NationStates Jolt Archive

ROFL
No, I told him he must a a really tiny dick if he had to make himself feel like a man by bullying and degrading women.

Edit- I think it really irked him because I said it in front of his friends. :p

What if you like to bully and degrade men who are bigger than you who try to intimidate people with their size? Cuz that's what I used to do. Back when I was just plain WRONG!

True kitten but my point is that if men continue to abuse women then I won't have a chance! I'll be (GASP!!) 28 in 3 days. after all women are notorious for their gossip and rumour mills!! (women know a lot more than they lead on..at least I think that they do!)

What if you like to bully and degrade men who are bigger than you who try to intimidate people with their size? Cuz that's what I used to do. Back when I was just plain WRONG!While I generally disapprove of bullying and degrading anyone, if anybody deserves it, they're the ones.

I went through the physical/mental abuse the second time I got married. The first chance I got I left and thanks to an X-friend he found me. Took me almost a year before I could leave for good. That was because I met someone who gave me the courage to do so. I have 2 boys and tried to raise them to understand what that can do to a woman in so many ways ( men too if they are the victims ). I watched my mother go through it as well, it's a shame it has to be an issue at all...

Of course you can. You might not have all the facts, but you are the only one who can choose what sort of man you will be.
Becoming abusive is not something that will "just happen" to you, barring severe brain damage. It's always a choice you make, and something you can change.
I've never been abusive, and I never will be. It's a choice I have made. I have bad tempers, I strike out, I'm not always in control of my emotions. But I will NOT be abusive. I just vent my emotions in non-abusive ways (such as yelling) and restrain myself when I have abusive urges (such as hitting).

You might not know what is going through the heads of the abusive people, but you can damn well know what is going through the heads of the non-abusive people. And, yes, I'm terrified that I'll be abusive towards someone I care about. That's why I know, so firmly, that I will never do that.

True but I've had really lucid nightmares that would make we wake up screaming in a cold sweat it's one of those things that really gets to me emotionally.
:(

I went through the physical/mental abuse the second time I got married. The first chance I got I left and thanks to an X-friend he found me. Took me almost a year before I could leave for good. That was because I met someone who gave me the courage to do so. I have 2 boys and tried to raise them to understand what that can do to a woman in so many ways ( men too if they are the victims ). I watched my mother go through it as well, it's a shame it has to be an issue at all...I'm glad you got out. I hope your boys take the lesson to heart. I know leaving can be very dangerous, but even if just for their sake it'd be worth it.

While I generally disapprove of bullying and degrading anyone, if anybody deserves it, they're the ones.

I don't do it anymore. As I said, violence should be avoided. But I used to love letting people who were trying to intimidate me think it was a good idea to cross the line. I was sick like that. I'm glad I learned to focus my energies on more positive, but less fun things.

Hear about this one?

http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRights.cfm?ID=17729&c=33

Hear about this one?

http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRights.cfm?ID=17729&c=33

Question is. Did she win the case?

And so called restraining orders aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. (They're just as ineffective up here!!)

Question is. Did she win the case?

And so called restraining orders aren't even worth the paper they're printed on. (They're just as ineffective up here!!)

No, she didn't. High court nixes restraining-order suits (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.restraining.orders.ap/)

And I'm pissed.

Scalia is an asshole.

i JUST LOOKED IT UP BECAUSE IT'S IN MY NEW ISSUE OF mOTHER jONES.

Fucking cats need to stay off the keyboard!

Anyway, I haven't gotten to read the issue yet, but there are several articles pertinent to this thread.

No, she didn't. High court nixes restraining-order suits (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.restraining.orders.ap/)

And I'm pissed.

Scalia is an asshole.
Hey, Cat, what's it called when someone illegally restrains a person. Like if I were to block a doorway and not allow you to leave a room.

Hey, Cat, what's it called when someone illegally restrains a person. Like if I were to block a doorway and not allow you to leave a room.

Generally, false imprisonment.

The name is misleading.

As a tort, false imprisonment is the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short. It can also be thought of as the intentional unlawful restraint of the physical liberty of another.

As a crime, it would depend on the statute. Under common law, false imprisonment consisents in the unlawful detention of the person of anotehr, for any length of time, whereby he/she is deprived of his personal liberty. Under the Model Penal Code, it is a misdemeanor to knowingly restrain another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his/her liberty.

(I couldn't remember the definition for certain off the top of my head, so you got the full Black's Law Dictionary answer. :D )

Violating someone's person? So... touching someone without asking first, is both aggressive and violent?

LOL.

Battery: (a) The unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact; (b) The crime or tort of intentionally or recklessly causing offensive physical contact or bodily harm (as by striking or by administering a poison or drug) that is not consented to by the victim.

Assault: (a) The crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact compare battery; (b)The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Best be careful out there. ;)

Sitting down next to someone and thereby bursting their personal bubble is aggressive and violent?

Gee, wasn't someone just talking about a strawman?

Most victims of violence are oversensitive as a result... and biased.

Or, more likely, most non-victims are undersensitive ... or just insensitive.

And most sweeping dismissals of violence and its consequences are either malicious or ignorant.

