Which is more despicable?

[lepustimidus]

Obviously, it is meaningless to compare the two acts in the poll, which is loaded anyway.

The poll is hardly loaded. I ask a clear, straightforward question, to which there are two clearly defined answers.

What are you looking for, lepustimidus? Somebody to prop up a despicable act of yours by saying that it wasn't quite as bad as some other despicable act?

No? :shrug:

My impression is that you have some real issues with all women.

I have a real issue with how bitches are allowed to strike men with impunity, and get away with it. And how these same bitches claim to be for equality, yet then grapple at sexist double standards to avoid getting hit back. In my opinion, if a woman is man enough to hit a man, then she is man enough to get hit back by a man. Or, more concisely, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

And yeah, I know that according to the law, assault is unlawful, irregardless of gender. Whatever. Animal cruelty is also unlawful, but is that law consistently enforced? And does it reflects society's attitude on the issue?

It's easy to remove yourself from that situation.

Well it depends, doesn't it? It's a little hard for a married man, or a man in a committed relationship, to 'remove himself' from the situation. And even if he does, do you know what that means, James? The woman clicks, just like a male domestic abuser does. She knows that she can hit and get away with it, that she can strike with impunity when she doesn't get her way. Humans are just like dogs, if you let them get away with shit without retaliation, then they just keep doing it.

You give people an inch, and they take a mile. The liberal mentality of 'never hitting back' is bullshit.

But yeah, I think the poll I made is fantastic. It really is a fantastic analogy to demonstrate why the 'men who hit women are baaad' mentality is so messed up. In my book, it's far worse to hit someone who you know WON'T hit back (due to a social taboo/'chivalry'), than to hit someone 'weaker' than you, who can still put up a good fight.

 

[Enmos]

1 and 2 can be about the same person. I'd say 1, because that is most probably the reason you will hit a person that you know won't hit you back.

 

[Asguard]

so dont let them get away with it, next time a wome hits you call the cops. The other day my boss got carried away with a political discussion we were having and punched me in the chest. I turned around to him and said "i dont care what your opinion is, if you EVER do that again i will report you to the police". By the end of the shift he had apologised and that was the end of the matter. I would have done exactly the same if he had been a women. No one has the right to hit anyone else, thats why there are assult laws

 

[lepustimidus]

so dont let them get away with it, next time a wome hits you call the cops.

That's fine if a strange woman or ex attacks you, I guess. Although the cops might just laugh at you.

But how would you deal with your wife or significant other if she started beating up on you? Call the cops?

 

[Asguard]

yes, call the police. domestic vilonce is a crime no matter which party is the agressor

 

[lepustimidus]

To be honest, it sounds like a lot of shit to stir for getting hit. I think just hitting back would reinforce the point that you're not going to be messed around with, without involving the law. Cops, the courts, lawyers, the legal system, all seem like more trouble than they are worth.

 

[Asguard]

then you are as big a criminal as they are and when the cops arive (called by a nabor or whatever) they will be fully justifide in charging you BOTH with assult.

Thats your choices, become a criminal or call the police

 

[lepustimidus]

Do you think it should be a crime to strike back against an aggressor?

 

[Asguard]

if there is another option then yes. If its real self defence then no

 

[lepustimidus]

I think the biggest problem is that the cops (and the courts) would be more likely to believe that a man was the aggressor, not the woman. It's your word against hers, buddy.

 

[Oniw17]

I think the biggest problem is that the cops (and the courts) would be more likely to believe that a man was the aggressor, not the woman. It's your word against hers, buddy.

I understand where your coming from; cops are assholes, and why would you call them to your house? So have your sister go beat her up and stop being such a pussy. OR go kill yourself and at least stop complaining.

 

[James R]

lupustimidus:

Did your girlfriend hit you?

 

[Orleander]

lupustimidus:

Did your girlfriend hit you?

and did you hit her back and you went to jail and she didn't? Did this happen years ago?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Pick one or the other. Stop being a lame fencesitter.

It's not fence sitting. You should not hit anybody, ever. The fundamental premise that allows civilization to exist is that nobody has the right to initiate violence against anyone else. Never. Period. Not under any circumstances. So your question is invalid in a civilized society. You can only use violence in self defense, which means someone else has opted out of the rules of civilization so you're not just defending yourself, but in a sense you're actually defending civilization against a temporary barbarian.

The poll is hardly loaded. I ask a clear, straightforward question, to which there are two clearly defined answers.

You poll is indeed loaded. it's based on the premise that it is okay to initiate violence against another human being. It is not okay, so that premise is invalid!

I have a real issue with how bitches are allowed to strike men with impunity, and get away with it.

I can't imagine where you live but that doesn't happen here. In any jurisdiction within driving distance of Washington DC, if the cops are called to a domestic disturbance and they see that there has been violence, they act under the rule "somebody is going to jail tonight." Believe me, they're all savvy enough to understand that women start these things too, and are not always the innocent victims.

BTW, you're not suppsed to call women "bitches" either. That speaks volumes about your attitude, and possibly the Mesolithic neighborhood you live in.

But yeah, I think the poll I made is fantastic.

Personally I'd call it "Mesolithic." How many SciForums members live in places like the backwoods of Afghanistan or Mississippi where people can get away with hitting each other??? If life is like that where you live, then dude you need to move now!

