Driving through a local town a few days ago I saw a sign, stretched across the roadway (probably put there by the local Council) stating "VIOLENCE IS NOT OK".

In our society violence is OK and the Law supports it as does society in general; so why the fatuous sign?

Apparently there is some half-hearted message being pushed by those who are out of touch with the reality of our everyday life.

"VIOLENCE IS NOT OK". Who says? Who defines violence? Some people think giving a child a smack for misbehaving is violence. The result being far more violence then ever before. People love slogans. They should put the signs on entrance to every Indigenous community where violence takes place at a much higher rate than elsewhere. The most vulnerable in our society are subjected to the greatest violence inside their mothers womb. So I suppose its who you talk to whether violence is ok. People just like to be selective and virtue signal.

Dear Is Mise,

While violence is indeed part of the reality of our everyday life, fortunately, at least in Australia, it is only a small part and we should strive to make it even the smallest we can.

Some violence will remain for as long as the world exists, but failing to try to reduce it is not OK.

'Fatuous' is certainly the right word for such visual pollution displayed by some goody two shoes wa.ker. It could be enough to earn said wa.ker a thump under the ear.

Dear Is Mise,

The Shire of rural community where I live has the unenviable record of having 10 times the rate of domestic violence within it compared to the large city near by.

You might not think this is worth tackling by any means possible but I do. If the sign offends you then just look the other way. I support all initiatives directed at ending this scourge from our communities and if you don't that is fine, just get out of the bloody way.

Is Mise,

Perhaps you need to be reminded:

Hannah Clarke's husband made a chilling final
phone call to her and their children the
night before he torched them alive. The 42 year old
burned his family alive before stabbing himself in
the chest.

Luke Batty's father killed his son at a cricket ground
in Victoria. He was the subject of an apprehended violence
order (AVO). He had a history of mental illness and
police were warned about him.

Those are just a few examples that can be mentioned.

We've had young men being glassed in the streets.
We've had women murdered. We've had mass shootings,
homicides, and other criminal violent attacks.

And you're objecting to a sign saying VIOLENCE IS
NOT OK?

That is disturbing.

Violence in our society is OK.

It's OK for the TV media to push violence as entertainment, the ABC and SBS are currently pushing violent shows for all that they are worth.
Murder and the slapping of women are currently being shewn, have a look at the 'I-View' offerings from ABC and the grand collection on 'On Demand'.

U Tube carries its fair share and the porn industry continuously serves up sexual violence on the net, mainly perpetrated on women, and watched avidly by many.

Then there is the News on TV, once upon a time dead bodies were not shewn but those days have passed.

The Law allows violence, one may defend oneself against violent attack with sufficient violence to overcome the attack, even, if necessary, to the point of killing the attacker.

Our armed forces are trained in violence and if, when required, they are not violent then they may face punishment.
Our police forces are trained in the use of violence, they have firearms, batons, disabling sprays, Tasers etc., etc.

One of our main sports, Rugby, is a violent contact game and the fans have been known to cheer violence and at one time there were prosecutions allowed for assault on the field.

All in all, violence is considered OK in Australian society, hence the sign is fatuous.

Is Mise,

Are you just stirring or do you really believe
that our society should not be improved?

Perhaps part of the problem is the very fact
that so much violence is tolerated - and hence
the attempt in the town you mentioned to
strive to change things - might explain the
sign you saw.

Would you prefer that things not change?
That we allow violence to continue?

If so, why?

Just because something exists - and we see the
damage it causes, should we do nothing except
criticise?

What an odd attitude.

A National Service would result in the curbing of much violence ! Because a NS would instil a mentality of care & responsibility & respect.
Law & Oder would benefit tremendously from a NS if our Lawyers & Judges were exposed to the realities of daily life by mixing with normal people facing normal problems.
Remember, it's experience that counts !

Foxy,

"Perhaps part of the problem is the very fact
that so much violence is tolerated"

Yes, violence is tolerated and encouraged, else why is so much "entertainment" so devoted to violence?

We love violence and it sells products.

Is Mise,

You haven't answered the question asked -
should we do nothing about violence?

Should we not try to educate the public that it's
not ok? Why are you objecting to the sign? Yes,
we do have violence in our society, no one
is disputing that. But not everyone is violent.
Or accepts violence being normal. And certainly
not everyone objects to trying to educate the
public about it - as being wrong or what was the
word your used - ?

It doesn't seem
justified to blame "television" or other media
for such things as high crime rates, sexual permissiveness,
poor school performance, and so on. For television is simply
a neutral technology. It is people who decide how to
use it.

Not everyone commits crimes of violence in our society.

We need to remember that our media is also used for
information, advertising, news coverage, and so on.
It plays a vital part in our society.

It can and should be used to send out positive messages,
especially to the young. Hence signs that -
"VIOLENCE IS NOT OK," can help.

Foxy,

"You haven't answered the question asked -
should we do nothing about violence?"

WOW!! That from one of our champion answer avoiders.

But, to answer your question, we should do everything that we can to minimise violence, but putting up signs that are stupid is not the answer.

If TV does not influence people then why does the advertizing industry spend so much money on TV?

Why do political parties saturate that media when election time comes around?

You can't get away from the fact that TV influences people and shewing angry scenes where women get slapped around sends the wrong message.

Do we really need simulated murder, with attendant gore, to entertain us?

If a policeman uses violence to subdue a miscreant who is belting his wife then is that use of violence not good?

If the violence complained about with the sign in question, is aimed at preventing violence against women in domestic settings, then it is a good and positive sign.

Obviously the sign worked, since Is Mise took notice.

Cutting off the penis of her violent sex offending husband, worked for Lorena Bobbitt too. The whole thing makes you wonder.

Dan

Come to think of it...and I've spent many years trying to forget it. I was impacted negatively while trying to defend a neighbours wife from her husbands violence.
I was left looking at twenty one year jail sentence for my act of kindness.

Eventually he broke her back with a baseball bat and put her in a wheel chair.
Finally he served five years for the crime.
During that time, he suffered a few beatings of his own. That was good.

So violence is self perpetuating.

Dan

What would be a better way to reduce domestic violence? The sign might have no effect unless a person is in regular violent situations sees it. Even then it might or might not have any effect.

What would work better? I'd say the worst case is that there's no effect, so there's no harm if a town council puts up a sign like that. Regardless if there's a positive effect or not.

As for violence in entertainment. Don't forget video games and PC games. Some of those are very competitive with online players fighting eachother. I doubt those have no effect. And I also doubt that anyone wants to get rid of that entertainment industry.

Not_Now.Soon,

The sign should have been specific, "Domestic Violence Is Not OK".

As for violent video games they have played a part in some serious cases of violence but as they are tolerated, even encouraged, then we can fairly assume that some types of violence are OK.

There is no way to prevent domestic violence because of the very fact that it occurs privately, in a domestic situation. That shouldn't be too hard to understand. Certainly, offenders can be punished AFTER THE FACT, but it's too late after victims have been maimed or killed. Some people are naturally violent; some are violent after using alcohol or other drugs. Our first line of defence is OURSELVES - mostly through being more careful in selecting partners and friends. The law is of very little use; politicians and 'experts' saying it is are liars.

