Question - Violence

[Guest MerryChristmas]

And one last little ironic twist in the tale...

After having stood there watching the whole thing the girl came over and asked us to call the police because he had assaulted her.

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

you can't have it both ways

if you violently attack someone, you don't get to complain if they hit you back

regardless of who is 'stronger' - if I went up to Mike Tyson and started punching him in the face, would I be allowed to complain if he hit me back? saying that a man may not hit a woman in retaliation to violence because he is stronger is irrelevant. If you punch someone in the face, you should expect the same back.

you fucking asshole cunts

[Guest MerryChristmas]

you can't have it both ways

if you violently attack someone' date=' you don't get to complain if they hit you back

regardless of who is 'stronger' - if I went up to Mike Tyson and started punching him in the face, would I be allowed to complain if he hit me back? saying that a man may not hit a woman in retaliation to violence because he is stronger is irrelevant. If you punch someone in the face, you should expect the same back.

you fucking asshole cunts[/quote']

Great to see you back last night

[David]

If a woman starts a fight' date=' she should be prepared to be on the recieving end of retaliation.

[/quote']

Bingo

violence isnt the answer to anything, and it is fucking stupid to think there is a notion a female can attack a guy, yet not have him retaliate, and if the guy is so much bigger and stronger than her, what the fuck is she doing attacking him in the first place? if you saw some tiny weedy guy attacking someone twice as large and many times stronger than him, you wouldnt think twice if the big guy knocked him flat, only that he is bloody stupid for starting it in the first place,so whats different about a female starting it? only a traditional notion that females are delicate and shoulnt be touched... if they think they are up for it, why should the guy back down?

David

[Intravenous]

I think you'll find most of the girls on here have agreed that if a girl starts beating up a guy then it is acceptable for the man to hit her back to defend himself if he can't restrain her, but only to defend himself, not to beat the crap out of her.

In the end when a girl is in the process of beating up a guy or thinking about it, she will have thought about the possibility that she is going to get hit back and she has taken that chance. If she then decides to still do it what can she expect? She's the one in the wrong and doesn't deserve extra rights because she's female.

I think the situation is different if a girl strikes a guy once out of anger/emotion, it isn't necessary or justified for a guy to strike back then.

[Frosty Jack]

No matter who is fighting who, male or female, big or small, there is always a difference between defence and retaliation. You have a right to defend yourself i.e. protect yourself from an assault and act to stop the assault from happening, in the form of restraining your attacker if possible, or by simply getting yourself out of the situation. That's defence. You don't have a right to punch someone back because they have punched you. That's retaliation. As I said that makes no difference what gender or size is on either side.

In reality though, it is true that a female will be far more likely to get away with assaulting a male than vice versa. It's not always easy to get out of a situation, and if there's any doubt over what was defence or retaliation, or over who is more to blame, then it's a sad fact that the male will probably get the blame. It's not right, but it's true.

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

Great to see you back last night

I've got to say, your MC skills have taken a turn for the worse recently my friend what happened to the glory days, when you used to effortlessly 'spit' verse after verse?!

[paranoid]

No matter who is fighting who' date=' male or female, big or small, there is always a difference between defence and retaliation. You have a right to defend yourself i.e. protect yourself from an assault and act to stop the assault from happening, in the form of restraining your attacker if possible, or by simply getting yourself out of the situation. That's defence. You don't have a right to punch someone back [i']because they have punched you. That's retaliation. As I said that makes no difference what gender or size is on either side.

In reality though, it is true that a female will be far more likely to get away with assaulting a male than vice versa. It's not always easy to get out of a situation, and if there's any doubt over what was defence or retaliation, or over who is more to blame, then it's a sad fact that the male will probably get the blame. It's not right, but it's true.

What if the line between defence and retaliation get blurred though? Say your attampts to restrain someone (worst thing to do to a violent person, especially if they are attacking you) or get away from someone fail as they are very persistant, and pretty much want to hurt you. It is easy to define the two when you are sitting in front of your computer in the safety of your home/shed/bunker , but adrenaline is a bitch and it makes you go a wee bit funny. I know that is no defence for getting laid into someone just because they hit you, but is does need to be considered.

[Frosty Jack]

What if the line between defence and retaliation get blurred though? Say your attampts to restrain someone (worst thing to do to a violent person' date=' especially if they are attacking you) or get away from someone fail as they are very persistant, and pretty much want to hurt you. It is easy to define the two when you are sitting in front of your computer in the safety of your home/shed/bunker , but adrenaline is a bitch and it makes you go a wee bit funny. I know that is no defence for getting laid into someone just because they hit you, but is does need to be considered.[/quote']

That's why I said 'in reality'. Obviously these situations by definition can't be rationalised easily. But they key here is intention. If you're being assaulted, then your intention should be to stop it. The only question is how far you can go to achieve that. That may well mean inflicting damage in the process. The problem with that is that the public perception is going to be based on the idea that men are more likely to be the aggressor. It is far more difficult for men to persuade people and the law that their intention was defence. It's shit, but I can't see it changing any time soon.

However what some people here have been talking about is hitting someone because 'they deserve it.' Morally, they may deserve plenty, but what and how is not up to you. Being hit doesn't automatically give you the right to hit back.

