Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Humph Warden Bennett on September 17, 2018, 01:19:01 PM
-
Interesting article from the Indy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/david-saunders-sarah-brambley-mens-rights-activists-sexism-murder-a8537966.html
-
A baby man refusing to take responsibility for his own actions. Anyone surprised to see misogyny at work in the judiciary and the CPS? Thought not.
What's really frightening is that the same excuse would have bene used if he has murdered her.
Oh, and that isn't Lady Macbeth, that's a stupid woman with dodgy lip fillers who should never have been let near a smartphone, but who is responsible for the death of nobody at all.
-
I agree with Rhiannon, for once. "Men's rights" activists are wankers, especially the idiots in "Fathers 4 Justice", whose every escapade serves to demonstrate why they should not have been granted custody of their kids. They are no better than the racist idiots who talk about defending the white race.
-
Interesting article from the Indy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/david-saunders-sarah-brambley-mens-rights-activists-sexism-murder-a8537966.html
Grouoch seems to have been a very competant ruler, acting as regent in Alba when her husband, unique amongst dark age Alban kings, took time off to go on pilgramage to Rome.
Duncan, far from being some saintly old duffer, was younger than Macbeth when he was killed in battle.
There was no Fleance, no Banquo, no title of Thane, no Glamis, No 'Birnham wood'.
Macbeth was killed in battle somewhere near Lumphanan, and suceeded by Grouoch's son Lulach, who was himself killed in battle nine months later by Malcolm 'caen mhor'.
Apart from that, the stuff dreamed up by Shakspear was mildly irritating.
-
Seems like a slam dunk for me. If the facts are as the article states, she's definitely in the frame for incitement to violence, if not incitement to commit murder.
The article is muddled in many ways:
“Women can be just as violent as men” is the common call of the Men’s Rights Activist. While statistics don’t bear this out – there are male perpetrators for 81 per cent of all violent crime and 99 per cent of all sexual violence
I'm not a massive fan of MRA's but in this case, the statistics quoted by the article bear out their statement - unless it is the assertion of the authors that the other 19% of violent crime is committed by elves.
Furthermore, it is silly to say that the murderer is a being cast as a victim: the jury said he is a murderer and he is now serving a life sentence. Bramley will not get a life sentence because all she is guilty of is incitement to cause common assault. We know this because she pled guilty to that charge. So even she thinks she was trying to goad him into violence, although perhaps not murder.
-
What's really frightening is that the same excuse would have bene used if he has murdered her.
Supposing the sexes had been reversed. Suppose the man had goaded his partner so far that she murdered him.
-
Supposing the sexes had been reversed. Suppose the man had goaded his partner so far that she murdered him.
I can’t even begin to think why it would make a difference. Or what the point you are trying to make.
-
I can’t even begin to think why it would make a difference. Or what the point you are trying to make.
A woman suffers mental abuse from her husband, so she kills him. Is that a "baby woman refusing to take responsibility for her own actions"?
In this story, person A goaded person B - known to be violent - into murdering person C. Of course person A bears some responsibility for the death of person C and there is a law against what person A did.
-
I agree with Rhiannon, for once. "Men's rights" activists are wankers, especially the idiots in "Fathers 4 Justice", whose every escapade serves to demonstrate why they should not have been granted custody of their kids. They are no better than the racist idiots who talk about defending the white race.
FTR I literally escaped from a violent ex, by climbing out of a window (my door key had mysteriously disappeared, so I was trapped indoors unless my ex wanted to allow me out), getting into the car, and driving for several hours. And NO I did not get custody, or even visiting rights. Think of that next time you want to slag off those who fight for men's rights.
-
Seems like a slam dunk for me. If the facts are as the article states, she's definitely in the frame for incitement to violence, if not incitement to commit murder.
The article is muddled in many ways:
I'm not a massive fan of MRA's but in this case, the statistics quoted by the article bear out their statement - unless it is the assertion of the authors that the other 19% of violent crime is committed by elves.
Furthermore, it is silly to say that the murderer is a being cast as a victim: the jury said he is a murderer and he is now serving a life sentence. Bramley will not get a life sentence because all she is guilty of is incitement to cause common assault. We know this because she pled guilty to that charge. So even she thinks she was trying to goad him into violence, although perhaps not murder.
Much the way that I see it. I would have had some sympathy with the article had the woman in question been given the same prison sentence as the man, but she was not.
-
Women should never get a lesser sentence than a man, if they are equally culpable when a crime has been committed.
-
A woman suffers mental abuse from her husband, so she kills him. Is that a "baby woman refusing to take responsibility for her own actions"?
