Women Need To Stop Complaining When Men Hit Them Back!

[FallOutBoy2001]

I've seen many questions recently from guys asking, "My girlfriend/female friend/female I met in the bar hit me, so I hit her back. She started screaming at me that I was a disgusting piece of scum. Was I in the wrong?" to which the answer is very simply "no." She hit you first, so you hit her back, I'm not sure what she expected to happen.

Women complain about wanting equality all the time, but when they're presented with real equality, like having to sign up for the draft, a move I support, or getting hit by a man in retaliation for intentionally injuring the man, they suddenly falter and backtrack. People argue "Women are weaker then men, so men shouldn't hit them!" which is straight up bullshit, and also the complete opposite of the message feminist preach with regards to equality. If you know you're going to get hurt doing something, it's your on fault if you do it. No one blames the lions if someone ignores the danger and gets their leg bitten off, they blame the idiot. If you hit a man, and he hits you back, you deserved it. He would have done the same thing to another guy, and if you can't take that, well you shouldn't have put yourself in the situation.

"You wouldn't hit a child!" No, no one should, obviously. "Well then, why hit a woman?" Because a child doesn't have the life experience or the brain capacity of an adult, and unlike a child, a women is certainly not powerless. If anyone has ever been in a fight with a woman, they scratch and bite. Unlike men, who tend to just punch their target, women fight dirty. If anyone is going to cause more damage from getting into a fight, it's the women. A guy may leave bruises, but the women is going to leave scratch and bite marks, and probably puncture the skin, potentially leaving scars.

My least favorite phrase in relation to this whole debate is "just restrain her." You never tell the woman to restrain the man, just hit him back, but you tell the man to restrain her. Restraining also kinda fucking hurts, for both parties, and puts the restrainer in a weak position, because it's really easy to kick or bite someone restraining you.

Simply put, if you want to get your damn equality, learn to take it like a man or not get into fights to begin with.

Disclaimer: I'm an equalist, and having been in a few fights with both genders mentioned in the take, I advise against fighting either.

[Derpyy]

I absolutely agree 100%. Finally, some sense around here. MY least favourite is "Well men are stronger than women!" Wot? If you know that, then WHY ASSAULT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE? If I kick a bear in the face, I am LITERALLY asking to get hurt.

[Unit1]

EXactly!
Don't be that idiot :P

[Djaaaaay]

Opinion owner. At last , some one who understands danger at its worst. Amazingly a woman with common since... I'm ecstatic...

[Djaaaaay]

Sense *

[Derpyy]

@Djaaaaay I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not. Sorry, people use it so much here, I just assume it is these days.

[Djaaaaay]

Opinion owner. No it's not sarcastic. I'm really saying I'm impressed with a woman with common sense , so damn rare these days. And I up voted also. Good for you. 😊

[Derpyy]

@Djaaaaay Oh. Well then thank you. It's such levels of hypocrisy that make me steer clear of female friends. I try to be as honest as possible, especially with myself. If you can't ever admit when you're full of shit, like ever, then I can't be around that.

[Djaaaaay]

Opinion owner. True that!!! I instruct offensive martial art forms , 46 years worth. Anyhow my point is , be careful how you throw gas on a fire. Common sense usually tells you differently. Standing solid and being a straight up person is The greatest way to be in life. Fear isn't real , danger is real tho...

[Waffles731]

d.justpo.st/.../...-right-back-meme-1440472392.jpg
God I love firefly

[goaded]

How could the bastards cancel it?

I loved that show. Apparently one of the complaints the guys at Fox had about the pilot was that the heros should have had a shoot-out with the bad guys when they were in the bad guy's lair and surrounded by armed men, rather than backing down (and staying alive for episode 2). I know it's set in space and all that, but realistically, start pulling a gun when someone's pointing a gun at you and you're going to get some holes in you before you clear the holster.

[rjroy3]

@goaded

Shit marketers. That's seriously the only reason

[Tony1974]

@goaded You saw the movie right? After the movie they could have continued the series but they never did...

[goaded]

@Tony1974 I saw the movie, too, they had to call it Serenity because they didn't have the rights to the name Firefly, iirc.
Isn't Summer Glau flexible!

[Tony1974]

@goaded YA think! The things I could do with her... makes the mind go numb with excitement!

[lumos]

Sorry but no, I will never agree with this sort of kindergarten mentality bullshit, from either gender.
IF the person is NOT an actual threat to you and you feel like you can safely remove yourself from the situation WITHOUT having to defend yourself with violence, I think it's COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY to hit someone back just because "omg they hit me first!!1!1! MOOOM".
I will never, ever, think that it's justified to hit another person JUST because they hit you first and NOT because you feel like you're in actual danger and there's no way of escaping the situation without hitting back. That's some petty ass retaliation bullshit that merely proves your ego was hurt and now you want to lash out like a five year old. This is literally the kind of stuff they teach you in kindergarten. Just because someone hits you first, it doesn't make you any better when you hit them back. In fact, if it can be avoided, you're merely stooping down to their level and you're just as shitty as they are. Regardless of whether you're a guy or a girl, or they're a guy or a girl. Doesn't matter. That's some kindergarten mentality bullshit, end of.
Do I condone hitting people? No. The person who threw the first punch is an asshat. But the person to continue the fight is just as big of an asshat. The best thing to do in a situation like this is to not let your fragile ego take over, but to be the bigger person and remove yourself from the situation, and possibly cut ties with the person. Guy or girl, doesn't goddamn matter, if it's just a matter of you feeling like your ego got hurt and you want to retaliate for the sake of retaliating and not for actual self-defense, you're an ass.