And some people seem to have a general bias against the idea that women are actually victims of crime.

Intent is not evident from behavior. At least not as self-evident as you seem to think it is...

It isn't always accurate or obvious evidence of intent. But behavior generally has been considered evidence of intent since the dawn of time.

And thousands upon thousands of people go to prison after being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a certain intent evidenced by their behavior.

Uh oh, I got the lawyer on me. ;) Let's see if I can be civil.


Battery: (a) The unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact; (b) The crime or tort of intentionally or recklessly causing offensive physical contact or bodily harm (as by striking or by administering a poison or drug) that is not consented to by the victim.

Assault: (a) The crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact compare battery; (b)The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

Best be careful out there. ;)

"immediate offensive physical contact." So, poking is assault, is that what you are saying, because it is physical contact, and immediate, and considered offensive?

This is all so very open to multiple interpretations.



Gee, wasn't someone just talking about a strawman?

Not at all, many people are offended by the physical contact involved for personal bubble invaders. And if poking someone is assault, maybe it's not such a strawman after all. If someone sits next to me and is touching and I consider it offensive and I sue them will you plead my case? :)



Or, more likely, most non-victims are undersensitive ... or just insensitive.

Why is that more likely? I'd say they are both equally likely.

And most sweeping dismissals of violence and its consequences are either malicious or ignorant.

Agreed. Luckily I've made no such sweeping dismissals.

And some people seem to have a general bias against the idea that women are actually victims of crime.

Some people do, yes. My objection was to a particular statement calling "poking" both "violent and aggressive." It was meant in the same sense that I think saying "rape is an act of violence" is, only whereas I would agree with the latter in a universal basis I definitely don't with the former.

It isn't always accurate or obvious evidence of intent. But behavior generally has been considered evidence of intent since the dawn of time.

This is a case of interpretation of behavior however, an act may be an act but the intent behind it is always in question. For example, intending to cause injury? Through poking? Not so clear cut to me.

And thousands upon thousands of people go to prison after being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a certain intent evidenced by their behavior.

Yes, and also people have gone to prison after being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt - perhaps dying in prison or through execution too - only to have turned out to be totally innocent. The law, and particularly jurors, are not infallible measures of truth.

There, when people are not insulting me I'm a lot nicer. :)

Though still not sensitive.

I probably wouldn't, either. But I accept that it's a double standard I have. I recognize that, ideally, I wouldn't treat a woman any different to how I'd treat a man with the same physical ability.

And, I think having the "I would never hit a woman. Ever." attitude really does disservice, as it's not stating, but does imply to some people that it's more acceptable for a woman to hit a man than it is for a man to hit a woman. After all, we tell women (rightly so!) that they should defend themselves and not tolerate abuse. But we then tell men "Don't you ever go hitting a woman. Ever."(Except when in serious physical danger...)
After a bit of thinking last night, I suppose I DO need to make a couple of caviats:

(1) Criminals - A Predator is a Predator, whether a Lion or Lioness. A Predator that attempts to prey on me will always have 3 and only 3 options: Flight, Capture or Death.

(2) Soldiers - A Soldier is a Soldier. You wear the uniform and tote the gun you are part of the game. Surrender or Fight.

(3) Men have a historical/biological thing about what I call 4FD - "Friendly Fighting For Fun and Dominance" - which has nothing to do with anger or an actual attempt at causing lasting injury. Women (historically) do this with Words. Where I might give a male a slug on the arm, I wouldn't do that to a woman - even to one of the same size/capacity - unless under caviat #2 in substantially similar combat jobs... (Hi Vasquez...)

No, she didn't. High court nixes restraining-order suits (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.restraining.orders.ap/) And I'm pissed. Scalia is an asshole.
This is why people have the Right to adequate means of Self Defense.

Unless you get a 24/7 Cop/Bodyguard there is NO practical way that a non incarcerated person can be "prevented" from violating a restraining order. How can the Police be held liable for that? Are you willing to pay for 24/7 protection of every person holding a restraining order or to imprison - without trial - every subject of a restraining order?

The best "restraining order" there is is the "restraint" the guy feels when he realizes the next time he gets within range he could very well end up dead.

The stats for domestic abuse towards women are staggering, and vastly outnumber the stats of woman on man abuse in relationships. It's still a big problem in every nation on earth...but the second you bring it up, some men get angry about the topic and try to say that it's overblown, is total bullshit, or shouldn't be such an issue...

...any insights into why this is?

Denial. Nobody likes to think they share any traits whatsoever with the foulest scum-sucking cowards known to man.

No, she didn't. High court nixes restraining-order suits (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/27/scotus.restraining.orders.ap/)

And I'm pissed.

Scalia is an asshole.

It's consistent with prior rulings, Cat, you know that, you've even quoted them before (in the multitude of Gun-control threads...).

50,000 battered women, and I've been eating mine plain!LMAO

Dem, maybe it's just me, but when given a link to a particular "advocacy" site, I spend a little time drilling down from the Home Page into some of the rest of the stuff. IMO that's just basic research necessary for a good debate. The homepage of the site is clearly of Libertarian/Individualist bent - if somewhat anti-socialist. It seems to be more along the lines of "anti-Political-feminisim" than anti-feminisim.

