• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When is violence against women justified?

Goshin said:
Again I'd like to point out I don't know what happened prior to the vid clip, or what was said, and these things could be relevant.

However, again: he had no legal obligation to retreat. She lingered in range, and attempted a second attack, rather than attempting to withdraw; therefore legally it is self-defense, based on available information. The fact that she missed her kick is irrelevant; that she attempted it is assault (absent some legal justification, which is not evident from the video).

You are NOT legally obligated to wait until you are ACTUALLY injured to defend yourself; in most jurisdictions you are not legally obligated to retreat from an attack either.


Now in some jurisdictions, an argument could be made about disparity of force; whether it would have legal traction is debateable, but juries can be influenced by appeals to emotion.


If we changed the scenarios and it was a man who tried to kick another man in the nuts, then punched him in the face.... I'd say few would have any great sympathy for him getting knocked flat, even if he were the smaller man. Legally, men and women stand equal before the law, no?
Click to expand...

So you base your morality on what is legal? If it is legal it is moral?
 
Redress said:
So you base your morality on what is legal? If it is legal it is moral?
Click to expand...


Nope. Read down a bit; I addressed this also.


In brief: don't want to get hit back? Don't hit first.
 
Goshin said:
Nope. Read down a bit; I addressed this also.


In brief: don't want to get hit back? Don't hit first.
Click to expand...

So you find that you justify your actions based on how other people act. I think that says alot about the moral decline of this country. It's ok, the other guy was bad too...
 
Redress said:
So you find that you justify your actions based on how other people act. I think that says alot about the moral decline of this country. It's ok, the other guy was bad too...
Click to expand...


Yes, to a large degree I do justify my actions based on other's behavior. I tend to be courteous to others, until they are rude or insulting to me; then my attitude and behavior towards them changes based on how they are treating me. I tend to be peaceful and benevolent towards others, until they threaten or attack me, at which time I alter my behavior to deal with their acts of aggression.


You're going to pretend there is something wrong with that? Or that your treatment of someone is NEVER based on how they treat you? Allowing people to abuse and mistreat you without response is hardly a reasonable course of action; no one should be expected to be someone else's doormat and suffer their aggression or mistreatment without response.
 
Monserrat said:
You really think it's self defense when the dude is twice her size? It looked like in the first video her kick completely missed him so how is it self defense to take a swing at her and knock her back? That would be about the same (size wise) as if I were to hit a little kid who tried to kick me so looking at it from that perspective I can see no justification for it, he could have easily backed off and called the cops. If you have the option to back off and call the cops it's not self defense, it's just unnecessary aggression.
Click to expand...

1. Size doesn't matter. If she was a child, then that would matter, as you can't expect children to be able to process things rationally. But between two adults size doesn't matter. If I go up to a guy my size and punch him, and then I go up to a guy twice my size and punch, both of them have the same right to defend themselves and punch me back if I don't retreat. The bigger guy doesn't have to sit there and take it just because he's bigger than me. And guess what? I don't go up to anyone and act like that, but I guarantee you that if that guy in green was the guy I wanted to punch, I'd give it an extra thought before doing so.

2. Being a woman does not give one carte blanche to attack a man. In the first video she went to kick him, and he punched/pushed her. If that door wasn't in the way, he very very very easily could have punched her much harder. Honestly I'd say that his first retaliation was very minor. If he wanted to he could have done much worse. The second retaliation was more severe but still not the hardest punch that guy could have thrown. Yes, he could have sat there with his thumb up his ass, but I don't believe he should have to. I'd be against excessive force, but I don't think any was used in the first video.
 
Andalublue said:
I'd say that in the case of the first video the man in green could make a defence, but I'd want to see the entire tape to see who started the whole situation.
Click to expand...

To see who started it? There was a minute long segment at the beginning of the video where that dude was standing behind the door ignoring that girl. If he had hit her before this video she should have backed up, as he was obviously not chasing her, and call 911 or the police. She VERY OBVIOUSLY started the matter, regardless of who started the argument. She threw the first blow. I don't think the guy did anything wrong, and I also think the police should be called and she should be arrested and booked for assault, and get every bit the same penalty that any guy would get if the tables were turned.
 
Goshin said:
Yes, to a large degree I do justify my actions based on other's behavior. I tend to be courteous to others, until they are rude or insulting to me; then my attitude and behavior towards them changes based on how they are treating me. I tend to be peaceful and benevolent towards others, until they threaten or attack me, at which time I alter my behavior to deal with their acts of aggression.


You're going to pretend there is something wrong with that? Or that your treatment of someone is NEVER based on how they treat you? Allowing people to abuse and mistreat you without response is hardly a reasonable course of action; no one should be expected to be someone else's doormat and suffer their aggression or mistreatment without response.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is something wrong with that. Other people's actions do not justify your own. The best reaction to violence is to walk away. That is not being a doormat, that is being smart. It is not the wild west, we do not need to run up and meet every one who challenges us. Sometimes it is best to do your thing, regardless of what others do. That is not being a doormat. Responding as others want you to, that is being a doormat.
 
