Seems like my 'victory' is complete.
It’s disappointing that you treat the discourse on domestic violence as being a victory or loss equation. I never knew there were such considerations when discussing various degrees of human misery but obviously it seems important to you. Notwithstanding your casual statements about you ducking down to the beach to pose which littered this thread before my appearance, I actually took you seriously as having a genuine and passionate concern for the topic. The above quoted merely serves to tell me this is all an ego trip for you and the topic is nothing more than a vehicle for your posturing.
Your continuing diatribe of 'no responses to my...' is fine but you seem to have forgotten that I've done you the courtesy of responding to nearly all your genuine comments, so what you're saying is really untrue, isn't it.
Indeed, in reviewing our exchanges I see that quite a few of my more weighty contentions, particularly in respect of objectivity/subjectivity/relativism, have either been entirely ignored by you or glossed over. Accordingly, I can only assume my positions on those points are vindicated and can only conclude my ‘victory’ is complete in the absence of genuine responses. Feel free to revisit and respond if you wish to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory ;).
Anyways, here we go again, and as you seem intent in perpetuating this debate I'll oblige you...
Be more specific. Is the attacker with a knife big; is the person defending him/herself slight?
Your example could be yes or no depending on the particular circumstances. In general, however, if a threat to life is perceived then it is morally alright to defend oneself, even to the most extreme measure.
There’s no need to be more specific because I laid the parameters here:
“Is it still moral though to defend oneself with say a gun if another comes at you with say a clenched fist?”
then added:
“If we accept your credo that there exist certain 'truths' that are immutable and not subject to cultural/moral relativism, then isn't the answer to the question I pose automatically 'yes'?”
Do you now see the folly of ascribing to notions of immutable truths and discounting relativism? In asking me to ‘be more specific’ you have effectively acknowledged that relativism is necessary to this type of discourse because being more specific entails relative considerations. In trying to answer the question I posed you have, by implication, said that the morality of the act of self defence is relative to the perceived threat “depending on the particular circumstances”.
You can’t have it both ways, your answer is therefore “Yes”, and unfortunately you are wrong.
...and therein lies your information gap. While personal experiences are important; it is best to overview as much information as possible outside of your domain which may be jaundiced.
No, it’s not an information gap, because if it was, I would have had to have not read the studies you posted. I did, then I challenged some of the foundations to which those studies were based and you largely ignored my challenges.
In any event, I've always been candid in saying my comments are based on my experience in practice. Ergo, you can assume they are not based on studies, blogs, youtube and so on. My experience does not align with your studies, though I have indicated that if your studies sometime in the future align with my experience my position will probably change accordingly. I've now had the benefit of making my comments in the context of real world experience but also after considering your material, which, again, is contrary to my experience. You, on the other hand, have no genuine experience in the matters being discussed. Who then is better placed to make a more persuasive argument?
The fact that you ignore statistics and other reference materials only limits you.
The fact that you answered in the above fashion (which has nothing to do with my contention) merely demonstrates that when cornered with one of the many contentions I have made challenging your credibilty you choose to deflect rather than concede. It doesn't work with me.
Several hundred studies involving hundreds of thousands of individual cases cannot be considered anecdotal. If you don't understand this then you are the type of attorney who likes to play with words and definitions. I'd probably kick you out of my office as well.
Once again, your answer is irrelevant to the ambit of my comment. I said they could be considered anecdotal because they cannot be tested. Rather than challenging that by commenting on how they could be tested, you simply said they cannot be anecdotal because of their volume. You couldn't answer the statement because you either don't understand what anecdotal means in the context to which I placed it or understood it but didn't have a genuine response. Again, smoke and mirror tactics don't work on me.
And yes, I do enjoy playing with words and definitions. The main theme of our discussion has been focussed on just that. If you can't play the game then I suggest you look to another interest other than 'critical thinking' because I've presented you with prime opportunity time and again to indulge your hobby.
As to kicking me out of your 'office', can I assume that's toilet cubicle no. 2 at the beach where you do your posing?
