Spousal abuse double standard revealed

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
meriwether said:
Why do you keep applying random and illogical (to coin a phrase) scenario's to my argument to attempt to disprove it?
Because s/he's trying to identify the more abstract principle (if any) that underlies your view. If there is one, and it can be shown that there is another situation where the principle applies, then in order to be consistent, you will have to apply it. If you do, and if this leads to seriously counter-intuitive results, your argument is undermined. If you do not, then either you are being misleading about the nature of your principle, in which case you must clarify further, or your position is fundamentally contradictory, in which case no one has to take it seriously.
 


stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
badinage said:
Morally, I'd have no problem with it. However, I recognise that society would apply a double standard, and so it wouldn't be worth it.
Do you think that it would be more, less or equally moral to leave the scene and report the attack to the police (assuming that the police prosecute all such incidents vigorously and equally)?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
stringjack said:
Do you think that it would be more, less or equally moral to leave the scene and report the attack to the police (assuming that the police prosecute all such incidents vigorously and equally)?
If the police prosecute all such incidents vigorously and equally, then I think reporting it to the police is preferable to using violence. It also has the bonus of being a powerful weapon in your arsenal come the bitter divorce and custody battle.

Unfortunately, in practice a male who reported being slapped by his wife and having his lip cut, would more than likely be laughed at, thus increasing his sense of victimhood, undermining his self-esteem, and making it highly unlikely that he would report the incident if it happened again (thus giving his abusive wife a certain power over him)
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
badinage said:
Unfortunately, in practice a male who reported being slapped by his wife and having his lip cut, would more than likely be laughed at, thus increasing his sense of victimhood, undermining his self-esteem, and making it highly unlikely that he would report the incident if it happened again (thus giving his abusive wife a certain power over him)
Granted.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
stringjack said:
meriwether said:
Why do you keep applying random and illogical (to coin a phrase) scenario's to my argument to attempt to disprove it?
Because s/he's trying to identify the more abstract principle (if any) that underlies your view. If there is one, and it can be shown that there is another situation where the principle applies, then in order to be consistent, you will have to apply it. If you do, and if this leads to seriously counter-intuitive results, your argument is undermined. If you do not, then either you are being misleading about the nature of your principle, in which case you must clarify further, or your position is fundamentally contradictory, in which case no one has to take it seriously.
Thats all very well, however it is dependent on the scenarios proposed being relevant to the initial argument, Im sure you will agree. We can go down the Woody Allen versus a female wrestler route if you like (as I alluded to earlier), but I fail to see the relevance, and consequently I feel my principles and argument won't be undermined too severly. Also, Badinage is focusing on one small aspect of my argument (the weight factor), and applying his alternative scenarios accordingly. Surely it does me an injustice to not take all my arguments into account?
For the record, my main reasons why a man should not hit a woman are based on physical factors (of which weight would be one), along with strength, also aggression, and the fact that it would be rather difficult to follow Badinages method of only hitting back with the same force. How Badinage proposes to measure the force of the hit, then react with the exact same force, when there are so many variables to take into consideration, especially under stressful conditions (i.e. if you have got to a situation where you are actually going to hit a woman, I would assume there is shouting, aggression general unpleasentness etc, all which would be extremely stressful) has yet to be explained to me. Of course he may be in favour of having a rough guess, giving Ms Wade a jab in the mouth, and then just wait to see what happens.
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
oK heres another scenario---if a group of women gang up on a man for no apparent reason---usually rejection--hell hath no fury like a woman scorned---and jump the man --say 4 of them and hair pull and use their high heels--if the man and the women realise that no matter whether the Gardai are called the womens side will be taken once they even hint that he sexually assaulted one of them----If this man agrees with you that he cannot hit a woman under any circumstances----How do you feel if he gets 4 female friends or pays 4 females to beat the lard out of these bellicose b8tches one at a time---after all it is not a man hitting a woman and the Gardai will look more favourable on a cat fight that man on woman fight--where do you stand.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
martin TYRONE said:
oK heres another scenario---if a group of women gang up on a man for no apparent reason---usually rejection--hell hath no fury like a woman scorned---and jump the man --say 4 of them and hair pull and use their high heels--if the man and the women realise that no matter whether the Gardai are called the womens side will be taken once they even hint that he sexually assaulted one of them----If this man agrees with you that he cannot hit a woman under any circumstances----How do you feel if he gets 4 female friends or pays 4 females to beat the lard out of these bellicose b8tches one at a time---after all it is not a man hitting a woman and the Gardai will look more favourable on a cat fight that man on woman fight--where do you stand.
Thses scenarios just get better and better. From female soldiers, to this, a sort of Fight club but with eyeliner. How the hell did we get from my position that Mr Kemp should not hit Ms Wade back, to here? The next logical step, I fear is a question along the lines "If Catwoman kidnaps Batman's Butler, would he be justified in giving her a box to redeem poor Alfreds Honour"?
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
meriwether said:
Thats all very well, however it is dependent on the scenarios proposed being relevant to the initial argument, Im sure you will agree. We can go down the Woody Allen versus a female wrestler route if you like (as I alluded to earlier), but I fail to see the relevance, and consequently I feel my principles and argument won't be undermined too severly.
It's quite relevant. Your argument that there is more than one factor in play simply renders your position obscure and imprecise, unless you can specify the factors exhaustively and can construct a well-defined function from them (a formula for working out the cases in which one person should not hit another). You seem to want to say something like: on average, since men are more likely to be stronger than women, the best rule is that men should not hit women. I can see no reason why anyone would accept that rule, since there are plenty of cases in which the average does not apply.

