Hitting A Woman?

[Eyeron]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

[Safe-Keeper]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman person would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.Cut the sexism, please.

[mortimer]

Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxy_boxing)

ETA: Safe-keeper, what's wrong with being sexy? [/nigel]

[commandlinegamer]

That's a pretty specious argument: if they're attacking you, surely self-defence would be reason enough.

[KingMerv00]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

Is she coming at me with a knife, gun, bomb, etc?

[Eyeron]

That would be included in "any reason" would it not?

[Professor Yaffle]

No. Not even if they ask REALLY stupid questions....

:p

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

I've hit lot's of women. As in "Yeah, I'd hit that". :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

Cut the sexism, please.

Don't be a wuss.

[Pedro De Mello]

Yes, I don't like it when they try to have an opinion of their own.

I guess that when they don't laugh at my jokes would be a good argument as well.

=)

[Whiplash]

What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

Nothing, you've told her twice already.

[Pedro De Mello]

But now really, I would if I was attacked in the first place. Only then...

[JFrankA]

This topic reminded me of something I noticed.

Around Halloween Taco Bell was advertising their new Black Taco.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuEdFsq1y5w

I did notice that other than the "black dog" and "black sheep", every other "black" leading up to the "black taco" was modeled by a woman

--- except the "black eye"! And I also noticed that the male model who had the black eye wasn't seen before that point in that commercial or again after it. :)

I imagine if a woman did model the "black eye", Taco Bell would've gotten A LOT of angry letters. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?

Nothing, you've told her twice already.

How in the world can you possibly find this funny?

I understand your whole schtick is to be crass and nasty, and without class. But sometimes you go too far.

Game.

Set.

Match.

[Aepervius]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

I consider any circumstance where I would hit a MAN in the face, to be a valid circumstance where I would hit a WOMAN in the face. Call in gender/sex equality. Now, the circumstance where I would hit somebody in full control of myself (whatever the gender/sex) in the face is exceedingly rare. Save my own skin would be one, save the skin of somebody else another. Beyond that I can't think of anything at the moment.

[Dorian Gray]

In what universe have you won something, Scrut?

[Whiplash]

Game.

Set.

Match.


I'm glad to see what I said got under your skin so much that you were waiting to get me back in some manner.

Too bad that a well known, stupid old joke, that was on topic for the tread, is in no way equivalent to suggesting that the 15 year old who killed her 9 year old sister may have had good reason to do so. You directly joked that maybe the 9 year old had it coming. That's not funny. That was about a REAL murder. A real, serious situation.

I was repeating a known, stupid joke, which had relevance to this threads subject. I admit the joke is not very sensitive. But you make a living at acting in this manner. I don't. We are not equivalent in any way.

And nothing is weaker than the "hypocrite!" response. I pity you sir.

[tyr_13]

If someone is 'man' enough to earnestly hit me, then they're 'man' enough to be hit.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In what universe have you won something, Scrut?

I just pwn3d Whiplash from another thread.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm glad to see what I said got under your skin so much that you were waiting to get me back in some manner.

Too bad that a well known, stupid old joke, that was on topic for the tread, is in no way equivalent to suggesting that the 15 year old who killed her 9 year old sister may have had good reason to do so. You directly joked that maybe the 9 year old had it coming. That's not funny. That was about a REAL murder. A real, serious situation.

I was repeating a known, stupid joke, which had relevance to this threads subject.

And nothing is weaker than the "hypocrite!" response. I pity you sir.

Perhaps thou protesteth too much?

Looks like I scored a direct hit.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm glad to see what I said got under your skin so much that you were waiting to get me back in some manner.

Too bad that a well known, stupid old joke, that was on topic for the tread, is in no way equivalent to suggesting that the 15 year old who killed her 9 year old sister may have had good reason to do so. You directly joked that maybe the 9 year old had it coming. That's not funny. That was about a REAL murder. A real, serious situation.

I was repeating a known, stupid joke, which had relevance to this threads subject. I admit the joke is not very sensitive. But you make a living at acting in this manner. I don't. We are not equivalent in any way.

And nothing is weaker than the "hypocrite!" response. I pity you sir.I haven't read much of TCS's writings, but the forum has an ignore list for people who make it their mission in life to get under other peoples' skin trolls.

[fuelair]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

She is coming at you with a cosh, knife, gun, other weapon and you can't shoot because you are in one of the places you cannot legally have a gun which is why she is able to be coming at you with, etc. (she didn't follow the rules).:)

[Whiplash]

I retract the joke I said as being insensitive and offensive. I thought others may remember the joke when seeing the thread subject.

I don't want to be the force behind any further derail of this thread.

I apologize. I made an error in judgment.

[Oliver]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.


I never hit anyone in my life except a Woman I slapped after I understood that "I love you" in reality meant: "Hey, you got some money and place I could use for my own purposes". I should have used my fist, now that I think about it. :D

[fuelair]

But, seriously, that is why I get angry every time I hear/read about multiple people being killed/wounded by a nutcase shooting up an area where the people being shot were not legally able to carry weapons.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I never hit anyone in my life except a Woman I slapped after I understood that "I love you" in reality meant: "Hey, you got some money and place I could use for my own purposes". I should have used my fist, now that I think about it. :D

Not a good excuse.

[mortimer]

I never hit anyone in my life except a Woman I slapped after I understood that "I love you" in reality meant: "Hey, you got some money and place I could use for my own purposes". I should have used my fist, now that I think about it. :D

Not a good excuse.
Not to mention that it's likely criminal.

[Oliver]

Not a good excuse.


Maybe not, but she would have noticed for the rest of her life that what she did was a pretty bad, even if completely legal, idea from the start.

[kedo1981]

Chris Rock put it best “no one is above an ass whipping”

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe not, but she would have noticed for the rest of her life that what she did was a pretty bad, even if completely legal, idea from the start.

And now you're known as someone who hits women.

[mortimer]

Maybe not, but she would have noticed for the rest of her life that what she did was a pretty bad, even if completely legal, idea from the start.
So you advocate hitting women who have "pretty bad" ideas?

[Lothian]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.Sure. Female boxing.

[Oliver]

And now you're known as someone who hits women.


No, if anything I'm known for slapping a complete bitch while in love. Would I do the same again: No, because I was pretty young and I'm much more cautious nowadays. Also, if I wouldn't have made this experience, I probably would react like you and others in here as well. Yet, I did made that experience and while I'm not proud of it, she did the exact same thing with the next man she got.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And now you're known as someone who hits women.

No, if anything I'm known for slapping a complete bitch while in love.

So you hit a woman. :cool:

[RSLancastr]

I have told women (and girls, when I was younger): "I generally don't hit women, but if you hit me, I will hit you back." I have said this because I have known females who thought that my not hitting women gave them carte blanche to wail on me.

That being said, I don't recall ever hitting ANYONE with my fist, other than punching one girl in the shoulder who had just done the same to me.

I'm a gentleman, not a punching bag.

[BobTheDonkey]

And now you're known as someone who hits women.

Ahhh, but the question is why does it matter that it was a woman. Why is he not known simply as someone that hits/slaps? Instead, he's known as someone who hits women.

That doesn't seem a bit sexist to you?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ahhh, but the question is why does it matter that it was a woman. Why is he not known simply as someone that hits/slaps? Instead, he's known as someone who hits women.

That doesn't seem a bit sexist to you?

No

[Oliver]

So you hit a woman. :cool:


If a slap as a reaction of a slap of hers is "hitting a women", yes. That's what happened back then - and as I said, I'm not proud of it, but I still think she got away with what she did and still does.

[BobTheDonkey]

No

How, exactly, do you define your statement/belief in such a way that it's not sexist?

[Newtons Bit]

There are situations that warrant hitting a woman:

NSFW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykN97RQ724

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How, exactly, do you define your statement/belief in such a way that it's not sexist?

Common sense.

[BobTheDonkey]

Common sense.

That explains nothing. Could you please elaborate?

[shawmutt]

When the hoe won't give up all the money.

Go ahead, call me a bad man.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That explains nothing. Could you please elaborate?

No

[BardKesnit]

Maybe not with a fist, but a consensual BDSM scene would be an acceptable time to hit a woman.

[KingMerv00]

That explains nothing. Could you please elaborate?

I'll give it a shot.

The morality of using physical force is partly dependent upon the amount needed to subdue your opponent and the amount of force that your opponent can use on you. (For example, disciplining a child with a scythe is unacceptable.) Women on average are less physically imposing so they need less force to subdue and have less force at their beck and call. Therefore, the morality of hitting an average unarmed woman is different from hitting an average unarmed man.

If a woman comes screaming at you with a katana, feel free to use your best haymaker.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll give it a shot.

The morality of using physical force is partly dependent upon the amount needed to subdue your opponent and the amount of force that your opponent can use on you. (For example, disciplining a child with a scythe is unacceptable.) Women on average are less physically imposing so they need less force to subdue and have less force at their beck and call so the morality of hitting an average unarmed woman is different from hitting an average unarmed man.

Yep, pretty much.

[Floyt]

When attacked, definitely. I'm quite the lightweight, and it's quite possible that a woman who enters an altercation with me will be physically stronger (or at least have more mass). My health comes before chivalry...

On my own initiative, I don't hit people, period. Brawling is for brutes.

[mortimer]

That explains nothing. Could you please elaborate?
I'll add that when I think about women being hit, I think of domestic violence, where women are vastly more likely than men to be victims. I don't think it particularly sexist to point that out.

[brodski]

I'll add that when I think about women being hit, I think of domestic violence, where women are vastly more likely than men to be victims. I don't think it particularly sexist to point that out.

Only if by vastly you mean in a ratio of 6:4.

[Cainkane1]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.
Woman can be as dangerous as a man. I've seen women attack men with weapons. If a woman comes at you with a knife or a gun or any other deadly weapon then you can hit her.

Overall I hate violence targeted at women though.

[Cainkane1]

When the hoe won't give up all the money.

Go ahead, call me a bad man.
You must be an apache dancer?

[mortimer]

Only if by vastly you mean in a ratio of 6:4.
A lot depends on what study you are relying on. Admittedly, some do have the ratio as low as 6:4. Others have it much higher.

[Ausmerican]

I'll give it a shot.

The morality of using physical force is partly dependent upon the amount needed to subdue your opponent and the amount of force that your opponent can use on you. (For example, disciplining a child with a scythe is unacceptable.) Women on average are less physically imposing so they need less force to subdue and have less force at their beck and call. Therefore, the morality of hitting an average unarmed woman is different from hitting an average unarmed man.

If a woman comes screaming at you with a katana, feel free to use your best haymaker.

Which is quite right, using the averages. But not having met Oliver or the women in question what if he looked like Woody Allen and she was Chyna?

[Ausmerican]

I hit a woman once. Not a proud moment. There were factors however. She was my fiance. I had just found out that she was cheating on me with my "best friend". She walked up to me all sad looking and held out her arms. In mid-hug she kneed me in the balls and raked her nails across my face from top to bottom across my eyes. To this day I claim I didn't hit a women I merely hit swung at what was hurting me to stop it. That was the only time in my life I have literally seen red.

[Oliver]

I'll add that when I think about women being hit, I think of domestic violence, where women are vastly more likely than men to be victims. I don't think it particularly sexist to point that out.


Well, I recently watched a German documentary about men getting hit on a regular basis without being able to do anything about it in their love, shame and worries about loosing their children. Their experience was that they were ridiculed by their environment, and probably would be ridiculed by some posters in this very thread in here as well.

[Oliver]

I hit a woman once. Not a proud moment. There were factors however. She was my fiance. I had just found out that she was cheating on me with my "best friend". She walked up to me all sad looking and held out her arms. In mid-hug she kneed me in the balls and raked her nails across my face from top to bottom across my eyes. To this day I claim I didn't hit a women I merely hit swung at what was hurting me to stop it. That was the only time in my life I have literally seen red.

Me, too. And even if I felt like beating her to death, she "only" received a slap in her face for doing what she did. People who never experienced such an extreme situation in which you literally see red while everything you believed in falls apart, don't know what it is like.

[mortimer]

Well, I recently watched a German documentary about men getting hit on a regular basis without being able to do anything about it in their love, shame and worries about loosing their children. Their experience was that they were ridiculed by their environment, and probably would be ridiculed by some posters in this very thread in here as well.
Just to be clear, these men were ridiculed for *not* hitting the woman back? Is that why you hit back, so you wouldn't be ridiculed?

[Oliver]

Just to be clear, these men were ridiculed for *not* hitting the woman back? Is that why you hit back, so you wouldn't be ridiculed?


Uh, no. The fact that there is domestic violence against men from their women has nothing to do with me. They were, however, ridiculed for the very fact that they let it happen.

Their explanation were: "Didn't want to break up the family and lose my children", "Didn't wan't my friends and colleagues know about that shameful fact" etc...

[mortimer]

Uh, no. The fact that there is domestic violence against men from their women has nothing to do with me. They were, however, ridiculed for the very fact that they let it happen.

Their explanation were: "Didn't want to break up the family and lose my children", "Didn't wan't my friends and colleagues know about that shameful fact" etc...
I'm sure that's true in some cases. In other cases, I'm sure, the violence was not returned because the man didn't feel the need to retaliate with violence.

[bluesjnr]

My mate hit a woman once...................once only, from around 600 yds, from a rooftop in Basra. Sure put paid to her plans for the day (which included taking out at least one member of HM forces) and the rest of her life.

I still feel a bit funny/bleugh/wrong about the whole affair when I think of it

[rwguinn]

Ever justified? As others have said.
Ever see "Play Misty for Me"?
That type of situation justifies it.

[qayak]

I have five sisters, all older than me. The rule in our house was simple: You are not allowed to hit a girl unless they hit you first.

When I was in highschool a girl slapped me full force across the face and got a fist in return. She was knocked out, I was sent to the principal's office because the teacher walked in as my fist made contact.

When my parents were called their only question was . . . you guessed it . . . "Did she hit him first?"

The girl and her parents had to decide whether the whole incident was to be forgotten or whether we were both to be suspended for fighting and her charged with assault. They chose to drop the whole thing.

Today, if a woman hit me the way that girl did, my response would be the same. So, "Yes!" I definitely think there are times when it is okay to hit a woman.

[JFrankA]

I've never hit a woman out of anger.

But my ex-wife would get so mad over something that she would stand there and slap herself in the face repeatedly, then claim that I made her so angry that she would have to let out her anger somehow so she'd rather hurt herself than to hit me or break something.


....we are divorced now.....

[Tatyana]

I never hit anyone in my life except a Woman I slapped after I understood that "I love you" in reality meant: "Hey, you got some money and place I could use for my own purposes". I should have used my fist, now that I think about it. :D



Of course you had nothing to do with the entire situation *victim*.

:)

[BobTheDonkey]

I'll add that when I think about women being hit, I think of domestic violence, where women are vastly more likely than men to be victims. I don't think it particularly sexist to point that out.

Brodski basically made my point for me.

Just because it's not popularly thought that men are domestic abuse victims does not mean that women are more likely to suffer. In Oscar's case, he didn't wind up and wail on the woman in question, he responded to her attack with a slap of his own. Hardly an overwhelming response.

Regardless, my point is that our society views women as being so frail that even though they serve on the front lines of many armed forces (and have for decades), they are still not viewed in the same manner as men. If Oscar had hit/slapped a man in the same situation, would you all have responded that he's a "man beater"? Likely not. This is what makes it sexist. Women are just as able to injure a man as a man is able to injure a woman (not all men are big, strapping Jersey-shore type douches ;) ).