The sign VIOLENCE IS NOT OK - is simply an attempt
by a local council to send a message. They could have
said - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT OK , or BULLYING IS
NOT OK, or any other message. However they apparently
chose violence. Perhaps in their town it is a real and
serious problem, who knows?

But arguing about the sign seems rather vacuous, yet
here we are. I guess we all have too much time on
our hands - what with the virus lock down.

Broadly speaking however, every society has some means of
social control, a set of means of ensuring that people
generally behave in expected and approved ways.

Some of this social control over the individual can be
exercised by others - either formally through such
agencies as the police and government officials, or
informally through the reactions of other people in the
course of everyday life.

Most social control, however does not have to be exercised
through direct influence of other people. We exercise
it ourselves, internally. It's part of our culture, a
part of our personality.

How we act and behave is shaped
by the society in which we live, by our family,
friends,, workmates, and so on. Therefore the messages
that we send out, especially to our younger people about
what is acceptable behaviour plays a vital role in the
kind of people and society we shall end up with.

People don't necessarily get their opinions directly
from media sources. Information and viewpoints are sifted
through other people, particularly as already mentioned -
through family, friends, peer-groups, and workmates.
For example we are more likely to be influenced to see
a movie by a friend who recommrnds it to us than by
a newspaper add.

Therefore friends, family, peer-groups, workmates, and
others - calling out bad behaviour can have an effect.
And for that matter so can signs in small towns.

Foxy,

Such a long post to avoid the obvious, the sign, being non-specific is meaningless.

Do you watch boxing matches?

Is Mise,

It obviously is meaningless to you.

Is Mise,

You ask - do I watch boxing matches?

No.

Do you read books?

Foxy,

Then what does the sign mean, apart from violence is not OK?

The which is quite wrong because so much violence is not only legal but often necessary.

It has been truly said that we sleep peacefully in our beds because of the violence of those that protect us.

Do you think that the violence by Australian soldiers against the Japanese aggressors was not OK?

One of my instructors in basic Infantry training killed over 200 Japanese soldiers in one day, he should be in the history books but there was not an officer present to witness his deeds and that of his mates.
Three of them killed around 300 Japanese, who, if they had survived, would have done their best to kill Australian soldiers.

Was that not OK?

Is Mise,

We live in a century where the possibility of nuclear
war is very real.

Whether we choose to destroy our civilisation or save it
is a collective decision - one that hopefully will be
made within our own lifetimes.

If more and more nuclear weapons are built, and if
more sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more nations get control of these vile devices
we surely risk our own destruction.

Some say that violence is in our nature for survival or
perceived survival. Well perhaps we need to change our
nature. Get rid of the violence in our hearts and homes,
before we can get rid of it in our streets, schools,
and on our planet.

We have to modify how we act and think. We have to try
to rise above our human nature. Change the way people
think - we'll change their behaviour.

Violent responses only create more violence. We need to
educate our children early that violence is never
acceptable. It is never OK. Changing our behaviour does
not mean we do nothing. We should not be afraid to call
out bad behaviour - to speak up and report it.

Foxy,

I answered your question, why don't you answer mine about the violence to save Australia and our way of life?

Was the violence by our soldiers against the Japanese OK or not?

It's a simple question.

"All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. All beings tremble before violence."....Buddha.

I agree with the sign; "VIOLENCE IS NOT OK"

All violence is the end result of human failure.

The wife and I did light a candle at the front gate this morning in memory of all those that suffered and died because of the futility of war.

Is Mise,

You ask if the killing of Japanese soldiers was
not OK?

The taking of any human life is not OK.
It is tragic.

War is tragic. Aggression is tragic.
Violence is tragic. It is never OK.

Yet -

The enduring significance of battles are part of a
nation's military tradition. Hopefully lessons will
be learned from them.

We have to acknowledge the bravery, skill, and
sacrifice of our soldiers. But I'm sure that they would
all agree - "War is Hell." And hope that their children
and grand-children would not experience what they did.

I had the pleasure of meeting Sir Weary Dunlop many
years ago. A man I got to love and respect greatly.
He did not believe in being able to justify the taking
of any human lives. We could all learn something from
men like him.

Just a few more thoughts:

I fear that our world can become so obsessed with
the problems of hatred and aggression, that it will
allow peace and love to be regarded as soft and
weak. Yet our survival depends on their dominance.
Otherwise - Stephen Vincent Benet's prophecy
will come true:

"Oh where are you coming from soldier,
gaunt soldier
with weapons beyond any reach of my mind
with weapons so deadly
the world must grow older
and die in its tracks if it does not turn kind."

" The average person can expect to give up three
to four years of his or her life working to foot
the arms bill, while ever more people suffer
from illiteracy, ill health and chronic hunger..."
(In Canberra Times, 4 December 1986).

Foxy,

So the violence that our soldiers used against the Japanese aggressors was not OK in your book.

What should they have done, should they have met the Japanese violence with lighted candles and happy cries of,

"Heiwa kyodai" (Peace brothers).

You and Paul would love using the 2,450 character Japanese typewriter that the victors would have brought with them.

Violent men and violence allow you to use "QWERTY".

I also knew "Weary" and he kept pistols hidden from the Japanese during his imprisonment for the express purpose of shooting some Japanese if they decided to murder all the prisoners, he was going to use violence against violent men.

I find it strange that you do not accept the use of violence by police against a wife-beater who is belting his wife to death.

What an odd attitude.

Paul,

"All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. All beings tremble before violence."....Buddha"

What an admirably stupid observation.

Is Mise,

Sorry don't buy it about Weary Dunlop and guns.
That's your gun-toting fantasy.

He and his men were underfed, and denied adequate
medicine. They had dysentery, cholera, diarrhea,
and other diseases were rampant. Weary was busy
in the makeshift hospital tending to the manufacture
of makeshift medicine to help his men. Guns would have been
the least of his concerns. He even stood up to a Japanese
soldier with a bayonet to save one of his men - who was
crippled and considered too sick to live. Weary saved the
man's life.

Weary was about saving lives, not taking them.
And if you consider that an odd attitude - you're the
one with the problem.

As for police officers having to use violence?

I'm sure that they have better training than that.
They can always call for back-up if the situation
needs it.

The motto of the police is to protect and serve -
not to attack wrong doers - no matter how bad
they are. Otherwise they should not be in the force.
Or their training needs to be improved.

Foxy,

Time to come out of your little cocoon.

Police officers are trained in the use of violence.

They have firearms to shoot offenders with if needs be; violence in the extreme.
They have Tasers, which are violent, to use one is to be violent.
They have Capsicum spray the effects of which are violent.
They have batons which are a violent weapon.

"Sorry don't buy it about Weary Dunlop and guns.
That's your gun-toting fantasy"

You know little about the man, that's for sure, stop fantasising.

Thanks Is Mise

I now realise why 40 years ago as a screw they taught me to use a batton and even fire a gun at a maximum security prison. One night a few shots were fired at a couple of screws on the tower but I suppose the guns we were given was just for fun.

Foxy,

I don't have a copy of "Weary's" biography and I don't remember if it is in his war diaries, but I'll have a look in the copy that he gave me.

