ILovePhilosophy.com

Excessive force comes with a hefty price doesn't it? Why don't men understand this concept? He wasn't threatened by her, he was pissed off and he overreacted which is his lesson. Her lesson was not to lay her hands on any guy...period.

Men have never respected women by and large, but men are inclined to feel that they deserve respect from women regardless of their behavior towards women.

I see. Something special happens when we start talking about groups instead of individuals. You get what I'm saying?

Aside from that, should a hot stove burn someone less than it does someone else out of respect for the differences between the hands that touch it?

It's not about respect. It's about self control. You seem to be saying that you prefer a world where the woman in this case has less of an obligation to control herself than the man does. This seems biased, and thereby sexist. Am I reading you wrong? Are you being reasonable? Or are you being political?

I would also dispute the notion that men by and large don't respect women. If what you say is true, and men are stronger, then pretty much every right women have is a result of men respecting them.

Desiring a world that's different from the one you're in is a sure fire way to cognitive dissonance. Ask any Buddhist. Better to see how things are and work within the framework of reality than to spend your time upset that things aren't some other way.

Few things are more despicable than somebody who starts a fight, but then asks for mercy and demands the one they are attacking to go easy on them... pathetic.

Mr. wrote

It's not about respect. It's about self control. You seem to be saying that you prefer a world where the woman in this case has less of an obligation to control herself than the man does. This seems biased, and thereby sexist. Am I reading you wrong? Are you being reasonable? Or are you being political?

I got to stop ya. Is this the part where you say sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? Because if you said that, that would be a fucking lie. Words cut deeper than knives at times. So Caleb and the coldcocked girl exchanged words first. Caleb disrespected her which lead to her over-reaction towards the slap/push which lead to his over-reaction of knocking her out. Where was his self-control to not engage this woman? From the beginning I stated that if he did not threaten her, she should be arrested for laying hands on him, so how is that letting her off?

I would also dispute the notion that men by and large don't respect women. If what you say is true, and men are stronger, then pretty much every right women have is a result of men respecting them.

Over the last one hundred years, woman have begun to respect themselves to ensure change, no longer waiting for men to evolve rather taking matters into their own hands. Sure, the feminist's are rabid because they still believe that men are capable of respecting them. That's never going to happen and they are never going to be safe.

The family fascade is no longer intact for the women are no longer as dependent on men to exist. In China, women basically don't exist due to the lack of respect for women. A lot of bachelors looking for love, but no women. lolz [Will the Chinese be a superpower if there are no Chinese left? They are going to have to drastically mix with other ethnicities, decimating their gene pool. Shoot, digressing.]

Desiring a world that's different from the one you're in is a sure fire way to cognitive dissonance. Ask any Buddhist. Better to see how things are and work within the framework of reality than to spend your time upset that things aren't some other way.

Stop the whining then about poor Caleb's victim hood. I'm not the one with the problem, I only talk crazy to those talking crazy. The actual police let her off. I'm not the one having a trouble with reality, you are.

AutSider wrote:Few things are more despicable than somebody who starts a fight, but then asks for mercy and demands the one they are attacking to go easy on them... pathetic.

Who are you talking to and what's your point with the cartoons?

Wendy. You're a bigot, and its the kind of views that you're espousing that cause people in general to lose respect for certain kinds of women.

She hit him first. You learn in kindergarten the importance of that fact...or at least you're supposed to.

Why do you persist in acting as if I denied that she touched him first? So I'm the bigot because I have agreed with you that she should be arrested? No, no, I'm the bigot for not agreeing with you and your small mindedness? Excessive force Mr. Study that. A concussion and missing tooth later, the girl learned her lesson. I wonder if Mr. Brantley has learned anything yet? You obviously haven't after 37 yrs. on this Earth. Both are guilty. Case closed. *gavel cracking*

She's not been arrested. And who determines what excessive force? The person who hits first?

AutSider wrote:Few things are more despicable than somebody who starts a fight, but then asks for mercy and demands the one they are attacking to go easy on them... pathetic.

Truth.

She may still be arrested which doesn't change what I have stated multiple times that she should be arrested. I, the bigot, would have arrested her, but also him for excessive force. When you, the able bodied man, strike a child, an elderly person, or a woman so hard as to knock them out and dislodge a tooth, you better be protecting your life, not your pride. Duh.

