Hitting A Woman?

[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 by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited response to modded post.

 

[DJW]

Edited by Tricky: 

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.