How the hell is it irrelevant?
Originally Posted by Swervy
Why'd anyone WANT to hit someone unless they've been hit first?
Yes, I do, because I see no good reason for it.
So you find the 'convention' of man not striking a woman inappropriate.
Why? Because you're a typial "poor little females" sort of guy?
I sometimes find your ideas strange about cricket....right now, I find you pretty sad and extremely pathetic.
Oh, yeah? Funny how it hasn't happened already, then.
One of these days, with that attitude, you will either find yourself behind bars, or on the end of a pretty well deserved battering
Well, all right, happy isn't appropriate and I'll change it, I'm never happy about hitting someone - but I am not unhappy, no.
I am actually shocked that anyone could admit to such a thing and use the word 'happy' twice whilst doing it.
You are going incredibly overboard, just like anyone else pathetic enough to endear to that ludicrous convention which has no basis in non-hypocritical fact.
sorry if I am going overboard here, but Richard, you as a person/net entity, have gone spiralling down big time in my opinion
The only possible basis appears to me to be "pick on someone your own size" syndrome, which I'm a big believer in - I don't like physical intimidation.
But, funnily enough, the outrage when a big guy hits a small guy isn't anywhere near the outrage when a small guy hits a small girl. As for if a big girl hits a small guy - well, it's practically non-existent. Oh, and another one - if a little guy hits a big guy, he's asking for it, yeah? So he can't be surprised if he gets whacked back. But if a small girl hits a small guy - oh, no, how dare he endeavour to strike even.
And all this ******** is for one reason - the typical modern-day sexism that females are in some way absolved from blame in physical confrontation - the same way so many guys have this sick obession with "bitch-fights".