Why Shouldn't Men Hit Women?

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by donttalkitlivit

do you want someone to hit your mom??? Thats why. Men can get themselves in and out of situations, women are weaker regardless of size. Grown man strength

If ANY woman pus their hands on a man they DESERVE to get hands put back on them. I don't care if it is the mother of Jesus. Women should be taught as kids to not hit a man and not vice versa. Since they are the weaker human type.

---

I see what you're saying, but not true sometimes a man should just get hit. For example if the woman is defending herself, she doesn't deserve to be hit. (I'm just being knit-picky)  Why not vice versa LOL makes no sense. This is not equal then, which is your original argument that we should be equal. So men shouldn't be taught, which would mean they would act like woman now and hit their significant others frequently, who couldn't hit them back like men can't now. If this happened then women would be asking the same question as you, if we are equal why can men hit us and we can't hit them?

---

My question is why the weaker version (woman) isn't instructed to not antagonize the stronger version (man) since we are so much stronger?

Rabbit kids are taught to not bother snakes.
Little gazzells and zebras are taught to not mess with large cats.

---

LOL we aren't wild animals.

---

So why aren't women taught not to put themselves in situations to get their heads knocked off by men?

---

WOMEN are taught this and practice it. Little girls don't (age is not a factor). No WOMAN hits anyone unless being attacked or defending a loved one. Little girls do.

---

What do you mean men can get themselves in and out of situations? I don't understand that logic. So essentially you are saying women can't logically put themselves in and out of situations? I thought we were the dummies and women were the smart ones. So why is the pressure on US to use "logic" and walk away?

---

Cause were men.

---

Or should men walk away because they know they will probably get in trouble for doing it? Is that what you are really trying to say?

---

A MAN should walk away because he knows its the right thing to do, not waste time with little girls and lose control of his emotions. Only a little boy (regardless of age) would stay and hit a girl because she mad him mad.

---

I am still waiting for someone to tell me WHY instead of reciting these "rules" that were taught to us by older women in the first place. (mothers, teachers, etc.)

---

No one can tell you why. It started as a rule built by our society, so how can you expect someone to give you a rational explanation like there is scientific evidence as to why.

---

Did you go to jail for hitting a woman DC? Honest ? not trying to start stuff.

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

There are plenty of females considered women that have hit men.

Not for an unjustified reason. Well at least in my definition of a woman. Yours might be different.

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

There are plenty of females considered women that have hit men.

Not for an unjustified reason. Well at least in my definition of a woman. Yours might be different.

You got it wrong. It's not about an individual's definition of a woman but what's considered justification for an act of physical violence.

 

[casperjr]

im gone say it like this if you act like a man im gone treat you like a man and thats for man, women, boy or girl

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

There are plenty of females considered women that have hit men.

Not for an unjustified reason. Well at least in my definition of a woman. Yours might be different.

You got it wrong. It's not about an individual's definition of a woman but what's considered justification for an act of physical violence.

What do I have wrong? No individual should hit another individual for an unjustified reason. Only people who act like children do this. Therefore no WOMAN would hit a man for an unjustified reason.

We can argue about what is considered justified if you want, but that is another topic, reasonable to take into consideration, but still a different topic. 

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

There are plenty of females considered women that have hit men.

Not for an unjustified reason. Well at least in my definition of a woman. Yours might be different.

You got it wrong. It's not about an individual's definition of a woman but what's considered justification for an act of physical violence.

What do I have wrong? No individual should hit another individual for an unjustified reason. Only people who act like children do this. Therefore no WOMAN would hit a man for an unjustified reason.

We can argue about what is considered justified if you want, but that is another topic, reasonable to take into consideration, but still a different topic. 

That's what you got wrong. You made a blanket statement about females while separating them in to two groups. You then go back on what you originally said to amend it and say they can only do it for a justified reason. So like I said, it's about what's considered justification.

Justification isn't a whole other topic. You just gave a reason for why it'd be okay for one person to physically hurt another. So obviously what's justified is going to be something to criticize since it's the exception to the rule you think should be the case for all ppl. Cuz it seems if you don't think a person was justified for hitting another person then they were acting like a child and if it's a female they aren't a woman.