In my book, it's far worse to hit someone who you know WON'T hit back (due to a social taboo/'chivalry'), than to hit someone 'weaker' than you, who can still put up a good fight.

Perhaps so, but in either case you're still an unforgivable asshole if you do it. This is the kind of attitude that leads people into wars. Think about it!

 

[Asguard]

i have always thought that strange FR. My partner and i were having quite a heated argument one day (we were both yelling at the top of our lungs at each other) and some nabor decided to call the police. Now by the time the cops arived we had goten over it, had make up sex and driven to most of the way to her parents house when we get a call on my mobile from the police (they had it because i had to go to court for forgetting to pay my rego) saying they had a report of a domestic disterbance at my house and bah blah blah. i said we were both fine then handed my phone to my partner to so that they could see she was fine to and that was the end of it.

Now why exactly should one of us have gone to jail for that?

 

[Diode-Man]

#1 is worse. That person has no choice about being weak, whereas the other guy (for some reason) chooses to not hit back.

Of course, what if the physically weaker person actually knows judo? So long as the physical disparity is not too great, they still might kick your ass.

Even a weak man can pick up a gun to shoot a bullying body builder. However, returning hatred shock-waves into our world is not the best course of action. I'd imagine such a bully would lack ethics/education, and should have mercy for their lack of intelligence. If such a weak man pulled the trigger, they would then both be defined as weak and not needed on planet Earth....

Hence my definition of Mafia: "Motherless Actors Feeling Inadequate, Approximately"

suddenly my brain has run out of philosophical juices

 

[lepustimidus]

You idiots are hilarious.

lupustimidus:

Did your girlfriend hit you?
Orleander “ Originally Posted by James R
lupustimidus:

Did your girlfriend hit you? ”

and did you hit her back and you went to jail and she didn't? Did this happen years ago?

Such lame ad hominems. I mean, seriously, is that the best you both can do? Instead of addressing my arguments, make snide little remarks? *yawn*

And then Fraggle the pussy whipped blunders in:

Originally Posted by lepustimidus
Pick one or the other. Stop being a lame fencesitter. ”

It's not fence sitting. You should not hit anybody, ever.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question posed. I simply asked which act of violence was worse, in relation to the other.

“ The poll is hardly loaded. I ask a clear, straightforward question, to which there are two clearly defined answers. ”

You poll is indeed loaded. it's based on the premise that it is okay to initiate violence against another human being.

No, it's not based on that premise. I suggest you reread the poll. This time, pay attention.

“ I have a real issue with how bitches are allowed to strike men with impunity, and get away with it. ”

I can't imagine where you live but that doesn't happen here. In any jurisdiction within driving distance of Washington DC, if the cops are called to a domestic disturbance and they see that there has been violence, they act under the rule "somebody is going to jail tonight." Believe me, they're all savvy enough to understand that women start these things too, and are not always the innocent victims.

In the eyes of the law, the male more often than not is painted as the aggressor in domestic disputes. That's a fact, at least where I live.

BTW, you're not suppsed to call women "bitches" either.

Who says? You? I didn't call every female a bitch, simply the females who think that they can strike males and get away with it. That fits the very definition of a bitch, IMHO.

I wonder what you call these women? Mistress?

 

[James R]

lepustimidus:

You idiots are hilarious.

"Did your girlfriend hit you?"

Such lame ad hominems. I mean, seriously, is that the best you both can do? Instead of addressing my arguments, make snide little remarks? *yawn*

I find it telling that you apparently refuse to answer a simple question.

I now have to assume that your misogyny springs from exactly this kind of past experience. I imagine that you're girlfriend hit you, you hit back and it landed you in trouble. So, now you hate women.

Have you talked to a professional about your issues?

In the eyes of the law, the male more often than not painted as the aggressor in domestic disputes.

Anecdotes do not equal evidence.

 

[lepustimidus]

lepustimidus:
I find it telling that you apparently refuse to answer a simple question.

I find it consistent with your snarky personality that you'd ask such questions, especially with that tone. But to answer your ridiculous question, no, I've never been hit by a girlfriend.

So, now you hate women.

I don't hate women. I hate some women, just like I hate some men. I'm more along the lines of a misanthrope than a misogynist.

However, it's about time society realized that women can be just as nasty, vindictive, vicious, violent and predatory as their male counterparts.

Have you talked to a professional about your issues?

Have you talked to a medical professional about your apparent lack of balls? There are hormone replacement therapies for that sort of thing, James. Afterwards, you might even resemble a man. Well, sort of.

Anecdotes do not equal evidence.

Sure they do (although anecdotal evidence isn't all I have). They might not be as high quality evidence as a systematic review, but they certainly should be taken into account. If I burn my hand on a hotplate, I'm hardly going to keep sticking my hand on it because there is no hard statistical evidence to demonstrate that doing so is bad.

The legal system in the West screws men over. It does so because society is inherently biased against men in some arenas of life. One of those arenas is domestic abuse, where it is automatically assumed that the male is the aggressor unless there is some really obvious evidence to the contrary (the male has been stabbed in the back 59 times. Although I guess the woman could claim 'battered wife' syndrome)