Men hitting women.

I agree here for the most part. One thing I learned from self defense class (and pre-law classes) is that it's always best to save retaliation for a final resort. Most women I know couldn't do much to hurt me in the first place (please don't take this out of context) unless they went for something sensitive like the eyes or groin. However, I'm a fairly well built man and I could easily restrain most women here on my university campus. If it was really a serious beatdown, like she's a UFC fighter, it's always better from a legal standpoint to use a passive defense style that includes using arms and legs to deflect blows off your face and groin. If you can't, next best thing is to run away from the altercation. After that, if you can't take a couple hits, restrain them, or run away, then it MIGHT be ok to throw a couple conservative punches, and I say might because case by case discretion is usually your best bet. However, weapons are a different thing. If I'm threatened by a woman with a knife, there's nothing that says you shouldn't hit her (unless you can run away of course, knives are bad at a range and most knives aren't balanced for throwing). With a gun, you're probably better not hitting her, and running could be equally bad for your health. Whether or not you comply or mimic compliance until you can use a disengaged moment to conceal your draw on a concealed pistol is, again, best left to your own discretion.
P.S. I'm not saying that you should never ever ever hit a girl if she hits you first, however, it's best to use the legal system and have her spend time behind bars for assault rather than running the risk of having an easily confused (and sometimes biased against the man) jury sort out who really was the victim, as she will usually have the benefit of the doubt (both in being a female as well as being the one who walked away in the worse condition).

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 20, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 20, 2016 ---

Most women lack the physical strength to seriously hurt a man. The best way to go is have her arrested and charged with assault if it's really a big deal.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 20, 2016 ---

The resprocussions would be best, in most cases, to be decided before a judge and jury. There's too many other things that could go wrong to dish out a can of whoop-ass even if the law says it's justified

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 20, 2016 ---

Well I just read this so I guess I'm just restating what you said. Lol :/ rip

 

First off I don't know what women you know o.o in most cases I'd prefer to fight a guy as they tend to fight not as dirty. They'll hit you sure but I've never been cut to ribbons by guys nails and had my hair ripped out either. Granted, I've only ever been in a serious situation with a woman once and out of all the "quarrels" that's been the worse.

Obviously situations would, in an ideal world, be met by the jury with justice always and I wish that was the case but that doesn't always happen. Maybe it's because I grew up in a rough area and you just don't understand, that's not your fault and it can't be helped but were I used to live going to the police simply wasn't an option and I quite like my organs inside my body. If a woman was beating me over a disagreement or otherwise I would eliminate the threat (hopefully) if I could I would subdue her but most of the time you simply can't, and I would hope any man would do the same to me.

 

If it's against both sexes it isn't sexist, is it?

 

If I made racists comments about all the races do they also somehow cancel out?

 

Like I said, it's best to use your best judgement in every case. Sometimes, eliminating the threat is as easy as grabbing their arms and forcing them into subduement, other times you need to hit back. However, I probably would have an easier time with doing this because I've learned enough techniques to where there's not really a situation that I don't know how to control (although no situation is always black and white). Also, as I've stated before, if someone poses a real, immediate threat I.e. Injuring your vital organs, go on ahead and black them out.
P.S. I've lived in a pretty bad area as well, where I've been shot walking at night just because someone wanted to prove that they were worthy enough to wear gang colors. Knowing the difference between a .45 acp and a 9mm and being able to use the fact that most people can't hit a moving target (especially in the dark) in order to run away helped me get away with only a single scar. I'm not sure how bad it would have to be for you not to be able to go to the police unless you've done something bad yourself

 

I guess that's one thing about living in the U.K. compared to the US, not so many illegal guns so I've never been shot at! Your training seems to be very impressive and I know how much discipline and work it takes to get to that stage and I commend you for it.
Concerning the Police, it's more you just don't go to the police, its ratting people out kind of an "us vs them" mentality, which I don't agree with in any way but sadly you had to abide by that rule.
As you've said it's situational, I'm simply arguing that there is a situation where you need to lay hands on a woman.

 

I wouldn't see it as "ratting people out". If they commit a crime they deserve to go to jail for their actions.

 

Warning Language Violence

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

You can't make a comment that's racist to all the races.

 

You dont have to agree with me. You also cant call me sexist because I dont hit women. Its not a sexist issue, Its a moral issue.
Ill personally never hit a woman. I dont care what the situation. Personal opinion.

