I'm a woman (looks down to check) yeah still a woman
The image portrayed of hitting women is wrong, hear me out.
Your a sadistic arsehole with no penis to speak of who hits his wife/girlfriend/other woman, for no reason than it makes you feel better... this is not ok
A woman runs up to you and for no reason hits you over and over, leaving you no choice but to hit back...this is ok
Hmm, "never under any circumstances" is a bit extreme, because I don't think gender would matter in a situation where you are in physical danger.
As a whole, I don't hit people at all, but I think I would definitely be more lenient towards a woman than a man. I guess I was just raised that way and I don't see how that would change at the moment.
You assume she doesn't 'know' how to hurt you. As has been said above, there are a very large number of girls than could take the majority of the male race apart with little effort. Machismo aside my friend, the truth is that the human body, the male body too, is quite fragile. Anyone who know how to hurt it doesn't NEED to keep hitting you. If you let them aim a strike, you'll go down immediately.
You are the one making assumptions here not me. I don't want to hit anyone, some girls may be able to knock me down with one punch, I already know that and I will do my damnedest not to piss them off. I can only just understand you, your wording is appalling. But if you are accusing me of having overtly Machismo ideas then F*CK OFF. I have the greatest respect for nearly all girls that's why I would not hit one unless I was getting attacked by one. Sorry if I am wrong there.
Illusive man "Don't presume to judge me or my actions"
well..sorry if I offended you. your own wording could have used some more thought there. 'only if she kept hitting me and it started to hurt' implies you don't think most girls could hurt you/ would just do a slappy ineffective pummeling. I didn't mean to offend.
EDIT: also, what exactly is wrong with my wording? I'd like to know so I can avoid wording things that badly in the future.
Now see here, I am 6 foot 2, and I am sorry if you think other wise, but most girls would probably have to hit me a fair few times before I went down. And I would defend myself by first asking them to stop then restraining them, then if it came to it hitting them. Everyone knows they can be hurt and I know girls can hurt me, did I imply that I am superman? I think you have some sort of chip on your shoulder to be quite honest. As for your wording sure lets look at this example "Anyone who know how to hurt it doesn't NEED to keep hitting you." Still not sure what you mean but if I am right you could have said. Anyone who knows how to hurt you doesn't need to keep hitting you. I hope this helps you. As for my wording it is a perfectly applicable answer to the question on this forum, if you had read it you might have known that.
not sure I understand why the phrasing is bad. All of the information needed to understand is in the previous sentence. my punctuation is off because I'm terrible with grammar, but I thought the idea was clear enough.
the human body, the male body too, is quite fragile. Anyone who know how to hurt it doesn't NEED to keep hitting you.
The whole idea was that the human body is easily injured which means than anyone who understands how to hurt/disable it doesn't need multiple blows to do so, especially assuming they don't care how much damage they do to you.
EDIT: I am also rather tall. Taller than you, in fact, but I know that even someone much shorter than I am could disable me easily even without training. A premeditated harsh blow to my solar-plexus, for example, which anyone can do, could easily disable me long enough for any number of other vulnerable spots on my body to be targeted. Additionally, I did read your post. What you need to understand is how easy it is to misinterpret small, poorly worded posts.
Women want equality who am I to take it from them. If a man were to hit me or to make the motion of hitting me im going to defend myself. As a person who thinks that women should have equality guess what I'm going to do to the woman who does that same thing.
not sure I understand why the phrasing is bad. All of the information needed to understand is in the previous sentence. my punctuation is off because I'm terrible with grammar, but I thought the idea was clear enough.
the human body, the male body too, is quite fragile. Anyone who know how to hurt it doesn't NEED to keep hitting you.
The whole idea was that the human body is easily injured which means than anyone who understands how to hurt/disable it doesn't need multiple blows to do so, especially assuming they don't care how much damage they do to you.
People are less aggressive than you think, most people and certainly most girls I know have no idea how to disable someone with one blow. I doubt you do either, just in case you are some sort of assassin or some psycho who researches this stuff, please dont kill me I've got so much to give. Seriously though if you go around "disabling" people with one blow you are highly skilled (not at grammar obviously). I was under the impression I was being attacked by an average theoretical girl not wonder woman. I think everyone else has taken this question the same way as I have.
Vault101: women are generally weaker and generally (when hit by a man) recieve alot more damage, its not a fair fight
Really? Weren't there studies where both genders had similar capabilities regardless of being a man or a woman.
-----------------------------
I don't usually hit people. But if you are a dick and making someones life worse, then you got to learn that gender equality means that you won't be treated different because of gender, violence or not.
