Was this punch warranted? Vol. Hitting the opposite sex

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

Originally Posted by MonStar1



No they aren't.  Sad thing is you guys think everything is "subjective".  Thats most of yall don't stand for anything and fall for everything.

Really they arent? That's news to me, so Joseph Kony the "Christian Extremist" or those Christians who profited from slavery of Africans in early America are just in their actions? They too have respect for themselves and actions they've learned from their parents who told them it's the "correct" way a person with morals behaves. According to you their moral actions aren't subjective.

Don't want to get into it, and I'm not really taking sides, but you didn't really make any point which supports your argument and invalidates his by bringing up that example.

In your argument they would be right because morals are subjective to you and there for who can be "right" or "wrong" we are all animals and our actions are just actions which we label (right or wrong) depending on religious belief, societal belief, etc...

In his argument he is arguing from a philosophical stand point in which humans are above the naturalistic laws of just survival of the fittest and actions are just actions. He believes that because of our higher cognitive ability we can separate our selves from animals and realize the repercussions of our actions, not just in the immediate, but well into the distance future. We can reason at what actions would minimize harm, that is unnecessary, and we have the ability to control not only our physical actions but emotions too.  His "raised correctly" his "right" and "wrong" do not apply to a small group of individuals whom belong to a specific society or religion, but to ALL men and women. He believes that since we are capable of rationalizing and deducing outcomes before they happen because of our intelligence, that binds us ALL to a code if you will. An intrinsic and inherent law between humans in which there ARE right and wrong actions, and in certain circumstances there is NO gray area. It's either you are right or you are wrong, no matter what religion, race, sex, etc...

Again, I'm not saying he is right 100%, but a perfect example which supports his ideas would be sexually assaulting an innocent child. It doesn't take any long and hard thinking to know that no matter what your beliefs are as a human it is WRONG. No matter what the circumstances are.

All this right here
  

 

[vandal044]

$$@@ that guy..no reason for that..dude is dumb soft too.couldn't even drop a 95lbs girl

 

[degenerate423]

I don't even believe anyone in that video is over 18.  Regardless, in that situation, it wasn't necessary to hit her...

 

[levar burton]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

Originally Posted by MonStar1



No they aren't.  Sad thing is you guys think everything is "subjective".  Thats most of yall don't stand for anything and fall for everything.

Really they arent? That's news to me, so Joseph Kony the "Christian Extremist" or those Christians who profited from slavery of Africans in early America are just in their actions? They too have respect for themselves and actions they've learned from their parents who told them it's the "correct" way a person with morals behaves. According to you their moral actions aren't subjective.

Don't want to get into it, and I'm not really taking sides, but you didn't really make any point which supports your argument and invalidates his by bringing up that example.

In your argument they would be right because morals are subjective to you and there for who can be "right" or "wrong" we are all animals and our actions are just actions which we label (right or wrong) depending on religious belief, societal belief, etc...

In his argument he is arguing from a philosophical stand point in which humans are above the naturalistic laws of just survival of the fittest and actions are just actions. He believes that because of our higher cognitive ability we can separate our selves from animals and realize the repercussions of our actions, not just in the immediate, but well into the distance future. We can reason at what actions would minimize harm, that is unnecessary, and we have the ability to control not only our physical actions but emotions too.  His "raised correctly" his "right" and "wrong" do not apply to a small group of individuals whom belong to a specific society or religion, but to ALL men and women. He believes that since we are capable of rationalizing and deducing outcomes before they happen because of our intelligence, that binds us ALL to a code if you will. An intrinsic and inherent law between humans in which there ARE right and wrong actions, and in certain circumstances there is NO gray area. It's either you are right or you are wrong, no matter what religion, race, sex, etc...

Again, I'm not saying he is right 100%, but a perfect example which supports his ideas would be sexually assaulting an innocent child. It doesn't take any long and hard thinking to know that no matter what your beliefs are as a human it is WRONG. No matter what the circumstances are.

My point is PERSPECTIVE, STATE OF MIND, PSYCHE and ENVIRONMENT which is  basically what you're saying. "LAW" itself which separates us from animals is a "human effort" concept and theory based on consensus of the four catalyst I've listed. These laws are constructed in the believe that the persons under he law is of "sound mind and body" or SANE. These same laws deemed the African American people ANIMALS.These same laws ask of nothing but "swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them GOD", and if the accused said "GOD" told them to kill a person they'd be in jail for "perjury and murder" because of the consensus' BELIEFS, which are SUBJECTIVE. Every read "Of Mice and Men"? Poor Lennie. 

