There's a moral difference between a guy hitting a guy, and a guy hitting a girl.
Even if a girl came up to me and grabbed my ass, I wouldn't like it. I would feel kind of a harrassed. But I would feel even MORE harrassed if a gay person did that to me. It's like somebody from the KKK calling a black person "Nigger" to a black person. The black person gets offended. So if a gay guy came up to me and grabbed my ass, I would feel offended.
There's a moral difference between a guy hitting a guy, and a guy hitting a girl. Bullspit. Hitting's wrong or it isn't. I'm a total pacifist, but if someone ever tells me that the only reason they're not hitting me is because I'm a girl, I'd be tempted to look for a baseball bat. | |
I'm a total pacifist, but if someone ever tells me that the only reason they're not hitting me is because I'm a girl, I'd be tempted to look for a baseball bat. That's a -3 trait! You've gotta have savantism in Lore or something. | |
Hedgemistress wrote:
There's a moral difference between a guy hitting a guy, and a guy hitting a girl. Bullspit. Right and Wrong are individual concepts. What is wrong for you might not be wrong for me or anyone else. Some people, myself included, firmly beleive that only in the most dire circumstances can a man hit a woman. I don't see anything wrong with a man hitting another man in a fair fight, though. | |
Geminidomino wrote:
Right and Wrong are individual concepts. What is wrong for you might not be wrong for me or anyone else. Interestingly, it turns out that civilization can't really get going until a society gets over this concept. As long as the personal honor and sense of right/wrong triumphs over all, you are stuck in a feudal honor-based society that cannot have a true rule of law. People die young, there are lots of wars and mini-wars, it's nearly impossible for larger political systems to get set up. Once a societal sense of values becomes engrained, allowing for a centralized legal system and the possibility for contracts enforced by the state rather than by killing each other, progress starts happening and life gets better. Or so the last thousand years or so have indicated. | |
I personally see no morale difference. I, being a man who enjoys the occassional conflict would hit a woman just as I would a man. being the type to take quite a few hits before throwing a hit and give enough warnings before throwing the hit I Feel I do nothing wrong.
Those who think hitting a woman is worse than hitting a man are overcompensating for our forefathers, whose actions will not make me suffer in my actions, being that my actions are purely consequence and should not be a product of further consequence.. yet being the man that I am, I openly accept further conflict. The way that I see it we have equal rights. not womans rights, not mans rights.. equal rights.. human rights. I have a right to defend myself, whether the threat is a man, woman, child, or etc.. I wont explain myself and i dont need to. | |
I'll only hit a person if they are a threat to my wellbeing. Be it a man or woman. I won't actually hit anyone unless they've pissed me off to no end though, so I suppose if i hit anyone in anger they absolutely deserve it.
| |
Bullspit. Right and Wrong are individual concepts. What is wrong for you might not be wrong for me or anyone else. Really? In that case nothing is wrong for me and everything is wrong for you. :P Right and Wrong are based on, well, Right and Wrong. "It's Less Wrong To Beat Up Guys" is based on pure sexism, it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Let us do a quick mental exercise. Take these situations: Situation #1: Someone is taunting you: insulting you, questioning your virility, etc. Situation #2: Someone is threatening you physically... i.e., they are not being violent, but are displaying a willingness to be violent to you... brandishing a weapon, shouting threats, etc... they continue to threaten you, but make no actual move. Situation #3: Someone is actually attacking you, but ineffectually so. Either due to your assailant's lack of coordination or strength, you are in relatively little danger if you stay and could easily "escape" merely by walking away. Imagine yourself in these situations first with a man as the other party and then with a woman. What actually changes between the first case and the second case? Does the male transgressor actually deserve violent retribution more so than the female one? If so, is this because women are better than men, or because they're worse (i.e., you can't expect women to know better). If your reluctance is based on the idea that women are generally weaker than men, would you make exceptions for a woman who's stronger than the norm, and would you likewise make assumptions for a man who's weaker than you? My point here is not to convince the forum to beat up women, but rather to convince them examine their inherent sexism and their pointless violent tendencies at the same time. I purposely picked three situations where no actual damage is being done and the subject can just as easily walk away, yet my guess is that a good number of the people here would take those situations and escalate them to the point of actual violence if it involves another guy. This, of course, parallels the issue of another guy putting a move on you... no actual harm is done either way until you take it upon yourself to beat the holy hell out of him. Frankly, I don't care how many people think it's wrong to hit a girl... I'm more concerned with how many people think it's okay to hit a guy and for what stupid reasons you think it's okay. There was a news story last year about a college student who was severely beaten with a baseball bat because he squinted at the guy next to him in the shower to see if it was someone he knew (the beating victim normally wore glasses). The victim wasn't gay... in fact, he may very well have been just as homophobic as his assailant and was making sure that it was someone he knew was "safe" showering next to him. The guy could've been killed, and that would be two lives wasted (his and the assailant's), all because of stupid societal teachings about violence and when it's justified. | |
Im sure women everywhere are rejoicing that they deserve to get a beating just as much as guys do in those situations.
| |
They absolutely do. The real question, though, is how much anyone deserves a beating.
