Violence Against Women

st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
I'd defend myself.

See the consistencies starting to form here?

You shouldn't hit another person.

If another person hits you first, regardless of gender, you have a right to self defense.

The other person initiated the aggression, why should you feel guilty? They obviously don't if they went for you.
Click to expand...
You have the right to self defense, but shouldn't that self defense be doled out consistent to the attackers ability?

IOW, would you respond with the same amount of force if a 6'3, 225lb man hit you, or a 7 year old child hit you?

To me it's the same deal with a woman. I wouldn't feel nearly as threatened if a woman hit me, than I would be if a man hit me. I would use only the force necessary to subdue the woman (which I don't feel would involve striking), but I would try to take the man down knowing that if I don't he could inflict a great deal more damage than his female counterpart ever could.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
You have the right to self defense, but shouldn't that self defense be doled out consistent to the attackers ability?

IOW, would you respond with the same amount of force if a 6'3, 225lb man hit you, or a 7 year old child hit you?

To me it's the same deal with a woman. I wouldn't feel nearly as threatened if a woman hit me, than I would be if a man hit me. I would use only the force necessary to subdue the woman (which I don't feel would involve striking), but I would try to take the man down knowing that if I don't he could inflict a great deal more damage than his female counterpart ever could.
Click to expand...
Open palm in the face should do it.

But should you need to go further, that should be allowed too.

In my previous posts I did call for a proportional response.
 
sensisensai

sensisensai

Well-Known Member
I literally can not count how many times I've smashed a drunk into the sidewalk cause he felt it was necessary to hit a woman. I GRE up watching my mom get smacked around so its kinda reflex at this point.
If ur in my area in trouble and I can hear your cries for help u can bet on me showing up.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
sensisensai said:
I literally can not count how many times I've smashed a drunk into the sidewalk cause he felt it was necessary to hit a woman. I GRE up watching my mom get smacked around so its kinda reflex at this point.
If ur in my area in trouble and I can hear your cries for help u can bet on me showing up.
Click to expand...
Friendly neighbourhood bullshit man!
 
sonar

sonar

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
I think people really are that stupid. Personally, I don't care what other people do to themselves. I draw the line with kids, though ..... and that's where I think some of these laws are worth while. If a grown ass man wants to roll around without a seatbelt on, I don't really care. BUT, I am happy that there is a law to buckle his children up. People shouldn't need incentives to do this beyond the health and well being of their own child, but apparently some people do.

On this same note, it drives me nuts to see parents smoking in their car with children in it. Again, I don't care if the adult wants to pollute their own body, but when that infringes upon another individual, it kinda pisses me off

Should we allow stupid parents to irreparably damage their children, or should we view children not as property of the parents, but as (often times) helpless individuals being mistreated?
Click to expand...
I'm tired of the "save the children" bit. Every time big government wants to pass some new law or new regulation or some bureacrat wants some money for a pet project in his district, more pork, it's always to protect the children. "Megan's Law" is a good example. It has been in the news lately down my way. Just another seemingly great idea by some politician in an election year who had nothing but good intentions. Now we have another multibillion dollar bureaucracy that doesn't do crap to protect kids. The idea of the creep in a van hiding out in the bushes is really just a cliche and rarely happens in real life. Just another boogeyman. A lot of research coming out is saying these laws might actually INCREASE recidivism (ie putting your kids in more danger than if the registration didn't exist at all). Of course, I'm not trying to stand up for these guys. My whole theory is that if these guys are so bad that they need their address and photo up on the internet, why the hell are they even out of jail? Just a great example "saving the children" gone horribly wrong.

I am just natrually distrustful in government. I mean, these guys can screw up a wet dream, and we want to keep giving them more and more power to regulate our lives. Where does it end? Should we pass laws that if parents smoke cigarettes in front of their children or feed them too much fast food it is a form of child abuse?
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
sonar said:
I'm tired of the "save the children" bit. Every time big government wants to pass some new law or new regulation or some bureacrat wants some money for a pet project in his district, more pork, it's always to protect the children. "Megan's Law" is a good example. It has been in the news lately down my way. Just another seemingly great idea by some politician in an election year who had nothing but good intentions. Now we have another multibillion dollar bureaucracy that doesn't do crap to protect kids. The idea of the creep in a van hiding out in the bushes is really just a cliche and rarely happens in real life. Just another boogeyman. A lot of research coming out is saying these laws might actually INCREASE recidivism (ie putting your kids in more danger than if the registration didn't exist at all). Of course, I'm not trying to stand up for these guys. My whole theory is that if these guys are so bad that they need their address and photo up on the internet, why the hell are they even out of jail? Just a great example "saving the children" gone horribly wrong.

