>>79853850 It's sexist to ask the question. Seriously, if you have 30 lbs advantage on someone you really should be asking if you're a creep/bully/sociopath when you think about how okay it is to hit them. It doesn't matter if it's 30 pounds difference because you're fighting a girl or if it's because you're fighting pre-super-soldier wimpy Steve Rogers. You get the go-ahead if the other person draws first blood against you or your's. Otherwise act like a civil human being.
That's like asking "Is it right to shoot someone?"
The answer depends almost entirely on the circumstances.
In the context of "is it sexist", the important thing is that if you would hit a man for a reason, you would hit a woman for the same reason, and vice versa. Otherwise, yeah, you're preferentially treating people of a certain gender over others.
Depends why you're hitting them. Are you trying to hurt them? How much are you trying to hurt them? Are you hitting them to keep them from overpowering you?
For example, if you need to kidnap someone and they're fighting back, you may have to beat them up a bit before you can take them. But if they're half your size and weak as shit, you could probably just carry them out of there even if they're flailing around.
Part of the reason the "don't hit girls" rule exists in the first place is because it was usually seen as unnecessary or unfair, as a woman usually wouldn't be able to fight back. It also comes from a fear that men may not know their own strength against women, as size may not always be equally proportional. Once you get to a point where you need or want to hurt a woman, all that shit gets thrown out the window.
tl;dr - You should hit both men and women, as long as you either have a good reason or really really want to hurt them. Why are you hitting people though what the fuck
>>79858557 Literally. As in it's the very definition of it. The question is inherently dependent upon an assumption of a gender double-standard. And treating people unequally because of their sex is sexism.
>>79858713 Did you even read the post you responded to? Just because society holds something up as a standard is not proof that it's devoid of any sexism. And just because something's sexist doesn't mean it can't be found infesting society. And if you had ever talked to an actual woman before you would know that double standards do exist and women do not want them to. Read what you wrote. Try to understand the condecending gibberish you've put out into the world. Then try to follow the rules of logic from now on, for a change.
>Sister used to hit me a lot when we were kids >4 years older and much bigger/stronger >Had to just get hit and not retaliate because everyone would go batshit when I hit her back The whole 'never hit girls ever no matter what' thing is total bullshit.
The double standards that benefit women, they perpetuate, your statement is flawed from conception.
Dating, being taken care of.
The ugliest dude can pull women as long as he has money. That in itself is all you need to know.
"Waah its not true"
No sources, no fucking clue what you're talking about.
>My women's studies course told me that women just want to understand intersectionality and take our soft power and be strong independent women
No. A few women might want that if we're avoiding making generalizing statements but as a whole anything that benefits women is reinforced at multiple levels for men.
Families definitely reinforce it and women generally do as well, acting as if benefiting from something that exists but saying they do not want it to is proof of something..beyond academically disingenuous.
People always do what is best for themselves. I can't even remember the last time I heard the word dutch.
>>79859074 >And if you had ever talked to an actual woman before you would know that double standards do exist and women do not want them to. I generally agree with what you're saying but this part here is pretty stupid. There are double standards that benefit women and that most women believe should exist.
>>79859155 Well, clearly you have once again made an excellent superficial argument in justification of beating women.
Of course, the SUBJECT of this discussion was always if or if not sexism exists (your original counterpoint) and if asking the question "if hitting a woman is or is not more sexist than not doing so" is itself sexism. You're still not following the conversation. Do better.
>>79859170 Yes, and we're talking about one in this thread. And it still rings hollow. The notion that women automatically get a free pass from violence is absurdism. Do you realy believe that happens in this world? Chivalry isn't just dead, it's a flesh-eating misogynist. And even if it wasn't, when it did exist that bit of sexism working in women's favor didn't offset the second-class citizenship status at all. It's still a net loss for half the population because they're born women. That's just objectively true.
it is if you would hit a guy in that exact same situation?