Here's the first link Google found for "Domestic Violence Ratio Male to Female":

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

The Summary of the article:
This bibliography examines 271 scholarly investigations: 211 empirical studies and 60 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

So there are studies that show women are at least as likely to abuse their spouse as men. Given this statistic, one would think it sexist to label a man a "wife beater" when defending himself/returning in kind.

It brings to mind the joke: "Sleep with 100 girls, no one cares. Sleep with one goat, and all the rest of your life you're a goat-f'r." Show's a bias, no?


Check the "Tiger crashed his car" thread in this forum for a story involving the possibility of female on male domestic abuse.

[kedo1981]

As always the wrong question is asked.
“Would you hit a woman” is far too vague.
Try
Would you “deck” “coldcock” “punchout” a woman?
If she was causing a dangerous situation?
If she was intentionally burning her kid’s arm with a lit cigarette?
If she’s beating the crap out or your hot GF?
If she is threatening your mum?
If she takes your parking space?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I try to hit a woman every day. If I miss a day or two I try to make up to it by hitting two in a row on the following day.

[Thunder]

i believe in full equality. if a woman hits me I'm gonna hit her right back.

[bookitty]

No, if anything I'm known for slapping a complete bitch while in love. Would I do the same again: No, because I was pretty young and I'm much more cautious nowadays. Also, if I wouldn't have made this experience, I probably would react like you and others in here as well. Yet, I did made that experience and while I'm not proud of it, she did the exact same thing with the next man she got.

Hmmm...guess slapping her wasn't very effective.

[Ron_Tomkins]

On a separate note, I have a question here for the women in the thread: I have already dated two completely different women, from two completely different cultures and with completely different personalities. Yet I found that both of them, near the beginning of the relationship started testing my strength, literally, and going like "I think I'm stronger than you" and actually going as far as testing me (the second one actually wanted to arm wrestle me and everything). Now, I know that I'm skinny, which may lead to that comment as a joke but I got the feeling that maybe some women feel the need that their boyfriend is stronger than them. Any women here feel identified with this feeling?. Is this a relatively general tendency or was this just a weird coincidence I experienced?.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

On a separate note, I have a question here for the women in the thread: I have already dated two completely different women, from two completely different cultures and with completely different personalities. Yet I found that both of them, near the beginning of the relationship started testing my strength, literally, and going like "I think I'm stronger than you" and actually going as far as testing me (the second one actually wanted to arm wrestle me and everything). Now, I know that I'm skinny, which may lead to that comment as a joke but I got the feeling that maybe some women feel the need that their boyfriend is stronger than them. Any women here feel identified with this feeling?. Is this a relatively general tendency or was this just a weird coincidence I experienced?.

I would never go out with a woman who could beat me up.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

i believe in full equality. if a woman hits me I'm gonna hit her right back.

How very manly of you.

[KingMerv00]

I would never go out with a woman who could beat me up.

Cept Rebecca of course.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Cept Rebecca of course.

Dammit, she can't beat me up! I run too fast!

[BobTheDonkey]

How very manly of you.

Ahhh, yes. More sexism ;)

[Rairun]

I think the "she cheated on me" excuse is ********. It may be what caused you to be violent, but it doesn't justify it.

But if a person attacks you first, sure, I don't see a problem in retaliating as long as your reaction isn't disproportionate. This goes for both men and women. Also, it bothers me when people attack others in dangerous ways (hitting the back of the neck, etc.) because they know the other person isn't as reckless as they are. They know they can get away with it.

[bookitty]

On a separate note, I have a question here for the women in the thread: I have already dated two completely different women, from two completely different cultures and with completely different personalities. Yet I found that both of them, near the beginning of the relationship started testing my strength, literally, and going like "I think I'm stronger than you" and actually going as far as testing me (the second one actually wanted to arm wrestle me and everything). Now, I know that I'm skinny, which may lead to that comment as a joke but I got the feeling that maybe some women feel the need that their boyfriend is stronger than them. Any women here feel identified with this feeling?. Is this a relatively general tendency or was this just a weird coincidence I experienced?.

It could be some sort of primal mate-testing. Or it could just be that at the beginning of a relationship there is a need for touch. Since people are not always good at expressing this need, they find playful ways to fulfill it. Arm-wrestling, goofy pushing, fake boxing or wrestling are slightly more aggressive but it's more about contact than measuring.

[Rairun]

Or it could just be that at the beginning of a relationship there is a need for touch. Since people are not always good at expressing this need, they find playful ways to fulfill it. Arm-wrestling, goofy pushing, fake boxing or wrestling are slightly more aggressive but it's more about contact than measuring.

Yeah, mostly this. And curiosity. I've arm-wrestled my girlfriend because I was curious to see if she could beat me (I'm 6'3" and 125 pounds). There wasn't much to it.

[qayak]

I would never go out with a woman who could beat me up.

That really limits your options.

[BobTheDonkey]

That really limits your options.

Especially if he's not willing to hit back in self-defense (wouldn't want to be a woman-beater...)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Especially if he's not willing to hit back in self-defense (wouldn't want to be a woman-beater...)

You seem to be a very brave man.

[BobTheDonkey]

You seem to be a very brave man.

Why? You going to find where I live and report me for pointing out the sexism/irony in your remarks? :D

[ProbeX]

Remember Kathy Bates in 'Misery'? I'm all for the heavy typewriter defense ;)

As for hitting a female because she cheated (and wishing you'd actually punched her?!) ... Wow. That's one of the weakest justifications for domestic violence I've heard in a while. The way to deal with that problem is to turn your heels and stomp away ... or if you must, go pound on a wall or crush some beer cans. A woman's (or man's) body is not your own personal canvass for emotional graffiti sir.

[rightbrain]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

I assume you mean any circumstances in which a man hitting a woman would be considered acceptable?

Generally I'm not for hitting anyone, but if a woman is physically assaulting a man and (a) is bigger or stronger than him, (b) armed, or (c) is not acting alone, then I'd say all bets are off. Self-defense is justified.

My husband hit a Gypsy woman in Milan once. She had an iron grip on his arm, trying to immobilize him so her cohort could take his wallet. He backhanded her--to say she and her colleagues were shocked would be an understatement--and got away. I thought he was justified. She actually left a bruise on his arm. She probably put a curse on him, but he's still here. http://forums.randi.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

[TragicMonkey]

What are you, people from the dawn of time? Who leads the kind of life where people smack each other around? I've been hit exactly once since childhood, and it was by a crazy person who couldn't be blamed for her actions.

The civilized response to provocation is hissed anathemas, sneering remarks, vile invective, and puncturing of their self-esteem with your needlesharp tongue and its venomous eloquence. Sticks and stones, after all, leave wounds that heal eventually, but a properly turned nasty remark can fester in the mind and blight the very soul of the fool who dared arouse your malice.

[tyr_13]

I think that women hitting anyone, regardless of the size of the person being attacked, should be looked down on just as much as the 'big guy' who cold cocks a little guy.

The results do matter, and I'm not saying it's ok to kick the ass of someone smaller than you. I am saying that if you attack someone stronger, regardless of genders involved, you're bad.

[Thunder]

How very manly of you.

in NYC, you never know, when a "woman" is really a "She-man".

;)

plus, this girl was pretty tough..right?
quzY7ONePM4

[Homemade psycho]

More answers on a previous thread

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97810

[decojuicer]

About 13 years ago, I was bouncing in a bar and we had to remove a HIGHLY intoxicated female customer. We were almost to the door when she spun around and came at me with claws out and up. I didn't even think about it, I just gave her my best punch in the face.

I don't think that I have ever felt bad about that. Still don't.

Most girls were easy to get to leave. Pay for the taxi and get a little help from their friends. This gal was one for the books though.

[BobTheDonkey]

Does slapping my GF's butt count? Cuz...I do that all the time (she likes it, thus my dilemma).

For the record, I've never been in a fist fight (female nor male). I have never felt any disagreement was ever so serious that it needed to come to violence.

I have stopped girls from hitting me by holding their wrists, but never struck back.

[fuelair]

You must be an apache dancer?

I believe that would more be pimp/mec (for France).:)

[fuelair]

I think the "she cheated on me" excuse is ********. It may be what caused you to be violent, but it doesn't justify it.

But if a person attacks you first, sure, I don't see a problem in retaliating as long as your reaction isn't disproportionate. This goes for both men and women. Also, it bothers me when people attack others in dangerous ways (hitting the back of the neck, etc.) because they know the other person isn't as reckless as they are. They know they can get away with it.
Gonna put this carefully and politely: if a person you do not know attacks you or a person you know attacks you without reason no response is disproportionate until they have ceased all aggressive behavior. Anything less has a good chance of getting you badly hurt or killed. If someone hits me in the throat, solar plexus or back of neck and it is not a killing or disabling blow, they will die if I can get to them or to a weapon because they have attempted to kill me (in order, inability to breathe(crushed windpipe), serrated and bleeding liver (xyphoid process cutting across it's top - how you kill people if you mis-perform cpr), broken spine).

Law requires only that you use no more force than necessary to halt the attacker. It can be made to look that way.

[fuelair]

I think that women hitting anyone, regardless of the size of the person being attacked, should be looked down on just as much as the 'big guy' who cold cocks a little guy.

The results do matter, and I'm not saying it's ok to kick the ass of someone smaller than you. I am saying that if you attack someone stronger, regardless of genders involved, you're bad.

I prefer the rule that says don't attack other people, leave them alone, expect to be left alone and have a plan if you are being attacked. Applies to big, medium or small people. The only addition I should make is there are certain classes of people, small children are a biggie, where the rule is I take an attack on them as an attack on me.

[qayak]

Especially if he's not willing to hit back in self-defense (wouldn't want to be a woman-beater...)

Actually, I meant that there were very few women who can't kick his butt so a policy of not dating any woman who could really limits his chances of . . . dating. :D

I wonder how that would play out on the first meeting.

TCS: Before we go out, let's wrestle!

Woman: I don't know, your pretty delicate looking.

TCS: Well, I have my standards.

Woman: Well, okay but let me help you with your coat.

TCS: But you have to promise to stop if I start to cry.

Woman: On second thought . . . !

[Rairun]

Gonna put this carefully and politely: if a person you do not know attacks you or a person you know attacks you without reason no response is disproportionate until they have ceased all aggressive behavior. Anything less has a good chance of getting you badly hurt or killed. If someone hits me in the throat, solar plexus or back of neck and it is not a killing or disabling blow, they will die if I can get to them or to a weapon because they have attempted to kill me (in order, inability to breathe(crushed windpipe), serrated and bleeding liver (xyphoid process cutting across it's top - how you kill people if you mis-perform cpr), broken spine).

Law requires only that you use no more force than necessary to halt the attacker. It can be made to look that way.

Well, yeah, if the person goes berserk and tries to kill you, I don't disagree with you. But if a friend snapped at me and slapped/punched my neck, I wouldn't try to kill or disable them. I'd probably hit their legs/arms hard enough to bruise them, but not in a dangerous way. In such cases, just showing that you're willing to put up a fight is enough for them to come to their senses and stop.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who leads the kind of life where people smack each other around?

<====

[Safe-Keeper]

But, seriously, that is why I get angry every time I hear/read about multiple people being killed/wounded by a nutcase shooting up an area where the people being shot were not legally able to carry weapons.Because when they are allowed to carry weapons, they can be expected to react calmly and correctly, calmly drawing their firearm to hit the assailant (and only the assailant) - not to mention that if you hear a gunshot, draw your gun, and turn around, you'd be able to identify the real assailant from the other vigilantes who have also drawn their guns.

Which is why you so often read headlines like "a man pulled out a gun and started shooting, injuring one, and was then killed by seven laser-accurate shots from seven heroic people with concealed weapons", and never headlines such as "a man fired madly on people around him in a mall which must have contained many gun-wielding people. He killed seven and injured twelve before shooting himself".

Oh, wait. You don't:rolleyes:.

ETA: For future reference, reality is not an FPS game.

[Ron_Tomkins]

It could be some sort of primal mate-testing. Or it could just be that at the beginning of a relationship there is a need for touch. Since people are not always good at expressing this need, they find playful ways to fulfill it. Arm-wrestling, goofy pushing, fake boxing or wrestling are slightly more aggressive but it's more about contact than measuring.

You're right. That's one perspective I hadn't considered and it actually does make a lot of sense. Thank you for that input.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I would never go out with a woman who could beat me up.

Is this your way of saying you will not go out with anyone? ;)

[XBoxWarrior]

I don't get the issue...if a woman hits me, I'll hit back. (simple, no sex involved)

I have owned a bar, and women/girls can be the worst of drunks to deal with...and yes, they tend to prefer litigation, ex post facto. That doesn't mean they prevail because they have vaginas, but they do get great (pro bono) lawyers. ;)

[slingblade]

My first husband used to hit me.

That said, I can't imagine how to answer the question. Every time I think about it, and try to think critically about it, I just see the blood. There's got to be a logical, mature, rational answer.

Damned if I know what it is.

[Whiplash]

What are you, people from the dawn of time? Who leads the kind of life where people smack each other around? I've been hit exactly once since childhood, and it was by a crazy person who couldn't be blamed for her actions.

The civilized response to provocation is hissed anathemas, sneering remarks, vile invective, and puncturing of their self-esteem with your needlesharp tongue and its venomous eloquence. Sticks and stones, after all, leave wounds that heal eventually, but a properly turned nasty remark can fester in the mind and blight the very soul of the fool who dared arouse your malice.


Yes this is absolutely ideal but we are not Vulcan's. We are emotional creatures that can sometimes, when pushed to an extreme, react in a manner that we would normally never consider, and very much regret after the fact. It happens. It's not a very nice thing, but it's reality.

[Rairun]

My first husband used to hit me.

That said, I can't imagine how to answer the question. Every time I think about it, and try to think critically about it, I just see the blood. There's got to be a logical, mature, rational answer.

Damned if I know what it is.

I still think that the most logical answer is that your husband wasn't "hitting a woman." He was hitting you, an individual like everyone else. It's a horrible thing, and I'm sorry it happened. I don't think anyone here thinks abuse is okay.

I think a better question would be, "would it be okay for you to have reacted if you could?" I think it would. And that's exactly why I think it's justifiable for men to hit women sometimes. Women can be violent too, and it's not fair to expect a male victim to shut up and take it. No one should be expected to do that.

[MattC]

ETA: For future reference, reality is not an FPS game.

Then why is there so much delay when I'm drunk?

~ Matt

[arthwollipot]

I would, and have, hit women. In the head. With a sword.

[Roboramma]

I would, and have, hit women. In the head. With a sword.

You are the only person who could possibly get away with that post.

[Skeptic]

Men, being stronger and larger than women, are -- quite correctly -- usually taught that while violence in general is bad, hitting women (and children) is particularly to be frowned upon as a cowardly and unmanly act. There are of course exceptions, life and death situations -- say, a woman is going to attack you with a gun, etc. -- but I don't think that's the point of Eyeron's question.

His point is this, I think: there are many daily-occurring situations where a man probably would hit another man. Do you think that, in some of those situations, hitting a woman would be justifiable? The old gentlemany answer was, "no, never". I don't think that's bad. I think it is in fact better than the claimed "it won't matter to me if it's a man or a woman" indifference expressed by some people here. I don't think the people here who are shouting for "equality" in the treatment of men and women in this case thought it through.

Suppose you are a man, and a woman shouted at you with "fighting words", telling you what a worthless piece of scum you are. Or suppose a woman slapped, or attacked you with her fists, or threw her drink in your face. If a man did that, you'd hit them back, probably trying to knock them out. But if a woman did that, I hope and trust most men here would control themselves and not do that. They would perhaps try to restrain the woman from hitting them again (say, by holding her hands), but I trust they won't punch her in the face and knock her out.