[vonasaurus]

this is spot-on. when you hit back, you lower yourself to the same level as the asshat, when you should aspire to be the bigger person.

[Zorax]

Shame on you...

2.bp.blogspot.com/.../Turn+Other+Cheek.jpg

insearchofsimplicitytoday.files.wordpress.com/.../buddha-quote.jpg

biblereasons.biblereasons.netdna-cdn.com/.../other-cheek-quote-board.jpg

media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...42341eda1254.jpg

s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/.../...36a92f1716.jpg

[Love_Is_Eternal]

White knight alert

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal also, Christian alert

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Not so white :P

vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/.../latest

[Zorax]

I thought you wife beaters are all christians...
By the way, I'm not, I'm an atheist, but I'm compassionate.

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Most wife beaters are atheists and muslims.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal um, no. Most domestic abusers I know aren't Christian

[FallOutBoy2001]

*are

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Muslims maybe, because they are practically the same as christians, but atheists - no way.

[Zorax]

Well, most domestic abusers I know are Christians.

[FallOutBoy2001]

So we're in agreement? I find that people unfairly demonize atheists

[Zorax]

Yep, I agree :)

[Love_Is_Eternal]

According to Christian scriptures a husband isn't allowed to hit his wife, whereas the Quran does allow husbands to beat their wives. I also know of many atheists who beat and abuse women. I guess you're a feminist liberal.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal And the bible also says to stone adulterers, and I don't see y'all doing that...

[Love_Is_Eternal]

It says that in the Old Testament, but as most people know, the New Testament is the final marching orders for Christians. That's why it'scalled the New Testament. And when the relious leaders wanted to stone a woman for adultery, Jesus condemned it. The commandments of the New Testament do not allow Christians to harm anyone. But as usual atheists always have to lie and misrepresent what Christianity teaches.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal I have to go to Religious Ed and that's exactly what they teach (though we're going from the old to the new, and haven't reached to new)

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal If the christians are so peace loving, why did they kill so many people? The Inquisition, Crusaders, Conquistadors... they killed more people than Nazis did...

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Nothing in the New Testament teaches that.

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Nowhere in the New Testament teaches killing. Quite the opposite. So anyone who kills is not a Christian. Atheist regimes have killed more innocent people that all religions combined. Fact.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal That's bullshit. Also, if you need a book to tell you what is right and wrong, you're the problem

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Nowhere in the New Testament commands killing. Atheist regimes have indeed murdered more people than all religions combined. It's a fact. We both agree that murder is wrong, yet I'm guessing you support abortion.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal Atheist regimes have NOT murdered more people than "all religions combined" and I don't know where you're getting that statistic from.

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Oh yes they have.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal But you can't back it up, can you?

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Then why don't you christians follow the New Testament?
Sure, your "fact" goes both ways: Nowhere in the Communist manifest teaches killing - So anyone who kills is not a Communist.
As for the victims, Inquisition killed about 80-100 millions of people, Conquistadors killed about 60-70 millions of people, Crusaders killed about 1,5 - 2 millions of people.

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Abortion is not a murder - It's termination of pregnancy. Fetus is not a conscious or cognitive being.

[Zorax]

@FallOutBoy2001 Of course he can't back it up, because he believes in fairy tales ;)

[Bobbyhill1]

Actually opinion owner, it can be backed up easily if you know the slightest bit of history. Atheistic communism in the 1900s had killed over 44 million people in the time span of 60 years. Stalin, who was an athiest had killed 20 million people alone for religious beleif. Thr problem here isn't the ideaolgy, its the scape goating that is used and you are apart of the problem without realizing it. You scape goat religion, stalin has done the same which in turn resulted in the death of 20 million people.

[Bobbyhill1]

And abortion is murder' as the fetus is a live being. Trying Our best guesses suggest its somewhere between formation of brain-matter appropriate to cognition and "other-awareness." The measures we gauge by tend towards the beginnings of the ability to communicate or differentiate.
The fact that we have yet to observe the arrival of consciousness shouldn't imply that what we can observe leads to accurate conclusions.
I intuit that the question has a theological component: "when does the "I" begin? justifying abortion is sick and immoral on any level. You have no proof of when a baby is aware, yet you make a claim. A women is held accountable unless she was raped and a baby should not have to pay for the irresponsibility and carelessness of the two parents who cannot enforce safe sex.