If you're holding back because they're a woman and weaker, as we're taught, some view that as not being equal because they're taking the statement of equality and stretching it to absurdity. Equal in all things and all times regardless of circumstance or maybe in spite of depending on who you talk to.
For example, if my family found out I hit a woman, they would beat my ass. The double standard comes say the woman was drunk and being an ass and started slapping me for some stupid reason and if a guy hit me, I wouldn't hold back but because they're a woman, I don't hit said person = double standard
>>79857559 >You get the go-ahead if the other person draws first blood against you or your's. At which point you might already be dead, incapacitated or at a severe disadvantage.
If someone is acting in a threatening manner towards you or someone you intend to protect, you should neutralize them immediately using whatever means necessary. If they are being disrespectful or harassing you and refuse to stop after one or two warnings, you should beat the shit out of them.
>>79858610 >>79857761 Pretty much yeah, the gender (don't tell tumblr i said that) of the individual is irrelevant really, its a risk assessment based on their potential to do you or yours harm. So statistically an unarmed woman is less likely to require hitting but only because of her size/strength rather that her crotch topography.
>>79859898 Nah, I'm saying girls are just naturally weak as fuck. Why so you think men and women compete in seperate categories in most sports? Cus women are physiologically inferior to men. Not trying to be sexist or nothing, that's just basic anatomy
>>79859775 Well, yeah, it kinda does in this instance. The right thing to do is to turn the other cheek and just walk away. It's called being a mature adult and not letting something as petty as pride cause a fight. The wrong thing to do is to think with your ego and start a fight over someone acting like a child and (successfully) dragging you into an altercation with them. You're an adult human being, not a fucking juvenile chimp.
>>79860011 Like every other normie you are shifting blame, placing all responsibility onto the victim and not even acknowledging that the root cause is someone disrespecting or harassing the victim. You want a world where you're free to go around bullying people and they can't do anything about it because that would simply be immature and uncivilized.
We can only hope that one day you mess with the wrong person and end up in a wheelchair.
You live in dream land, I can recall plenty of times where this kind of aphorism doesn't work at all and majority of the fights I'm thinking of never got reported at all.
You're hoping someone does the right thing so this won't be an issue but this is hardly ever the case which is why I always suspected the double standard existed in the first place and was never lived up to considering how much domestic violence exists in all western countries let alone non-western countries.
>>79859966 Sure, but I'm assessing the scenario outside of specifics. Maybe the man is an anemic manlet and the woman is Ronda rousey pumped up on Venom. Maybe the lady is the instigator, and perhaps has a lethal weapon. Of course, then the playing field obviously changes. I'm just talking broadly, in most non-extreme circumstances, responsibility falls to the man to handle the situation, under the sole fact that his superior strength is a significant factor in the conflict. Once again, this is generally speaking. A dude should have the role of subduing without injury, because it is easier for him to subdue. Of course, not everyone is so kind nor reasonably minded when it comes to confrontation, and this is how serious damage occurs.
Or, you know, don't get into fights at all. Shit never turns out well
>>79853850 Well, that depends on why you would be hitting her. If you hit her because you hate women, that would be just as sexist as not hitting her because of the notion that it would be immoral to hit a woman solely by virtue of her sex.
Now, if you were, say, a 300 lb mountain of muscle who held back from hitting a 100lb woman you could break like a twig, that would be a feat of measured response. And the other way around, unlikely as that may seem.
It really hinges on intent and situation. There are plenty good reasons to hit or not hit people aside from sexism. You could decide to spare a pregnant woman because you don't want to kill a baby. You could spare a priest out of piety. You could spare someone's life to prolong their suffering as you kill everyone they love, burn down their house and leave them in the ashes.
In any case, if your sole criterion for the decision is sex, that is sexist by definition.
>>79859398 Nah. You let her connect, then you grab her hand and twist it behind her back and use it as leverage to push her face in the dirt. Then you cuff her. It looks better when you have a bruise to show for.
