someone angry, especially deliberately.

Provocation (law) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

'Provoking something means you bear some responsibility for the consequences of provoking it.' That doesn't justify the action though does it, as you pointed it's fargin barbarism. Uh no s**t sherlock, what you think I think otherwise?

I know what the definition of provocation is, don't need the likes of some BF poster to engage with me as though I'm a five year old to know it. It's insulting.

How about you get off your f****** high horse and stop assuming what I'm thinking by misinterpreting my posts. Actually read them and understand I'm pointing out what others might think not what I'm thinking.

Do you get it now?

 

[its free real estate]

'Provoking something means you bear some responsibility for the consequences of provoking it.' That doesn't justify the action though does it, as you pointed it's fargin barbarism. Uh no s**t sherlock, what you think I think otherwise?

I know what the definition of provocation is, don't need the likes of some BF poster to engage with me as though I'm a five year old to know it. It's insulting.

How about you get off your f****** high horse and stop assuming what I'm thinking by misinterpreting my posts. Actually read them and understand I'm pointing out what others might think not what I'm thinking.

Do you get it now?

Mate, there's little to provoke burning someone. The only thing that could provoke me to burn someone alive is if they set my kids on fire. Maybe you could be provoked into killing your kids in a spasmodic fit of rage, but pouring petrol on kids 6, 4 and 3 strapped in their seat belts then lighting it, watching them burn - the guy deserved to be tortured slowly for fifty years for that, and anyone who sympathises with his situation, or says "hurr durr" men's rights, should be selected out of the gene pool, viciously.

 

[ferball]

'Provoking something means you bear some responsibility for the consequences of provoking it.' That doesn't justify the action though does it, as you pointed it's fargin barbarism. Uh no s**t sherlock, what you think I think otherwise?

I know what the definition of provocation is, don't need the likes of some BF poster to engage with me as though I'm a five year old to know it. It's insulting.

How about you get off your f****** high horse and stop assuming what I'm thinking by misinterpreting my posts. Actually read them and understand I'm pointing out what others might think not what I'm thinking.

Do you get it now?

Maybe I'll get it soon...

By definition ... it does allow some justification of the action.

Provocation is something that would cause a reasonable person to react poorly or temporarily lose control.

No reasonable person does what that prick did.

That you claim to know what provocation means and still find the best term for this situation is disturbing.

This is what you said:

I don't have an issue with the possibility that the bloke who burnt his family may have been provoked.

Ie you don't have an issue with the possibility that members of his family did something that made him think burning them to death was a reasonable response...

Like I said - you need to think about what you're saying.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Mate, there's little to provoke burning someone. The only thing that could provoke me to burn someone alive is if they set my kids on fire. Maybe you could be provoked into killing your kids in a spasmodic fit of rage, but pouring petrol on kids 6, 4 and 3 strapped in their seat belts then lighting it, watching them burn - the guy deserved to be tortured slowly for fifty years for that, and anyone who sympathises with his situation, or says "hurr durr" men's rights, should be selected out of the gene pool, viciously.

Maybe I'll get it soon...

By definition ... it does allow some justification of the action.

Provocation is something that would cause a reasonable person to react poorly or temporarily lose control.

No reasonable person does what that prick did.

That you claim to know what provocation means and still find the best term for this situation is disturbing.

This is what you said:

I don't have an issue with the possibility that the bloke who burnt his family may have been provoked.

Ie you don't have an issue with the possibility that members of his family did something that made him think burning them to death was a reasonable response...

Like I said - you need to think about what you're saying.

Am I dealing with 5 year olds here?

I'm going to spell it out one last time:

THIS IS NOT MY OPINION, IT MAY BE THE OPINION OF OTHERS. I'M MERELY POINTING THAT OUT, ALL THAT EQUALS I DON'T CONDONE WHAT THIS DICKHEAD DID.

CAPEESH? DO WE GET THAT NOW?

I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU FERBALL WOULD STOP ACCUSING ME OF JUSTIFYING THIS ATROCITY.

And no I don't have an issue that provocation may have occurred. What's the gotcha that someone may have been provoked? Please explain.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

What's the gotcha that someone may have been provoked? Please explain.

Enlighten me - what do you think it is Hannah Clarke did to provoke both her and her three small children being burned to death?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Enlighten me - what do you think it is Hannah Clarke did to provoke both her and her three small children being burned to death?

Got no idea, if you've read my posts on this you'd realize I don't think that provocation was the cause. I've merely pointed out that others may have a belief there was provocation and not necessarily the cause. Of course I don't think that justifies the action, yet you jump the shark and assume (like others have you're not alone) I think provocation is the cause.

Babow, fail.

How about you take a leaf out the saying 'be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear'.

Bettina Arndt supporting that cops statement does not help her or her beliefs that men are unfairly labeled - set that back years. A step too far.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Got no idea, if you've read my posts on this you'd realize I don't think that provocation was the cause. I've merely pointed out that others may have a belief there was provocation and not necessarily the cause. Of course I don't think that justifies the action, yet you jump the shark and assume (like others have you're not alone) I think provocation is the cause.

Babow, fail.

Hmmm.

I don't have an issue with the possibility that the bloke who burnt his family may have been provoked.

You should go all in on what you really think - Bettina needs all the friends she can get.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Hmmm.



You should go all in on what you really think - Bettina needs all the friends she can get.

Lol, yet another misinterpretation. You're STILL thinking I believe provocation was the cause. I clearly stated that I don't have a problem that others may believe there was provocation. So what?

Never ever suggested it's justified, stop assuming I think this way.

Try again and this time heed my advice, be sure brain is engaged before jumping the shark via your keyboard.

 

[Grin]

Are wingnuts seriously arguing the "Now look what you've made me do" line in justification of a bloke who burned his family alive because he feels entitled?

Ms Arndt should obviously be striped of her Australia Day award. What an animal.
Dumb ******* Murdoch drones should stick to conspiracy theories about established science, where we can all continue to point and laugh at them.

 

[ferball]

Either learn to write properly or be honest about what you think.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Not necessarily.

My old man hit my mum my brother and me at times. But not before he was in his 70s with severe dementia and after at least one bad stroke and a couple of very minor (so minor we missed them) ones. The parts of his brain that regulated his behaviour had died. It wasn't his fault.

I knew a guy who was a Vietnam vet and what most would consider a bad man in general, but it wasn't till his 50s that he did anger management, dealt with his ptsd and other issues then was able to stop being violent at home. Cost him marriages and a lifetime of heartache. He might have been like that anyway but he spent a couple of years in Vietnam crawling around tiny tunnels (even scarier for him - he was a heavyweight fighter) killing people. Get your head around doing that.

It's different for people of my generation or younger too (I'm 50). We grew up in society that started to reject the idea of it being "no bodies business but mine". That guy saw ads promoting dv as a kid. Men slapped hysterical women all the time in movies. It was presented as an effective and fair solution that both sides appreciated.

Anyway

We're animals. Some people use the term domesticated primates.

That sort of thing is how we evolved to behave.

Not me personally. I think it's unacceptable. Thats my choice tho. I have to control myself, or control myself better, when my kids misbehave for example. And tho I might want to bend them over my knee and give them a good belting every now and then when they really push it - I don't do it.

It's the opposite of what I'm about.

Doesn't mean I don't yell at them and it's scary. Or the threaten them (missing iPad time doesn't sound as scary as anything else to us older campaigners I guess, but it's effective) if they aren't gonna do what they are asked you have to escalate things.

It's the same spectrum (using power to control people) just a very different end.

Not many men in their 40s who fought in Vietnam or have dementia.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Not many men in their 40s who fought in Vietnam or have dementia.

I think he's speaking about WHEN the bloke was in his 50's, which would make it the 1990's. A fair few of my friends have Vietnam veteran fathers so I kinda knew this wouldn't be concurrent with today's date!

 

[its free real estate]

I don't think that provocation was the cause. I've merely pointed out that others may have a belief there was provocation and not necessarily the cause.

Those others are *******s, and as I said, they should be removed from the gene pool.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Those others are *******s, and as I said, they should be removed from the gene pool.

Yep and?

 

[ferball]

Not many men in their 40s who fought in Vietnam or have dementia.

They're two seperate people, both dead, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up.

The Vietnam vet was an enforcer for an outlaw biker club as well as a national champion in full contact Kyokushin back in the day. He was a scary guy, not a campaigner about it but I imagine it was horrible for his families before he finally got his s**t sorted out. He started anger management and other treatment in his 50s.

Not every Vietnam vet I've known was like that and I've known a few.

I didn't know his DV history till his missus at the time took their kids and left but that inspired him to change his behaviour and he genuinely took it on.

My dad had a stroke then developed vascular dementia and went from a calm, peaceful, happy (ish) man to an angry shithead and it wasn't till the neurologist pointed out his issues that I even began to understand. It genuinely bothers me that I might end up like that.

 

[ferball]

I think he's speaking about WHEN the bloke was in his 50's, which would make it the 1990's. A fair few of my friends have Vietnam veteran fathers so I kinda knew this wouldn't be concurrent with today's date!

Yep.

Late 90s sometime.