65 replies to this topic

[notoverrated]

do you see women as a equal in terms of self defense? or special? can a women defend herself by using lethal force on a man? and can a man use lethal force to defend against a women?

[CommunitarianKevin]

I am a strong believer in equality. I think men and women should have the same rights and the same punishments. What goes along with equality is giving up the "special" treatment that a particular group had before they were considered equal. Neither should engage in abuse or violence towards the other but no person should do that against another anyways. Not a man against a man, a man against a woman, not a woman against a man, and not a woman against a woman. It is a level playing field...

If a smaller man walked up and hit me in the face, I will knock him on his ass. If a woman hit me in the face, I should be able to knock her on her ass. If you want to be equal, you should except the same punishments. If you do not want the same punishments, then clearly you are special, and not equal. You cannot be both IMO. You cannot get the benefits of being equal but also get the benefits of being special. The reason for that is because that is not fair to the other party. A man for example, would be doublely discriminated against if he must take the abuse and cannot defend himself.

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 02 October 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[Anonymous User]

Hutton summed up my views quite accurately.

[notoverrated]

interesting, and what abut the fact that men are bigger then women (on average) should there be circumstances?

[Anonymous User]

notoverrated, on 02 October 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

interesting, and what abut the fact that men are bigger then women (on average) should there be circumstances?

Circumstances pertaining to what?

[CommunitarianKevin]

notoverrated, on 02 October 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

interesting, and what abut the fact that men are bigger then women (on average) should there be circumstances?

What about a small man? I was a wrestler in high school...we had guys that weighed barely 100 lbs. Should they get special treatment because they are smaller? What if a guy weighs 100 lbs and his girl weighs 150 lbs? Also, guns and other weapons do not care about size. No one should be assulting anyone, period. I guess I kind of look at it this way...know your place...I do not mess with a guy that is 350 lbs, so a guy that is 130 lbs should not mess with me. It is quite simple...

Edit: I mean in wrestling and MMA we compensate for this size difference by having different weight classes but when we are just screwing around I have rolled with guys of all sizes. I do not fare too well against guys that out weight me by 50 lbs and I dominate guys that I outweigh by 50 lbs. In one of my MMA sessions I actually had a girl challenge me. She was a cop and her B/F was a pro MMA fighter. She weighed about 130, me about 200. I threw her around like a rag doll. The girls, we treated the same, and some of them were actually quite good at rolling with guys...

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 02 October 2012 - 06:43 AM.

[notoverrated]

im not on bored with being able to strike a women (maybe how i was raised) but i think legally it shouldnt effect the case.

[CommunitarianKevin]

notoverrated, on 02 October 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

im not on bored with being able to strike a women (maybe how i was raised) but i think legally it shouldnt effect the case.

I think it depends on the circumstance. No man should abuse a woman. But no woman should be able to abuse a man just because. My wife has gotten pissed and hit me before. I asked her to please not hit me unless she wants to get hit. She has never hit me since. I have never hit a woman and hope I never have to...but if a woman tries to kick my ass and physically harm me, I will defend myself.

[Anonymous User]

notoverrated, on 02 October 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

im not on bored with being able to strike a women (maybe how i was raised) but i think legally it shouldnt effect the case.

Hutton is saying that in the case of self-defence, is a man strikes a women, the consequences faced shouldn't be less or more severe than striking a man. (Correct if wrong)

My position is that when it comes to the law emotions should stay aside. Situations shouldn't be judged diffidently based on gender. There should be no special circumstances.

Edited by Thomas J, 02 October 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[catch-me-if-you-can]

I have been smacked, pushed, bitten, burned by cigarettes, and had a knife held to my face on several different occasions by many different girlfriends, and I have never once sank myself low enough to hit a woman in return, no matter what. Period. I am a huge prick, I admit, but I know not to Ever ever lay a hand on a female, no matter what, in an abusive manner. That's the lowest, yellowish thing a man could ever possibly do, no matter what.