What's strange about badinage's rule is that it appears to cycle ad infinitum, once the first punch is thrown. What's bizarre about your rule is that there is an apparently much more reasonable one to which you can appeal - that no one should hit anyone else (whether or not they have been struck themselves).
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
Come on Meri
, just give an answer a simple yes or no will do never mind being evasive
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
martin TYRONE said:
oK heres another scenario---if a group of women gang up on a man for no apparent reason---usually rejection--hell hath no fury like a woman scorned---and jump the man --say 4 of them and hair pull and use their high heels--if the man and the women realise that no matter whether the Gardai are called the womens side will be taken once they even hint that he sexually assaulted one of them----If this man agrees with you that he cannot hit a woman under any circumstances----How do you feel if he gets 4 female friends or pays 4 females to beat the lard out of these bellicose b8tches one at a time---after all it is not a man hitting a woman and the Gardai will look more favourable on a cat fight that man on woman fight--where do you stand.
The last time I described martin TYRONE as stupid on here, he sent me a delightful little PM (subject: "your moronicity") which said "f*** off arsehole".

I believe his post above vindicates my position.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
meriwether said:
Thses scenarios just get better and better. From female soldiers, to this, a sort of Fight club but with eyeliner. How the hell did we get from my position that Mr Kemp should not hit Ms Wade back, to here?
Because you said this:

meriwether said:
A man shouldn't hit a woman. Period.
so the argument skipped over all the moderate scenarios, and leaped immediately to extreme scenarios, to see if you really believed a male should never use force against a female under any circumstances.
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
badinage said:
...so the argument skipped over all the moderate scenarios, and leaped immediately to extreme scenarios, to see if you really believed a male should never use force against a female under any circumstances.
...and once it has been established that you don't actually believe that, people can start working backwards towards more moderate examples.
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
Smiffy --crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under and die---You have nothing to contribute to this thread about female on male violence just as you didnt have anything to contribute to the male on female violence thread---which is surprising because both threads concern B1tches--both male and female---so either way you should have felt at home somewhere whatever gender you are---and if you fancy me that much that you find it necessary to call me stupid after everything I post---Im sorry your shit out of luck I am happily married----Being called stupid by a brain dead tuboid ring rolling gobshite like you---I take as an unintended complement.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
I have given my arguments why I believe it is wrong for a man to hit a woman, even if she has struck him first. This I put down to: in most cases, men are physically bigger than their female partners, be it weight or height. Men are most commonly more aggressive than Women, and are more likely to do damage to the Woman. Badinages argument that an eye for an eye is also unacceptable to me, as I fail to see how one can accurately measure the blow received from a woman, and then respond accordingly because of the variables and factors I have listed above. I believe, that contrary to what stringjack asserts, this is by far the most common scenario.

