#1 Edited by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio

No I don't like physical abuse, a man should never hit a women. But lets say the women is the abuser and the man is the victim, if she hits him, should he hit her back?  Of course he could always take it up like a man and walk away and call the police, but what if h doesn't have that option? What if the women is trying to kill him? Should he defend himself in a way he that he doesn't hurt the women? 
 
What do you guys think?

#2 Posted by aerokinesis (529 posts) - - Show Bio

Yes...im all for equality when it comes to violence. If you willing to throw hands, but ready to get hit. I don't care if you a child, a grandma, or whatever. If you throw hands be ready!

#3 Posted by Dreadmaster (16778 posts) - - Show Bio

NOBODY has the right to put their hands on another person.

#4 Posted by _Zombie_ (10461 posts) - - Show Bio

If a woman comes at me, I'm going to try to block her first. If she manages to land hits on me, I'm going to defend myself. If she's coming at me with a knife, or a gun, with the intent to kill? I'm going to do something.

#5 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@dreadmaster: Even if that person is trying to kill you?(Man or Women)
#6 Posted by Mercy_ (92925 posts) - - Show Bio
@dreadmaster

NOBODY has the right to put their hands on another person.

Moderator
#7 Posted by Sky_Carmichael (642 posts) - - Show Bio
@dreadmaster said:

NOBODY has the right to put their hands on another person.

Where is Nobody when you need him
#8 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

Yep.

#9 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio
@Primmaster64 said:
No I don't like physical abuse, a man should never hit a women. But lets say the women is the abuser and the man is the victim, if she hits him, should he hit her back?
Depends on how she hits him and what she hits him with. A slap to the face shouldn't be a problem. A man can walk away from that. If she's fighting you like a man would, restrain her or put her down. However, if she's bigger than you and is fighting you like a man, fight back. 
 
In all honesty, a woman shouldn't put her hands on a man and vice versa. 
 
@Primmaster64 said:
What if the women is trying to kill him? Should he defend himself in a way he that he doesn't hurt the women?   What do you guys think?
If she's trying to kill a man, he shouldn't have any qualms about putting her on the floor via KO. 
#10 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot said:

If a woman comes at me, I'm going to try to block her first. If she manages to land hits on me, I'm going to defend myself. If she's coming at me with a knife, or a gun, with the intent to kill? I'm going to do something.

Self defense.
#11 Posted by SuperTide (15600 posts) - - Show Bio

If she's trying to KILL him? Of course it would be ok to hit her at that point.

#12 Posted by _Zombie_ (10461 posts) - - Show Bio

@Primmaster64 said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

If a woman comes at me, I'm going to try to block her first. If she manages to land hits on me, I'm going to defend myself. If she's coming at me with a knife, or a gun, with the intent to kill? I'm going to do something.

Self defense.

I find it ridiculous how some people will defend someone for attacking a man first just because the attacker is a woman. Especially if the man didn't actually do anything to deserve it.

#13 Posted by rogue_mar1e (19833 posts) - - Show Bio

@dreadmaster said:

NOBODY has the right to put their hands on another person.

#14 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@Static Shock: Self Defense only then?
#15 Posted by Dreadmaster (16778 posts) - - Show Bio

@Primmaster64 said:

@dreadmaster: Even if that person is trying to kill you?(Man or Women)

Obviously defend yourself no matter what, but otherwise nobody should be trying to do anything to you without consent.

#16 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4165 posts) - - Show Bio

I'd say yes, but we all know even if the man is trying to defend himself they will most likely be looked at as the aggressor, like the woman wouldn't do hit him if she didn't have a reason.

#17 Posted by DoomDoomDoom (4252 posts) - - Show Bio

All about intent and circumstance.