Edited by bones101proof, 02 October 2012 - 06:52 AM.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Let's put it this way...I would not let a woman kill me because they are some how special and cannot be harmed.

bones101proof, on 02 October 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

I have been smacked, pushed, bitten, burned by cigarettes, and had a knife held to my face on several different occasions by many different girlfriends, and I have never once sank myself low enough to hit a woman in return, no matter what. Period. I am a huge pricked, I admit, but I know not to Ever ever lay a hand on a female, no matter what, in an abusive manner. That's the lowest, yellowish thing a man could ever possibly do, no matter what.

Where do you find your girlfriends? Well, if a woman kills you because you refuse to defend yourself...so be it...

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 02 October 2012 - 06:52 AM.

[Anonymous User]

bones101proof, on 02 October 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

I have been smacked, pushed, bitten, burned by cigarettes, and had a knife held to my face on several different occasions by many different girlfriends, and I have never once sank myself low enough to hit a woman in return, no matter what. Period. I am a huge prick, I admit, but I know not to Ever ever lay a hand on a female, no matter what, in an abusive manner. That's the lowest, yellowish thing a man could ever possibly do, no matter what.

Sheesh, your ex-girlfriends sound a little crazy. No offence.

Nobody (I would hope..) is saying hitting a women is right. It's when this takes place the consequences faced should be no different. Gender should be seen as irrelevant. IMO

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Is there a difference between a man who is totally raging with testosterone, beating on his wife and using his brut strength while she tries to protect herself, what chance has she got ? she can't counter him with sheer strength alone, so she has to either endure it and hope for the best, or she makes sure that whatever she does to attack back, is going to be powerful enough to put her on a equal basis with him, if not better to stop everything.

versus

A man who is being wailed on by his raging emotional/hormonal wife, who conversely does have the strength to counter her on a strength basis without having to pick up a weapon or makeshift one to stand on a equal basis than her.

The person being abused regardless of the gender should have the right to be able to defend them self, but the law should also recognise that if neither were too do so, then it is women who are at a far bigger disadvantage and risk of being killed than men are. And it is women who are likely to be pushed into survival mode to literally fight for their life. An instinct that can not be controlled and has no rational place.

A man being battered by a women could easily just knock her out fairly easily and stop the escalation without killing her or damaging her too badly. A women being battered by a man has every chance against her that if she doesn't make her attack good enough, he will rage even more and kill her.

[catch-me-if-you-can]

Thomas J, on 02 October 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Sheesh, your ex-girlfriends sound a little crazy. No offence.

Nobody (I would hope..) is saying hitting a women is right. It's when this takes place the consequences faced should be no different. Gender should be seen as irrelevant. IMO

Yea well, I've been around the block in the real world a few times.

[CommunitarianKevin]

bLu3 de 3n3rgy, on 02 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Is there a difference between a man who is totally raging with testosterone, beating on his wife and using his brut strength while she tries to protect herself, what chance has she got ? she can't counter him with sheer strength alone, so she has to either endure it and hope for the best, or she makes sure that whatever she does to attack back, is going to be powerful enough to put her on a equal basis with him, if not better to stop everything.

versus

A man who is being wailed on by his raging emotional/hormonal wife, who conversely does have the strength to counter her on a strength basis without having to pick up a weapon or makeshift one to stand on a equal basis than her.

The person being abused regardless of the gender should have the right to be able to defend them self, but the law should also recognise that if neither were too do so, then it is women who are at a far bigger disadvantage and risk of being killed than men are. And it is women who are likely to be pushed into survival mode to literally fight for their life. An instinct that can not be controlled and has no rational place.

A man being battered by a women could easily just knock her out fairly easily and stop the escalation without killing her or damaging her too badly. A women being battered by a man has every chance against her that if she doesn't make her attack good enough, he will rage even more and kill her.

http://www.youtube.c...bed/SGfG5c65r2s

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 02 October 2012 - 07:40 AM.