I return all I have got are stupid comparisons, examples and hypothetical situations, nonsense about functions and formulas, and vague murmerings that I dont really know what Im actually thinking, and curiously not a single reason why IT IS acceptable to hit a woman.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
martin TYRONE said:
Smiffy --crawl back under whatever rock you came out from under and die---You have nothing to contribute to this thread about female on male violence just as you didnt have anything to contribute to the male on female violence thread---which is surprising because both threads concern B1tches--both male and female---so either way you should have felt at home somewhere whatever gender you are---and if you fancy me that much that you find it necessary to call me stupid after everything I post---Im sorry your s*** out of luck I am happily married----Being called stupid by a brain dead tuboid ring rolling gobshite like you---I take as an unintended complement.
Your contributions, I suppose, epitomising insight and considered debate, I suppose.

If you don't want to be described as stupid, perhaps you should avoid making such stupid comments, in particular the one about 'militant feminists' earlier on, and, more recently, the one above about 'bellicose bitches' and 'hell hath no fury'.

Which 'male on female violence' thread are you referring to?
 

agora

Active member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
106
Website
www.doonesbury.com
So you believe that it's wrong for the strong (men) to abuse their superior position by attacking the weak (women). So do most people. However (and I believe this has already been asked of you), if it is the case that the man is quite puny and has low self-esteem and the woman is much physically stronger, domineering and aggressive (there is such a thing as an aggressive woman you know), is it acceptable for the woman to hit the man, given that she is the more powerful than he? Is it ok for the puny man to hit her back?
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
meriwether said:
I have given my arguments why I believe it is wrong for a man to hit a woman, even if she has struck him first. This I put down to: in most cases, men are physically bigger than their female partners, be it weight or height. Men are most commonly more aggressive than Women, and are more likely to do damage to the Woman.
doesn't square with:

meriwether said:
A man shouldn't hit a woman. Period.
If that first quote is your real position, then you should have originally said "in most cases", or "if a man is physically bigger than his female partner, be it in weight or height, and is more aggressive than her and more likely to do damage", not "A man shouldn't hit a woman. Period"
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
meriwether said:
This I put down to: in most cases, men are physically bigger than their female partners, be it weight or height.
...and here comes the question that we've been trying to get you to answer: If in 'most' cases, the conditions you describe hold, this implies that in 'some' cases, your conditions do not hold; do you believe that your rule should be applied in cases where your conditions do not hold?
 

martin TYRONE

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
76
Ah I know whats wrong Smiffy your a hamaphrodite--and your confused as to where you should fit into all this--
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
meriwether said:
I have given my arguments why I believe it is wrong for a man to hit a woman, even if she has struck him first. This I put down to: in most cases, men are physically bigger than their female partners, be it weight or height. Men are most commonly more aggressive than Women, and are more likely to do damage to the Woman. Badinages argument that an eye for an eye is also unacceptable to me, as I fail to see how one can accurately measure the blow received from a woman, and then respond accordingly because of the variables and factors I have listed above. I believe, that contrary to what stringjack asserts, this is by far the most common scenario.

I return all I have got are stupid comparisons, examples and hypothetical situations, nonsense about functions and formulas, and vague murmerings that I dont really know what Im actually thinking, and curiously not a single reason why IT IS acceptable to hit a woman.
The problem with your argument is its absolute nature. As sj pointed out, it would make far more sense to say that no one should hit anyone. However, as it stands, your distinction between men and women, and how they should react in different situations doesn't seem to be based on any consistent moral principle.

It's hardly surprising that you get hypothetical situations and functions and formulas in response, given that your original principle is itself based on the fact that on average men can do more damage than women, and are on average more likely to hit harder. However, if you believe that this is a reasonable basis for arguing that men should never hit women, then you need to explain why the average should be given any weight when judging particular situations. This is why badinage's argument about black people and asian people is a reasonable response (and I don't think you've presented a convincing explanation as to why this is different from your men/women comparision).
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top