What's more, I would be deeply suspicious of someone whom I see punching a woman and knocking her flat, and then saying, "well, she attacked me first, and if she were a man you wouldn't think it's wrong". Even if -- technically -- they are correct, I would think such a man as cowardly, of not acting like men should. Men should, within reason, prefer not hitting back women even if they are hit first, and should attempt to restrain, not hit back, their assailant.

(Again, there ARE of course exceptions and extreme cases -- I am presuming we are not dealing with extreme circumstances where punching the woman is the only way to avoid grave bodily harm to yourself or others, etc. I mean in the typical case.)

[Professor Yaffle]

I believe in using only as much violence as I have to, to defend myself, or another person. It wouldn't matter to me what the gender of the other person was.

Actually I'm quite amazed at some of the responses to this thread; I thought the vast majority of people would see it as a dumb question, like I did.

[Professor Yaffle]

Suppose you are a man, and a woman shouted at you with "fighting words", telling you what a worthless piece of scum you are. Or suppose a woman slapped, or attacked you with her fists, or threw her drink in your face. If a man did that, you'd hit them back, probably trying to knock them out. But if a woman did that, I hope and trust most men here would control themselves and not do that. They would perhaps try to restrain the woman from hitting them again (say, by holding her hands), but I trust they won't punch her in the face and knock her out.


Perhaps you might like to rephrase that. I'd suggest changing the you to an I. Wouldn't want to make any assumptions about how other people here would react in those situations, would you?

[shawmutt]

Actually I'm quite amazed at some of the responses to this thread; I thought the vast majority of people would see it as a dumb question, like I did.

I think most did, which explains all the silly answers.

[brodski]

Men, being stronger and larger than women, are -- quite correctly -- usually taught that while violence in general is bad, hitting women (and children) is particularly to be frowned upon as a cowardly and unmanly act.


If this is your argument then shurely the size/ strength of the other person is more important than their gender?

Or is it OK to hit someone who is smaller and weaker than you if you happen to have matching genitalia?

[TragicMonkey]

Yes this is absolutely ideal but we are not Vulcan's. We are emotional creatures that can sometimes, when pushed to an extreme, react in a manner that we would normally never consider, and very much regret after the fact. It happens. It's not a very nice thing, but it's reality.

Oh, I wasn't arguing against physical violence on the grounds that it's bad. I was arguing that it's less effective, in the long run, than verbal nastiness.

[BobTheDonkey]

Then why is there so much delay when I'm drunk?

~ Matt

Upgrade to a FIOS connection :D

[BobTheDonkey]

Men, being stronger and larger than women, are -- quite correctly -- usually taught that while violence in general is bad, hitting women (and children) is particularly to be frowned upon as a cowardly and unmanly act. There are of course exceptions, life and death situations -- say, a woman is going to attack you with a gun, etc. -- but I don't think that's the point of Eyeron's question.

His point is this, I think: there are many daily-occurring situations where a man probably would hit another man. Do you think that, in some of those situations, hitting a woman would be justifiable? The old gentlemany answer was, "no, never". I don't think that's bad. I think it is in fact better than the claimed "it won't matter to me if it's a man or a woman" indifference expressed by some people here. I don't think the people here who are shouting for "equality" in the treatment of men and women in this case thought it through.

Suppose you are a man, and a woman shouted at you with "fighting words", telling you what a worthless piece of scum you are. Or suppose a woman slapped, or attacked you with her fists, or threw her drink in your face. If a man did that, you'd hit them back, probably trying to knock them out. But if a woman did that, I hope and trust most men here would control themselves and not do that. They would perhaps try to restrain the woman from hitting them again (say, by holding her hands), but I trust they won't punch her in the face and knock her out.

What's more, I would be deeply suspicious of someone whom I see punching a woman and knocking her flat, and then saying, "well, she attacked me first, and if she were a man you wouldn't think it's wrong". Even if -- technically -- they are correct, I would think such a man as cowardly, of not acting like men should. Men should, within reason, prefer not hitting back women even if they are hit first, and should attempt to restrain, not hit back, their assailant.

(Again, there ARE of course exceptions and extreme cases -- I am presuming we are not dealing with extreme circumstances where punching the woman is the only way to avoid grave bodily harm to yourself or others, etc. I mean in the typical case.)

And sexism rears it's ugly head yet again in this thread :(

If anyone (that's key) thinks he/she/it is man enough to step up and hit me, then he/she/it had better believe she/he/it's man enough (ETA: ahh, and there's more covert sexism... stereotyping men and so forth) to take a hit back.

Not saying I'm going to hit back (see my previous post), but don't think that because someone's smaller than me he/she/it has the right to hit me and get away with it.

Women either want to be equal, or they don't. None of this "equal sexes, but ours is more equal than yours" crap.

Men and women should not abuse others. Period.

The claim that using a vagina to get out of a physical situation she instigated is fair is hardly an enlightened response.

[qayak]

His point is this, I think: there are many daily-occurring situations where a man probably would hit another man.

Really? I have gone a couple of years without such an occurance. In whose life is this a "daily" thing?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Men, being stronger and larger than women, are -- quite correctly -- usually taught that while violence in general is bad, hitting women (and children) is particularly to be frowned upon as a cowardly and unmanly act. There are of course exceptions, life and death situations -- say, a woman is going to attack you with a gun, etc. -- but I don't think that's the point of Eyeron's question.

His point is this, I think: there are many daily-occurring situations where a man probably would hit another man. Do you think that, in some of those situations, hitting a woman would be justifiable? The old gentlemany answer was, "no, never". I don't think that's bad. I think it is in fact better than the claimed "it won't matter to me if it's a man or a woman" indifference expressed by some people here. I don't think the people here who are shouting for "equality" in the treatment of men and women in this case thought it through.

Suppose you are a man, and a woman shouted at you with "fighting words", telling you what a worthless piece of scum you are. Or suppose a woman slapped, or attacked you with her fists, or threw her drink in your face. If a man did that, you'd hit them back, probably trying to knock them out. But if a woman did that, I hope and trust most men here would control themselves and not do that. They would perhaps try to restrain the woman from hitting them again (say, by holding her hands), but I trust they won't punch her in the face and knock her out.

What's more, I would be deeply suspicious of someone whom I see punching a woman and knocking her flat, and then saying, "well, she attacked me first, and if she were a man you wouldn't think it's wrong". Even if -- technically -- they are correct, I would think such a man as cowardly, of not acting like men should. Men should, within reason, prefer not hitting back women even if they are hit first, and should attempt to restrain, not hit back, their assailant.

(Again, there ARE of course exceptions and extreme cases -- I am presuming we are not dealing with extreme circumstances where punching the woman is the only way to avoid grave bodily harm to yourself or others, etc. I mean in the typical case.)

This is the correct answer.

[Thunder]

I would, and have, hit women. In the head. With a sword.

tridents are great for three on one action.

[qayak]

I work with a young guy who is attending court ordered anger management classes. His ex-girlfriend says he hit her, he says he didn't touch her, that she is just angry because he dumped her. Whatever the case, it isn't the point of this post.

The point is that he was at one class where a guy was going off about his GF pissing him off and that he felt it was completely reasonable to slap her around.

The counsellor's response was "You shouldn't do that because it is the type of behaviour that lands you here."

The young guy said to me, "And all this time I thought you weren't supposed to hit people because it was wrong when really, you aren't supposed to hit them because you will end up in anger management classes!"

I bet if you check the counsellor's credentials you would find a long history of violence followed by a brief course on counselling . . . and now they get to "teach" others! :rolleyes:

[slingblade]

I still think that the most logical answer is that your husband wasn't "hitting a woman." He was hitting you, an individual like everyone else. It's a horrible thing, and I'm sorry it happened. I don't think anyone here thinks abuse is okay.

I think a better question would be, "would it be okay for you to have reacted if you could?" I think it would. And that's exactly why I think it's justifiable for men to hit women sometimes. Women can be violent too, and it's not fair to expect a male victim to shut up and take it. No one should be expected to do that.

I agree.

The way the question was phrased, I figured the OP wanted an answer of that nature, and since I can provide it, I did. I don't know why he or she would want such an answer, or would ask such a question, but there it is.

ETA: by the way, Eyeron, "just a slap" can fracture one's nose. Ask me how I know.

[BobTheDonkey]

Skeptic
Men, being stronger and larger than women, are -- quite correctly -- usually taught that while violence in general is bad, hitting women (and children) is particularly to be frowned upon as a cowardly and unmanly act. There are of course exceptions, life and death situations -- say, a woman is going to attack you with a gun, etc. -- but I don't think that's the point of Eyeron's question.

His point is this, I think: there are many daily-occurring situations where a man probably would hit another man. Do you think that, in some of those situations, hitting a woman would be justifiable? The old gentlemany answer was, "no, never". I don't think that's bad. I think it is in fact better than the claimed "it won't matter to me if it's a man or a woman" indifference expressed by some people here. I don't think the people here who are shouting for "equality" in the treatment of men and women in this case thought it through.

Suppose you are a man, and a woman shouted at you with "fighting words", telling you what a worthless piece of scum you are. Or suppose a woman slapped, or attacked you with her fists, or threw her drink in your face. If a man did that, you'd hit them back, probably trying to knock them out. But if a woman did that, I hope and trust most men here would control themselves and not do that. They would perhaps try to restrain the woman from hitting them again (say, by holding her hands), but I trust they won't punch her in the face and knock her out.

What's more, I would be deeply suspicious of someone whom I see punching a woman and knocking her flat, and then saying, "well, she attacked me first, and if she were a man you wouldn't think it's wrong". Even if -- technically -- they are correct, I would think such a man as cowardly, of not acting like men should. Men should, within reason, prefer not hitting back women even if they are hit first, and should attempt to restrain, not hit back, their assailant.

(Again, there ARE of course exceptions and extreme cases -- I am presuming we are not dealing with extreme circumstances where punching the woman is the only way to avoid grave bodily harm to yourself or others, etc. I mean in the typical case.) This is the correct answer.

You, sir, are wrong.

For the bolded part. For the same reasons you were wrong before - it's incredibly sexist. There are plenty of women out there who abuse their spouses. And you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit the stereotype and are all too willing to label those who would defend themselves as "woman-beater" rather than "victim".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You, sir, are wrong.

For the bolded part. For the same reasons you were wrong before - it's incredibly sexist. There are plenty of women out there who abuse their spouses. And you choose to ignore that because it doesn't fit the stereotype and are all too willing to label those who would defend themselves as "woman-beater" rather than "victim".

Get off the "sexist" thing. You're wrong, and the more you keep repeating it, the more foolish you look. I'm embarrassed for you.

[Skeptic]

You, sir, are wrong.

For the bolded part. For the same reasons you were wrong before - it's incredibly sexist.

Oh, please.

Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.) This doesn't mean that only men have courage or only women can be compassionate, of course. But shouting "sexist!" after any sort of attempt by a man to follow the manly virtues, or for a woman to follow the womanly virtues, merely ends us with what we see today all around us: men who, "discovering their feminine side", are wet noodles who cry and break down after any little crisis and then have no idea why women find them pathetic, and women who, "being against the double standard" and having been "sexually liberated", sleep with anything in pants and then wonder why they are lonely and unhappy.

The result of the attempt to "end sexism", not by equal opportunity under the law, but by the idiotic brainwashing of obliterating the manly and womanly virtues, ended us up with, as the Latin poet wittingly said, "men without courage and women without shame". Just look at any college campus today.

(Well, except for some of the small, religious ones, unsurprisingly. Apparently, the "stupid" and "backward" and "primitive" education in such colleges -- I do not mean bible-college diploma mills, but those small liberal-arts colleges founded by religious or traditional societies, mostly in the late 19th / early 20th century -- still creates men and woman of character, go figure.)

[qayak]

Get off the "sexist" thing. You're wrong, and the more you keep repeating it, the more foolish you look. I'm embarrassed for you.

Wouldn't it work better if you put up an argument that could explain why he should disregard the obvious sexism in your posts?

[qayak]

Oh, please. Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.) This doesn't mean that only men have courage or only woman can be compassionate, of course.

Oh! The White Knight defence. That explains it! :rolleyes:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Wouldn't it work better if you put up an argument that could explain why he should disregard the obvious sexism in your posts?

Others have posted my argument. I choose not to retype it.

[Rairun]

Get off the "sexist" thing. You're wrong, and the more you keep repeating it, the more foolish you look. I'm embarrassed for you.

No one is going to "get off the sexist thing." It's sexist. Deal with it.

No, I wouldn't hit a woman if she shouted "fighting words" at me, but I wouldn't hit a man either. I also wouldn't hit them if they threw their drink in my face, unless they threw the glass along with it, in which case I might hit them back. But I would not try to knock them out. It baffles me how you guys are so willing to be violent to men, yet if I ever touch a woman I'm a women-beater.

Seriously, do you think knocking someone out is okay under ANY circumstances other than when someone is trying to seriously injure you or kill you? And by "seriously injure" I don't mean just any sort of violence. It's just plain scary how you would render someone unconscious for throwing beer at you, or for trying to push you out of their way.

[Skeptic]

The young guy said to me, "And all this time I thought you weren't supposed to hit people because it was wrong when really, you aren't supposed to hit them because you will end up in anger management classes!"

Here we once more see what Aristotle already knew. Virtue and doing the right thing is not just a matter of principles or laws, it is a matter of training.

This young man is quite correct that the reason to not hit your girlfriend is because it's wrong, not because of the BS pseudo-utilitarian excuse "you then will have to go to anger management classes".

But obviously, merely knowing that it is wrong didn't stop him from doing it -- for the same reason that fat people know it is bad to overeat just as much as thin people, but do it anyway.

A well-educated person is not merely one who knows intellectually that hitting their girlfriend is wrong. It is someone whose education and training gave him self-control to not do what they think is wrong.

Of course nobody is perfect, and the best-trained person sometime slips and loses control. But at least they are far less likely to do so than the untrained person.

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh, please.

Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.) This doesn't mean that only men have courage or only women can be compassionate, of course. But shouting "sexist!" after any sort of attempt by a man to follow the manly virtues, or for a woman to follow the womanly virtues, merely ends us with what we see today all around us: men who, "discovering their feminine side", are wet noodles who cry and break down after any little crisis and then have no idea why women find them pathetic, and women who, "being against the double standard" and having been "sexually liberated", sleep with anything in pants and then wonder why they are lonely and unhappy.

The result of the attempt to "end sexism", not by equal opportunity under the law, but by the idiotic brainwashing of obliterating the manly and womanly virtues, ended us up with, as the Latin poet wittingly said, "men without courage and women without shame". Just look at any college campus today.

(Well, except for some of the small, religious ones, unsurprisingly. Apparently, the "stupid" and "backward" and "primitive" education in such colleges -- I do not mean bible-college diploma mills, but those small liberal-arts colleges founded by religious or traditional societies, mostly in the late 19th / early 20th century -- still creates men and woman of character, go figure.)

So, you're telling me there are no manly men anymore? Interesting, given the overwhelming love of NASCAR, football (American football, that is), beer, etc.

Explain to me how it's not sexist to determine certain virtues a person should exhibit based purely on their gender?

[qayak]

Here we once more see what Aristotle already knew. Virtue and doing the right thing is not just a matter of principles or laws, it is a matter of training.

This young man is quite correct that the reason to not hit your girlfriend is because it's wrong, not because of the BS pseudo-utilitarian excuse "you then will have to go to anger management classes".

But obviously, merely knowing that it is wrong didn't stop him from doing it --

There is some question as to whether he did it as evidenced by the fact that he is in anger management and not in jail.

for the same reason that fat people know it is bad to overeat just as much as thin people, but do it anyway.

Logical fallacy.

