Society/Culture Domestic Violence

[EasternTiger]

So we should give up some more of our freedom to save lives. Where have I heard that line before?

"Arrest me officer. I have a penis."

 

[its free real estate]

Chief is the kind of guy who’d support a curfew for men because it would lead to fewer rapes and deaths.

 

[WA ROO]

Chief is the kind of guy who’d support a curfew for men because it would lead to fewer rapes and deaths.

Years ago I was in a area of nightclubs bars restaurants etc in Perth,when there was a "Reclaim the night" march
Then Senator Jo Vallentine told the cheering crowd than men should be banned from the area after 9p.m. so women could feel safe

So this is not a new idea

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Chief is the kind of guy who’d support a curfew for men because it would lead to fewer rapes and deaths.

What about a ban on immigration from certain countries because it would lead to fewer terrorist attacks?

 

[the_interloper]

What about a ban on immigration from certain countries because it would lead to fewer terrorist attacks?

Maybe a policy of arresting black people because by the stats they are most likely to have committed crimes?

 

[Chief]

You can mischaracterise the argument as much as you like. The facts remain the facts.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Years ago I was in a area of nightclubs bars restaurants etc in Perth,when there was a "Reclaim the night" march
Then Senator Jo Vallentine told the cheering crowd than men should be banned from the area after 9p.m. so women could feel safe

So this is not a new idea

Why should this apply only after 9pm? Why not ban men from public areas completely? And let's not have any male police officers too.

Or maybe these are some of the stupidest ideas ever put forward by an elected politician.

 

[quotemokc]

Chief is the kind of guy who’d support a curfew for men because it would lead to fewer rapes and deaths.

A curfew for women might be more effective.

They get to be safe inside their homes whilst the troublesome men can fight among themselves since we all know that the bad men would break curfew anyway.

 

[Snake_Baker]

And yes, with more arrests and prosecutions you are going to see more innocent people put through the wringer.

An acceptable outcome if there are fewer deaths.

The arrogance of utilitarianism.

This type of dangerous thinking is indicative of a mutated sense of chivalry.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Yep I believe that children are also considered and protected.

But you get the most lives saved if you arrest the male if they are accused in a call out to a DV situation. Just take the male out of the situation.

So you can produce facts for this?

I would like to see how they went arresting every woman and how many lives saved compared to arresting every man

Comprehende?

You said facts are facts.

So produce them.

 

[Chief]

So you can produce facts for this?

I would like to see how they went arresting every woman and how many lives saved compared to arresting every man

Comprehende?

You said facts are facts.

So produce them.

Read my post from earlier.

 

[Chief]

The arrogance of utilitarianism.

This type of dangerous thinking is indicative of a mutated sense of chivalry.

You’re turning a maths problem into an ideological one.

If you get X innocent people arrested out of Y arrests for a crime in a given period, then if you make 2Y arrests in the same amount of time you will get 2X innocent people arrested.

 

[Chief]

A curfew for women might be more effective.

They get to be safe inside their homes whilst the troublesome men can fight among themselves since we all know that the bad men would break curfew anyway.

Again, you’re mischaracterising the issue.

Have a think about it.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You’re turning a maths problem into an ideological one.

If you get X innocent people arrested out of Y arrests for a crime in a given period, then if you make 2Y arrests in the same amount of time you will get 2X innocent people arrested.

Your premise was very much ideological.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Read my post from earlier.

So you don't have any facts do you?

You should be able to produce the studies that show when women are arrested no matter who is guilty, less lives are saved than if you arrest then man, no matter who is guilty

This is pretty basic stuff. Those who don't get it are below basic. Well below basic. Below religious nut basic

 

[Chief]

So you don't have any facts do you?

You should be able to produce the studies that show when women are arrested no matter who is guilty, less lives are saved than if you arrest then man, no matter who is guilty

This is pretty basic stuff. Those who don't get it are below basic. Well below basic. Below religious nut basic

Dude. Read the post earlier. It has links.

Pretty basic stuff.

 

[Chief]

Your premise was very much ideological.

You picked the maths problem and are trying to make it ideological.

I posted a little bit about the studies of mandatory arrest and taking prosecution decisions out of the hands of the victim after the fact.

 

[Leeda]

Chief is the kind of guy who’d support a curfew for men because it would lead to fewer rapes and deaths.

Chief is the kind of guy who picks daisies for his kids and then wrestles drunks and deleterious felons at night..
choosy but child like he battles things we only dream about.. he's my kind of guy...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Chief is the kind of guy who picks daisies for his kids and then wrestles drunks and deleterious felons at night..
choosy but child like he battles things we only dream about.. he's my kind of guy...

 

[ABSOLUTE MADMAN]

Chief is the kind of guy who’d support a curfew for men because it would lead to fewer rapes and deaths.

He is the kind of guy that would support cutting our entire humanitarian intake to zero because more poor people in an area has been shown to correlate with higher crime rates.

 

[Chief]

Again, if you don’t want to discuss the actual arguments made, maybe go elsewhere.

This is about arresting the aggressor in a DV call out.

Straw manning it as a blanket policy on an entire population regardless of whether they have been involved in a particular situation is disingenuous and shows an unwillingness to engage with the facts presented.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Straw manning it as a blanket policy on an entire population regardless of whether they have been involved in a particular situation is disingenuous and shows an unwillingness to engage with the facts presented.

How is that anything other than testing the ethical strength of your position?

 

[Chief]

How is that anything other than testing the ethical strength of your position?

Because straw man arguments and ad hominems are invalid and lazy. You know this.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Because straw man arguments and ad hominems are invalid and lazy. You know this.

You have taken a position where due process should be discarded based upon mathematical modelling.

Any suggestion that a discussion that does not focus purely on the mathematical aspect is an exercise in building straw men, is beyond disingenuous.

Your premise is blatantly Orwellian and cannot be divorced from its ethical aspects.

 

[its free real estate]

It’s not strawmanning. Strawmanning is misrepresenting your argument. What people in this thread are doing is applying the logic of your argument to other areas of policing and legislation.

The whole “so what if it gets a few innocent people if it catches the bad guys” framing is so authoritarian it’s amazing that anyone who purports to be liberal-left would say it.

It’s the exact kind of thing Rodrigo Duterte says when he has his death squads executes “drug dealers” in the streets.