[historicrocker]

We were talking about the subjective morality not the objective morality of this matter. We were more trying to see whether hitting a woman with brute force can be justified not whether it can be practically applied. So really the point your making is way off topic. And being hit does give you the right to hit back, especially if you are placed in a vulnerable position. I don't know how you intend on maintaining that unsubstantiated opinion.

[Skull Commander]

The bottom line for me is that if ANYONE starts to attack me, then I'm not going to stand and take it. I would never start a fight, but by the same token I would not take a beating from anyone.

[Snowball]

I find that most women don't know their own strength either. I know that I've hurt someone accidentally when I didn't mean to. Women have it in their heads that they are weaker, so what one woman might think is a playful punch to get their guy to stop doing something might earn them an equally painful one back. Not that I condone even "playful" punches.

[Frosty Jack]

We were talking about the subjective morality not the objective morality of this matter. We were more trying to see whether hitting a woman with brute force can be justified not whether it can be practically applied.

I'm talking about justification too. Your intention is your justification. You can say you hurt someone to stop them hurting you. You can't say you hurt someone because they hurt you. If your intention is only to stop the attack then whatever is required to do that is justified. If however your intention is beyond that into retaliation then that is not justified.

And being hit does give you the right to hit back' date=' especially if you are placed in a vulnerable position. [/quote']

I said it doesn't automatically give you the right. If someone came up to you in a pub, smacked you then walked away, would you have the right to chase after him (or her) and smack them back?

[Guest pop-notmyface]

I said it doesn't automatically give you the right. If someone came up to you in a pub' date=' smacked you then walked away, would you have the right to chase after him (or her) and smack them back?[/quote']

but of course, the deed has been committed. it would be only fair to "return" the favour.

[GraemeC]

but of course' date=' the deed has been committed. it would be only fair to "return" the favour.[/quote']

Everyone seems to be forgetting one major point..... the law.

If someone is atacking you with intent to harm then its common assault, the police should be called to deal with it, its not up to the individual to take the law into their own hands.

[Smooth_groover]

Everyone seems to be forgetting one major point..... the law.

If someone is atacking you with intent to harm then its common assault' date=' the police should be called to deal with it, its not up to the individual to take the law into their own hands.[/quote']

Why waste valuble police time when you could just knock the bitch out ! X-(

Kidding, or course

[paranoid]

the police should be called to deal with it' date='[/quote']

Yeah, you try that and see where it gets you.

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

Everyone seems to be forgetting one major point..... the law.

If someone is atacking you with intent to harm then its common assault' date=' the police should be called to deal with it, its not up to the individual to take the law into their own hands.[/quote']

That's all very well, but the law goes out the window the moment someone starts laying into you.

[historicrocker]

I said it doesn't automatically give you the right. If someone came up to you in a pub' date=' smacked you then walked away, would you have the right to chase after him (or her) and smack them back?[/quote']

Yes, to reserve some dignity. I'd say that's perfectly acceptable, depending on the person.

[historicrocker]

Everyone seems to be forgetting one major point..... the law.

If someone is atacking you with intent to harm then its common assault' date=' the police should be called to deal with it, its not up to the individual to take the law into their own hands.[/quote']

Lorra wisdom there...

[helveticabold]

fair's fair. If some stupid bint is willing to attack a complete stranger unprovoked then yeah why not. I really don't get this stupid fucking attitude about not hitting women. Lal la la "you're not a real man if you hit a woman" la la la " =they're weaker than us and we should protect them" la la la "just walk away" la la la. Get a fucking spine. Jesus.

The human race is the human race, these days we're pretty much evenly matched, i mean how many people have seen some emo kid having the shit beat out of him by his girlfriend? If someone has the audacity to attack a random stranger, then i don't see the problem when they get put in their place. If everyone wants equality, they have to take the good with the bad. This stupid fucking bubble wrapped politically correct shithole we live in really pisses me off sometimes. Women shoud get a slap. Guys should get a slap. Children should definitley get a slap. Fucks sake.

Aaaaaargh.

P.S. The police..... ahahahahahahaha yeah. okay. whatever.

*guy whacks other guy in face*

"Excuse me kind sir. That was common assault. Please await the Police and your imminent detention"

"Okay then, squire."

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

haha, nice dialogue

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

fair's fair. If some stupid bint is willing to attack a complete stranger unprovoked then yeah why not. I really don't get this stupid fucking attitude about not hitting women. Lal la la "you're not a real man if you hit a woman" la la la " =they're weaker than us and we should protect them" la la la "just walk away" la la la. Get a fucking spine. Jesus.

I would agree. I consider women to be equal in all respects, and it cuts both ways. Treating women as equals isn't about "protecting" the "fairer sex". That's just putting women on a pedestal, which is patronising nonsense.

[2 minutes of hate]

I just don't think it's right to hit women. It might be the way i have been raised.

I have no respect for wife beaters, i don't care if its equality or not.

[Guest Jake Wifebeater]

I just don't think it's right to hit women. It might be the way i have been raised.

I have no respect for wife beaters' date=' i don't care if its equality or not.[/quote']

I don't think it's right to hit anyone, male or female. Unless they hit you.