>>79860589 >Douchebag yells at you saying he's gonna kick your ass from the other side of the street, but that the only thing he does. If you attack him it's not self defense. He isn't close enough. If he was standing near to me then it would be self-defense if I fucked him up. The law wouldn't necessarily agree, but again the law doesn't determine what is right and wrong. Or logical.
>Douchebag says his gonna kick your ass, takes a swing at you, misses and runs away. If you attack it's not self defense. I don't care, and who is to say that he isn't going to try again later?
>Douchebag takes a swing at you, the hit connects and you get a black eye. You break both of his legs. It's not self defense because you went beyond the level of threat the initial attack represented. Fights are very dangerous and even a single hit could kill you, or leave you brain damaged or crippled. You also don't know how much training and experience he has, how strong he is, how crazy he is, if he's armed or if he's on drugs and if he has friends nearby. If you go for a "measured" response you could set yourself up for a failure. The only sane response is to use as much force as you can and take him down as fast and hard as you can.
Even putting aside serious outcomes like death and permanent injury, why would I risk getting my teeth knocked out or my nose broken just for the sake of making sure the person trying to (for all I know) kill me won't get hurt?
It's too bad people who create and enforce laws don't know anything about fighting.
>>79860684 Are you being serious here? You're saying you're using lethal force against any agressor and then you accuse people of not knowing anything about fighting. Nigger please, some people live their entire lives getting in tougher fights than you and never use lethal force.
>>79860695 It's up to the judgement of the jury/judge (depending how the justice system works wherever you live), as based upon evidence and testimonies. Laws are much more flexible than they look to be applied in a case by case basis.
>>79860684 >He isn't close enough. Actually scratch that, it would still be self-defense even if I went across the street and fucked him up. He threatened me.
>>79860774 >You're saying you're using lethal force against any agressor and then you accuse people of not knowing anything about fighting. Yes, because they don't know anything about fighting. Again, a single punch can cause death or permanent injury. Again, you don't know everything about your attacker.
>>79853850 Refusing to hit a woman because she's a woman is sexist because you're implying that the value of a woman differs from that of a man and therefore she must be treated differently. There, I've answered your question and now I'm gonna wait to see if people respond to me and ignore every post that doesn't unless it's accompanied by a funny image.
>>79860799 >Again, a single punch can cause death or permanent injury. Again, you don't know everything about your attacker. What the hell makes you think they're not aware of that if some internet tough guy is?
You're fucking pathetic if you think that the reason cops don't kill people at the slightest threat is because they don't understand they could be dangerous.
>>79860822 Ideally yes, but having a human element and having some leeway in the application of otherwise very strict rules actually makes for a fairer and more applicable system. Hell, self defense itself is an inconsistency in how we treat violent behavior.
>>79860834 >There's no protection for getting really mad when someone hits you and beating their ass?
Again, case by case basis.
If it's a legit fight, you both are fucked up and you end up killing the attacker because in the heat of the fight you barely know what's happening anymore then it's self defense. Emotional state can also be a factor when determining if you get charged for a crime or not.
If someone just makes you mad but doesn't physically harm you it's not self defense.
>>79860850 >What the hell makes you think they're not aware of that if some internet tough guy is? If they are aware of it, then why don't they take it into account? You either have to conclude they aren't aware of it, or they are knowingly creating and enforcing unjust and illogical laws.
>You're fucking pathetic if you think that the reason cops don't kill people at the slightest threat is because they don't understand they could be dangerous. Police officers are not equivalent to random people.
>>79860877 Well, consistent exceptions aren't a problem as long as they follow their own rules. It only becomes an issue when cases are treated differently based on the vagueness of the law, the biases of the judge, and the money given to the defense/prosecution lawyers rather than based on the circumstances of the event. That last one is a particularly big issue. I've heard more than a few cases where someone let their legal rights be ignored because they knew they were up against a rich person or organization and couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to have a chance in court.
