Loz

Facebook has its uses - I find it rather good at keeping up to date with friends across the world. But treat it with the necessary caution and assume any future employer will read it. It's Twitter I just don't get. How did that ever become a thing?

An interesting aside to the Charlie Hebdo cover annoying ISIS is the Aussie PM suggestion that ISIS be called 'Daesh' or 'Da'ish' in the media. Apparently this is an Arabic acronym that means roughly the same as ISIS, but drops (English-speaking) references to Islam and has the bonus effect that apparently ISIS hate being referred by it. According to the Gruin, In Arabic, the word lends itself to being snarled with aggression. As Simon Collis, the British ambassador to Iraq told the Guardian?s Ian Black: ?Arabic speakers spit out the name Da?ish with different mixtures of contempt, ridicule and hostility. Da?ish is always negative.? And if that wasn?t infuriating enough for the militants, Black reports that the acronym has already become an Arabic word in its own right, with a plural ? daw?aish ? meaning ?bigots who impose their views on others?.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In all of this attempt to challenge widely accepted data, you are completely losing sight of > the real issue, that rape is predominently a female experience, and predominently perpetuated > by men. No, I didn't lose sight of that. That was never what I said. I am happy to acknowledge and agree with both those points. Current subject is now domestic violence.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I shall leave you with a nice little pic for our troll. I think we've done this one to death. Sorry, but you said you all for debate and I was in for a serious debate. No trolling at all. I don't troll those that have good argument to make and, though we aren't on the same page, I appreciated the validity of your points. A shame really, I'd just started to really get my argument together and got to a very salient point.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It doesn't just focus on women and girls all of the time. That particular strategy did, for the > reasons I have already been through. But it is the strategy for the UK for the WHOLE of this parliament - 4 years. Yet it even admits that nearly 40% of DV victims are male. Even for 'serious attacks' it was approximately similar across genders. How can that strategy be justified?

Otta, I have been known to troll people. But, I'm happy to admit, when outed, when I am trolling. And I have trolled people on such issues on occasion. But, in this case, I think I have a serious point to make on DV strategy. OK, it took me a while to get there. And, even though LB seems to have think me something I am not, she is actually engaging with me in (what I thought, at least) was developing into an interesting debate.

Not attempting to be patronising at all. I really do wish that is what actually happened. As I said, I could be persuaded if you could show me where this has actually been done. The closest I can find after doing a little googling on UK DV strategy I found a parliament paper on the subject. The first few lines made of interesting reading. In 2012/13, there were 1.2 million female and 700,000 male victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales. Data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales suggests that 30 per cent of women and 16.3 per cent of men in England and Wales will experience domestic violence in their lifetime. Further in, under 'Home Office strategy' it says... In November 2010, the Home Office published the strategy paper, Call to end violence against women and girls, setting out its approach for tackling domestic violence over the Parliament. Your thoughts? Do those stats really justify the home office strategy concentrating entirely on women and girls?

Lovely theory. Doesn't happen as far as I've ever seen. Or if it does, I'd love a link to where this has happened in the UK.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No one predecided anything Loz. Well, that's not true is it? If you sit down to study only one group, you've predecided. > But we do not all cure everything all at once. Some are tackling the > biggest problems first with limited resources. Others are looking at other issues. > > Why do you try to make everything about an underlying agenda? An 'agenda' would suggest some underlying conspiracy. I'm not suggesting that at all. What I am saying is that, for whatever reason there has been an unnecessary gender separation is issues where there is really no reason to do so. Domestic violence is really the obvious case in point here. Sure, it may end up with different approaches and support mechanisms, but why isn't there a single overall DV group or strategy in the UK?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > logic is way off here loz Why?

I disagree - it's not obvious at all. Surely you'd look at the whole population and subdivide from the data into groups, be they gender, social class, etc, to devise the best solution. Predeciding that you'll just improve those statistics for women is ideology at work, no?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @loz - Because one gender is far and away the victim in the majority of cases Murder victims are male in far and away the victim in the majority of cases. Yet it would be silly to just concentrate on the male victims, no?

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In the UK, seven women a week are killed by partners or ex partners (and two men). Actually, that is per month. > It depresses me beyond belief that we still have to protest this shit, and engage with > "but it happens to men too!" as though that were some kind of answer. Who said it was an answer? But why not seek to understand the full scale of the problem? Look at, say, how domestic violence is discussed. Why genderise a problem that is actually a serious issue across genders? What does it really achieve?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz. Sometimes you do talk as if, in the case of sexual and domestic abuse, men and women are on an > equal footing Not an equal footing at all. But, to me at least, I just do not get, why in so many cases, there is an unnecessary gender separation when discussing it.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz has told me before that he hates feminists. That is not true at all and I'd like you to withdraw that. I said I hate the Guardian's warped version of feminism. I believe in equal rights and, for those feminists that also do, I'd happily stand side by side with.

Well, I think it does, really. If they are asking questions like "in a consequence-free situation, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse", that makes someone as rapey as asking "in a consequence-free situation, would you take ?10000 from a bank" makes them bank robbers. Without some sort of control to compare the answers to and to regulate the questions, how can you understand the data? Can you imagine if someone did a similar study with my bank example using only a certain ethnic group and then wrote up the report with the headline "Lots of people from [x] ethnic group don?t think stealing is stealing". The study would, quite rightly, be derided. In fact, the only solid conclusion from the study is reflected in the opening words of the article - "pollsters have long known that the phrasing of a question can significantly affect how respondents answer it". This is more an inadvertent study on how researchers can get whatever answers they want from a survey.

Ah, 38 Degrees. The pressure group with such a poor understanding of science, it even fails to understand its own name. "In nature, avalanches begin when they reach the tipping point angle of 38 Degrees." Sigh. Even a cursory thought should make you realise that is utter tosh.

Ah, 38 Degrees. The pressure group with such a poor understanding of science, it even fails to understand its own name. "In nature, avalanches begin when they reach the tipping point angle of 38 Degrees." Sigh. Even a cursory thought would realise that is utter tosh.

I always think that, while it's not always possible given the structure of some questions, such surveys should also be put to groups of women - if nothing else as a form of control group. How many women would answer yes to ??Have you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?? or 'in a consequence-free situation, would you force someone to have sexual intercourse?'. Without that information you cannot tell what is male 'opinion' versus what is societal opinion. Or even that you've phrased the question that it covers too broad an interpretation? Sometimes I suspect the researcher doesn't want to know as such extra information would only upset their pet hypothesis.

You can dig out the laser unit from the CD, mount it on an old tripod and perform your own home laser eye surgery.

Oh my - a Mehdi Hasan article I broadly agree with. I think I need to sit down. I feel woozy.

I thought sticking Evans, Polanski and Prince Andrew in the same argument was a little unnecessary. Andrew has yet to be convicted or even charged of anything untoward.

If you google that exact phrase... ("long handled poop a scoop")

LadyNorwood Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was in a situation once where he changed his mind and I didn't - I was furious and hit him.... I wonder if a guy had have posted a version of this it would have quietly passed by without any comment.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Men can be victims as well as perpetrators. Last time I saw stats, reported rapes in England and > Wales, victims were something like 85k women and 12k men. It's worth noting that the rape law in the UK is written in such a way that, except in amazingly unlikely circumstances, only men can be charged with rape, as it is defined as 'penetration with a penis without consent'. If a woman had sex with a man or woman without their consent it would be classed as sexual assault.