Can I punch a woman if I believe they deserve it?

[Collective Foal]

Alyxx, while my intentions are to be as non-sexist as possible here, I have to say, as I said before, that it is statistically factual that most women are weaker than most men. That's the human design. There's no way around it. Yes, we should treat women as social equals. They are just as human and intellectually capable as men (if not more capable in some cases). However, on the grounds of physical attributes, a man cannot treat all women as equals, as many ARE truly weaker, and to punch a woman when all she's doing is hitting you and doing little physical damage is wrong to me, just like a grown man kicking a 14 year old boy in the ribs because his room wasn't clean 5 days before Christmas is wrong.

[Vapymid]

but if it would be okay to hit a guy, then it would be okay to hit a woman under the same circumstances.

 

No, it won't be OK. Men's aggressiveness towards each other is part of a biological imperative to compete for females. It is somewhat counterbalanced by many other higher-level considerations arising from the social structure of human society, but it is there.

 

Towards women, men's biological imperative is to be nice and protective. And so we should be, within reason.

 

Regards

[Alyxx Thorne]

Alyxx, while my intentions are to be as non-sexist as possible here, I have to say, as I said before, that it is statistically factual that most women are weaker than most men. That's the human design. There's no way around it. Yes, we should treat women as social equals. They are just as human and intellectually capable as men (if not more capable in some cases). However, on the grounds of physical attributes, a man cannot treat all women as equals, as many ARE truly weaker, and to punch a woman when all she's doing is hitting you and doing little physical damage is wrong to me, just like a grown man kicking a 14 year old boy in the ribs because his room wasn't clean 5 days before Christmas is wrong.

It's still sexist to say that in my opinion. And to base your statement on statistics is like saying "yeah, screw individuals, we're talking about the majority here".

 

The world isn't the majority, the world is individuals. I'm talking about each individual woman AND man on the planet here. I've met a lot of guys who probably couldn't and WOULDN'T defend themselves in a fight, they didn't seem "naturally stronger" than women to me. And on that note I've seen several girls beat up guys easily and had NO problem actually being the aggressor in some cases.

 

It's a stereotype and a myth that women are "naturally weaker" than men. Sure, that might be the majority but I'd say that the majority of men nowadays aren't necessarily stronger than women.

but if it would be okay to hit a guy, then it would be okay to hit a woman under the same circumstances.

 

No, it won't be OK. Men's aggressiveness towards each other is part of a biological imperative to compete for females. It is somewhat counterbalanced by many other higher-level considerations arising from the social structure of human society, but it is there.

 

Towards women, men's biological imperative is to be nice and protective. And so we should be, within reason.

 

Regards

I agree that a man SHOULD be nice and protective but not because of his nature, but because of his emotions towards his love, regardless if it's another man or another woman. Both parts should defend each other and be protective of each other, it shouldn't just be the "man over woman" thing.

[Vapymid]

not because of his nature, but because of his emotions towards his love,

 

But, surely, our emotions are determined by our nature?

 

regardless if it's another man or another woman...it shouldn't just be the "man over woman" thing.

 

Well, the original question was "man v woman", so I only argue from the same point and use the main statistically significant category, which is an "average heterosexual man" v an "average heterosexual woman".

 

Regards

[Wheatley]

No, it won't be OK. Men's aggressiveness towards each other is part of a biological imperative to compete for females. It is somewhat counterbalanced by many other higher-level considerations arising from the social structure of human society, but it is there.

 

Towards women, men's biological imperative is to be nice and protective. And so we should be, within reason.

 

Regards

 

That's essentially an appeal to nature, though. Just because something was created by biology doesn't mean it hasn't been affected by sociology at all, and it doesn't mean it's something that should be included in our social values or ethical considerations.

[Vapymid]

But we cannot ignore our instincts either (unless we all move to City 17) and they, in turn, influence and shape our social structures. All we can do is acknowledge traits which appear to be negative and try to suppress/balance them while at the same time taking advantage of the positive traits.

 

Regards

[Alyxx Thorne]

Hey, if I deserved it, I would WANT to be punched. If a man didn't punch me because of my gender I'd call him a coward.

 

In general I try to go for non-violent solutions though but... really, it would piss me off like hell if a man didn't punch me just because I have boobs.

[Collective Foal]

Well then I must be a coward, because I'd never hit a woman unless she had the intent to kill me. That is how I WAS RAISED. it is NOT sexist, it is NOT cowardly. It is nature. Even if a woman was stronger than me and would best me in a physical fight, I would not hit her. I would let her beat me up. That is NOT cowardly in any way. Cowardice is when you run away from a fight or lie about something to make others suffer rather than yourself. Enduring physical pain because you are standing up for what you believe in is NOT cowardice. Thank you and good day.

[Wheatley]

Well then I must be a coward, because I'd never hit a woman unless she had the intent to kill me. That is how I WAS RAISED. it is NOT sexist, it is NOT cowardly. It is nature.

 

I'm afraid that under the most basic definition of sexism (discrimination based on sex), it is sexist.

Nature is not equivalent to how you were raised, that is simply a cultural attitude, sociology isn't necessarily reflective of biology. Certainly there are biological attributes to this idea, however they are not nearly as strong or important as the social aspect.

 

Enduring physical pain because you are standing up for what you believe in is NOT cowardice. Thank you and good day.

 

Cowardly, no, but it isn't wise to stand up for beliefs without question or critical examination. Why people take the positions they do is more important than which positions they take.

[Doublenature]

Like I said, Id hit anyone (Except family ((Excluding my older brother)) ) if they pushed me far enough. However, if you are willing to stand up for what you believe in, then you have every ounce of my respect.

