Hmmm, why isn't Rachel exposing the union thugs attacking the defenseless protesters?

>> ^thepinky:
I don't think that anyone said that women are inherently weak. I was explaining to imstellar the reason that most of us feel the way we do about the "we don't hit girls" attitude. I said that women are smaller and weaker on average. Others have said that this particular woman is smaller and weaker than the man assaulting her.
And, yes, all gender issues aside, the violence should not have occurred.
>> ^Creature:
As a woman that bothered to go out and learn to defend herself I call bullshit on this women are inherently weak crap. Should this situation have happened? No. Why? Because violence has no place in a civilized society.


Take a look at the following. You've explained yourself, but what else am I supposed to infer from these?
>> ^thepinky:
Oh, imstellar, I almost agree with you, but you have to take into consideration that no matter how equal we want to be in other respects, women are biologically different than men. We are smaller and weaker on average. And I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong


>> ^rychan:
>> It's not immoral to think violence against the defenseless is worse than violence against the strong.

>> ^rychan The violence isn't worse against the woman just because it will hurt her more. It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself..


The ability to defend one's self isn't 100% tied to size and physical strength. Certain styles of martial arts actually work better for smaller than average people. The basic skills needed to to defend one's self can be learned by a majority of people. So, while I can understand how traditional roles encourage the delicate flower stereotype (I too tend to get more disgusted when I see a woman being harmed), I tend consider defenselessness to be a choice.

Well, I completely disagree with you. I don't know how you twist your logic to arrive at "Nobody has ever won a fight against someone who wasn't defenseless."
Were Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan defenseless in World War 2?

"Defenseless" implies not having remotely enough defenses. "Defenseless" implies the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

Here's a good dictionary definition, from WordNet "defenselessness - the property of being helpless in the face of attack" and from wictionary "Lacking any form of defense".

So don't patronize me to "consider the meaning of the words more closely". You're completely wrong, ok? It doesn't mean "not having enough defense". It means a fundamental lack of defense.

And I didn't say that someone's response to a leg sweep determines the attacker's morality. Their capacity to respond has a bearing on the morality, and I stand by that. Bullying the weak and infirm is less moral than bullying the strong.

rychan wrote:
It's worse because she can't fight back and can't defend herself.

What you are describing is more the difference between "cowardly" and "brave" rather than "right" and "wrong." It is certainly more cowardly to attack a defenseless person, but its also kind of "intelligent" or "strategic" isn't it?

If you consider the meaning of the words more closely, defenseless doesn't just mean "having no defense" it means "not having enough defense (for the attack at hand)." Thus, anyone who cannot successfully repel an attack is defenseless, and this it true of any fight all the way up to a high level such as MMA. Nobody has ever won a fight against someone who wasn't defenseless.

What you really mean to say is that her defense is pale in comparison to his attack, thus making him a coward for choosing such an lopsided opponent.

In terms of right and wrong, when you COBRA-KAI LEG SWEEP someone, their response determines their morality, not yours. It doesn't in any way excuse your behavior if they retaliate; nor does it condemn your behavior if they are unable or unwilling to retaliate. As such, the victim's response cannot affect the level of "wrongness" or "immorality" of your action. It makes you appear like more of a dick, sure, but thats a different word.

>> ^thepinky:
And if you want to look at it from an evolution standpoint (this may be utter bull), it may actually be instinctual for men to feel the need to protect women from violence. We're pretty defenseless when we're pregnant, you know. That's basic survival and reproduction instincts we're talking about. Strong stuff.

This is exactly correct. In our hunter and gatherer years (and for those that still live that way), why do you think the men hunted while the women gathered? Hunting is dangerous. Let's say only 2 or 3 men return from the trip, if all of the women are still safe and sound in the village, repopulation can take place fairly easily because men can impregnate multiple women. If the women went hunting and only a handful came back, you'd end up with the possibility of that amount of women to get pregnant no matter how many males are around.

>> ^imstellar28:
Sexism
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH


It's not immoral to think violence against the defenseless is worse than violence against the strong. It's not sexist to acknowledge biological differences.

Would you like the male/female distinctions in sports removed? Are woman-only sport's team inherently sexist?

The thought experiment with a man in her place is difficult, because a man would have been treated differently. This scenario wouldn't have played out this way.