However, there is a reference to him carrying his pistols, AFTER capture in
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OOfMArb9-CAC&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=weary+dunlops+pistols&source=bl&ots=M1jiS7OgFz&sig=ACfU3U3MmHx3MlJ7hXZpSX9H72KsG7e_9Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2tNbaxYPpAhWHcn0KHd5IAugQ6AEwGXoECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q=weary%20dunlops%20pistols&f=false
page 245, final paragraph.

You may apologise at your convenience.

To Is Mise

I see your points. violence is used and justifiably used by those in the military or in police service. If the slogan of violence is not ok applies to them, then that breaks down too much that keeps us protected as a response to other threats and acts of violence.

I guess I read the slogan to only apply to violence in crime or in abuse. (Call it a blind spot in my thinking or an automatic filter in my thinking for how it would be applied, either way my bad). However you're right if that attitude is applied to any violence then it would be a destabilizing force to the community.

That said having a common slogan might be a first step to a growing problem. Maybe there's a better slogan out there to address any of the issues noted in the news with violent attacks.

Whether it be domestic abuse which happens under the radar too often, or from more public assaults like a group of people attacking an outsider, or a assaulting a woman, or any other troubling news from say Muslim attacks or from gang related violence.

There are a lot of violent acts out there that being too specific doesn't address it all. Either way a slogan won't answer anything except put it in the minds of people to get out of a violent situation (if it's regular like domestic abuse) or stand against other violent crime instead of ignore it. More then a slogan is needed, like a heavier police force to enforce the rule, or just more people in the population with some kind of defensive training to keep the more violent aware that their actions will cause consquences on them.

Either way my solution are pro violence in response to violence. So
I'm not disagreeing with what you've said so far,

Issy, as a violent person yourself, you see violence as a means to justify an end. You call Buddha stupid, a human being of far greater intellect than either you or I. When I say; "all violence is the end result of human failure", its something you can't comprehend. You only see mindless action, reaction, based on your animal instincts.

You said; "One of my instructors in basic Infantry training killed over 200 Japanese soldiers in one day"...."Three of them killed around 300 Japanese". What is unacceptable is how human failure, long before the act of killing so many, allowed these terrible evens to come about. Your simple justification of get them before they get us, is understandable but flawed, you simply view the action in isolation, and cannot see the root cause, which is to be avoided.

How do you see war? Like a cricket match, something to be planned and executed, or as a failure to be avoided.

High sounding words Paul. Do you have anything that can answer your own questions. Such as what to do when confronted with with an invasion or with violent crime?

The world is not your own to make it the way you want it to be, and there is no way to remove the failures of humankind as you've put it.

Any practical answers. Fixing the issues before they happen isn't a practical answer, nor would it attempt to address how to fix the issues or even what those foot causes are.

Paul,

"How do you see war? Like a cricket match, something to be planned and executed, or as a failure to be avoided"

War is a failure to be avoided but if unavoidable then it must be planned for.

I don't like violence but I will and have faced it when necessary and I plan ahead to face it again if I'm so unlucky.

How would you have avoided Japanese expansionism?

Possibly like former Greens' leader Bob Brown; he advocated that Australian soldiers should be taught anger management.

"I say! You chaps shooting that machine gun at us, can't we discuss the matter and reach a consensus?"

Gee whiz, Is Mise. Did you really expect such a 'look-at-moi' overreaction from the usual suspects to your innocent comment on what any normal person would find a very irritating sign? If you did, well done! Like a swarm of crickets coming out into the light for the first time. Blind, and very, very excited

Some time ago I put out a post: "Why I will never support a selective approach on gun violence". Being honest, I won't.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8526&page=0

"The sanctity of human life went out the window for the terrorist when he murdered a defenceless man, stabbed two others and threatened the lives of policemen." - Is Mise

"Policemen are trained to protect. That's their job. And
in this case that's exactly what the officers were
doing. They behaved professionally and extremely competently.
They did what they had to do - shooting the man only when nothing
else worked. They tried pepper sprays and tasers - they
did not work. No one likes to kill another human being but in
this case the police were left with no other choice. The man
had to be stopped before he could inflict more harm and
kill others." - Foxy

They are just two examples of what was put down. The double standards here are huge, and it is quite clear people selectively decide when violence is acceptable and when it is not.

I do not support any violence. The double standards of Is Mise and others, are rampant throughout the above link and comparing them to now - yet this headline says "violence is not OK". Well violence is either O.K or it is not isn't it?

Try telling violent people you don't believe in violence when they are coming at you, you idiots. Perhaps you could sell us tickets to watch the result.

Nathan,

We have acts in our society that contravene our laws.
Acts that are too disruptive to be permitted and ones
that are difficult to control through informal
sanctions alone. By formally declaring certain acts to
be crimes, political authorities can ensure that the
social reaction to them takes place in an orderly
and predictable way. Therefore the law defines the
exact nature of the offense, indicates who is
prohibited from performing it, and specifies the formal,
negative sanction that may be applied to the offender.

Police officers are there to protect and serve.
As for police violence?

Police violence or police brutality is legally defined as
a civil rights violation where officers exercise undue
or excessive force against a civilian. This includes, but
is not limited to - physical or verbal harrassment,
physical or mental injury, property damage, and death.

Nathan, I do not support any violence.

I come from a family that lost their country, family members
and everything dear to them fleeing from the Soviet regime.
A totalitarian regime which used violence and terror against
their own population and that of those they occupied as an
instrument of political and social control.

Tens of millions of innocent people died as a result of these
acts of repression. The acts included gulags in Siberia,
floggin people, pulling out their finger-nails, giving them
electric shocks, hanging them upside down, holding them
under water, burning them with cigarettes and in some
cases, as with my uncle, blinding them or otherwise
mutilating them - so even his sister could not recognise
and identify his body.

I could never support violence. It is morally repehensible
to me and is is a subject I feel very strongly about.
It is personal. Therefore a sign saying VIOLENCE IS NOT OK
may be not taken seriously by some - who can afford to
be flippant about it. I take it very seriously indeed.

'Nathan, I do not support any violence. '

except the killing of the unborn.

Hi Foxy,

Terrible acts of violence perpetrated against innocent people, justified by the state as necessary, and often supported by the majority of citizens.

If a savage dog attacks you, then you have to defend yourself. Those here who simply see the act of the dog attacking in isolation, do not understand, they only see the end, not the beginning. If the dog had been treated with love and kindness when it was a puppy then there would be no savage attack, and no need to defend oneself. Unfortunately the aggressor is more often than not the victor.

Some here believe Australians are always the good guys in war, untrue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-16/new-allegations-unarmed-civilians-killed-by-sas-in-afghanistan/12028448

Dear Paul,

I'll repeat what I've written in the past.

All over the world, hundreds of thousands of
scientists and engineers donate their skills to
planning new and more efficient ways for humans
to kill one another: millions of workers labour
to manufacture instruments of death, and tens of
millions of soldiers train for combat - and
some of them actually go to war.

From a moral and even an economic point of view this
vast investment of human ingenuity and energy seems
a tragic waste.