My 2p anyway...

I do as well, if that advocacy site looks worth doing so.

However, this particular site came from Bozzy, a guy with a history of posting completely outrageous sites and stereotyping anyone who is female and doesn't want to be treated differently than men as a "feminazi". As such, I didn't really feel it was worth my time.

Generally, false imprisonment.

The name is misleading.

As a tort, false imprisonment is the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short. It can also be thought of as the intentional unlawful restraint of the physical liberty of another.

As a crime, it would depend on the statute. Under common law, false imprisonment consisents in the unlawful detention of the person of anotehr, for any length of time, whereby he/she is deprived of his personal liberty. Under the Model Penal Code, it is a misdemeanor to knowingly restrain another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially with his/her liberty.

(I couldn't remember the definition for certain off the top of my head, so you got the full Black's Law Dictionary answer. :D )

Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for. As you learned from me before I have a pretty decent knowledge of the law, but I'm a little loose with the specifics. This is not a problem you have and likely explains your occupation. Thanks again for your help.

maybe you missed this part - You had to read to the second sentence.

"University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses. "

Mentioning something is linking to it?

Ok, gotcha.

Sugar, Youve participated in both threads simultaniously, there is no reason for me to seperate the discussion at this point.

I posted a single reply in the other thread basically as a joke. I wouldn't really call that participating.

I missed the part that says violence against women is statistically more significant. AFIK it seems to be saying that the flaw of the whole point is that it is NOT.

The vast majority of studies suggest that it is, at least violence to the point of needing treatment. Could they be wrong? Certainly. That is why I made a point of presenting it as a possibility.

As for the rest, I agree, however violence against men has been institutionalized and accepted much too far. For one easy example, take a look at most video games, TV shows, cartoons and movies. Violence against men is depicted far more often than women with considerable less regard.

Most of that is man-on-man violence, but yes, it is depicted far more often. Violence in general is depicted way too much, and seems to be far too accepted in many parts of culture. Of course, at the same time, I'm not going to claim that we should ban all violent video games - some of them are a damn good way to vent aggression, so long as you remember it's just in the game.

NOW is not only the most vocal group (however you measure 'vocal') but also the largest, most polotically active and recognized. Thought I do agree with you about....

It may be the most politically active cohesive group, but I would argue that many feminists are personally politically active, most of them outside of NOW.

I suspect you to be in the minority there, though I would like very much for you to expand on this subject. What in particular? Why? How does your view differ from them? How is it different from mine? Who is it most similar to?

NOW, although they seem to have been moving away from it somewhat, often tends to attempt to remove choice from women just as choice was removed from them in the past. While past generations thought that the choice of a woman to have a full-time career outside the home was unacceptable, NOW tends to give the impression that they find the opposite choice - that of a stay-at-home mom, to be unacceptable.

In a world where we are fighting for everyone to be able to live their lives, it seems a bit counterproductive to block off choices just because they aren't the ones you find personally attractive, doesn't it?

Sorry, you were the one who brought it up.

You were the one trying to pigeon-hole me into the neat little stereotype you like to shove all feminists into.

I really like how Cat completely refuted Bozzy's 'argument' in the other thread...so Bozzy ran over to this one to continue his same argument. Cat's rebuttal cut and pastey forthcoming...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102

Feminists want you to believe their propaganda without question. Failure to accept their dogma without question can result in vicious retribution.

LOL

Do packs of wild feminists beat you up for posting crap like this?

I love the irony of you complaining about "dogma without question" and then your primary argument in the thread is "read my four links!."

Sorry, some of us are critical thinkers and recognize your bullshit.

Fortunately there are a few brave enough to stand up to their juggernaught. Here are a few, including some infor from Warrenn Farrell, who has been elected three times to the board of directors of the National Organization of Women - that is, until he dared suggest that men have rights too.


Wrong.

Farrell was briefly a member and on the board of directors of one local chapter of NOW in the early 1970s. He left NOW voluntarily to pursue his own theories -- prior to his publishing anything on men's rights.

Farrell has some interesting and occasionally valid things to say. But he is also a notorious crank, with many bizarre views (such as on incest and date rape.) If you are going to appeal to Farrell's alleged authority, I'll be forced to expose him. I suggest you not persist in either that fallacy or tactical error.

Share your thoughts; (And, as an added game, lets see how many posts it takes before some feminist thug suggest in crude or vulgar language I am anti-female for daring to not blindly accept the radical faminist core lies.)


Pot, meet Kettle.

You call feminists names and then suggest they may *gasp* dare to fall for your baiting.

I call you a misogynist because of your many rants against women and gender equality. And we'll see who spreads lies.

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduct...525roberts.html

"A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."


ROTFLASTC

"a number of years ago" = 1978??!!

Real feminists don't deny that men are also victims of domestic violence. And women can be perpetrators. But fake feminists and other anti-feminists try to deny the reality of domestic violence at all and flatly lie about the true statistics.

The conclusions you draw (or the hack you quote draws) from this "study" and other similar research has been thoroughly discredited. In fact, the authors of many of these studies have denounced their misuse.

