|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if there is a link between Super Bowl (and other sporting events) and domestic violence, but judging from news reports (withe video) there is a link between sporting events and violence.
How do we explain the rampages and vandalizing mobs after major sporting events such as has after the super bowl (and whatever the superbowl of basketball is). Hockey in particular seems to be associated with blood sport after the game. Not to mention incidents of parental violence after kids sporting games. Also apre game violence and property distruction is commonplace in other countries after soccer.
I don't know how anyone can say there isn't a link between violence and sports at this point. Whether or not domestic violence is included, and to what degree I don't domestic violence in any investigation into the topic, given the correlation to other violent acts after sporting events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're right concerning all the examples you gave of violence and how it relates to sports. Perhaps I speak for myself when I say it's obvious violence in association with sports is getting worse and worse, and perhaps this includes Domestic Violence.
If it's true that DV is associated with major sporting events, then it would be premature to conclude that this only includes male-on-female DV, instead of both male-on-female and female-on-male DV. I honestly have don't have a hard time believing that DV would escalate during sporting events (although I've never seen a study to prove this), but I do have a problem with the notion that the raise in DV during these events is only, or primarily, male-on-female. It would seem to me that what ever the ratio on male-on-female to female-on-male DV is during a time where there is no sporting event, that that same ratio would exists during a sporting event.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday January 28, @04:27PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
in the 1980s a woman killed her husband when he wanted to watch the Super Bowl and she wanted to watch the Thornbirds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon:"in the 1980s a woman killed her husband when he wanted to watch the Super Bowl and she wanted to watch the Thornbirds. "
A prime example of male on female violence as 'he' must have done something to diserve it. In this case he wouldn't let her watch thornbirds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A prime example of male on female violence as 'he' must have done something to diserve it. In this case he wouldn't let her watch thornbirds.
Yes, clearly it was his controlling behaviour - so typical of the patriarchal male - that caused the unfortunate female to develop Battered Woman Syndrome and kill him. Sounds like a good excuse for a candle-lit vigil to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angry Harry's articles on Men's Rights are always very insightful, articulate, informative, and well reasoned. Thank you Angry Harry!
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way I see it there is no evidence to suggest that sporting events are a causal factor in violence.
Using as an example my football team, Manchester United. The average attendance for 2001/02 was 67,000. Excluding the 3,000 usually allocated for away spectators 64,000 people watch Manchester United every home game. Multiply by 19 (number of home games played per season) and this gives that throughout the season Manchester United receive 1,216,000 fans per season at home. Add to this the number of fans who travel to watch Manchester United away from home, again usually 3,000, multiply by 19, gives 57,000 people travelled throughout the season 2001/02 to watch Manchester United play away. This gives a grand total of 1,273,000 people who followed Manchester United during 2001/02. According to police records less than 320 arrests were made during that season, and it is a good bet that many were repeat offenders. 320 out of over 1.2 million? Hardley an indication of 'after game violence and property destruction is commonplace in other countries after soccer' as Lorraine the fembot claims. And let us not forget that England is a country that supposedly has a problem with football hooliganism.
No, there is no evidence that I can see that sporting events are a major cause of violence. Lorraine, typical of feminists, is attempting to twist things and mislead people with false arguments. The important thing to consider, in my opinion, is that those people who cause trouble during sporting events is not down to causing such trouble because of sporting events, they cause trouble because that is the type of people they are. It doesn't matter whether they are at a football match or having a drink at their local pub, if these people want to cause trouble and behave like violent thugs, then they will.
I have never experienced violence at a football match first hand, and, according to the evidence, I probably never will.
Red Kev
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using as an example my football team, Manchester United. The average attendance for
2001/02 was 67,000. Excluding the 3,000 usually allocated for away spectators 64,000
people watch Manchester United every home game. Multiply by 19 (number of home
games played per season) and this gives that throughout the season Manchester United
receive 1,216,000 fans per season at home. Add to this the number of fans who travel to
watch Manchester United away from home, again usually 3,000, multiply by 19, gives
57,000 people travelled throughout the season 2001/02 to watch Manchester United play
away. This gives a grand total of 1,273,000 people who followed Manchester United during
2001/02.
That's nonsense. The same people attend games
week after week. Your calculations assume that
noone attends more than one man u game in a
year!
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smoking Drive:"That's nonsense. The same people attend games
week after week. Your calculations assume that
noone attends more than one man u game in a
year! "
The percentages are still justified as the incident rate is conglomerated over the whole year.
So if we divide to the game and extrapolate the incident rate we should also check and see how many charges were laid on game days.
70 thousand people into 320 divided by amount of games 70? Even if rounded to 5 incidents of violence we still haven't even argued the complexities of domestic violence. As in was the violence elevated because *she* was pissed because he wanted to watch the game? And as he points out the 'repeat offenders' happens in a significant ratio.
Then we have to get to the point of were they anotomically game related?
Sorry but those victim groups/hate groups have lied enough already to the public there is absolutely no reason to trust them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 29, @03:41AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
this whole superbowl thing is just a crock of shit. However, advancing arguments like Red Kev's just makes us look stupid and in doing so actually gives the lie some credence.
