Dustin Martin

[markp]

Been to a cinema on a friday or saturday night?

Or maybe someone could be on ice? Everyone's on ice these days.

I honestly don't expect you to grasp the concept and dangers of victim blaming, so it's ok.

Expected comeback. Personal comments when nothing else left to say. Consistent. Good stuff. And yes I occasionally get to the cinema on a Friday. If that's the best you have then I'm really relieved. You are going so well. I notice there was no mention of what your actual point it.

If after all my posts explaining my point you don't get my point then either my 'personal' comment was correct or I am an idiot.

I'll go with either I don't mind, and I'm sorry either way.

Good night.

[The_Merchant]

...'most likely the victim did absolutely nothing wrong.'

Gold, and you still don't get it.

And you don't get it either. I know next to nothing about what happened, I have read a few snippets from the paper. Perhaps you were there and can enlighten us. I don't condone violence against anyone. However, I don't like to make categorical statements without knowing at least a little of the circumstances.

[miskycat]

See what you wrote? That's called victim blaming. And you're doing it.

[miskycat]

It's part of the way in which men continue to absolve themselves of responsibility for violence against women.

[Dis Believer]

It's part of the way in which men continue to absolve themselves of responsibility for violence against women.

Actually, I think a more accurate statement is "it's part of the way that PEOPLE absolve themselves of responsibility for violence against PEOPLE"....

It is interesting though, why are you so keen to focus only on one group of victims, based on gender? Especially given that on a broader view of our society, males are four times more likely than females to be victims of violence !!

[The_Merchant]

It's part of the way in which men continue to absolve themselves of responsibility for violence against women.

I think you will find, if you read my posts, I have blamed just about everyone but the victim. At no stage have I said she did anything wrong.

If we don't address all contributing factors surrounding alcohol fuelled violence, it will continue to plague society. And with that statement I am referring to responsible service of alcohol, etc.

You can continue to cherry pick statements while standing on your high horse, enjoy.

[miskycat]

Shouldn't that be my mare?

[miskycat]

Sorry,Mr Legend, I was talking about violence against women.

But, please, bring it back to MEN by all means.

And Mr Merchant, yes, it's 'the responsible service of alcohol' and such like that is what needs to be talked about.

[The_Merchant]

Shouldn't that be my mare?

Considering horse is gender neutral I am not sure where you are going with that. If you want to bring everything back to gender, then go for it.

[Bunk_Moreland]

Why should there be consequences for anyone for asking a drunken Bogan in a restaurant to calm down.

Why are people mean to people?

Guess we will find out from the police won't we.

Hope they aren't victim blames. Latest reading suggest they are

[Bunk_Moreland]

Sorry,Mr Legend, I was talking about violence against women.

But, please, bring it back to MEN by all means.

And Mr Merchant, yes, it's 'the responsible service of alcohol' and such like that is what needs to be talked about.

Always about men, didn't you know? And if it isn't they get violent and angry.
Actually this woman, no make that ALL women should be sanctioned for taking the focus off the real victim - men

[dragit]

Why should there be consequences for anyone for asking a drunken Bogan in a restaurant to calm down.

Why are people mean to people?

Guess we will find out from the police won't we.

Hope they aren't victim blames. Latest reading suggest they are

Can't wait to find out why people are mean...



P.s. You've lost your marbles.

[Dis Believer]

Sorry,Mr Legend, I was talking about violence against women.

But, please, bring it back to MEN by all means.

And Mr Merchant, yes, it's 'the responsible service of alcohol' and such like that is what needs to be talked about.

Actually the fact is that people are only just "starting" to bring it back to men because of people like you who feel compelled to reduce every single issue to one of gender. The example at hand for instance, where you display your complete inability to discuss the issue of threatening and inappropriate behavior on the part of a drunken bogan without using the catch cry "men's violence against women". By use of this war cry you imply that violence against women is somehow worse or more important than violence against against men, despite the fact that men suffer as victims of violence at four times the rate of women.

SO why is it you are only concerned with 20% of the victims of violence in this country??

What about violence against children?

Actually you had better stay away from that one, because statistically, children are more at risk of abuse from their mothers than they are from their fathers =- and that really won't fit very well into your apparent "women good, men bad" ideology........

[markp]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

[Dis Believer]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

Actually no, I don't think we should be talking about violence against men, and I didn't say that, I posited that people that actually give a f*** would be talking about violence, full stop, without the need to mindlessly regurgitate feminist ideology whereby every issue has to be reduced to one of gender, inclusive of lemming like sloganeering.

[Bluthy]

The AFL asked Victoria Police to investigate Richmond star Dustin Martin for allegedly threatening a woman in a drunken incident last Saturday night.

The Victoria Police have confirmed they are involved as the Richmond and AFL investigation also continues.

"The serious nature of the allegation requires that this matter be referred to the police," the league said in a statement.

"If the investigation reveals threatening and violent behaviour, the AFL will take strong action.

Read more at http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/2015/12/10/1 ... 48aFJfp.99

Gone up a notch

[The_Merchant]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

You seemed to have missed the point again (in your second statement, not your first) this is about violence full stop. In particular alcohol fuelled violence. In my humble opinion that is, but carry on making it about gender.