Redress said:
Yes, there is something wrong with that. Other people's actions do not justify your own. The best reaction to violence is to walk away. That is not being a doormat, that is being smart. It is not the wild west, we do not need to run up and meet every one who challenges us. Sometimes it is best to do your thing, regardless of what others do. That is not being a doormat. Responding as others want you to, that is being a doormat.
Click to expand...


Not really. There's a difference between ignoring a minor aggravation and walking away, and ignoring an act of violence on your person. The latter is far more serious, especially when the attacker remains in range and capable of renewing their assault... ESPECIALLY if you turn your back. And even if they don't continue their attack, you've reinforced and encouraged them to see using violence as a way to force others to do what they want. THAT is being a doormat.


Responding to your environment is fundamental to any organism; reacting to attack also. Telling people to just ignore violence on their person is like telling them to ignore a speeding vehicle about to run them over.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Not really. There's a difference between ignoring a minor aggravation and walking away, and ignoring an act of violence on your person. The latter is far more serious, especially when the attacker remains in range and capable of renewing their assault... ESPECIALLY if you turn your back. And even if they don't continue their attack, you've reinforced and encouraged them to see using violence as a way to force others to do what they want. THAT is being a doormat.


Responding to your environment is fundamental to any organism; reacting to attack also. Telling people to just ignore violence on their person is like telling them to ignore a speeding vehicle about to run them over.
Click to expand...

Not responding to violence with violence is not ignoring it. That seems to be where you are confused. There are simply put better solutions 99.999999 % of the time.
 
Any unnecessary physical or verbal violence directed at another human being is unacceptable whether it is violence committed by a man on another man, by a man on a woman, by a woman on a man, or a woman on a woman. Necessary violence in self defense or to prevent unjustified violence to another can be acceptable.

That it is okay for a somebody to punch out another guy or for a woman to punch out anybody but it is not okay for a guy to do violence to a woman is a cultural thing and doesn't make a lot of sense from a practical point of view. However, we did have a much more pleasant and safer society when all forms of violence was frowned upon, most especially that committed against women.
 
Redress said:
Not responding to violence with violence is not ignoring it. That seems to be where you are confused. There are simply put better solutions 99.999999 % of the time.
Click to expand...


Your words:

Redress said:
... The best reaction to violence is to walk away. ....
Click to expand...


I'm sure that is excellent advice for someone being mugged at gunpoint, or raped also... two forms of violence. That was irony btw.


Leaving the area when THREATENED with violence is one thing... trying to leave while under attack is another; it is not legally required in most cases, and is often not feasible unless one wants to get hit from behind.
 
rathi said:
The justification for violence does not change depending on gender.
Click to expand...

I agree

rathi said:
The OP has no credibility however, as he is very willing to hide behind tradition when it comes to oppressing women, but is quick to instantly discard it whenever its not in his favor.
Click to expand...

Whoa, hold on there a minute pardner! I watched the videos and I took the position that the conflicts were between two people, I did not assign gender to either party because who am I to decide what a person's gender is? Gender assignment is something that is not dependent on my perception of what that should be, and in fact, one person's gender identification can actually change without my acknowledgment; it could be male one day and female another day.

So going back to your original point: The justification for violence does not depend on gender.

LOL!
 
Goshin said:
Your words:




I'm sure that is excellent advice for someone being mugged at gunpoint, or raped also... two forms of violence. That was irony btw.


Leaving the area when THREATENED with violence is one thing... trying to leave while under attack is another; it is not legally required in most cases, and is often not feasible unless one wants to get hit from behind.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when you have to pull out extremes, you are really desperately reaching to make your point. Well done. You are a big part of what is wrong with the world.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, when you have to pull out extremes, you are really desperately reaching to make your point. Well done. You are a big part of what is wrong with the world.
Click to expand...



:lamo


When you have to go personal, you missed the mark somewhere. Well done. :sarcasticclap
 
Goshin said:
I'm sure that is excellent advice for someone being mugged at gunpoint, or raped also... two forms of violence. That was irony btw.
Click to expand...

He was not being raped or held at gunpoint. Obviously, there are circumstances in which you don't have the opportunity to simply remove yourself from a potentially violent situation. The video in question is not such a situation.

Goshin said:
Leaving the area when THREATENED with violence is one thing... trying to leave while under attack is another; it is not legally required in most cases, and is often not feasible unless one wants to get hit from behind.
Click to expand...

He was only under attack for 2 fractions of a second during that whole clip. It would be different if she started swinging and kept swinging. That's not what happened. Then a punch would have been completely justified to make her stop. She went for a sucker punch and then withdrew to attempt to keep out of his range.

And no one said anything about walking away with your back turned or lowering your defenses. That would be stupid. Raise your hands to protect your face and back up a couple steps so he's out of her range. After the first time she kicked him he had plenty of opportunity to remove himself from an escalating confrontation if he were actually fearing for his personal safety. But, to me, it's perfectly obvious he wasn't afraid of her. In fact, I would guess that he was fuming and was probably hoping she'd try to touch him again so he could put her head through a pane glass window. That's not self-defense, Goshin.

