Hansie Cronje movie

[Richard]

OK CC..that was life preserving self defense.

that is completely differenet to this:
'Well I'm don't find it unthinkably disraceful to hit females if they hit me, yes.
If a convention strikes me as inappropriate, I'm happy to defy it.'

Richards appears to be more an act of revenge,thats what I find terrible

And if some tiny little guy goes up and punches a huge guy it's "terrible" for him to hit him back?
Because if not you're a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

[Richard]

I cannot believe you're continuing to argue...

Then you should know better by now.

 

[Richard]

This goes back to the old thinking before posting idea that I was apparently wrong to highlight.

Which fortunately I spotted in time to do something about this time.
And I hardly think you can blame me for wanting to post ASAP, given the extreme nature of the situation.

 

[Richard]

I hate to contribute to an already off-topic thread, in CC nonetheless, but i have to say something.

There is no shame whatsoever in that.

First of all, I believe violence should and generally can be avoided in all situations. A man beating his helpless wife is unacceptable.

I agree wholeheartedly on both counts.
And I should add that the repeated abuse of a (professed) loved one such as wife-beating is one of the most evil things humankind can do.
But that doesn't mean wife (or girlfriend) -beating is any more unacceptible than husband (or boyfriend) -beating - be it by hetrosexual women or homosexual men.
And that's something I'd not imagine many people understand, either.

 

[Richard]

Obviously I have a different way of looking at these types of things. Self defense..fair enough...An act of revenge for a woman hitting you..well out of order. My opinion, and I am quite shocked that no-one else has backed me up on that one.

Hopefully, though not neccessarily in my experience, an indication that this old-fashioned way of looking at things is being thrown-out.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Hopefully, though not neccessarily in my experience, an indication that this old-fashioned way of looking at things is being thrown-out.

I've really tried to avoid getting involved with this, but hitting a woman is a big no-no.

Of course if one's in mortal danger it would make a difference, but hitting a woman simply because she hit you first isn't on.

To seriously contend otherwise makes one a misogynist. The simple fact of the matter is that men are stronger than women. If a small child hit you would you hit it back?

 

[C_C]

but hitting a woman simply because she hit you first isn't on.

Disagree. If she hit you, she is open game for a response.

To seriously contend otherwise makes one a misogynist.

Incorrect, Misogynist is one who hates women. No hatred is evidenced here- just plain equality. To contend that a guy who hit you deserves to be hit but a girl who did the same does not is ***ism and patronising.

The simple fact of the matter is that men are stronger than women.If a small child hit you would you hit it back?

irrelevant really. Or are you suggesting that women arnt strong enough to cause damage if they go postal on you ?

Besides, that child analogy is totally irrelevant. If a child hits you you dont hit back primarily because a child doesnt have the faculties yet to fully comprehend the magnitude of his/her actions and take responsibility for it.

If strength is your issue, then hitting weak and puny men should be the same damn thing as hitting women- yet it isnt. Which is hypocritical really.

 

[marc71178]

Which fortunately I spotted in time to do something about this time.
And I hardly think you can blame me for wanting to post ASAP, given the extreme nature of the situation.

If you post without thinking (as it is clear happened) then everything I said stands valid.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Disagree. If she hit you, she is open game for a response.

Incorrect, Misogynist is one who hates women. No hatred is evidenced here- just plain equality. To contend that a guy who hit you deserves to be hit but a girl who did the same does not is ***ism and patronising.

irrelevant really. Or are you suggesting that women arnt strong enough to cause damage if they go postal on you ?

Besides, that child analogy is totally irrelevant. If a child hits you you dont hit back primarily because a child doesnt have the faculties yet to fully comprehend the magnitude of his/her actions and take responsibility for it.

If strength is your issue, then hitting weak and puny men should be the same damn thing as hitting women- yet it isnt. Which is hypocritical really.

Ok, so if you consider a woman who hits you "open game for a response" what exactly does that make you if not a misogynist? A feminist? One who stands up for women's rights? No, it makes you a gutless pr*ck. By all means stop her from hitting you, when you're stronger than your aggressor you have that luxury.

Two wrongs do not make a right; this certainly is very pertinent here.

The child analogy isn't irrelevant; if a psychopath attacked me I could say he didn't have the faculties to comprehend his actions, I'd still reserve the right to defend myself though. I used the analogy to demonstrate that there is a difference in strength between the respective parties. If your argument about women being "open game" is valid it should be able to be applied to other scenarios. It can't be so isn't.

I don't think I have advocated hitting "weak & puny men" anywhere either. But, and sorry to revert to biological determinism, but I would guess that roughly 95% of able bodied men are stronger than 95% of able bodied women. Why is it you think that men & women don't compete in sporting events together that are based on strength and/or speed?

 

[C_C]

Ok, so if you consider a woman who hits you "open game for a response" what exactly does that make you if not a misogynist? A feminist? One who stands up for women's rights? No, it makes you a gutless pr*ck. By all means stop her from hitting you, when you're stronger than your aggressor you have that luxury.

It makes me somoene who is purely deterministic rather than cultrualistic.
Conversely, with the same logic, if hitting a man is okay when you are the stronger aggressor or atleast, not abhorrable then you are a man hater.

The child analogy isn't irrelevant; if a psychopath attacked me I could say he didn't have the faculties to comprehend his actions, I'd still reserve the right to defend myself though. I used the analogy to demonstrate that there is a difference in strength between the respective parties. If your argument about women being "open game" is valid it should be able to be applied to other scenarios. It can't be so isn't.

Irrelevant really like i said. hitting a child is no different than hitting a psychopath.
THe fact that you are making that distinction shows that your responses are not well thought out and doesnt take consequentiality into accordance.
Any adult who isnt clinically insane or unstable is open game if they hit me first. Simple as that. age(beyond legal age and under obvious extreme old age), *** and size doesnt matter...to make it matter would be discrimination.

I don't think I have advocated hitting "weak & puny men" anywhere either. But, and sorry to revert to biological determinism, but I would guess that roughly 95% of able bodied men are stronger than 95% of able bodied women. Why is it you think that men & women don't compete in sporting events together that are based on strength and/or speed?

I know you are not- i am not advocating hitting anyone either since you notice that i've always qualified my statements with 'if hits me first'.
But one does get the notion that somehow hitting weak and puny men isnt as much of a stigma to you as hitting a woman- if you claim that it is just as wrong as hitting a weak man as hitting a weak woman and to you, there is no difference absolutely, i would retract that claim.

As per 95%, i think you are grossly wrong. Women in general are weaker than men but even if you able bodied, trust me there are more than 5% women on this planet who could serve your **** on a platter. Besides, i think it is naive to think that fighting or ability to cause damage is solely strength based or hell, that strength is a big factor in it. I've been a witness to and involved in quiete a few fights myself and i will tell you right now that strength has very little to do with it. Infact, thinking that you are stronger has got more people seriously hurt than anything else in fighting.

Why dont men and women compete in sports based on speed and strength ? because it is culturalism. In many parts of the world they do and getting beat by a woman holds no special stigma.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It makes me somoene who is purely deterministic rather than cultrualistic.
Conversely, with the same logic, if hitting a man is okay when you are the stronger aggressor or atleast, not abhorrable then you are a man hater.

Irrelevant really like i said. hitting a child is no different than hitting a psychopath.
THe fact that you are making that distinction shows that your responses are not well thought out and doesnt take consequentiality into accordance.
Any adult who isnt clinically insane or unstable is open game if they hit me first. Simple as that. age(beyond legal age and under obvious extreme old age), *** and size doesnt matter...to make it matter would be discrimination.

I know you are not- i am not advocating hitting anyone either since you notice that i've always qualified my statements with 'if hits me first'.
But one does get the notion that somehow hitting weak and puny men isnt as much of a stigma to you as hitting a woman- if you claim that it is just as wrong as hitting a weak man as hitting a weak woman and to you, there is no difference absolutely, i would retract that claim.

As per 95%, i think you are grossly wrong. Women in general are weaker than men but even if you able bodied, trust me there are more than 5% women on this planet who could serve your **** on a platter. Besides, i think it is naive to think that fighting or ability to cause damage is solely strength based or hell, that strength is a big factor in it. I've been a witness to and involved in quiete a few fights myself and i will tell you right now that strength has very little to do with it. Infact, thinking that you are stronger has got more people seriously hurt than anything else in fighting.

Why dont men and women compete in sports based on speed and strength ? because it is culturalism. In many parts of the world they do and getting beat by a woman holds no special stigma.

Well you're really all over the place there, so where to begin?

Ok:

-Unprovoked assaults are always wrong. Period. If, however, one were to venture into moral relativism rather than absolutes, then yes, hitting another man is far less detestable than hitting a woman.

-Hitting a child who attacked you is demonstrably & quantifiably different from hitting a psychopath who attacked you. It is simply a question of strength. You then seem to suggest that you wouldn't hit anyone who is clinically insane or unstable who attacked you? Why? Surely you would wish to defend yourself?

-If any woman could seriously compete with men at the top level in sport trust me they would be doing it. In our litigious age of equal rights for all if a girl was good enough to play for Man U or The All Blacks or Canterbury Bulldogs or whoever she would. She'd be a solid-gold box office draw & an instant heroine to millions of female sports fans. The eccentric chairman of Perugia was determined for his team to be the first to field a female in a competitive fixture; the simple fact is that he can't find one who is good enough.