You have a naive assumption about what kind of ppl act out in violence to others or you're generalizing far too much (since you're calling them children as if they lack the reasoning skills and ability not to fall back on violence) on the line being drawn ppl who have hit other ppl and those who have not. To say only ppl who act like children hit other ppl is asinine.

 

[ph3n0m3n0n]

I feel that once a man or woman has engaged another individual physically, whatever action that individual takes toward the initiator is justified. (short of cruel and unusual acts)

Restrain them? cool

Smack em into another ethnicity? ok

run them over? notsomuch

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

There are plenty of females considered women that have hit men.

Not for an unjustified reason. Well at least in my definition of a woman. Yours might be different.

You got it wrong. It's not about an individual's definition of a woman but what's considered justification for an act of physical violence.

What do I have wrong? No individual should hit another individual for an unjustified reason. Only people who act like children do this. Therefore no WOMAN would hit a man for an unjustified reason.

We can argue about what is considered justified if you want, but that is another topic, reasonable to take into consideration, but still a different topic. 

That's what you got wrong. You made a blanket statement about females while separating them in to two groups. You then go back on what you originally said to amend it and say they can only do it for a justified reason. So like I said, it's about what's considered justification.

---

You need to read my entire OG post because I have said only with justification should violence be permitted, from the beginning. You need to read and comprehend my entire post not just small sentences at the end of my post which are used to sum up and give a generalization of my entire opinion.

---

Justification isn't a whole other topic. You just gave a reason for why it'd be okay for one person to physically hurt another. So obviously what's justified is going to be something to criticize since it's the exception to the rule you think should be the case for all ppl. Cuz it seems if you don't think a person was justified for hitting another person then they were acting like a child and if it's a female they aren't a woman.

You have a naive assumption about what kind of ppl act out in violence to others or you're generalizing far too much (since you're calling them children as if they lack the reasoning skills and ability not to fall back on violence) on the line being drawn ppl who have hit other ppl and those who have not. To say only ppl who act like children hit other ppl is asinine.

In my eyes there ARE only 2 groups: woman that act as woman and those that don't. How did I go back on what I said? I even stated that I would hit a woman if I had a justifiable reason. I said no one should hit no one unless is for self defense or defense of another individual who is being attacked for an unjust reason. How is that different than what I stated about woman only hitting men for a justified reason?

I have nothing to amend. I have stated the same opinion throughout my posts.

I already stated that it was reasonable to consider because of the reasons you bring up, but it still is branching from whether a WOMAN should hit a MAN to when is it justifiable to hit anyone? They go hand in hand, but still a slight change of topic.

How am I being naive? So you're saying I am wrong about acting like a true man or woman would include not hitting anyone unless that action was justified, in example in self defense? How is it naive to think that only children act out in violence because they do not have control of their emotions and can't express their feelings in a conversation?

Not only are you arguing and just being knit-picky about the sentences I choose to express my opinion, but I still fail to see how it is such an unreasonable thought to think that people who act out in violence without having a justifiable reason are acting like children.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by donttalkitlivit

do you want someone to hit your mom??? Thats why. Men can get themselves in and out of situations, women are weaker regardless of size. Grown man strength

If ANY woman pus their hands on a man they DESERVE to get hands put back on them. I don't care if it is the mother of Jesus. Women should be taught as kids to not hit a man and not vice versa. Since they are the weaker human type.

---

I see what you're saying, but not true sometimes a man should just get hit. For example if the woman is defending herself, she doesn't deserve to be hit. (I'm just being knit-picky)  Why not vice versa LOL makes no sense. This is not equal then, which is your original argument that we should be equal. So men shouldn't be taught, which would mean they would act like woman now and hit their significant others frequently, who couldn't hit them back like men can't now. If this happened then women would be asking the same question as you, if we are equal why can men hit us and we can't hit them?

---

My question is why the weaker version (woman) isn't instructed to not antagonize the stronger version (man) since we are so much stronger?

Rabbit kids are taught to not bother snakes.
Little gazzells and zebras are taught to not mess with large cats.

---

LOL we aren't wild animals.

---

So why aren't women taught not to put themselves in situations to get their heads knocked off by men?