A well-educated person is not merely one who knows intellectually that hitting their girlfriend is wrong. It is someone whose education and training gave him self-control to not do what they think is wrong.

Logically fallacy. You have not demonstrated that it is indeed wrong to hit a woman in all circumstance and you have not shown that this is the position of all "educated" persons.

Of course nobody is perfect, and the best-trained person sometime slips and loses control. But at least they are far less likely to do so than the untrained person.

Logical fallacy. You have not shown that the "best trained" people are those who would never strike a woman under any circumstance.

Your argument is sexist and wrong.

[Skeptic]

Oh! The White Knight defence. That explains it! :rolleyes:

Yes, indeed so.

Being a "White Knight" -- a man who considers honor and courage to be important virtues -- is better than being one of those pathetic folks who, not seeing the importance of courage or honor themselves, belittle those who do.

Of course it is always possible to parody and ridicule "White Knights", as it is possible to parody every virtue. It is of course always possible to make oneself ridiculous by overacting one's virtue over trivialities, or by fanatically thinking (like, for instance, Islamic terrorists) that "honor" and "courage" are the ONLY thing that matters, regardless of what code of honor one follows or to what purpose one employs one's courage.

But just because virtue can be perverted or ridiculed hardly means it is not virtue. As Epictetus said, the brave man is always called a fool -- by the coward.

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, indeed so.

Being a "White Knight" -- a man who considers honor and courage to be important virtues -- is better than being one of those pathetic folks who, not seeing the importance of courage or honor themselves, belittle those who do.

Of course it is always possible to parody and ridicule "White Knights", as it is possible to parody every virtue. It is of course always possible to make oneself ridiculous by overacting one's virtue over trivialities, or by fanatically thinking (like, for instance, Islamic terrorists) that "honor" and "courage" are the ONLY thing that matters, regardless of what code of honor one follows or to what purpose one employs one's courage.

But just because virtue can be perverted or ridiculed hardly means it is not virtue. As Epictetus said, the brave man is always called a fool -- by the coward.
So, you're implying that I'm a fool lacking in honor and courage? Interesting that you would think so simply because I'm willing to defend myself against anyone who would harm me and only when it's absolutely necessary (which, btw, is not very often, if ever, for most people).

It's telling that you believe men who would defend themselves are lacking in honor and courage whereas women are expected to lack in honor and courage. And you don't see the sexism in that?


ETA: So, does that mean women who don't defend themselves have honor and courage, therefore it's expected of women to defend themselves (because defense is cowardly and womanly, I suppose?)?

[Skeptic]

So, you're telling me there are no manly men anymore? Interesting, given the overwhelming love of NASCAR, football (American football, that is), beer, etc.

Who said there are no manly men? But there are less than there were, now that the manly ideal became some sort of androgynous "connected with his feeling" and "sensitive", well, wimp.

What makes men manly is not NASCAR or football, but self-control, courage, and similar virtues. I don't count those who get drunk in a football game or burn down cars when their soccer team loses (or wins) exemplars of "manliness", but of "spoiled bratiness".

[BobTheDonkey]

Who said there are no manly men? But there are less than there were, now that the manly ideal became some sort of androgynous "connected with his feeling" and "sensitive", well, wimp.

What makes men manly is not NASCAR or football, but self-control, courage, and similar virtues. I don't count those who get drunk in a football game or burn down cars when their soccer team loses (or wins) exemplars of "manliness", but of "spoiled bratiness".

So, women shouldn't exhibit self-control and/or courage?

[Skeptic]

So, you're implying that I'm a fool lacking in honor and courage?

You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage.

[BobTheDonkey]

You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage.

But, what about self-control?

[Cavemonster]

You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage.

So which definition of honor are you using?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/honor

And which of Courage?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/courage

[qayak]

Yes, indeed so.

Being a "White Knight" -- a man who considers honor and courage to be important virtues -- is better than being one of those pathetic folks who, not seeing the importance of courage or honor themselves, belittle those who do.

Of course it is always possible to parody and ridicule "White Knights", as it is possible to parody every virtue. It is of course always possible to make oneself ridiculous by overacting one's virtue over trivialities, or by fanatically thinking (like, for instance, Islamic terrorists) that "honor" and "courage" are the ONLY thing that matters, regardless of what code of honor one follows or to what purpose one employs one's courage.

But just because virtue can be perverted or ridiculed hardly means it is not virtue. As Epictetus said, the brave man is always called a fool -- by the coward.

Oh! The Persecuted White Knight defence!

There is a reason knights went the way of the Dodo bird. It turns out they were just humans with the same human foibles as everyone else.

I am not ridiculing courage and honour but I am ridiculing your understanding of what they mean.

[Skeptic]

There is a reason knights went the way of the Dodo bird. It turns out they were just humans with the same human foibles as everyone else.

Because, as we know, if you cannot be perfectly virtuous, there's no point in trying, is there?

[Skeptic]

But, what about self-control?

Virtue means feeling the correct emotions, and doing the correct thing: feeling the correct degree of love to those who do good, the correct degree of hate to those who do bad, in proportion to their virtue or vice.

Courage is a middle virtue -- between rashness and cowardice. Rashness means to feel and act based on too much hate. Cowardice means to feel and act based on too little.

Here, courage means to be angry enough to punch someone who deliberately spills his drink in your face, since you are feeling the right amount of anger towards an appropriate target. To kill them would be (apart from everything else which would make it wrong) rashness, not courage; to do nothing would be cowardice.

Now, what about self control? Well, self control means to force yourself to act according to virtue. The idea is that self-control eventually becomes second nature, resulting in virtuous persons.

In this case, to force yourself to act courageously. That is, hitting back even if you are afraid you would be punched in return, instead of sitting around meekly and taking it, which is cowardly; and, on the other hand, not pulling out a gun and shooting them, which is rash.

Some people are naturally cowardly. To be courageous, they would have to force themselves to act courageously in this case and punch the sonofabitch despite being afraid. Some people are naturally rash. To be courageous, they would have to restrain themselves and not shoot the sonofabitch, but only punch him, despite being really angry.

That is self control. Self-control not only is not against acting courageously, it is for it. You are simply confusing self control with cowardice. What you are asking me is, "but what about doing nothing, like a coward?". Well, what about it? It's cowardly.

[Cavemonster]

Skeptic,
Why is hitting the jerk "The right amount of anger"?
What exactly does it accomplish?

In my view why feel angry at all if you can avoid it? Why let him wreck your night? Because I can assure you that the complication would most likely not end with a well delivered punch.

Cowardice is when fear stops you from doing what's best, what's needed. How is hitting a jerk what's best and needed? Who's life does it improve?

[Rairun]

Okay, Skeptic, I have to ask: was that a parody? I really can't tell if you are serious or just mocking people who behave like that. If you are serious, I'd hate to live like you. I'd hate going around doing dumb sh*t because I fancy myself virtuous. Because make no mistake, the behavior you've described is just stupid--not just the fact that you strive to be a respectable man, but also that you consider those who don't adhere to your arbitrary moral standards "wimps."

No, I don't actually like beating people who "offend" me. And even if I liked to do that, I would not do it. Call me a coward all you want. I wouldn't risk injury to prove that I'm a man. I don't give a flying **** about what you think of me.

I'm glad for "radical feminists" and their brainwashing. The world is a better place.

[Skeptic]

Okay, Skeptic, I have to ask: was that a parody?

No. It's Aristotle.

It is sad that, nowadays, someone who thinks like Aristotle is considered a "parody", but frankly, I think this shows more about current society than it shows about Aristotle.

Call me a coward all you want. I wouldn't risk injury to prove that I'm a man.

As Daffy Duck said, you're not like other people. You can't stand pain. It hurts you.

It's just what I told my wife when I ran away and left her to be raped in that dark ally, by the way. I don't need to risk injury to prove anything! I'd probably just get beat up, anyway -- better and more rational to call the cops from a safe distance!

Call me a coward all you want! It's just your arbitrary moral standard, anyway!

[Whiplash]

Oh, I wasn't arguing against physical violence on the grounds that it's bad. I was arguing that it's less effective, in the long run, than verbal nastiness.


In that I do agree. Words can leave nasty mental pain that doesn't go away for a long time, if ever. Part of the story of my life really. I let words make me crazy, and I use words in a nastier manner than I should, quite often. There is one friend of over 20 years who hasn't spoken to me in about 2 years, and probably never will again. Even though I've profusley apologized. I just can't take it back in full. He will never get over it, it seems.

I must have mis-read what you meant.

ETA: A good example is my over-reacting to Scrut in this thread. I was being a hypocrite, and I wish to publically apologize to him.

[BobTheDonkey]

The irony in Skeptic's position is that his definitions of courage and honor really mean "don't take/allow any attacks (real or perceived) on one's manhood."

And, somehow, that's chivalrous?

I can tell you (from personal experience), the bigger man is the one who can walk away. An insult (and this is the important bit) is only an insult if you decide to accept as one.

Your brand of courage and honor are what dragged Bush Jr into Iraq. Your brand of courage and honor are what cause domestic abuse. Your brand of courage and honor are, in reality, lacking in courage and honor.

Courage is looking at something hard to do, and doing it, i.e. avoiding an all out brawl because your manhood was called into question (real or perceived). Honor is sticking to what is right, even if it's not popular. (Pre-emptive anti-Godwin strike here: Hitler was not honorable because he knew what he was doing was wrong. At no point in time did he broadcast to the world his genocidal tendencies. In fact, the NAZI party attempted to hide their deeds during and after).

[BobTheDonkey]

No. It's Aristotle.

It is sad that, nowadays, someone who thinks like Aristotle is considered a "parody", but frankly, I think this shows more about current society than it shows about Aristotle.



As Daffy Duck said, you're not like other people. You can't stand pain. It hurts you.

It's just what I told my wife when I ran away and left her to be raped in that dark ally, by the way. I don't need to risk injury to prove anything! I'd probably just get beat up, anyway -- better and more rational to call the cops from a safe distance!

Call me a coward all you want! It's just your arbitrary moral standard, anyway!
At what point did anyone say that this would be a circumstance where it's courageous to run away? But nice slippery slope ;)

I'm pretty sure that no one here would simply run off should someone's life/body be in physical danger. However, a man in a bar throwing a drink in my face is not putting my gf in danger of being raped ;)

[Skeptic]

Skeptic,
Why is hitting the jerk "The right amount of anger"?
What exactly does it accomplish?

Fair question.

Aristotle says, correctly, that it accomplishes a courageous act, which is done for the sake of being courageous, much like a dancer dances for the sake of dancing well.

Virtue is done for its own sake. It is not done for any other goal.

In my view why feel angry at all if you can avoid it? Why let him wreck your night? Because I can assure you that the complication would most likely not end with a well delivered punch.

Indeed so. You might get beat up; you might spend the night in jail. But it is almost always better, from a rational point of view of material benefits and losses, to be a coward and not a courageous man.

We don't need this example: how about being courageous on the battlefield? There, you might not just get beat up or in jail; you might end up dead. It's almost always better to run away. And yet people sometimes are courageous there, too. Are they idiots? No. They simple are courageous people acting courageously.

Cowardice is when fear stops you from doing what's best, what's needed. How is hitting a jerk what's best and needed? Who's life does it improve?

Yes, but, again, that all depends what your definition of best is.

If best is "doing what is the most utility producing", which seems to be more or less what you are proposing, then it is best not to hit back -- but it is also best to run away from the battlefield, or to leave your wife to be raped in a dark alley as you call the cops from a safe distance. There would be previous little acts of cowardice left using that definition -- it's practically always "best", rationally speaking, to be a coward.

Aristotle's definition is the correct one. It is best to be courageous not because of any utility maximizing calculus, but for its own own sake. Because being a courageous man is better than being a coward.

Don't believe me? Imagine if you hide and walk away, and just go to another bar, meekly and silently, as to not provoke the man who mocked and assaulted you further. How would you feel? Would you feel proud of yourself -- "hooray, I did the thing the rational cost/benefit analysis declared is the correct choice!"? Or would you feel, quite correctly, that you were a malingering coward and feel ashamed of yourself?

P.S.

This reminds me: don't you like how some people sometimes say that they were "courageous" to act like cowards -- because they "braved" the "social ostracism" of being known as cowards? It might be comforting to them, but I don't think anybody except other cowards buys this pathetic excuse. Social ostracism is not something cowards "brave" or "confront". It is simply the natural consequence of being a coward.

[Rairun]

No. It's Aristotle.

It is sad that, nowadays, someone who thinks like Aristotle is considered a "parody", but frankly, I think this shows more about current society than it shows about Aristotle

I think it shows we've come a long way. Or are you suggesting we should think everything is made of Fire, Earth, Air, Water or Aether?

As Daffy Duck said, you're not like other people. You can't stand pain. It hurts you.

It's just what I told my wife when I ran away and left her to be raped in that dark ally, by the way. I don't need to risk injury to prove anything! I'd probably just get beat up, anyway -- better and more rational to call the cops from a safe distance!

Call me a coward all you want! It's just your arbitrary moral standard, anyway!

Strawman. There's a big difference between allowing your wife to be raped and hitting a man who has belittled your manhood. If you can't see the difference, you're quite frankly a moron.

[Skeptic]

There is one friend of over 20 years who hasn't spoken to me in about 2 years, and probably never will again.

Whoa. I can't imagine... were those words "I am screwing your wife?"

[Whiplash]

Surely there is a line there somewhere? I mean, I wouldn't throw down at the drop of a hat or anything. But if someone was really pushing my buttons and in my face, I'm not going to stand for it for long. I'll try to defuse the situation as long as I can. I may even try to avoid a fight if he starts it, if I'm able to. But at some point, you are being a wuss who let's himself get walked on if you don't stand up for yourself. And sadly, standing up for yourself, against some people, does mean taking a shot at them. It's that or be their bitch. I won't go that far.

Whoa. I can't imagine... were those words "I am screwing your wife?"


No. More like what would be expected from me by those who know me here.

He did me wrong, and not in a particularly bad manner. Enough that I had a right to be angry I think, and fairly. But it was a fairly minor thing.

But I totally over-reacted, and told him exactly how I felt about him and his personal failings. In detail. Too much detail. Too close to home. Way over the line.

But to some extent, he's being a baby about it as well. As an example, he will excoriate any mutual friend that brings me up. Also, he gave some movies and music to a mutual friend, who let me borrow and watch one. And he found out, and threatened to never give this friend anything else again, ever, unless he promised to not even tell me they existed, let alone let me see them. I think that's being rather petulant.

I've tried and tried to work it out, but he won't have anything to do with me. I guess I hit a little to close to the mark. But I do feel bad, we really were close friends before that.

[Rairun]

Don't believe me? Imagine if you hide and walk away, and just go to another bar, meekly and silently, as to not provoke the man who mocked and assaulted you further. How would you feel? Would you feel proud of yourself -- "hooray, I did the thing the rational cost/benefit analysis declared is the correct choice!"? Or would you feel, quite correctly, that you were a malingering coward and feel ashamed of yourself?

Nonsense. I've never felt this in my life. In fact, I'd be quite proud of myself for making the most intelligent choice.

[Marduk]

I've hit hundreds of women consensually with various tools in an erotic setting, I never punched a woman, even when I was being attacked by one, its not neccesary to start punching to overpower a woman for me usually, however if it was a life or death situation all rules are off
;)

[Skeptic]

Surely there is a line there somewhere? I mean, I wouldn't throw down at the drop of a hat or anything. But if someone was really pushing my buttons and in my face, I'm not going to stand for it for long. I'll try to defuse the situation as long as I can. I may even try to avoid a fight if he starts it, if I'm able to. But at some point, you are being a wuss who let's himself get walked on if you don't stand up for yourself. And sadly, standing up for yourself, against some people, does mean taking a shot at them.

