Agreed. And I'm sorry to Bart, but whenever I've encountered those packs of "Sunday cyclists", they've maybe been doing half that speed.
If the road is narrowed down by those stupid "traffic calming" features, or for some reason isn't wide enough accommodate a car and cyclist simultaneously, sure, keep the pack bunched and move it though as quickly as possible. Otherwise, be considerate and maintain single file if the road has constant car traffic (and no room for 2 cyclists + car + 1.5 m). If the road only has occasional car traffic, and there is plenty of opportunity for one to pass/overtake safely, sure, fill your boots.
And FWIW, I'm a Sunday cyclist to the cafe a couple of suburbs over, but that doesn't mean I can be the kind of entitled prick I may act in my car the rest the week. (Disclaimer: I actually commute via public transport.)
And a +1 for inequality as well.
+1 metadata and "big gay rainbow".
As for Madiba, I've noticed a lot of people using this like Mandela was their favourite uncle. But does anyone here actually know the cultural norms in SA for using someone's tribal name? There are plenty of cultures where such names are only to be used by relatives and/or actual tribes, or people you're in a family-type relationship with. I'm sure a lot of people reckon they're getting away from colonialism by using a non-English name, but the man himself didn't seem to make any efforts to use any other name officially.
It may well be fine, using the tribal name, but I don't know how many people using it know that for certain. It's been bugging me this week.
Yup, which city, please, so I can direct my shout-out.
Unwarranted personal attack + completely missing the point equals two out of two so far for you, mate.
Maybe time to chill the hell out?
That was one of my favourite houses too, when I was living in the burg. How nice to learn that it's had such an awesome and sensitive refurb.
The Manifesto is not in copyright, and is freely available online. With footnotes. :-) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Uh, while I appreciate your broader point, I don't like the hint of "victim Olympics" in it. Yes, being violently assaulted and brutalized by a stranger is horrendous. Being (semi) stupified and assaulted by someone you kind of know, with the full knowledge of their mates and probably some of your friends, and who you may see around semi-regularly, can't really be qualified as "better".
Sure, there are most definitely differences in "severity", but long-term effects are long-term effects. Not to mention the ramifications around betrayal of trust and questioning one's judgement on an ongoing basis.
FWIW, I agree that there *probably* would be more trauma for a Lundy victim, but let's not pretend that it's an absolute "ranking" of stranger vs acquaintance rape. And since these offenses occur on the same continuum anyway (leaving aside actual offender psychopathy), assigning rank is really bloody unhelpful.
I knew the person who assaulted me very well. The violence was "light" - I couldn't get away from a strong man twice my size, but there were no bruises on the outside. And while I'm not going "omg trigger!1!" every day, it's still with me 35 years later. So yeah.
Friends I hadn't seen for 30 years - we were at college together in Glen Innes - were discussing this last night. There are families with decades worth of entrenched abusive behaviour they are passing on to each generation. Some people escape, or were protected from it in various ways. Grand-dad abused all his kids and a lot of the cousins, but dad would *never* let his kids be unsupervised with his father.
So, there was the agency - the dad's refusal to act as his father did. But that doesn't mitigate from the actual family culture, and the fact that some of the uncles became abusers, and the fact that grand-dad is talked about in whispers, and not dragged to the cop shop.
So yes, individual agency, but I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder at Tamihere family culture, and the different ways in which contempt for women and/or those more vulnerable than themselves may be manifesting.
Uh, are you being sarcastic, or is this yet another theoretical exercise, which seems to be the default stance of some people in this thread?
I don't know the current standard of law when it comes to consent, but logically thinking - and no matter how many young men a young woman chooses to get intoxicated with - consent pretty much stops happening when the person concerned is too impaired to actually, you know, consent.
If the response to the suggestion of group sex is anything unlike "Yes, please!", then it's not consent.
If an averagely-mobile person is unable to speak or walk properly, or they are unconscious or semi-conscious (yes, that includes someone "sleeping it off", then no, it's not consent.
If anyone can show me an example of what appears to be "buyer's remorse" - or a situation where there could be reasonable doubt - actually making it as far as a courtroom, I'd be fascinated.
Because its prevalence is nowhere near as common as some of those indulging in intellectual exercises here seem to think - women will generally default to blaming themselves first in a situation where consent was "hazy" (a friend continues to blame herself for her assault when she was passed out on a couch). To get as far as actually making a complaint to police is a big step up from "embarrassed about sex with uncool dude" scenarios.
The fact these young women weren't "brave enough" (FFS!!) to come forward is fairly likely due to the cultural bullshit about what consent actually means, and the perception that sexual assault is about strangers in alleyways, not "friends" who deliberately get you drunk so you can't say no.