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 Stalin was not an atheist, he was an orthodox christian from Georgia. His political doctrine is called Stalinism, that sort of totalitarian dictatorship has nothing to do with original (utopian) communism.
Nevertheless, christians killed more people than Stalin did.

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 Abortion is not a murder, being alive doesn't make you a cognitive or conscious creature, plants are the best example. Rape is not the only cause for abortion, you should also consider cases of incest and life/health danger for a pregnant woman (risky pregnancy). The possible health damage also applies to a child being born defective, retarded or disabled.

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Atheist regimes have killed far more. Atheists don't have a moral code so atheists in power has always been dangerous. And if a man punched a pregnant woman in the stomach and killed the unborn baby, he would get done for murder. But when a woman wants an abortion they justify it by calling it a fetus. That's the problem with atheists. They can change the rules whenever it suits them.

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Stalin hated religion and was an atheist. Now you have resorted to telling lies. Typical atheist.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal "Atheists don't have a moral code so atheists in power has always been dangerous." Yes, because someone who needs a book to tell them how not to be terrible humans is clearly so much better

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Not true, combined murders by Inquisition, Conquistadors and Crusaders outnumber all of the killings by so called "Atheist regimes" (most of them were not actually atheists).
Unlike Lenin, Stalin was quite religious, orthodox priests were performing a service on his funeral: https://www.apocalyptism.ru/sc-pic/i79979.jpg

As you can see, the only liar here is you, religious zealot... atheist are more moral people, we don't need some imaginary friend on the sky to tell us what's right or wrong.
Abortion is woman's democratic right, if someone would punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, that would be an attempt of murder, because it can be lethal for her (not just the fetus).

[Zorax]

@FallOutBoy2001 Exactly ;)

[Love_Is_Eternal]

You're lying again. And you missed my point. If an unborn baby is only a fetus then a man shouldn't get put in prison for murder if he were to kill it outside the womb. But when it comes to an abortion the atheist hypocrites change the rules and call it a fetus. This is because atheism has no moral code. Humans are selfish people and are famous for doing evil when they are able to get away with it. That's why people in power commit the most evil. That's why atheist regimes killed millions of innocent people.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal no, you aren't listening to him

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Well, you are obviously not reading anything I said, there is no point in explaining things to people who don't want to understand, it's your choice to stay delusional.

[Zorax]

@FallOutBoy2001 Yep, I guess he prefers living in biblical fairy tales ;)

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Run away kid.

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal Aww, you can't muster a mature argument?

[Zorax]

@FallOutBoy2001 - Yep, obviously he can't take it anymore, I think he's gonna cry :P

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Since when have atheists ever mustered a mature argument?

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Since forever, considering the fact we don't believe in fairy tales and mythological creatures ;)

[Love_Is_Eternal]

You believe eveything came from nothing, or that man evolved from monkey urine.

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal Nope, nobody ever claimed that humans evolved from "monkey urine".
Oh, so you believe that everything has to came from something, right? Good, so where did your "god" came from? :D
If everything has to have a creator, than "god" can't possibly exist if he "came from nothing" ;)

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Nope, God isn't an obect, He is outside of time and space. You would prefer to believe that everything came from nothing with no creator. Now that's what I call a fairy tale :)

[FallOutBoy2001]

@Love_Is_Eternal and you believe that a magic man in the sky said "poof" and there was the world

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal "Outside of time and space", LOL, sounds like a fairy tale, or Sci-Fi, maybe even Fantasy fiction, but not as realistic as Harry Potter :P

[Zorax]

@FallOutBoy2001 Oh, look, he was right, this is how "god" created the world :P

vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/.../latest

Just a little poof with his magic wand :D

[Love_Is_Eternal]

Oh well, atheists have such small minds I wouldn't expect you to be able to comprehend lol.

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal :P www.relatably.com/.../...186eddaea4d4f066a26a9.jpg :D

[Love_Is_Eternal]

oh well

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal 67.media.tumblr.com/.../...qymfBS1rzapx4o1_500.gif

[Love_Is_Eternal]

well

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/.../latest

[Love_Is_Eternal]

well!

[Zorax]

@Love_Is_Eternal :P i620.photobucket.com/.../well.gif :P

[Love_Is_Eternal]

well!!

[Bobbyhill1]

here is a quote for you opinion owner ''Mao Zedong with Joseph Stalin in 1949. Both leaders repressed religion and established state atheism throughout their respective Communist spheres.'' not ONE crusade has killed over a million people. It usually was in the tens of thousands by the way. my question to you is, why try and lie about history when you know you are wrong.

''Abortion is not a murder, being alive doesn't make you a cognitive or conscious creature, plants are the best example''

like I clearly stated before, you have no proof of what is conscious or not. its even suspected now that plants have memory and they interact with their environment. What you consider conscious is something you can observe, just because you cannot see any signs of it being conscious does not mean that you are right and you fail to realize that. Either way, the majority of abortions are caused by irresponsibility of the parents, and 1% to actual rape victims. you can try and defend it all you

[Bobbyhill1]

want

[Bobbyhill1]

correction, the crusade was estimated to have killed 1.7 million. While stalin has killed about 17 times more then that

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1
1. Stalin was not a communist, what he did has nothing to do with ideals of communism, the same goes for Mao and his retarded "cultural revolution" (also nothing to do with communism). By the way, Stalin didn't kill 170 millions of people... you are making up things, but that doesn't work on me.
2. Crimes of Inquisition combined with crimes of Crusaders and Conquistadors are much more numerous even than Stalin's crimes... not to mention church collaboration with Nazis and Fascists.
3. You are not a scientist but just a religious bigot, you know nothing about consciousness and cognitive abilities. Most abortions are caused by ruptured condoms, that's not being "irresponsible", however, most abortions are performed before the third month of pregnancy, therefore, it's not a "murder" (already explained)
4. You are not just lying and being delusional, but you are also using duplicate account.
5. @Love_Is_Eternal 66.media.tumblr.com/.../...e_nhsf3tphwV1srzwfo.gif

[Bobbyhill1]

he wasn't a communist? here is ANOTHER quote for you ''Stalinism is used to describe the period Stalin was acting leader of the Soviet Union while serving as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party from 1922 to his death in 1953'' by the way, I never said stalin killed 170 million people, dont put words in my mouth. I said 20 million.

''Crimes of Inquisition combined with crimes of Crusaders and Conquistadors are much more numerous even than Stalin's crimes.''
ANOTHER false fact from you. The crusades had killed 10s of thousands in Jerusalem, in total that number never exceeded 1.7 million. Adding the nazi regime is 6 million at most, stalin had killed 20 million alone.

[Bobbyhill1]

''You are not a scientist but just a religious bigot,''

actually, im not religious at all you idiot but it is clear that you know NOTHING of science. I know about how consciousness and cognitive abilities are measured, and I know that there may be more to it then that. why? because Its common sense. In science, you dont deny or accept anything with complete proof unless you are a fundamentalist (which you clearly are) . killing a live being is murder, PERIOD. If it is conscious or not is moot in this argument. If I killed you when you werent couscous its not murder in your logic. Also im not using multiple accounts, you crazy idiot

[Bobbyhill1]

Trying Our best guesses suggest its somewhere between formation of brain-matter appropriate to cognition and "other-awareness." The measures we gauge by tend towards the beginnings of the ability to communicate or differentiate.
The fact that we have yet to observe the arrival of consciousness shouldn't imply that what we can observe leads to accurate conclusions.
I intuit that the question has a theological component: "when does the "I" begin?

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 Nope, Stalin was not a communist, as I said, his ideology had nothing to do with communism. Communism means equality for all - Stalin was against that... you obviously have no idea what communism really is.
Yes, combined crimes of Inquisition, Crusaders and Conquistadors are far greater than Stalins' crimes, because Conquistadors killed about 60 or 70 millions of people in Central and South America. Crusaders actually killed about 3 millions of people but tne numbers were diminished by the pope... the same goes for the crimes of Inquisition, so it's useless for you to lie, the we all know what kind of people you religious bigots are.

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 The only fundamentalist here is you, "killing a living being" is not a "murder", what kind of idiot told you that crap... according to your false logic - picking up plants would be "murder".
Murder is - killing a human being by another (unlawfully and/or with premeditation).
Gathering plants is not a murder (regardless of them being living creatures).
Executing a criminal is not a murder (according to law).
Abortion is not a murder because fetus and embryo are not developed humans, therefore, they are not regarded as persons, thus, it's just a termination of pregnancy.

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 Of course you are using multiple accounts, I've seen at least 3-4 of your clones, many times, with the exact same types of bigotry and zealotism ;)

[Bobbyhill1]

actually that number still isn't accurate, try somewhere around 10 million considering that disease killed the majority of natives. Here is another quote for you ''When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans.''

. ''Crusaders actually killed about 3 millions of people but tne numbers were diminished by the pope''

and by the way, I am talking in the time span of 60 years, you on the other hand are bringing up events from a 600 year time span which further proves how feeble your point is. Im not religious to call out the real problem here which is scape goating and you are guilty for doing the same thing. if you actually think religion causes problems then you are a idiot.

[Bobbyhill1]

stalin killed people and enforced state atheism. There is no denying that and you hate to admit it because it doesn't fit your pathetic narrative.

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 Stalin was not an atheist, as I said, he has a very close relationship with orthodox priests.
By the way, communism is a society without a state, with no money and with no social classes, Stalin's Soviet Russia had all of the above... therefore, it's not a communism... because communism is an utopian society, get it? Things that you believe about "communism" are actually facts about Stalinism and other perverted types of Socialism - falsely presented as "communism", by the pathetic western propaganda.

[Bobbyhill1]

'' Stalin was not an atheist, as I said, he has a very close relationship with orthodox priests. ''

stop trying to lie about history. He ran under a atheistic regime, with no religious intent. He specifically oppressed people who were religious.

''By the way,''

stop trying to change the subject. I know what real communism is, but we are specifically talking about something entirely different that has taken the name of communism, therefor I call it that. if you want to argue about how communism really is intended to be then ill be glad to. although we dont disagree there so you would have to find someone else to do that with

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 The only one lying here is you, unlike Lenin and Trotsky, Stalin was religious, despite his regime, as I said, for an "atheist" - Stalin was in extremely good relationship with orthodox priests.
I wasn't changing the subject, Stalinism and Socialism are not the same as Communism, if you already knew that, then there was no need for your pointless equalization of these terms.

PS: I would have to find someone else to argue about these subjects? LOL, I wasn't asking for your opinion anyway, I was arguing with another commentator (unless that's just one of your alter-egos) :P

[Bobbyhill1]

''I wasn't changing the subject, Stalinism and Socialism are not the same as Communism, if you already knew that, then there was no need for your pointless equalization of these terms.''

actually there was a need for that, because people often get confused. you changed the subject and said ''well technically'' I know what it is, and you tried to derail my main point and I can see that you really have no argument. you are just trying to back out by changing subjects. grow a brain

[Bobbyhill1]

there's a difference between modern day communism and REAL communism. since people use the word so lightly and refer to it as communism I did the same. you just wanted to talk about how communism is supposed to be, when that wasn't the subject.

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 The only idiot here is you... Stalin never killed people for being religious, but for opposing his politics. He never killed for a religion, but he also never killed in the name of communism, he actually killed people for his egotism, arrogance and rigorous personality.
You are repeating the same nonsense, over and over again... I don't need to "derail your main point " - because you have no point, all you have is mumbo jumbo indoctrinations :)
Nope, I never changed the subject and I'm not talking about "how communism is supposed to be" - because, if it isn't what it's suppose to be, than it's not communism at all, it's fake, just like your multiple-profiles :P
PS - I'll just have to repeat myself, just for you to get the picture, I wasn't discussing with you from the beginning, you started spamming on my post, not vice versa ;)
(unless of course, the other commentator is also you) :D

[Bobbyhill1]

Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922–1991), Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet Marxist-Leninism policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs, and actively encouraged atheism during its implementation in the Soviet Union.[1]

The state was committed to the destruction of religion,[2][3] and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept.[4][5] The total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies has been estimated to range between 12-20 million.[6][7][8]

Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[4] in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by..

[Bobbyhill1]

a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[

[Bobbyhill1]

there is some more historical knowledge for your ignorant replies. you keep talking so much crap, and all I do is show you some history quotes that contradict what you are saying. you are a liar, and a bad one at that. In fact, your argument consists of pulling crap out of your butt and trying to pass it off as actual facts. you are a blabbering idiot, and you are pretentious on top of that. truly a bad combination

[Zorax]

@Bobbyhill1 Wow, what took you so long to continue spamming? You are quoting crap from wikipedia (anyone can edit the same shit, that's why wikipedia has no true credibility). The issue was not related to what Soviet Union did, but what Stalin did, and he was not an atheist (unlike Lenin, Trotsky, Brezhnev etc). The only liar here is you, plus you're a very boring and kinda retarded spammer, indoctrinated with religious dogmas, capitalist propaganda and apparently misogynism. I usually don't tend to discuss with such creatures, the only thing we can agree on, it that we disagree on everything, so it's time to end this pointless discussion for good ;)

https://i.imgur.com/Tyo3LO1.gif

[Zorax]

PS @blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - The only one who is twisting history and won't admit his mistake is you, by the way, I was right once again, you have dozens of duplicate accounts, that just proves how childish you are ;)

[victoriaxoxo]

I think it depends. The time I have ever complained was when a guy touched me without permission so I slapped him but he decided that he had the right to hit me back, which isn't fair... like dude don't sexually assault me and I won't slap you...

Also account for how females are physically weaker (biologically proven!), I am a feminist but even in law it is held that a woman is weaker than a man (therefore defence of provocation is applied differently to women) (but also smarter, more organised, better at multi-tasking etc. so not incapable just physically weaker), so if a girl that is a good 20kg lighter than you, shorter, weakly slaps you, then it would make sense to, at most, pin her down so she stops and not have a fight with her. But if she is well... 'fairly big' and the punch/slap is hard then obviously adjust accordingly and if she wants to fight then whatever.

You see, most guys don't understand how girls look at them, most girls know guys are way stronger and are somewhat afraid of guys, therefore sometimes when we hit them we assume they won't feel it as much because a lot of the time they are bigger and more muscular ( how lion cubs play with their parents). We don't mean to provoke a fight just most likely you did something that hurt us emotionally or physically and we just want you to stop and don't assume a small slap or shove will hurt you. But if she is truly fighting you and causing a real threat then you have my approval to knock her out.

Unlike men, when most girls slap guys they don't mean to disrespect so don't look into it just assess the situation and act accordingly.

[FallOutBoy2001]

I mean I lightly slap my guy friends on the back of the head sometimes, like "you're a fucking idiot, but I care for you" but if I very seriously slapped or punched someone I would do it to hurt them and expect to get into a fight, even though I'm 5'4" and maybe weight 110.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, not sorry, but this whole take is rather disgusting. How about we advocate for not hitting anyone? I am certainly never going to advocate for a world where I encourage men or women to be hitting each other. I mean, you literally explained that we shouldn't hit children... but we shouldn't hit anyone because it's abuse either way. Equality in violence... really... is that what we want now?

I'm also tired of the line about how women are physically the same as men. No, we're actually not. Some women can be, some women are, but my 5'2 female friend at 105 is not the same as my 6'5 male friend at 280. Even fighters in the ring must fight people of equal weight because there are differences, so let's not pretend that there are no differences that exist physically even amongst males vs. other males.

Let's talk more in this world about stopping violence from either sex before it even comes to that, to getting people to stop using a fist, and start acting like adults and using their words or their actions to just walk away.

[FallOutBoy2001]

I agree no one should strike first, but if someone strikes first whoever they struck should get a fair chance to strike them back.

[Opinion Owner]

No actually they should try walking away or seeking help from an authority. You don't stop the violence by using more violence. Unless your life is literally in danger, i. e. someone is actively trying to kill you, there are other options. We also live in a system where there is little fairness in the case of men being hit... no one is going to side with a 280 guy against a 105 girl in a court case as to who hit the hardest and why. We need to work on a system that actively prosecutes women who do hit men in an abusive manner just as we do men. We aren't going to solve this problem that exists in terms of fairness by just letting people duke it out. So you can say all you want, everyone should be able to put a fist in each others faces, but that leads us no where and does not solve problems with the system that exists.

[Anonymous]

Ah yes, the argument of "BUT - BUT - BUT men can hurt women more than women can hurt men!"... Yet when a woman hits a man, she's not "doing it gently" nor is she "doing it not too hard": she's doing it to make it HURT as much as she can. So if a guy hits a girl, everyone says "You scumbag, you *could've* hurt her!" But when a girl slaps a guy and so happens to actually injure him, no one cares - and he "deserved" to be injured, if anything.

Girls hitting guys because it's socially unacceptable for them to hit back is just as much an act of cowardice in the purest form as guys hitting girls because girls are smaller (usually). And for anyone who'd call a guy a 'wifebeater' because he hits a girl who hit him first, she just as easily could've used communication to express the issue if she *expected* him to be charitable enough to not hit her back - but she chose to act like a thug instead, and you can't make a thug a housewife.

I believe that hitting PERIOD is only justifiable if you get hit first or if you're physically sexually harassed. Violate someone physically, you should be prepared to get responded to in self-defense.

[Anonymous]

I have not hit awomen but i come close to it 2 times in mylife. 1. my younger sister slap the hell out me im the face for no reason i push her then grab her shit... lets just say in that movememt she known she fucked up. I let go then walk away. Screan 2 a fat girl she was a lot bigger then me step on my new shoes more then once while cursing me out. I don't know why she did it but i asked her to stop then she did it agin and push me. I am a very easy going n kind guy but i am like a bear once you touch me weather you got a dick or pussy your dead. I push her back walk away and told her if she tried following me or touch me agin then i would break her hands. She stop right away after that am sorry but thats how i am. Now if 3 girls attack me i domt care what i gotta do am not walking away while beimg hit. Am droping bodies, slaming niggers, rko a bitch. You wanna put my life at risk then yours is over. I once tried walking away and was attacked from behind n that won't eber happem agin.

[Library]

It's not right to hit people but men, on average, are stronger than women. Hitting her back will cause more damage than if she hits me...

[FallOutBoy2001]

And she should know that going in, correct?

[hellionthesagereborn]

and she has the mental capacity to know that so again her fault. If I punch a brick wall and break my hand is it the walls fault or mine? Mine. Same with women. Also by not hitting her back you have condoned her actions as she only struck the man because she thought she could get away with it.

[SovereignessofVamps]

You could hit her back lightly... lol

[mits777]

it is true that we are stronger, but we can hit them back with 2 fingers or half power. Or we can dick slap them so it won't hurt

[Smmyskittles]

Erm, well, most women. haha, it'll hurt you more to be hit by me than for you to hit me.

<3 Not that you or I ever would.

[NexAngelus]

lol i was talking to some feminests the other day about this at college. i said i treated women equally and said i hit women back when they piped up and they didn't think that was funny lol. then a few non fems actually stepped in and were like no that is fair. i was like i know ;)

i personally DONT think a guy should hit a girl and a girl should hit a guy. BUT if a girl wants to a hit a guy, SHE SHOULD expect to get hit back. that is the law of equality after all lol.

[NexAngelus]

by the way some people seem to be imply that a guy is going to summon all his might in the retaliation strike... i assume roughly equal strikes are taking place. yes the guy is bigger and stronger and the girl should know this, but im sure the guy is not trying to kill her either. its not our fault females are fragile. thats why they shouldn't be hitting us in the first place...

[Anonymous]

My first girlfriend thought it was funny to hit me in the face as hard as she could. When I pushed her away she flipped out and threatened to call the cops because "I hit her." I have noticed that the only ones arguing "Women are weaker then men, so men shouldn't hit them!" are typically feminists, who then go one to say "check your male privilege" yes that's "equality" for you.

[sovetskii13]

👍 Excellent. I always say that if you are under attack then you have the right to defend yourself. It's not a crime to defend yourself when you are at risk. I was attacked by a girl in high school. I used a simple martial arts move to get her on the ground. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she can just walk up to any man and break his nose or whatever, and run away with no charges.

[Barrabus_the_Free]

If a woman wants to step up to me like a man, she'd better be prepared to take a hit like a man. I don't go around assaulting ANYONE, male or female, but if someone brings shit to me, I won't stand there and take it for any reason.

I won't stop any other man from hitting a woman, either. It's none of my business, and I'm not going to the hospital, the morgue, or jail over a woman. *IF* I were to step in, it would be to prevent fucktarded white knights from jumping his shit for him giving her something she has earned and deserves.

Women want 'equality' as long as it benefits them. As soon as they actually get the same treatment as men, they scream about misogyny.

Guess maybe they actually believe that line from Animal Farm, and they think that some animals truly ARE more equal than others.

[victoriaxoxo]

If we apply your type of equality, we should strangle our kids if they swear at us while they little, since same force should be applied to everyone regardless of whether what they did was a real threat or not. You have every right where it is a threat but don't be unreasonable. Because of the time I was hit by a guy it was because I slapped him because he sexually assaulted me.

[Anpu23]

To me it comes down to threat narrative. Hitting someone back is just escalation of aggression, if they hit you once and then leave, then their really is no threat to yourself or others, on the other hand a person (male of female) that is attacking you, then you should defend yourself until such time that you can get away.

There is an important point though, a man cannot hit a woman in the west without legal ramifications. There is even a government agency dedicated to reducing violence against women. Even if it's right or fair, the legal system does not recognize a man's right to self defense from a female aggressor. (It's based on the Deluth model, or "primary aggressor" which is skewed heavily against men).

[mostwomenshouldstfu]

I apply the necessary force continuum. It's skewd in women's favor, for good reason. I've been hit by women in play or what not but I don't retaliate in an aggressive or even an EQUAL manner. That's bull s***. Treating a girl like a guy is immature, irresponsible bull s*** in most cases. It's best to restrain them if they're seriously threatening your life, which they can. You have to stand up for yourself, for the both your sakes. Guys smacking girls for simply spitting on them is bull s***. All those woman beaters out there need to f***ing check themselves.

I don't believe in eye for an eye with women, I don't. Something fundamentally wrong with that.

[chigurl33]

Please I beg in the name of everything that is good in the world, don't ever fight with some girls. They will beat the stuffing out of you and not get charged for shit.
Lastly they will never feel sorry, just saying.

You're a good guy but sometimes being the good guy doesn't give you nothing ever heard of the phrase good guys finish last?

[mostwomenshouldstfu]

@chigurl33 It's a complex issue and you're assuming too much. This is strictly in regards to a confrontation involving only me. Those rules change when others are involved., like kids If by some women you mean ones jacked up on steroids or something and they don't act feminine at all, then the rules change as well, like I said, "most". That s*** is offputting too. I rarely come across a woman that I can't restrain, I don't care how bad their attitude is. If I see an opportunity to neutralize the situation that prevents harm to both myself and the woman, I'm taking it, I'll overpower her, for her own good (there are men who abuse this). I'm well aware some loud mouth, dumb f*** women will construe that as cowardice.

You really don't want to trade punches with someone who outweighs you. You won't even be pissed, because you won't remember who you are, he/she will have beaten your identity out of you.

[CisScum]

As much as I somewhat agree, all these stories people tell on GaG they never tell the aggressor which leads to never knowing who is at actual fault. If the guy is the aggressor and gets slapped and slaps/hits back then he is in the wrong no matter what.

[rjroy3]

I'm trying to fathom the scenario you're considering. You say the aggressor. The aggressor in a verbal argument?

[rjroy3]

I agree that guys shouldn't hit women in 99% of cases. But if violence is not presently involved. I don't care what the guy said. She is not morally or even justified in hitting him. Unless he's in her face yelling, "hit me" as a taunt she is in the wrong 99% of the time.

[CisScum]

@rjroy3 Verbal yes, that could mean threats or personal attacks. I mean of course if it's something petty and small then nobody has any right to hit someone but if it's something serious then of course something physical will come out of it.

[rjroy3]

If a verbal insult is enough to justify a hit, then a retaliation hit back is wholeheartedly justified.

[CisScum]

@rjroy3 But at the end of the day the person who started the fight is still in the wrong. People hit each other for far more stupid reasons everyday, I think a personal threat or personal insult, maybe verbal abuse, is definitely justifiable. But a hit back is still wrong no matter what from any gender, not just a guy.