[markp]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

Actually no, I don't think we should be talking about violence against men, and I didn't say that, I posited that people that actually give a f*** would be talking about violence, full stop, without the need to mindlessly regurgitate feminist ideology whereby every issue has to be reduced to one of gender, inclusive of lemming like sloganeering.

Why don't you go right ahead and talk about violence full stop yourself and not demand that others not talk about violence against women if they wish?

#AllLivesMatter huh?

[skeptic]

Given what we know (and really even no matter what she could have said, but let's put that aside), her responsibility for being violently threatened with stabbing and murder is zero.

Yes or no?

This has been answered repeatedly. NO.

No one is arguing that the lady brought it on herself or deserved to be abused etc.

She is entitled to do this without risk of violence...

Nobody is arguing that Dusty isn't 100% in the wrong. That part of the debate was never in question.

I think Dustin Martin is an idiot. I hope they ban him for a year. He was completely 100% in the wrong and he put this lady, and the other guests in an uncomfortable position. He is likely such a mega-narcissist that he probably didn't even care. If the matter had gotten violent, he would have been the one to initiate it and it would have been COMPLETELY 100% HIS FAULT.

It's clear that we're not going go reach any clear resolution on this so all I can really add is that none of us are in a position in life where we can realistically control other people's behaviour.

Let's say she called him a C@n@! (very bad word) and that sets him off and he attacks her. It doesn't make it okay for him to do that... it's not justified. She doesn't bring it on herself.

I uh, don’t know how else to articulate this point to you. That’s 7 times that I alone have reiterated this and multiple other posters have too.

I can only assume at this point that you’re either
a) Not reading my posts
b) Winding me up
c) Are so focused on your own argument that you’re actually arguing with yourself
d) Really just can’t grasp the concept that being discussed

How can you not see that by denying that you are apportioning blame and as Bunk points out therefore mitigating his responsibility.

He's either 100% responsible for threatening to stab and murder her or he's not.

Can you give me ONE example, preferably a quote of where I have said that Martin is not responsible for his behaviour, or that she antagonised him and brought it that’s her fault?

I have said repeatedly that I don’t believe her action was the safest/wisest response… and I’ve repeatedly stated that that doesn’t mean Martin was entitled to abuse her.
Is this the part that’s bothering you? What about this is wrong?

Put up or shut up because at the moment your argument can be boiled down to “I’m because I say I’m right” and “this is what you’re saying” when it’s clearly not.

It's really not that complicated.

Actually for you I think it really is.
You not only are failing to grasp what is being said, but you don’t understand what you don’t understand.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

One more analogy…
If I’m out drinking with my friends and I get drunk. It’s my intent to drive home so I wait 2-3 hours at the end of the night (without drinking) before deciding that I think I’m sober enough to drive home.

On the way home, I stop at a red light. The light turns green and as I move into the intersection I’m collected by a car that has run the red light and t-boned into me.

Despite being shaken I’m otherwise ok whereas the other driver is hurt.

Witnesses to the accident lay the blame entirely with the other driver because he ran the red light and I wasn’t speeding/swerving/swaying etc. Nonetheless my blood test indicates that my BAC = 0.08, hence I’m over the legal limit.

Is the accident my fault?
Did I make a bad decision to drive home?

[markp]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

You seemed to have missed the point again (in your second statement, not your first) this is about violence full stop. In particular alcohol fuelled violence. In my humble opinion that is, but carry on making it about gender.

Fact is this is a case of a man being violent towards a woman. But you're right let's make it about all violence, against animals too if we could fit that in.

And you go ahead and talk about alcohol fuelled violence, but I think it should be about drug motivated crime. Maybe just drugs, or just crime even. I'll get back to you on that one.

[markp]

Given what we know (and really even no matter what she could have said, but let's put that aside), her responsibility for being violently threatened with stabbing and murder is zero.

Yes or no?

This has been answered repeatedly. NO.

No one is arguing that the lady brought it on herself or deserved to be abused etc.

She is entitled to do this without risk of violence...

Nobody is arguing that Dusty isn't 100% in the wrong. That part of the debate was never in question.

I think Dustin Martin is an idiot. I hope they ban him for a year. He was completely 100% in the wrong and he put this lady, and the other guests in an uncomfortable position. He is likely such a mega-narcissist that he probably didn't even care. If the matter had gotten violent, he would have been the one to initiate it and it would have been COMPLETELY 100% HIS FAULT.

It's clear that we're not going go reach any clear resolution on this so all I can really add is that none of us are in a position in life where we can realistically control other people's behaviour.

Let's say she called him a C@n@! (very bad word) and that sets him off and he attacks her. It doesn't make it okay for him to do that... it's not justified. She doesn't bring it on herself.

I uh, don’t know how else to articulate this point to you. That’s 7 times that I alone have reiterated this and multiple other posters have too.