 

[levar burton]

Originally Posted by MonStar1

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

Originally Posted by MonStar1

And what does this have to do with the subject at hand?  Thats you guys problem also going extreme with an analogy.
  
Look at the BigRockford's post....dude is clueless. A man should know when he needs to use violence. Some of you have yet to learn those circumstances.

Again, that's why this post has thrived for 15-16 pages. The morality is SUBJECTIVE, there's factors and catalysis that may warranted his course of action. Joseph Kony forces children to KILL their parents cause he feels its JUSTIFIABLE in his cause. The same can be applied to the whipping and forced sex slaves we forced to endure as "cattle" (as they were called). 

Now wit THIS situation again, she may have just completed an anger management course for spousal or domestic abuse, could've hit him REPEATEDLY before the recording started, wielded KNIFES in the presence of the children . There may have been a justifiable reason for his action and even then it's "SUBJECTIVE" and for the courts to decide.

You point of view is coming off as judgmental, contrived and as a contrarian . As you put most fall for "ANYTHING", why should someone change how they feel because it wasnt how YOU were raised.


If this lady lunged and swung at President Barak Obama in the same manner as her boyfriend or spouse do you think secret service would not do their job cause she's a female?
What makes Barak's life more important than the guy in the video? 

Kony, Obama....what other horrible example are you going to use?

Like somebody said before its not about sex as much as it's about threat level.  Hope you can understand that.  Have you ever heard the term excessive force? 

  

Okay, would you let your girlfriend, mother, sister, niece or cousin lunge at the president? What do you think the out come would be?

 

[cap1229]

Levar Burton are you really going to rock with that Obama claim? It's come to that for you to try and carry your weak argument?

 

[Case]

Originally Posted by polorico

So NT .


If you are a bigger dude , and your wifey is smaller and she is slapping you around you gonna just stick her in the face ?

Nah man that aint a good look Dude could have grabbed her and told her to stop , and she would have backed off .



Some of you guys are idots , Hit the wrong Girl friend , wife in the face , and Best believe that someone gonna throw shots at you , or you gonna be in for one of the worst beat downs ever.

IF any of you every put your hands on my kinfolks like that , you would have my Cal on your lips , or you would get jumped by the wolf pack.


you guys need to stop frontin like you would seriously pop off towards a female in real life , like you would not get touched.

84% of what you just wrote makes you sound incredibly stupid..Wifey?..Best believe?..Cal?..wolf pack?..Seriously, is this how you talk in real life?..

  

 

[monstar1]

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

Originally Posted by MonStar1

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

Again, that's why this post has thrived for 15-16 pages. The morality is SUBJECTIVE, there's factors and catalysis that may warranted his course of action. Joseph Kony forces children to KILL their parents cause he feels its JUSTIFIABLE in his cause. The same can be applied to the whipping and forced sex slaves we forced to endure as "cattle" (as they were called). 

Now wit THIS situation again, she may have just completed an anger management course for spousal or domestic abuse, could've hit him REPEATEDLY before the recording started, wielded KNIFES in the presence of the children . There may have been a justifiable reason for his action and even then it's "SUBJECTIVE" and for the courts to decide.

You point of view is coming off as judgmental, contrived and as a contrarian . As you put most fall for "ANYTHING", why should someone change how they feel because it wasnt how YOU were raised.


If this lady lunged and swung at President Barak Obama in the same manner as her boyfriend or spouse do you think secret service would not do their job cause she's a female?
What makes Barak's life more important than the guy in the video? 

Kony, Obama....what other horrible example are you going to use?

Like somebody said before its not about sex as much as it's about threat level.  Hope you can understand that.  Have you ever heard the term excessive force? 

  

Okay, would you let your girlfriend, mother, sister, niece or cousin lunge at the president? What do you think the out come would be?

your logic lacks logic...stay in school young man
  

 

[levar burton]

I'm not defending his actions, I'm defending the fact that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There's been  more than a few instances in this thread where LEGITIMATE ARGUMENTS were ignored and tap danced over to throw the guy under the bus based on gender. From what I supplied and whats already been presented by others at this point I have no choice but to believe this discussion is contrarian driven.