And looming over all these military preparations and
counterpreparations is humanity's ultimate threat, the
unleashing of full-scale nuclear war.

What a miserable bunch of up tight, up themselves, holier than thou bunch of loud mouths and preaching pontificators and total naifs the Leftists are - living their lives in theory, and whining "violence is never right" when we all "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”. Lord help them if they ever get a taste of real life, away from skulking over a keyboard clacking out total garbage.

There's a Polish proverb which millenials often
use today:

"Not my circus, not my monkeys."

It's a way of saying - "Don't drag me into your
drama and your issues. I'm not interested in
getting involved."

Now back to the topic:

Israeli educational psychologist Haim Ginott in his
book - "Teacher and Child," wrote about a letter
that teachers would receive from their Principal
each year:

" I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes
saw what no person should witness: gas chambers built by
learned engineers. Children poisoned by educated
physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and
babies shot by high school and college graduates.

So I am suspicious of education.

My request is this:

Help your children become human. Your efforts must never
produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths or educated
Eichmanns.

Reading, writing and arithmetic are important only if they
serve to make our children more human."

This has become the mission statement and educational
philosophy of some Holocaust education institutions
and education was what Weary Dunlop practiced. I organised
a speaking engagement for him and his artist at our
regional library for him. I ended up not being able to sit
through the entire session because the drawings were so
graphic and the soldiers feet looked like raw meat.
It was so emotive.

Weary may have started with hatred in his heart towards
his enemy - but over the years that changed to
forgiveness.

Nathan,

"The double standards of Is Mise and others, are rampant throughout the above link..."

Care to give an example?

Foxy,

Did you read about Weary's pistols?

I've looked in the War Diaries but can't find a mention.

The pistols were, as I remember, his personal Browning Pocket Pistols in 7.35mm calibre.

Foxy,

You say "I could never support violence. It is morally repehensibleto me and is is a subject I feel very strongly about.
It is personal."

Do you really mean that if you saw a child being stabbed you would not use violent means to save the child's life?

You would not use violence to prevent a greater violence?

Surely not, but worm your way out of it.

Issy, Foxy is not saying that, she will put her own view, but like me I believe she is a person who wants to avoid violence in the first instance.

Like your example of hundreds of Japanese being slaughtered, by the day of the event taking place it was too late, it had most likely become inevitable. It should bring no joy to the perpetrators to engage in such a terrible act of war. It could have been avoided if persons of goodwill, the politicians, the leaders, the decision makers, from all sides had been able to sit down years beforehand and settle their differences peacefully.

In war the enemy combatants, and non combatants, are no more the monsters than we are. ANZAC Day to me is a day to remember ALL who suffered in war, not just our side, but those from the other side as well. Surprisingly at Gallipoli the events that started ANZAC DAY, seen our men come to understand the enemy to a degree. My grand-uncle who was there for about 9 days in June 1915, before being wounded, always said something like; "Johnny Turk wasn't a bad chap, he was only defending his homeland". Uncle could in some small way understand that the enemy was a human being as well, pity the warmongers could not have done the same long before those terrible events transpired.

Just because we have not come to a condition of enlightenment in our human existence where violence is obsolete, does not mean we should not endeavour to achieve such a noble ambition. The knuckle draggers who can't see past the end of their noses can never understand that.

Issy,

I'll give you a real life instance; A few weeks back on a Sunday morning I was in the local servo filling the car with petrol. This hoon drives in, parks in front of the air station, blocking access, there are plenty of other parks, but he chooses to park right there. Goes over talking to some other hoon parked near by. I want to put air in the tyres, I fill up, I go in and pay, hoping this bloke will move, came back, wait a minute. He didn't move, so I said to him in a calm voice; "Excuses me, could you please move your car so I can use the air?" He ignores my request, I wait another minute or so, and ask again. With that he comes storming over, with abuse, threatening violence towards me. The question to you Issy, is what should I have done at that point? You tell me and I'll tell you what I did later.

Dear Paul,

Thank You - you've explained things so well.

In truth, I wonder how many people would realistically
be able to physically come to someone else's defense
if the need arose.

Very few I imagine. Especially
if you're older and have certain physical impairments
as I now do - having limitations with mobility. I think
most of us would call 000 and ask for the police and an
ambulance.

Anyway, Thanks again for understanding what I was trying
to say so well.

Paul,

Move on to the next service station.

Foxy,

Worming out as usual, by the time the police and ambulance arrive the kid is dead.

However, you obviously think that Australian soldiers were doing the wrong thing in using violence to defend their country and that police are wrong to use violence to save lives.

Do you really subscribe to the notion that no one should ever use violence to save a life?

The council that put up the stupid sign would endorse the use of violence to force a legal eviction from a property under their control, double standards indeed.

Is Mise,

I can see that it's time for me to stop
wasting my posts, offering you further explanations,
You've shown neither respect for me or my views,
and have totally misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Continuing this conversation therefore would be pointless.

I do not think that Australian soldiers were doing the
wrong thing in defending their country or that the
police are wrong to do their job to save lives. As a matter of fact - you need to go back and read my posts.

And using word like - "worm you way out" does not encourage
continued inter-action. It's rude.

When you show some capability to have a mature civilised
discussion - I shall be happy to continue. Until then -
I suggest you talk to your kindred spirits who will
bolster your ego, and agree with your point of view.
It appears that differing view points don't sit well with
yours.

“You tell me and I’ll tell you what I did later.”

There would have been a lot of brown stuff involved.

“I can see that it's time for me to stop”

It certainly is. Not starting in the first place is also an option.

ttbn,

Our resident bully offers his advice.

He knows all about "brown stuff"

He spreads enough of it around. (smile).

Sorry? Wasn't it Foxy who said she would ignore me and others like me? Must have been some other old harridin. She wouldn't say something she didn't mean, surely!

Foxy,

"I do not think that Australian soldiers were doing the
wrong thing in defending their country or that the
police are wrong to do their job to save lives. As a matter of fact..."

So you think that violence is sometimes OK, that's good and it's good that you finally agree with me; well done, but you did say "I could never support violence. It is morally repehensible [reprehensible] to me..."

As for insults, how does "And using word like - "worm you way out" does not encourage continued inter-action. It's rude."

compare that with "Sorry don't buy it about Weary Dunlop and guns.
That's your gun-toting fantasy."

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, and you have ignored the link that I gave that refers to Weary having his pocket pistols on his person AFTER he was captured.
I gave you at your leisure to apologise because I knew that an apology was beyond you.

"

You never know when it will hit. One minute you're
minding your own business, commenting to someone
on their post, article you've read, or a topic of
discussion and the next thing you know, you're
defending your beliefs, your political affiliation,
state of your health, and your entire life because
of some stranger.

I usually ignore haters. That's my method. I found
it an effective method that has allowed me to stay
sane and keep my principles in tact.

I don't personally respond to attacks as a rule.
I don't mind legitimate feedback and criticism
even the occasional hater, but I won't tolerate
lies and misinformation.

Still trolls lurk in every corner of the web, seeking
to victimize people spreading their negativity.

Responding to trolls only feeds them and makes them
stronger, so it is best to ignore them wherever
possible.