---

WOMEN are taught this and practice it. Little girls don't (age is not a factor). No WOMAN hits anyone unless being attacked or defending a loved one. Little girls do.

---

What do you mean men can get themselves in and out of situations? I don't understand that logic. So essentially you are saying women can't logically put themselves in and out of situations? I thought we were the dummies and women were the smart ones. So why is the pressure on US to use "logic" and walk away?

---

Cause were men.

---

Or should men walk away because they know they will probably get in trouble for doing it? Is that what you are really trying to say?

---

A MAN should walk away because he knows its the right thing to do, not waste time with little girls and lose control of his emotions. Only a little boy (regardless of age) would stay and hit a girl because she mad him mad.

---

I am still waiting for someone to tell me WHY instead of reciting these "rules" that were taught to us by older women in the first place. (mothers, teachers, etc.)

---

No one can tell you why. It started as a rule built by our society, so how can you expect someone to give you a rational explanation like there is scientific evidence as to why.

---

Did you go to jail for hitting a woman DC? Honest ? not trying to start stuff.

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

Quoting this so master zik can read what I originally wrote. I feel like you are misunderstanding me or just want to argue.

 

[ldj]

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What would you get out of hitting a woman though? You should have enough self control not to hit a female, how hard is it to grab her hands so she doesn't swing at you? The only time a beat down is allowed is if she's trying to kill you

, otherwise that "she hit me! so I hit her!" mess don't fly

and related to the Kat Stacks video, how you let shorty words effect you that much? that makes it look like whatever shorty was claiming is true

Same could be said about a dude what could any person say that warrents attacking them? Like words are diff just cause a man woman said it. Ok so if someone breaks into your house you gonna say oh let me not whoop they or shoot them i gotta check see if its a woman first.

Why are you talking about attacks? obviously if someone tries to rob you or harm you then you're going to defend yourself.

I'm simply referring to a male and female arguing. If shorty just lashes out because she's angry and says a bunch of hurtful words that she doesn't mean what you going to do, slap her? word? there's no reasoning for that.

At the end of the day these are females. We are way stronger than them. If your defense for hitting a female is "she wants to be equal to men in this world so why can't she get hit like a man" you will be or are a woman beater on the low.

Why cant the same scenario go for a man?

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Master Zik

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Basically, to all men stop kicking it with little girls that can't control themselves and hit men. No WOMAN would do this.

There are plenty of females considered women that have hit men.

Not for an unjustified reason. Well at least in my definition of a woman. Yours might be different.

You got it wrong. It's not about an individual's definition of a woman but what's considered justification for an act of physical violence.

What do I have wrong? No individual should hit another individual for an unjustified reason. Only people who act like children do this. Therefore no WOMAN would hit a man for an unjustified reason.

We can argue about what is considered justified if you want, but that is another topic, reasonable to take into consideration, but still a different topic. 

That's what you got wrong. You made a blanket statement about females while separating them in to two groups. You then go back on what you originally said to amend it and say they can only do it for a justified reason. So like I said, it's about what's considered justification.

Justification isn't a whole other topic. You just gave a reason for why it'd be okay for one person to physically hurt another. So obviously what's justified is going to be something to criticize since it's the exception to the rule you think should be the case for all ppl. Cuz it seems if you don't think a person was justified for hitting another person then they were acting like a child and if it's a female they aren't a woman.

You have a naive assumption about what kind of ppl act out in violence to others or you're generalizing far too much (since you're calling them children as if they lack the reasoning skills and ability not to fall back on violence) on the line being drawn ppl who have hit other ppl and those who have not. To say only ppl who act like children hit other ppl is asinine.

In my eyes there ARE only 2 groups woman that act as woman and those that don't. How did I go back on what I said? I even stated that I would hit a woman if I had a justifiable reason. I said no one should hit no one unless is for self defense or defense of another individual who is being attacked for an unjust reason. How is that different than what I stated about woman only hitting men for a justified reason?

I have nothing to amend. I have stated the same opinion throughout my posts.

I already stated that it was reasonable to consider because of the reasons you bring up, but it still is branching from whether a WOMAN should hit a MAN to when is it justifiable to hit anyone? They go hand in hand, but still a slight change of topic.

