Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park

[teuchter]

haahaha...i think he's some pseudo ultra looney tunes politico type who thinks (or rather thinks it's a cool pose to espouse the belief that) it is in some way 'sexist' or 'unegalitarian' to differentiate between people because of their gender/sex. as such can't be bothered to respond to his foolishness.

I think it's appropriate to differentiate between people on the basis of their gender, if their gender is relevant in that particular situation.

I don't happen to believe that gender is relevant in the situation of someone getting beaten up in the street.

If you "can't be bothered" to back up what you say, then why say it in the first place? Have you been taking lessons from Attica?

 

[editor]

You're completely evading my point by focussing on the question of whether or not I personally would intervene in a specific situation, which is an entirely different matter.

Why's it a 'different' matter? Surely it's a valid, real world example of the philosophy you appear to be spouting? Your statement seems pretty clear:

"there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct."

I don't happen to believe that gender is relevant in the situation of someone getting beaten up in the street.

So do you think that it's OK for a bloke to kick shit out of a woman if she's the same physical size as him because "gender is relevant" in a street fight?

 

[8ball]

I'd hit a woman if it was justified.

Like if she was hysterical on a boat.

 

[editor]

I'd hit a woman if it was justified.

Like if she was hysterical on a boat.

Or going berserk on a movie set.

 

[STFC]

That wouldn't make that inclination a "good" one though, any more than, say, any racist inclinations that might be lurking inside of me somewhere.

Oh lordy...

 

[teuchter]

Why's it a 'different' matter? Surely it's a valid, real world example of the philosophy you appear to be spouting? Your statement seems pretty clear:

"there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct."

That's not my "philosophy", it's just me admitting that whatever I might believe in principle, other things might kick in in the heat of the moment. Is it more palatable expressed like this:

"there is a chance I might be less inclined to help the situation where the man was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of reduced evolutionary instinct."[/QUOTE]

and which would be my failing.

So do you think that it's OK for a bloke to kick shit out of a woman if she's the same physical size as him because "gender is relevant" in a street fight?

Of course not. Where have I said that? You are intelligent enough to understand that that is not what I'm saying. It's unfair to try and twist what I'm saying in this way.

I don't think it's OK for anyone to kick the shit out of anyone of any gender or any physical size.

 

[8ball]

In reality, there is a chance I might be more inclined to help the situation where the woman was being attacked, possibly because of built-in prejudices or some kind of evolutionary instinct. That wouldn't make that inclination a "good" one though, any more than, say, any racist inclinations that might be lurking inside of me somewhere.

I can see where you're coming from, tbh.

What's the protocol where a bunch of women are beating up a man?

 

[teuchter]

I can see where you're coming from, tbh.

What's the protocol where a bunch of women are beating up a man?

The protocol is very simple. Try to stop people beating each other up if you can (balanced of course against the risk to yourself).

 

[8ball]

The protocol is very simple. Try to stop people beating each other up if you can (balanced of course against the risk to yourself).

I knew what your take on it would be, your position seems pretty consistent to me. Was wondering about some of the others.

 

[quimcunx]

I knew what your take on it would be, your position seems pretty consistent to me. Was wondering about some of the others.

Me too. I looks like people are reading 'it is not all right to hit a man either' and interpreting that as 'it is all right to hit a woman'. And I don't understand from reading this how that came about as what teuchter says seems very straightforward to me.

 

[teuchter]

Me too. I looks like people are reading 'it is not all right to hit a man either' and interpreting that as 'it is all right to hit a woman'. And I don't understand from reading this how that came about as what teuchter says seems very straightforward to me.

Although, it has to be said, you only wrote this because I threatened to beat you up.

 

[quimcunx]

Although, it has to be said, you only wrote this because I threatened to beat you up.

And don't worry. I won't report that PM. I've learnt my lesson from the last beating you gave me.

 

[chico enrico]

What's the protocol where a bunch of women are beating up a man?

and what's the likelihood?

 

[chico enrico]

what teuchter says seems very straightforward to me.

alas, i lack the requisite degree in metaphysics.

 

[teuchter]

alas, i lack the requisite degree in metaphysics.

Evidently so.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to clarify in what situation it is acceptable to hit a man.

 

[Front101]

and what's the likelihood?

have you ever been to Southend??

 

[editor]

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to clarify in what situation it is acceptable to hit a man.

If you haven't realised that different people have different trigger points where they feel violence is an acceptable solution to their conflict/problem, I suspect you'll be waiting a long, looooooong time for a snappy, all-in answer to your question.

 

[d.a.s.h]

Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to clarify in what situation it is acceptable to hit a man.

Self-defence

More dubiously/more a matter of personal opinion, and all in response to actions by another man: being spat at, extreme verbal provocation involving threats to family/loved ones, a few others.

E2A: Some notion in mind of a punch being a way of equalising with other men who are prepared to do certain things you're not and who are perhaps betting that you'll find it difficult to respond in kind - hence the examples of spitting, threats to family and so on.

 

[teuchter]

If you haven't realised that different people have different trigger points where they feel violence is an acceptable solution to their conflict/problem, I suspect you'll be waiting a long, looooooong time for a snappy, all-in answer to your question.

Obviously.

I'm just interested to hear, from anyone who has stated that they would "never hit a woman", what their criteria are for hitting a man. Their personal criteria, not the criteria for every person on the planet, which would certainly be difficult to sum up snappily.

And if it's difficult to give a set of criteria, then an example of a situation when it would be justified.

Why the reticence to answer the question?

My criteria would be something like this:

A situation where I believed that my hitting someone would prevent significantly worse harm coming to someone else, and where I considered the risk to myself not to be disproportionate to the seriousness of whatever I was trying to prevent.

I would apply precisely the same criteria to hitting a man or a woman and can think of absolutely no reason why I shouldn't.

 

[teuchter]

Self-defence

More dubiously/more a matter of personal opinion, and all in response to actions by another man: being spat at, extreme verbal provocation involving threats to family/loved ones, a few others.

E2A: Some notion in mind of a punch being a way of equalising with other men who are prepared to do certain things you're not and who are perhaps betting that you'll find it difficult to respond in kind - hence the examples of spitting, threats to family and so on.

And can you explain why you wouldn't apply the same to a woman?

 

[chico enrico]

And can you explain why you wouldn't apply the same to a woman?

just out of interest, i take it at some point in your life you have hit a man?

may i then enquire if you have also hit a woman and what the real-life situation was?

personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.

 

[STFC]

Obviously.

I'm just interested to hear, from anyone who has stated that they would "never hit a woman", what their criteria are for hitting a man. Their personal criteria, not the criteria for every person on the planet, which would certainly be difficult to sum up snappily.

And if it's difficult to give a set of criteria, then an example of a situation when it would be justified.

Why the reticence to answer the question?

My criteria would be something like this:

A situation where I believed that my hitting someone would prevent significantly worse harm coming to someone else, and where I considered the risk to myself not to be disproportionate to the seriousness of whatever I was trying to prevent.

I would apply precisely the same criteria to hitting a man or a woman and can think of absolutely no reason why I shouldn't.

Would you apply the same criteria to hitting a child?

 

[editor]

I'm just interested to hear, from anyone who has stated that they would "never hit a woman", what their criteria are for hitting a man.

Why? What does it matter?

I don't hit women, and I'd be happy if I go through this life never hitting a bloke again.

I grew up with a very strong sense that it's never OK to smack a woman in the face. And that's how it stays, short of some wildly improbable situation which you'll probably throw back at me to 'prove' your highly laboured point.

 

[teuchter]

just out of interest, i take it at some point in your life you have hit a man?

may i then enquire if you have also hit a woman and what the real-life situation was?

personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.

I've never aggressively hit anyone. (Except when I was a child).

 

[teuchter]

Would you apply the same criteria to hitting a child?

Yes.

 

[editor]

A situation where I believed that my hitting someone would prevent significantly worse harm coming to someone else, and where I considered the risk to myself not to be disproportionate to the seriousness of whatever I was trying to prevent.

Seeing as you're a bloke and quite probably considerably stronger than the woman (or child) involved, you'd have the option of restraining the woman instead of smacking her in the mush.

With blokes that option may not be a practical one, so a more violent approach might be necessary.

See the difference yet?

 

[teuchter]

personally i think there is a very different psychological 'dynamic' from hitting a man to hitting a woman and as such would not be an 'easy' think for a normal, balanced male to do were it not truly a 'last resort' in the face of extreme threat of physical danger to self or others.

See, I would say the same about hitting a bloke, though.

 

[chico enrico]

I've read some crap on Indymedia, but that takes the fucking hobnob.



A more biased, factless piece of poo has never been written.

sadly, as i would consider myself a fairly libertarian chap, i'd probably believe what i read in The Sun before anything I read in Indiemedia.

 

[teuchter]

Seeing as you're a bloke and quite probably considerably stronger than the woman (or child) involved, you'd have the option of restraining the woman instead of smacking her in the mush.

With blokes that option may not be a practical one, so a more violent approach might be necessary.

See the difference yet?

The difference you are talking about is the strength of the person I'm trying to restrain. That is related to, but not one and the same as their gender.

If I have the option of restraining them, I'd do that, male or female.

If I decided as a last resort that violence were necessary, then that decision would be based on the physical capabilities of the person involved, not their gender.

 

[STFC]

Physical capabilities are linked to gender.