Here are a few examples of the refutation of this silly "conclusion":
The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome"
The Battered Husband Controversy.
Claims About Husband Battering.
Four Variations of Family Violence: A Review of Sociological Research.
Battered Men? Battered Facts
Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales.
The Myth Of 'Battered Men': Men and Women Are Not Equally Abusive (Critiques of the Conflict Tactic Scales).

(BTW, am I going to be forced to expose Wendy McElroy, ifeminists, and the so-called Independent Institute as well? Have you no decent sources?)

One man battered every 14 seconds!


Pathetic.

An old "article" from a self-proclaimed "group of men's activists" that mainly relies on recycled bad information. Its "citations" are primarily to editorials by Farrell and a couple others -- misreporting studies in ways denounced by the authors of the studies themselves! Nice.

http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."


And this is relevant because ..... ?

And this has what to do with feminism? Nothing.

To the contrary, it expressly says the pressures of male stereotypical roles and peer pressure cause high rates of suicide. Good thing feminists are fighting those stereotypes! Hurray for feminists!

(Another dated article by Farrell here. At least these 2 sentences are based on actual statistics.)

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news...les.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."


Again, this is relevant because ... ?

This is the fault of feminists because ... ?

And, again, what a pathetic source. An old editorial from a college newspaper written by a self-proclaimed mens' activist who relies heavily on ... (guess who?) ... Farrell.

I think it is clear who is spreading false propaganda and lies, but I'll post some real stastics in my next post.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))

*The US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm) (February 2003) reports that women were 85% of the victims of intimate violence (other than murder) in 2001. Previously (October 2001), the Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm) had also reported that "Women accounted for 85% of the victims from among the more than 790,000 victims of intimate violence in 1999".

*In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm)) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

*The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

*According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."

*The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)

Among more statistics (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html):
*as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
(A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. )

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).

Note: I cited objective, reliable sources with no feminist agenda. Do I really need to continue or is this sufficient?

You know what I prefer about physical contests. People generally know when they've been bested and give up. On NS though, there will always be people like you who will continue on no matter how overmatched they are or how indefensible their position. And if you can just be more stubborn than everyone who disagrees with you, you'll consider that a victory, right?

"immediate offensive physical contact." So, poking is assault, is that what you are saying, because it is physical contact, and immediate, and considered offensive?

This is all so very open to multiple interpretations.

Yes, poking is assault under the circumstances described in this thread over and over. I know you know the difference between someone poking you in the chest maliciously and the way they poke the pillsbury doughboy in commercials. As has been stated over and over, punching someone can be in fun and can be considered to be fully acceptable under the law but if it's done in anger, it's clearly assault, battery, violent and aggressive. The same is true of poking even if it generally causes less damage. I'm well aware that you know the difference are intentionally ignoring it.

I'll tell you what, if it's so open to interpretations let's conduct an experiment. The next time you see a cop in a restaurant you go up to him and sit right next to him. Then when he only asks you to leave (and that's almost guaranteed all he'll do) you poke him in the chest. See which one gets you arrested.

Not at all, many people are offended by the physical contact involved for personal bubble invaders. And if poking someone is assault, maybe it's not such a strawman after all. If someone sits next to me and is touching and I consider it offensive and I sue them will you plead my case? :)

And if you are in a place where you have the reasonable expectation of people not touching you, you would have every right to tell them that what might normally be a reasonable action is offensive to you. If they continue to ignore your rights to your person then you would have a case. The exception is in a place where you have reasonably given up the right to your personal space, a concert or in an airplane. Basically, if there is a crowd or an empty seat right next to you then you have very little argument there. Much like poking, it depends on the circumstances.

Some people do, yes. My objection was to a particular statement calling "poking" both "violent and aggressive." It was meant in the same sense that I think saying "rape is an act of violence" is, only whereas I would agree with the latter in a universal basis I definitely don't with the former.

And you are well aware that I didn't make the statement on a universal basis. It was made in context you choose to ignore. Oddly, roughly a dozen NSers have managed to come through here and find no problem with my statement. Are they more capable of seeing context or is it that you just choose to ignore the context?

This is a case of interpretation of behavior however, an act may be an act but the intent behind it is always in question. For example, intending to cause injury? Through poking? Not so clear cut to me.

Again, feel free to poke the next policeman you see in the chest. See how they interpret it.

Yes, and also people have gone to prison after being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt - perhaps dying in prison or through execution too - only to have turned out to be totally innocent. The law, and particularly jurors, are not infallible measures of truth.

I love this argument. Because some jurors make mistakes then you can never use a court case in argument? We are talking about assault which is a crime that very much has to do with how the majority of people would view an act. For example, if the majority of people would consider it reasonable and within my rights for me to sit right next to you on a bench in a waiting room then the act would not be considered a crime. However, most people would consider it unreasonable and not within my rights to poke you in the chest. That's pretty much how things become crimes. Welcome to society.

Now would you like to continue this ridiculous argument because I enjoy doing this. Obviously, it makes me look stubborn (everyone here knows I'm stubborn) and it makes you look like you're either intentionally ignorant of the social contract or accidentally ignorant of the social contract. Either way, you don't come out looking very good. Your call.

