Two and a half years? Did she serve all of that time or get off after 3 months for good - sorry, “goode” - behavior?
I need to update my MarvelGirl shrine.
Hey Big Aristotle,
Someone needs to send a woman over there to break your nose, bust your mouth and put a cut on your eye. We all get to see the evidence.
Every month. I don’t think you’ll think its an internet tough guy thing anymore.
Wow, 2 years, that’s nothing for an assault like that.
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.
Any human being can be “trained”. If you allow someone to consistently indulge in inappropriate behavior with no repurcussions or negative consequences, you have “trained” them to do so. You can pick on my word choice all you want, it doesn’t negate what I’ve said.
If you allow any human being to physically attack you over and over and over again with no repurcussions, then yes I believe you have trained them to do so. By not reacting or giving them a reason to stop, you reinforce the negative behavior. Why on earth would they stop when hitting you feels good to them, and you won’t stop them? [/quote]
I see what you’re saying and mostly agree, though I didn’t agree with your initial analogy [I really didn’t mean to rhyme, it just happens sometimes].
Conditioning someone to do or not do something without fear of consequence is irresponsible, but in this instance I feel these lessons should’ve been taught/learned long before one reaches adulthood. If a mans wife busts him in the face and he just continues about his day as if nothing’s happened he’s guilty of being a pussy [for not ending the relationship], and nothing more.
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.
Any human being can be “trained”. If you allow someone to consistently indulge in inappropriate behavior with no repurcussions or negative consequences, you have “trained” them to do so. You can pick on my word choice all you want, it doesn’t negate what I’ve said.
If you allow any human being to physically attack you over and over and over again with no repurcussions, then yes I believe you have trained them to do so. By not reacting or giving them a reason to stop, you reinforce the negative behavior. Why on earth would they stop when hitting you feels good to them, and you won’t stop them? [/quote]
Yeah, it’s really semantics, but we are VERY much “trained”. Depending on what branch of psychology you believe in, our personality is either half determined by learning behavior through feedback, or entirely determined by learned behavior through feedback.
Kinda works this way. Guy is shy and thinks people wouldn’t want to get to know him. So when he is put in social settings he doesn’t talk to anybody and minds his own business. People don’t talk to him BECAUSE he seems introverted and uninterested. His initial presumption is validated, in his eyes, so he continues being shy and thinking no one likes him.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.
Any human being can be “trained”. If you allow someone to consistently indulge in inappropriate behavior with no repurcussions or negative consequences, you have “trained” them to do so. You can pick on my word choice all you want, it doesn’t negate what I’ve said.
If you allow any human being to physically attack you over and over and over again with no repurcussions, then yes I believe you have trained them to do so. By not reacting or giving them a reason to stop, you reinforce the negative behavior. Why on earth would they stop when hitting you feels good to them, and you won’t stop them?
I see what you’re saying and mostly agree, though I didn’t agree with your initial analogy [I really didn’t mean to rhyme, it just happens sometimes]. Conditioning someone to do or not do something without fear of consequence is irresponsible, but in this instance I feel these lessons should’ve been taught/learned long before one reaches adulthood. If a mans wife busts him in the face and he just continues about his day as if nothing’s happened he’s guilty of being a pussy [for not ending the relationship], and nothing more.[/quote]
Then if my inital analogy was wrong, please explain to me how it is rational for a man to marry a woman who will abuse him just because she feels like it, and have no regard for his feelings, and for that man to then expect her to magically morph into a rational person who cares about fairness and someone’s feelings besides her own during a divorce?
The two issues are VERY much related, and if most men are like you and don’t see that, I’m starting to understand why so many of them end up fucked over and blindsided by marriage. That’s not an insult, it’s just a very obvious connection to me, but perhaps it isn’t to men. That would explain a lot.
I agree with MarvelGuy, that if you allow one to indulge in bad behaviors, it gets them used to it.
The bad part though, is the person might only do that with the one person who allows it.
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
WhiteFlash wrote:
Actually my point is that no one should be able to hit another without fear of repurcussion, but you spoiled your whole arguement by saying a man can “train” a woman. Women aren’t dogs in need of domestication. They’re people and should act accordingly. You can’t “train” someone who doesn’t want to be trained.