However sometimes their commenting escalates to extremes,
false information and other dirty tactics. Sometimes
they take things too far and things come to a head and
you are forced to respond and defend yourself.

But at the same time the web will never be a safe place.
It is best to remember it is up to you to take the
high road.

And of course we can always report the abusive behaviour
and have the posts deleted or as a lawyer friend had
advised seek legal action.

Foxy,

Does that mean that you accept that violence is sometimes OK?

Is Mise,

What I accept is that we have acts in our society
that contravene our laws. Acts that are too
disruptive to be permitted and ones that are
difficult ot control through informal sanctions
alone.

By formally declaring certain acts to be crimes, political
authorities can ensure that the social reaction to
them takes place in an orderly and predictable manner.
Therefore the law defines the exact nature of the
offense, indicates who is prohibited from performing it,
and specifies the formal, negative sanction that may be
applied to the offender.

We live by the rule of law in our society. Even police
violence or police brutality is legally defined as a
civil rights violation where officers exercise undue or
excessive force against a civilian. This includes, but
is not limited to physical or verbal harrassment, physical or
mental injury, property damage, or death.

Even police officers are required to comply with the
existing laws.

I've already explained all this in my post to Nathan.
And your repeatedly asking me the same question is not going
to give you the answer you want.

"I don't personally respond to attacks as a rule."

Read: always respond. Can't resist.

"I won't tolerate lies and misinformation". Makes her own mind up about what is a lie and what is misinformation via sheer dogmatism. She can't block out what others say, so she has to tolerate it anyway.

Always responding to trolls. Her definition of a troll is anyone who stands up to her.

She thinks she is able to judge "extremes".

Not for the first time she is slyly threatening to report "abusive behaviour" which must constitute simple disagreement with her ladyship, because no abusive behaviour is occurring, unless it's her calling me " ... erratic, unprincipled, unstable, and definitely have a personality disorder.You are obsessive, and show no judgemnent(sic), wisdom,or prudence. You display unhealthy patterns of
thinking, functioning, and behaving …..".

What we are seeing here is someone in an almighty huff.

As for a lawyer friend who "advised legal action", sheer fantasy! Does she know how much lawyers charge - if you could get even one to bother with such a girly snit? Could have my daughter send her a schedule of fees - all free to me of course.

I'll give everyone who is not Paul or SteeleReduxe some free advice that I intend to take myself. Stay away from Foxy. Something is not quite right there. Anyone who can't take part in a relatively amiable site like OLO without carrying on the way she does is bad news. I know it's hard to ignore the arrogance and the ignorance, and the know all personality, but I'm going to have to do it before Graham has to step in. I like OLO too much to have it spoilt by this person

ttbn,

We have a history. I have genuinely tried to
extend the olive branch to you in the past.
It did not work. I shall match my posting record
with yours any day. You have hounded me from day
one. You have attacked me and others (Belly has left)
regularly with your labeling and mockery and name
calling and when I react it's always my fault.

Even newcomers like Chris Lewis call you a bully.
Which is what you are and this last post to me
just proves it.

You have made fun of my health issues - I have a problem
with mobility. I now walk with a walker. After a great
deal of surgery - I am still in constant pain.
But hey - I manage and am certainly not looking for
sympathy - merely not to be labelled and tarred with a
brush I don't deserve.

OLO is important to me - but even when I left OLO
for a while - you Sir could not resist referring to me
as the "thankfully departed." Shame on you.

So please don't preach now. You're getting what you
justly deserve and have earned.

And BTW - - get used to
the fact that I'm not about to go any time soon.
I find your postings despicable - but I'll learn to
ignore them if you shall leave me alone.

Foxy,

I'm trying my hardest to understand you. you say that you support what our soldiers did to defend the country and that the police do a good job, but both use violence; unless you don't consider something as violent when it is done by our side.

Australian troops in New Guinea shot Japanese soldiers with "Tommy" guns, rifles, machine guns; they threw grenades at them, pounded them with high explosive artillery shells, mortar bombs and killed them in close combat with the bayonet, it is a stabbing weapon usually.
They also used the sharpened front edge of the brim of their helmets as a weapon, giving a new meaning to the term "Liverpool Kiss".

Was this not justified violence, violence that was OK?

Poor you. Fancy, mobility issues getting you all het up and unable to use a computer and needing a break from OLO. The use of a computer would be the easiest thing for someone on a walker - if you aren't clinging to it while typing. They even have a little seat on them.

"You're getting what you
justly deserve and have earned".

What is it that I am "getting"? I feel no different from the way I've always felt. I know you are the queen of make believe and exaggeration, but I don't believe that you are capable of giving me anything that you think I deserve. What should I watch out for? Spots? Hair loss? Ants in the jam?

I hope you are able to stop taking yourself so seriously one day.

No Issy, I didn't do as you would "Move on to the next service station." Nor am the coward ttbn is and as he would do sh!t his pants. What I said was "Is it really worth getting so upset about, over a bit of air? Wont do much hitting an old bloke"..."Something is troubling you mate, what's happened to you, do you want to tell me?" ( bit of a risk) With that he calmed down and said; "I had a blue with the girlfriend last night, and she's got the sh!ts big time" ...we spoke for a couple of minutes about his problem, not mine, never mentioned the air again. Gave him a pathway to a solution, text her, tell her you love her, and ask if you can meet up over a coffee and sort things out..you'll be okay. He actually apologised, he wasn't a complete drop kick, just troubled. I had jotted his rego number into my phone beforehand just in case. Being a pacifist doesn't mean you should not stand up in some situations. My wife reckons some day I'll bite off more than I can chew. BTW, he moved his car. With a thanks from me, and a cheers mate from him, I put air in the tyres.

A few years back the wife and I were walking home from the local RSL Club, through the shopping centre about midnight. In front of us were two young blokes, in their 20's, and in from of them a young girl walk on her own, no one else about. One of the two is carrying on with disgusting remarks towards the girl. She's not saying much except "leave me alone", she didn't know them.

What would you have done Issy? I confronted the mouthy one, and I had no fear of him, although I was 60 and he was about 20, normally he would be able to lay me out like a cold mullet. Why do you think I had no fear? BTW; I didn't have an M16, and it wasn't God's on my side stuff

ttbn,

Thank you for your concern. There were more issues
involved than just mobility. There was surgery.
However your advice and concern is appreciated.

Thank you also for your kind wish that I would not
take myself so seriously one day. That is something
that I am trying to overcome with all of my heart.
It's easier said than done. But I'm working on it.

Again, I appreciate your concern.

Paul,

I'd probably have hooked him around the neck with my walking stick, forced his head back till he went limp, disengaged then ankle tapped his mate, both ankles.

That do you?

Paul,

Did you get awarded an AO for petrol pump psychology before you woke up from the dream sweating with fear?

Is Mise,

You asked me again about Australians soldiers
killing Japanese. Whether it was OK.
I tried my best to answer that question for you.
However, the best people to ask would be a soldier
or someone who was there and experienced it first hand.
I think that civilians who were not involved don't
have the proper understanding of what it must have been
like during that time of war. From the little that I
do know atrocities were committed on both sides.

