Central London mob attacks people in Hyde park

[quimcunx]

There might be a terrible miscarriage of justice based on mistaken identity which sees you locked up in a really tough women's prison where the inmates are just not reasonable.

Then what?

Or, less implausibly, a woman beating up another smaller and/or weaker woman.

 

[quimcunx]

hey, i kinda imagine you to be like a cross between Mr Logic in Viz .....

(here there was going to be a quote about teuchter being infuriating, but it seems to have disappeared)

Actually, I can understand that you would find teuchter frustrating and infuriating. I used to go out with a guy who had exceptionally good logical thinking skills. On the couple of occasions where we differed sufficiently passionately in our ideologies for there to ensue a heated exchange of views I found myself immensely frustrated. I knew what I meant but found myself unable to gain any purchase in the argument and was infuriated by this. I was confident I was right, but lost the arguments. But that was my failing, not his. How could it be his fault that he was better at formulating and ordering his ideas than me? I shouldn’t blame him for my inabilities any more than I should if he was better than me at tennis, or chess or whatever one might care to mention.

In my opinion teuchter has conducted himself with dignity (even as the thread has gotten more and more ridiculous). This whilst resolutely holding his ground with reason and consistency, without recourse to slurs, swearing or name-calling.

He simply asserted his viewpoint clearly and concisely and followed this with, what seems to me, a reasonable and reasonably simple question to the thread at large( iirc, I might be wrong). I genuinely think that he has been misused and abused for the sake of I know not what, especially as, broadly speaking there was little actual disagreement that I could ascertain on the matter in hand.

There is nothing I have seen in his posts that I think has deserved the derision he has attracted. I also fail to see that describing someone as logical can be used as an insult, even in discussion of what is evidently, for some, a highly emotionally-charged issue. The application of logical thinking to one’s philosophy can surely only be a good thing.

 

[scifisam]

So, basically:

A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.

Anyone disagree with that? Bueller?

B) Some people believe that, when your only option is self-defence, you should

B1) Defend yourself regardless of the gender of the assailant

B2) Defend yourself, but only if your assailant is male and you are male, or the assailant is of any gender and you are female.

This means that women attacking men should not be hit in self-defence. Men should just bow down before the blows, and hope they live.

Men are, in general, stronger than women (I've had this demonstrated to me many times), but that's irrelevant, if we're thinking about someone acting in self-defence when no other option is available. 'In general' does not mean 'always.'


The boy who hit someone for spraying him with coloured water is in the wrong because he chose to hit someone where other options were available, like, for instance, laughing it off and making friends with the girl at the waterfight he'd gone to. He's not in the wrong 'because he hit a girl,' he's in the wrong because he hit somebody when violence wasn't necessary.

 

[Jessiedog]

i would probably hit my mother if i absolutely had to

Got there.

Finally!


Wasn't that hard, was it?




Woof

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So, basically:

A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.

Anyone disagree with that? Bueller?

B) Some people believe that, when your only option is self-defence, you should

B1) Defend yourself regardless of the gender of the assailant

B2) Defend yourself, but only if your assailant is male and you are male, or the assailant is of any gender and you are female.

This means that women attacking men should not be hit in self-defence. Men should just bow down before the blows, and hope they live.

Men are, in general, stronger than women (I've had this demonstrated to me many times), but that's irrelevant, if we're thinking about someone acting in self-defence when no other option is available. 'In general' does not mean 'always.'


The boy who hit someone for spraying him with coloured water is in the wrong because he chose to hit someone where other options were available, like, for instance, laughing it off and making friends with the girl at the waterfight he'd gone to. He's not in the wrong 'because he hit a girl,' he's in the wrong because he hit somebody when violence wasn't necessary.

If a woman attacks me, I'll hit back, but only with sufficient force to ward off the blows from her tiny fists.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If she brings weaponry, it's a different story, though.

 

[d.a.s.h]

There is nothing I have seen in his posts that I think has deserved the derision he has attracted.

One would have thought it hard to misunderstand his position when he has stated it so clearly:

But I'm not arguing to dissolve the "don't hit women" taboo - I'm arguing to extend it so it becomes a "don't hit people" taboo.

 

[STFC]

So, basically:

A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.

Anyone disagree with that? Bueller?

I do.

If somebody crosses the line, and the line is obviously different for everyone, then they will get a slap. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but I'm sure most people can imagine a scenario other than self-defence, where they would give someone a smack in the mouth.

 

[STFC]

If she brings weaponry, it's a different story, though.