Any human being can be “trained”. If you allow someone to consistently indulge in inappropriate behavior with no repurcussions or negative consequences, you have “trained” them to do so. You can pick on my word choice all you want, it doesn’t negate what I’ve said.
If you allow any human being to physically attack you over and over and over again with no repurcussions, then yes I believe you have trained them to do so. By not reacting or giving them a reason to stop, you reinforce the negative behavior. Why on earth would they stop when hitting you feels good to them, and you won’t stop them?
I see what you’re saying and mostly agree, though I didn’t agree with your initial analogy [I really didn’t mean to rhyme, it just happens sometimes]. Conditioning someone to do or not do something without fear of consequence is irresponsible, but in this instance I feel these lessons should’ve been taught/learned long before one reaches adulthood. If a mans wife busts him in the face and he just continues about his day as if nothing’s happened he’s guilty of being a pussy [for not ending the relationship], and nothing more.
Then if my inital analogy was wrong, please explain to me how it is rational for a man to marry a woman who will abuse him just because she feels like it, and have no regard for his feelings, and for that man to then expect her to magically morph into a rational person who cares about fairness and someone’s feelings besides her own during a divorce?
The two issues are VERY much related, and if most men are like you and don’t see that, I’m starting to understand why so many of them end up fucked over and blindsided by marriage. That’s not an insult, it’s just a very obvious connection to me, but perhaps it isn’t to men. That would explain a lot.
[/quote]
“Like me”? How can you even begin to make that assumption? You seem to be connecting your own dots. If someone stays in a relationship [or furthers it by marriage] with a history of abuse they’re a fool. I already stated that the relationship should end if there’s physical violence.
You said flat out you didn’t agree with my inital analogy. So I meant men, like you, who don’t understand the connection between an angry, irrational woman and a greedy one.
You are welcome to feel as offended as you’d like.
[quote]strangec wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Women love a reaction, and sometimes (not always) resort to using unscrupulous tactics to get them. Should you go down that road, be wary of what you might find.
You got that right!
A former British model has been jailed after smashing a wine glass on a student’s face and dragging it along his cheek.
Lisa Kee was drunk when she attacked Liam Sharratt at an upmarket bar in Deansgate in England’s south in 2007, theTelegraph newspaper reports.
Manchester Crown Court heard that Kee approached Mr Sharratt and a group of his friends, where they exchanged in “good humoured banter”.
But when her victim jokingly called her “a slag”, Kee turned violent.
The 29-year-old, who had a “red wine moustache”, demanded: “Who do you think you are?”
She tossed her red wine over Mr Sharratt and, when he laughed, she punched him in the head.
Mr Sharratt laughed again and this time Kee smashed her wine glass against his head before dragging it over his face and ripping his cheek open.
The gash was so deep that when he breathed his cheek flapped open.
He was left scarred for life.
Judge Martin Rudland described the incident as a “vicious and wholly unwarranted attack.”
Kee, who stood sobbing in the dock, was jailed for two-and-a-half years.
Mr Sharratt, a PHD student, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had to delay the completion of his studies.
[/quote]
Wow, just, wow.
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
You said flat out you didn’t agree with my inital analogy. So I meant men, like you, who don’t understand the connection between an angry, irrational woman and a greedy one.
You are welcome to feel as offended as you’d like.
[/quote]
This was your initial analogy- “It amazes me how many of you guys get all up in arms about a man hitting a woman after she clearly physically struck him first, but then you also get pissy about a man having to pay his wife alimony because she should be able to take care of herself…”
You correlated physical violence with being ordered by a court to pay for a womans living. There is none. That’s what I disagreed with.
did he cry
You just don’t get it. You don’t think society has had anything to do with men becoming pussies, and women becoming more violent? You also don’t see how these changes in which behaviors are considered socially acceptable have influenced our divorce courts, and are the primary reason men so often are not treated fairly or rationally?
I’m just surprised that anyone could not make that connection. There’s really no point in continuing the discussion if that’s the case.
[quote]MarvelGirl wrote:
You just don’t get it. You don’t think society has had anything to do with men becoming pussies, and women becoming more violent? You also don’t see how these changes in which behaviors are considered socially acceptable have influenced our divorce courts, and are the primary reason men so often are not treated fairly or rationally?