Here's a link that explains more:

http://www.theconversation.com/anzacs-behaving-badly-scott-mcintyre-and-contested-history-40955

Foxy,

Do you consider that an Australian soldier shooting dead a Japanese soldier with a burst of lethal fire from a "Tommy" gun to be violent or not?

Even a civilian should know that hitting someone with a burst of .45 calibre bullets is violent.
or that piercing the enemy's gut with a bayonet is violent.

I've been a soldier and have been under fire, I considered that shooting towards me to have been a violent act.

"Violence,
noun
1.
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
http://www.google.com/search?q=violence+meaning&rlz=1C1CAFB_enAU718AU718&oq=violence&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3j46l2j0l2.12865j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

There, now that you know what violence is, you might answer the question,
Is violence ever OK?

Nah Issy, it wasn't necessary, the two lads were so drunk, and the quite one was so totally out of it, they were not a problem. Not being prone to violence, I informed the mouthy one that I had the advantage, he being drunk as a skunk, and I being stone cold sober. That being the case he may end up through a near by shops plate glass window, not being prone to violence, mind you!

ttbn, you and I are different people, I'm no hero, your certainly not, I can see you are like a ferret, the type of person who jumps at his own shadow, before fleeing back down your hole. An irrational propensity to be fearful is normal trait among very conservative people, such as yourself, as an old fart advancing into your latter twilight years its normal that your fears will grow. BTW K-mart have a special on undies this week, 10 pairs for $12, you may need them, they wont do much for your irrational fears, but they can help with the odour embarrassment problem whilst sitting on the bus. You seem to be the type of bloke who goes through lots of underpants.

I'm still laugh'n at the way you allowed yourself to get ripped-off by the Corny Conservative Party. That would have cost the old pensioner a quid or two, ha, ha, ha. Of course you never refer to it now, to embarrassed.

Hi Foxy,

Not knowing any of the Forumites personally, it good to imagine what you think the real person behind the nick might looks and acts like in real life. In ttbn I see an Albert Steptoe type, living with Harold, possible Albert's twin brother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drAsq2NvJv8

Paul,

Thanks for the laugh. I've just finished reading it out to my wife, who thinks you are a dick, but she doesn't have my sense of humour. I'm more of a Doberman than a ferret, and I'm a Mitch Dowd boxer shorts man, who avoids el-cheapo shops like Kmart and others where you have to line up with houseos and do your own checking out.

I'm not embarrassed about trying to help a person with backbone to get a conservative party off the ground (even if he was personally a dick like you). And, I don't have to mention the experience because you are always doing it for me. I think you have the hots for Cory. If you want to perv on him, he is on Sky News. Myself, I don't bother with failures. It's Pauline or nobody now.

Back to your petrol pump saga. You should put the words to music. It would make a good ballad, with you imaginging yourself as leader of the pack, surrounded by bikers in leathers, hot rods, and chicks in bobby socks and pony tails. You are probably not old enough to remember that stuff.

Hi Paul,

I do have images of certain people in my mind, I
must admit. It's hard not too - when you read their
posts. The only person that I really know what he
looks like is Graham Young. I would have loved to
have seen Poirot, Susie, and Belly, and so many
others who are no longer with us. I'd love to see
what Joe (Loudmouth) looks like. What you look like,
Steele, Banjo Paterson, and many others. Some of
course I'd prefer not to know. That's the saving
of anonymity - I guess.

Perhaps it's just as well.

ttbn, I wont post anything insulting towards your wife, after all she is married to you, and is most likely a very nice person, unfortunately we all have our cross to bare, hers is you. Hopefully with any kind of luck for the wife, she lives in Perth and you in Darwin. And since your phone is a antique Marconi wireless set, communication might be difficult.

I recall post after post of yours extolling the virtues of Cory Banana, don't tell me the torrid love affair has waned. True love never runs smooth.

You are not a true conservative "sense of humour" a true conservative does not have a sense of humour, its all doom and gloom. So you see yourself as a dog, a Dopyman dog, okay see you in the dog show.

I BEAR my crosses. Apparently you like yours naked (BARE). Glad I'll never have to see my Paul cross in that state.

My thinks you are a soft cuddly bear ttbn, with a head full of stuffing.

Hi Paul,

Talking about images of people - I've always
seen myself more as a mouse, rather than a
fox. I chose the name Foxy - because of my big
mane of auburn hair. Here's an interesting
story about a mouse that you might enjoy reading
to your grand-children (if you haven't already):

http://www.frombooksofpoems.blogspot.com/2007/03/gruffalo-by-julie-donaldson.html

Hi again Paul,

Sorry for the typo. I misspelled the author's
first name. I'll try again. I hope it works
this time:

http://www.frombooksofpoems.blogspot.com/2007/03/gruffalo-by-julia-donaldson.html

Hi Foxy,

The Gruffalo by Julia Donaldson, an interest poem/story. The moral for me is if your clever enough, you can out smart those who might seem to have the physical advantage over you. A "brains beats brawn" truism.

Paul,

Dream on.

The passion is waning. 'Hi' now instead of 'Dear'. Ya gotta laugh.

Hi Paul,

You'd think that bullies would disappear after high
school, but some people never grow out of being a
great big jerk.

I used the story of the Gruffalo in my Storytime
Sessions to teach children how to deal with bullies.

It became a very popular book amongst the kids.
There's a follow up story as well called -
"The Gruffalo's child." which is equally great.
And loved by all.

My grand-children even have a stuffed toy of the
Gruffalo which they love. The illustrations in the
books are great as well.

It's important to teach children that every
great dream begins with a dreamer and to
maintain their passion in life.

Better to maintain passion than to die of
boredom. (smile).

BTW - Just to show that my passion isn't
waning - not even close.

Perhaps this form of greeting might go over
better. Instead of just saying - Dear Paul,
or Good Morning Paul or Hi Paul - for variety's
sake - how about I try -

Bonjour Paul, Hola, Hallo/Guten Tag, Ciao, Ola,
Namaste, Salaam, Zdravstvuyte, Nin hao or
Konnichiwa - to mix things up a bit?

There you go - better?

Dia Dhuit a Téisiúil, conas ta tu?

What do the children do when the bully belts them one in the mouth?

Is Mise,

Firstly, the headline says: "Violence is not OK", as if violence is not O.K. You then say in the link:

"Golden Rule, if in immediate fear of one's life, kill." So violence is O.K in your opinion?

Double standards? Yes. End of story!

Is Mise,

Gaelic Irish.

I'll take it.

As for your question - what do the children do when
the bully belts them one in the mouth?

What sort of school did you go to?

Foxy,

I went to a Marist school, bullying was frowned upon but I was still bullied by two of the bigger boys, biding my time I caught them when alone and exacted retribution, end of problem.

In my first job, I was bullied by a smaller person and I would not fight him, this went on (I was considered a coward) until he hit me, then I announced to the assembled onlookers "He threw the first punch" and then belted him until the crimson flowed; end of problem.

I should add that my father was an accomplished boxer and that his brother had fought professionally and both had trained me.

NathanJ,

Anyone reading the Headline and then the opening post should if they were fluent in English usage, have realized that the bulge on the side of my face was a case of 'tongue in cheek', so the double standards are in your imperfect perception.