There has never been any factual basis for this clever urban myth. That's the best counter-argument. Red Kev's argument (a) has bad arithmetic and (b) virtually admits that the lie is truth then argues that "but it doesn't happen very often".
cheers,
sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red Kev's argument (a) has bad arithmetic and (b) virtually admits that the lie is truth then argues that "but it doesn't happen very often".
Red Kev's arithmetic isn't at fault, but his language is. He takes the 67,000 fans that typically attend each home game and multiplies that by 19, which is the number of home games in the 2001/02 season. This gives 1,273,000 attendances, not fans. It's possible, though unlikely, that the same 67,000 fans attend each game. The number of arrests made during that season was about 320 - and we're only assuming that they were for violence; some of them could have been for alcohol-related disorderly behaviour. Now, the 320 arrests do not indicate 320 individuals anymore than 1,273,000 attendances indicate 1,273,000 fans. The 320 relates to the 1,273,000; it is drawn from that pool. However, if we play Devil's advocate and assume the worst - that the 320 arrests are drawn from only 67,000 fans - that would mean that less than 0.5% of fans are causing the trouble; that's the upper limit. If we compare the figures properly - the 320 arrests with the 1,273,000 attendances - we find that 0.025% of attendances result in an arrest; this is our lower limit. Hardly a major crisis, and hardly indicative of some terrible relationship between sport and violence. Remember, we don't even know how many of the arrests are violence-related, we're just assuming they all are.
Within feminism there is an urge to criminalise and problematise all male activity. Sport is a predominantly male activity, one that millions of men enjoy, so it was only to be expected that some attempt would be made to find within it further evidence of men's bastardly nature. Once again, all men are demonised through the behaviour of a tiny minority. We are meant to draw our ideas about men's nature from the 0.5% who commit a crime, rather than from the 99.5% who don't. Somebody sure has got their arithmetic wrong, and it ain't Red Kev.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree with you sd except that Red Kev isn't discussing Domestic Violence, rather he's discussing the public violence that occurs due to sporting events. I think it's valid to look a the numbers and make people aware of the fact that when hundreds of thousands to millions of participants are involved, even a 0.1% problem will involve hundreds to thousands of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree with you sd except that Red Kev isn't discussing Domestic Violence, rather he's discussing the public violence that occurs due to sporting events. I think it's valid to look a the numbers and make people aware of the fact that when hundreds of thousands to millions of participants are involved, even a 0.1% problem will involve hundreds to thousands of people.
But it's statistically the same as the general populace; there's the danger - it's called "Lying with Statistics." These numbers are thrown out, and out of context, to demonstrate a problem which doesn't exist. It's worse than disingenuous or even dishonest, it's an irresponsible attempt to create a panic, and profit off it by pheminazi groups.
And when these things are cited, they need to be called what they are: Deliberate, baldfaced, LIES.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree there are a lot of loyal repeat visitor type fans, but that doesn't mean his idea is nonsense. It's similar conceptually to the casualty number published during the Gulf War. I distinctly recall before the ground offensive where they were discussing the fact that a lot of people had already died (in accidents mostly). It sounded like a big number, what a horrible thing that so many Coalition forces had already given their lives and we had yet to take a foot of ground back. It sounded pretty bad, until a General reposted that the casualty rate in the Gulf was actually significantly LOWER than it would have been simply from normal life in the States for members of the military. Put a lot of people together and the numbers for even small percentage issues will look big.
I don't know what the truth is, but I can tell you one thing, the fact that the feminists were proven to have FABRICATED those numbers means there's not much they can do to convince me there is a problem. After all... if there HAD been a real problem with DV after sporting events, wouldn't the feminists have argued back when people started calling BS, wouldn't they have had even a SINGLE SHRED of real evidence? These sort of things are making a laughingstock of their fringe movement, and I LOVE it.
I've learned one thing from this activist exercise... be very cynical when people talk about "numbers". Make sure you know where the numbers come from and if they're based on real research or just pulled out of some feminist's A$$.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please try to avoid using personal attacks like the fembots you complain about. You'll only hurt men this way in the long run.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Care to leaven this assertation with figures, facts, and a few references? Or is it just one of those out of the blue wild declarations of fact? Hey, 42.7% of all statistics are made up.
I used to live in Indy. At the Brickyard 400 I attended, they had 450,000 attend, and resulted in 335 arrests over the whole weekend. And we're talking classic southern, redneck, NASCAR, white guys - the fave whippin' boys.
And we're just lumping in all arrests - Public Intoxication, underage drinking, soliciting, - we haven't even filtered out the non violent or the women - yes, women. Seems that quite a few of those arrests were for prostitution.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm .... (strokes beard) curiouser and curiouser. It seems your every schoolboy knows fallacy - is a fallacy, grasshopper.
Again - wanna demonstrate that causal relationship, and with more than isolated ancedotal cases or pseudo-science studies from CA-NOW or someone else with an axe to grind?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:"I don't know how anyone can say there isn't a link between violence and sports at this point."
Sorry Lorianne, but the burden of proof isn't on our shoulders. Those hategroups none as women shelters are the ones making the asertions that dv escalates marginally on sporting events or as they did this year on Christmas.
As long as they continue failing to ask men what sorts of violence happens to 'men' we will never get a full out idea of what happens on those days.
With that said where is the proof? All of the accusations in the public have been refuted, do you think I just post stuff to amuse myself?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