How am I being naive? So you're saying I am wrong. That acting like a true man or woman would include not hitting anyone unless that action was justified, in example in self defense? How is it naive to think that only children act out in violence because they do not have control of their emotions and can't express their feelings in a conversation?

Not only are you arguing and just being knit-picky about the sentences I choose to express my opinion, but I still fail to see how it is such an unreasonable thought to think that people who act out in violence without having a justifiable reason are acting like children.

I don't even believe you believe what you're saying about 2 groups of women. Especially in when it comes to the varying situations a person can find them  in. This topic isn't black and white.

The entire argument falls under the same category so you can stop with it's a different topic. I'm done even responding to those statements as if it really needs addressing.

I'm saying you're wrong about labeling ppl children wherein they may not meet your exception, for this blind expectation that either what you consider justification applies to everyone or in the case where what they see as a justifiable act isn't agreed upon by you. Is this more clearer for you? All your other questions are answered off of this basis. Espeically the part about being naive. For a minute there I thought you understood but maybe you got confused or just went back to regulating yourself since this is "another topic"

If a person considers a violent act on another person justified and you don't are they still a child? If it's a female in that scenario is she no longer a "woman" or a "true woman" Cuz if that's the case it simply comes down to "I don't agree with this person, so they're ______" but I guess I'm just arguing just to argue and knitpicking because I recognize we don't all agree on the same things and have different values.

EDIT

After reading your entire post (again) my stance has not changed.I didn't ant to focus on some of the other stuff I found incredibly dumb but to be clear I wouldn't even pay any mind to what you consider a "true man". This notion of men ignoring irrational and hostile behavior for the sake of being men is stupid and it doesn't help the problem at all.

Also why assume in an argument that a man hits or retaliates due to his emotional state and not the level of disrespect incurred?

Also there seems to be a contradiction since one minute you're saying defend yourself but men should walk away from altercations with these "little girls" as you like to call them. Bollocks to that.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What would you get out of hitting a woman though? You should have enough self control not to hit a female, how hard is it to grab her hands so she doesn't swing at you? The only time a beat down is allowed is if she's trying to kill you

, otherwise that "she hit me! so I hit her!" mess don't fly

and related to the Kat Stacks video, how you let shorty words effect you that much? that makes it look like whatever shorty was claiming is true

Same could be said about a dude what could any person say that warrents attacking them? Like words are diff just cause a man woman said it. Ok so if someone breaks into your house you gonna say oh let me not whoop they or shoot them i gotta check see if its a woman first.

Why are you talking about attacks? obviously if someone tries to rob you or harm you then you're going to defend yourself.

I'm simply referring to a male and female arguing. If shorty just lashes out because she's angry and says a bunch of hurtful words that she doesn't mean what you going to do, slap her? word? there's no reasoning for that.

At the end of the day these are females. We are way stronger than them. If your defense for hitting a female is "she wants to be equal to men in this world so why can't she get hit like a man" you will be or are a woman beater on the low.

Why cant the same scenario go for a man?

It does. He didn't say it was ok for the girl to hit the guy did he? Even if she did hit him more than likely it wouldn't hurt as much as if he hit her.

I don't even know why we arguing about this. Why do you guys even wanna hit anyone especially a woman who is most likely weaker than you. What has happened to you to think hmm Why can't I hit a girl? Cause that stuff don't even enter into my mind at all.

 

[ldj]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What would you get out of hitting a woman though? You should have enough self control not to hit a female, how hard is it to grab her hands so she doesn't swing at you? The only time a beat down is allowed is if she's trying to kill you

, otherwise that "she hit me! so I hit her!" mess don't fly

and related to the Kat Stacks video, how you let shorty words effect you that much? that makes it look like whatever shorty was claiming is true

Same could be said about a dude what could any person say that warrents attacking them? Like words are diff just cause a man woman said it. Ok so if someone breaks into your house you gonna say oh let me not whoop they or shoot them i gotta check see if its a woman first.

Why are you talking about attacks? obviously if someone tries to rob you or harm you then you're going to defend yourself.

I'm simply referring to a male and female arguing. If shorty just lashes out because she's angry and says a bunch of hurtful words that she doesn't mean what you going to do, slap her? word? there's no reasoning for that.