Does that include long nails, pointy shoes and a sharp tongue?

 

[quimcunx]

So, basically:

A) We should only hit someone when it's in self-defence and no other option is available.

I would include defending others in this, though this should and would be attempts at restraint initially, I suppose.

 

[chico enrico]

Evidently you haven't. It took you quite a long time to find that website though. I think you're a bit too late; it's lost its comedy effect. Timing is everything, you know.

Actually, I was out. Having a drink with friends. You should try it sometime.

Having a life is everything, you know.

 

[chico enrico]

Since childhood I have never hit a woman and I have never hit a man.

The fact that you don't already know this, which I have already very clearly stated, and repeated several times, supports my suspicion that you aren't really reading this thread properly.

And the fact that you think that this answer will make me look foolish suggests you are somehow misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

This thread having descended into farce over the last few pages, perhaps we should try and start at the beginning again.

Here is the first post I made outlining the reasons why I am sometimes irritated by people saying "I would never hit a woman":



Please pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

A little bit later, you made this post in which you said:



And to anyone who had read my previous post, the answer to that is an obvious "no". But from that point on you gave the impression that you were working on the assumption that this was my attitude (please correct me if I am wrong) which put me on the defensive somewhat.

There followed several pages of to-and-fro which didn't seem to be going anywhere and after a while I made this post in an attempt to explain to you what the point I am trying to make is:



And I wrote that post for the specific reason that you seemed not to be understanding why I was asking what I was asking, and were accusing me of "point-scoring" or somesuch.

Did you actually read that post? Because it feels to me like you didn't. I genuinely don't understand why you find it so "preposterous" to suggest that a man - it doesn't matter if it's you or me or someone else - might come into some kind of conflict situation with a woman who is physically stronger than him.

You seem to be implying that the reason you'd never hit a woman is that they'd always be weaker than you and therefore it would never be necessary. I am saying that is a false assumption. I am saying that if there is potential for a situation where you need to hit a man then there is potential for a situation where you need to hit a woman. It matters not a jot how unlikely either of them are. If it is possible, then your suggestion that it is never OK to hit a woman because it would never be "necessary" doesn't hold any water at all. It seems like a perfectly logical line of reasoning to me and yet you are acting like it is the most ridiculous argument in the history of the internet.

The fact is that several people contributing to this thread seem to agree with me that this is a reasonable argument to make, and that it is possible for a man to come into conflict with a woman stronger than him. The only people in disagreement, I think are you and chico enrico who has now embarrassed himself by letting his incoherent line of reasoning lapse into personal insult and off-topic nonsense. And yet you still seem to think I am pursuing some lunatic idea. Which is why I suggested the poll, which I am confident would reveal that most people consider a situation where a man comes into conflict with a woman stronger than him to be a perfectly possible one.

Having digested all that do you still maintain that I am a preposterous twerp or whatever it is you called me earlier?

what if you just like hitting people? Plenty people do. From the world heavyweights belt at Las Vegas to outside the kebab shop along my road on a friday night. It's like smoking or rubbing one's bell end with a cheese-grater behind closed doors and with other consenting parties. If that's what you like doing who's to pass judgement and tell you you can't? You?

 

[teuchter]

what if you just like hitting people? Plenty people do. From the world heavyweights belt at Las Vegas to outside the kebab shop along my road on a friday night. It's like smoking or rubbing one's bell end with a cheese-grater behind closed doors and with other consenting parties. If that's what you like doing who's to pass judgement and tell you you can't? You?

If you read what I originally said and what I quoted in that post that you just quoted:

Personally I don't think it's ever OK to injure another person unless necessary in self defence or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence. Just before anyone pipes up saying that I am happy to hit women.

Silly chico.

*ruffles chico's hair*

 

[teuchter]

Actually, I was out. Having a drink with friends. You should try it sometime.

Having a life is everything, you know.

*bursts into tears*

 

[chico enrico]

or you have some kind of agreement between the two of you that you are both happy to engage in physical violence.

yea, but that's a bit unlikely isn't it?

if you're out for a night with your mates and someone noises you up, or you simply don't like the look of them (a student perhaps) you're hardly going to go "excuse me mate, is it ok if me and my mates batter you?"

or perhaps aspiring 'amature pugilists' should adopt some form of visual signifiers to denote that they are 'game for it' when walking about town on a friday night - red boiler-suite, maybe?

 

[teuchter]

I say it ain't OK to hit people just because you don't like the look of them.

Fortunately the law agrees, and passes judgement accordingly.

Does that answer your question?