Exactly. Aristotle means just this when he speaks against rashness and for patience. Heck, he would agree for the value of foresight -- if you can see that you've gone into a bar that is full of bad company, and that if you stay a situation like that will develop, it is wise to leave before you need to either be courageous or to be a coward.

Courage most definitely does NOT mean "beating up anybody who you don't like" or "looking for trouble". Heck, even if you are in a similar situation, courage doesn't need to involve physical violence at all -- it is just as courageous to tell someone who did that loudly and distinctly what you think about him (better, if you have the talent for sharp insults!)

But this is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who would never act in any other way than to meekly go away, because it "is not worth it" to fight back (in either words or deed), because they are afraid of getting hurt.

Frankly, I don't believe these people when they tell you that if something serious were going on -- if someone threatened them with a gun, for instance -- then they suddenly would be courageous. The risk of physical injury then would be even greater, and the "risk/reward" calculus would be even more in favor of slinking away than fighting. If they aren't courageous in the small things because they fear getting hurt, why would they be courageous in the large things when the fear of hurt is far worse?

Courage doesn't work like that. It is a skill, not a mere decision. These folks are acting like a dieter helping himself to an extra slice of cake and telling you, "oh, but when I really want to lose weight, I know how to not eat anything."

[Skeptic]

Nonsense. I've never felt this in my life. In fact, I'd be quite proud of myself for making the most intelligent choice.

Sad.

[BobTheDonkey]

Fair question.

Aristotle says, correctly, that it accomplishes a courageous act, which is done for the sake of being courageous, much like a dancer dances for the sake of dancing well. Ahh, but what defines this as a 'courageous act'? Simply your bias in choosing it as such?


Virtue is done for its own sake. It is not done for any other goal.

Agreed. But how does that relate to hitting another person because your manhood was questioned? Wouldn't that make this an unvirtuous act since you're defending your manhood, not just fighting for the sake of fighting?



Indeed so. You might get beat up; you might spend the night in jail. But it is almost always better, from a rational point of view of material benefits and losses, to be a coward and not a courageous man.

We don't need this example: how about being courageous on the battlefield? There, you might not just get beat up or in jail; you might end up dead. It's almost always better to run away. And yet people sometimes are courageous there, too. Are they idiots? No. They simple are courageous people acting courageously.



Yes, but, again, that all depends what your definition of best is.

If best is "doing what is the most utility producing", which seems to be more or less what you are proposing, then it is best not to hit back -- but it is also best to run away from the battlefield, or to leave your wife to be raped in a dark alley as you call the cops from a safe distance. There would be previous little acts of cowardice left using that definition -- it's practically always "best", rationally speaking, to be a coward.


Another strawman/slippery slope? Look. Very few people actually go to war to kill other people. And the guys that have been there, the majority of them fight because if they don't, their friend (or a civilian) dies. There's a difference between defending a (perceived) slight on your honor due to having a drink thrown in your face and defending your life and those of your mates. I would bet that most military members would prefer being able to complete their missions without having to carry a firearm for self-protection. However, that is not the case. Comparing a barroom brawl to battlefield combat is laughable at best.

You think a bar fight makes the participants more of a man? Ok. The rest of us think it's barbaric and, therefore, the participants less evolved :).


Aristotle's definition is the correct one. It is best to be courageous not because of any utility maximizing calculus, but for its own own sake. Because being a courageous man is better than being a coward.

Don't believe me? Imagine if you hide and walk away, and just go to another bar, meekly and silently, as to not provoke the man who mocked and assaulted you further. How would you feel? Would you feel proud of yourself -- "hooray, I did the thing the rational cost/benefit analysis declared is the correct choice!"? Or would you feel, quite correctly, that you were a malingering coward and feel ashamed of yourself?

P.S.

This reminds me: don't you like how some people sometimes say that they were "courageous" to act like cowards -- because they "braved" the "social ostracism" of being known as cowards? It might be comforting to them, but I don't think anybody except other cowards buys this pathetic excuse. Social ostracism is not something cowards "brave" or "confront". It is simply the natural consequence of being a coward.

We're not talking about slinking out of the bar. There are simply other ways to settle ones' differences than fisticuffs. I'm ashamed that members of my race have not evolved past believing a brawl is the necessary means to settle their differences. Can't we all just get along?


Bringing this back on topic, we know you'd get into a brawl with any male who would attack (real or perceived) your manhood... What if a woman did the same? Would you have no means of defending your manhood against the same slight from the opposite gender? How does that fit your concept of courage/honor?

[Rairun]

Sad.

Now, will you explain why you think it's sad for a person to act according to their own interests without harming anyone? Why should a person defend a concept of manhood they don't even have?

I'll give you a hint: because you are bully. You are not willing to accept that people care about different things than you. You think there's something fundamentally wrong about a person who doesn't care about respectability.

Even leaving your wife to be raped or killed in a dark alley isn't a matter of cowardice. It's matter of how much you care about her to risk your own life. Many of us would take that risk, but that doesn't have anything to do with virtue. It has to do with how much the person's well being means to us. Manhood means nothing to me, so I see no reason to risk my life for it, even though you'd try to bully me into it if you could.

[Skeptic]

Now, will you explain why you think it's sad for a person to act according to their own interests without harming anyone? Why should a person defend a concept of manhood they don't even have?

I agree you don't have a concept of manhood -- that's what's sad.

You think there's something fundamentally wrong about a person who doesn't care about respectability.

Yes, indeed so. They are known as "cowards with no sense of honor". That's fundamentally wrong. Why do you ask?

Even leaving your wife to be raped or killed in a dark alley isn't a matter of cowardice.

If that isn't cowardice, what is?

Many of us would take that risk... it has to do with how much the person's well being means to us.

So if it is a complete stranger, who you happen to see getting raped, you will run away and let her be raped. After all, what's the rape of a complete stranger to you?

Or, alternatively, even if it is your wife, whether you help her or not is fundamentally a matter of weighting her worth to you against the risk you are taking. If only the risk is great enough, you will -- with sadness -- run away.

"Sorry honey, you're not worth it... I'll write..."

Manhood means nothing to me

Yes, I think we've established that.

[Rairun]

Yes, indeed so. They are known as "cowards with no sense of honor". That's fundamentally wrong. Why do you ask?

Why exactly is it fundamentally wrong? Who said so? God?

If that isn't cowardice, what is?

The inability to act according to one's own values due to fear. Deciding you don't want to do something because the consequences outweigh the gains is called intelligence.

So if it is a complete stranger, who you happen to see getting raped, you will run away and let her be raped. After all, what's the rape of a complete stranger to you?

If I thought the rapist couldn't be easily stopped, absolutely. I'd call the police.

Or, alternatively, even if it is your wife, whether you help her or not is fundamentally a matter of weighting her worth to you against the risk you are taking. If only the risk is great enough, you will -- with sadness -- run away.

Yep, except that sometimes no risk is great enough. There are people I would die for. I wouldn't die nor ruin my life for most people, though.

[BobTheDonkey]

If I thought the rapist couldn't be easily stopped, absolutely. I'd call the police.


This is the point, really. What's the purpose of getting beat up and still not protecting the female from being raped? At least I'll feel better about myself in the morning?

I'd think it better to assess the situation and call for backup (Police) before initiating contact with the thugs. And making contact iff distracting the thug(s) would be likely to stop the woman from being further attacked. That would do infinitely more good for the people involved than me getting beat up, the women being raped, and the thugs getting away.

[Dragoonster]

Any circumstance one would hit a man in is one that it's acceptable to hit a woman. And any circumstance one wouldn't hit a man would be one where you wouldn't hit a woman. Large or small attackers can scratch, eye-gouge, bite, have a friend about to hit you from behind, have a knife concealed on them, etc. The one being attacked should always respond with overwhelming force against nearly any attacker.

I'm not a big guy. But if I attack some 300lb giant unprovoked I wouldn't begrudge him from stomping me into the ground. And any smaller or weaker woman that attacks me shouldn't begrudge me from doing that to them. Being a particular gender or size doesn't give someone a free pass to assault other people without response.

[slingblade]

I agree you don't have a concept of manhood -- that's what's sad.

Wow, really? This playground taunting is the most intelligent response you can manage?

Really?


Sad.

[tyr_13]

I would, and have, hit women. In the head. With a sword.

Come to think of it so have I. I've also kicked a woman to the ground and made a woman fall to the ground just by standing still when she kneed me.

I miss the dojo.

[Roboramma]

I think Skeptic has some decent points mixed in there. For instance, I do think that there's something to be said for standing up for people even when it's not the particular person that you care about.

When someone is doing something I consider wrong, I generally call them on it, even if that puts me at risk of some sort of physical confrontation. Why? Because I prefer to stand up for what I think is right.

Yesterday, for instance, my girlfriend was buying a drink at a drink-stand. There was a line of maybe five people behind her as she ordered, and I went up and stood next to her to wait. Then a guy walked up next to me as though waiting in line, and I politely told him, "Oh, sorry, I'm just waiting for my girlfriend, the line starts over there."
He said, "No, that's the line to collect your drink, this is the line to order." Which was such obvious nonsense I couldn't understand how he could have the audacity to say it. So I said, "No, it isn't. All these people are in line to order drinks, so go to the back of the line."
"No, no, this is the line."
"Are you blind? Every person hear has been waiting patiently for their drink, go to the end."
We went on like this for a while, and I started to get quite agitated. My girlfriend kept giving me dirty looks, though, and said (in english which he couldn't understand), "Don't talk to him, he's stupid." and, "He knows where the line starts, he just wants to cut in."
etc.

Finally, though, she pulled me away. Which annoyed me a little. It annoyed me even more that the other people waiting in line didn't say anything to him.

That said, while I am not worried that someone in this kind of situation might escalate to violence, I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so. To respond to words with a fist is, in my opinion, cowardly.

[qayak]

Because, as we know, if you cannot be perfectly virtuous, there's no point in trying, is there?

Once again you have not shown that your thoughts are closer to the ideal of perfection than anyone else's. The "white knight" meme just didn't stand the test because they were no more and, sometimes a lot less, virtuous than everybody else.

[Cavemonster]

Skeptic,
When a dancer says they do it "for the sake of the dance" they may or may not know it but they derive enjoyment from the act of moving, from the endorphins it releases, from the satisfaction of executing something skillfully and the ego boose that provides, from the feeling that they are bringing joy to their audience if there is one. The list goes on.

"Just for the thing" is lovely poetic language, but there is always real benefit underneath.

If a soldier risks his life in a way that brings no benefit to either himself or his army or country, then he isn't being brave, he's costing himself, and his country, since he's depriving them of all the future real help he could provide and throwing away all the training and resources they invested in him.

When risking lives doesn't give any utility to an army, the commanding officers retreat. Good officers don't send men to their death for no benefit if they can help it, that would be a serious waste with no honor.

If you want to say, "Acting in X manner is good failing to is bad" you really have to answer the question of- Why? Otherwise it's indistinguishable from religious convictions on proper behavior.

[Ausmerican]

Who said there are no manly men? But there are less than there were, now that the manly ideal became some sort of androgynous "connected with his feeling" and "sensitive", well, wimp.

What makes men manly is not NASCAR or football, but self-control, courage, and similar virtues. I don't count those who get drunk in a football game or burn down cars when their soccer team loses (or wins) exemplars of "manliness", but of "spoiled bratiness".

So, since many samurai were unashamed to cry at beautiful poems or paintings and indeed many wrote poetry or painted they were obiously too "connected with their feelings" and
"sensitive" to be considered real men? They were, well "wimps"?

[KingMerv00]

I agree you don't have a concept of manhood -- that's what's sad.

No, he doesn't have a concept of manhood that falls under the definition of lawful stupid (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid).

[gentlehorse]

Skeptic,
I have an anecdote for you:

Back in my college days, a buddy of mine (we'll call him X) played football for OU. One night at a party, guys were challenging him to arm-wrestling contests. He was a genuinely good-natured, easy-going guy who was laughing and having a good time as he easily defeated one challenger after another. Then this big guy sat down across from him. X was laughing and joking with everybody as he accepted the challenge. They locked up and X put him down pretty easily, then smiled at him and said something like, "Man, you're the strongest guy I've faced tonight." The guy punched X in the face, sending his glasses flying. X looked at him, picked up his glasses, put them back on and said, "Now why did you do that?" Then he got up and walked out of the room.

In your opinion did X act in a cowardly fashion? I don't think so.

In fact, I learned a lot that night.

[gumboot]

I'd hit a woman under exactly the same very extreme conditions that I'd hit a man, or a child, or a chimpanzee, or a martian - when I felt it was necessary to protect myself or someone important to me.

[Hybrid]

Skeptic,
I have an anecdote for you:

Back in my college days, a buddy of mine (we'll call him X) played football for OU. One night at a party, guys were challenging him to arm-wrestling contests. He was a genuinely good-natured, easy-going guy who was laughing and having a good time as he easily defeated one challenger after another. Then this big guy sat down across from him. X was laughing and joking with everybody as he accepted the challenge. They locked up and X put him down pretty easily, then smiled at him and said something like, "Man, you're the strongest guy I've faced tonight." The guy punched X in the face, sending his glasses flying. X looked at him, picked up his glasses, put them back on and said, "Now why did you do that?" Then he got up and walked out of the room.

In your opinion did X act in a cowardly fashion? I don't think so.

In fact, I learned a lot that night.

I had similar thoughts reading Skeptics posts and would just like to expand on how I see your mentioned situation.

On my opinion walking out of the room was a more honorable way to exit that situation than punching him back (regardless of who won the resulting fight) ever could have been.

In the case you described X most likely believed that he could easily win the resulting fight due to his size. He punched your friend for no other reason other than to attempt to escalate the situation into a more violent competition he believed he could win. If your friend had punched back X and lost the resulting fight all he would have done would have been to reward X for his behavior and encourage him to continue that way in the future.

Trouncing X in a fight (depending on how you go about it) wouldn't necessarily have been dishonorable as it might also show him that picking on smaller people was a bad idea, but its also not the best way to handle the situation. The potential for collateral damage while fighting at a party makes it generally a bad idea regardless of the motivation for fighting (short of it preventing some greater injustice).

Basically my personal sense of honor takes this principle and it applies to nearly all situations that involve violence. If a certain degree violence will prevent a larger degree of harm from being committed in the future than it is generally an honorable option (not necessarily the only honorable solution but one of them). It gets murkier when the harm you're trying to prevent is non physical. Generally I would limit any physical response to non physical threats tho something unable to cause any lasting physical damage.

If fighting back has no chance of preventing the action you're fighting against from happening again in the future and instead simply increases the bullies confidence in his abilities then its not honorable, its just stupid. I want to stress the chance option though, some things are worth fighting for even if your chance of success is less than one in a million.

On the issue of hitting women, I don't see anything wrong with it if the same criteria is matched. Namely will it prevent greater harm in the future, and if its not physical harm you are trying to prevent does you're physical response pose no threat of causing lasting damage?

[Cactus Wren]

Because when they are allowed to carry weapons, they can be expected to react calmly and correctly, calmly drawing their firearm to hit the assailant (and only the assailant) - not to mention that if you hear a gunshot, draw your gun, and turn around, you'd be able to identify the real assailant from the other vigilantes who have also drawn their guns.

Which is why you so often read headlines like "a man pulled out a gun and started shooting, injuring one, and was then killed by seven laser-accurate shots from seven heroic people with concealed weapons", and never headlines such as "a man fired madly on people around him in a mall which must have contained many gun-wielding people. He killed seven and injured twelve before shooting himself".

