Not to be controversial...

[wickedsolo]

Feminist theory is nonsense. Men are expected to protect women, that is our role. We are the bigger and stronger and are to protect the ones that bear our children. Whether you believe in evolution or Divine creation this applies.

Yea, but then there's that whole "equality" thing...


;)

[Piltnh]

Repeatedly you said that the person using violence has a problem. You never once said that the person who started it has problems. Judging by your words, the person who walks up and insults a person repeatedly over and over should suffer no repercussions.

Now let's move on to your reading comprehension. I never said "will" laugh; I said I reserve the right to.

But you did say that repeated insults over a period of months after all other measures have failed, it's alright to use violence. Why is your barometer so much more civilized than mine? I don't care if it's five months or five minutes. When you intentionally antagonize someone, the result is on your shoulders.

You have an issue with logical arguments. I never said there should be no repercussions, nor that the insulter has no issues. I said the person responding to insults with violence has an issue.

Your "reserve the right to" vs "will" is completely irrelevent.

Insults of a period of months when other measures have failed is far different than "well, i tried ignoring him for 2 minutes time to punch him in the face!" One is truly a last resort - the other is lying to yourself.
And "the result is on your shoulders" is just ridiculous. By your own words, "they deserved it". Except that the person in your example is not a woman, you just justified all domestic abuse, child abuse, rapes, and everything else. What you just said is what those sick people say. "She was wearing provocative clothes, she had it coming."
"He was annoying me, he deserved it."
"She pissed me off intentionally, she deserved it."
"When you intentionally antagonize someone, the result is on your shoulders."

How are those things different?
There's no legitimate reason why an insult justifies physical violence, and doing something annoying does not "make it the victims fault."
Someone having a penis does not suddenly make turning things on the victim okay. That is why my "barometer" is much more civilized than yours. You sound like the people who beat women and kids up, except "it's okay they had a penis"

[darb72]

You have an issue with logical arguments. I never said there should be no repercussions, nor that the insulter has no issues. I said the person responding to insults with violence has an issue.

Your "reserve the right to" vs "will" is completely irrelevent.

Insults of a period of months when other measures have failed is far different than "well, i tried ignoring him for 2 minutes time to punch him in the face!" One is truly a last resort - the other is lying to yourself.
And "the result is on your shoulders" is just ridiculous. By your own words, "they deserved it". Except that the person in your example is not a woman, you just justified all domestic abuse, child abuse, rapes, and everything else. What you just said is what those sick people say. "She was wearing provocative clothes, she had it coming."
"He was annoying me, he deserved it."
"She pissed me off intentionally, she deserved it."
"When you intentionally antagonize someone, the result is on your shoulders."

How are those things different?
There's no legitimate reason why an insult justifies physical violence, and doing something annoying does not "make it the victims fault."
Someone having a penis does not suddenly make turning things on the victim okay. That is why my "barometer" is much more civilized than yours. You sound like the people who beat women and kids up, except "it's okay they had a penis"

This is twice in the last couple of days I've been accused of perpetuating domestic violence. This time I get accused of perpetuating child abuse too. Theoretically, since I'm a knuckle dragging caveman, I should be upset.

My favorite quote from you, and the one that wraps this argument up quite nicely is, "You have an issue with logical arguments. I never said there should be no repercussions, nor that the insulter has no issues. I said the person responding to insults with violence has an issue." Great point, except I never said the person who used violence doesn't have issues. Repeatedly I have said if you start a fight, then you deal with the consequences. I made no remarks on the mental health of either individual. You did. Now this is the first time we've ever really had a discussion so I'm gonna help you out. See, when folks simply refuse to understand what I'm trying to say, I type real slow so they can keep up.

When someone starts a fight, it's on their shoulders. If a man walks up to another man in an aggressive manner and calls him a son-of-a-bitch, then he gets no sympathy from me when his ass is kicked. Absolutely none.

If you're still struggling to understand, Google some of the words with more than two syllables. Let me know how it goes.