To clarify, I abhor unnecessary violence but fully support violence when it is necessary; therefore the statement "Violence is not OK" is meaningless twaddle when violence is, undisputably OK when necessary.

If my wife is unlawfully attacked and I see that she can't handle the attacker then I have the legal right and obligation to go to her assistance and to use sufficient violence to save her; is that not OK?

Not that I think that the situation would ever arise, I'd be more likely to stand back and watch the fun, there is a lot of satisfaction in seeing one of one's pupils do well.

Is Mise,

I didn't know all that about you.

Glad you shared.

Amazing stuff.

Here's an example of violence, both OK and not OK.

Two friends of mine, husband and wife were en route to England in the 1960s, he, on secondment to the British Army to do two years studying Military subjects and she to take up a senior nursing position at Guy's Hospital.

Their ship had a day in Naples and while walking around the city they were confronted by three thugs who blocked the footpath in front of them.
He said to his wife "You take the one on the right and I'll do the other two".
The leader (presumably) pulled a knife so he went down first, number two quickly followed him into unconsciousness and wifey had reduced number three to a screaming heap.

The toughs violence was not OK, the defensive violence was OK, but what followed was understandable but not OK.

He, to his wife's disgust, put his foot on the knife wielder's upper arm, grasped his wrist and broke his elbow.
He explained to his wife that anyone who pulled a knife on him would get something to remember.

One moral of this story is that one should never try to rob a former Commando, nor a woman whose husband had taught her self-defence and who had a nurse's intimate knowledge of the human anatomy and where all the bits that really hurt are located.

Welcome to virtue signalling 101.

Putting up a sign stating that "Violence is not OK" does condemn any particular form of violence nor does it commit the council to anything. All it does is signal to anyone that reads the sign is that the council members are good and virtuous and that they hope you ignore their incompetence or waste of your rates.

Is Mise,

My parents spent some time in Naples after WWII on
their way to Australia. I still remember the stories
they told of women dressed in black with their hands
outstreched begging for bread "pane, pane."

It left quite an impression.

However, they had photographs of the ruins of pompeii
that were amazing. And dad managed to buy some
fresh onions that they brought onto the Italian ship
they travelled to Australia on. It made a treat from
eating pasta daily.

Foxy,

Do you remember which ship they were on?

Is Mise,

My brother tells me that it was the
Castel Bianco .

Recently heard that Biden/Obama made laws where on uni campus's young men/boys accused of sexual assault were basically guilty until proven innocent. More than likely many innocent careers ruined but be sure Biden would never allow the same rules applied to him. For many blurting slogans its more about maintain or obtaining power than concern for victims. Hillary was probably the biggest enabler we know of.

Dear Is Mise,

«If my wife is unlawfully attacked and I see that she can't handle the attacker then I have the legal right and obligation to go to her assistance and to use sufficient violence to save her; is that not OK?»

It is OK, but it is not violence!

You would then be using sufficient FORCE, rather than sufficient violence.

Looking it up in the dictionary:
Violence - "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something".

Obviously your intent would be to save your wife, not to hurt anyone.

Violence remains, NOT OK.

And on the side, it makes no difference whether your wife was attacked lawfully or otherwise, or whether you had the legal right to assist her: your obligation to save your wife stands in any case.

runner,

You need to take a closer look at the US President
you so love and admire before you go slagging off
any other former American leader with your Trump Obsession
Disorder. You need to take a look at Trump's - TDP -
Trump Disordered Personality.

http://www.alfranken.com/read/the-president-is-crazy

Al Franken ia an American, former US Senator (from Minnesota -
2009 - 2018), author, media personality.
He knows of what he speaks.

Yes Foxy we know that you never really did believe all women like you claimed to. You really can't fool anyone. Its all about sides for you as shown by your constant TDR. Yep Trump does have a strange personality but I suspect far more honest than you.

Yuyutsu,

"You would then be using sufficient FORCE, rather than sufficient violence."

Believe me, when I use sufficient force it is violence.

runner,

The man is not sane.

'runner,

The man is not sane.'

we know Foxy that enabler Hillary let us know what regressives thought of the deplorables. Russia collusion no Ukraine collusion no he isn't sane. We know!

Dear Is Mise,

«Believe me, when I use sufficient force it is violence.»

I do believe you, but you just made a personal statement about yourself - thank you for your honesty.
There are people who are able to use sufficient force without being violent, it all depends on their true intention.
It is possible, in some extreme situations to even kill another without being violent, because the intention to hurt is simply not there.

runner,

And I thought only Jesus deserved your worship-.

runner,

BTW - Donald Trump is racist, homophobic, xenophobic,
and he's sexist. He's the perfect Republican candidate.

Foxy,

Here's a link to the "Castel Bianco", she was a Sitmar ship and I sailed on the "Fairsky" to England in 1960.

'runner,

BTW - Donald Trump is racist, homophobic, xenophobic,
and he's sexist. He's the perfect Republican candidate.'

Oh the omniscience Foxy who has preached for years one should not judge and now is an expert on this man's character.

Der Foxy,

Yes, " Donald Trump is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and he's sexist. "

But apart from that, and the facts that he was born extraordinarily wealthy, bombed out at pretty much every level of education, dodged vany military service, is a bully, a braggart, a sexual predator and a liar, has no empathy for seventy-odd thousand COVID victims, is a vile creature and possibly with various intellectual disabilities (not that there's anything wrong with that), he may not be a bad bloke.

Joe

runner,

The man's actions speak for themselves.
Even blind Freddie can see that.

Dear Joe,

You think he may be a good bloke?

I'm sure his daughter thinks so.

Yuyutsu,

That's a convenient definition, so if a bloke hits his wife a few times to make her do what he wants but hits her with love then he's not being violent.

Wonder how it would stand up in court?

Is Mise,

I guess it depends on who you know.

Federal Greens Senator Sarah Hanson Young wrote a
reference attesting to the "good character"pf a
long-time friend and lobbyist who slapped his wife and
avoided a conviction in a Canberra court.

The man pleaded guilty to the assault and received a
good behaviour non-conviction order.

I never though Americans could get anyone dumber than the peanut brained Jimmy Carter for President, Ronnie Reagan came close, then along came George W Bush, what a dumbo! Now up pops ' Dangerous Doctor Donald' who takes the cake. To make matters worse'while 'Dangerous Doctor Donald'is in "charge" the worse pandemic to hit America since Woodrow Wilson was President a hundred years ago lands in 'The Donalds' lap. Unlike 'The Donald', Wilson it seems was gifted with an amount of intelligence.

The last word from 'The Donald' will be;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y

Dear Is Mise,

«so if a bloke hits his wife a few times to make her do what he wants but hits her with love then he's not being violent.»

Is this hypothetical, or can you actually simultaneously hit your wife to make her do what you want AND with love?

I can conceive of VERY RARE situations where this may be the case, such as when what you want her to do is only for her own good. It happened to me just once in my life, many decades ago, when I have hit someone (not my wife) with love in order to make them do something for their own good, I felt it was God's calling to hit him and I had absolutely no violence in my heart. He did hit me back though and I accepted that lovingly too. We ended up embracing and crying together.

