Depends....why is it controversial?nkgupta80 said:the controversial violence against women act is about the expire. Should it be renewed?
Your research is admirable, DJ, but I think the cards should be laid out on the table instead of everyone having to "go fetch".debate_junkie said:http://www.vawa2005.org/
Here's the act as it's being proposed to reauthorize it. I don't see, from what I've read so far, how it's controversial. But I'm not done reading yet.. so if I find something I'll let you know.
cnredd said:Your research is admirable, DJ, but I think the cards should be laid out on the table instead of everyone having to "go fetch".
And then I'd research your posts 'cause I don't trust you.:tongue4:debate_junkie said:True that.. but I'd probably go research even if it were already laid out for me. :lol:
cnredd said:And then I'd research your posts 'cause I don't trust you.:tongue4:
I tried pulling up your link... just sat idle.. like it was trying to pull something up, but didn't. Hmmm maybe my computer is on it's last leg and I should just toss it out the window. Who knows... but there is one thing listed in the title that get's me to think there needs to be more than just a commentary article from the washington times.. as more often than not commentary articles are solely the opinion of the writer... but we'll see. as for now I have to go be exploited by my boss to go earn a buck (I answer phones all afternoon... )hmmm or am I exploiting him? oh wellnkgupta80 said:http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050718-092251-1716r.htm
see the problem with this law is that its evolved into such that men are guilty until proven innocent. Ever since I learned of this law, I thought ok, there seems nothing wrong with it, seems pretty noble. But now, two years later, my uncle is going through a horrible ordeal with his family. Under false accusation from his wife, he has undergone divorce, put under heavy counseling, and due to the nature of the accusations he hasn't been able to see his children for over a year. His wife and kids have moved to canada, and of course receive mandatory financial support from the father.
and there are many more cases like this, and I think they should be addressed in renewing VAWA.
You're a liberal....and according to Michael Savage, that's a mental disorder..debate_junkie said:I wouldn't trust me either. I was born in this state, and am still here. Something is seriously wrong with me mentally.. I think.![]()
When taking money from the people towards a political cause, the women controlled government in our matriarchal society is sucking up and pandering to the men hating RadFem vaginal supremacists in another shameless women-vote gathering scheme....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equall protection of the laws.
cnredd said:You're a liberal....and according to Michael Savage, that's a mental disorder..
All part of your long-term strategy, eh?debate_junkie said:Well I don't have very high opinions of Savage.. but I'll refrain from any further comment as to make him APPEAR to be right:2wave:
of course, though if you figure out what my strategy is, let me know. Either I'm having a blond year, or I haven't developed one yetcnredd said:All part of your long-term strategy, eh?
Since I'm part of the evil conservative empire, shouldn't it be my duty to tell you what your strategy should be?debate_junkie said:of course, though if you figure out what my strategy is, let me know. Either I'm having a blond year, or I haven't developed one yet
cnredd said:Since I'm part of the evil conservative empire, shouldn't it be my duty to tell you what your strategy should be?
There are some assumptions in there that require the accused to prove innocence, and some really off-the-wall provisions.cnredd said:Depends....why is it controversial?
There are many abuses of the law, no doubt. But when I pick up the newspaper nearly everyday and see that a man has killed his wife/girlfriend/ex-wife/ex-girlfriend in a DV situation, it makes me think there ISN'T enough being done to combat this issue.nkgupta80 said:http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050718-092251-1716r.htm
see the problem with this law is that its evolved into such that men are guilty until proven innocent. Ever since I learned of this law, I thought ok, there seems nothing wrong with it, seems pretty noble. But now, two years later, my uncle is going through a horrible ordeal with his family. Under false accusation from his wife, he has undergone divorce, put under heavy counseling, and due to the nature of the accusations he hasn't been able to see his children for over a year. His wife and kids have moved to canada, and of course receive mandatory financial support from the father.
and there are many more cases like this, and I think they should be addressed in renewing VAWA.
True... BUT in the situation you outlined.. the man has a choice not to slap her. Yes I know it would be "unmanly" to not defend oneself.. but if the woman is the aggressor, would slapping her make the situation better? Absolutely not. I agree there is a presumption of guilt towards men, but that exists because it IS predominately men who are the aggressors.. and in answer to the problem society shifted too far to the opposite extreme, as they always do.nkgupta80 said:You can't deny that women are being abused everyday. But you can't cure the problem by creating another problem. DV can lead to horrible situations, but the statistics women's rights groups come up with now a days are bogus. Women are as likely to be the agressors as men. The statistic that constantly comes up in valid research is 50%. But consider the following situation:
Man and woman are in a fight. (All married couples experience that). Woman who is as likely to throw a fit of anger as a man takes a knife and throws it at her husband. Husband ducks and the knife misses. Husband then goes up to her and slaps her. Intention of damage was done both ways. However woman calls police. They arrest the husband, and blame goes on him. The law is biased towards females. Originally it was in good intent (men being physically stronger tend to do more damage), but it has been abused to extremes.
Of course slapping her wouldn't make it better, but the man is not the aggressor in this case, the woman was. So man shouldn't practice self-defense? And the manly thing would be to take it from a woman. Many men would rather take the aggression from their wives rather than do the unmanly thing and hold her back. If he didn;t slap her, and she slapped him a couple of times, the man has to hold back. If he calls the police, there would be a few laughs and thats all. Of course vice versa, if the guy slaps her around a couple of times, she can call the police and there is mandatory arrest.True... BUT in the situation you outlined.. the man has a choice not to slap her. Yes I know it would be "unmanly" to not defend oneself.. but if the woman is the aggressor, would slapping her make the situation better? Absolutely not. I agree there is a presumption of guilt towards men, but that exists because it IS predominately men who are the aggressors.. and in answer to the problem society shifted too far to the opposite extreme, as they always do.
I never said VAWA shouldn't have been passed, but the form its in is greatly abused and deemed by many unconstitutional. Instead of solely treating the real serious DV cases, it has become an easy tool to use for women who want divorce. Any law that takes the form of "guilty until proven innocent" should have no place in our justice system. Therefore it should be changed before passed, and if it isn't then I say don't renew it.A few months ago, there was a murder-suicide on the premises of my husband's employer. The man, unable to face his wife was leaving him, went to where she worked, hid down in the locker room all day, and when she was getting ready to leave, shot her twice in the head, and then killed himself. Situations like these are TOO common in this society. Steps HAVE to be taken.. and like I said before, WAWA may be flawed, but up until WAWA there was very little legislation concerning DV. Baby steps, people, baby steps are better than no steps at all.