Popularity of opinion doesn't void out unpopular FACT.


Later guys, I'm done discussing this topic.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Levar Burton


Really they arent? That's news to me, so Joseph Kony the "Christian Extremist" or those Christians who profited from slavery of Africans in early America are just in their actions? They too have respect for themselves and actions they've learned from their parents who told them it's the "correct" way a person with morals behaves. According to you their moral actions aren't subjective.

Don't want to get into it, and I'm not really taking sides, but you didn't really make any point which supports your argument and invalidates his by bringing up that example.

In your argument they would be right because morals are subjective to you and there for who can be "right" or "wrong" we are all animals and our actions are just actions which we label (right or wrong) depending on religious belief, societal belief, etc...

In his argument he is arguing from a philosophical stand point in which humans are above the naturalistic laws of just survival of the fittest and actions are just actions. He believes that because of our higher cognitive ability we can separate our selves from animals and realize the repercussions of our actions, not just in the immediate, but well into the distance future. We can reason at what actions would minimize harm, that is unnecessary, and we have the ability to control not only our physical actions but emotions too.  His "raised correctly" his "right" and "wrong" do not apply to a small group of individuals whom belong to a specific society or religion, but to ALL men and women. He believes that since we are capable of rationalizing and deducing outcomes before they happen because of our intelligence, that binds us ALL to a code if you will. An intrinsic and inherent law between humans in which there ARE right and wrong actions, and in certain circumstances there is NO gray area. It's either you are right or you are wrong, no matter what religion, race, sex, etc...

Again, I'm not saying he is right 100%, but a perfect example which supports his ideas would be sexually assaulting an innocent child. It doesn't take any long and hard thinking to know that no matter what your beliefs are as a human it is WRONG. No matter what the circumstances are.

My point is PERSPECTIVE, STATE OF MIND, PSYCHE and ENVIRONMENT which is  basically what you're saying. "LAW" itself which separates us from animals is a "human effort" concept and theory based on consensus of the four catalyst I've listed. These laws are constructed in the believe that the persons under he law is of "sound mind and body" or SANE. These same laws deemed the African American people ANIMALS.These same laws ask of nothing but "swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help them GOD", and if the accused said "GOD" told them to kill a person they'd be in jail for "perjury and murder" because of the consensus' BELIEFS, which are SUBJECTIVE. Every read "Of Mice and Men"? Poor Lennie. 

I know man. I understand what you are saying. And, I agree with some of it. Especially when it applies to sane vs. insane. But, again those are labels determined by the governing individuals whom distributes individuals in their society into a bell curve and then labels outliers as "not normal."  I'm not really talking about that, although you have to take that into consideration, but still I'm talking about something else. When it comes to the insane we don't have the luxury to not hold these individuals accountable for their actions if their actions cause large amounts of destruction. That's just the way it is. It's sad, but it's necessary.

Anyways, no it's not basically what I'm saying. Because I am not talking about a law MADE or WRITTEN by men or Gods or whatever. I am talking about something higher, like I said something intrinsic. I only use the term "law" because I do not have an expansive vocabulary. It's NOT something which has been made or written to fit into ones perspectives, environment, or state of mind per se. It's not something which has been "conceived" by anyone or written down or established by any man. It's just an ability. An ability which allows us think about our actions and how our actions will have harmful or harmless repercussions. No matter what race, sex, religion, society you are from, that action you are about to commit will have ramifications which you KNOW will occur and if those outcomes are unfavorable and cause harm to others who haven't caused you harm in equal proportion then you should just know to not do it.

When you take into consideration perspective and environment and ONLY base your argument off of these types of effectors you are failing to realize that humans are capable of understanding things not in their surrounding environment and are NOT physically bound to any "law" which governs his/her local environment. When one realizes this they can they  look pass all of which you stated and come to the determination, by reasoning and deduction that certain specific actions can be classified as moral or immoral. Not based on the laws of their society or religion, but based on something more inherent which allows us to determine the amount of damage our actions will cause AND if said action is necessary to any relevant aspect of our life.

 

[ham city]

Originally Posted by casekicks

Originally Posted by polorico

So NT .