In this story, person A goaded person B - known to be violent - into murdering person C. Of course person A bears some responsibility for the death of person C and there is a law against what person A did.
Goading isn't mental abuse.
-
FTR I literally escaped from a violent ex, by climbing out of a window (my door key had mysteriously disappeared, so I was trapped indoors unless my ex wanted to allow me out), getting into the car, and driving for several hours. And NO I did not get custody, or even visiting rights. Think of that next time you want to slag off those who fight for men's rights.
Explains why you hate women. But actually both get treated like shit by the family courts - it's just random which judge you get, which Cafcass officer etc etc - and both are victims of abuse.
I save my hate for people - men and women - who abuse, I don't waste time hating people simply because of their sex.
-
Just some pointers on what emotional abuse looks like. This refers to narcissistic abuse but most emotional abuse will feature some of these.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/toxic-relationships/201709/how-spot-narcissistic-abuse
-
Women should never get a lesser sentence than a man, if they are equally culpable when a crime has been committed.
Of course not, but have you any evidence that they do?
-
This is a link from the origin article.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-01/feminism-blamed-for-rising-female-violence/848748
It goes without saying that women can be as violent as men. I've dated men with violent women in their past; it's so sadly common. But hasn't it always been so? Where's his evidence that 'feminism' is to blame? Isn't the societal change just as likely to be that men are prepared to report violence now? And why is he saying that society expects men to be violent so therefore equality means that women should be expected to be violent too? I was raised to think that nobody should be violent.
-
Of course not, but have you any evidence that they do?
I never said they did.
-
Goading isn't mental abuse.
No, but it is incitement.
-
Women should never get a lesser sentence than a man, if they are equally culpable when a crime has been committed.
In this case, the woman is not equally culpable. It was the man that actually did the deed and he got a life sentence as we would expect. The woman is only guilty of incitement to commit violence and will get a lesser sentence.
-
No, but it is incitement.
Yes. So why did you bring women killing their abusers into it?
-
Yes. So why did you bring women killing their abusers into it?
Why did you bring a man murdering his partner (or ex partner) into it?
-
Why did you bring a man murdering his partner (or ex partner) into it?
Because ‘she provoked me into it, m’lud’ meant that men literally got away with murder for years. It was so bad that guidance had to be sent to judges and the CPS saying that your partner, or ex, having an affair is not an excuse for stabbing her in front of your kids. Although I read not so long ago that the law isn’t being applied consistently.
‘Look what she made me do’. Er, no, she didn’t.
-
Just for interest.
http://lighthousewa.org.uk/freed-to-kill-again-and-again-theodore-johnson-and-the-truth-about-domestic-violence/
-
Because ‘she provoked me into it, m’lud’ meant that men literally got away with murder for years. It was so bad that guidance had to be sent to judges and the CPS saying that your partner, or ex, having an affair is not an excuse for stabbing her in front of your kids. Although I read not so long ago that the law isn’t being applied consistently.
‘Look what she made me do’. Er, no, she didn’t.
But this is not that situation. And, in any case, the man did not get away with it: he has been convicted of murder and is serving a life sentence.
-
Explains why you hate women. But actually both get treated like shit by the family courts - it's just random which judge you get, which Cafcass officer etc etc - and both are victims of abuse.
I save my hate for people - men and women - who abuse, I don't waste time hating people simply because of their sex.
I don't hate women, I hate feminism.
-
I don't hate women, I hate feminism.
What do you think feminism means, and why do you hate it?
-
I don't hate women, I hate feminism.
Yeah, and I’m a dirty feminist, remember.
-
I don't hate women, I hate feminism.
The definition of feminism is:- the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
What is wrong with that?
-
I don't hate women, I hate feminism.
Why?
-
The more important question was NS's - what is HWB's understanding/definition of feminism such that he hates it.
-
The more important question was NS's - what is HH's understanding/definition of feminism such that he hates it.
Well he said that feminism is a dirty word to him. Given that he’s called me a feminist I’m assuming that it is a word he applies to people that disgust him.
Not that that is helpful in understanding what he thinks a feminist actually is, or does.
-
Being a feminist is not restricted to women. My daughter tells me that I am a feminist - and I think that she is right.
-
I don't hate women, I hate feminism.
Feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men. It’s the belief that being a woman shouldn’t make you a second class citizen.
What is there to hate about that?
-
If posters wish to debate this secondary discussion, may I politely suggest a new thread?
-
If posters wish to debate this secondary discussion, may I politely suggest a new thread?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16151.msg748735#new
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16151.msg748735#new
Thank You.
And I have never written or implied that you are "dirty".