Fuck the new year.

Actually, I was pointing out that girls can make it hurt. I actually gave an example, on of the many things people seem to think is unimportant. Keep at it, Sigurd. One day you may prove yourself no to be a dumbass.

 

Wolf, chill, he wasn't even talking to you.

 

Think about this - in any given fight, someone wins to a certain degree. This is usually because they are stronger/faster/better/whatever i.e. they had an advantage of some sort. Therefore, there will NEVER be a fair fight, where everyone is equal, with someone resolved as a clear victor. A fair fight is a mythical concept to me - someone always has an advantage of some sort.

 

you can still try to fight people who are close to your specifications. besides, what's the challenge in beating up someone a third your size/intelligence? fun, yes. challenging, no. and picking on someone who can squash you like a bug is just suicidal.

 

Why do you say that. Im new and that stupid one sentence thing slipped. im still playing with the controls, so leave me be. Oh and clap for me i learned how to quote.




Oh, and I LIKE MY name. whats sigurd supposed to be, that guy that got bit by his own tiger

 

That would be Siegfried or something like that, not Sigurd.

The point is though, every fight is unfair.

 

alright, alright, i concede!!!! almighty leader, you are correct. all fights are inherently unfair

 

I agree that no fight is exactly equal, Jar (probably anyway), but that it's not about whether it's equal on paper. We're not RPG chars. You can't look at the stats of 2 guys and say who's going to win.

It's about perception and risk. Some guy about my size in a pub is mouthing off. I don't know who'd win in a fight. Come to that, maybe on one day he'd beat me and on another I'd beat him. However, if we end up fighting, it's a fair fight. Neither of us thought it would be a walkover.

Now think about if it had been a little bloke, a child or a typical woman. I'd be a prick if I started the fight because I'd know that I wasn't running the risk of being hurt. It would be an unfair fight.

 

I was just messing with you, boy. Don't worry about it.

And Wolf, I think everyone was wondering if you would ever prove yourself not to be an ignorant, overly-volatile shit-eater.

 

Ignorance of the other person's abilties does not change anything except your own perception of the situation and risk assessment. Taking into account all factors, one of you would have an advantage, you just don't know who yet. He could turn out to be a really weak and uncoordinated fighter, which you wouldn't be able to tell from watching him drink, therefore it wouldn't be a fair fight, even if you didn't know how bad he was.

 

Blinky, I bow to thee. You have just done an incredible flame. I also know that I am quite unwanted in this forum. If you would check... uuh... ok, I forget the name of the thread, sorry, but if you check some of the new ones which have been recently posted in, you will find a fairly accurate description of how liked I am. But, I have yet to cause much trouble, so I'll just bide my time, until I slip into unnoticed-ness, and Jar and DU quit hating me. I, actually, will probably not be posting on here as much, as I have a fairly *sighs* busy life, and have other things I'm being required to do.

I believe that there are very few conditions underwich a man should hit/fight/yell at a women. One of those is if she kicks him in the crotch. I believe that to be one of the only reasons that a man should even consider fighting/hitting/yelling at a women.

 

That's suck a fucking load of crap man, and deep down you know it. It's a very noble ideal and all that, but it's so delusionary. At the risk of sounding like a lefty, it's an outdated (maybe even patriarchal) attitude. Just because they have a different physical structure doesn't mean that hitting them isn't necessary from time to time, just like hitting another man is necessary at times. Sure, if you're a 7 foot giant hitting a 4 foot midget then that's cowardly (unless she has a gun to your balls or something), but really, if the situation warrants it then start swinging.

This also ties in to my belief that I outlined above, about each fight being inherently unfair. Saying that any man who hits a woman is no longer a man sounds good, but in my opinion it's impractical to hold to that at all times.

Of course, the same society (traditional English) which probably started that attitude (or even if they didn't, they held to it pretty strongly) had no problems with hanging or severely punishing women for fairly minor crimes, which was the trend for the day (hey, gender equality in the Middle and Industrial Ages! How about that!). But as long as the women weren't hit by men, then it was all good.

The last paragraph is pure speculation and theorising on the probably history of England. I have no facts at the current time to back it up, but I think it sounds pretty convincing. I now await a history buff to poke more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

 

Jar, don't you think you're a little in danger of ignoring the norm in your keeness to point out an exception. Sure, we can imagine bizarre scenarios where a man could be justified in hitting a woman. But I think we all know that the VAST majority of times a man hits a woman it's because he's a fucking bully who know's she doesn't have the ability to hurt him much even if she did fight back.

The physiological differences between men and women are not, unfortunately, subject to change according to political ideology. Typically, women have less muscle mass, worse hand-eye coordination and less propensity for the kind of testosterone levels that makes men want to pick fights.

There are exceptions, and these cannot be ignored, but surely it would make more sense to base your general moral stance for this issue on the norm rather than the exception.

 

ooh! ooh! i get to poke holes in Jar's post!!

just kidding. you're pretty much right, although they actually didn't care if men hit women, just so long as they were either of a lower social class, or a lady in public. hit the lady in private all you like, but don't make a spectacle... :/

 

Maybe, but I'm not a normal person. I'm of the opinion that if you believe that the ends justify the means in just one situation, then you are an 'ends justify the means' person, even if that's the only situation you believe the saying is true. Same holds for the opinion above, if you get what I mean.

 

I know if a girl slapped me, I'd slap her tight back. Yeah, call me a pussy. Screw that gentlemanly shit. Of course I wouldn't hit a woman/girl unprovoked. Note that I wouldn't slap her to hurt her, only to get sweet revenge. That's the reason I wouldn't punch her.

 

I'd like to point out that I don't think women should hit men either. If a girl slapped you, she'd be wrong (okay, if a girl slapped anyone but you she'd be wrong ), but you'd be more wrong for slapping her back. Not only that, but your revenge would be short-lived I expect, when (a) you realised how craptastically you'd just acted and (b) the "gentlemanly men" (most of us) found out about it and kicked your bottom from here to next week and back.

 

Fatman, if some woman cut my balls off (Heaven forbid!) then I wouldn't really care about court justice. I'd get them sewn back on and go cut her tits off. Chances are she'd want to talk then though, so I'd have to cut the throat and dump the body. DON'T FUCKING MESS WITH ME!



Okay, the craziness has passed. In all seriousness, I've got too much of a temper to just take being hit and not doing anything about it most of the time. However, I do my best not to do more than was done to me - going overboard is asking for more trouble. And I really don't care if some random bozo thinks I shouldn't hit her back, I'll do something at some point to get my revenge. You just can't let things like that stand, or people will start to think you're some kind of pussy.

I know, I know. I'm boiling with suppressed rage.