As for "will" vs. "reserve the right to", it has every bearing on what you tried to make me sound like. I love examples, so let's try one. I WILL go to the store. WILL is a modal verb indicating that a future event is already decided. I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO go to the store. RESERVE THE RIGHT TO in this sentence means there is the possibility of a future event occurring. If Bob the 300 pound body builder slaps Gary the 130 pound accountant in the face, I'm going to laugh my ass off when Gary knocks Bob out. Every single time I'm going to laugh. I'm going to laugh long, and I'm going to laugh loud. Shit, I might record in on my phone so on those days I'm feeling a bit blue it can bring a ray of sunshine.

And before we finish up this little conversation, if you ever fucking call me a wife beater or child abuser again we can talk to the mods. I have never once said it is okay to lay hands on a woman or child.

[Piltnh]

This is twice in the last couple of days I've been accused of perpetuating domestic violence. This time I get accused of perpetuating child abuse too. Theoretically, since I'm a knuckle dragging caveman, I should be upset.

My favorite quote from you, and the one that wraps this argument up quite nicely is, "You have an issue with logical arguments. I never said there should be no repercussions, nor that the insulter has no issues. I said the person responding to insults with violence has an issue." Great point, except I never said the person who used violence doesn't have issues. Repeatedly I have said if you start a fight, then you deal with the consequences. I made no remarks on the mental health of either individual. You did. Now this is the first time we've ever really had a discussion so I'm gonna help you out. See, when folks simply refuse to understand what I'm trying to say, I type real slow so they can keep up.

When someone starts a fight, it's on their shoulders. If a man walks up to another man in an aggressive manner and calls him a son-of-a-bitch, then he gets no sympathy from me when his ass is kicked. Absolutely none.

If you're still struggling to understand, Google some of the words with more than two syllables. Let me know how it goes.

As for "will" vs. "reserve the right to", it has every bearing on what you tried to make me sound like. I love examples, so let's try one. I WILL go to the store. WILL is a modal verb indicating that a future event is already decided. I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO go to the store. RESERVE THE RIGHT TO in this sentence means there is the possibility of a future event occurring. If Bob the 300 pound body builder slaps Gary the 130 pound accountant in the face, I'm going to laugh my ass off when Gary knocks Bob out. Every single time I'm going to laugh. I'm going to laugh long, and I'm going to laugh loud. Shit, I might record in on my phone so on those days I'm feeling a bit blue it can bring a ray of sunshine.

And before we finish up this little conversation, if you ever fucking call me a wife beater or child abuser again we can talk to the mods. I have never once said it is okay to lay hands on a woman or child.

I didn't call you one. I said that there's no logical difference between the two. You are blaming a person who gets beat up by an obviously stronger individual in either case. This is assuming, of course, that the person didn't throw a real punch first. If a weak male throws an actual punch at a strong guy, I admit my sympathy for the weak male is low. For the sake of argument, I'm restricting it to insults.

Really, since this is all about personal responsiblity, I do take back the child comment. Because a child isn't in full control of what they do, and isn't completely responsible for actions.
Women are. I don't understand why you draw the line at women if you think it's okay to hit a male for insults. My only logical conclusion is that you don't think women should be accountable... which is why logically it's much easier to draw the line at "hitting anyone for an insult is retarded".

As for talking to the mods, be my guest. I never said you were a child abuser, or a wife beater. I said you're blaming a victim of violence in those situations and there's no logical difference between the two (though I do admit the child abuser was incorrect - as I said, children are not as culpable for their actions, and tend to do things based on emotion rather than thinking them out).

As for the last paragraph, I suppose many would find it funny to have a weak person knock out a strong... but the person who threw the first punch still has problems. And if enough people are pointing out that it's logically the same, it probably is. Logically there is absolutely no reason why one sex should be responded to with violence for words and another shouldn't. That's like saying it's okay to beat up a Mexican but not an African American. It doesn't make any sense.