BUT PLEASE BE CAREFUL. For the vast majority of men, never will there be a time, even once, when hitting their wife can truly be done with love and non-violence.

«Wonder how it would stand up in court?»

Had you been in such an unusual situation, what courts do and say would be your least concern. Chances however are that courts would not become aware of this because your wife would actually thank you for it rather than complain, such is the power of love!

'But apart from that, and the facts that he was born extraordinarily wealthy, bombed out at pretty much every level of education, dodged vany military service, is a bully, a braggart, a sexual predator and a liar, has no empathy for seventy-odd thousand COVID victims, is a vile creature and possibly with various intellectual disabilities (not that there's anything wrong with that), he may not be a bad bloke. '

did not know you were looking for a job with CNN Joe. You have to have more TDR than that!

Hi Foxy,

Didn't he make some comment about his daughter being a nice piece of arse, and that if she wasn't his daughter ......

But apart from all those caveats, who knows ? Stil, I wouldn't ever want to be anywhere near him.

And now, just when the US curve is peaking - not dropping, but peaking - He exercises his leadership and says to the governors, do what you like, even wave your guns around, who cares. Real decisive.

So, if numbers are doubling every week, for every positive case,

Week 2: 2

Week 3: 4

Week 4: 8

Week 5: 16

Week 6: 32

Week 7: 64

Week 8: 128

Week 9: 256

Week 10: 512

Week 11: 1024

Week 12: 2048

For each positive case. And that takes us up half-way to the election :)

The US currently has 1.1 million positive cases. Actually, with that many, it would be too late to bring in a tracking App, not that many dumb-arse Americans would download one, since it would infringe their freedom.

'Give me COVID or give me death'.

Joe

settle down Joe. Obviously your TDS prevents you to be thinking rationally. I mean no mentions of rates of US death compared to Great Britain, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands. Oh well whip up your outrage. I never realise you and Foxy had such kindred spirits.

Hi Foxy,

Didn't he make some comment about his daughter being a nice piece of arse, that if she wasn't his daughter ......

But apart from all those caveats, who knows ? Stil, i wouldn't want to be anywhere near him.

And now, just when the US curve is peaking - not dropping, but peaking - He exercises his leadership and says to the governors, do what you like, even wave you8r guns around, who cares. Real decisive.

So, if numbers are doubling every week, for every positive case,

Week 2: 2

Week 3: 4

Week 4: 8

Week 5: 16

Week 6: 32

Week 7: 64

Week 8: 128

Week 9: 256

Week 10: 512

Week 11: 1024

Week 12: 2048

For each positive case. And that takes us up half-way to the election :)

The US currently has 1.1 million positive cases. Actually, with that many, it would be too late to bring in a tracking App, not that many dumb-arse Americans would download one, since it would infringe their freedom.

'Give me COVID or give me death'.

Joe

Hi Runner,

Or rates of death compared to those in Australia, New Zealand, China, Taiwan and South Korea ? i.e. those with competent governments ?

Oh well, it will all be over by Easter. Easter, 2021. And fewer than sixty thousand Americans will die. Well, maybe fewer than one hundred and sixty thousand Americans will die ? I hope so, I hope it's fewer, but we'll see. Oh Mr Hart, what a mess !

Joe

runner,

Donald Trump knows so little.

And he knows it so fluently.

Ordinarily he is insane. But he does have lucid
moments when he is only stupid.

'Oh well, it will all be over by Easter. Easter, 2021. And fewer than sixty thousand Americans will die. Well, maybe fewer than one hundred and sixty thousand Americans will die ? I hope so, I hope it's fewer, but we'll see. Oh Mr Hart, what a mess !'

One day Joe you might get a little rational and realise we are all going to die. Daily many more die from hunger, cancer, suicide and other causes. Just don't let your TDS throw things totally out of perspective.

and btw Trump is not responsible for every death. Your sin and mine is just as responsible! Just maybe, just maybe those fools who called Trump racist for stopping flights from Wuhan might have contributed to more deaths than necessary. But don't let facts get in the way of your deranged sight.

runner,

Why are you defending the US President?

He's got a teflon brain.

Nothing sticks.

'runner,

Why are you defending the US President?'

because as bad as you and Joe see him, he is 100 times better than the baby killing lying liberal democrats.

runner,

What's with the baby-killing, lying Liberal
Democrats reference?

You're sounding unhinged.

'runner,

What's with the baby-killing, lying Liberal
Democrats reference?'

planned parenthood. Plenty of sick unhinged murderers in that lot Foxy.

runner,

I believe that you truly believe that.

Can't argue with a believer who believes what
he believes.

Take care.
Stay safe.

runner,

And of course you're right.

We don't like to kill our unborn.

We need them to grow up and fight our wars.

Hi Joe,

runner said; "One day Joe you might get a little rational and realise we are all going to die."

Close down all the hospitals, sack all the doctors and nurses, re-employ them in the funeral trade. runner's amazing logic. Don't concern yourself with deaths from covid-19, lots of people die from ingrown toenails etc. The logic is; Only when people stop dying from other causes, such as ingrown toenails, then and only then, should we concern ourselves about deaths caused by covid-19. Something we'll never have to concern ourselves with. Why? Because people will never stop dying from other causes such as ingrown toenails! The same logic can be applied to all causes of death including ingrown toenails. Is that clear? Clear as mud I assume!

Imagine, getting rushed off to hospital and after the doctor examines you he exclaims; "You luck, luck, bastard, you haven't had a heart attack! You know heart attacks are deadly, if you had, had a heart attack, you would most certainly die, you lucky, lucky, bastard! You gasp for air and enquire "Thanks for that doc, I haven't had a heart attack, that's good news, what the prognosis?"...."You've had a stroke and your going to be dead within five minutes, you lucky, lucky, bastard."

runner, you are such a.......cuddly little poot.

'runner,

And of course you're right.

We don't like to kill our unborn.

We need them to grow up and fight our wars.'

put the wine bottle away Foxy. You are sounding more and more unhinged.

runner,

I don't drink.

And if I'm sounding unhinged to you.

That's because you're nuts - like the US President
you admire. You think people are killing the
unborn. Creepy.

Hi runner, as you know I don't favour "abortion on demand" that's the conservative in me. However this progressive wants to see a lot more done for those seeking abortion as a solution to a problem. Rather than rejecting women outright who are in that invidious position, with simplistic condemnation calls of "murdering the unborn", we need to do a lot more in the way of support through education, constructive counselling, and seeking realistic viable alternatives where possible.

Paul,

Well said.

Dear Paul,

Very well said indeed.

I'm not pro abortion-on-demand.

And -

I don't know any of my female friends who
are. And nowadays
there are so many other alternatives.

Foxy and Paul,

As a Liberal I support the rights of the individual over the state unless the exercise of these rights seriously impedes the rights of others, and as such while I consider any abortion a source of grief, I believe that a woman has the right to decide what happens to her own body and life and thus must have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Similarly, I support same sex marriage, but deplore those that try to persecute those against it, I am against capital punishment, but also believe that many of those violent criminals are beyond reform. I believe in free speech and the right to believe and state one's opinion freely, etc