[Collective Foal]

Okay, fine, it's discrimination. It doesn't hurt anybody but yourself when you discriminate like that, but whatever, it's sexist. I'm a sexist pig who has no respect for women because I don't want to hit them under almost any circumstance. Almost any other group of people throughout history would tell you that's a noble perspective to have, but nope, now that women have been given social equality, it's also now tolerable to hit them. You know, that's what's wrong with society's progression. We're actually enticing violent behavior, if you've noticed. In older cultures, it was illegal (possibly punishable by death) to hit a woman other than your wife or daughter, because women were property back then, so if you married one or bore one, they were yours.

 

So now that I've kept values that have held true for centuries in order to protect fellow humans, I'm sexist. That's nice to know. I knew this world was going to shit, but when you try to use factual definitions to manipulate one's rather noble set of views to be sexist and call him a coward, that just shows you how quickly this toilet flushes.

[Wheatley]

Okay, fine, it's discrimination. It doesn't hurt anybody but yourself when you discriminate like that, but whatever, it's sexist. I'm a sexist pig who has no respect for women because I don't want to hit them under almost any circumstance. Almost any other group of people throughout history would tell you that's a noble perspective to have, but nope, now that women have been given social equality, it's also now tolerable to hit them.

 

I'd appreciate if you would refrain from using straw-man arguments. I did not say that it was okay to hit women, I said that in a situation where hitting anyone is considered acceptable, gender is irrelevant. I never called you a sexist pig, I never said you had no respect for women; I said that refusing to hit a woman in a situation where you would hit a man, based on nothing more than the person's gender, is sexist.

 

You know, that's what's wrong with society's progression. We're actually enticing violent behavior, if you've noticed. In older cultures, it was illegal (possibly punishable by death) to hit a woman other than your wife or daughter, because women were property back then, so if you married one or bore one, they were yours.

 

Uh... I fail to see how we're enticing violent behavior. You've just given what I would consider some GOOD social progression; women aren't considered property anymore in most western culture.

 

So now that I've kept values that have held true for centuries in order to protect fellow humans, I'm sexist. That's nice to know.

 

... No. You just pointed out that those values were not held to protect humans, they were used to oppress women.

 

I knew this world was going to shit, but when you try to use factual definitions to manipulate one's rather noble set of views to be sexist and call him a coward, that just shows you how quickly this toilet flushes.

 

How exactly did I manipulate your views? Factual definitions are used because they're not subjective. I think that discriminating based on someone's sex is ethically wrong, that's the measure I am using here. I cannot address the nobility of your views because the concept of nobility is subjective.

Finally, I did not call you a coward, in fact I specifically said that I don't find your views cowardly, I found your basis unwise.

[Collective Foal]

Yea, I'm sorry. Whatever. That argument was a piece of trash anyway. The wording was awful and I tried too hard to use crummy examples. I'm trying to say that I don't find it cowardly or sexist to not want to hit a woman. Is that too much to understand? I've had a rough night and everyone is upset with me in one way or another, so I'm done with the arguments. I'm obviously not a sexist asshole just because I don't want to hit a girl. I've only ever found comfort in women because they're the only people who care to show their emotions and listen to yours, so I can't really bring myself to hit a woman, even if she's a total bitch that doesn't deserve life. It's really not even an issue that should be this heavily debated. I gave my view, that's where I will always stand. No sense arguing over it, because it won't change.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I'm not saying it's okay to hit women, in fact I'm not saying it's okay to hit anyone. What I'm saying is that it's not okay to not defend yourself against a woman on the premise that women are the weaker sex. It's a sexist thought altogether.

 

But violence should always be avoided, regardless of whether it is a man or a woman.

 

To be honest I have never hit anyone in my life, nor do I ever hope I'll have to, and I really hope nobody will hit me either.

 

If you want to truly be a gentleman and be "noble" as you call it, then I'd say you wouldn't hit anyone regardless of gender without a really good reason. Violence has never been a good answer to anything.

 

I want people to love me for who I am, not what I am. I want that for everyone. I don't love my boyfriend because he's a man, I love him because he's the only person on Earth who makes me feel really special and I couldn't care less whether he was a woman or a man. Granted I am bisexual but that's besides the point.

[Vapymid]

refusing to hit a woman in a situation where you would hit a man, based on nothing more than the person's gender, is sexist.

 

OK let's assume that it is "sexist". But is it ethical, moral or good thing to do?

 

Non-discrimination reduced to absurdity can be just as evil as discrimination.

 

Regards

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think violence in itself is evil and resorting to it, whether you are a man or a woman, shows a real lack of self control.

[Vapymid]

I think violence in itself is evil and resorting to it, whether you are a man or a woman, shows a real lack of self control.

 

I think so too, with few qualifications:

 

- children and teenagers must at some stage go through some physical confrontations with peers to see how it feels (both on the giving and receiving end) and to understand themselves and others better, understand when and how a dispute can switch into a violent clash, otherwise their life experience will be skewed and inadequate.

 

- if there is war, there is war.

 

Regards

[Estophelen]

Sometimes violence is a good way. Nobody should push anyone around and believe he/she can get away with it.

[Doublenature]

Sometimes violence is a good way. Nobody should push anyone around and believe he/she can get away with it.

 

Indeed. If someone deserves it, punch them good.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think violence in itself is evil and resorting to it, whether you are a man or a woman, shows a real lack of self control.

 

I think so too, with few qualifications:

 

- children and teenagers must at some stage go through some physical confrontations with peers to see how it feels (both on the giving and receiving end) and to understand themselves and others better, understand when and how a dispute can switch into a violent clash, otherwise their life experience will be skewed and inadequate.

 

- if there is war, there is war.

 

Regards

And even women become soldiers.