Im speaking VERY generally..there are weak men and there are strong women
but as much as I am a big beliver in eqauality.....theres no escaping the fact that men simply have more muscle..and are just built differently..thats not sexism thats science, I guess the real question is how and when this is an issue in day to day life
a husband who beats up his wife is scum because theres not alot she can do to defend herself, he has physical dominance over her (short of pulling a knife on him)
Isn't he scum for beating someone up in the first place, not because of anything to do with relative strength though? I don't see why the issue would be possible defense so much as whether the application of force was justified at all.
I suppose I don't hit people for any old reason. In any case, other than accounting for the fact that women have more fragile bodies I like to think I can look beyond people's gender. So if like a female karate expert was attacking me or something I would try to knowck them out.
Also, I wouldn't feel OK with turning down a fight because the oponent is a woman. I feel that's way too humiliating and rude.
Isn't he scum for beating someone up in the first place, not because of anything to do with relative strength though? I don't see why the issue would be possible defense so much as whether the application of force was justified at all.
The issue with domestic violence is that even today, a lot of men feel that they have a right to hit their wife because those are the traditional roles in a family. Although it's bad enough that he is abusing another human being, society's gender roles make the woman even more vulnerable because she is indoctrinated to believe she deserves to be abused and on-lookers are indoctrinated to believe they have no right to intervene. A lot of people may think what I just said is total bullshit, but then again a lot of people don't live in the real world.
I think it's outdated and sexist to say that you'd never hit a woman, but you would hit a man, in an age of so-called gender quality. Of course, no-one should really be hitting anyone except in certain circumstances, but I believe it's perfectly acceptable to hit a woman in self-defence. I mean, due to the society we live in, I may subconsciously hold back, but not intentionally.
I go to this kickboxing club, in which there are both men and women of varying ages. In sparring, I never hold back on the women, because that's unfair to both of our exercises and I know that a lot of them are actually stronger than me anyway.
Isn't he scum for beating someone up in the first place, not because of anything to do with relative strength though? I don't see why the issue would be possible defense so much as whether the application of force was justified at all.
The issue with domestic violence is that even today, a lot of men feel that they have a right to hit their wife because those are the traditional roles in a family. Although it's bad enough that he is abusing another human being, society's gender roles make the woman even more vulnerable because she is indoctrinated to believe she deserves to be abused and on-lookers are indoctrinated to believe they have no right to intervene. A lot of people may think what I just said is total bullshit, but then again a lot of people don't live in the real world.
Okay, what's that matter to it though? The reason he's a bad person is because he's hitting someone for no good reason. Your point just says that he can do it more easily. That he does it all is the problem as far as I'm concerned, the ease of doing it doesn't make him worse as a person, though it does make the issue as a whole a worse problem. It's a contributing factor to how problematic it is, but it isn't a factor in determining whether he's right or wrong.
Nouw: Depends on the situation. I'm not into hitting people in general but if she poses a threat to my safety and others I will. If it's in good fun I will, but lightly ;).
Essentially this. I am not a violent man by nature. If my well being is in danger, regardless of gender I will protect myself through any means, even if I have to slap the person.
Mortai Gravesend: Pretty sure 'traditional values' don't say not to hit anyone. If so a special prohibition on women would be quite irrelevant.
Most cultures take a very different attitude to men fighting one another. A lot of physical bullying is even dismissed as "boys will be boys," even when we're talking about adults.
As a slight tangent, but rape in the military is often dismissed the same way.
Yeah, that's actually the kind of attitude I was thinking of when I was posting. Or worse still some people thinking it's good back in the good old days when violence between guys was more acceptable and how it's horrible that they discourage it now. I seriously remember seeing someone say something along those lines somewhere -__-
Now they do have to earn it, I don't just go around hitting people. And most of the time there are more effective ways to end a confrontation with out actually punching somebody. (A well timed shove is usually better, and looks more like self defense to boot)
Isn't he scum for beating someone up in the first place, not because of anything to do with relative strength though? I don't see why the issue would be possible defense so much as whether the application of force was justified at all.
The issue with domestic violence is that even today, a lot of men feel that they have a right to hit their wife because those are the traditional roles in a family. Although it's bad enough that he is abusing another human being, society's gender roles make the woman even more vulnerable because she is indoctrinated to believe she deserves to be abused and on-lookers are indoctrinated to believe they have no right to intervene. A lot of people may think what I just said is total bullshit, but then again a lot of people don't live in the real world.
Okay, what's that matter to it though? The reason he's a bad person is because he's hitting someone for no good reason. Your point just says that he can do it more easily. That he does it all is the problem as far as I'm concerned, the ease of doing it doesn't make him worse as a person, though it does make the issue as a whole a worse problem. It's a contributing factor to how problematic it is, but it isn't a factor in determining whether he's right or wrong.
