"Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

[ramses]

I have no doubt

His restraint is truly admirable, and I'm glad the response is overwhelmingly in this guy's favour.

It's just so annoying that many cases of supposed police brutality towards a woman turns out to be caused by her either kicking or grabbing their nuts or attacking them physically in other way. They're just so sure they can get away with it that they do it. Even if they get beaten afterwards they still win in the end as they press charges against police officers as soon as the media cover it.

Pretty much any girl can attack you for no apparent reason, get away with it and you're forked because the assumption will be that you must have attacked her or something

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/techn ... obots.html

OMG it has begun

Where's BTB when you need Terminator music in the background??

I beg to differ. It seems in the US, it is the POLICE who "attack you for no apparent reason, get away with it and you're forked because the assumption will be that you must have attacked [them] or something"

http://benswann.com/cops-spray-womans-v ... ug-arrest/

This person faced disciplinary action at work, still has their job, and is only facing a civil suit. As from my point of view, any LEO (or government employee for that matter) I meet now has a significantly higher burden before I will be convinced they are not a sack of shit.

[Ragnarok]

Christmas is a feminist conspiracy.

So does that mean it's time to burn down society again?

:tongue3:

[POLAND_SPUD]

I beg to differ. It seems in the US, it is the POLICE who "attack you for no apparent reason, get away with it and you're forked because the assumption will be that you must have attacked [them] or something"

http://benswann.com/cops-spray-womans-v ... ug-arrest/

Ohh come on... You're trying to tell me that more women get abused than men ??

EDIT
LOL dude they weren't men... both of the officers were women

http://www.ibtimes.com/marlene-tapia-ne ... llo-county
Argument FAIL

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Christmas is a feminist conspiracy.

So does that mean it's time to burn down society again?

Ha! I never said it was a feminist conspiracy. If anything, it is the capitalist patriarchy exploiting women's inherent materialism, dragging their menfolk along with them

LOL dude they weren't men... both of the officers were women

Damn.

[ramses]

I beg to differ. It seems in the US, it is the POLICE who "attack you for no apparent reason, get away with it and you're forked because the assumption will be that you must have attacked [them] or something"

http://benswann.com/cops-spray-womans-v ... ug-arrest/

Ohh come on... You're trying to tell me that more women get abused than men ??

EDIT
LOL dude they weren't men... both of the officers were women

http://www.ibtimes.com/marlene-tapia-ne ... llo-county
Argument FAIL

Not sure what you're insinuating. Are you saying it is acceptable for a LEO to mace the genitals of a detainee who is not resisting, but only as long as they are both female?

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

Not sure what you're insinuating. Are you saying it is acceptable for a LEO to mace the genitals of a detainee who is not resisting, but only as long as they are both female?

I think POLAND's point was that in the case of a male/femalte altercation, it is normally the man who is assumed to be at fault. Since your example was woman vs woman, it does not address the point he was trying to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect

edit: we do this for fun, in Syria spudding is dead serious:

[Ragnarok]

I didn't get the idea it was meant to; I saw it more of a segue than an argument.

Sort of "If you think that's bad... this is worse".

If anything, it is the capitalist patriarchy

Ah, so it's the men's fault. Let's burn down society anyway! :bounce:

I think POLAND's point was that in the case of a male/female altercation, it is normally the man who is assumed to be at fault.

It's not exactly true to "innocent until proven guilty" rules, but that's an ideal that's not true in practice. (Law enforcement is generally allowed to take certain measures when they have suspicion or likelihood of a crime).

Certainly there are cases of men suffering domestic violence but, depending on the study, it's considered about two to three times more likely for women to suffer it (with a similar breakdown on actual deaths), and women are considerably more likely to actually report or seek help for cases. (If men reported it more often, rather than worrying about their emasculation, the assumption would be weakened).

Now, I can't (and won't) say for certain what the underlying reasons why women are more likely to suffer violence are. It could be men having opinions of "being in charge" or even ownership of their partner. It could just be that men are generally more violent.
Likely, it's a hybrid (no, not that sort) that depends on the case.

Certainly, it's a case where the law favours women over men. But it does have underlying reasons in actual cases, which can be related to what men think about women (and, in this case, not in the positive "Women are wonderful" way).

[velocity3x]

Now, I can't (and won't) say for certain what the underlying reasons why women are more likely to suffer violence are.

Just a guess but...Perhaps it's because some of them act like invincible, violent, bigmouth A.. holes because they know the law will protect them. I could be wrong.

[Ragnarok]

I draw the line at a suggestion that's a valid excuse for domestic violence.