 

I mean, I've seen plenty of people that would've legitimately argued for the claims that you were mentioning, so there was no reason for me to assume that they were jokes just because I strongly disagree with them.

So.. Is this a continuation of the joke or were you never joking in the first place?

Assuming that you were/are joking, I don't really see what the point of this joke is. Your claims aren't uncommon or radical enough for people to generally know that you're joking and find your comments humorous; instead, all that's happened is that most people have taken you seriously and argued with you. What's the point in continuing the joke now (if it is a joke, that is)?

 

Surely I could make a statement that could be interpreted in different ways that would offend all races?

"If you're a black person, you don't hit a white one. I don't care if they're whooping you.

If you cant take a hit from a white person, you don't deserve to be in the presence of one. Put a skirt on."

See that's offensive to more than one race in one message, now why does that sound so familiar....

I would totally agree with you but that's just the mindset people in areas like where I lived had "snitches get stitches"

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 21, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 21, 2016 ---

The definition of sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." I'm pretty sure you've covered that one quite well.

 

The joke was about shooting people.

I use no prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination in my argument. Its simply a choice I made. Theirs nothing Sexist about it. WHen you grow up youll understand.

 

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Regarding that, I would like to note that I don't that it's unjustified to shoot someone who is holding you at gunpoint (in fact, it's quite the opposite); I was just saying that I thought shooting someone doesn't seem like a sufficient way to avoid something that does far less harm. Regardless, I won't waste time arguing with the shooting part, since you were joking about that.

I'd argue that a sexist issue is a moral issue. That is, while morality isn't based around what is and isn't sexist, I'd argue that that which is sexist is immoral. In this case, which sex you're being sexist towards depends on your reasoning for saying that it's immoral to fight back against a woman. Reverting to what I mentioned earlier, if you're saying that it's immoral to fight back because of women being weak, you're being sexist towards women (and also just inaccurate, shown by the many situations where women are with men that are weaker than them). If, however, you're saying that it's immoral to fight back against a woman because women are better than men and deserve special treatment, you're being sexist towards men. I'm definitely not someone that skewers things into seeming sexist, nor am I someone to go out of their way to pick at little things that could be seen as sexist; however, this stance that you have is legitimately sexist, and quite honestly, it could cause a lot of harm if the majority of people adopted it.

You can have your personal opinion and I can have mine, of course; however, the point (and fun) of a debate is to discuss them and make arguments.

I will agree that there is nothing sexist about making a choice not to hit women. If you have a personal preference not to hit women, that's totally fine; however, it becomes sexist when you start saying that other men should not hit women (in the context of defending themselves) and that it's immoral to do so. If you want to refrain from defending yourself from women, that's okay, but it's sexist to tell others that it's wrong/immoral to do otherwise, just because of their sex.

For an analogy, if I say that I would totally let an Asian person shoot me, that's fine (well, it's pretty weird and significantly stupid, but it's not wrong); however, if I say that all other white people should let Asians shoot them and that it's immoral for them to do otherwise, that's not only harmful, it's also racist.

 

I just want to say: The best example of what a "man" was, for me, was my Grandfather. He was the type of guy who worked 3 jobs 20 hours a day to support his family until he had a heartattack at 28. He firmly believes that you never, ever, EVER hit a women.

So your views cannot be that wrong, and you have good company in that ideology.

 

(Can't reply to bits because I'm on my phone)

In the case of the first statement (about men and women) it refers to a truth about the sexes, and it doesn't particularly offend men either.


In the case of your statement... black people are not particularly stronger than their white counterparts, so there is no reason to expect them to be able to take a hit.
And I fail to see how this is offensive to both races. You're literally saying that black people are stronger than white people and must therefore avoid striking them in a physical confrontation.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 21, 2016 ---

Can't reply to specific parts because phone:/


Women are weaker than men in a vast majority of cases, and the one-off time that a women is with a weaker man and a violent confrontation takes place doesn't necessarily break that rule.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 21, 2016 ---

To the last bit:

It isn't racist, and it can't compare with men v women because a woman striking you won't kill you, but an Asian shooting you will. I will admit it has racist implications though.

A more apt analogy would be: you should never ever shoot an Asian with a real gun if they're shooting you with a BB gun.

I would stick to this rule.

