Killarney:

“I acknowledged Emperor Julian provoked you”

It is you who said he provoked me. How did he do that? I was simply offering another explanation as to why he needs to say the same thing over and over again in the hope that he might see the error of his ways and stop clogging up the forum with his own emotional needs.

“People are allowed to voice opinions about any form of violence without being told they are supposedly defending violence because they are violent criminals at heart.”

This is obvious as should be my right to question their motives. There is no rule on these forums about using ‘psychobabble’. Why should psychobabble bother you any more than any other type of babble?

If you are not bitter or it has no effect on you then why do you need to tell me to stop? That doesn’t make sense at all.

“The only 'evidence' on which you base your claim over and over again - i.e. that one in three marriages are violent - is demonstrably false.”

So domestic violence is not a problem then? Why don’t women stop complaining about it if it is not a problem? Either it is a problem and women are avoiding the most obvious solution or it is not a problem big enough to complain about it. Which is it?

If it is a problem then why do women continue to embrace those relationships which is the question you refused to answer when I asked you before? If it is not a problem then what are you doing here?

Way back when, Alexander Downer paraphrased his party's manifesto (The Things that Matter) by referring to DV trash as The Things that Batter. He copped a storm of self-righteous abuse for it but I thought what he said was very apt. All we lack is laws to ensure that the Things that Batter are locked up out of reach of their victims. Pontificating about statistics and femmos etc. doesn't carry any proposals to stop DV.

The reason Assange is in the Ecuadorian Embassy is the Swedes' stubborn refusal to guarantee they wouldn't send him to America for a Yank kangaroo court once he was on Swedish soil, not to dodge the trumped-up rape charge (his condom broke FFS) that he could easily see off in a Swedish court. The Yanks want him so bad for outing them that they feel real pain.

//I don't know, I think rats are much maligned and very under-valued.//

My brother's girlfriend breeds them, for show and for sale to laboratories. They do have their uses, but I still dislike them.

I am not sure if Julian Assange has any uses any more. Even his relevance as an amusing figure of ridicule is waning fast - when was the last time any professional satirist took the piss out of him, even on a slow news week?

Poor little albino rat... everybody's forgotten about him, and all he's got to show for it is a severe vitamin D deficiency.

phanto

‘Why should psychobabble bother you any more than any other type of babble?’

Because it’s a form of abuse. Also known as ‘gaslighting’. It takes the form of convincing people that their reality is a form of false consciousness and, thus, manipulates them to doubt themselves and how they see the world. The gaslighter seeks control, not interaction or understanding.

‘If you are not bitter or it has no effect on you then why do you need to tell me to stop?’

I never asked you to stop (although that wouldn’t be a bad idea). I suggested that you interact with actual arguments, instead of manipulating people through psychobabble.

‘So domestic violence is not a problem then? Why don’t women stop complaining about it if it is not a problem?’

Unbelievable! I never said anything of the sort. I have only objected to your framing of DV as something women bring on themselves because they choose to marry or cohabit.

‘If it is a problem then why do women continue to embrace those relationships which is the question you refused to answer when I asked you before? ‘

I did answer that question – at length. Go back and read my previous posts. You just used my arguments to frame your next psychobabble attack.

Emperor Julian

'Pontificating about statistics and femmos etc. doesn't carry any proposals to stop DV.'

Quite right. Women are dying. Many more are living lives of domestic terror, because there is a continued lack of funding to provide refuges for them to go to. (And, yes, to preempt the what-about-the-male-victims argument, a tiny number of men are DV victims too, but they don't die at the rate that women do. Neither are they terrorised in equal proportion.)

Death at the hands of an intimate partner is one of the leading causes of death in women aged 25 to 45. More women will die by intimate partner homicide than by terrorist attack. And yet, Western governments pour hundreds of millions into the war on terrorism, but DV shelters are starved of funding.

I read recently that in the UK, the government spends more in one week on advertising and PR than it spends in an entire year on DV protection. What is going on? Why are women's lives deemed so worthless?

Killarney:

“It takes the form of convincing people that their reality is a form of false consciousness and, thus, manipulates them to doubt themselves and how they see the world.”

They would have to be very feeble-minded to be so easily convinced and if they are feeble-minded then perhaps they need to take responsibility for their own state and do something about it. Maybe they should not be on forums such as this if that is the case. There is no shame in acknowledging your own weaknesses.

“I suggested that you interact with actual arguments, instead of manipulating people through psychobabble.”

You have a very patronising attitude to other posters if you think they are so easily manipulated.

“I have only objected to your framing of DV as something women bring on themselves because they choose to marry or cohabit.”

No you objected to my 1 in 3 description of the prevalence of DV. The author called it an epidemic of DV. If it is neither of those things then women should not say it is and other women should correct them. Just how bad is it though? How bad does it have to get before women consider not entering those relationships? You seem to suggest it is not bad enough for them to consider that yet. If it is not bad enough to act upon then why keep raising it as an issue? Either it is big enough to act upon or it is not. It is what you do about a problem that shows how important it is to you not what you say about it. It would seem to me that the most reasonable action to be sure of not being victims of violence is to steer clear of a known situation where violence is so common.