I can only assume at this point that you’re either
a) Not reading my posts
b) Winding me up
c) Are so focused on your own argument that you’re actually arguing with yourself
d) Really just can’t grasp the concept that being discussed

How can you not see that by denying that you are apportioning blame and as Bunk points out therefore mitigating his responsibility.

He's either 100% responsible for threatening to stab and murder her or he's not.

Can you give me ONE example, preferably a quote of where I have said that Martin is not responsible for his behaviour, or that she antagonised him and brought it that’s her fault?

I have said repeatedly that I don’t believe her action was the safest/wisest response… and I’ve repeatedly stated that that doesn’t mean Martin was entitled to abuse her.
Is this the part that’s bothering you? What about this is wrong?

Put up or shut up because at the moment your argument can be boiled down to “I’m because I say I’m right” and “this is what you’re saying” when it’s clearly not.

It's really not that complicated.

Actually for you I think it really is.
You not only are failing to grasp what is being said, but you don’t understand what you don’t understand.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you.

One more analogy…
If I’m out drinking with my friends and I get drunk. It’s my intent to drive home so I wait 2-3 hours at the end of the night (without drinking) before deciding that I think I’m sober enough to drive home.

On the way home, I stop at a red light. The light turns green and as I move into the intersection I’m collected by a car that has run the red light and t-boned into me.

Despite being shaken I’m otherwise ok whereas the other driver is hurt.

Witnesses to the accident lay the blame entirely with the other driver because he ran the red light and I wasn’t speeding/swerving/swaying etc. Nonetheless my blood test indicates that my BAC = 0.08, hence I’m over the legal limit.

Is the accident my fault?
Did I make a bad decision to drive home?

Well that's a lot of work followed by another pointless analogy.

You continue to say "he is 100% responsible, but..."

If he is 100% responsible then there is no 'but'.

He threatened to stab and kill her while she was out having dinner because she said calm down.

I think you and I should simply agree to disagree.

[Dis Believer]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

You seemed to have missed the point again (in your second statement, not your first) this is about violence full stop. In particular alcohol fuelled violence. In my humble opinion that is, but carry on making it about gender.

Fact is this is a case of a man being violent towards a woman. But you're right let's make it about all violence.

Factually incorrect. It's about a PERSON who THREATENED another PERSON because that PERSON confronted him about his boorish behaviour. He didn't do it because she was female, he did it because she confronted him about his conduct, and if you think he would have acted differently towards anyone else that did what she did, then you are probably incorrect.

[Dis Believer]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

You seemed to have missed the point again (in your second statement, not your first) this is about violence full stop. In particular alcohol fuelled violence. In my humble opinion that is, but carry on making it about gender.

Fact is this is a case of a man being violent towards a woman. But you're right let's make it about all violence.

Factually incorrect. It's about a PERSON who THREATENED another PERSON because that PERSON confronted him about his boorish behaviour. He didn't do it because she was female, he did it because she confronted him about his conduct, and if you think he would have acted differently towards anyone else that did what she did, then you are probably incorrect.

[Dis Believer]

Going well here I see.

So we've had comments about why a 14 year old girl was out at 3am as a possible contributing factor to why she was gang raped (I blame the parents....), and men demanding we should really be talking about violence against men here, not women (I'm sorry, the fact that this was a case of a man being violent towards a woman must have helped temporarily sway it).

Carry on.

Actually no, I don't think we should be talking about violence against men, and I didn't say that, I posited that people that actually give a f*** would be talking about violence, full stop, without the need to mindlessly regurgitate feminist ideology whereby every issue has to be reduced to one of gender, inclusive of lemming like sloganeering.

Why don't you go right ahead and talk about violence full stop yourself and not demand that others not talk about violence against women if they wish?

#AllLivesMatter huh?

Ooh look, clicktivism, well done you online hashtag awareness raiser. Actually I thought this thread was about a footballer in trouble for bad behaviour again! Not about violence against women, you're mistaking it for the Clementine Ford blog where you can bathe in male tears. And if we're sticking to facts, what was the violence? I thought he made some loud mouthed threats?

[miskycat]

Oh, sorry. You're right. The incident had nothing to do with gender. How dare I?


I give you the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse (happening now) and its highlighting of the power structures within the church (men) that enabled these appalling abuses to occur.

And in the Defence Forces.

I give you the report tabled yesterday about Victoria Police and its institutionalised harassment/discrimination by male police officers against female officers over decades, and which remains today.

I give you the complete imbalance of women represented at all levels of parliament/ corporations/ boards/ management/ 'society.'

Or, hello, SKFC's board. Just because there are no women of 'merit' available apparently.


I give you 78 women killed by their male partners so far this year. I give you Rosie Batty, Jill Meagher, seen as 'respectable' women and seemingly 'acceptable' to posters here and who didn't 'deserve' what happened to them. But, clearly, they didn't listen to discussions and advice about how they could have minimised, or indeed, avoided, what happened to them. Silly of them, but, well, if only they had had the advantage of being part of this forum.

Because we now know it's inconceivable that it could possibly be a 'gender' (dare I say 'male violence against women' problem?) and happily acknowledge that the Dustin Martin incident has nothing whatsoever to do with this.