People like Geminidomino cling to the belief that because they don't hit women, they can be willing to throw punches around like they're going out of style but still somehow be "civilized". That's a total delusion. If it's okay to hit people, then it's okay to hit people, regardless of their sex. Of course, that realization makes "civilized" conduct seem a lot more savage, as well it should. The ultimate goal here is to get him to realize how rarely violence is actually an appropriate response. In other words, when I say, "Women deserve to be beaten for trivial reasons every bit as much as men do," I'm not saying, "Hit women more often," I'm saying, "Hit men less often." | |
Your also leaving one thing out of this idea that most people think it's ok to hit guys, and that is that most men take pride as something very important, not that they shouldn't, but if a guy feels his pride is damaged then somethings going to happen. I know people who have gotten into a fight, lost, then tried to pick a fight with the same person again just so they can beat that person up and raise their feeling of pride, and they get beat again of course and try again, not only is this a matter of pride, but of self control also.
What I really didn't want to see in this arguement is the word sexism/sexist, mainly for the reason that it's used a lot of times in this type of discussion, and yes I do realize this is a case of sexism, it's just that the word seems so wrong. What really sickens me is when women running around screaming sexism and wanting equal rights, and when they get them they don't even act them out like men while they wanted them like what men had. This is such as a study on the military taken a while back(And mentioned in a thread a long time ago, by Spuzzum I believe.), it was a test for the military to see how women work against men, so they had a group of women and a group of men move boxes of ammunition, the men and women moved about the same amount, the thing was, was that the women were carrying empty boxes and the boxes for the men were completely full. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Not when it's a really grotesque women doing it, try having a 450lb man grabbing your hind quarters.
<<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
I'm leaving "pride" out of it because it's irrelevant. The reason you're hitting someone could be pride, could be fear, could be anger, could be anything. The important thing is, if the reason to hit someone is justified, then it is justified, and if it's not, then it's not... the random presence or absence of one chromosome doesn't change a damn thing in terms of justification for violence.
Now, if you don't want to see discussions about sexism, then work on eliminating it from the world. When it's no longer an issue, there will be nothing to talk about. Women and men are physically different. Our muscles work in different ways, and we have different centers of gravity that affect how well we can carry things. Excluding all women from the military on the basis that most women can't meet the requirements is wrong. If the objection has to do with the requirements, there's no reason to look at sex... simply having the requirements is enough. Having different requirements for women is slightly less wrong, it falls into the category of a necessary evil for the simple reason that a volunteer army (which is in every way desirable to a conscription army) can't survive if it sets the bar too high for half the population. What would make more sense to me would be to have different requirements for combat positions and for support positions. Anyone, male or female, that meets the requirements for combat positions would be eligible for them as well as the support ones. Anyone, male or female, who meets the lower requirements would still be eligible for the support positions. This is, in essence, how it works right now, but because of society's stupid gender hang-ups, they look at irrelevant factor (gender) to decide who's eligble to even try for the higher bar. To tie this back into the discussion about violence... if the reason you're not going to hit a woman is because she's weaker than you are, then leave sex out of it and just plain don't hit anyone weaker than you. | |
Alright, this thread has been totally milked dry... lol.
This is seemingly going no further than opinions thrown back and forth, and this makes it really difficult to post a new topic here without this thread being updated. (Not that I have one, but I am pretty sure there are more important threads) This thread is basically the same as the religious topics, noone can be proven right or wrong... it is just mere opinion. And I am getting bored of watching people downsize Sariat and Dareb, it was fun at first but it is becoming pretty pathetic for them... lol. (Damn you Jimini Cricket!!) -=Ken=- | |
Your post triggered a memory of something I heard in the news a few years ago, and it turns out it was a quote from Newt Gingrich:
"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for thirty days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. I mean, some do, but they're relatively rare. On the other hand, men are basically little piglets, you drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, doesn't matter, you know. These things are very real." What's your take on that? From what I know from friends in the military, I think it's pretty safe to say that he didn't exaggerate the nasty sanitation that soldiers may have to deal with; but I don't know much at all about the other side of the coin. Without going into too much graphic detail, is it likely that women would fare significantly worse in a showerless, toilet-paper-less environment? Or did Newt just see one too many commercials about "that not-so-fresh feeling"? :) [Edit: for clarity, changed "underestimate" to "exaggerate".] | |
Personally, I believe anyyone that thinks its ok to randomly hit anyone deserves to be outcasted at the least. These are the sort of people that drag society down to the disgusting level it is now. I say bring on the uhmm 60's! w00t
| |
The example of tall girls and short girls wasn't to suggest what would actually happen if people put a move on you... it was to suggest what SHOULD happen. Quite frankly, if you wouldn't pound an unattractive (to you) girl in the pavement for grabbing your ass, you've got no business saying you'd do the same to anyone you're not attracted to. It's massively hypocritical. There is NO difference between someone you're not attracted to for one reason and someone you're not attracted to for another. If you're not interested, you're not interested. Gender is one component of attraction, but it's not the only one... just the one you're all hung up on.
Compare these reasons for rejections and execution of rejection:
"I'm sorry, but I'm just getting over a serious relationship. I'm not really looking right now."
"I'm sorry, but you live too far away, and I'm not looking for a long distance relationship."
"I'm sorry, but we come from two different worlds... maybe you can get past our difference in backgrounds, but I can't. I'm sorry."
"You're a great person, but I can't get past your prosthetic leg. Maybe I'm a bad person because of that, and if so, you sure deserve better."
to this one:
"WHAT? YOU, A GUY, DARE HIT ON ME, ANOTHER GUY? I WILL KILL YOU FOR SUCH A GROSS TRANSGRESSION!"
All kinds of people are incompatible for all kinds of reasons. There is absolutely nothing, except for the stumbling block in your own mind, that separates the gender one from the rebound one, or the long distance one, or the background one, or the prosthetic leg one... I say, get over it. It's all in your mind, and the more of this kind of garbage that is in your mind, the less room you have for anything useful.