Society/Culture Can we please stop equating the risk posed by left wing extremists with that of right wing extremists?

[Lethality]

No. Neither justified or proportionate to the threat faced (shes a woman, and she's running away from the engagement).

I understand that you don't feel it's justified. What I'm asking is whether the action itself would be proportionate in your question about what is acceptable. For example is your scenario that she throws a can at him, he throws one back, as opposed to she throws a can at him, and therefore he can beat her to death?

 

[Malifice]

What I'm asking is whether the action itself would be proportionate in your question about what is acceptable.

Absent any other context (i.e. assessing the act alone) then you could make that argument.

But to make it, we need to ignore the important context (gender, and the fact she was fleeing).

If they were just sitting there, pegging spray cans at each other from a distance of 10m, we could talk.

 

[Malifice]

I'm of the opinion that neither party should have pegged the spray can at each other.

Also my view.

That said, when a woman uses violence against a man in many cases that's because she's terrified of him (and he still has the physical advantage).

When a man uses violence against a woman, it's usually just to control her or win.

They're not really comparable in most cases.

 

[Lethality]

Absent any other context (i.e. assessing the act alone) then you could make that argument.

I'm just trying to ascertain what your question is, not making an argument.

So for the time I'll assume that you mean that you're asking whether it's justified to throw a can back at a woman who threw one at me and ran away? I'd say yes that is justified.

If the evidence was that he was a frail elderly old bloke (for example) and she was a 6 foot MMA fighter, then we could talk the relevance of gender.

The fact that that possibility exists means we don't even have to look at gender. Just go by weight class if you feel that size differential is a factor. Personally I don't think it is. In my experience, mentality is a lot more important than size.

 

[Malifice]

So for the time I'll assume that you mean that you're asking whether it's justified to throw a can back at a woman who threw one at me and ran away? I'd say yes that is justified.

Seeing as that's not an example of legitimate self defence, you're (literally, from a legal perspective) saying assault (on a woman) is justified.

The fact that that possibility exists means we don't even have to look at gender.

No it doesn't.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Also my view.

That said, when a woman uses violence against a man in many cases that's because she's terrified of him (and he still has the physical advantage).

When a man uses violence against a woman, it's usually just to control her or win.

They're not really comparable in most cases.

I can accept this as well.

 

[Lethality]

Seeing as that's not an example of legitimate self defence, you're (literally, from a legal perspective) saying assault (on a woman) is justified.

More like saying it CAN be justified, it's not like I'm saying assault is ok across the board. It has nothing to do specifically with women either, despite your implication.

 

[Malifice]

More like saying it CAN be justified

It could be totally justified in some hypothetical (she was also holding an Uzi).

In this actual case (in the absence of any additional information) it clearly was not though.

 

[Lethality]

It could be totally justified in some hypothetical (she was also holding an Uzi).

In this actual case (in the absence of any additional information) it clearly was not though.

If I threw a can at someone and ran away and they clocked me in the back of the head I'd say I earned it.

 

[Taylor]

If I threw a can at someone and ran away and they clocked me in the back of the head I'd say I earned it.

I'd rule that as revenge.

If we are going to live under the social rule that women can't be physically interacted with, if we have that right, then we also have the responsibility not to create a circumstance where we force others to use it against us for their own protection and we need to be mature enough to not seek revenge if they do.

But not having revenge against you, not being hunted for what you've done outside of the law - well it might mean that a woman needs to get her arse whooped from time to time if she was bringing violence to others.

Not pretty, not ladylike, but maybe if you leave that protection at the door when you bring violence to others then you get what's coming to you.

We need to be mature enough to nod and think "fair enough" if a man drops a woman with a single punch after she was trying to hurt him.

But also that things like firearms level the score and maybe it would be reasonable for physically weaker people to be able to protect themselves with something that evens the playing field.

 

[Malifice]

We need to be mature enough to nod and think "fair enough" if a man drops a woman with a single punch after she was trying to hurt him.

How is that in any way proportionate?

You're a woman; how many blokes do you know that you could physically overpower in a fight for your life?

 

[Taylor]

How is that in any way proportionate?

You're a woman; how many blokes do you know that you could physically overpower in a fight for your life?

That's not a fair question, I have specialised training for that.

But your point is fair, I still get scared when I'm out running at night because essentially any man surprising me would make a victim of me.

The point I was speaking to was that there absolutely is a point at which it is reasonable, proportionate and correct for me to get punched square in the face, taken off my feet and put to the ground. It's not from me screaming at someone, or slapping them, but there is a point where I'd consider that I deserved it.

If I had to make up an example I'd think if I was intent on squirrel gripping you, absolutely crazed that I was going to crack your berries like a wallnut in a vice grip and I had almost locked on - if you flattened me for it, when I woke up I'd think that was fair enough.

 

[Malifice]

That's not a fair question, I have specialised training for that.

Oh for the love of God, tell me you're not a police officer.

But your point is fair, I still get scared when I'm out running at night because essentially any man surprising me would make a victim of me.

So all else being equal, violence by men against women is not the same thing as violence by women against men.

Yes or No?

 

[Taylor]

Oh for the love of God, tell me you're not a police officer.

I am not a police officer.

So all else being equal, violence by men against women is not the same thing as violence by women against men.

Yes or No?

Strictly physical violence, yes. Men and women aren't equal physically.

Men are also culturally and biologically physical, you're far more comfortable with it.