All men should respect women, it is chivalry.

All men should respect women, it is chivalry.

It works both ways. men should respect women and women should respect men.

It works both ways. men should respect women and women should respect men.

People should respect people. =)

Poking, even in anger, is not "aggressively violent." That you think so shows a laughable ignorance of the nature of violence. Laughable, if it weren't so insulting to actual victims of real violence and aggression.

You make the argument because the scale is smaller it insulting to victims of more agregious abuse.

Just because some men set women on fire doesn't mean that a woman who only gets smacked around on occasion isn't physically abused and to say otherwise is insulting to those actual victims of violence and aggression.

I showed that you cannot in fact make that argument using an ANALOGY. A strawman is when I change your argument. I used an analogy to show that it really doesn't apply.

Strawman. Next?

Strawman - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Oddly, somehow the law and Webster's dictionary agree with me.
Appeal to authority. Next?

I showed you that poking someone in the way described is a crime and constitutes violence and aggression according to the dictionary and you call this an Appeal to Authority. Appeal to Authority only applies if what I appeal to is not, in fact, an authority on the subject. The dictionary is an authority on the definiton of words and legal statutes are an authority on law. Next?

Appeal to Authority - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Your statement is intentionally ignorant. The context is available to you and it is clear I am talking about poking in anger. I assumed you could read the thread. Since you clearly can't I won't bother to admonish you. I will just continue to have reasonable discussions with those who can.
Saying I'm incapable of reasonable discourse is an ad hominem, nice try though..

I clearly stated that I would continue to have reasonable discourse with those who can and will read the thread, since context is important. While this is insulting, it is clearly not an ad hominem. Ad Hominems use insults to falsify a claim. I used the FACT that you ignored the context of the statement to falsify your claim and then I insulted you for ignoring the context. Your statement was, in fact, a strawman. Next?

Ad hominem - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

You know what I prefer about physical contests. People generally know when they've been bested and give up. On NS though, there will always be people like you who will continue on no matter how overmatched they are or how indefensible their position. And if you can just be more stubborn than everyone who disagrees with you, you'll consider that a victory, right?

Wow, what a contrived way of saying "I'm totally right, you should just give up cuz I'm right, and in no way is my statement dripping with irony."

Should I even post more? I think we're getting nowhere, and if YOU can just be more stubborn YOU will count it a victory eh? ;)


Yes, poking is assault under the circumstances described in this thread over and over.

Now at last you seem to back down from your universal "Poking is aggressive and hostile" hypothesis. At least now you're bothering to clarify it as "under the circumstances." Good for you! It takes humility to admit when your position was untenable, even if indirectly admitting.


I'll tell you what, if it's so open to interpretations let's conduct an experiment. The next time you see a cop in a restaurant you go up to him and sit right next to him. Then when he only asks you to leave (and that's almost guaranteed all he'll do) you poke him in the chest. See which one gets you arrested.

Well, I wasn't saying that poking someone would never get you arrested, was I? What a lovely strawman you've built. I may do this and then ask whether the cops thinks it's violent and aggressive. I bet he may not use such terms, and if he does it would be from the issue of me not leaving when he asked, not that my finger poked him.


And you are well aware that I didn't make the statement on a universal basis. It was made in context you choose to ignore. Oddly, roughly a dozen NSers have managed to come through here and find no problem with my statement. Are they more capable of seeing context or is it that you just choose to ignore the context?

I was aware of no such thing, especially as you chose to defend it under the same sense of universality you originally typed it out. And this is a disguised appeal to popularity here. That no one else chooses to respond to what I choose to has no real bearing on much if anything to me.


Again, feel free to poke the next policeman you see in the chest. See how they interpret it.

I'm fairly sure he won't say that I'm trying to injure him and then sue for assault and battery. Unless maybe he's an abuse victim who's oversensitized.


I love this argument. Because some jurors make mistakes then you can never use a court case in argument? We are talking about assault which is a crime that very much has to do with how the majority of people would view an act. For example, if the majority of people would consider it reasonable and within my rights for me to sit right next to you on a bench in a waiting room then the act would not be considered a crime. However, most people would consider it unreasonable and not within my rights to poke you in the chest. That's pretty much how things become crimes. Welcome to society.

My statement was "The law, and particularly jurors, are not infallible measures of truth." You can diminish the importance of people who are wrongly convicted and sentenced all you like but my statement stands all the same.

Now would you like to continue this ridiculous argument because I enjoy doing this. Obviously, it makes me look stubborn (everyone here knows I'm stubborn) and it makes you look like you're either intentionally ignorant of the social contract or accidentally ignorant of the social contract. Either way, you don't come out looking very good. Your call.

I'm not here to "look very good."

Don't ask ME whether I want to continue the argument - I was responding to Cat Tribe's post, and had pretty much dismissed you as too stubborn, too unreasonable, too full of fallacies and wasn't going to bother addressing you anymore. But - I am wrong on one of those counts since you did in fact back down from your earlier position. It's too bad you can't resist your temptation to throw around the "you're ignorant" thing still.

Now at last you seem to back down from your universal "Poking is aggressive and hostile" hypothesis. At least now you're bothering to clarify it as "under the circumstances." Good for you! It takes humility to admit when your position was untenable, even if indirectly admitting.