I am just natrually distrustful in government. I mean, these guys can screw up a wet dream, and we want to keep giving them more and more power to regulate our lives. Where does it end? Should we pass laws that if parents smoke cigarettes in front of their children or feed them too much fast food it is a form of child abuse?
Click to expand...
" The idea of the creep in a van hiding out in the bushes is really just a cliche and rarely happens in real life"

Just as unlikely as the "crazed gunman shooting up the mall" scenario that so many people in this country use to justify carrying a gun.

You make some good points, but ultimately I do feel that big brother plays a role. If you want to do drugs, marry another man, eat cow shit, etc I don't care one bit so long as it does no harm to others. If your actions cause harm to (or infringe upon) others, then I'm typically OK with government being involved.
 
Nice Ol Bud

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
If a bitch steps up and hits me i'll slap the shit out of her.
I don't agree with them slapping men all the time.
Ofcourse if a bitch has to defend her self, then they should all carry guns, or there pepper spray or pussy juice. Whatever they use.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
now that we all agree violence against women is bad, we must turn our attention to the new scourge of violence sweeping the nation, nay, The World!]

the perpetrators call it "Big Stranger Rodeo"

[video=youtube;86Fpd5HibiQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Fpd5HibiQ[/video]
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
Harrekin said:
I'd defend myself.

See the consistencies starting to form here?

You shouldn't hit another person.

If another person hits you first, regardless of gender, you have a right to self defense.

The other person initiated the aggression, why should you feel guilty? They obviously don't if they went for you.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see it. You'll beat your daughter if she acts out.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Trolling said:
Which one of your kids would you have to be killed in order to save the other.

You couldn't choose so you avoided the main question by using loop holes.
Click to expand...
That was not a question so much as a scenario. And at the time I gave excellent reasons for rejecting it. I had no idea you'd carry this as a grudge. cn
 
PeyoteReligion

PeyoteReligion

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
That was not a question so much as a scenario. And at the time I gave excellent reasons for rejecting it. I had no idea you'd carry this as a grudge. cn
Click to expand...
I remember this, you had very good reasonings.

If you don't give him the answer he wants, he will just keep running with it. That's what it looks like from here at least.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
Who said it was a grudge? It was an observation I made that Harrik did, just reminded me is all, and the only person making scenarios was you.

I asked IF you HAD to and you started avoiding that by making these scenarios. You knew exactly what I was asking and you made these silly loop holes in order to avoid it.


I know you know what I meant so I'm happy to not be flustered about it anymore. :-)
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
PeyoteReligion said:
I remember this, you had very good reasonings.

If you don't give him the answer he wants, he will just keep running with it. That's what it looks like from here at least.
Click to expand...
Lol, I admit to be wrong, but this was not one of those times. Other people answered it exactly what I asked and just that. I asked to pick one but it's such a difficult question (understandable) that he started making these scenarios where he could save or attempt to save them.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
And name one time besides this little "debate" that I've done that, or do you just not like me very much lol?
 
PeyoteReligion

PeyoteReligion

Well-Known Member
Trolling said:
Lol, I admit to be wrong, but this was not one of those times. Other people answered it exactly what I asked and just that. I asked to pick one but it's such a difficult question (understandable) that he started making these scenarios where he could save or attempt to save them.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but in real life there ARE these scenarios where you can save them, or at least die trying. Why can't you accept that as a valid answer? To me, that's the real question here.

other people answered with smart ass answers like "I'd let the fat ugly one die" from people who most likely don't have children. Neer at least thought it through and applied a real life situation.
 
PeyoteReligion

PeyoteReligion

Well-Known Member
Trolling said:
And name one time besides this little "debate" that I've done that, or do you just not like me very much lol?
Click to expand...
My bad I have no problem with you, I just remember this exact subject and that you were too stubborn to accept any answer other than "I would let child x die"

I think I had you confused with hep, he will not accept any answer other than the one he wants to hear. Like if being gay is a choice. Sorry for the stoney mix up.
 
Trolling

Trolling

New Member
Ok and I understand that but one guy or more, I remember him answering "his older one" but for his own reasons. If I asked it in a scenario, of course people would be all like "I'll die trying", everyone would give that answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top