In Law he is considered a worse person and therefore should rot longer in jail. I think you call it malice or treachery in US legalese: commiting a crime with the advantage of superiority and/or exploiting more favourable circumstances.
The issue with domestic violence is that even today, a lot of men feel that they have a right to hit their wife because those are the traditional roles in a family. Although it's bad enough that he is abusing another human being, society's gender roles make the woman even more vulnerable because she is indoctrinated to believe she deserves to be abused and on-lookers are indoctrinated to believe they have no right to intervene. A lot of people may think what I just said is total bullshit, but then again a lot of people don't live in the real world.
Okay, what's that matter to it though? The reason he's a bad person is because he's hitting someone for no good reason. Your point just says that he can do it more easily. That he does it all is the problem as far as I'm concerned, the ease of doing it doesn't make him worse as a person, though it does make the issue as a whole a worse problem. It's a contributing factor to how problematic it is, but it isn't a factor in determining whether he's right or wrong.
In Law he is considered a worse person and therefore should rot longer in jail. I think you call it malice or treachery in US legalese: commiting a crime with the advantage of superiority and/or exploiting more favourable circumstances.
I'm rather doubtful that taking society into account will make him worse off legally, as if you could even determine that. Also I'm doubtful that the crime is considered worse because he has an advantage or more favorable circumstances.
And anyway, why would I care about the law? It doesn't determine what's right or wrong.
I picked 'hit regardless of gender' option even though there is a 'I'm a woman' option because I don't care what gender, race, sexual preference, or whatever you are. I'm gonna fucking hit you if you got it coming to you.
And that surprises people. Maybe it's because I'm 105 lb. lady, and they just don't see it coming (much like how loud I can yell, but that's another story).
Okay, what's that matter to it though? The reason he's a bad person is because he's hitting someone for no good reason. Your point just says that he can do it more easily. That he does it all is the problem as far as I'm concerned, the ease of doing it doesn't make him worse as a person, though it does make the issue as a whole a worse problem. It's a contributing factor to how problematic it is, but it isn't a factor in determining whether he's right or wrong.
In Law he is considered a worse person and therefore should rot longer in jail. I think you call it malice or treachery in US legalese: commiting a crime with the advantage of superiority and/or exploiting more favourable circumstances.
I'm rather doubtful that taking society into account will make him worse off legally, as if you could even determine that. Also I'm doubtful that the crime is considered worse because he has an advantage or more favorable circumstances.
And anyway, why would I care about the law? It doesn't determine what's right or wrong.
I'm a lawyer. I should know. In any case, there is no objective morality that we can call true sorry to say. However, legalists, and more specifically penal legalists, have worked for hundreds of years to find out what is fair. It might not be perfect but it's the best we've got.
Legalists can't always agree perfectly on a lot of issues (abortion, euthenasia, you name it) but there is a pretty clear concensus that to one degree or another women in matrimony are especially defenceless and as such the Law has to protect them more than other less defenceless individuals.
If someone has done something that justifies a smack, they will get a smack, which (in most mental examples my brain is throwing at me) would most likely be in self-defense or in defense of others.
But Am I going to go "Hm, that person has tits, I should go out of my way to deal with them softly, if at all"? No. No self-respecting human being would.
In Law he is considered a worse person and therefore should rot longer in jail. I think you call it malice or treachery in US legalese: commiting a crime with the advantage of superiority and/or exploiting more favourable circumstances.
I'm rather doubtful that taking society into account will make him worse off legally, as if you could even determine that. Also I'm doubtful that the crime is considered worse because he has an advantage or more favorable circumstances.
And anyway, why would I care about the law? It doesn't determine what's right or wrong.
I'm a lawyer. I should know. In any case, there is no objective morality that we can call true sorry to say. However, legalists, and more specifically penal legalists, have worked for hundreds of years to find out what is fair. It might not be perfect but it's the best we've got.
Legalists can't always agree perfectly on a lot of issues (abortion, euthenasia, you name it) but there is a pretty clear concensus that to one degree or another women in matrimony are especially defenceless and as such the Law has to protect them more than other less defenceless individuals.
If you say so about the details of the law.
However hundreds of years of trying does not suddenly make it right. You want to say there's no objective morality? Then you should realize that 'best' is utterly meaningless here. You can't have a real 'best' without some kind of objective standard.
I would have done the same, just a little soon; being hit really pushes my buttons very fast. But realy, I prefer to hurt my enemies emotionally and psychologically.
I'm rather doubtful that taking society into account will make him worse off legally, as if you could even determine that. Also I'm doubtful that the crime is considered worse because he has an advantage or more favorable circumstances.