Any person saying anything like "I wouldn't do this if you weren't such a bad wife/girlfriend" (or equally, "husband/boyfriend") - even if they ARE a bad partner - to justify brutality is a coward hiding behind a defence flimsier than wet cardboard.

A bad partner is a reason to move on, not a reason to get violent.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

I draw the line at a suggestion that's a valid excuse for domestic violence.

It's not an excuse.

Bill Burr makes the point though.

[youtube][/youtube]

Look, I understand hitting a woman is a bad thing, okay.

How come you can’t f***in’ ask questions? I just don’t understand.

Like if I get bit by a rattlesnake, wouldn’t you guys have some questions, all right?

"How did it happen? Did you not see it? Were you f***in’ with it?

How did a snake get so mad, it almost killed you?"

A woman's right to provoke should not be protected. There should be consequences for their actions.

How's this for a bit of femminist humour:

[velocity3x]

I draw the line at a suggestion that's a valid excuse for domestic violence.

It's not an "valid excuse" for violence against women, but it is a valid observation as to why some women are on the receiving ending end of violence. I think it's common for most young boys to perceive all women as possessing the virtue and character of Mary Poppins. When they mature into men and gain some experience in life, they find that some women, behind close doors, like to verbally and physically attack men. Mary Poppins they are not.

[Ragnarok]

A woman's right to provoke should not be protected.

People do have a right to be arseholes - it's called free speech, and there's any number of people who seek to exploit it.
Being an annoying jerk is no crime, and even if were it so, it would not be within the powers of the slighted individual to decide the sentencing.

it is a valid observation as to why some women are on the receiving ending end of violence.

If a woman is an arsehole, that's her choice. If I hit her, that's my choice. You can't remove that responsibility from this.

But whatever the reason or "reason", it does not invalidate the statistics. It is more often men beating up women than the other way around. The law does sometimes have to make some assumptions if it's going to protect people.

~~~~~

Can I also say, I think you guys mistake my use of the word "feminism" for "women have the sun shining out of their arse".

Believing in equality doesn't mean I have to like all my equals.

[POLAND_SPUD]

People do have a right to be arseholes - it's called free speech, and there's any number of people who seek to exploit it.
Being an annoying jerk is no crime, and even if were it so, it would not be within the powers of the slighted individual to decide the sentencing.

Sure... though somehow wimin are allowed to smack a guy who's an arsehole and get away with it. If you fight back or merely stop her from beating you - you're fckt. You're supposed to stand her and let her beat you up. On the other hand, if a guy smacks a bitchy girl who walks all over him he's labelled as an aggressive maniac

Bill Burr makes the point though.

Awesome. This one is even better...
[youtube][/youtube]

When they mature into men and gain some experience in life, they find that some women, behind close doors, like to verbally and physically attack men. Mary Poppins they are not.

Probably the best one sentence advice you can give anyone on women...
[youtube][/youtube]

[MrCrowley]

Can I also say, I think you guys mistake my use of the word "feminism" for "women have the sun shining out of their arse".

Believing in equality doesn't mean I have to like all my equals.

I would suggest discontinuing discussion of this topic, it's waste of time with these guys

There are many pages of this thread devoted to this topic, it would pop up every few weeks and then die out after a couple of days. I've spent way too long trying to demonstrate that one doesn't have to choose between radical feminism and misogyny and that a middle ground does exist.

[jackssmirkingrevenge]

I've spent way too long trying to demonstrate that one doesn't have to choose between radical feminism and misogyny and that a middle ground does exist.

It might exist for you, I haven't found it myself

People do have a right to be arseholes - it's called free speech, and there's any number of people who seek to exploit it.
Being an annoying jerk is no crime, and even if were it so, it would not be within the powers of the slighted individual to decide the sentencing.

Yes, but.

As a man, know that if I am too much of an arsehole, I will suffer consequences. Aware of this, I will tend to be less of an arsehole.

If a woman knows that she can be a b;tch and suffer no consequences, then she has no reason to moderate her behavior.

It's the same with children. Who is likely to behave better, a child allowed to do whatever it likes or a child that faces the threat of discipline?

If a woman is an arsehole, that's her choice. If I hit her, that's my choice. You can't remove that responsibility from this.

Yes, but. Nobody here is saying that hitting a woman is justified. Bruises on a woman's face can be seen, scars in a man's head are not as apparent. Louis CK has a good piece on the different levels which men and women operate:

[youtube][/youtube]

Women are non-violent, but they will sh;t inside of your heart