Foxy:

So what is your point? How does all that apply to the discussion we are having right here and now about this incident.

Everyone would agree with what you said. You are not saying anything but stating the obvious. What do you thinks about this issue? What are you arguments for or against the topic. Why are you hiding behind such philosophical generalisations?

Why not join in the argument or are you afraid you do not have an argument?

Dear Phanto,

I was responding to the statements that you made
in your previous post.

I tried to address your statements
Hence my generalisation.

We all have different perspectives on
this issue. I find that interesting, especially as to
why that is so.

cont'd ...

Dear Phanto,

My arguments on this issue are:

It is irrelevant that Mr McGuire may not have intended any harm.
The fact of the matter is that it was said and with the serious
problem of domestic violence in this country that exists any
on-air comments by either Mr McGuire, North Melbourne Chairman -
James Bradshaw and fellow commentator Danny Frawley should not
be taken lightly given the fact that their words carry weight.
They are powerful men in positions of influence. The language
used on this occasion by those involved as many other
commentators have agreed - was insensitive, inappropriate,
and disrespectful.

The normalisation of language like this in our society only
contributes to the problem.

Rebecca Madden reminded us:

"I think in the media, we have to be reminded that we are in a
very privileged position. We have a voice. That voice is
listened to by many people, and people absorb what we say.
And, in turn, because of that, we have a power to change the
conversation and shape the public perception about certain
issues. The best step towards that is actually about language.
Because the spoken word is very, very powerful."

That's why words like - "Nig*er," "Wog," "Dago," "Coon,"
and many others are considered outmoded by many people in our
society today and are no longer used.

Foxy:

Do you think that Maguire actuallly intended to drown Wilson? That is what matters doesn't it? If he had no intention of murdering her then why did you decide to comment on it? People make silly statements every day and we have to decide whether they mean what they say or not. If we think that they do not mean it we ignore it. If we think they do mean it then we respond appropriately. You must have decided that he actually meant he was going to harm her or else why would you bother to comment at all?

If it is irrational to respond to such a silly comment then you must have some other agenda such as you do not like him or you do not like men in general. If you have a problem with him you should deal with that issue and not take advantage of joining the posse who have formed around this incident and are out are out to lynch him. The same if you do not like men - you should address that problem with the men you do not like and not take it out on someone else.

The fact that they are in the media is irrelevant. People should examine their opinions and not who or what they are. Anyone who lets themselves be influenced by anything other than logical argument is a fool.

They are not powerful people nor do thy have any influence unless each of us gives it to them.

Foxy, I agree that most people reacted unfavorably to Ed's comments because he was making jokes about drowning a woman and was willing to put up money, thus not only laughing about drowning someone, but also big-noting himself and his financial worth.
A truly odious character.

Even the Collingwood football players/coach distanced themselves from Ed's remarks, and they usually worship at his throne.
So anyone that does not find exception with his words, and those of his laughing hyaena cohorts, is condoning what he said....

Trust the educated, middle class womyn that form the feminist elite, the big knobs of Emily's List, to pretend that they are horrified by the low humour of the common herd that is featured on The Footy Show.

The Footy Show must draw and appeal to the dumbed-down audience, the prospective buyers of the fodder being advertised on the show. Those are not the designer clothes and accessories (nor the advertisers) that those rather well off, pretentious, white middle class feminists find and discuss over their expensive lattes in Double Bay.

Trust the middle class feminists to look down on the very basic, often bawdy and rude humour of the working class and unemployed. The blunt jibes, even against the audience to be found in workers' clubs and pubs.

It was always that way and if any of those feminists actually read books, rather than just flipping pages in their glossy posh magazines (all photos and while their hair is being done), they might find that literature and drama abound with examples of the low disrespectful humour of the common people that they find so shocking and reprehensible.

But of course the educated, middle class womyn, materialistic careerists all, who are Oz feminism see comedy, literature and plays as a way to demonstrate their superiority over the ordinary 'common' woman (and her male partner), whom they look down and despise. Just as they select their clothing, car, residence and whatever to assert their superiority.

It is all about class isn't it Grrls?

Knee men in the gonads and indulge yourselves in a little reverse envy directed at the lower class at the same time. Trashing Eddie serves a number of purposes, eh what?