I’m just surprised that anyone could not make that connection. There’s really no point in continuing the discussion if that’s the case.[/quote]
Food for thought- - YouTube
[quote]Ronsauce wrote:
Da Vinci wrote:
I think that the cultural standards are different in the middle east from a gender stand-point where it is probably severely more disrespectful and insulting for a woman to slap a man than in other parts of the world.
India is South Asian, not Middle Eastern.
I’m glad the guy got a beat down for cold cocking her back, even if she was out of line to begin with.
Why are you glad though? She cold-cocked him, and he retaliated in what was probably an instinctual manner. He then deserves to get the shit kicked out of him by a mob? Bullshit.[/quote]
Thank you for the geography lesson as if that changes my point about the difference in culture. Secondly, he knew what the game show was about before going on and if he didn’t, it’s his fault for not finding out more ahead of time. THAT IS WHAT THAT ENTIRE SHOW IS ABOUT!
Women humiliating men. Understand? Under normal circumstances, she would be completely in the wrong but these circumstances weren’t normal and regardless, yes I do believe she did still cross the line in becoming physical but it’s not as if this happened in a club or bar. He should have just manned up and taken the slap like a big boy.
Women can’t hit for shit and yes he deserved the beat down afterwards for slapping her back on a fucking game show.
[quote]Da Vinci wrote:
Thank you for the geography lesson as if that changes my point about the difference in culture. Secondly, he knew what the game show was about before going on and if he didn’t, it’s his fault for not finding out more ahead of time.[/quote]
That’s pretty ridiculous. I’m sure he had seen the show. I’m sure he knew that he’d be getting berated and humiliated. I mean, even you know that the entire show is about that. This leads me to believe that getting slapped is NOT something he signed on for, and since you even said that she crossed the line in doing so, I don’t see why it’s his fault for not anticipating it.
I understand what you’re saying, but being condescending doesn’t make you correct.
His was too.
Why? Tit for tat. She slapped him, he slapped her back. Is it because she’s weaker, and it’s not fair that he can do more damage? Maybe all of the guys that jumped him should have their asses kicked too. I mean, they did have a damage-dealing advantage.
That’s exactly right, only a pussy hits a woman who strikes him, especially with an open hand. He’s clearly just a sensitive little bitch who couldn’t handle the amazing power she possessed in her palm. You’re entitled to your opinion and if any women need beating, I’ll be sure to send them to Canada for you.
Regardless, I feel like I’m simply arguing to argue now, I’ve given my opinion and I understand yours and although I disagree, I can accept it.
[quote]gangstpmp3 wrote:
did he cry[/quote]
I don’t think he cried because he’s young, as someone else pointed out. I think he cried when the 27th person joined the angry mob that stomped on his face a few seconds later.
[quote]strangec wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Women love a reaction, and sometimes (not always) resort to using unscrupulous tactics to get them. Should you go down that road, be wary of what you might find.
You got that right!
A former British model has been jailed after smashing a wine glass on a student’s face and dragging it along his cheek.
Lisa Kee was drunk when she attacked Liam Sharratt at an upmarket bar in Deansgate in England’s south in 2007, theTelegraph newspaper reports.
Manchester Crown Court heard that Kee approached Mr Sharratt and a group of his friends, where they exchanged in “good humoured banter”.
But when her victim jokingly called her “a slag”, Kee turned violent.
The 29-year-old, who had a “red wine moustache”, demanded: “Who do you think you are?”
She tossed her red wine over Mr Sharratt and, when he laughed, she punched him in the head.
Mr Sharratt laughed again and this time Kee smashed her wine glass against his head before dragging it over his face and ripping his cheek open.
The gash was so deep that when he breathed his cheek flapped open.
He was left scarred for life.
Judge Martin Rudland described the incident as a “vicious and wholly unwarranted attack.”
Kee, who stood sobbing in the dock, was jailed for two-and-a-half years.
Mr Sharratt, a PHD student, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and had to delay the completion of his studies.
[/quote]
If this situation was reversed (the man cut the woman’s cheek with the wine glass), would have the punishment been the same? Something to think about.
Sean Connery weighs in on teh slapz: