There is a history in many cultures of male against female violence, and often with fatal results. Women's refuges are a stain on how many men abuse women. Yet we have threads like this that are blithely unaware of the pervasiveness of that abuse and even invite fantasizing about it.
And yet you are happy to come on here daily, and accuse a young woman, Parker Valby, of doping. You are a hypocrite.
What a stupid and irrelevant observation. You equate physical violence against women with discussion of doping issues in sport, which is permitted on this site (and there are quite a few posters who are openly sceptical of the runner you mention). There isn't anything much dumber than a blind running fan.
And yet you are happy to come on here daily, and accuse a young woman, Parker Valby, of doping. You are a hypocrite.
What a stupid and irrelevant observation. You equate physical violence against women with discussion of doping issues in sport, which is permitted on this site (and there are quite a few posters who are openly sceptical of the runner you mention). There isn't anything much dumber than a blind running fan.
All forms of violence are bad. You’ve just committed verbal violence against yuyo.
Unsubstantiated accusations of doping are also a form of violence because they damage a runner’s reputation.
it seems like you were either just wildly imprecise in your first statement or are moving the goalpost or backpedaling.
You referred only to “a stranger” and “might” before, with no qualifiers like “very large” or “winding up.”
When I said it “depends” on the significance of the threat, I can imagine scenarios similar to what you’re describing that involve a significant threat, one that would require force to counteract.
And based on your earlier statement, I can also imagine a situation where a guy got punched by somebody who didn’t actually pose a real threat, still punched back to make himself feel better, and told himself afterwards that he was only defending himself.
Believe me, I am not backpedaling on a position that is simultaneously ethical, legal, and righteous.
If I am attacked by a stranger, in public with witnesses, and it is in my interest to protect myself, I could certainly exercise my right to self defense.
Does her size come into play? Sure. So does her aggressiveness, viciousness, intent to injure, and so on. But that would also be true if it was a man. What is happening in the moment would matter.
If, as another poster suggested, it was the equivalent of a ten-year-old, then no, I'm sure I would not hit that person.
We could reduce it to this question: Is there ANY circumstance in which you would exercise your legal and ethical right to defend yourself?
For me, yes there are situations in which I would. I find it fascinating if anyone else would claim that they would not. Frankly, I don't believe them. If someone is going to thrash all of the teeth out of your head, you should defend yourself.
You're a ch0de, dude. Except for a vanishingly small percentage of women, I (even at 50+) and bigger, stronger, faster than an average woman. The average man is always going to be bigger, stronger, faster.
There are dozens of ways to fend off an attack without hitting a woman. You will have longer arms -- push her away or stiff arm her. If she keeps coming, put you arm out and push her to the ground. If she tries to hit you, use your larger size and greater strength to deflect the blow. If you have to, close quarters and pin her arms back.
I could go on and on. Your wet dream fantasy of punching a woman because you're "equal" is disgusting.
And yet you are happy to come on here daily, and accuse a young woman, Parker Valby, of doping. You are a hypocrite.
What a stupid and irrelevant observation. You equate physical violence against women with discussion of doping issues in sport, which is permitted on this site (and there are quite a few posters who are openly sceptical of the runner you mention). There isn't anything much dumber than a blind running fan.
What is stupid is your constant cyberbullying. And the fact that you don't think psychological violence is a thing. You don't discuss doping issues regarding Parker Valby. You accuse her of doping. Hypocrite.
Believe me, I am not backpedaling on a position that is simultaneously ethical, legal, and righteous.
If I am attacked by a stranger, in public with witnesses, and it is in my interest to protect myself, I could certainly exercise my right to self defense.
Does her size come into play? Sure. So does her aggressiveness, viciousness, intent to injure, and so on. But that would also be true if it was a man. What is happening in the moment would matter.
If, as another poster suggested, it was the equivalent of a ten-year-old, then no, I'm sure I would not hit that person.
We could reduce it to this question: Is there ANY circumstance in which you would exercise your legal and ethical right to defend yourself?
For me, yes there are situations in which I would. I find it fascinating if anyone else would claim that they would not. Frankly, I don't believe them. If someone is going to thrash all of the teeth out of your head, you should defend yourself.
You're a ch0de, dude. Except for a vanishingly small percentage of women, I (even at 50+) and bigger, stronger, faster than an average woman. The average man is always going to be bigger, stronger, faster.
There are dozens of ways to fend off an attack without hitting a woman. You will have longer arms -- push her away or stiff arm her. If she keeps coming, put you arm out and push her to the ground. If she tries to hit you, use your larger size and greater strength to deflect the blow. If you have to, close quarters and pin her arms back.
I could go on and on. Your wet dream fantasy of punching a woman because you're "equal" is disgusting.
Aside from your first and last paragraphs, I appreciate your position. It is a fair and thoughtful response that reflects your perception of an ethical standard that I’m sure would be shared by many. In an ideal world a woman would never attack you, but if such an incident occurred, your reaction, as described, could be ideal.
Your first and final paragraphs, on the other hand, are lacking. It is an ethical discussion, and I have a position that is rooted in a clear right to self-preservation and is supported by law. I am entitled to that. In a debate about ethics, one would be best to not make personal attacks or to engage in name calling. You have ascribed to me a “fantasy of punching a woman.” I have no such thing. I am a peaceful person and see no realistic scenario in which I would hit anyone, let alone a woman, I have no desire to, and would not define my masculinity by such a scenario.
However, to the question is there any circumstance in which I could punch a woman, I will stand by a position that if it is that or have my teeth knocked out, I could do so.
What a stupid and irrelevant observation. You equate physical violence against women with discussion of doping issues in sport, which is permitted on this site (and there are quite a few posters who are openly sceptical of the runner you mention). There isn't anything much dumber than a blind running fan.
All forms of violence are bad. You’ve just committed verbal violence against yuyo.
Unsubstantiated accusations of doping are also a form of violence because they damage a runner’s reputation.
So telling someone that they are an idiot is the same as punching a woman in the face. You're an idiot. How's your face?
If speculation about doping is "violence" then this site has done it for years with impunity. Only doping denial is acceptable then. You keep proving you're an idiot.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
All forms of violence are bad. You’ve just committed verbal violence against yuyo.
Unsubstantiated accusations of doping are also a form of violence because they damage a runner’s reputation.
So telling someone that they are an idiot is the same as punching a woman in the face. You're an idiot. How's your face?
If speculation about doping is "violence" then this site has done it for years with impunity. Only doping denial is acceptable then. You keep proving you're an idiot.
Women are men's equals so it would be sexist not to treat her like man, so yes hit her back or be sexist. Your choice
What a stupid and irrelevant observation. You equate physical violence against women with discussion of doping issues in sport, which is permitted on this site (and there are quite a few posters who are openly sceptical of the runner you mention). There isn't anything much dumber than a blind running fan.
What is stupid is your constant cyberbullying. And the fact that you don't think psychological violence is a thing. You don't discuss doping issues regarding Parker Valby. You accuse her of doping. Hypocrite.
If you think a thread about violence against women is the same as the discussion about the training methods of a particular runner - which wasn't an "accusation" - you are more witless than I would have thought possible.
All forms of violence are bad. You’ve just committed verbal violence against yuyo.
Unsubstantiated accusations of doping are also a form of violence because they damage a runner’s reputation.
So telling someone that they are an idiot is the same as punching a woman in the face. You're an idiot. How's your face?
If speculation about doping is "violence" then this site has done it for years with impunity. Only doping denial is acceptable then. You keep proving you're an idiot.
Where did I say they are the same? Nowhere. You lack basic reading comprehension. What does that make you?
Physical violence and verbal violence are both bad, but I never said they’re the same or that they are equally bad. Not all forms of violence have the same severity, but all forms of violence are bad.
My ex wife regularly abused me with our neighbors and apartment security guards as witnesses. Physically and verbally. I'm 190cm and 85kg. She was 162cm and 55kg.
I subdued her with an aggressive, forceful hug ONE time in our house when I felt severely threatened. She called the police and accused me of domestic violence. I filed a counter accusation. No one would provide a statement to support my case. She had no witnesses. Also she had no bruises or injuries because she was in a big, aggressive hug that i used to defend myself. I had apartment CCTV footage of her hitting me with her fists and me taking it without retaliating. It was my video evidence and my testimony versus her unsupported testimony.
The court threw out my accusation against her and I was convicted. 400 hours of community service and anger management class.
A man should NEVER hit a woman.
Also, as a side note, love addicted codependence can kill. If you're a man who doesn't know where to turn, please seek a lawyer, therapy, SLAA, and maybe CODA. Law enforcement won't help you unless you come to them with a lawyer who has built a well organized case for you. And you'll need SLAA or CODA fellowship to help you escape the violence and toxic relationship patterns.
Good luck and God bless.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
None of you are as strong as a typical woman off the streets. these women would literally drop you to the ground. Y'all have zero upper body strength and weigh like 120 pounds. You'd get demolished if you fought back.
You sound like a woman saying this, honestly. There's a going error in our age of equality that if a woman is equal in size or larger than the man across from her, that she could hold her own in a fight against him. It just isn't the case. Does this forum cater to a sport that tends to favor smaller people? Yeah, sure. But every man on earth is stronger than he looks, even the ones who look stupidly strong, and a woman's apparent/visible size does not generally equate to strength in the same way it does for a man.
Now, would I say there are exceptions, your Ronda Rouseys, etc.? For sure. But these are not the typical woman off the streets. There's videos online if you want to see what I mean, of little guys getting bullied by "big" girls and finally snapping and just destroying the girls.
Of course this is on a running site. Spend 2 days per month boxing at a gym and learning basic MMA and BJJ. If my wife was trying to beat me up she could not land a single punch. Bob, weave, and deflect my friend. Then laugh when they are gassed out with no shots landed.
Side note - I would “spar” at our gym with a top 10 middleweight guy back in the 90s. He was not allowed to hit me. I could not land a good punch on him - learning boxing defense is a trip. Most guys just assume you can punch someone. Not so.
Of course this is on a running site. Spend 2 days per month boxing at a gym and learning basic MMA and BJJ. If my wife was trying to beat me up she could not land a single punch. Bob, weave, and deflect my friend. Then laugh when they are gassed out with no shots landed.
Side note - I would “spar” at our gym with a top 10 middleweight guy back in the 90s. He was not allowed to hit me. I could not land a good punch on him - learning boxing defense is a trip. Most guys just assume you can punch someone. Not so.
Good point. My wife is like the Korean Zombie, hell of a chin, barely flinches when I land solid combos.
So telling someone that they are an idiot is the same as punching a woman in the face. You're an idiot. How's your face?
If speculation about doping is "violence" then this site has done it for years with impunity. Only doping denial is acceptable then. You keep proving you're an idiot.
Where did I say they are the same? Nowhere. You lack basic reading comprehension. What does that make you?
Physical violence and verbal violence are both bad, but I never said they’re the same or that they are equally bad. Not all forms of violence have the same severity, but all forms of violence are bad.
What is especially bad is your reasoning powers. Drivel.
Where did I say they are the same? Nowhere. You lack basic reading comprehension. What does that make you?
Physical violence and verbal violence are both bad, but I never said they’re the same or that they are equally bad. Not all forms of violence have the same severity, but all forms of violence are bad.
What is especially bad is your reasoning powers. Drivel.
It’s not drivel. It’s widely accepted that there’s a continuum of violence severity. If you don’t know that, then you should stop offering your ignorant opinions.