#18 Posted by Telcalipoca (963 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Dark Huntress said:

@dreadmaster

NOBODY has the right to put their hands on another person.

sexy time would be really hard

#19 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio
@Primmaster64 said:
@Static Shock: Self Defense only then?
Pretty much. 
#20 Posted by SC (13266 posts) - - Show Bio

No. Not really, to the title question, nor really any person, ignoring other variables and context. Its a very flawed philosophy.  
 
Then there are always alternatives the less alternatives you have, the more understandable to go with other options. Potentially justifiable depending on circumstance, understandable, but that depends a lot and you can't really simplify such things down. It shouldn't really be about gender either but we also don't live in a bubble. 

Moderator
#21 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot: I remember seeing a video here on Comicvine where it shows a female abuser slapping punching and calling her man names in daylight...in a park, with people passing by and none of then did anything, hell even the women(Some of them) when they passed by where cheering for her and she was the abuser, if it was the other way around the guy would have been arrested at the moment. Though there was one person, a women actually, that called the police to break it up.
 
@dreadmaster: @Static Shock
Alright.
#22 Posted by texasdeathmatch (13171 posts) - - Show Bio

@Static Shock said:

@Primmaster64 said:
No I don't like physical abuse, a man should never hit a women. But lets say the women is the abuser and the man is the victim, if she hits him, should he hit her back?
Depends on how she hits him and what she hits him with. A slap to the face shouldn't be a problem. A man can walk away from that. If she's fighting you like a man would, restrain her or put her down. However, if she's bigger than you and is fighting you like a man, fight back.

In all honesty, a woman shouldn't put her hands on a man and vice versa.

This.

#23 Posted by _Zombie_ (10461 posts) - - Show Bio

@Primmaster64 said:

@ZombieBigfoot: I remember seeing a video here on Comicvine where it shows a female abuser slapping punching and calling her man names in daylight...in a park, with people passing by and none of then did anything, hell even the women(Some of them) when they passed by where cheering for her and she was the abuser, if it was the other way around the guy would have been arrested at the moment. Though there was one person, a women actually, that called the police to break it up.

@dreadmaster: @Static Shock: Alright.

I've had this hypothetical question asked to me in real life, and I kid you not.. but I've had people answer that in no circumstance should a man hit a woman. And yes, I did raise the question of one coming at you with homicidal intent. Still got the same answer with some of them. Not representative of everyone, but it's still a bit annoying that people like that exist.

#24 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot: I'm sorry but if someone is coming at me, man or women, with the intention of taking my life I'm going to defend myself anyway I can to survive.
#25 Posted by SC (13266 posts) - - Show Bio

If a 6 foot 5, 300 pound, made of muscle, martial arts master in the prime of his life, physically and intellectually is attacked by a blind 4 year old child with a safety needle, can that guy roundhouse kick decapitate that lil kid under the premise of self defense? Not justified because so many alternatives in that situation and the guy should know it.  
 
She Hulk goes on a mindless rampage and starts killing people via Tiger Uppercuting peoples brains though their skulls, and she does this to Rockslide but her reforms, then yeah, Rockslide ain't too smart and She Hulk is eyeing up his friends and his head, his best alternative is to probably try and stop her physically. as best he can.  
 
Two dramatically absurd examples to demonstrate you probably don't want to make too many big generalizations about such a tricky and complex topic as far as practicing what you preach. Circumstance matters a lot.  

Moderator
#26 Posted by The Stegman (25167 posts) - - Show Bio

Honestly, as a guy, if a woman tried to hit or attack me, i'd just walk away, physical confrontations are so... juvenile and petty....having said that, if we were put in a ring and told to fight to the death...then yes, I'd go Chris Brown on her

#27 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio

  

#28 Edited by _Zombie_ (10461 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

If a 6 foot 5, 300 pound, made of muscle, martial arts master in the prime of his life, physically and intellectually is attacked by a blind 4 year old child with a safety needle, can that guy roundhouse kick decapitate that lil kid under the premise of self defense? Not justified because so many alternatives in that situation and the guy should know it. She Hulk goes on a mindless rampage and starts killing people via Tiger Uppercuting peoples brains though their skulls, and she does this to Rockslide but her reforms, then yeah, Rockslide ain't too smart and She Hulk is eyeing up his friends and his head, his best alternative is to probably try and stop her physically. as best he can. Two dramatically absurd examples to demonstrate you probably don't want to make too many big generalizations about such a tricky and complex topic as far as practicing what you preach. Circumstance matters a lot.

That's the thing, you don't have to advocate that and you can still agree on defending yourself. Now me? I'm pretty pathetic in a fight, 6'1", little muscle, bit flabby in the stomach, and out of shape. So I'm going to use what I've got to incapacitate her before I get seriously hurt. Circumstance matters, but bottom-line, if a grown or teenage woman comes at me with a clear conscious and obviously malicious intent, I'm going to do my best to stop her. Obviously with a child I've got more leeway and stopping them without doing any damage is going to be much easier. I just think that I, as a human being, have a right to defend my body from physical attack. How I do that will vary depending on circumstance, but I still retain that right.

#29 Posted by KungFu (67 posts) - - Show Bio

Don't hit her. Just kick her. Kick her in the shins.

#30 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4769 posts) - - Show Bio

My ex-girlfriend punched me in the face seven times in front of everyone at work and one of my friends called the cops on her. I just spat blood and waited for the worst. It's easy to take a punch. I never had a woman come at me with homicidal intent, though, but I think I still couldn't do anything about it.

#31 Posted by The Stegman (25167 posts) - - Show Bio
@sesquipedalophobe:  
 

 It's easy to take a punch

It's easier to duck!
#32 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: Self defense doesn't equal killing. The martial artist should just hold the child down and take away the needle. Then just take her to the authorities. See no violence but he did defend himself. Sure he didn't hit her, but he did defend himself. Maybe i should have just put ''If a women hits a man, should he defend himself ?''
 
@Static Shock
So much cursing... But he does have valid points.
#33 Edited by cattlebattle (13042 posts) - - Show Bio

No, 
 
but murder would be OK

#34 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio
@sesquipedalophobe: I couldn't let a woman punch me that many times. 
#35 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@Static Shock said:
@sesquipedalophobe: I couldn't let a woman punch me that many times. 
Yeah man, you could just...dodge XD
#36 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

Taking the topic on its merits, and not using the hippy-defense of don't hit anyone, I'll try to answer;

The other night, I was watching this woman borderline abuse her husband. She punched him really hard, pinched him and just berated him. He's a pretty docile guy, so he didn't react, but I was just thinking that if, in the privacy of their own home, he lost it after she punched him and he punched her back (not in the face, of course), then I could see how that's fair enough. When it's a reflex more-so than an active attack.

But in terms of making an informed and pre-meditated decision, no, I don't think a man should ever hit a woman.

#37 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio
@Primmaster64 said:
Yeah man, you could just...dodge XD
Or, you can catch her fist and hold her down against her will. 
#38 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@FadeToBlackBolt: She was an abuser.
 
@Static Shock
Or that.
#39 Posted by SuperShafe (470 posts) - - Show Bio

boy's don't hit girls ever. anyone else is fair game.

#40 Posted by SC (13266 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot said:

@SC said:

If a 6 foot 5, 300 pound, made of muscle, martial arts master in the prime of his life, physically and intellectually is attacked by a blind 4 year old child with a safety needle, can that guy roundhouse kick decapitate that lil kid under the premise of self defense? Not justified because so many alternatives in that situation and the guy should know it. She Hulk goes on a mindless rampage and starts killing people via Tiger Uppercuting peoples brains though their skulls, and she does this to Rockslide but her reforms, then yeah, Rockslide ain't too smart and She Hulk is eyeing up his friends and his head, his best alternative is to probably try and stop her physically. as best he can. Two dramatically absurd examples to demonstrate you probably don't want to make too many big generalizations about such a tricky and complex topic as far as practicing what you preach. Circumstance matters a lot.