At the end of the day these are females. We are way stronger than them. If your defense for hitting a female is "she wants to be equal to men in this world so why can't she get hit like a man" you will be or are a woman beater on the low.

Why cant the same scenario go for a man?

It does. He didn't say it was ok for the girl to hit the guy did he? Even if she did hit him more than likely it wouldn't hurt as much as if he hit her.

I don't even know why we arguing about this. Why do you guys even wanna hit anyone especially a woman who is most likely weaker than you. What has happened to you to think hmm Why can't I hit a girl? Cause that stuff don't even enter into my mind at all.

My thing is why are ppl saying ESPECIALLY women. it should just be ppl period. why the emphasis on a woman.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Master Zik

I don't even believe you believe what you're saying about 2 groups of women. Especially in when it comes to the varying situations a person can find them  in. This topic isn't black and white.

---

Actually, you're kinda right. I know there are varying levels of acting like a true man or woman. But, it still doesn't change the fact in my eyes a woman would never hit a man for an unjust reason. This is only my opinion and definition of a woman though.

---

The entire argument falls under the same category so you can stop with it's a different topic. I'm done even responding to those statements as if it really needs addressing.

---

o_0

---

I'm saying you're wrong about labeling ppl children wherein they may not meet your exception, for this blind expectation that either what you consider justification applies to everyone or in the case where what they see as a justifiable act isn't agreed upon by you. Is this more clearer for you? All your other questions are answered off of this basis. Espeically the part about being naive. For a minute there I thought you understood but maybe you got confused or just went back to regulating yourself since this is "another topic"

---

I already defined my justifiable situations, but you probably didn't actually read my reply and reread my original post. I understand what your saying, and still in MY opinion I would consider anyone a child that would hit someone without having a justified reason (the reasons I already stated). In the end its just my opinion too I didn't ask for you to agree although I don't see why you wouldn't. To call me naive for thinking this is absurd though. My thoughts bring no harm to anyone nor are they unreasonable or ignorant. They ARE only my opinion though so if you have a different set of standards to judge character then that's on you, but I have high standards as to how a woman and man should act. 

---

If a person considers a violent act on another person justified and you don't are they still a child? If it's a female in that scenario is she no longer a "woman" or a "true woman" Cuz if that's the case it simply comes down to "I don't agree with this person, so they're ______" but I guess I'm just arguing just to argue and knitpicking because I recognize we don't all agree on the same things and have different values.

---

I understand what you are saying man.

I did the whole time, but as I already stated in my replies and original post my justifications have been defined and YES if I don't consider it justifiable in my eyes they are acting like a child. Please tell me a scenario where violence would be appropriate that I have not listed. If you consider me naive for thinking this way then that is your opinion. I already know plenty of individuals who would agree. Second bold statement- Pretty much, if you are not up to my standards of a person in that aspect I would consider you a child. Although, now you are just generalizing my opinion to try and expose it's weak side because when it comes to many other things I don't think that way, but for violence, yes.

---

EDIT

After reading your entire post my stance has not changed. I wouldn't even pay any mind to what you consider a "true man". This notion of men ignoring irrational and hostile behavior for the sake of being men is stupid and it doesn't help the problem at all.

---

LMAO you obviously didn't read my entire post. Your sentence below even proves that that above bold statement is not how I feel.

---

Also there seems to be a contradiction since one minute you're saying defend yourself but men should walk away altercations with these "little girls" as you like to call them. Bollocks to that.

---

No contradiction. A man should walk away from an altercation with a little girl who is attacking him, if he know that he can safely remove himself from the situation because she is not a true threat. If he feels that he is in danger of being physically hurt or killed this justify him striking her back. In essence no one should hit no one unless the reason is justified. Oh look my original post

---

EDIT- DO you agree that no one should hit no one unless justified by the reasons I stated? IF you don't then you have a point. If you do then you are arguing just to argue and being knit-picky.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What would you get out of hitting a woman though? You should have enough self control not to hit a female, how hard is it to grab her hands so she doesn't swing at you? The only time a beat down is allowed is if she's trying to kill you

, otherwise that "she hit me! so I hit her!" mess don't fly

and related to the Kat Stacks video, how you let shorty words effect you that much? that makes it look like whatever shorty was claiming is true

Same could be said about a dude what could any person say that warrents attacking them? Like words are diff just cause a man woman said it. Ok so if someone breaks into your house you gonna say oh let me not whoop they or shoot them i gotta check see if its a woman first.