Now you are losing it;
No, I'm not. I asked if it should be subject to the child’s best interests or legally enshrined (equal custody). You said legally enshrined which to me means that no matter what, equal custody would apply because that’s the guillotine law. Guillotine Law, or guillotine orders, here means a law that automatically applies with no other consideration as to whether or not it should apply. A parallel could be our drink driving laws here which say that if you blow over 0.05 you will lose your licence, no argument, no exception (unless of course you go to trial and win on saying that the breath tester was faulty and so on).
The above link should also help answer the premise that women (de facto) receive default custodial judgments when children are the issue.
No, it doesn't. The Family Law Act does not automatically vest by default full custody to the mother – indeed, there is absolutely no reference to gender bias viz parenting in Pt 7 of the Act.
The ‘legislative pathway’ is clear and was set out in the case of Goode & Goode. Briefly, there is a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that applies subject to there being say domestic violence, child abuse and so on, or if it is not in the child’s best interests for the presumption to apply (see s60CC for the best interests considerations). If it does apply, then it may be appropriate for equal custody arrangements to prevail and if not, a child may spend substantial and significant time with one parent whilst living with the other. In extreme examples, interim orders may mandate that a parent can spend time only when supervised by another person. This can happen to both mothers and fathers.
I repeat – the Family Law Act does not automatically vest custody in the mother. It is gender neutral. Can you comprehend that?
I further repeat – unless you provide me with concrete proof that your family/DV laws are biased I don’t believe you. You can so easily vindicate your position by providing a link to the relevant sections of the law. You won’t though because you’ve probably never actually seen them.
Wrong (yet) again. I oppose quotas in any form. I merely advocate real equalilty and justice no matter where it falls.
Sorry, but I'm not, yet again. It has nothing to do with 'quotas', and you know that. You advocate for automatic equal custody no matter what. I added that if we adopt that modle no-one would go to court over custody because a judge would not have to make the decision because the legislation has already made it. Do you understand that implication?
The judicial system is cruel to men and often ignores their loss of employment.
Link please showing judgments from the ‘judicial system’ whereby loss of employment was ignored – actually, don’t bother – you haven’t bothered to provide any links to any law or judgment I’ve requested. I reckon that’s because you’re making this up as you go along.
Again, does non payment of child support irk you?
The backside of this however, is rarely addressed. Women frequently prevent visitation rights; not necessarily all the time but now and then and yet demand child support.
You really don’t understand the concept of child support, do you. Child support is paying another parent your share of the costs of raising a child. It has nothing to do with whether or not the custodial parent is denying ‘visitation rights’ (do parents in the US really have that right?) but all to do with supporting your child.
I think the old maxim of cutting off your nose to spite your face is apposite here.
Women are not put in jail when they do this even though it can easily be argued that young children have a need of a male parental influence even more than money.
They’re not put in jail because if a father reckons they are being denied time with their child then, wait for it, perhaps they should apply to the court to have that time?
If on the other hand there is an order that a child is to spend time with their father and the mother has breached it then, wait for it, perhaps the father should apply to the court for remedy for such breach.
Also, how the money is spent by women is also rarely put to a court case (do women who divorce wealthy men after only a few years of marriage really deserve $20,000 per month for child support? Does the kid eat that much?) etc, etc.
Is it the case that in the USA child support is automatically determined by a court unless the parents otherwise agree as to an amount? You'll have to clarify how it works in the USA please. Given your expertise on CS, please also set out the formula for calculating child support in the USA – I don’t think you’re able to though because yet again you’re making this up as you go along.
In any event, I find it difficult to believe child support payments would be made to the tune of $20,000 per month. Is this just another story Zimmy?
You are contradicting yourself. You've already stated that you wanted my personal experiences and suggested that the Fiebert studies are merely anecdotal. So which is it?
Good attempt at obfuscation. I'm not contradicting myself. You said most applications for a DVO are false. That is an opinion, unless you provide genuine material in support. I said that whilst I value your opinion I wanted facts and material in support so that I could decide if that opinion was based on fact or if it was fiction. Instead of giving me that, you said I was contradicting myself – good one.
C’mon Zimmy – give me a real run for my money with proper responses rather than smoke and mirror, and genuine sources backing up your myriad opinions – dare you.