The police and judge determine excessive force, but never fear, most judges are still male, so misogyny in the court room may save Caleb yet.

Victim blaming. How ironic.

It's official, Brantley's arrest. His female attorney entered his not guilty plea. Will they film the court proceedings for this one?

Self-defense

Self-defense is probably the most common defense used in assault and battery cases. In order to establish self-defense, an accused must generally show:

a threat of unlawful force or harm against them;
a real, honest perceived fear of harm to themselves (there must be a reasonable basis for this perceived fear);
no harm or provocation on their part; and
there was no reasonable chance of retreating or escaping the situation.

He's toast. Guess we'll have to wait and see. Your complaints will keep me informed Mr., thanks in advance.

It is a common belief that if you injure someone during the course of defending yourself that you are safe from prosecution. In reality, this is not the case. There is a fine line between self defense and assault and knowing where that line is could safe you a large fine and some serious jail time.

This fine line is called excessive force. During the course of defending yourself you cannot use force greater than what it takes to stop the attack. Where this line is drawn depends greatly on what state you are in, the type of attack, the victim and the attacker. There are so many variables that it often becomes hard to define what is self defense and what is a counter attack.

A safe general guideline would be only do what it takes to stop the attacker and get away from them. If you are at a nightclub and someone hits you, it is safest to walk away from the incident as opposed to hitting the person back.

I was addressing everybody who thinks that you can start a fight and then cry that the person you're attacking should go easy on you and have mercy when you begin to lose.

Words cut deeper than knives....says the person who's clearly never been stabbed with a knife.

Autsider/Mr.

That no mercy philosophy is a good vehicle (choo, choo!) for population control, the perpetrator of a physical attack has chosen their own death sentence in essence. I'm down with that. Once you cross the line into any kind of confrontational physical contact, the victim has the right, the obligation even, to put down, as in kill, the perpetrator by whatever means are available and the right to pursue this no mercy course of action until the perpetrator is dead. All aboard the crazy train!

Mr Reasonable wrote:Words cut deeper than knives....says the person who's clearly never been stabbed with a knife.

This is the most participation from you in awhile. I'm glad my words don't affect you much.

WendyDarling wrote:Autsider/Mr.

That no mercy philosophy is a good vehicle (choo, choo!) for population control, the perpetrator of a physical attack has chosen their own death sentence in essence. I'm down with that. Once you cross the line into any kind of confrontational physical contact, the victim has the right, the obligation even, to put down, as in kill, the perpetrator by whatever means are available and the right to pursue this no mercy course of action until the perpetrator is dead.

Finally we agree on something.

Knocking out the attacker may be sufficient, but the problem here is 1) He/she could feign being knocked out in order to catch you off guard, 2) He/she may be vengeful and try to kill you days after the fight is over. I prefer to destroy my enemies when I have the chance to prevent 1 or 2. It's just the rational course of action. A system which would force you to prioritize the life of the person trying to harm and possibly murder you over your own life is corrupt and obviously favors instigators, which no healthy system does.

If you want to have a nice fight with somebody, ask for their consent. Then, if he/she consents, you can agree on the conditions of the fight, and if you do, you can then proceed to fight.

What you want to do, Wendy, is pervert (invert) the natural hierarchy of things. You want to be able to physically assault those stronger than you, then when you begin losing the fight you want to have the option to cry "mercy" and demand the other party goes easy on you, and if they don't, then an even stronger party (military/police) would intervene on your behalf. On the other hand, those stronger than you should not be permitted to impose their authority over you and other weaklings. It would result in a weak society as it doesn't provide incentive for those who are strong to defend it, since they would be forced in a position of subordination to those who are weak.

Myself, I'm in favor of the natural hierarchy of things. Children and women are property of men, men have the authority over women and children and the latter two have to be obedient, but men also have the responsibility to protect them, and of course, not to abuse their authority. The women/children would recognize men as superior in strength and wouldn't even think of picking fights with them cause they would get their ass kicked, and the men would recognize women/children as weaker and thus treat them more gently than other males (unless women and children attempted to usurp male authority, of course, in which case they would be quickly made an example of).

In a decent society such degenerate infighting would be extremely rare anyway, so that's all I have to say.

