Hitting A Woman?

[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 ◊◊◊◊ 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.