 

You said women are weak. Stereotype: Check
You said men who can't take a woman hitting them need to put on a skirt. Prejudice: Check Discrimination: Check

Just to save us all some time
Definition of prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Your opinion is based on your lack of experience of men being forced to defend themselves against psychotic women, I assume as otherwise you wouldn't hold the opinion that there are no instances in which a man needs to save himself.
Definition of Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. You value women above men obviously.
I'm sure you know what a stereotype is.

How dare you bring age into this. Even if I was 8 years old, age has nothing to do with this. It doesn't effect the debate what so ever so don't treat me like a child. If you continue to use statements like that I'll have to discontinue our conversation due to your downright disrespectful behaviour.

 

You're being a little sensitive about this, kind of SJW. Women are generally weaker than men, that is biology. His views are pretty mainstream, and could be compared to a 250 lbs 6 ft guy deciding to not hit the 100 lbs 5.1 ft guy.

Plus it's OK for men to be sexist against men, it's called giving each other crap. A real man can take a joke.

 

Yes generally women are weaker than men I understand that, it's a part of biology a fact that can't be argued. However they're not daisies they won't tickle you with their punches. Even the weakest woman could still leave a bruise. Since when is defending your opinion being sensitive? I'm not saying women are the superior sex (which is what an SJW). I want a man to hit me if I pose a threat to them, that's equality, not looking at me for sex but looking at me as a person. His opinion couldn't be compared to a 6ft man to a 5ft one because last time I checked not all women are 5ft and 100 lbs in fact I'd say the mass majority aren't.

Theres a difference between banter with your mates and insulting a mans masculinity because he defends himself.

 

What's important to note is that women are not significantly weaker. Sure, women are weaker on average, but they are not generally weak enough that they are unable to hurt men. Even when the man in the relationship is noticeably stronger, it's very rare that the woman is so weak that she's physically incapable of hurting the man if he doesn't fight back; furthermore, there are a huge amount of times where the female is stronger than the male.

First of all, my analogy was clearly racist, as it enables one race to harm another. By your logic, saying that white people can lynch black people isn't racist, it just has "racist implications."

Anyway, your analogy is even more inaccurate, because it involves two different actions (shooting a gun and shooting a BB gun). Regardless, if you want a very accurate analogy: If a white person challenges an Asian person to a game of strategy, the Asian person should never legitimately play the game against the white person; instead, they should just let the white person win. Just like how men are generally stronger than women, Asians are generally smarter than white people.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 21, 2016, Original Post Date: Oct 21, 2016 ---

This is why I hate SJWs. Not only do SJWs cause issues by claiming that things are sexist when they're not, they also create the opportunity for people to just claim that someone is "acting like an SJW" in order to dismiss their claims, which is what you're doing. Women are generally weaker, yes, but it's incredibly rare that a woman is so weak that she won't harm a man if she attacks him and he doesn't defend himself; furthermore, there are many cases where women are stronger than men. If you're telling someone that it's wrong to defend themself from physical harm/abuse, just because of their sex, I'm not sure how that could be anything but sexist.

In the past, the idea that the Earth was flat was pretty mainstream, but that didn't make it correct.

Sure, but he's not claiming that this is wrong, just that it's wrong for men to defend themselves against women. If he was claiming that it's wrong for someone to fight back against someone weaker than them, that would make more sense (I'd still argue against it though, as you have to be much, much weaker than someone to be unable to do any damage if they don't defend themselves), but he's not claiming this; instead, he's claiming that it's wrong for all men to defend themselves against all women.

So.. It's okay for a male to be sexist against another male or it's okay for a male to joke about being sexist against another male? I'm assuming that you're going for the latter, but that doesn't really apply here, because Klutch isn't joking about what he's arguing for. If you're not going for the latter though, why bring up joking at all?

 

Of course a woman can hurt a man. Klutch is not saying one can't defend themselves. (Restraining) He has a personal belief a man should not hit a woman. In a world where men abuse their women in a myriad of ways, we're going to classify his refusal to hit a women as sexist?

Legally, the best defense is calling the police, because being assaulted doesn't inherently give someone the right to commit assault as well, so Klutch is very much in the right, a man should not hit a woman.

Personally, if anyone hits me, I'll beat the hell out of them, regardless. But that doesn't negate Klutch is taking the respectable position.