Why are you talking about attacks? obviously if someone tries to rob you or harm you then you're going to defend yourself.

I'm simply referring to a male and female arguing. If shorty just lashes out because she's angry and says a bunch of hurtful words that she doesn't mean what you going to do, slap her? word? there's no reasoning for that.

At the end of the day these are females. We are way stronger than them. If your defense for hitting a female is "she wants to be equal to men in this world so why can't she get hit like a man" you will be or are a woman beater on the low.

Why cant the same scenario go for a man?

It does. He didn't say it was ok for the girl to hit the guy did he? Even if she did hit him more than likely it wouldn't hurt as much as if he hit her.

I don't even know why we arguing about this. Why do you guys even wanna hit anyone especially a woman who is most likely weaker than you. What has happened to you to think hmm Why can't I hit a girl? Cause that stuff don't even enter into my mind at all.

My thing is why are ppl saying ESPECIALLY women. it should just be ppl period. why the emphasis on a woman.

You're 100% right. But, woman have so much less power so I guess in my eyes that's my personal reason.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by ThunderChunk69

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

NO ONE SHOULD HIT NO ONE unless you're defending yourself or someone else being attacked for an unjustified reason.

yeah, but there are several simps that wouldnt even defend themselves from a woman (supposedly)

Then they are ridiculous. Some of you know my posts and how i feel about woman, including DC. And, even I in a particular situation would lay the smack down on a chick. I would first try to walk away, but depending on the situation you can't always walk away so... Also if my life or a loved ones life was in danger I would uppercut that chick so hard her teeth would shatter.

MASTER ZIK READ THIS POST.

EDIT- DO you agree that no one should hit no one unless justified by the reasons I stated? IF you don't then you have a point. If you do then you are arguing just to argue and being knit-picky.

 

[Master Zik]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Actually, you're kinda right. I know there are varying levels of acting like a true man or woman. But, it still doesn't change the fact in my eyes a woman would never hit a man for an unjust reason. This is only my opinion and definition of a woman though.

And like I said what's just and unjust depends on the individual. Going off your I can see it being limited for many.

Ialready defined my justifiable situations

I already stated my opinion on them.

but you probably didn'tactually read my reply and reread my original post.

I'm tired of reading this excuse as if I was suppose to read everysingle one of your posts in this thread. I read the last post but I'mnot going to go through every page.

They ARE only myopinion though so if you have a different set of standards to judgecharacter then that's on you, but I have high standards as to how awoman and man should act.
A lot of ppl have standards that they tend to think are high.

To call me naivefor thinking this is absurd though

I'll call a spade a spade. Obviously you wouldn't agree

My thoughts bring no harm to anyone

Irrelevant.

If you consider menaive for thinking this way then that is your opinion. I already knowplenty of individuals who would agree.

I know it's my opinion and plenty of ppl agreeing with your opinion don't mean !#%$. A person can get a bunch of ppl to agree to mass suicide. Group think, followers, and haughtiness over an idea by a group aren't things I'm fond of.

Pleasetell me a scenario where violence would be appropriate that I have notlisted

Respect and disrespect. I know older ppl who feel completely justified in striking another person when they are disrespected. Of course the manner and level of disrespect are pertinent. I feel justfied in similar scenarios. Then there's times someone ought be taught a lesson about violence. The decision to physically attack someone and then getting beat down for it is a powerful experience for the person who initiated the altercation and is something I see as paramount in society and a deterrent to violence. Simpler things like do on to others as you would like to be done on to you. Thing is the practice of the saying is far greater than the saying alone for those who behave irrationaly.

Although, now you are just generalizing myopinion to try and expose it's weak side because when it comes to manyother things I don't think that way, but for violence, yes.
Nah, you just assumed I wasn't talking about the topic for some reason and that the statement applied to everything.

LMAOyou obviously didn't read my entire post. Your sentence below evenproves that that above bold statement is not how I feel.
Like I said before I'm not about to read all of your posts to be sure of what you said and didn't say nor did you address that quote.

