The Random thought thread

[facthunter]

These days I'm not so sure how many people could tune a carburettor either. The FAA said that the dashpot on a Bing CV Carb sticking wide open would cause a super rich mixture.   Nev

[red750]

Any more insults?

[octave]

Just now, red750 said:

Any more insults?

My post was not directed at you but at men generally.   In any conflict, it is rarely a case of fault just on one side.  

[facthunter]

I hate it when women just use me.  Nev

[octave]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

I hate it when women just use me.  Nev

its OK as long as you agree on a "safe word"

[pmccarthy]

A lot of the women of my age that I know are seriously into wine every evening, but seem to manage themselves OK.

[nomadpete]

Random thought....

 

Is Alcoholism a cause, or a symptom of mental health issues?

[facthunter]

It can be a problem if it becomes an addiction. Especially IF you are a "BAD DRUNK".  Nev

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Random thought....Is Alcoholism a cause, or a symptom of mental health issues?

I'd say that it is a symptom. How common is the phrase,"drowning one's sorrows"? The reason for alcoholism is that alcohol has been an accepted part of the diet since it was first discovered. In fact, if it wasn't for fermented drinks, urbanisation would have failed due to water-borne diseases. It is easy to obtain. The problem with its use is its abuse, which can under certain circumstances lead to alcoholism. 

 

Obviously, if one becomes an alcoholic due to Problem No. 1, then Problems 2, 3 & 4 can flow from it. Unfortunately there are a lot of newly man-made substances which can be accessed to deal with physical and mental health issues. Remember "A cup of tea; a Bex, and a good lie down", or The Rolling Stones' "Mother's Little Helper"? We've had pot and heroin and cocaine, and now we have the synthetics.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I know the topic has moved on, but on partner murder, I thought it would be interesting to try and find some facts: https://www.aihw.gov.au/family-domestic-and-sexual-violence/responses-and-outcomes/domestic-homicide#data-tell-us

 

In terms of how to fix it, there are probably so many factors, it's almost impossible, but my anecdotal observation is that Aussie men, on a whole, have a more aggressive stance than British/European and even Amercian men (note aggressive dispostion does not = violence), And I think it is a bit of a culture thing. For example, in the USA, the ultimate culture is that you can fix things through the barrell of a gun. Is it Switzerland that has a per captia number of guns per household > the USA, yet one of the lowerst murder rates in Europe, and certainly a tiny fractiion of the USA?

 

One of the perpetrators of Aussie male's more aggressive disposition is, and I hate to say it, football (At least Aussie Rules). Go to Youtube and look at the opening moments of the 1989 AFL grand final, where a player (Brereton) is lined up by Yates, who broke Brereton's ribs; not a free kick, nothing. Many people (even my 20-something year old neives who weren't even born at the time) claim that was the greatest AFL (then, technically VFL) grand final of all time! It was a game where one set of players was systematically going after the opponents and not the ball, and retaliation ensued, which resulted in more retaliation. And of course, in the 70s and 80s, there were the enforcers whose job it was to KO the opponents star, and this was seen as a postivie of the game. These days, that sort of stuff has been all but rubbed out, but there is still scraps which go unchecked and considered a normal part of the game. It is strange the AFL are trying to crack down on all of the off field issues including violence, but santion it on field (admittedly to a lesser extent than the past). And our young, impressionable kids seeing their heroes do it, and they tend to immitate it, and as it has been going on for generations, it becomes a normalised part of society. I remember as a young lad being coached on how to hurt opponents when going for a mark and I have been KO'ed a couple of times on the field.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the game and aggression at the ball is fine, but while the AFL turn a blind eye to aggression at the poerson (without the ball), I think it perpetuates the culture. Yes, if you strike a player off the ball as Yates did, you will be rubbed out. but there is still the tussling and pyushing off the ball, that only results in a consequence if the othger player falls (without diving). So, if unnecessary aggression  is seen as getting an advantage on the field, it must be the way to get results off the field, right? 

 

That of course, is not the only thing that has to be addressed - @Marty_d's post summed it up well, I think...

 

 

[facthunter]

It was almost compulsory to follow some club in Victoria when I first came here. I'm a member of the AFL (Anti Football League). Nev

[red750]

The old joke says Soccer is 90 minutes of pretending to be hurt, rugby league is 80 minutes of pretending not to be hurt.

[facthunter]

What's Rugby Union then? Jock strap smellers Paradise.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Bigger code of Rubt than here... Just a lot of pomp, mainly.

[Litespeed]

Part of the problem I agree is violence in sport been accepted.

 

If you purposely harm someone in sport it should be a criminal charge just like off the field. Why have a magic field where laws don't apply? That attitude flows off the field and is very apparent in player behaviour off field and by supporters.

 

The next time a player has a "brain snap" call it for it's true form, a idiot who can't control been violent and should immediately be charged and arrested on field by the police who are attending. If that was the norm, culture would change.  

 

Also the teams should be charged under workplace safety laws, they encourage a unsafe work environment and guys get permanent injuries. If you train players boxing you are responsible when they punch on.

 

 

Any cop who won't charge a violent player immediately is basically a coward and should hand in their badge, they are a big part of the problem. I can hear the outrage, but it's their job.

 

The violence unsanctioned means it is acceptable when clearly it is not legal nor moral.

 

[pmccarthy]

I know I am in a small minority, but I detest and ignore all forms of sport.