Oh, wait. You don't:rolleyes:.
The way I like to put it is, "Yeah, it would have made so much sense to turn Virginia Tech into a free-fire zone." (Person 1 starts shooting, person 2 takes 1 down, person 3 turns an instant too late and sees 1 on the ground and 2 with a gun, persons 4-9 just hear shots and draw ... )

So there are studies that show women are at least as likely to abuse their spouse as men. Given this statistic, one would think it sexist to label a man a "wife beater" when defending himself/returning in kind.

But there are facts (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/faq-but-doesnt-evidence-show-that-women-are-just-as-likely-to-batter-their-partners-as-men/) that show woman are seven times more likely to be seriously injured, and twice as likely to be killed, in intimate-partner violence than men. (Studies such as those you cite are flawed because they tend to treat all "acts of violence" as equal: if he approaches her with his fists clenched, she panics and shoves him away, and he pushes her down the stairs, that counts as two "violent acts" -- her shove and his shove -- and she is regarded as having "initiated" the violence.)

[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men…[T]here are very few women who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.

Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men.... Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers.

[BobTheDonkey]

Wait, so all the studies on that list were flawed, but your single study isn't?

Hmm.

Not that men cannot cause more physical damage - just that I fail to see it as a full 90% of battering victims to be women. That's a little too high to be realistic.

So, we'll look at a Straus study:

The methodological part of this chapter analyzes the discrepancy between the more than 100 "family conflict" studies of domestic physical assaults (those using the Conflict Tactic Scales and similar approaches), and what can be called "crime studies" (i.e., the National Crime Victimization Survey and studies using police call data). Family conflict studies, without exception, show about equal rates of assault by men and women. Crime studies, without exception, show much higher rates of assault by men, often 90% by men. Crime studies also find a prevalence rate (for both men and women) that is a small fraction of the rate of assaults found by family conflict studies.

The difference in prevalence rates and in gender differences between the two types of studies probably occur because crime studies deal with only the small part of all domestic assaults that the participants experience as a crime, such as assaults which result in an injury serious enough to need medical attention, or assaults by a former partner. These occur relatively rarely and tend to be assaults by men. The theoretical part of the chapter seeks to provide an explanation for the discrepancy between the low rates of assault by women outside the family and the very high rates of assault by women within the family.

...

In the mid-1970s my colleagues and I made the disturbing discovery that women physically assaulted partners in marital, cohabiting, and dating relationships as often as men assaulted their partners (Steinmetz, 1978; Straus,
1997; Straus, Gelles, & Steinnietz, 1980)

So, women assault their families as frequently as men do. Women are merely more likely to report when they are assaulted.

[BobTheDonkey]

Furthermore:


In the case of battered spouses, the 1985 National Family Violence Resurvey found that 3% of women victims of spouse assaults reported needing medical attention for any resulting injuries.

Granted, as Straus points out, a 175lb man can hit harder than a 120lb woman. That does not mean that men are more likely to physically assault a woman, nor that it is somehow immoral to fight back (using an appropriate measure of force) when the assault occurs.

If you want to push the "Men are bigger/can cause more serious injury" argument, I simply pose the question:

Would you approach the subject in the same manner if it were a 175lb man vs a 120 lb man, rather than 175lb man vs 120lb woman?

What if the 120lb man is fighting a 175lb woman?

What if the 120lb man is skilled in martial arts/boxing and the 175lb man isn't?

What if the 120lb woman is skilled in martial arts/boxing and the 175lb man isn't?

That these questions are not broached, and barely addressed, indicate the sexism inherent in believing it immoral/wrong for a male to ever hit a female (unless, of course, you completely abhor any violence whatsoever).

[qayak]

Furthermore:



Granted, as Straus points out, a 175lb man can hit harder than a 120lb woman. That does not mean that men are more likely to physically assault a woman, nor that it is somehow immoral to fight back (using an appropriate measure of force) when the assault occurs.

If you want to push the "Men are bigger/can cause more serious injury" argument, I simply pose the question:

Would you approach the subject in the same manner if it were a 175lb man vs a 120 lb man, rather than 175lb man vs 120lb woman?

What if the 120lb man is fighting a 175lb woman?

What if the 120lb man is skilled in martial arts/boxing and the 175lb man isn't?

What if the 120lb woman is skilled in martial arts/boxing and the 175lb man isn't?

That these questions are not broached, and barely addressed, indicate the sexism inherent in believing it immoral/wrong for a male to ever hit a female (unless, of course, you completely abhor any violence whatsoever).

Forget martial arts training! I worked with a guy who was a victim of spousal abuse. While he was sleeping the wife hit him over the head with a bathroom scale . . . TWICE.

He was hospitalized with a fractured skull but at least had the sense not to move back in with the crazy _itch!

[Skeptic]

On my opinion walking out of the room was a more honorable way to exit that situation than punching him back (regardless of who won the resulting fight) ever could have been.

I fully agree that in some situations that is true.

In this case it probably was: the man punched him, not to belittle or to attack him, but apparently (from the way you are describing it) in a momentary loss of control because he was bested in a hand-wrestling tournament, and was deeply frustrated. For example, I assume that when he told him "what did you do that for?" he was not expecting another blow, but that both of them had realized it was the original blow was a wrong thing to do.

Aristotle, I think, would agree that considering an irrational attack by someone who had lost control of himself for a moment out of frustration is not at all the same thing as a deliberate attack of the type we have discussed so far. It is less worthy of condemnation, less of an insult, precisely because it is due to lack of control and not a calculated, continued insult.

So, here, verbal condemnation is enough. The offense is significantly lesser, so the response should be significantly lesser, too. Here is a case where Aristotle would agree that being courageous (as opposed to rash) is not hitting back, but only showing disappointment and anger -- because that is the appropriate response, and hitting back would be an excessive response, a rash act, not an act of courage.

I am going on a bit on a limb here, but I think that -- if I am guessing the situation correctly -- this is what you intuitively felt, as well. You half-expected him to (rashly) hit back, but when he didn't you realized it was the correct (courageous) thing to only condemn the assailant verbally. You would feel embarrassed if he had rashly hit him. But you would also feel embarrassed if he, for example, hurriedly slinked away without condemning the man who hit him -- which would be cowardly.

So, yes, your intuitive feelings that he did the right thing would, if I am reading the situation correctly, be quite correct, according to Aristotle.

The problem is, you're confusing "sometimes" with "always".

This is not what we're talking about here, is it? We are considering just those cases where the insult is deliberate and continued. When, as I said, you are constantly being publicly humiliated and called a zero, or having a drink thrown in your face, etc., not as a result of some momentary lack of control, but as a calculated insult.

Aristotle would agree that not hitting back is sometimes the courageous act (that is, hitting back might be rash). But my problem here is we are dealing with people who claim it is, in effect, never correct to hit back. This, indeed, rules out rashness -- or, as they say, mean they never react "irrationally" -- but only at the price of embracing cowardliness as, as it were, a default position, what the "rational" person should always do.

[Cainkane1]

Is she coming at me with a knife, gun, bomb, etc?
In Vietnam a Colonel shot and killed a bomb carrying woman who also had a baby on her back. She hit the street and her bomb blew her and her infant to smithereens. He never got over it. His feelings for the baby haunt him to this day.

[Cavemonster]

Aristotle would agree that not hitting back is sometimes the courageous act (that is, hitting back might be rash). But my problem here is we are dealing with people who claim it is, in effect, never correct to hit back. This, indeed, rules out rashness -- or, as they say, mean they never react "irrationally" -- but only at the price of embracing cowardliness as, as it were, a default position, what the "rational" person should always do.

Of course it's a good idea to hit back, if and only if, by doing so you improve the situation for yourself or someone you care about. In the face of some continued harassment, where there's no other good option for ending it, I'd say that's reasonable.

A drink thrown in your face wouldn't qualify though. If you can laugh it off and enjoy the night by walking away, that takes you five seconds. If you start a fist-fight you open up a good possibility to wreck your whole night.

You still haven't answered why it's a good idea to take on negative consequences with zero positive reward. To be frank, it feels like alpha male posturing. And, heck we're primates, we're wired for that stuff whether we want to be or not, but we're intelligent enough to rise above it, just like we're intelligent enough to control our eating habits even though our brains are programed to grab all the fat and salt and sugar they can.

[Marquis de Carabas]

In Vietnam a Colonel shot and killed a bomb carrying woman who also had a baby on her back. She hit the street and her bomb blew her and her infant to smithereens. He never got over it. His feelings for the baby haunt him to this day.
At least he's still around to be haunted.

[ponderingturtle]

I've never hit a woman out of anger.

But my ex-wife would get so mad over something that she would stand there and slap herself in the face repeatedly, then claim that I made her so angry that she would have to let out her anger somehow so she'd rather hurt herself than to hit me or break something.


That is just silly, you can barely punch yourself in the head all that hard. If you want to hurt youself in this manner doorjams are good solid things to use, and unlike other walls you don't run the risk of missing a stud and putting your head through a wall.

[BobTheDonkey]

I fully agree that in some situations that is true.

In this case it probably was: the man punched him, not to belittle or to attack him, but apparently (from the way you are describing it) in a momentary loss of control because he was bested in a hand-wrestling tournament, and was deeply frustrated. For example, I assume that when he told him "what did you do that for?" he was not expecting another blow, but that both of them had realized it was the original blow was a wrong thing to do.

Aristotle, I think, would agree that considering an irrational attack by someone who had lost control of himself for a moment out of frustration is not at all the same thing as a deliberate attack of the type we have discussed so far. It is less worthy of condemnation, less of an insult, precisely because it is due to lack of control and not a calculated, continued insult.

So, here, verbal condemnation is enough. The offense is significantly lesser, so the response should be significantly lesser, too. Here is a case where Aristotle would agree that being courageous (as opposed to rash) is not hitting back, but only showing disappointment and anger -- because that is the appropriate response, and hitting back would be an excessive response, a rash act, not an act of courage.

I am going on a bit on a limb here, but I think that -- if I am guessing the situation correctly -- this is what you intuitively felt, as well. You half-expected him to (rashly) hit back, but when he didn't you realized it was the correct (courageous) thing to only condemn the assailant verbally. You would feel embarrassed if he had rashly hit him. But you would also feel embarrassed if he, for example, hurriedly slinked away without condemning the man who hit him -- which would be cowardly.

So, yes, your intuitive feelings that he did the right thing would, if I am reading the situation correctly, be quite correct, according to Aristotle.

The problem is, you're confusing "sometimes" with "always".

This is not what we're talking about here, is it? We are considering just those cases where the insult is deliberate and continued. When, as I said, you are constantly being publicly humiliated and called a zero, or having a drink thrown in your face, etc., not as a result of some momentary lack of control, but as a calculated insult.

Aristotle would agree that not hitting back is sometimes the courageous act (that is, hitting back might be rash). But my problem here is we are dealing with people who claim it is, in effect, never correct to hit back. This, indeed, rules out rashness -- or, as they say, mean they never react "irrationally" -- but only at the price of embracing cowardliness as, as it were, a default position, what the "rational" person should always do.

Ironically, your stance in this particular discussion is akin to the big guy who lost the arm-wrestling match and, as his manhood was now in dire straits (no relation to the band, mind you), felt the need to reassert just how manly he is by punching the guy who had bested him.

Somehow, I think you overestimate the value of your position, sir.

[Skeptic]

Certainly not. Because losing an arms-wrestling match is not what Aristotle means when he says one's manhood or honor is threatened, naturally.

[BobTheDonkey]

Certainly not. Because losing an arms-wrestling match is not what Aristotle means when he says one's manhood or honor is threatened, naturally.

But having a drink thrown in your face is? I fail to see how an arm-wrestling match (a contest of strength, very manly, arghhh) is not a test of one's manhood, whereas a drink thrown in the face always is.

[Skeptic]

Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.

[BobTheDonkey]

Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.

(my bolding)
You definition of coward/manhood appears to me (and probably others reading this thread) to be quite arbitrary.

Interesting. Interesting because in this thread you have stated that anyone who does not throw punches at someone who threw a drink in your face (slighted your 'manhood') is a wimp lacking in courage and honor.


Then you state that the arm-wrestling champ acted in an admirable way when he was actually physically assaulted.

Now you return to stating that a slight against one's manhood (whatever that is defined as...apparently feats of strength have no bearing on one's manliness) without fighting back is cowardly and dishonorable.


I'm pretty certain that you don't really understand what Aristotle was writing/imploring, but use it to pat yourself on the back when you've reacted with physical violence to a perceived slight on your "manhood" (except in those cases where you feel it's not proper - what?)

Make up your mind, Skeptic. Am I a coward when the guy at the bar threw a drink in my face because I decided that it would be more appropriate to simply ask "WTF" and walk away (same as the arm-wrestling champ), or not?

[fuelair]

Any circumstance one would hit a man in is one that it's acceptable to hit a woman. And any circumstance one wouldn't hit a man would be one where you wouldn't hit a woman. Large or small attackers can scratch, eye-gouge, bite, have a friend about to hit you from behind, have a knife concealed on them, etc. The one being attacked should always respond with overwhelming force against nearly any attacker.

.Like I said:D!! (until the attacker ceases the attack):)

[fuelair]

In Vietnam a Colonel shot and killed a bomb carrying woman who also had a baby on her back. She hit the street and her bomb blew her and her infant to smithereens. He never got over it. His feelings for the baby haunt him to this day.

I would feel the same way about the baby, but, like the Colonel, it would not change for a fraction of a second what I would do.:(

[gentlehorse]

Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.

So, what about it then? Did X, a 6'3", 260 lb collegiate athlete, act in a cowardly fashion when he walked away from the guy who punched him? Really just curious as to your take--

[KingMerv00]

(my bolding)
You definition of coward/manhood appears to me (and probably others reading this thread) to be quite arbitrary.

I don't think it is arbitrary. I think Skeptic's definition of manhood is based on acting as if one were in a wild west saloon (or at least the movie version of one).

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't think it is arbitrary. I think Skeptic's definition of manhood is based on acting as if one were in a wild west saloon (or at least the movie version of one).

But, what about the punch to the face? Shouldn't that deserve a duel at high-noon?


ETA: That's what I say is arbitrary. A punch to the face is somehow less demeaning/less of an attack than having a drink thrown in your face simply because Skeptic decides that to be the case.

[slingblade]

My test of manhood is to note which men feel no need to "test their manhood" because they know this is a stupid, caveman sort of way to think, and which men seem to think their manhoods are real and need defending. I consider the former group to be critical thinkers, and the latter group to be ignorant and immature.

Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?

[Morrigan]

He decided that because the punch to the face was an impulsive reaction of sudden anger from the guy, instead of a "deliberate insult". Of course, we have no way to know if the drink in your face isn't also the result of an "impulsive reaction of anger", and his whole premise is just completely arbitrary (not to mention the blind Aristotle-fellating which is quite hilarious), but hey, don't let the details get in the way...

Oh, and, Aristotle.

[slingblade]

Oh, and, Aristotle.

Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Awfully fond of his dram.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Awfully fond of his dram.
[ahem]
Sorry, but it's Hobbes was fond of his dram.

carry on.

[big-E]

Of course it's a good idea to hit back, if and only if, by doing so you improve the situation for yourself or someone you care about. In the face of some continued harassment, where there's no other good option for ending it, I'd say that's reasonable.

A drink thrown in your face wouldn't qualify though. If you can laugh it off and enjoy the night by walking away, that takes you five seconds. If you start a fist-fight you open up a good possibility to wreck your whole night.

Or a good deal more than that. People are in jail for one punch that causes a fall, a head injury, and a death. In no way is it courageous to take a trivial situation that could be resolved without further harm and make it into one that can only be resolved by further harm.