The natural hierarchy of humanity, being at the top, is to use discretion to curb violence, not to surrender one's sanity to it. If brute force trumps intelligence in this day and age, humanity hasn't evolved one iota.

Autsider wrote

What you want to do, Wendy, is pervert (invert) the natural hierarchy of things. You want to be able to physically assault those stronger than you, then when you begin losing the fight you want to have the option to cry "mercy" and demand the other party goes easy on you, and if they don't, then an even stronger party (military/police) would intervene on your behalf. On the other hand, those stronger than you should not be permitted to impose their authority over you and other weaklings. It would result in a weak society as it doesn't provide incentive for those who are strong to defend it, since they would be forced in a position of subordination to those who are weak.

I do? I thought we were agreed on the use of deadly force. The way the system is now should be changed to if you start it, I can end it. Men don't think any women can end it, that's the funny part. The men who would tell you different are dead. Choo,choo! This would apply to all persons regardless of their relationships.


Men are still...still pining for their harem of childbearing slaves? You were born too late, those days are gone.

AutSider wrote:Few things are more despicable than somebody who starts a fight, but then asks for mercy and demands the one they are attacking to go easy on them... pathetic.

I was addressing everybody who thinks that you can start a fight and then cry that the person you're attacking should go easy on you and have mercy when you begin to lose.

That's actually ironic, because that's also something I'd imagine a radical Zionist jew would say when he advocates for the total annihilation of Germany.

About humanity evolving... viewtopic.php?f=4&t=192780

Men are still...still pining for their harem of childbearing slaves? You were born too late, those days are gone.

Slaves? You could equally so call men slaves because in the system I propose they would have more responsibilities than the "childbearing slaves" and would be the ones who would have to risk their lives to defend the system. But that doesn't matter to you since you're a gynocentric feminist, right?

In the end, it's quite simple: Either you make your society more patriarchal, or you get conquered by a patriarchy.

http://www.dailystormer.com/austria-pre ... amophobia/

Advocating for feminism/liberalism in practice amounts to advocating for a foreign patriarchy to conquer you, so "those days" will always return.

Pandora wrote:

AutSider wrote:Few things are more despicable than somebody who starts a fight, but then asks for mercy and demands the one they are attacking to go easy on them... pathetic.

I was addressing everybody who thinks that you can start a fight and then cry that the person you're attacking should go easy on you and have mercy when you begin to lose.

That's actually ironic, because that's also something I'd imagine a radical Zionist jew would say when he advocates for the total annihilation of Germany.

So?

Pandora, girl attacks guy, guy defends himself, and you jump into the conversation talking about the Jews?

Weird.

AutSider wrote:About humanity evolving... http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4&t=192780

Men are still...still pining for their harem of childbearing slaves? You were born too late, those days are gone.

Slaves? You could equally so call men slaves because in the system I propose they would have more responsibilities than the "childbearing slaves" and would be the ones who would have to risk their lives to defend the system. Typical mentality, the man sets up a system that gives the woman no choice, then claims heroism. But that doesn't matter to you since you're a gynocentric feminist, right?

In the end, it's quite simple: Either you make your society more patriarchal, or you get conquered by a patriarchy.

http://www.dailystormer.com/austria-pre ... amophobia/

Advocating for feminism/liberalism in practice amounts to advocating for a foreign patriarchy to conquer you, so "those days" will always return.

I do not claim to be a feminist. I am something other with higher expectations from women.

Since men do not respect women, never have never will, women need to get serious about their situations in civilizations where their abilities have always been and will always be marginalized, where their very natures are seen as a liability if not a joke. It's time for women to expand their horizons and work towards being as capable as they are able which isn't happening...yet. As a woman, I'm not even sure what all women are capable of.

While I understand all too well why feminism began, at this point, women are squandering their new freedoms by believing that men are even capable of appreciating the woman as a whole. Men appreciate the pussy, the maid, the eye candy and some appreciate the mother within, what more is there?

Both sexes seem delusional in their beliefs about each other. Biologically the sexes are designed to unite to reproduce offspring, and a women's energy may be inclined towards a submission to a man's energy but both energies are approaching each other with negative objectives offering negative reviews.

It's time for women to make improvements by applying their abilities more rigorously to practical matters. Time to see what women can do when they set some serious intention to it. It would be glorious to behold women who are even more capable, more confident.