Nocontradiction. A man should walk away from an altercation with a littlegirl who is attacking him, if he know that he can safely remove himselffrom the situation because she is not a true threat. If he feels thathe is in danger of being physically hurt or killed this justify himstriking her back. In essence no one should hit no one unless thereason is justified. Oh look my original post

---

Ignoring the justified part since it's subjective when does this decision making occur? Not every person can see an attack coming or can predict an altercation will escalate to that point. Safely remove yourself after the first couple hits? or when the person takes a break when hitting you? What about the location? There are times when the option to run isn't the right one or is simply one you will not do. I don't see where progress is made in the walk away scenario. At the end of the day I don't like being hit by anyone. So if you hit me, you've given me the right to do the same. In some instances where you've disrespected me you've also given me the right to do bodily harm on your person. I won't make distinctions based on gender nor will I buy in to that men are rational and women are emotional bull !#%$. Hell, if you swing and miss or I dodge I'll take it as sign of disrespect, recognition that they've entered a realm they've chosen to enter knowing full well the consequences of it. The weaker person should know better and once they've crossed that line it's already known on my part they're expecting the same to be done to them. If you weak and dumb, then at the least lets hope you'll learn from the experience, knowing why you shouldn't.

DO you agree that no one should hit no one unless justified by the reasons I stated? IF you don't then you have a point. If you do then you are arguing just to argue and being knit-picky.
No I feel it's too limited to self defense and protection. I acknowledge those are justifiable reasons but not the only ones. I definitely don't agree with calling ppl children if they don't fit my list of justifications until I've actually fully understood the situation and the entire concept of a "true/real *insert gender*" is rather ******ed imo.

 

[mronegative]

Because their record sales will never recover.

 

[danzinreallife]

Smh at this.. "You shouldn't hit women, it's like hitting someone that is disabled or elderly."

That's just insulting.

OP, yes this is a double-standard, but it's something that we've been taught as a child. Just like how we're taught to respect our elders. You either abide by it, or you don't.

That being said, I would NEVER seriously (play fighting aside) hit a guy and not expect him to hit me back. An eye for an eye comes to mind here.

I wouldn't even dream of getting myself into a situation like that. Fact: Men are stronger than women. If a guy hit me first why the hell would I be stupid enough to stick around and hit him back knowing he could floor me?

I wouldn't. And that's the difference.

 

[heliumclinton]

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What would you get out of hitting a woman though? You should have enough self control not to hit a female, how hard is it to grab her hands so she doesn't swing at you? The only time a beat down is allowed is if she's trying to kill you

, otherwise that "she hit me! so I hit her!" mess don't fly

and related to the Kat Stacks video, how you let shorty words effect you that much? that makes it look like whatever shorty was claiming is true

Same could be said about a dude what could any person say that warrents attacking them? Like words are diff just cause a man woman said it. Ok so if someone breaks into your house you gonna say oh let me not whoop they or shoot them i gotta check see if its a woman first.

Why are you talking about attacks? obviously if someone tries to rob you or harm you then you're going to defend yourself.

I'm simply referring to a male and female arguing. If shorty just lashes out because she's angry and says a bunch of hurtful words that she doesn't mean what you going to do, slap her? word? there's no reasoning for that.

At the end of the day these are females. We are way stronger than them. If your defense for hitting a female is "she wants to be equal to men in this world so why can't she get hit like a man" you will be or are a woman beater on the low.

Why cant the same scenario go for a man?

How easy is it for you to hold a girl down?

How easy is it for a girl to hold you down?

all of a sudden dudes want the victim role

 

[ldj]

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton

What would you get out of hitting a woman though? You should have enough self control not to hit a female, how hard is it to grab her hands so she doesn't swing at you? The only time a beat down is allowed is if she's trying to kill you

, otherwise that "she hit me! so I hit her!" mess don't fly

and related to the Kat Stacks video, how you let shorty words effect you that much? that makes it look like whatever shorty was claiming is true

Same could be said about a dude what could any person say that warrents attacking them? Like words are diff just cause a man woman said it. Ok so if someone breaks into your house you gonna say oh let me not whoop they or shoot them i gotta check see if its a woman first.