 

[Richard]

DB, let me get something straight here:
If someone tries to hit you, your first response is to stop them. If you do not, the next response is to hit them back.
And as for your sport analogy - find me a sport that is simply about throwing random strikes? There are all sorts of skill-related things that make men generally more able at sports than women. Straightforward strength rarely comes into it. If you think a basic, able-bodied man with no extraordinary "fighting skill" would not be an even battle with a woman of just slightly greater weight and muscle and similarly able-bodied, you're kidding yourself.
And it comes down to the same thing again: do you really expect to hit a massive guy and him not to hit you back simply because he'd obviously batter you if he did?
Why the hell is it any different for a woman to hit a man and have the right not to be hit back?

 

[C_C]

-Unprovoked assaults are always wrong. Period. If, however, one were to venture into moral relativism rather than absolutes, then yes, hitting another man is far less detestable than hitting a woman.

There is no reason to think that logically and ethically.

-Hitting a child who attacked you is demonstrably & quantifiably different from hitting a psychopath who attacked you. It is simply a question of strength. You then seem to suggest that you wouldn't hit anyone who is clinically insane or unstable who attacked you? Why? Surely you would wish to defend yourself?

Put it this way- if a sane adult came at me swinging, i would clock him/her in as clinical a manner as i can after i've made an initial attempt to stop the person. If a child or a clinically ill person came at me, i would subdue them/disarm them or atleast try to and then at worst go for an incapacitaing move ( big clunk on the head with something heavy) to incapacitate them, since they are not in a position of total mental responsibility- which is why insanity/underage IS a valid legal defence.

If any woman could seriously compete with men at the top level in sport trust me they would be doing it.

First its about popularity and perogative- i have lived in the western world for the bulk of my life and female athletes are not a social icon as male athletes. The social picture of a woman is beautifully dressed, slender as a toothpick, polite, etc etc.

However, i've witnessed cultures where women get just as much free reign as men.
There are parts in himalayan india where there is absolutely no ***ist-base of division of work or societerial norms. And guess what ? I've seen women soccer players who can kick ass, seen women horseriders and shooters who are just as good as men. The same is true about most of the steppes lifestyle. I am willing to bet 100 bucks that the average central asian nomadic steppes woman would put a lickin on the average male from other parts of the world.

So why doesnt it manifest itself in the bulk of the societies in the world ? because of ***ism and what is considered 'proper' and 'improper', alongside social impetus.
Yes, things are improving but how much have we come really ? its not even 40 years since women have been given their rightful freedom and even then it is not completely equal with men- ***ism is still very much alive in most parts of the world.
That leads to the 'law of large numbers' and 'developmental dynamics'.

Most male sports are in peak period- where they are iconic status in the society, have reached a level of great development and have a fundamental fanbase for generations, who supply future stars. In that sense, male sports are at peak efficiency level.
Most women sports are embryonic- they are not as well set, iconic and dont have the kinda fanbase to supply future stars. It is simply one of the resultant scenarios of the law of large numbers. Give it a 100 years and dont be surprised if you see a woman taking on the 22nd century Mohammed Ali for the boxing title or the 22nd century Maurice Greene for the 100m title.


As per strength goes- you realise that the recent IAAF simulations show women to be the holders of the 'fastest 100 meter runner' tag by 2075 ?

Women may not be able to lift as much as men or have as much strength, but society has a sick fascination with strength alone- in most circumstances, strenth is, at best, a minor player. Not a major player. Knowing what to do, intelligence and technique are almost always more important than strengths and there is zero biological barrier in that.

 

[Deja moo]

The child analogy is simply irrelevant.

If hitting a woman in retaliation and after adequate physical provocation makes one a misogynist, the woman hitting the guy in the first place makes her a misandrist, and I dont see how that is anymore justified than the former.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The child analogy is simply irrelevant.

If hitting a woman in retaliation and after adequate physical provocation makes one a misogynist, the woman hitting the guy in the first place makes her a misandrist, and I dont see how that is anymore justified than the former.

How is it irrelevant?

I used it as a means to demonstrate use of resonable force. Men on average are stronger than women as adults are stronger than children. Surely the correlation is obvious?

& I agree it would make her at least an aggressive, unpleasent person; at no point have I adovacated women attacking men.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Put it this way- if a sane adult came at me swinging, i would clock him/her in as clinical a manner as i can after i've made an initial attempt to stop the person. If a child or a clinically ill person came at me, i would subdue them/disarm them or atleast try to and then at worst go for an incapacitaing move ( big clunk on the head with something heavy) to incapacitate them, since they are not in a position of total mental responsibility- which is why insanity/underage IS a valid legal defence.