[Litespeed]

I like the idea of sport but not violent tribalism which all the football codes seem to not just suffer from but actively promote.

 

The most dangerous ball sport is cricket but also the best behaved players and spectators. That ball can and will kill you, but the players won't.

 

And I hate the bullshit Anzac footy matches. They should not be hanging of soldiers bootstraps and made out as sport heros.

Edited April 25 by Litespeed

[old man emu]

27 minutes ago, Litespeed said:

Any cop who won't charge a violent player immediately is basically a coward and should hand in their badge, they are a big part of the problem.

Slight legal problem: When a person sets out to play a body contact sport, the law of assault (for the most part) ceases to exists. Each player, fully knowing that the game will involved body contact, agrees to allow it. It's the same with boxing, wrestling, and the Asian martial arts.

 

A bit of biffo in a tackle, or a head-high, and whatever is similar in AFL, is an offence covered by the rules of the game, and is dealt with by the controlling official. Any hitting incident that occurs "off the ball" and which results in an injury that requires an extended recovery period could be prosecuted criminally or civilly. However, there is no need for a pitch invasion by the constabulary to effect and arrest.

[Marty_d]

Polyamory sounds far more natural than monogamy.  I mean, if you have more than one kid you don't love the subsequent ones any less, so it probably works like that for other types of love.

Any experience?

[red750]

While you are talking about violence in sport, just watch WWE/WCW/NXT etc. It's often said it's all fake, but you can't be flung over someone's head, fall on a metal step ladder and be hit with a metal folding chair and not be hurt. I was just watching a few minutes where Mick Foley stacked 3 pallets, with a couple of broken boards, then picked up Triple H who was covered in blood, and suplexed him onto the pallets. That's violence. Or women(?) kicking each in the face and stomach.And the womens champion until she had a shoulder injury from being flung into a wall, was an Aussie from Adelaide.

 

[willedoo]

The Mythical Royal Australian Army made an appearance at the Anzac Day march in Brisbane, via the ABC presenter covering the march. I guess the serving RAN commander sitting beside him thought it best not to pick him up on it on air.

[Jerry_Atrick]

30 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Slight legal problem: When a person sets out to play a body contact sport, the law of assault (for the most part) ceases to exists. Each player, fully knowing that the game will involved body contact, agrees to allow it. It's the same with boxing, wrestling, and the Asian martial arts.

 

A bit of biffo in a tackle, or a head-high, and whatever is similar in AFL, is an offence covered by the rules of the game, and is dealt with by the controlling official. Any hitting incident that occurs "off the ball" and which results in an injury that requires an extended recovery period could be prosecuted criminally or civilly. However, there is no need for a pitch invasion by the constabulary to effect and arrest.

Generally speaking the consensus ad idum (consent to risk) rule applies to contact sports. However, there is precedent where Leigh Matthews was charged with GBH (I thought it was common assault) for breaking the jaw of a player: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/matthews-charge-still-mystery-20130729-2quxt.html

 

Even on the ball, if it is clear that there was an intent to go outside the rules and hurt a player (and it has to be clear), I would support a legal consequence, even if it were a minor community correction order... 

 

I was coached to hurt the other players in close in plays (I am only 5'7"); but our tall timber were also coached on how to bang up the other players.. I was never comfortable with this sort of thing even as a nipper.

 

 

 

[old man emu]

4 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

there is precedent where Leigh Matthews was charged with GBH

I couldn't recall the exact incident when I wrote my previous post, but the one you quote is probably it. Grievous Bodily Harm would be the correct offence to charge with for a broken jaw. It is amazing that in this day and age you get into more trouble for calling an opposing player a monkey that for giving a black eye. 

[Litespeed]

51 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Slight legal problem: When a person sets out to play a body contact sport, the law of assault (for the most part) ceases to exists. Each player, fully knowing that the game will involved body contact, agrees to allow it. It's the same with boxing, wrestling, and the Asian martial arts.

 

A bit of biffo in a tackle, or a head-high, and whatever is similar in AFL, is an offence covered by the rules of the game, and is dealt with by the controlling official. Any hitting incident that occurs "off the ball" and which results in an injury that requires an extended recovery period could be prosecuted criminally or civilly. However, there is no need for a pitch invasion by the constabulary to effect and arrest.

And that is the issue at heart.

 

If it's a obvious assault rather than a play incident the player should be immediately arrested.

Just like in any aspect of life.

The pitch is not invaded no more than officers entering any public property to effect arrest.

To imply pitch invasion is to make the pitch sacrosanct. 

 

A immediate arrest says to society the rule of law is sacrosanct and violent assault is always a police matter.

Is their any other place in society where a violent assault in front of public and police would not result in immediate arrest?

 

No.

 

It is irrelevant if the sport has sanctions at a later date, they are a employer not the State. Any penalty should be a matter for the courts, any sanction from the sport should be irrelevant to the case.

 

We don't let armed robbers off because they got punished by their employer.

 

A society that lets open violence in sport be televised and police condone it as "sport" breeds violent culture.

[Litespeed]

15 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I couldn't recall the exact incident when I wrote my previous post, but the one you quote is probably it. Grievous Bodily Harm would be the correct offence to charge with for a broken jaw. It is amazing that in this day and age you get into more trouble for calling an opposing player a monkey that for giving a black eye. 

So in that case would you arrest the offending player?

 

What about stomping on the head?

 

 

Or punching a player or spectator?