He assaulted her first and this fact cannot be ignored. You don't have the right to lay hands on anyone and you should expect that if you do, you may find your end on the business end of a fist. I'm not supporting escalating violence but you make it sound like the man was just yelling at her. Poking is a violently aggressive act.

Poking is a violently aggressive act.

Holy shit! I'd hate to think what your opinion of shaking hands would be... or tickling.

It depends how hard poking is... you really cant make a blanket statement like that, its ridiculous. I mean just re-read it...
Here is where you start the argument. Let's see how long it takes me to point out that this was said in context and that I was talking about poking in anger. Let's read my reply to this post. That reply, by the way, was seven pages and sixteen hours ago.

How about you look up the word context? Yes, poking can be friendly. Much like hiting can be friendly. Here it was a violently aggressive act done in anger. How about you read the actual statements in context so we can have a conversation instead a bunch of ridiculous statements like you made above?

Wow, seems like the only universal statement was made by you, by twisting my words.

Here is what we are really arguing about -
Poking, even in anger, is not "aggressively violent."

Nice try and pretending like I never qualified my statement and that the argument you are making isn't about poking someone in anger.

Generally, misrepresenting someone's statements on a forum is a bad idea as quoting is so easy to do. These tactics might work when you're arguing elsewhere, but here you have to bring a tighter game and at least a remotely reasonable premise to base that game on.

Ay. Aside from trying to prove each other's method of arguing is wrong, what is your point? Could you sum it up in a sentence PLEASE!!!???

Ay. Aside from trying to prove each other's method of arguing is wrong, what is your point? Could you sum it up in a sentence PLEASE!!!???

Everybody thinks this is about me defending my statement about poking. It's not. As I stated last night, there is a fierce problem among people to accept that you NEVER have the right to lay hands on another person unless they think it is okay or you are forced to defend yourself or others. It doesn't matter if it is grabbing someone you're arguing with by the wrist, or poking them in the chest, or pushing them around, or punching them in the face. They are all acts of aggression and violence by the definition of the words. They are all illegal acts under law. They are all abusive. And they are all unacceptable.

You NEVER have the right to lay hands on another person unless they think it is okay or you are forced to defend yourself or others.
Alright...I'm picking this ONE sentence as the basis of your argument. Is that okay?

Next!

I really like how Cat completely refuted Bozzy's 'argument' in the other thread...so Bozzy ran over to this one to continue his same argument. Cat's rebuttal cut and pastey forthcoming...


:D Sweetness of a deal.

Alright...I'm picking this ONE sentence as the basis of your argument. Is that okay?

Next!

See, but it doesn't cover it. You would be surprised at how many people act like they've never abused a girlfriend or hit a woman but think it's okay to grab them when they are upset or to poke them in the chest (why is that the favorite move of people who are bigger than the person they are talking to?). I think it's specifically one of the problems is that it starts people down the road of escalating violence.

"What are you talking about? I didn't hit her. I only poked her in the chest."

Ay. Aside from trying to prove each other's method of arguing is wrong, what is your point? Could you sum it up in a sentence PLEASE!!!???

For me it's about the classification of "poking" as "violent and aggressive."

Dictionary provides no answers (despite being claimed as agreeing with Jocabia, I can also find definitions to agree with me too), so it's all about interpretation.

The law might provide answers but they are definitely open to interpretation as well - specifically the interpretation of a judge or 12 jurors.

So? There is really no way of us settling this choice of classification.

For me it's about the classification of "poking" as "violent and aggressive."

Dictionary provides no answers (despite being claimed as agreeing with Jocabia, I can also find definitions to agree with me too), so it's all about interpretation.

The law might provide answers but they are definitely open to interpretation as well - specifically the interpretation of a judge or 12 jurors.

So? There is really no way of us settling this choice of classification.

Really you can find a definition that shows that poking in anger is not violent or aggressive? Let's see you pull that rabbit out of your hat.

It's easily settled by the fact that the law considers the type of poking we have been discussing to be an illegal act. You might find a judge or 12 jurors that disagree on a specific case, but good luck finding a legal expert that says you have not violated the rights of another person by poking them in the chest during an argument. Good luck finding a legal expert that says you have not violated the law by poking another person in the chest during an argument. Basically, we all know there are authorities on such matters. You just choose to pretend those authorities don't exist. This hardly makes your case.

People should respect people. =)


A very nice and pleasant thought but it isn't going to happen and that is the real shame.

Really you can find a definition that shows that poking in anger is not violent or aggressive? Let's see you pull that rabbit out of your hat.
[/quote]

It depends on the meaning of violence and aggression chosen does it not? Not to mention the meanings of the words used in the definitions. I'm not going to bother, since I also have to choose which dictionary to look it up in, and I'm not one to make an appeal to authority as you are.


It's easily settled by the fact that the law considers the type of poking we have been discussing to be an illegal act.

Oh, except illegal does not mean violent and aggressive, so this is a strawman.