I'm really not sure what you understand to mean by psychopath, but let us take the recent example of the man who attacked & nearly beheaded another man with an axe in Swiss Cottage in London.

I'd contend that this is the action of someone in the throes of a psychotic episode. If someone attacked you in this manner I'd suggest you'd use any means necessary. If a man attacked you in this manner I really don't think you'd have time to make the mental calculation as to whether they were certifiably insane or not. One would have so much adrenaline pumping one's "fight or flight" response would override all other concerns.

 

[C_C]

That is life and death scenario and it is different- or are you suggesting that if it was a psycopath woman, you would hold back ?

But like i said, your reason that women are weaker than men and therefore shouldnt be hit doesnt fly, given there are many weak men and they should be no different than weak women. You said from a moral standpoint its worse hitting a woman and again, i fail to see the justification for that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

That is life and death scenario and it is different- or are you suggesting that if it was a psycopath woman, you would hold back ?

But like i said, your reason that women are weaker than men and therefore shouldnt be hit doesnt fly, given there are many weak men and they should be no different than weak women. You said from a moral standpoint its worse hitting a woman and again, i fail to see the justification for that.

It's the very simple reason that men are (by and large) stronger than women.

Why exactly do you suppose we live in a patriarchal society? It's because men have subjugated women. How do you think they've been subjugated? By superior intellect?

Come on....

If you look at various populations around the world there are the atavistic characteristics showing inherited from invading forces. In Northeast England there is an over-representation of blonde hair & blue eyes inherited from Viking raiders & in Southern Italy there is dark skin & brown eyes inherited from the North African Moors.

How do you suppose the invading forces left these genetic footprints? Flowers & chocolates? No, by the ***ual subjugation of the indigenous female population with physical force.

To wit: rape.

If you're suggesting that simply because we are slowly moving to equality women are "fair game" for a slap because of some misguided appeal to that same equality you're displaying wrong-headedness of the first water.

 

[C_C]

It's the very simple reason that men are (by and large) stronger than women.

You've sidestepped the central question numerous time, so here is one last stab.

If STRENGTH is the issue here, WHY did you say that hitting a weak woman was somehow more morally deplorable than hitting an equally weak man ?

Why exactly do you suppose we live in a patriarchal society? It's because men have subjugated women. How do you think they've been subjugated? By superior intellect?

categoric brainwashing.
Quintissential Chanakya/Machiavellian strategy: if you repeat the lie long enough, it becomes the truth and you achieve an everlasting victory once you can brainwash your opposition.

If you look at various populations around the world there are the atavistic characteristics showing inherited from invading forces. In Northeast England there is an over-representation of blonde hair & blue eyes inherited from Viking raiders & in Southern Italy there is dark skin & brown eyes inherited from the North African Moors.

actually any hint of darker skin color and eyes in southern italy is due to carhaginian involvement who were essentially pheonicians/berbers/tauregs mixture.
Not Moorish.

If you're suggesting that simply because we are slowly moving to equality women are "fair game" for a slap because of some misguided appeal to that same equality you're displaying wrong-headedness of the first water.

You have shown no justification to your reasoning here. You have argued on the strength issue which is essentially culturalism more than anything else (like i said, there are women in some cultures who are almost as strong as their male counterparts as there is no compartmentalisation of socio-economical activity throughout history).

If strength is the deterministic factor, then i dont see how a weak puny man deserves any less courtesy than a weak puny woman. Yet you've said that in moral relativism, hitting a woman is far more detestable than hitting a man.
You are yet to explain that, since your 'strength' factor hasnt said WHY it is more detestable to hit a woman that is weak compared to hitting a man who is equally if not more weak.

 

[Richard]

Why?
It's only right that women have increase in rights in some departments. Eg, not to be raped.
The "you shouldn't hit women" idea is relatively speaking a very modern one; it's come more and more into force throughout the 20th century. Yet it has no basis in fact; the nearest anyone can come is "in general women are weaker than men" - well what rubbish. In general small men are weaker than big men - the same social standards don't qualify then and you know it full well.
If someone hits someone stronger than them they're asking for it back. Yes, the truly admirable and restrained amongst us will abstain from all forms of violence. And yes, sometimes someone deserves to be whacked; if someone hits me and I feel I deserve it, I'll not retaliate. But if someone hits me without just reason, whoever they are, I'll retaliate in some form. If they're obviously stronger than me, it'd be wholly stupid for that retaliation to take the form of simply hitting back, because there's only one loser then.