>>79860924 >why don't they take it into account? They do. Are you retarded? >or they are knowingly creating and enforcing unjust and illogical laws. What? I think you got lost between 2 arguments anon. >Police officers are not equivalent to random people. No? Who said they were? You were arguing that people who enforce laws don't know anything about fighting.
>>79860964 >t only becomes an issue when cases are treated differently based on the vagueness of the law, the biases of the judge That's where jurisprudence comes in. > I've heard more than a few cases where someone let their legal rights be ignored because they knew they were up against a rich person or organization and couldn't afford a good enough lawyer to have a chance in court. The cost of justice certainly is an issue, as is the ability to force almost endless appeals.
>>79860864 Yes, but only in that specific context. Context is something I think a lot of people ignore and it leads to the assumption that an act is offensive because no one considers the context in which it is occurring. For example, if you walk up to a woman and call her a bitch, you can't say whether or not it's sexist unless you know the reasoning behind it. If it was because she refused to fuck you, it's sexism. If it was because she killed your dog, it's justified. Thus, the true answer to the question - and indeed every question of whether or not something is sexist - is entirely reliant on context.
>>79861028 >Then they should have no issues with me hospitalizing or even killing someone for punching at me. Yes they would. You're supposed to be an adult, not go with "but it could have killed me, so it's fine if I intentionally make sure to kill him, right?" >You. Nope. >They either don't know, or they knowingly enforce unjust and illogical laws. But they work within those laws themselves, because they actually know how to fight. You. Don't.
>>79861008 I wonder what could be done about it. I mean, having lawyers be unpaid wouldn't exactly motivate anyone to choose that profession, but how else do we make fair legal defense available regardless of financial situation?
>>79861028 >Then they should have no issues with me hospitalizing or even killing someone for punching at me.
Case by case basis.
You kill a guy for punching you and he did have a knife or a gun the jury will take that into account. Even if you didn't know he was armed at least you were right and the risk of the attacker using was present.
If you kill guy and he wasn't armed there will be no jury that'll accept "he couldn've been" as an answer.
>>79861066 >Yes they would. You're supposed to be an adult, not go with "but it could have killed me, so it's fine if I intentionally make sure to kill him, right?" But he actually, as a matter of fact, really COULD have killed me, because of the reasons I already explained to you. Fights are dangerous and they can kill or seriously injure you. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand fights and is not qualified to create laws governing self-defense.
>Nope. Then why did you bring them up?
>But they work within those laws themselves, because they actually know how to fight. You. Don't. They either don't know, or they knowingly enforce unjust and illogical laws. As I just told you.
>>79861094 >If you kill guy and he wasn't armed there will be no jury that'll accept "he couldn've been" as an answer. Because they don't know anything about fighting.
>>79861158 >But he actually, as a matter of fact, really COULD have killed me, because of the reasons I already explained to you But he didn't, and he's currently not threathening to. You're not trying to stop him from threathening you, you're attacking him.
>Then why did you bring them up? Because they enforce laws, which is who you were talking about?
>They either don't know, or they knowingly enforce unjust and illogical laws. As I just told you. But that doesn't compute.
Listen buddy, I understand you think vengeance is just should be legal,. but it just isn't. The legal system punishes attackers (theorically at least).
>>79861214 It totally has to do with that. I work every day with people who stop violent attackers with non-lethal methods, some of them have lost coworkers to attackers, and none of them are as edgy as you are. Now run along and go play cowadoody.
>>79861238 >But he didn't, and he's currently not threathening to. Because I successfully stopped him. By this inane logic you could say that if I shoot someone who is shooting at me, it was unjustified because none of his bullets hit me.
>You're not trying to stop him from threathening you, you're attacking him. No, I'm pre-emptively defending myself.
>Because they enforce laws, which is who you were talking about? That doesn't mean they are relevant to literally anything I say on the topic.
>But that doesn't compute. It computes perfectly well. Maybe you're just not smart enough.