[rjroy3]

The problem is that you leave the judging up to the individual on whether or not the verbal attack was justified to hit them. If you're going back and forth in an argument when you're both heated how could you logically say who is justified in hitting the other person? Maybe the argument was initiated by you for example, but you only started it because you were upset about my actions. Like if we were roommates and my music was too loud and in anger you came in yelling at me. We get into an argument when you say something I consider as "too far" and drop you with a punch. I'm justified solely because you started the argument?

[rjroy3]

A personal attack could be calling someone a liar or a cheater

[CisScum]

@rjroy3 Well at the end of the day whoever started it at the beginning is still at fault, it may be before a verbal argument or it may be the person who started the verbal argument. At the end of the day whoever started the conflict in any way or form will forever still be at fault.

That's why I'm saying we never really know the scenario on GaG because it seems like no one ever tells the full story. The guy who slapped the girl could be an abuser, could be a bad boyfriend and could be a lot of things. Same with the girl though, she could also be a bad person. But we never know that it seems, especially on GaG. That's why it is always good to have a background story before I cast any judgement on who is in the right.

[rjroy3]

Eh. Meet a girl that brings up shit from months back and you'll understand. By your logic the fact you did something wrong 6 months ago if she brings it up and leads to an argument you are the one at fault. Because technically it started because of something you did lol

[SovereignessofVamps]

Yep, people nvr admit what they did wrong... I do agree that if someone hits you then ofc you should hit back whether they're male or female, but the posters will always put themselves in the best light.

[SovereignessofVamps]

I think it all depends on size, like if some huge guy hit a small and skinny guy really hard back... I don't think that'd be OK. You don't have to hit hard if you're bigger unless the person is wild or something. Technically, if they didn't do much damage to you, why would you do a lot of damage to them? I think it all depends on the situation and the context.

[FallOutBoy2001]

I still see no problem with that, I mean you'll learn very quickly who NOT to hit

[SovereignessofVamps]

It depends. A lot of people choose not to hit back because they can't risk taking time off from work or getting arrested. Like if you fight with someone, unless it's really obvious who the victim is, both people get arrested all the time... or even the one who hit back, may only get arrested if he/she was much more aggressive.

[SovereignessofVamps]

So whoever is bigger should always keep that in mind, since if you have a record that can really hurt your job chances...

[shephardjhon]

so I am a 5"2 guy. By your stupid logic, I should go pick a fight with Mike Tyson and then tell him that he can't hit me back with his full strength because I am smaller.
In fact, you are taller and stronger than me. Should I pick a fight with you and tell you that you can't hit me back with full power?

[ManOnFire]

I agree. I once used to think it's wrong if a man hits a woman back, but the way I see it now is: if you had enough machisma and boldness to strike me, then you've lost any respect or regard I had for you as the 'weaker sex.'

It's like I always say: when you act like a bitch don't be mad when you get treated like one.

[rjroy3]

I can't think of a scenario where hitting a woman would realistically make sense if a weapon is not present. Like close quarters and she has a gun or a knife. Other than that you can just aggressively manhandle her. I've thrown guys outside my front door before. Leaving her in the front yard to stew wouldn't be shit. I'll call the cops from inside if need be.

[Kkaos]

Yeah, you do whatever you need to in order to protect yourself. If you're up against a strong guy, you might need to punch him because manhandling him wouldn't be enough to protect yourself like it would be against someone weaker. But you look at the individual and not the gender, I'm not going to hit an 80 year old man if he attacks me because he's a man, I'm not going to hit someone unless it's absolutely necessary, man or woman.

[rjroy3]

@Kkaos exactly. The chances of her being a legitimate threat are so slim. I'm not going to sit around and get hit, but I'm also not going to swing at her.

[admles]

My grandmother always told me "If you raise your hand in violence to anyone, whether you are old, young, male, female, strong or weak, expect to get hit back".

[FallOutBoy2001]

I like your grandmother

[Bananaman177]

Yeah, you're not supposed to hit girls, but that rule is just a guideline, it's not a license for women to assault men all they want and then cry foul when he puts you on your ass. I was taught not to hit a girl FIRST, but if the girl hits ME first, then I can beat her the same as any man. And before you ask who it was that taught me such a horrible, sexist thing, I'll just tell you: it was my mom.

[Doffydood]

Obviously, I would never hit anyone unprovoked. But I would still be far more uncomfortable hitting a girl than if I was hitting a guy. I'm not sure if this is patronising, or makes me sound like an absolute pussy, but I really can't see myself doing it.
In the words of Scott Pilgrim: "I don't think I can hit a girl. They're soft."

[Kkaos]

Yeah, but would you hit an 80 year old man? It's not about being a girl for me, I'd have trouble hitting anyone who's much weaker than me, man or woman.

[Doffydood]

@Kkaos Yeah I see what you mean. For the old man, it would depend on what he did, if he regrets it, etc.