You might find a judge or 12 jurors that disagree on a specific case, but good luck finding a legal expert that says you have not violated the rights of another person by poking them in the chest during an argument. Good luck finding a legal expert that says you have not violated the law by poking another person in the chest during an argument. Basically, we all know there are authorities on such matters. You just choose to pretend those authorities don't exist. This hardly makes your case.

I choose to 'pretend' the authorities aren't here arguing, and it's just you and I.

And as my argument was not about the legal rights or violation thereof, nor am I making a legal case, nor even necessarily arguing within the contexts of law, this is all a strawman plus yet another appeal to authority.

As I said this won't be settled.

This is tiresome. But then you yourself brought up the tactic of refusing to back down no matter what and then being able to chalk it up to a victory, yes? Not to mention, you've already made posts that show you're trying to "win" and to "beat" me at this. Kinda makes me think you're arguing just for the sake of "looking good," something else you've alluded to as somehow relevant.

It depends on the meaning of violence and aggression chosen does it not? Not to mention the meanings of the words used in the definitions. I'm not going to bother, since I also have to choose which dictionary to look it up in, and I'm not one to make an appeal to authority as you are.

An appeal to authority is logical when it's an actual authority. You should really read those links I posted. Choosing an alternate meaning to a word does not make all other meanings cease to exist. To prove a poke in the chest like the one BitchKitten was describing is not violent or aggressive, you would have to show it doesn't fit ANY definition of the word. It does fit the definitions so it is violent and aggressive.

Oh, except illegal does not mean violent and aggressive, so this is a strawman.

Unless the law we are talking about is specifically about violence and aggression like assault and battery laws are. You would find in many decisions made about assault and battery the words "violent" and "aggressive". Again, you should read the link on "strawman".

I choose to 'pretend' the authorities aren't here arguing, and it's just you and I.

And as my argument was not about the legal rights or violation thereof, nor am I making a legal case, nor even necessarily arguing within the contexts of law, this is all a strawman plus yet another appeal to authority.

You like to pretend that using an authority who is not here is somehow illogical. "Appeal to Authority" is when you appeal to someone who is not an authority, not when you appeal to an authority that is not you. I like to pretend that we are on the internet so reading about what these authorities think is available to us if we are not lazy. Oh, wait, we are on the internet and the opinions of these authorities are available to you. Nice try.

As I said this won't be settled.

This is tiresome. But then you yourself brought up the tactic of refusing to back down no matter what and then being able to chalk it up to a victory, yes? Not to mention, you've already made posts that show you're trying to "win" and to "beat" me at this. Kinda makes me think you're arguing just for the sake of "looking good," something else you've alluded to as somehow relevant.

Keep saying it won't be settled. It won't be settled if you do something as illogical as suggest that it's a bad idea to refer to authorities on the subject as, oh, I don't know, authorities on the subject. If you dismiss authorities well then I suspect nothing will ever be reasonably settled in your mind. Fortunately, we're not arguing IN your mind.

An appeal to authority is logical when it's an actual authority. You should really read those links I posted. Choosing an alternate meaning to a word does not make all other meanings cease to exist. To prove a poke in the chest like the one BitchKitten was describing is not violent or aggressive, you would have to show it doesn't fit ANY definition of the word. It does fit the definitions so it is violent and aggressive.

For me, when I discuss a word, I use one meaning at a time, not ANY definitions that can be found. I know I'm limiting like that, but bear with me. A lot CAN be defined as violent and aggressive that I do not! For instance, poking. ;)



Unless the law we are talking about is specifically about violence and aggression like assault and battery laws are. You would find in many decisions made about assault and battery the words "violent" and "aggressive". Again, you should read the link on "strawman".

No, the law is specifically about the legal definitions of violence and aggression. No one, or at least not me, is arguing that assault and battery are not violent in legal terms. It's a strawman, one of several you've constructed, and I notice you've got nothing to say on the ad hominem attempts to dismiss me totally (the 'your ignorant,' 'you've been beaten!' comments which are just so utterly persuasive.) Hmm, maybe your shit DOES stink!

You like to pretend that using an authority who is not here is somehow illogical. "Appeal to Authority" is when you appeal to someone who is not an authority, not when you appeal to an authority that is not you. I like to pretend that we are on the internet so reading about what these authorities think is available to us if we are not lazy. Oh, wait, we are on the internet and the opinions of these authorities are available to you. Nice try.

Opinions of people on THIS argument? So please cite me your internet source where The Authority agrees with Jocabia's Argument in this thread. And remind me to care about the validity of "sources" more than I do, too.

Keep saying it won't be settled. It won't be settled if you do something as illogical as suggest that it's a bad idea to refer to authorities on the subject as, oh, I don't know, authorities on the subject. If you dismiss authorities well then I suspect nothing will ever be reasonably settled in your mind. Fortunately, we're not arguing IN your mind.

It won't be settled until you can convince everyone in the universe of the unquestionable truth of your argument. :) Or at least, until you can convince me... if that was what you were after, you should never have begun by asserting that I'm ignorant.

Hell, I might be able to define your own behavior as aggressively violent.

The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.

I'd say you're fairly hostile. You even alluded to how much you wished it was a physical argument in which case I would "know I was beaten." Wow! Therefore you are aggressive...

Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

Violence! Yes, it is violent to distort meaning. I guess we've BOTH been violent then. Though you would of course admit no such error on your own part, it is nonetheless true.

Someone should take us off to prison, no?

So yes, you are correct in that the dictionary does include definitions which support your argument, just as it includes definitions which places this argument itself in the realm of "aggressively violent." I concede then that poking is aggressively violent, and so is this argument.

*kicks SB and Joc in the hiney, then abandons thread....*

*kicks SB and Joc in the hiney, then abandons thread....*

lol can we just say you both agree to disagree on the issue and leave it at that?

lol can we just say you both agree to disagree on the issue and leave it at that?

I'm fine with that.

Here is one for you how about the mother of my child who dumped me half through the pregnancy so she could back to her alcoholic wifebeating ex-husband. from what I have seen, either most women that are in those situations go back, or go the opposite and hate all men.

A very nice and pleasant thought but it isn't going to happen and that is the real shame.

A lot of things probably won't ever happen universally, but it doesn't stop those of us who care from trying. =)

Here is one for you how about the mother of my child who dumped me half through the pregnancy so she could back to her alcoholic wifebeating ex-husband. from what I have seen, either most women that are in those situations go back, or go the opposite and hate all men.

Co-dependency is a huge problem in these types of situations. One who is abused often becomes psychologically attached to that abuse and feels the need to make excuses for it, and for the abuser. It can be overcome, however. Many co-dependents who seek therapy realize what they are doing and get past it.

A lot of things probably won't ever happen universally, but it doesn't stop those of us who care from trying. =)

My thoughts exactly

For me, when I discuss a word, I use one meaning at a time, not ANY definitions that can be found. I know I'm limiting like that, but bear with me. A lot CAN be defined as violent and aggressive that I do not! For instance, poking. ;)

Since you are disagreeing with my use of the word, you have to show that I did not use it properly. I have shown clearly that I did according to the dictionary (an authority on the matter).

Opinions of people on THIS argument? So please cite me your internet source where The Authority agrees with Jocabia's Argument in this thread. And remind me to care about the validity of "sources" more than I do, too.

http://www.omh.state.ny.us/omhweb/forensic/manual/html/appendixb.htm

The simplest example is a battery; i.e., an intentional, unconsented touching of another person. A punch in the nose, a poke in the chest, unauthorized surgery, a cream pie in the face, are all if the contact is intentional, batteries and intentional torts.

http://www.dickinson.edu/departments/law/policy/JigsawTorture.pdf

The text allows for persons to "grab, poke in the chest, push lightly or place a wet towel or hood over a detainee's head" which would constitute assault under the UCMJ.

I'd say you're fairly hostile. You even alluded to how much you wished it was a physical argument in which case I would "know I was beaten." Wow! Therefore you are aggressive...

Ha. Did I actually say that? I said it was one of the aspects that makes a physical argument simpler than a verbal one. I said I wish you admit that you've failed to make your point. I wish you would just admit that you ignored context and tried to make a fallacious argument. You've eventually given in to the fact that you simply aren't going to be right and now you're just trying as hard as you can to not be wrong. Though I agree I've been aggressive.

Violence! Yes, it is violent to distort meaning. I guess we've BOTH been violent then. Though you would of course admit no such error on your own part, it is nonetheless true.

Ha. You're making up words. Can you show me the definition of violence that means to distort meaning? Simply claiming it is so doesn't make it so.

So yes, you are correct in that the dictionary does include definitions which support your argument, just as it includes definitions which places this argument itself in the realm of "aggressively violent." I concede then that poking is aggressively violent, and so is this argument.

Still waiting for you to actually show that our conversation is violent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9152434&postcount=296

Santa Barbara is not going to be fencing with you anymore...so can you just, as he has, agree to disagree for the time being? Please?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9152434&postcount=296

Santa Barbara is not going to be fencing with you anymore...so can you just, as he has, agree to disagree for the time being? Please?

Yeah, I was in the middle of building my post when he wrote that. Again, I take it so seriously because there is a big problem with people think that it somehow no big deal to poke, grab or push someone in anger. It is a big deal and it is very important that people recognize that these are violent acts.

A lot of things probably won't ever happen universally, but it doesn't stop those of us who care from trying. =)

The universal feeling of hope.
;)

The universal feeling of hope.
;)

Yep but without hope then why bother??

How come people take battered husband abuse so lightly?! :headbang:

It is a trade off really.

We give them phyiscal abuse

They give us mental abuse by talking too much.

Every woman should have a sandwich making quota for the day that must be meet beoa95y 9a.

see look at that i just got hit and none of you care that im being abused...

How come people take battered husband abuse so lightly?! :headbang:

It is a trade off really.

We give them phyiscal abuse

They give us mental abuse by talking too much.

Every woman should have a sandwich making quota for the day that must be meet beoa95y 9a.

see look at that i just got hit and none of you care that im being abused...

MILITARISTIC CYBORGS, why did you have to grave-dig this thread?

So we could hear more of the above?

uhh cat tribe that wasn't me. suggest you talk to gulf about gravedigging.You quoted him/her :confused:

Secondly I'm probably not going to be posting back here anyways. I have other threads to take care of