[darb72]

I didn't call you one. I said that there's no logical difference between the two. You are blaming a person who gets beat up by an obviously stronger individual in either case. This is assuming, of course, that the person didn't throw a real punch first. If a weak male throws an actual punch at a strong guy, I admit my sympathy for the weak male is low. For the sake of argument, I'm restricting it to insults.

Really, since this is all about personal responsiblity, I do take back the child comment. Because a child isn't in full control of what they do, and isn't completely responsible for actions.
Women are. I don't understand why you draw the line at women if you think it's okay to hit a male for insults. My only logical conclusion is that you don't think women should be accountable... which is why logically it's much easier to draw the line at "hitting anyone for an insult is retarded".

As for talking to the mods, be my guest. I never said you were a child abuser, or a wife beater. I said you're blaming a victim of violence in those situations and there's no logical difference between the two (though I do admit the child abuser was incorrect - as I said, children are not as culpable for their actions, and tend to do things based on emotion rather than thinking them out).

As for the last paragraph, I suppose many would find it funny to have a weak person knock out a strong... but the person who threw the first punch still has problems. And if enough people are pointing out that it's logically the same, it probably is. Logically there is absolutely no reason why one sex should be responded to with violence for words and another shouldn't. That's like saying it's okay to beat up a Mexican but not an African American. It doesn't make any sense.

Sorry, you didn't call me one. You said I was the type of person to justify child abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly said you shouldn't hit a woman and you're the one saying a woman and a man are exactly the same in this situation. Uh-huh.

Now do me a favor and show me where I said responding to insults with violence is a good thing. I said if you start a fight, don't bitch about it afterwards. If I tried to type this out any slower we wouldn't be done until the fourth quarter. Personal responsibility. If someone walks up to you and calls you a son-of-a-bitch, you should walk away. I've said that already. But if a guy you insulted decides to hit you, don't cry about it afterwards.

[Piltnh]

Sorry, you didn't call me one. You said I was the type of person to justify child abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly said you shouldn't hit a woman and you're the one saying a woman and a man are exactly the same in this situation. Uh-huh.

Now do me a favor and show me where I said responding to insults with violence is a good thing. I said if you start a fight, don't bitch about it afterwards. If I tried to type this out any slower we wouldn't be done until the fourth quarter. Personal responsibility. If someone walks up to you and calls you a son-of-a-bitch, you should walk away. I've said that already. But if a guy you insulted decides to hit you, don't cry about it afterwards.

We're simply never going to see eye to eye on this. You say you should walk away, but in the same breath seem to be saying it's okay if the person insulted does not walk away. Taking personal responsibility for your actions is a good thing. I don't understand how an escalated response has anything to do with personal responsibility. If you swear and cause disruption and get it back, that's fine. If you insult someone and get fired for it, or arrested for disorderly conduct, you shouldn't bitch. That's what personal responsibility is.

Not accepting inappropriate reactions. Throwing trash on someones yard, and they do something legal to get you in trouble or to make amends? You've no right to complain. They take out a gun and shoot you, and you get away? Yeah, you have a right to complain. Personal responsibility includes accepting all legitimate consequences for such actions. Being punched is not a legitimate consequence for an insult.

And we'll never see eye to eye on the hitting part, either, because why a male's personal responsibility for his actions should be different than a females makes absolutely no sense.

As for where you said it would be okay to respond with physical violence, apparently, someone spitting on you would warrant getting "beaten nearly to death" (see page 2).

[darb72]

We're simply never going to see eye to eye on this. You say you should walk away, but in the same breath seem to be saying it's okay if the person insulted does not walk away. Taking personal responsibility for your actions is a good thing. I don't understand how an escalated response has anything to do with personal responsibility. If you swear and cause disruption and get it back, that's fine. If you insult someone and get fired for it, or arrested for disorderly conduct, you shouldn't bitch. That's what personal responsibility is.

