Do men need a license to be allowed socialise (MOD NOTE IN OP)

Well at least you know who he is now.

The OP paraphrased his comments and did not accurately reflect his remarks.

I posted this yesterday with a link to the podcast of the show.

Check it out for yourself.

The last part of your post is an ad hominem against SMcC which I disagree with.

In an answer to your question yes I think it would be no harm for men to be giving lessons in how to respect Women. Not long ago I was stuck between my brother law and my brother in a taxi and I was digusted with both of them with how they talked about Women it made my stomach sick. Karma has kicked in now anyway and it looks likes my brother in law might not be that for much longer which is sad I don't think he quiet deserved it that bad but it just goes to show. My brothers marriage already broke up so I guess he just does not really care. He just wants to get somewhere warm for his thing.

Also I agree that people who have raped, killed or beaten up a Woman or a Man should not be walking the streets freely. They should all be locked up.

One of the mainstays of a reasoned debate is to listen to the other side.

"Bandwagoning gravy trainers we should all be moving the dial away from..."

I think you're slightly missing the point in suggesting that one side is only seen as having a valid opinion. There are people on both sides of the arguments who feel that their opinion is categorically correct.

And I can't speak for everyone on here (or elsewhere) but I don't think it is saying that there can be absolutely zero engagement between people who don't know each other but that it is done in a manner which makes it easy to pick up how the other person feels and to back off before it becomes unpleasant.

Say you see someone on the street who you find very attractive, you might personally think it is ok to comment, 'Wow you're hot' or 'Damn you look good' or something and think it is ok, but lets say the other person is stressed, preoccupied, or just doesn't like comments on their appearance.

It doesn't mean that you never again can approach someone like this to communicate with them but that you do it in a different way. For example, you smile at them, say hello, ask them if you can have a word, and then maybe have a short conversation and if they are still receptive you maybe then say that you found them attractive (but even that should be done with some decorum). But the difference here is that at each stage you read their cues and react appropriately. So if you smile at them and they don't smile back but turn away, you walk on, if they smile and you say hello and they don't respond, you walk on, if you ask can you have a word, and they say 'No, sorry', you walk on.

Do you see how it doesn't have to be either full and open engagement, or none at all? I think this sort of experience is something most women would be ok with if they knew that if they indicated at any stage they didn't want to continue that it would be respected.

One other thing I want to mention, in all walks of life, after an unpleasant experience, we react with a certain degree of concern even if the likelihood of the event being repeated is very small. Most houses now have locked doors, CCTV and monitored alarms etc and for many it wasn't even a reaction to an unpleasant event, but the desire to prevent such an event occurring in the first place.

Is that not why there is such a conversation around how women feel walking around the place when they have to face up to the harsh reality of a worst case scenario? Is it not completely understandable that they would be exasperated knowing that they have live with their fragility and can't seemingly even ask for help from the men around them?

Maybe instead of getting outraged because of extreme comments around the topic, you should go and listen to the views/comments from women as to why they feel concerned/unsafe.

In terms of what men should do, I've just commented something to that effect in my last post so have a look at that if you wish.

And when it comes to hysteria, and shouting, I see more of that in your posts than what I see either in the media or on here from people who are at least willing to find a way to help women feel safer. This latest post is another example of you putting your efforts in to shouting down a group and suggesting men need more help but yet doing nothing to advocate in ways to help men.

I'd say you are safe and there's less than zero chance of you getting confused for Sam McConkey.

A difference in emphasis, I was referring to the debate in the round not just what is said on here.

I only just saw your edit -

"(I think what me conkey said wasn't well reasoned and it's not particularly reasonable that it was blithely accepted without question as to whether it was reasonable or not.....which I think is really quite unreasonable given this is the national broadcaster etc)"

It's not the role of a radio presenter to disagree with panelists based on other people's preferences.

BO'C was there, he heard what was said and understood the context.

Wow!

You found comments made by your brother in law offensive and you think karma has made him terminally ill even if he didn't quite deserve to die?

You found your brother's comments offensive therefore he didn't care enough to stay married? He just wants "somewhere warm for his thing"?

Do you not think your post was offensive and, frankly, a little batshıt crazy?

There have been a few over the past few days and I'd say they are gone now. But post 870 here today is speculating about the nationality of the murderer, which we've clearly been requested by the Boards team and the Gardai not to do.

Jist of it is that Irish men are getting blamed and a foreigner did it.

The last line of that thread.