If you are a bigger dude , and your wifey is smaller and she is slapping you around you gonna just stick her in the face ?

Nah man that aint a good look Dude could have grabbed her and told her to stop , and she would have backed off .



Some of you guys are idots , Hit the wrong Girl friend , wife in the face , and Best believe that someone gonna throw shots at you , or you gonna be in for one of the worst beat downs ever.

IF any of you every put your hands on my kinfolks like that , you would have my Cal on your lips , or you would get jumped by the wolf pack.


you guys need to stop frontin like you would seriously pop off towards a female in real life , like you would not get touched.

84% of what you just wrote makes you sound incredibly stupid..Wifey?..Best believe?..Cal?..wolf pack?..Seriously, is this how you talk in real life?..

 

You don't know? polorico is NT's token internet tough guy. 
Don't be fooled though, that's all code for "I will call your job and do everything in my power to get you fired"

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Levar Burton

I'm not defending his actions, I'm defending the fact that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. There's been  more than a few instances in this thread where LEGITIMATE ARGUMENTS were ignored and tap danced over to throw the guy under the bus based on gender. From what I supplied and whats already been presented by others at this point I have no choice but to believe this discussion is contrarian driven.

Popularity of opinion doesn't void out unpopular FACT.


Later guys, I'm done discussing this topic.

Yes, it's situational and you do have to take into consideration the past which has brought them to this point.

BUT, and that's a big BUT, NOTHING that has happened in their past would justify for him to hit her like that at THAT moment. That's the thing I think you're not getting. Had she been hitting him in the past, had she threatened his life with a gun, etc... it doesn't matter because at THAT moment he was in NO danger of being harmed and in THAT moment he had NO justification for hitting her like the way that he did.

Shoot, actually if you want to really get picky (using your reasoning) you could say he deserved that because in the past she has done it before and he put himself in that position by being there. IF you wanted to follow your argument he was "asking for it since he was there". See how that doesn't work?

 

[dior paint]

I'd knock a %@$!+ out before going out like this guy tho...

 

[DrizzyNYC]

Originally Posted by HAM CITY

Originally Posted by casekicks

Originally Posted by polorico

So NT .


If you are a bigger dude , and your wifey is smaller and she is slapping you around you gonna just stick her in the face ?

Nah man that aint a good look Dude could have grabbed her and told her to stop , and she would have backed off .



Some of you guys are idots , Hit the wrong Girl friend , wife in the face , and Best believe that someone gonna throw shots at you , or you gonna be in for one of the worst beat downs ever.

IF any of you every put your hands on my kinfolks like that , you would have my Cal on your lips , or you would get jumped by the wolf pack.


you guys need to stop frontin like you would seriously pop off towards a female in real life , like you would not get touched.

84% of what you just wrote makes you sound incredibly stupid..Wifey?..Best believe?..Cal?..wolf pack?..Seriously, is this how you talk in real life?..

 

You don't know? polorico is NT's token internet tough guy. 
Don't be fooled though, that's all code for "I will call your job and do everything in my power to get you fired"

lmao /thread

 

[cw0974]

first of all, they have two kids and they are fighting over playstations... And no matter what, it is wrong to hit women.

 

[scarsorscabs]

I don't feel like reading through the entire thread, I'm sure some stupid !$#$ was said and it'll just annoy me but that was foul as @!@$. Not warranted at all and ESPECIALLY not in front of kids, dude is a coward.

 

[Smorgasbordgie]

 

[moonman818]

Originally Posted by casekicks

Originally Posted by polorico

So NT .


If you are a bigger dude , and your wifey is smaller and she is slapping you around you gonna just stick her in the face ?

Nah man that aint a good look Dude could have grabbed her and told her to stop , and she would have backed off .



Some of you guys are idots , Hit the wrong Girl friend , wife in the face , and Best believe that someone gonna throw shots at you , or you gonna be in for one of the worst beat downs ever.

IF any of you every put your hands on my kinfolks like that , you would have my Cal on your lips , or you would get jumped by the wolf pack.


you guys need to stop frontin like you would seriously pop off towards a female in real life , like you would not get touched.

 

Brah stop acting tough... What's your sisters fb? Imma donkey punch her and tweet your whole wolfpack after.