Not accepting inappropriate reactions. Throwing trash on someones yard, and they do something legal to get you in trouble or to make amends? You've no right to complain. They take out a gun and shoot you, and you get away? Yeah, you have a right to complain. Personal responsibility includes accepting all legitimate consequences for such actions. Being punched is not a legitimate consequence for an insult.

And we'll never see eye to eye on the hitting part, either, because why a male's personal responsibility for his actions should be different than a females makes absolutely no sense.

As for where you said it would be okay to respond with physical violence, apparently, someone spitting on you would warrant getting "beaten nearly to death" (see page 2).

If you start a fight, you don't get to bitch about the results. Can you really not understand this? Do I need to get my six year old to explain it? Maybe some crayons and draw you a picture?

You aggressive. Him respond. Big fight. You lose. No cry.

Because a man shouldn't hit a woman. By this point you have to be fucking with me cause nobody can possibly be this stupid. And yet... Anyway, I've already said it's a double standard. But it is the standard.

Spitting on someone counts as an assault in many, if not all, states. So yeah, that would fall under the self-defense umbrella.

[Ravens Fan]

If a guy gets beat up, we laugh. If a woman gets beat up, we rage. Does it make it sense? No. But its the standard, so lets not question it. I must have been raised by hippies or communists or something because I don't understand this way of thinking at all.

[Piltnh]

If you start a fight, you don't get to bitch about the results. Can you really not understand this? Do I need to get my six year old to explain it? Maybe some crayons and draw you a picture?

You aggressive. Him respond. Big fight. You lose. No cry.

Because a man shouldn't hit a woman. By this point you have to be fucking with me cause nobody can possibly be this stupid. And yet... Anyway, I've already said it's a double standard. But it is the standard.

Spitting on someone counts as an assault in many, if not all, states. So yeah, that would fall under the self-defense umbrella.

I'm afraid I'm not stupid. You admit it's a double standard... and it being the standard does not make it right. Racism has been the standard. Slavery has been a standard. Women not being allowed to vote has been a standard.

I'm pointing out the standard is idiotic. However, I don't think this means people should punch women. Rather, I think the issue is responding with violence to things that don't warrant it in general.

You are incredibly hostile, and take anyone disagreeing with you as "not understanding" and "must be an idiot". These are not signs of intelligence.

[darb72]

I'm afraid I'm not stupid. You admit it's a double standard... and it being the standard does not make it right. Racism has been the standard. Slavery has been a standard. Women not being allowed to vote has been a standard.

I'm pointing out the standard is idiotic. However, I don't think this means people should punch women. Rather, I think the issue is responding with violence to things that don't warrant it in general.

You are incredibly hostile, and take anyone disagreeing with you as "not understanding" and "must be an idiot". These are not signs of intelligence.

Ever seen that movie Tropic Thunder? There's a line you really should pay attention to in there.

You've called me hostile, again. See, you are exactly the type of person I simply can't respect. Someone in this conversation, not naming names (IT'S YOU), compared me to a child abuser and a woman beater. "Except that the person in your example is not a woman, you just justified all domestic abuse, child abuse, rapes, and everything else." Shoot, I forgot they also compared me to a rapist. That's three sick, violent crimes that are laying at my feet. Yet the person who started the insults (again, that's you) feels that I'm "violent" for insulting them back. And frankly treating someone like a dumb-ass (which I am currently doing to you) is a far cry from comparing someone to a violent criminal (which you've done to me).

So you just sit there in your hypocritical tower and tell your therapist that Darb was (you should probably sniffle a little at this point, maybe let your lower lip tremble) mean to you for no reason.

[darb72]

If a guy gets beat up, we laugh. If a woman gets beat up, we rage. Does it make it sense? No. But its the standard, so lets not question it. I must have been raised by hippies or communists or something because I don't understand this way of thinking at all.

Eh, it's only funny if the big guy had it coming and his ass is handed to him by a much smaller guy. Then forget funny because it's fucking hilarious.

[Ravens Fan]

You forgot about guys getting beat up by women. Thats the true gold Standard of violence related comedy