That's the thing, you don't have to advocate that and you can still agree on defending yourself. Now me? I'm pretty pathetic in a fight, 6'1", little muscle, bit flabby in the stomach, and out of shape. So I'm going to use what I've got to incapacitate her before I get seriously hurt. Circumstance matters, but bottom-line, if a grown or teenage woman comes at me with a clear conscious and obviously malicious intent, I'm going to do my best to stop her. Obviously with a child I've got more leeway and stopping them without doing any damage is going to be much easier. I just think that I, as a human being, have a right to defend my body from physical attack. How I do that will vary depending on circumstance, but I still retain that right.

 
Sure, you can defend yourself against anything, because of circumstance, everything else, comes after, and you seem to be following the common sense generalization method, we as I am not? Thats probably a significant factor addressing our different perspectives? Since I love accuracy most of all, even in the hypothetical sense, so I like to think and cover as many details as possible. Like you say bottom line if a teenage woman comes at you with a clear conscious and obviously malicious intent, your going to do your best to stop her? I think  teenage woman in a wheel chair, or on crutches, or maybe she has a very low IQ, so again, circumstance, and you get this with your follow up about with a child you have more leeway... unless they have a gun? Or a grenade? How much you exert yourself, to defend yourself and even possibly them, might mean they get a fraction more injured than otherwise. You might have to bruise their arm, so you yank the gun out of their hand, - circumstance.  
 
The factor here again - and I bring this up in the other thread sorry lol - is human perceptions generally suck more than we like. Do you know how tickling works? Its the body/minds ability to anticipate a sensation and prepare for it - inability to prepare for it accurately can lead to some people giggling an laughing and others not so. Human bodies can be really bad at gauging how much damage it gets, and most people because of this, tend to overcompensate when looking for revenge and this leads to escalation. It doesn't help that people aren't all built the same. So if you have a right to protect yourself and other people have a right to protect themselves, is it okay if someone can kill you under the assumption they were just defending themselves from you? Even though objectively we could point out that you presented not much threat to them? So its all about circumstance really - especially once you add perception.  
 
Most man on woman violence is vilified (even though woman hitting men is just as bad) because generally, men are bigger and stronger and when emotions are frayed more damage is incurred. Woman and men both lose temper and one usually ends up with worse injuries so both things are conceptually horrible (hitting people) consequences are more extreme for one person situation to situation. Not every situation so again circumstance.   
 
 
 
@Primmaster64 said:
@SC: Self defense doesn't equal killing. The martial artist should just hold the child down and take away the needle. Then just take her to the authorities. See no violence but he did defend himself. Sure he didn't hit her, but he did defend himself. Maybe i should have just put ''If a women hits a man, should he defend himself ?''

 Who said it did? That's the point. The Martial artist could do a lot of things. That's the point, to think he is limited to two courses of actions is gross oversimplification. That's the point. lol My friend its like you missed the point completely? Did you note the second example? If a woman hits a man the answer is the same, it depends. To think there is one answer is to have the wrong answer. Even when alternating the variables.  (If a man hits a man, should he defend himself ?) (If a women hits a woman, should she defend himself ?) (If a child hits a man, should he defend himself ?) etc
Moderator
#41 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC: Yes he should my friend, but like I wrote earlier it doesn't have to equal violence. I don't have to punch the person to defend myself, I could just block or dodge the punches. I'm not letting that person hit me. Like you wrote I'm using other alternatives.
#42 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (8008 posts) - - Show Bio

It's according. If i deserved a slap to the face, okay, i'll suck it up. But if a woman comes at me for no apparent reason and starts swinging at me? Sh*t.....I'm gonna pop her a good one to the face. But I would never like beat up a woman.