And anyway, why would I care about the law? It doesn't determine what's right or wrong.
I'm a lawyer. I should know. In any case, there is no objective morality that we can call true sorry to say. However, legalists, and more specifically penal legalists, have worked for hundreds of years to find out what is fair. It might not be perfect but it's the best we've got.
Legalists can't always agree perfectly on a lot of issues (abortion, euthenasia, you name it) but there is a pretty clear concensus that to one degree or another women in matrimony are especially defenceless and as such the Law has to protect them more than other less defenceless individuals.
If you say so about the details of the law.
However hundreds of years of trying does not suddenly make it right. You want to say there's no objective morality? Then you should realize that 'best' is utterly meaningless here. You can't have a real 'best' without some kind of objective standard.
Well, then you yourself have answered your own question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anybody hitting anybody under any circumstances because morality is meaningless.
In seriousness though, it is the best we've got specifically because it is striving for the highest status quo, and it is trying to make our society work in the most eficient and harmonious way possible while working from the basic framework of our collective grasp of right and wrong. As far as we know, that is the closest anybody has gotten to a tangible definition of justice.
So if you are following me. We haven't got an objective ībestī, but we do have a relative ībestī which is at least better than nothing.
I'm a lawyer. I should know. In any case, there is no objective morality that we can call true sorry to say. However, legalists, and more specifically penal legalists, have worked for hundreds of years to find out what is fair. It might not be perfect but it's the best we've got.
Legalists can't always agree perfectly on a lot of issues (abortion, euthenasia, you name it) but there is a pretty clear concensus that to one degree or another women in matrimony are especially defenceless and as such the Law has to protect them more than other less defenceless individuals.
If you say so about the details of the law.
However hundreds of years of trying does not suddenly make it right. You want to say there's no objective morality? Then you should realize that 'best' is utterly meaningless here. You can't have a real 'best' without some kind of objective standard.
Well, then you yourself have answered your own question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anybody hitting anybody under any circumstances because morality is meaningless.
Not what I said. But since that's coming from a statement you made about no objective morality, I guess that's how you must feel?
In seriousness though, it is the best we've got specifically because it is striving for the highest status quo, and it is trying to make our society work in the most eficient and harmonious way possible while working from the basic framework of our collective grasp of right and wrong. As far as we know, that is the closest anybody has gotten to a tangible definition of justice.
It's no more tangible than any other. Highest is also debatable. Furthermore you've done nothing to prove that said laws currently are best for that standard or are the most efficient and harmonious way. You're making wild claims here by connecting our current system to this possible ideal.
So if you are following me. We haven't got an objective ībestī, but we do have a relative ībestī which is at least better than nothing.
Anyone can make up a relative best. That's why it's relative. It depends on accepting certain unverifiable moral axioms.
Not without her consent, or possibly if it's absolutely necessary to defend myself. I try not to make a habit of hitting women though, outside of specific situations.
However hundreds of years of trying does not suddenly make it right. You want to say there's no objective morality? Then you should realize that 'best' is utterly meaningless here. You can't have a real 'best' without some kind of objective standard.
Well, then you yourself have answered your own question. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anybody hitting anybody under any circumstances because morality is meaningless.
Not what I said. But since that's coming from a statement you made about no objective morality, I guess that's how you must feel?
In seriousness though, it is the best we've got specifically because it is striving for the highest status quo, and it is trying to make our society work in the most eficient and harmonious way possible while working from the basic framework of our collective grasp of right and wrong. As far as we know, that is the closest anybody has gotten to a tangible definition of justice.
It's no more tangible than any other. Highest is also debatable. Furthermore you've done nothing to prove that said laws currently are best for that standard or are the most efficient and harmonious way. You're making wild claims here by connecting our current system to this possible ideal.
So if you are following me. We haven't got an objective ībestī, but we do have a relative ībestī which is at least better than nothing.
Anyone can make up a relative best. That's why it's relative. It depends on accepting certain unverifiable moral axioms.
I'm not trying to indoctrinate you here. Neither am I trying to ram 5 years of Law school and 2 years of research and experience down your throat. I'm just giving my opinion and trust me it's already been shaped by enough scholars and experts that really know what they are talking about pretty well that it isn't going to change because of a sudden insight on a videogame forum. In any case, you're obviously not convinced so just go with whatever makes sense to you.
I'm a woman (looks down to check) yeah still a woman
The image portrayed of hitting women is wrong, hear me out.
Your a sadistic arsehole with no penis to speak of who hits his wife/girlfriend/other woman, for no reason than it makes you feel better... this is not ok
A woman runs up to you and for no reason hits you over and over, leaving you no choice but to hit back...this is ok