Why are you talking about attacks? obviously if someone tries to rob you or harm you then you're going to defend yourself.

I'm simply referring to a male and female arguing. If shorty just lashes out because she's angry and says a bunch of hurtful words that she doesn't mean what you going to do, slap her? word? there's no reasoning for that.

At the end of the day these are females. We are way stronger than them. If your defense for hitting a female is "she wants to be equal to men in this world so why can't she get hit like a man" you will be or are a woman beater on the low.

Why cant the same scenario go for a man?

How easy is it for you to hold a girl down?

How easy is it for a girl to hold you down?

all of a sudden dudes want the victim role

All depends and the same thing could be said about a man. All im saying is if something is wrong i is wrong PERIOD. Gender shouldnt be a determining factor in deciding if something wrong. Whats next if a woman rapes someone it shouldnt be seen as wrong because a man could easily (like how you just assume all woman are weak, and all men a dominant a strong) get her off. I guess you also dont believe a woman could commit domestic violence on a male?

 

[ohdannyboy]

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by bangtcg

haven't you heard of picking on someone your own size? reason why people fight in different weight classes.  beating up a smaller dude is still frowned upon but at the end of the day that skinny dude can get big by dieting and lifting ie karate kid.

women on the other hand.  they are delicate flowers, most of them.

But if I whoop Queen Latifa and Jermaine Dupree, who do you think I will get more heat for demolishing?

. That weight class mess only matters in organized fighting. On the streets, nobody considers that. I think they SHOULD do that instead of looking at the sexual organs of a person.

THAT is what should matter, not whether or not someone is male or female.

wrong...if you beat up a guy smaller than you, you won't get any props from anyone i know....and i got my money on queen latifa giving you the business

 

[ldj]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Originally Posted by DCAllAmerican

Originally Posted by bangtcg

haven't you heard of picking on someone your own size? reason why people fight in different weight classes.  beating up a smaller dude is still frowned upon but at the end of the day that skinny dude can get big by dieting and lifting ie karate kid.

women on the other hand.  they are delicate flowers, most of them.

But if I whoop Queen Latifa and Jermaine Dupree, who do you think I will get more heat for demolishing?

. That weight class mess only matters in organized fighting. On the streets, nobody considers that. I think they SHOULD do that instead of looking at the sexual organs of a person.

THAT is what should matter, not whether or not someone is male or female.

wrong...if you beat up a guy smaller than you, you won't get any props from anyone i know....and i got my money on queen latifa giving you the business

What about someone like layla ali? Im for certain 99% of the guys on here would get served something serious.

 

[sofreakinwavy]

Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49

Originally Posted by JoseBronx

someone get this guy laid!!!

  

I don't see anything wrong with yoking or choking a woman if they hit you first

but hitting a woman closed fist as hard you would hit a dude is overkill

 

[maserati harm]

Knowing Full Well that If I hit a woman, I'm going to *@#**%$ Jail....

I'ma knock a broad out if I feel my life / my son or both is in danger...

other than that...

I'll try to my best to restrain myself and her...

I don't condone Domestic Violence

But hitting a woman swingin on you like a man ( not no pansy arm flailing either) once or twice when you haven't touched her isn't domestic Violence..

That's self defense

And that can happen just off natural reaction

And Mannish looking Lesbians def gettin too without question...

You wanna be/act/look like a man...

you gonna get treated like one

 

[ldj]

Originally Posted by MASERATI HARM

Knowing Full Well that If I hit a woman, I'm going to *@#**%$ Jail....

I'ma knock a broad out if I feel my life / my son or both is in danger...

other than that...

I'll try to my best to restrain myself and her...

I don't condone Domestic Violence

But hitting a woman swingin on you like a man ( not no pansy arm flailing either) once or twice when you haven't touched her isn't domestic Violence..

That's self defense

And that can happen just off natural reaction

And Mannish looking Lesbians def gettin too without question...

You wanna be/act/look like a man...

you gonna get treated like one

QFT and what about, situations like the lorrane bobbit, or al green etc. Yall crazy if you just gonna sit there and let a woman throw hot grease on you, or other crazy @#* just because she has a vajayjay