Courage has many definitions, but I would suggest courageous actions should inspire respect, and punching someone who merely insulted you gains no respect from me. Walking away proves you are the 'bigger man' in my book. And I am plenty tall enough, strong enough and capable enough of landing some good blows if I really felt it was necessary.

I would be inclined to think that Skeptic's approach is one that would probably require some re-examining and modification in the cells or ER after inadvisedly trying it out. Ego intoxication is a dangerous thing, and something 'real men' should aspire to get over, or simply grow out of. Do martial arts masters and Marine instructors recommend that their trainees get involved in brawls to show their manhood? I think not.

[Dragoonster]

Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle, are far more sophisticated concepts than that. Manhood is not the same as physical strength. Losing a fair contest is not a loss of manhood. But to be insulted and bullied without fighting back is a loss of honor an manhood, although, as I said, the fighting back is not necessarily physical.

I never knew Aristotle cared so much about what other people thought of him. At least, I'm assuming the only reason it's necessary to display manhood is the perceptions of others. If all it is is internal affirmation, then it would seem to depend entirely on each man's evaluation of manhood as to whether they should fight back or not.

Personally it seems like those who insist on punching people who insult them are most likely desperate to impress their peer groups, and not really doing it to maintain any real personal beliefs.

[Piscivore]

When I was in sixth grade, my little brother was in second. On Halloween that year we got to wear costumes to school (I was Darth Vader, clutched as I was in the throes of Star Wars mania). This is back in the good old days when one could still wear masks and carry props as part of one's costume- in my case, my cherished sound-and-light red lightsabre, in my brother's, a pair of cap guns- yes, kids, once apon a time one could bring cap guns to school (many was the recess spent busting a roll of caps with a rock). Much to my disgust, he came as a plain old cowboy.

Anyway, Brother's class got to the bus stop before mine at the end of that day. When I arrived he was sitting on the low wall surrounding the bike racks, crying. Some mean little girl in his class had pushed him down and taken his cap guns. He pointed her out to me, laughing and teasing him with them nearby with a gaggle of her friends. I walked over and asked for them back. She gave me such lip I'd never heard before from a kid that small. Well, after a few escalating exchanges, I finally just grabbed the damned things and wrenched them out of her hands. She unbalanced and fell on her ass. I walked over to Brother, returned his weapons, and thought the whole thing ended.

Minutes later, this ENORMOUS girl my age- but not in my class- was lumbering over. Apparently, she was the sister of the brat, angrily demanding to know why I pushed her little sister down.

Now, understand, when I was a kid I was a tiny, skinny little runt of a boy. A fearful boy, who up until earlier that year had never stood up to anybody before. This girl was three times my size and belligerent as hell. So understand, there was a tiny quaver in my voice when I explained to her her sister's transgression and the events as they had transpited, emphasising I never actually touched her sister directly. This infuriated her, and she thrust her arms forward as if to slam me against the brick wall behind me. Without thinking, I swung at her, catching her square in the left eye. It was not a hard hit, but she dropped like the '29 stock market. She sat in stunned silence for a moment, clutching her eye, then ran off cursing and crying. Little sister was stunned and ashen- I had felled her champion. She ran off after her sibling.

I'd like to say the entire schoolyard erupted into applause, but it was really only a few people clapping and cheering- apparently, this girl was a bully in her own class.

I didn't say anything about it when I got home. I shared very little of my emotions with anyone, and did not think anyone would understand this sense of pride and power I now felt. It also didn't seem appropriate to share the feeling in the principal's office the next day, where he, the fascist Vice Principal in his hideous green polyester pants, the outraged girl's parents (the girl herself- in a dress for the first time in her life, no doubt- sitting glumly with a big shiner), or my mother were all talking loudly. All I did was explain the facts of the incident much as I've related them here, and was sullenly and reluctantly corraborated by the girl, timidly by the little sister, and gleefuly by Brother. I got off with nothing more than a vague admontition to "not hit girls".

This was not the first time I realised that what people said the rule were, and what one could actually do were not the same thing at all, but it was a strong reinforcement of that fundamental guiding princlple of my life.

Unfortunatly, I also learned that hitting people was fun, and a lot of people suffered from that in the next three years, myself not nearly often enough.

[slingblade]

[ahem]
Sorry, but it's Hobbes was fond of his dram.

carry on.

Yes, but you're drunk. Now hush, before you get what's coming to you.

[Eyeron]

I agree.

The way the question was phrased, I figured the OP wanted an answer of that nature, and since I can provide it, I did. I don't know why he or she would want such an answer, or would ask such a question, but there it is.

ETA: by the way, Eyeron, "just a slap" can fracture one's nose. Ask me how I know.

I asked ebcause I have a friend who believes that a man must never hit a woman under any circumstances at all, and doing so makes him a monster, and that the only acceptable way of defending themselves against a woman attacker is to restrain a woman. And this is a guy i'm talking about. So I got curious to see if there were any other people who believed differently.

And I phrased slap instead of fist because I felt that it was more restrained than a fist. And plus I didn't want people to focus on that tiny detail, because someone would've brought up I that had to defined hitting a woman. I wanted the focus to be on the question rather than a detail which is often just too much to ask for on an internet discussion forum..

[Dunstan]

I'm pretty certain that you don't really understand what Aristotle was writing/imploring, but use it to pat yourself on the back when you've reacted with physical violence to a perceived slight on your "manhood"

I doubt it. Seems like a classic case of Internet Tough Guy syndrome to me.

[KingMerv00]

But, what about the punch to the face? Shouldn't that deserve a duel at high-noon?

I've spoilered the picture below. While it is technically safe for work, I don't want the ladies to swoon at the sheer unalloyed MANLINESS therein. By my calculations, it radiates 358kilobatmans (or 11 standard Chuck Norris units for those that prefer Americanized measures).

Remember, don't stare directly into the virility:



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01428/pistols_1428753c.jpg


Are you OK? Feeling dizzy? That's to be expected. Go watch some pacifists to balance it out. Don't watch them too long or you'll turn gay.

[Eyeron]

You know those guys in that picture could actually be two gals in drag.

[Bill Thompson]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

I am going to say "no".

It is pretty much not playing fair because of simple physics and statistics and biology etc. Men on average out weigh women on average. Men on average have more upper body mass than women on average. Men on average have and so on and so on.

But then, is there any circumstances in which hitting a person would be considered acceptable?

Apart from something very rare, like they are coming at you with a knife and you cannot back away, I think the answer is "no".

[Dragoonster]

I am going to say "no".

It is pretty much not playing fair because of simple physics and statistics and biology etc. Men on average out weigh women on average. Men on average have more upper body mass than women on average. Men on average have and so on and so on.

Individuals aren't averages. According to the average every man is equally big/strong as every other man, so apparently every male-male fracas would be justified at least based on size differential--since on average there's no difference. To further expose that logic, since the question is "ever" justified--surely a 125 five foot male who's never been in a fight would be justified in trying to defend himself by punching a 220-lb female judo champion if she stated she intended to kill him and had cornered him? If the answer is yes, then we can start narrowing that difference until it's not justified.

There's also an unreasonable surety by people to associate pure mass/strength with potential danger. Women can conceal weapons just as easily (as per your exception), or learn martial arts as easily, or bite/scratch just as easily as men. Or be very experienced in brawling. Size and power isn't everything in a fight. And in the milliseconds of response time between someone punching you and a response I don't think it's reasonable to expect anyone to carefully weigh risks, look for weapons, estimate height/weight/body muscle %, or obtain a history of the assaulter's skills or experience. If anyone gets hit by anyone I think it's justifiable to hit them back.

Finally, if a woman assaults a man she isn't exactly playing fair is she, so why shouldn't she be hit back, particularly if allowing her to keep hitting or attempting to subdue her by other means brings more danger to the victim?

[Ferguson]

Aristotle would agree that not hitting back is sometimes the courageous act (that is, hitting back might be rash). But my problem here is we are dealing with people who claim it is, in effect, never correct to hit back. This, indeed, rules out rashness -- or, as they say, mean they never react "irrationally" -- but only at the price of embracing cowardliness as, as it were, a default position, what the "rational" person should always do.

We are? Who has claimed it's never right to hit back? I haven't seen a single person in this thread argue against self-defense or the defense of others, it's your insistence that violence is "courageous" when defending your sense of "manly honor" that most people have a problem with.

Last year while at a bar I made a (what I thought was friendly) joke at another's expense, and he threw his drink in my face. As a reaction, I threw mine back in his face, then after a few seconds of angry glaring he walked away, apparently to cool off, it never escalated to violence and there was no need for it to. But I guess neither of us are man enough to join Skeptic's frat. :'(

[arthwollipot]

You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage.I would avoid putting myself in a situation where someone was that angry at me.

[arthwollipot]

That is self control. Self-control not only is not against acting courageously, it is for it. You are simply confusing self control with cowardice. What you are asking me is, "but what about doing nothing, like a coward?". Well, what about it? It's cowardly.I choose not to respond to this.

[JoeyDonuts]

I would avoid putting myself in a situation where someone was that angry at me.

Ta-da! You now haz a black belt.

[arthwollipot]

My test of manhood is to note which men feel no need to "test their manhood" because they know this is a stupid, caveman sort of way to think, and which men seem to think their manhoods are real and need defending. I consider the former group to be critical thinkers, and the latter group to be ignorant and immature.

Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?This.

Listen to Slingblade. Slingblade is wise.

[Bill Thompson]

Finally, if a woman assaults a man she isn't exactly playing fair is she, so why shouldn't she be hit back, particularly if allowing her to keep hitting or attempting to subdue her by other means brings more danger to the victim?

OK, I say screw hitting back no matter who hits you. If you can get away, it is the best choice. But that is just my opinion. I have found that sometimes turning the other cheek causes more damage psychologically (it is like letting go durring a tug of war and the other side falls to the ground). As a teen I was only in one fight and it was only because there was absolutely no other option.

If it had been a girl... humm.... there are not too many she-bullies. I never considered what I would have done. And I cannot imagine what a girl would gain from bullying a guy day after day until he finally had to fight. It does not seem like a very bright girl.

Dude, I have not come across a woman with the same amount of upper body strengh as me. But, I am a pretty big guy. So, it is one of those things where it is not a problem that I have ever had to face. So, I just don't know.

[Dr Adequate]

You are telling me that you would not hit back a man who deliberately threw his drink in your face and slapped you publicly. Yes, in my book, that is most definitely lack of honor and courage. In my own life and my own experience, when someone punches me in the face, it is because he doesn't like what I'm saying, and he can't compete with me in argument, so he'd like to alter the nature of our dispute to the question of who can hit the hardest, rather than who is right.

Well, really, why should I indulge a person like that in his desire to evade an argument? Why should I grant his wishes? Instead, I continue to explain to him why he is wrong, and point out to him why violence does not prove that he is right, while he punches me repeatedly in the face.

You and I obviously have different ideas of what the "manly virtues" are. My idea is that I should never be afraid, and that I should never run away, and that I should never back down out of fear. Your idea is that I should always resort to physical violence when challenged. Well, that would work too, I guess. I guess it works for you.

But I behave in the way I do for the same reason that Aristotle cited. The dancer loves dancing. I love being myself. For me, honor and dignity and courage consist of not even noticing, except as a faux pas or as a fallacy, that someone is trying to engage me in a fist-fight instead of an argument.

Perhaps one day I shall die for my idea of virtue. You may think that I am a fool for behaving as I do. But will you deny that this is courage?

This is my courage --- that when someone hits me again and again in the face and screams: "Why won't you FIGHT?!?", I reply: "Because I wouldn't waste my time hitting a piece of **** like you".

And then I stand there and wait for the next blow. You who call this cowardly --- could you do that, rather than fight in self-defense?

[Belz...]

Is there any circumstances in which hitting a woman would be considered acceptable? And by hitting I don't mean just a slap, I mean with a fist.

In self defense, sure. Same as baby seals.

[Belz...]

(For example, disciplining a child with a scythe is unacceptable.)

I find it quite effective, actually. No repeat offenders, yet.

[Belz...]

Yes this is absolutely ideal but we are not Vulcan's. We are emotional creatures [...]

That's a common misconception. Vulcans are in reality quite emotional. In fact, they ... what ? Wrong thread ?

[Belz...]

Some virtues are more manly (courage, self-control, etc.) and some are more womanly (compassion, modesty, etc.)

Huh ?

Because, as we know, if you cannot be perfectly virtuous, there's no point in trying, is there?

Interesting how you cut out the rest of his post, now.

Virtue is done for its own sake.

Then it's useless. It should be done for a reason.

Don't believe me? Imagine if you hide and walk away, and just go to another bar, meekly and silently, as to not provoke the man who mocked and assaulted you further. How would you feel? Would you feel proud of yourself -- "hooray, I did the thing the rational cost/benefit analysis declared is the correct choice!"? Or would you feel, quite correctly, that you were a malingering coward and feel ashamed of yourself?

You have a weird definition of courage. Certainly not a modern one.

[mortimer]

Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?
Did you just make this up?

[KingMerv00]

Huh ?

Interesting question: Skeptic thinks it is praiseworthy and manly for one guy to punch another guy for throwing a drink in his face. What if a woman threw a drink in the face of another woman? Would it be unacceptably for to start a fight because it is too manly?

[tyr_13]

I've spoilered the picture below. While it is technically safe for work, I don't want the ladies to swoon at the sheer unalloyed MANLINESS therein. By my calculations, it radiates 358kilobatmans (or 11 standard Chuck Norris units for those that prefer Americanized measures).

Remember, don't stare directly into the virility:



http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01428/pistols_1428753c.jpg


Are you OK? Feeling dizzy? That's to be expected. Go watch some pacifists to balance it out. Don't watch them too long or you'll turn gay.

Dude, you're supposed to put that warning before the picture. What if I had watched them too long and become gay? That would be a loss of manhood and I'd have to hit you.

In self defense, sure. Same as baby seals.

Exactly. Those baby seals, always attacking and eating our fish. Those are OUR fish. OUR FISH.


In all seriousness, I've been punched in the face twice and blind side tackled once (all in high school, home of all manly men) and my reaction each time was to laugh. Each time they wanted to start a fight and each time I thought it was greatly funny. That made them look like bigger fools than if I had curb stomped them. Don't get me wrong, if any of them had continued to attack or it had been in a more dangerous situation (like a city street at night) I would have defended myself, male or female. But what who do you think is the bigger badass? They guy who beats another fool into the ground, or one who literally laughs the fight away?

[Francesca R]

No. It's Aristotle.It was a couple of millennia ago.

Get over it.

[Belz...]

Because manhood, and honor, for Aristotle

How about what you think, for a change ?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by slingblade
Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?

Did you just make this up?

Perhaps she be a mind reader . . . or one of them there astro-projectionists! ;)

[Belz...]

I've spoilered the picture below. While it is technically safe for work, I don't want the ladies to swoon at the sheer unalloyed MANLINESS therein. By my calculations, it radiates 358kilobatmans (or 11 standard Chuck Norris units for those that prefer Americanized measures).

That's still just 0.28 Seagals.

[Dr Adequate]

Aristotle would agree that not hitting back is sometimes the courageous act (that is, hitting back might be rash). And this is where we get to having-your-cake-and eating-it time.

Aristotle commends two virtues, courage and prudence. While condemning two vices, rashness and cowardice.

Well, we can all agree on that. The question is, where do we draw the line?

Your way of reasoning gives you a perfect way of idealizing everything that you do. When you take a risk, that's courage. When you don't take a risk, that's prudence.

Now let's look at the people whom you don't like. Well, when they take a risk, that's rashness, but when they don't take a risk, that's cowardice.