#43 Posted by _Zombie_ (10461 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@SC said:

If a 6 foot 5, 300 pound, made of muscle, martial arts master in the prime of his life, physically and intellectually is attacked by a blind 4 year old child with a safety needle, can that guy roundhouse kick decapitate that lil kid under the premise of self defense? Not justified because so many alternatives in that situation and the guy should know it. She Hulk goes on a mindless rampage and starts killing people via Tiger Uppercuting peoples brains though their skulls, and she does this to Rockslide but her reforms, then yeah, Rockslide ain't too smart and She Hulk is eyeing up his friends and his head, his best alternative is to probably try and stop her physically. as best he can. Two dramatically absurd examples to demonstrate you probably don't want to make too many big generalizations about such a tricky and complex topic as far as practicing what you preach. Circumstance matters a lot.

That's the thing, you don't have to advocate that and you can still agree on defending yourself. Now me? I'm pretty pathetic in a fight, 6'1", little muscle, bit flabby in the stomach, and out of shape. So I'm going to use what I've got to incapacitate her before I get seriously hurt. Circumstance matters, but bottom-line, if a grown or teenage woman comes at me with a clear conscious and obviously malicious intent, I'm going to do my best to stop her. Obviously with a child I've got more leeway and stopping them without doing any damage is going to be much easier. I just think that I, as a human being, have a right to defend my body from physical attack. How I do that will vary depending on circumstance, but I still retain that right.


Sure, you can defend yourself against anything, because of circumstance, everything else, comes after, and you seem to be following the common sense generalization method, we as I am not? Thats probably a significant factor addressing our different perspectives? Since I love accuracy most of all, even in the hypothetical sense, so I like to think and cover as many details as possible. Like you say bottom line if a teenage woman comes at you with a clear conscious and obviously malicious intent, your going to do your best to stop her? I think teenage woman in a wheel chair, or on crutches, or maybe she has a very low IQ, so again, circumstance, and you get this with your follow up about with a child you have more leeway... unless they have a gun? Or a grenade? How much you exert yourself, to defend yourself and even possibly them, might mean they get a fraction more injured than otherwise. You might have to bruise their arm, so you yank the gun out of their hand, - circumstance.

The factor here again - and I bring this up in the other thread sorry lol - is human perceptions generally suck more than we like. Do you know how tickling works? Its the body/minds ability to anticipate a sensation and prepare for it - inability to prepare for it accurately can lead to some people giggling an laughing and others not so. Human bodies can be really bad at gauging how much damage it gets, and most people because of this, tend to overcompensate when looking for revenge and this leads to escalation. It doesn't help that people aren't all built the same. So if you have a right to protect yourself and other people have a right to protect themselves, is it okay if someone can kill you under the assumption they were just defending themselves from you? Even though objectively we could point out that you presented not much threat to them? So its all about circumstance really - especially once you add perception.

Most man on woman violence is vilified (even though woman hitting men is just as bad) because generally, men are bigger and stronger and when emotions are frayed more damage is incurred. Woman and men both lose temper and one usually ends up with worse injuries so both things are conceptually horrible (hitting people) consequences are more extreme for one person situation to situation. Not every situation so again circumstance.

Yes, well, I'll refer you to my comment saying 'to stop her'. Meaning I'm going to prevent her from harming me, not necessarily harming her in the process. If it escalates, I'll go immediately to trying to stop her once more I'm going to keep going for the least damaging option, and let's face it, if things keep escalating I have no choice but to hurt her. Thus, it's not my fault because I tried to prevent myself from hurting her beforehand. Factoring in adrenaline might make this difficult, but I'd like to say I've shown pretty decent decision making while under its influence.

If they have a gun, I'm going to hit their hand to make them drop it. Sure, it's going to cause them harm, but they no longer have a gun. If I have no other choice but to bruise them to stop them from severely harming me with a bullet, or someone else, I'm going to do so. With a grenade, how am I supposed to handle that if they've pulled the pin? If they've done so, what happens subsequently is their fault for pulling said pin. If they have a mental deficiency, or a low IQ(therefore poor judgement), it might not be their fault.. but still, it's very unlikely that I, a human being of my physical condition, will be able to stop a grenade from blowing up once the pin is pulled. There are things an out-of-shape human just cannot do, even while adrenaline is under effect. We might not like that the kid is going to blow up and die as a result, but besides attempting to sacrifice myself by grabbing it and running(which is not guaranteed to save the attacker's life), there is literally nothing I can do.

Perceptions suck, but my prerogative in a fight is to protect myself. I don't want to win, not lose, I just want to get out with as minimal damage to anyone as possible.

In all honesty, I think we can just agree that violence in and of itself is terrible, regardless of gender.

#44 Posted by Primmaster64 (21138 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot: indeed.
#45 Posted by TheBane2890 (1958 posts) - - Show Bio

A man should never harm a women! If his life is in danger he may disarm the women, but never harm her! Any man who hits a women isn't a man at all!

#46 Posted by SC (13266 posts) - - Show Bio
@Primmaster64 said:
@SC: Yes he should my friend, but like I wrote earlier it doesn't have to equal violence. I don't have to punch the person to defend myself, I could just block or dodge the punches. I'm not letting that person hit me. Like you wrote I'm using other alternatives.
 
Of course it doesn't have to equal violence, but - okay how about this? Earlier I wrote that killing people is bad? Do you know this? I mean I already wrote it earlier? I'll tell you though? Do I have to tell you this, or do you already know? Can you tell me what my example was meant to illustrate? This is my question.  
 
 
@ZombieBigfoot said:

Yes, well, I'll refer you to my comment saying 'to stop her'. Meaning I'm going to prevent her from harming me, not necessarily harming her in the process. If it escalates, I'll go immediately to trying to stop her once more I'm going to keep going for the least damaging option, and let's face it, if things keep escalating I have no choice but to hurt her. Thus, it's not my fault because I tried to prevent myself from hurting her beforehand. Factoring in adrenaline might make this difficult, but I'd like to say I've shown pretty decent decision making while under its influence.

If they have a gun, I'm going to hit their hand to make them drop it. Sure, it's going to cause them harm, but they no longer have a gun. If I have no other choice but to bruise them to stop them from severely harming me with a bullet, or someone else, I'm going to do so. With a grenade, how am I supposed to handle that if they've pulled the pin? If they've done so, what happens subsequently is their fault for pulling said pin. If they have a mental deficiency, or a low IQ(therefore poor judgement), it might not be their fault.. but still, it's very unlikely that I, a human being of my physical condition, will be able to stop a grenade from blowing up once the pin is pulled. There are things an out-of-shape human just cannot do, even while adrenaline is under effect. We might not like that the kid is going to blow up and die as a result, but besides attempting to sacrifice myself by grabbing it and running(which is not guaranteed to save the attacker's life), there is literally nothing I can do.

Perceptions suck, but my prerogative in a fight is to protect myself. I don't want to win, not lose, I just want to get out with as minimal damage to anyone as possible.

In all honesty, I think we can just agree that violence in and of itself is terrible, regardless of gender.

 
Exactly - not necessarily harming her in the process, or to put it another way, the way I am choosing to put it, is attempting to minimize the harm of the other person? In attempting to minimize the harm they inflict on you? This is where the tricky part comes in? How much relative harm is a person willing to let come upon them, whilst also trying to prevent the other person harm them and how much harm will they exert to stop that person? Like to use a hyper exaggerated example, a 3 year old toddler with a temper tantrum hitting a father on the leg is inflicting not much harm. A father can dismiss the relatively insignificant harm being dealt to him - and the act of him returning the act? Hitting his child on the leg with as much relative exertion as the child is overkill. The father could just pick up the child and hug it to possibly stop it or tell them to stop. Child will probably cry when they are stopped from the act of hitting since 3 year olds are wusses (lol) but they are sensitive to and that harm is superficial at best in this instance. Except to go to an extremely horrible place for a moment, adult on child violence does happen. Adults lose their tempers or snap or multiple reasons like just being psychologically unwell all add up and they feel justified in the moment to exercise their perceived right to hit back or neutralize the harm the child is inflicting on them, and it can just be a child crying loudly that triggers such break downs and horrific violence.  
 
If things keep escalating I would say your choices may become limited true but still then circumstances still play a factor. Like your knowledge of the situation. Then again, hurting a person isn't really - its not the action, its the extent of the action. Its why we get cheesy lines in movies about guys saying if you hurt just one hair...  people inflict more damage on to themselves just by combing - ignoring for the moment that line is usually not meant to be too literal. So I agree with what your saying, but just leave room to point out that people have different understandings of choice, different levels of knowledge, different levels of discretion as far as how much harm they are willing to let come to them, before they decide to apply relative amounts of harm to bring about the best in the situation. Not just that, not all people actually want the situation to end with minimum harm to all involved, when people are harmed, chemicals in our body can be released that instruct us to seek revenge and so exert the harm done to us, back and then some. Even though in today's society we have attempted to avert say killing another person or persons family because they might have killed ours, we know from history that go not for the option that is least damaging to parties concerned, they go for the options that make them feel better and gratifies them as soon as possible.  
 
So when you run though al the variables - that' what I mean. Each time it changes bit by bit. What you offer and - its definitely not my place to judge naturally, but as a part of this conversion and discussion, personally I think its very fair and very ethical, and very considered. The main point is that for each poster, the more variables you add, the more hypotheticals, the more one realizes is that there is no, easy, universal answer, because all our own individual variables, physical ability, intellectual ability, knowledge, awareness, understanding, all differ leading us to have different capabilities and capacity to deal with situations and as far as how justified each person's actions and attitudes are, well depends on the situation.  
 
I strongly agree with your last two sentences and I hope that is how most people view such things. Well said. 
Moderator
#47 Posted by sesquipedalophobe (4769 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Stegman: @Primmaster64: @Static Shock: I've had years of being abused under my belt. Also, catching a woman's wrist and pinning her, according to certain policemen, is assault. It's easier spitting blood as everyone watches in horror. It was her reputation, not mine.

#48 Posted by _Zombie_ (10461 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

@Primmaster64 said:
@SC: Yes he should my friend, but like I wrote earlier it doesn't have to equal violence. I don't have to punch the person to defend myself, I could just block or dodge the punches. I'm not letting that person hit me. Like you wrote I'm using other alternatives.

Of course it doesn't have to equal violence, but - okay how about this? Earlier I wrote that killing people is bad? Do you know this? I mean I already wrote it earlier? I'll tell you though? Do I have to tell you this, or do you already know? Can you tell me what my example was meant to illustrate? This is my question.


@ZombieBigfoot said:

Yes, well, I'll refer you to my comment saying 'to stop her'. Meaning I'm going to prevent her from harming me, not necessarily harming her in the process. If it escalates, I'll go immediately to trying to stop her once more I'm going to keep going for the least damaging option, and let's face it, if things keep escalating I have no choice but to hurt her. Thus, it's not my fault because I tried to prevent myself from hurting her beforehand. Factoring in adrenaline might make this difficult, but I'd like to say I've shown pretty decent decision making while under its influence.

If they have a gun, I'm going to hit their hand to make them drop it. Sure, it's going to cause them harm, but they no longer have a gun. If I have no other choice but to bruise them to stop them from severely harming me with a bullet, or someone else, I'm going to do so. With a grenade, how am I supposed to handle that if they've pulled the pin? If they've done so, what happens subsequently is their fault for pulling said pin. If they have a mental deficiency, or a low IQ(therefore poor judgement), it might not be their fault.. but still, it's very unlikely that I, a human being of my physical condition, will be able to stop a grenade from blowing up once the pin is pulled. There are things an out-of-shape human just cannot do, even while adrenaline is under effect. We might not like that the kid is going to blow up and die as a result, but besides attempting to sacrifice myself by grabbing it and running(which is not guaranteed to save the attacker's life), there is literally nothing I can do.

Perceptions suck, but my prerogative in a fight is to protect myself. I don't want to win, not lose, I just want to get out with as minimal damage to anyone as possible.

In all honesty, I think we can just agree that violence in and of itself is terrible, regardless of gender.

Exactly - not necessarily harming her in the process, or to put it another way, the way I am choosing to put it, is attempting to minimize the harm of the other person? In attempting to minimize the harm they inflict on you? This is where the tricky part comes in? How much relative harm is a person willing to let come upon them, whilst also trying to prevent the other person harm them and how much harm will they exert to stop that person? Like to use a hyper exaggerated example, a 3 year old toddler with a temper tantrum hitting a father on the leg is inflicting not much harm. A father can dismiss the relatively insignificant harm being dealt to him - and the act of him returning the act? Hitting his child on the leg with as much relative exertion as the child is overkill. The father could just pick up the child and hug it to possibly stop it or tell them to stop. Child will probably cry when they are stopped from the act of hitting since 3 year olds are wusses (lol) but they are sensitive to and that harm is superficial at best in this instance. Except to go to an extremely horrible place for a moment, adult on child violence does happen. Adults lose their tempers or snap or multiple reasons like just being psychologically unwell all add up and they feel justified in the moment to exercise their perceived right to hit back or neutralize the harm the child is inflicting on them, and it can just be a child crying loudly that triggers such break downs and horrific violence. If things keep escalating I would say your choices may become limited true but still then circumstances still play a factor. Like your knowledge of the situation. Then again, hurting a person isn't really - its not the action, its the extent of the action. Its why we get cheesy lines in movies about guys saying if you hurt just one hair... people inflict more damage on to themselves just by combing - ignoring for the moment that line is usually not meant to be too literal. So I agree with what your saying, but just leave room to point out that people have different understandings of choice, different levels of knowledge, different levels of discretion as far as how much harm they are willing to let come to them, before they decide to apply relative amounts of harm to bring about the best in the situation. Not just that, not all people actually want the situation to end with minimum harm to all involved, when people are harmed, chemicals in our body can be released that instruct us to seek revenge and so exert the harm done to us, back and then some. Even though in today's society we have attempted to avert say killing another person or persons family because they might have killed ours, we know from history that go not for the option that is least damaging to parties concerned, they go for the options that make them feel better and gratifies them as soon as possible. So when you run though al the variables - that' what I mean. Each time it changes bit by bit. What you offer and - its definitely not my place to judge naturally, but as a part of this conversion and discussion, personally I think its very fair and very ethical, and very considered. The main point is that for each poster, the more variables you add, the more hypotheticals, the more one realizes is that there is no, easy, universal answer, because all our own individual variables, physical ability, intellectual ability, knowledge, awareness, understanding, all differ leading us to have different capabilities and capacity to deal with situations and as far as how justified each person's actions and attitudes are, well depends on the situation. I strongly agree with your last two sentences and I hope that is how most people view such things. Well said.

Exactly, in the end, it just comes down to circumstance. Impossible to really predict ahead of time. It all comes down to whether or not someone can quickly assess a situation, and hard as it may be, put aside their emotions and act accordingly. Otherwise things just go to hell, which is sadly 99.9% of the time.

#49 Posted by Shadow_Thief (2509 posts) - - Show Bio

@Emerald_Canary: I approve. :D

#50 Posted by Static Shock (47329 posts) - - Show Bio
@sesquipedalophobe said:

@The Stegman: @Primmaster64: @Static Shock: I've had years of being abused under my belt. Also, catching a woman's wrist and pinning her, according to certain policemen, is assault. It's easier spitting blood as everyone watches in horror. It was her reputation, not mine.

I don't what police officer told you that, but no one should get in trouble for defending themselves. If that is assault, I'd be prepared to fight that in court.