 

[Malifice]

Strictly physical violence, yes. Men and women aren't equal physically.

Ok, so we agree men are (as a general rule) far more physically more capable than women when it comes to violence.

Next question for you:

Who is also more likely to use coercive physical violence (sexually and in other ways) as clearly shown by DV and crime stats, and reflected in your own fear as a woman when you're out and about at night, and are walking past a random dude?

a) Women, or
b) Men, or
c) It's equal

?

 

[Taylor]

Ok, so we agree men are (as a general rule) far more physically more capable than women when it comes to violence.

Next question for you:

Who is also more likely to use coercive physical violence (sexually and in other ways) as clearly shown by DV and crime stats, and reflected in your own fear as a woman when you're out and about at night, and are walking past a random dude?

a) Women, or
b) Men, or
c) It's equal

?

Stupid people are more likely to use physical violence when they run out of argument. Men delivering that violence is usually far worse. Women are far better at sexually coercive behavior and manipulation.

I like to think of it as having my own tamed bear.

 

[Malifice]

Stupid people

No, I'll ask you again:

Which gender is more likely to use coercive physical violence (sexually and in other ways) as clearly shown by DV and crime stats, and reflected in your own fear as a woman when you're out and about at night, and are walking past a random dude?

a) Women, or
b) Men, or
c) It's equal

?

 

[Taylor]

No, I'll ask you again:

Which gender is more likely to use coercive physical violence (sexually and in other ways) as clearly shown by DV and crime stats, and reflected in your own fear as a woman when you're out and about at night, and are walking past a random dude?

a) Women, or
b) Men, or
c) It's equal

?

Poor people.

I think we need to look at it objectively. Men are capable of doing more damage. Violence committed by men is far more likely to be recorded. It's the tool men use when they run out of mental runway to land an argument, but so do women - we are just worse at it because we aren't as big and strong.

 

[Malifice]

Poor people.

No, I'll ask you again.

Which gender is more likely to use coercive physical violence (sexually and in other ways) as clearly shown by DV and crime stats, and reflected in your own fear as a woman when you're out and about at night, and are walking past a random dude?

a) Women, or
b) Men, or
c) It's equal

?

 

[Taylor]

No, I'll ask you again.

Which gender is more likely to use coercive physical violence (sexually and in other ways) as clearly shown by DV and crime stats, and reflected in your own fear as a woman when you're out and about at night, and are walking past a random dude?

a) Women, or
b) Men, or
c) It's equal

?

I've answered your question with far more nuance than your options available.

 

[Malifice]

I've answered your question with far more nuance than your options available.

No you haven't, you have deliberately avoided the question because you know the answer makes you look like a hypocrite.

Because here is where we're at.

You agree:

1) Men are much better at violence than women, and far more capable than them to seriously injure or even kill a woman.

2) Men are much more likely than women to use that physical violence to get what they want.

That being the case, do you think it's sensible for you (a woman) to be publicly advocating the following position:

A woman needs to get her arse whooped from time to time if she was bringing violence to others.

Not pretty, not ladylike, but maybe if you leave that protection at the door when you bring violence to others then you get what's coming to you.

We need to be mature enough to nod and think "fair enough" if a man drops a woman with a single punch after she was trying to hurt him.

Yes, or No?

 

[Taylor]

No you haven't, you have deliberately avoided the question because you know the answer makes you look like a hypocrite.

Because here is where we're at.

You agree:

1) Men are much better at violence than women, and far more capable than them to seriously injure or even kill a woman.

2) Men are much more likely than women to use that physical violence to get what they want.

That being the case, do you think it's sensible for you (a woman) to be publicly advocating the following position:



Yes, or No?

I'm confused by your pressing a question I haven't disagreed with the entire time. How about you start showing me where you think I did?

There is absolutely a point at which violence towards a woman is justified. That point is far higher than against a man but it absolutely exists.

 

[Malifice]

I'm confused

No s**t.

Ill ask you again, this time please answer my question.

Being that men are far more likely to resort to violence, and are also far better at it when they do (compared to women), do you think it's sensible for you (a woman) to be publicly advocating a position of 'violence against women is (sometimes) justified?'

Yes, or No?

 

[Taylor]

No sh*t.

Ill ask you again, this time please answer my question.

Being that men are far more likely to resort to violence, and are also far better at it when they do (compared to women), do you think it's sensible for you (a woman) to be publicly advocating a position of 'violence against women is (sometimes) justified?'

Yes, or No?

Yes I do, because rigid rules that have zero context is a stupid way to debate a simple argument. Men shouldn't be violent with anyone, certainly not people more vulnerable than them of which most women are for most men. But there are absolutely going to be circumstances where a man will need to lay out a woman and taking that off the table is foolish. If she is drowning her children in the bath, if she is taking a knife to her children because her mental illness has set off (actual case in Perth). All warrant bringing violence to her.

But we need to be mature about it and discuss the context and circumstances of these events.

 

[Malifice]

Yes I do

See that wasnt that hard was it?

Ok so you think it's sensible for women to advocate for male violence against women (as long as she starts it first, and thus the violence is 'justifiied').

Note: You're not just supporting male on female violence here. You're supporting advocating for it, as a woman.

Next question:

Do you (or would you) tell your significant other (Tinder date, Husband, Boyfriend or whatever) that he is justified (to use your words) in 'laying you out', but only should you kick it off first?

Yes or No?