Oh, imstellar, I almost agree with you, but you have to take into consideration that no matter how equal we want to be in other respects, women are biologically different than men. We are smaller and weaker on average. And I think that most of us believe that violence against the weak is more wrong than violence against the strong.
In an ideal society we would look at each case individually. As in: If this woman had been bigger and stronger than the man, the violence committed against her would have been less wrong. But seeing as how she is smaller and appears to be weaker, it just makes us a little bit more pissed off.
But we don't usually look at every case individually. Since woman are smaller on average, we think that violence against them is more wrong (on average). And if you want to look at it from an evolution standpoint (this could be utter bull), it may actually be instinctual for men to feel the need to protect women from violence. We're pretty defenseless when we're pregnant, you know. That's basic survival and reproduction instincts we're talking about. Strong stuff. Not to mention that, historically, violent crimes involving a man and a woman are far more often committed by men.
Little girls should definitely be taught that they can't just hit boys whenever they feel like it, and I think that a healthy "we don't hit girls" construct is good for little boys to learn as long as it is coupled with a healthy "we don't let girls hit us."
>> ^imstellar28:
Sexism
1. Discrimination based on gender.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotping of social roles based on gender.
Moral position:
Violence against others, men or women, is wrong
Immoral position:
Violence against women, but not men, is wrong
Sexist position
Violence against women is more wrong than violence against men.
Just so you understand what you are and where you stand in the eyes of the LORD-AH

Did you all see that poor defenseless woman be attacked? Who will defend her? Is there no manly man in shining armor to fix this!?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Arguments about "REAL MEN" are cultural.
Doesn't matter if she or he was wrong. Males and females should be treated equally.
She provoked an attack. Don't start a fight if you can't defend yourself. = ]


She provoked a water/beer fight at a pool party. If you can't see the distinction between that and bashing a defenseless drunk girl's head against the pavement, I have to guess you have experience justifying violence against women.

King County? The same place where they beat the hell out of a defenseless girl?

Yeah, under the 3 strikes and you're out law in California, aren't they facing complete dissolution and replacement by a COMPETENT law enforcement team?

Seriously.

^In the video game 'Team Fortress 2', the chaingun wielding 'heavy' character has access to a healing item called the sandvich. The downside to using the sandvich is that you are defenseless during the time it takes to eat the sandvich, and you also make loud eating noises that give away your position. The person in this video tricked one of his opponents by making those chomping noises with his own voice, thereby luring him into an ambush.

^that would be true only if all of the following were true:

1) a deity had set up a system in which the good people go to 'heaven' and the bad go to 'hell' (this isn't the case with Christianity, in which merely "repenting" one's "sins" may be enough to earn a free pass);
2) if the deity had set up a clear and unambiguous set of rules as to what is "good" and what is "bad" (this isn't the case with Christianity, since the good ol' book has expressly said killing defenseless infants and women can be a good thing, while working on a holiday has been a deadly offense);
3) the deity gave every citizen of the world, regardless of where they were born, equal opportunity to 'see the "right" path', which isn't the case with Christianity, if one is born, well, anywhere in the Eastern hemisphere;
4) the deity and the religion weren't made up thousands of years ago by superstitious fools in order to better control the masses.

Yes, those poor defenseless laborers need all the protection from Unions, because those who can't negotiate their own right-to-work contracts deserve forced wage protection, right?

Nevermind those who take the financial risk to make a business - sure if they fail and lose their savings no one will shed a tear, but let them succeed and everyone whines for the poor laborer who refuses to take a risk.

Nevermind the baseless logic that the world would be a perfect economic utopia if only those poor defenseless laborers were given a minimum of $20/hr as a human right.

>> ^nathanofborg:
Despite all the arguing about this, it doesn't seem like he did that on purpose. What it looks like is that he was trying to step over the other guy, and accidentally tripped over the other guy's head.
Also, the high-five doesn't look to be from the same portion of the game. I really don't think anyone would high-five you for accidentally stomping on some defenseless asshole's face.


Bullshit. You can see how he changes his stride and also grabs the ball with both hands before the fake stumble. It was absolutely intentional. Should be banned from the game.

Despite all the arguing about this, it doesn't seem like he did that on purpose. What it looks like is that he was trying to step over the other guy, and accidentally tripped over the other guy's head.

Also, the high-five doesn't look to be from the same portion of the game. I really don't think anyone would high-five you for accidentally stomping on some defenseless asshole's face.