 

[STFC]

What about if someone calls your mum a slag?

 

[DotCommunist]

What about if someone calls your mum a slag?

Being as I'm not fourteen, I'd laugh.

 

[chico enrico]

I say it ain't OK to hit people just because you don't like the look of them.

Fortunately the law agrees, and passes judgement accordingly.

Does that answer your question?

No.

I think it's fair enough. Some people just look like wanks. And if they look like a wank they probably are a wank. So they deserve a slap.

And you're hardly going to slap someone when there's old bill about so as there's rarely any cops around at kicking out time (all being back at the station drinking tea, watching big brother and getting their balls licked by the specially trained alsatian) the chances of you getting caught are minimal to say the least.

So my question stands. If someone likes hitting people, who are you to say they shouldn't? and what gives you the right to make judgements about how they should behave and deport themselves?

 

[teuchter]

No.

I think it's fair enough. Some people just look like wanks. And if they look like a wank they probably are a wank. So they deserve a slap.

And you're hardly going to slap someone when there's old bill about so as there's rarely any cops around at kicking out time (all being back at the station drinking tea, watching big brother and getting their balls licked by the specially trained alsatian) the chances of you getting caught are minimal to say the least.

So my question stands. If someone likes hitting people, who are you to say they shouldn't? and what gives you the right to make judgements about how they should behave and deport themselves?

You're as bad at trolling as you are at trying to argue a coherent point.

Zzzzzzzzz.

 

[chico enrico]

You're as bad at trolling as you are at trying to argue a coherent point.

Zzzzzzzzz.

arf arf...hark at Mr LogicI]

just hope you're not as bad at social interaction as you are trying to argue a wanky, pretentious, metaphysical hypothesis

 

[quimcunx]

arf arf...hark at Mr LogicI]

just hope you're not as bad at social interaction as you are trying to argue a wanky, pretentious, metaphysical hypothesis

If he is as good at social interaction as he is at putting his point across in a clear and concise manner then he must be very, very good indeed.

Of course if what you mean is you hope he's better at social interaction than he is at highlighting your failure to argue with any finesse whatsoever, he would not need to be socially functional at all to live up to your hope.

I can only hope you are considerably better at social interaction than you are at either trolling or getting a point, any point at all, across. It would be awful if you had to go through your whole life hideously embarrassing yourself at every turn, and unable to obtain the respect of anyone around you, in real life either.

 

[chico enrico]

If he is as good at social interaction as he is at putting his point across in a clear and concise manner then he must be very, very good indeed.

Of course if what you mean is you hope he's better at social interaction than he is at highlighting your failure to argue with any finesse whatsoever, he would not need to be socially functional at all to live up to your hope.

I can only hope you are considerably better at social interaction than you are at either trolling or getting a point, any point at all, across. It would be awful if you had to go through your whole life hideously embarrassing yourself at every turn, and unable to obtain the respect of anyone around you, in real life either.

hohoho. you have cut me to the core. i am a broken shell as the prospect of going through my empty, lonely life hideously embarrassing myself at every turn, and unable to obtain the respect of anyone around me enshrouds my very being like the mustard gas of mundanity, near-tangibly rising from your typed words.

PS. you just sound boring and teuchter sounds like a dick.

 

[chico enrico]

Of course if what you mean is you hope he's better at social interaction than he is at highlighting your failure to argue with any finesse whatsoever, he would not need to be socially functional at all to live up to your hope.

hmmm...a tad laboured. You're not exactly Oscar Wilde are you?

 

[quimcunx]

hmmm...a tad laboured. You're not exactly Oscar Wilde are you?

Far too boring to be Oscar Wilde.

E2A: so I took my lessons from your posts.

 

[detective-boy]

What about if someone calls your mum a slag?

Physical force is never justified in response to verbal abuse in law.

It can ONLY be justified in self-defence if the words used provide sufficient grounds for you to honestly believe you (or someone else) are in imminent danger of unlawful assault. You do not have to wait to by physicaly struck first, so long as you can demonstrate an honest belief you were about to be.

You cannot hit someone simply in retaliation either. You can only use force in preventing an imminent, future assault taking place.

 

[chico enrico]

sound. so you can wallop someone and then say you thought you'd heard them say "i've got a big knife and i'm going to stab you"? cheers for the heads up, i'll remember that

 

[STFC]

It's something to think about with the new season just around the corner!

 

[Treacle Toes]

Were the police heavy handed then or was it just the lad involved?

 

[Melinda]

Were the police heavy handed then or was it just the lad involved?