Hooray, you get to have your cake and eat it. You are very privileged in this respect. We mere mortals have to figure out morality for ourselves, but fortunately you are always objectively right.

I wish I was you, and was always right. But given the fact that everyone in the world has different views on morality, I guess that this could only happen to one person. How fortunate for you that it should happen to be you. How fortunate I am that I know you and can benefit from your infinite wisdom.

[tyr_13]

That's still just 0.28 Seagals.

I don't understand why people still try to use the Seagal as a unit of measurement. I mean, it fluctuates so much why bother? I'm predicting that his new show where he is a real life cop brings it back up to 1995 levels, but it's going to fall off after that again.

[qayak]

Edited for rule 12.

[Dr Adequate]

Edited response to modded post.

[DJW]

Edited response to modded post.

[Skeptic]

How about what you think, for a change ?

I think, as Cardinal Newman said, that in many cases to think correctly is to think like Aristotle. By which Newman did not mean to agree with Aristotle on everything, but to think through things like him. Needless to say Aristotle has no example about people beating each other up in a bar. But what he said is still applicable, if you try to think like him.

[Skeptic]

Is it mere coincidence that the men who think they need to hit people to prove they are manly are often also the men who routinely abuse women?

No. Nor is it a coincidence that those men who think that manliness is a fiction and honor is meaningless are the same men -- as they themselves admitted on this forum -- who would run away and let their wife be raped by a thug.

The two are connected in both cases. Having "guts" is not the same as having courage. It is only courage when used correctly, with self-control. The risk of having the disposition to hit back when insulted is to use it too much, rashly: to use it not only when appropriate but also when not (as in when hitting women). Similarly, having no guts means you will not use them too rashly -- you will not beat your wife -- but you will use it too little, cowardly: you would not hit back even when you should (as in when running away and letting your wife be raped).

[KingMerv00]

I think, as Cardinal Newman said, that in many cases to think correctly is to think like Aristotle. By which Newman did not mean to agree with Aristotle on everything, but to think through things like him. Needless to say Aristotle has no example about people beating each other up in a bar. But what he said is still applicable, if you try to think like him.

And why is Aristotle right in this case? What thought process brought you to your conclusion?

[KingMerv00]

No. Nor is it a coincidence that those men who think that manliness is a fiction and honor is meaningless are the same men -- as they themselves admitted on this forum -- who would run away and let their wife be raped by a thug.

I'm pretty sure that's a straw man. At the absolute worst, I believe they said they'd run off to get help.

[Belz...]

I don't understand why people still try to use the Seagal as a unit of measurement. I mean, it fluctuates so much why bother? I'm predicting that his new show where he is a real life cop brings it back up to 1995 levels, but it's going to fall off after that again.

It's not my problem if you don't keep up with the value of the Seagal.

[Belz...]

I think, as Cardinal Newman said, that in many cases to think correctly is to think like Aristotle.

So you think, like somebody else says, that you should think like somebody else ?

Colour me unimpressed.

[Belz...]

I'm pretty sure that's a straw man. At the absolute worst, I believe they said they'd run off to get help.

Oh, but that's the same thing, see ? If you didn't beat your chest while charging your gun-wielding opponent, you're just a sissy.

[tyr_13]

No. Nor is it a coincidence that those men who think that manliness is a fiction and honor is meaningless are the same men -- as they themselves admitted on this forum -- who would run away and let their wife be raped by a thug.

The two are connected in both cases. Having "guts" is not the same as having courage. It is only courage when used correctly, with self-control. The risk of having the disposition to hit back when insulted is to use it too much, rashly: to use it not only when appropriate but also when not (as in when hitting women). Similarly, having no guts means you will not use them too rashly -- you will not beat your wife -- but you will use it too little, cowardly: you would not hit back even when you should (as in when running away and letting your wife be raped).

If I couldn't run with my theoretical wife (why does she insist on those stupid heels?), I'd give her my cell phone to call for help while she runs and I fight the thugs. And I don't accept the common definitions of 'manliness'.

Seriously, I don't understand your argument at all, and I happen to believe in honor. Avoiding violence and harm when possible is an honorable act. So is defending others. Note that I don't believe that avoiding violence and harm at any cost is dishonorable, but I do disagree with it. None of it has to do with manliness.

And what the hell does this have to do with the op? If a lesbian thug wanted to rape my theoretical wife (why does she insist on going to, to, I don't actually know where butch lesbian thugs stereotypically hang out, but assume I said some witty place like a Bills game), I'd treat that threat the same. Run if we can, do my best to beat the **** out her if we can't.

On a only slightly related topic, I don't find 'fair fighting' to be honorable either. If you square off against against me, that means I can walk away. If things have degraded so badly that physical violence must be used, I've already lost and will use chairs, elbows, and breaks (the lower leg or knee works best, because then you can run) or whatever to end the fight as quickly as possible.

[GreyICE]

I'm no huge fan of violence, but if you decide to really, actually try to hurt me, don't think I'm too gender biased. I'll do what is necessary to ensure my continued good health, and if that happens to negatively impact the person's who attacked me, color me unconcerned.

Though usually punches are a terrible way to defend yourself. Quite frankly, if I'm looking to defend myself, I'm looking to cause crippling amounts of pain or disabling injuries in the shortest possible timeframe, which means throat, knees, groin, and stomach (in roughly that order).

[Whiplash]

That's a common misconception. Vulcans are in reality quite emotional. In fact, they ... what ? Wrong thread ?


Yes, and as a Trekkie, I should know that.. I meant it in the manner that we are not able to completely (or nearly completely) control our emotions and serve logically at all times.

But you got me, good point. ;)

[Piscivore]

No. Nor is it a coincidence that those men who think that manliness is a fiction and honor is meaningless are the same men -- as they themselves admitted on this forum -- who would run away and let their wife be raped by a thug.

Why does it always seem the ones that talk about "manliness" are the ones that seem to be obsessed with women getting raped?

For the record, if some "manly man" threw a drink in my face in a bar, I'd laugh, thank him for the free drink but chide him for his appaling aim. I'm not going to be baited, but if he wants to take a swing at me, I'll take it on the chin, get him arrested for assault and sue his ass.

As for my wife getting raped in a dark alley- I live in goddamn suburbia. There's not a dark alley within 50 miles of my house. And if a gang of thugs came after me, I'm running- to get my car. let's see how "manly" they are being chased down by 4000 lbs of German engineering. I'm with Tyr- "fair fights" are for idiots.

[Skeptic]

So you think, like somebody else says, that you should think like somebody else ?

Colour me unimpressed.

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.

[Dragoonster]

OK, I say screw hitting back no matter who hits you. If you can get away, it is the best choice. But that is just my opinion. I have found that sometimes turning the other cheek causes more damage psychologically (it is like letting go durring a tug of war and the other side falls to the ground). As a teen I was only in one fight and it was only because there was absolutely no other option.

I'm the same way, have always tried my best to avoid fights even when someone was really spoiling for one. Totally agree with that philosophy, but it's also gender-neutral.

If it had been a girl... humm.... there are not too many she-bullies. I never considered what I would have done. And I cannot imagine what a girl would gain from bullying a guy day after day until he finally had to fight. It does not seem like a very bright girl.

Dude, I have not come across a woman with the same amount of upper body strengh as me. But, I am a pretty big guy. So, it is one of those things where it is not a problem that I have ever had to face. So, I just don't know.

That might be the thing. I'm a small guy, though I have some boxing/fighting experience. But I've known women stronger and tougher than me, one could outbench me by 50+ pounds, from years in jail (for assault I later found out). Also weighed 75 lbs more. We dated awhile until I realized she was crazy--was even on anti-psychotic medicine. She came over one day irate and banging at the door. I never should have opened it, but called the cops before I did and opened it to try to talk her down or get her to stop screaming. I also had a baseball bat in my hand, and yeah I felt threatened and would've smacked her with it if she'd charged me.

I just think there are too many differences in individuals to say no man should hit no woman. I think there are plenty of legitimate cases where the man is in just as much danger from a violent woman as they'd be if the woman happened to be male.

[Rairun]

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.

Except morality isn't discovered. It's invented. Big difference. I'd rather be true to my own interests and values and go on from there.

[KingMerv00]

Skeptic,

I'd still like an answer to my question above. You said "thinking like Aristotle" leads to your conclusion. What process of thought brought you to the conclusion that punching the guy in the bar is brave and praiseworthy?

[jimbob]

If you told me, "look, I don't care what Einstein and Newton did, I want to reach my own scientific conclusions", I'd say you are missing out on something rather important. The same applies to ethics and morality, to how to live -- not just to how the physical universe works.

My experience is, when one figures out morality "independently", they usually ends up with some bland run-of-the-mill version of utilitarianism, a stripped-down J. S. Mill, with all of the flaws of Mill's theory and none of the elegance or wit of his understanding -- much like those who have some "original" physical theory usually end up with something rather silly.

There simply is no comparison between Newman, Aristotle, and the rest and the average person's (and I include myself) ability to think deeply about morality and ethics -- much like there is no comparison between most people's ability to understand Physics and Einstein's ability to do the same.

But aren't you just making it up, just in a slightly similar style to someone who thought that slavery was "natural"?

I think, as Cardinal Newman said, that in many cases to think correctly is to think like Aristotle. By which Newman did not mean to agree with Aristotle on everything, but to think through things like him. Needless to say Aristotle has no example about people beating each other up in a bar. But what he said is still applicable, if you try to think like him.


Anyway I disagree with your contention.

Ethics is based on values, which is fundamentally based on emotions. Everyone has these, and with application can derive their own ethical principles. Science, on the other hand is difficult and does require study, as you have to fit with about 400-years of observations and the universe.

[Eyeron]

So is there a difference between ethics and morality?

And I don't agree that morality is invented. For example, most people can agree that senseless killing is wrong. I don't see how that can be invented because it seems that it is entirely instinctual to be repulsed by a senseless killing.

Even racism Probably wasn't truly invented, more like discovered. Humans have an inherent xenophobia to them. Racism is a symptom to that xenophobia.

Now explaining it in complex detail, that's probably invented. Which evolved out of people wanting to know why something is right and wrong and people making further demands that the action or beliefs be justified.

[Whiplash]

I agree with Eyeron that I don't think that all morality is invented (I'm assuming that this is code for religion or other such human created philosophies).

I feel as though it's possible to justify some positions, morally, without any religious or philosophical context.. just based on simple human behavior and reactions.

Humans react to things that happen to themselves and people around them. With emotions such as sadness, mourning.. or happiness and joy, depending on the circumstance. But it's a natural reaction that they cannot otherwise control.

If someone kills someone else, who did not want to die, he or she has deprived that person of their life, and brought undeniable pain and suffering to those who loved that person.

When one person acts in a manner that ends up infringing onto other peoples lives or psyches, I feel that they have crossed a line. I mean, I don't care if people do just about anything they want, when it only affects themselves. It's when it crosses the line to someone else that I think it becomes wrong.

A murderer hurts the victim and the loved ones around them. A thief hurts the person he has stolen from. A rapist hurts the person he has raped.

Those people will experience pain and suffering, without the ability to just "turn it off" or otherwise control it. This was brought upon them, by someone else, without their consent. They are suffering, and for no reason that they had any control over.

In that regard, I think it's fair to say that someone has done them a wrong, morally.

[qayak]

Edited response to modded post.

[qayak]

So is there a difference between ethics and morality?

And I don't agree that morality is invented. For example, most people can agree that senseless killing is wrong. I don't see how that can be invented because it seems that it is entirely instinctual to be repulsed by a senseless killing.

Even racism Probably wasn't truly invented, more like discovered. Humans have an inherent xenophobia to them. Racism is a symptom to that xenophobia.

Now explaining it in complex detail, that's probably invented. Which evolved out of people wanting to know why something is right and wrong and people making further demands that the action or beliefs be justified.

Completely agree. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human universals many of them to do with morality. A list of 202 can be found in the Appendix II of Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil.

[Dragoonster]

Completely agree. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human universals many of them to do with morality. A list of 202 can be found in the Appendix II of Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil.

How can human morality be universal if there are exceptions? As in:

Humans react to things that happen to themselves and people around them. With emotions such as sadness, mourning.. or happiness and joy, depending on the circumstance. But it's a natural reaction that they cannot otherwise control.

Some serial killers and other murderers find joy in torturing people to death. So, how universal would "murder is immoral" be if the reason we think that is because of our natural reaction, yet another's natural reaction is the opposite. "murder is immoral" isn't universal, it's just most popular.

Personal morality isn't exactly invented, I agree it's a product of development, genes, etc., though it is possible to rationalize so that you convince yourself to alter your natural morality. But the idea that there's some kind of inherent "correct" morality is invented. Where some fail is in assuming everyone would realize that their view on morals is correct if they'd only ruminate on it. Ted Bundy would never hold the morals of Gandhi, no matter what arguments are made--because as Jimbob says morality is largely based on emotions. Morality is basically a subjective opinion. It makes as much sense to define a correct morality as it does to define a correct way to react to a certain film or song.

Ethics is more of a social science, morality in practice/law as benefitting society and is more forgiveable for using generalizations and ignoring aberrants. Morals are axioms, unprovable. Ethics is the math derived from those axioms.

[Whiplash]

How can human morality be universal if there are exceptions? As in:



Some serial killers and other murderers find joy in torturing people to death. So, how universal would "murder is immoral" be if the reason we think that is because of our natural reaction, yet another's natural reaction is the opposite. "murder is immoral" isn't universal, it's just most popular.


When the person acts in a manner that steps on someone else personal well being, life, psyche, etc.. that's when the line is crossed. We should all be equal.

I understand that there are people who feel that way. But their own desire to do such harm doesn't override anyone else desire to live or otherwise be happy. Why should it? He can feel that it's morally right to kill people all day long. It doesn't change the fact that he does undeniable harm to others in the process. He is only able to live his "morality" at the expense of others.

[Rairun]

I'm not sure how one can speak of human universals when it only takes a single counter-example to debunk them.

We've just run into the whole problem of being unable to derive a "should" from an "is". Yes, we generally have overlapping moral systems, but people can only help you figure out how to live inasmuch as you share their values.

Skeptic's values are radically different from my own. If he told me I lacked honor, I'd ask him, "Why does honor matter?" And there would be nothing he could say to justify his point of view. He could make an appeal to authority (Aristotle), but Aristotle himself wouldn't be able to answer my question.

What could he say? That I must have honor because I'm a man and that's what real men do? Sounds a little fallacious to me.

The bottom line is: if people have common values, we can attempt to explain why they do; but if someone disagrees, other people's values are meaningless, because there isn't an objective frame of reference to compare them to. We only know how people behave, not how they ought to behave. We usually try to circumvent this problem by establishing a common ground, but if there isn't one, the talk is over.

That's why I said morality was invented. Human behavior is obviously a valid object for scientific study. The way humans think they should behave is also open to scrutiny. But the way humans should actually behave is not--because those rules don't actually exist as rules, only as behavioral patterns that some people don't even follow.

[Rairun]

When the person acts in a manner that steps on someone else personal well being, life, psyche, etc.. that's when the line is crossed. We should all be equal.

I understand that there are people who feel that way. But their own desire to do such harm doesn't override anyone else desire to live or otherwise be happy. Why should it? He can feel that it's morally right to kill people all day long. It doesn't change the fact that he does undeniable harm to others in the process. He is only able to live his "morality" at the expense of others.

That's exactly the point. I myself think it'd be good if we all had equal rights, but the universe doesn't. The universe doesn't care. The universe isn't even conscious. And if there is no higher arbiter, the situation degrades into my word versus theirs. I don't think we should allow people to be murdered. Serial Killers think otherwise. That's life.