>Listen buddy, I understand you think vengeance is just should be legal,. but it just isn't. When was I talking about revenge?
>>79861261 Again, this has nothing to do with me. Again, this has to do with logic. Which you are clearly incapable of comprehending, hence your attempts at making this about me (small minds discuss people).
>>79861292 >Because I successfully stopped him Or he stopped attacking. If he punches you and then stops acting in any threathening way, you're not threthening your life and you attacking him doesn't prevent any harm from coming to you. If you have believable reasons to think he'll continue attacking, then it's fair game (proportionally, again if you keep attacking once you've stopped his attack, it's not okay). >By this inane logic you could say that if I shoot someone who is shooting at me, it was unjustified because none of his bullets hit me. If he shoots at you and then runs off, you're not trying to stop him from killing you.
>No, I'm pre-emptively defending myself. That's called an attack, except in the case you can argue the attack from the other party is beliveably imminent.
>That doesn't mean they are relevant to literally anything I say on the topic. But... yes it absolutely does.
>It computes perfectly well. Maybe you're just not smart enough. Sure, buddy.
>When was I talking about revenge? The whole time it's been the thing. If the person is not directly threathening you with violence at right now or just after now, you have no legitimacy calling it defense. If it's before anything happened or could actually happen it's an attack, if it's after the aggression has stopped, it's vengeance (still an attack, legally).
It has everything to do with you, you're explaining how you would act in this situation and why you say that would be justified because you fear death if you don't fucking kill your attacker. People who actually know how to fight also know how to stop an attacker without trying to kill them.
Listen, I'm done here, have fun pretending you actually understand fighting better than lawmakers and police. Also stop misusing the term "logic".
>>79861406 Wait, would it not be legally justifiable to shoot at a person who shot at you if he ran away immediately? That seems like the sort of situation where one could argue it's dangerous to let him get away.
>>79861406 >If he punches you and then stops acting in any threathening way, you're not threthening your life and you attacking him doesn't prevent any harm from coming to you. How do I know in that instant that he has stopped, and will stay that way? I'm not going to stand there and wait and see if he's going to continue after that first punch, I'm going to act immediately to defend myself under the assumption that I will die otherwise.
>if you keep attacking once you've stopped his attack, it's not okay So let's say I block or dodge his punch. I have now stopped his attack. Now what if he attacks me again? Well, I again block or dodge his attack. Now what? Do I just keep doing this until he finally hits me? Why should I?
>If he shoots at you and then runs off, you're not trying to stop him from killing you. Who is to say that he isn't just moving to a better firing position, or isn't just temporarily fleeing so he can attack again later?
>That's called an attack It's called pre-emptive self-defense.
>But... yes it absolutely does. I can see that you are very poor at logical reasoning.
>If the person is not directly threathening you with violence at right now or just after now, you have no legitimacy calling it defense. When were we talking about a situation where someone is not threatening me or attacking me?
>you're explaining how you would act in this situation and why you say that would be justified because you fear death if you don't fucking kill your attacker. I am speaking from the perspective of logic.
>People who actually know how to fight also know how to stop an attacker without trying to kill them. Until they die or get seriously injured because they were being overconfident. And in any case laws cannot be based on what a trained fighter would do, since the vast majority of people are not trained fighters.
>have fun pretending you actually understand fighting better than lawmakers and police. It is a fact that I understand it better.
I'm reminded of the video of a guy tazing an unarmed woman surrounded by her kids. No charges filed. No fucks given.
>>79860913 Go look at how your local laws work, and get some Massa Ayoboob in your life. If he's lying on the ground out cold or covering up, you're going to have trouble selling him as a dangerous or lethal threat.
>>79859945 They let M to F transexuals fight in MMA now.
>>79861094 Also, whether the dude turns out to have a criminal record, whether you knew or not.
Thread replies: 151 Thread images: 11
Thread DB ID: 515045
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.