"the selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate."

Well, glad to know that public policy is directed by misinformation, but that's OK, because all's fair in war.

Right.

I think Anti's point has been made for him.

I too think it is "grubby".

Rusty

Nice try Robert.

You may think you have been presenting some semblance of balance - but it is a little skewed, for example (out of so many) you present something all female posters have been saying:

>> I'd like the focus to move off who does more DV and onto how to reduce the prevalence of it and the impacts of it.<<

And then follow that quite reasonable statement which I and and I am sure other female posters fully endorse with this:

>> That's not possible while there is widespread acceptance of the the (sic) clearly false line that it's something men do (violence?) (and ever so rarely by women). <<

No one, has said that female rarely abuse, just that the rate of physical violence by men is greater than physical violence by women.

No one has suggested that female violence in non-existence.

However as Happy, Chazp, Pelican, yours truly and many others have lost patience with being denigrated - even if what we say is deemed to be "scurrilous rubbish" by Antiseptic, there is no excuse. Just as there is no excuse for beating up someone male/female or child who is argumentative, slamming doors, whatever - there is NO EXCUSE FOR VIOLENCE OR ABUSE. I do not excuse anyone, male of female for this type of behaviour. Never have. But there are some who have claimed that if one party is behaving badly then provocation may excuse them.

Cont'd

"You for example keep arguing about how many males suffer domestic violence, yet despite being frequently challenged to do so, can produce no statistics of its incidence and nature."

Given how often I have provided such statistics and over how many years I guess that's just another bit of "the selective use/misuse of information" They may not be statistics that some of you can deal with but that's a different issue.

Just from the current DV as a gender hate crime thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212093

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212181

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12275#212729

I've done similar for years on OLO on a number of threads.

Whilst the selective use/misuse of information may be just what some of you do it's something I try very hard to avoid. Where I'm wrong it's never an attempt to mislead.

I don't believe that it is any way ethical or decent to try and mislead by misuse of information, actually I consider it a very grubby act. Of course not suggesting that anyone is a literal grub, just that the actions are utterly grubby.

R0bert

Cont'd

In conclusion, I question whether you are genuinely concerned about the best welfare of children. I see little mention of possible solutions to the problems vexing the family courts. 50/50 has resulted in some children being placed with abusive parents and it still treats children as objects, does not provide stability - particularly when courted dictated. Amicable agreement between the majority of parents tend not to wind up in the courts (as I have stated), we are attempting to discuss a minority of parents here.

As has been pointed out by others, Antiseptic has not made an apology for his childish name calling, others will continue to take his lead, you will continue to appear reasonable, but as I have demonstrated above closer examination reveals a bias. However, I would have no problem with this (your bias) were you not surrounded by a coterie of extremely aggrieved men who do not wish to debate but instead demean.

Much mischief indeed.

"I have been very specific that I'm not suggesting that women are not more violent than men, that I think the real factors lie elsewhere (substance abuse, poverty, mental health etc). Do I need to keep repeating that? "

RObert you make such statements but none of your links to statistics relate to female experience of violence. It is almost as though this is irrelevant in your postings until somebody points out the bias. There is a bias in DV towards women because that is where history has shown the most need. I agree the premise of any policy should be purely about DV without reference to gender (victims or perpetrators) but it won't change the allocation of resources to match need.

None of the female poster are arguing that women are not capable of violence either.

pelican, true my links don't generally refer to female experience of DV, nor do they generally point to male experience of DV. Where ever possible they point to figures which cover both. Care to reference links posted by me which have covered the male experience of DV and excluded female ones and which were not in the context of a specific response where it was relevant?

Ammonite and pelican, I've refered to this on numerous occasions.
Posted by ChazP in eventual response to my challenge over the ommission of stats about kid's witnessing violence against fathers and stepfathers.
"Robert - if you had read and understood my posting you would have seen the highly credible source of the statistics. The reasons it does not include the figures you `suspect' is because they are at best negligible, and more accurately non-existent." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212360

The highly credible source of the statistics (if the stuff I eventually found is the right one) actaully had the figures on the same page (again that's been pointed out a number of times before). A 1% difference. And more recently one of the more honest posts by ChazP "The selective use/misuse of information is part and parcel of any debate." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12255#212833

Given how often I've referenced ChazP's post in recent times it's hardly credible to suggest that none of the female posters are claiming that female DV is non-existent (or5 close to it) unless there is debate about ChazP's gender which I'm not aware of.

R0bert