And I'm not saying he was wrong to hit her, actually. I'd classify the first video as mutual combat. I wouldn't charge anybody with anything. She started a fight with somebody she shouldn't have and she lost. I don't feel sorry for her. But it's not self-defense. Self-defense is dependent on very well-defined, strict criteria that this situation does not meet.
 
Recognizing that it's impossible to read people's minds, what are people's impression about the women's states of mind - were they believing that they had a type of force field around them that protected them from men striking them or do you think that these women, like men, knew the risks that they were taking when they initiated their actions?

In the 2nd video there is commentary from the woman who stated that she wanted to step in and break up the fight, was warned to not interfere, and then proceeded to get involved, etc. Read her facebook comment embedded in the video.
 
Your Star said:
When the same criteria are met for violence against a man. Justification of violence does not differ between genders.
Click to expand...

What about the level of force used in defense? I think if a man is trying to defend himself against anyone the first best option is to walk away if possible. If not and the assailant is an unarmed man or woman of dramatically less physical strength, he has an obligation to use only the level of force needed to stop her/him and protect himself. Woman will often fall into this category.
 
opendebate said:
What about the level of force used in defense? I think if a man is trying to defend himself against anyone the first best option is to walk away if possible. If not and the assailant is an unarmed man or woman of dramatically less physical strength, he has an obligation to use only the level of force needed to stop her/him and protect himself. Woman will often fall into this category.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Self-defense only warrants the level of violence needed to remove an unavoidable threat of imminent serious bodily harm or death. It does not grant you the authority to beat someone who you clearly outmatch physically just because you're angry and want to teach them a lesson. That's not self defense. That's retaliation.

It's disturbing how many grown adults don't understand the difference (or willfully choose not to).
 
opendebate said:
What about the level of force used in defense? I think if a man is trying to defend himself against anyone the first best option is to walk away if possible.
Click to expand...

How do you balance that advice against the observation that "what you reward you get more of?"
 
the_recruit said:
Exactly. Self-defense only warrants the level of violence needed to remove an unavoidable threat of imminent serious bodily harm or death. It does not grant you the authority to beat someone who you clearly outmatch physically just because you're angry and want to teach them a lesson. That's not self defense. That's retaliation.

It's disturbing how many grown adults don't understand the difference (or willfully choose not to).
Click to expand...

Right!? People rarely understand that something can start with a legitimate need for self defense but cross over into something that is basically the very kind of act you are defending yourself against. That whole "but he started it" defense really should be left on the playground.
 
RiverDad said:
How do you balance that advice against the observation that "what you reward you get more of?"
Click to expand...

Unless the person jumping me is my child I have no interest in teaching them a lesson. My priority is getting myself out of danger and becoming a danger myself.
 
RiverDad said:
How do you balance that advice against the observation that "what you reward you get more of?"
Click to expand...

I balance it very easily. I don't reward people for assault.
 
the_recruit said:
I balance it very easily. I don't reward people for assault.
Click to expand...

When a person assaults you and you flee the scene, then haven't you rewarded the person who assaulted you? They no longer have to put up with your presence. They now feel victorious. Their feelings of dominance have increased. It's quite likely that they've learned a lesson - assault a person in order to get your way.
 
RiverDad said:
When a person assaults you and you flee the scene, then haven't you rewarded the person who assaulted you? They no longer have to put up with your presence. They now feel victorious. Their feelings of dominance have increased. It's quite likely that they've learned a lesson - assault a person in order to get your way.
Click to expand...

Nope. First of all, that's not reward. Second of all, they do get punished. They get punished by law for assault.
 
the_recruit said:
He was not being raped or held at gunpoint. Obviously, there are circumstances in which you don't have the opportunity to simply remove yourself from a potentially violent situation. The video in question is not such a situation.



He was only under attack for 2 fractions of a second during that whole clip. It would be different if she started swinging and kept swinging. That's not what happened. Then a punch would have been completely justified to make her stop. She went for a sucker punch and then withdrew to attempt to keep out of his range.

And no one said anything about walking away with your back turned or lowering your defenses. That would be stupid. Raise your hands to protect your face and back up a couple steps so he's out of her range. After the first time she kicked him he had plenty of opportunity to remove himself from an escalating confrontation if he were actually fearing for his personal safety. But, to me, it's perfectly obvious he wasn't afraid of her. In fact, I would guess that he was fuming and was probably hoping she'd try to touch him again so he could put her head through a pane glass window. That's not self-defense, Goshin.

And I'm not saying he was wrong to hit her, actually. I'd classify the first video as mutual combat. I wouldn't charge anybody with anything. She started a fight with somebody she shouldn't have and she lost. I don't feel sorry for her. But it's not self-defense. Self-defense is dependent on very well-defined, strict criteria that this situation does not meet.
Click to expand...



You could argue that it is mutual combat, yes. I don't know that you would be doing so if it was a man that had tried to kick him in the sack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom