Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 12 Sep '14 04:09
    Recently I've seen leftists argue that since Hamas is doing so little damage to Israel that Israel has no right to defend itself.

    Even more recently I've seen two stories about football players who have been attacked by women then turn around and hit back. Once again, since the women did little to no damage to the men but the men knocked the women out as well as other damage I'm sure, the men are being punished.

    It seems to me that there is a double standard in this world today:

    If you are weak you can feel free to attack with all your might, but if you are strong then you can't fight back.
  2. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    12 Sep '14 04:21
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Recently I've seen leftists argue that since Hamas is doing so little damage to Israel that Israel has no right to defend itself.

    Even more recently I've seen two stories about football players who have been attacked by women then turn around and hit back. Once again, since the women did little to no damage to the men but the men knocked the women out as ...[text shortened]... ou can feel free to attack with all your might, but if you are strong then you can't fight back.
    The normal requirement is that proportionate force is used for self-defence. In both the cases you have cited the force used in response was not proportionate to force used in attack.
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Sep '14 11:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Recently I've seen leftists argue that since Hamas is doing so little damage to Israel that Israel has no right to defend itself.

    Even more recently I've seen two stories about football players who have been attacked by women then turn around and hit back. Once again, since the women did little to no damage to the men but the men knocked the women out as ...[text shortened]... ou can feel free to attack with all your might, but if you are strong then you can't fight back.
    If someone steps on your toe you don't bend their kid over, rape it and then chop its head off.
  4. 12 Sep '14 12:49
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    The normal requirement is that proportionate force is used for self-defence. In both the cases you have cited the force used in response was not proportionate to force used in attack.
    I am not talking about self defense.

    I'm talking about physically attacking another person. The first person who throws the punch or slaps the other person is not defending himself or herself.

    Nice attempt to changed the subject.
  5. 12 Sep '14 13:10
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Recently I've seen leftists argue that since Hamas is doing so little damage to Israel that Israel has no right to defend itself.

    Even more recently I've seen two stories about football players who have been attacked by women then turn around and hit back. Once again, since the women did little to no damage to the men but the men knocked the women out as ...[text shortened]... ou can feel free to attack with all your might, but if you are strong then you can't fight back.
    there is such a thing as proportionate response. unless you're a sociopath. then you would think it is ok to knock out a 40kg woman even though you were in no danger.
  6. 12 Sep '14 13:11
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I am not talking about self defense.

    I'm talking about physically attacking another person. The first person who throws the punch or slaps the other person is not defending himself or herself.

    Nice attempt to changed the subject.
    oh so what are you talking about? revenge? teaching the attacker a lesson?
  7. 12 Sep '14 13:34
    I think the better double standard is the way we look at the true victim of aggression. No one would blaming Ray Rice's girl friend/ wife if next time she is attacked she chose to defend herself. Similarly no one should blame Israel for doing what they can to stop tunnels across their borders and rockets being shot at their people.
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Sep '14 14:19
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I think the better double standard is the way we look at the true victim of aggression. No one would blaming Ray Rice's girl friend/ wife if next time she is attacked she chose to defend herself. Similarly no one should blame Israel for doing what they can to stop tunnels across their borders and rockets being shot at their people.
    I think you've mixed the comparison up, there.
  9. 12 Sep '14 15:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Recently I've seen leftists argue that since Hamas is doing so little damage to Israel that Israel has no right to defend itself.

    Even more recently I've seen two stories about football players who have been attacked by women then turn around and hit back. Once again, since the women did little to no damage to the men but the men knocked the women out as ...[text shortened]... ou can feel free to attack with all your might, but if you are strong then you can't fight back.
    I think the expectation of proportional response applies when there is not really any danger.

    I recall watching a college basketball game when a brawl broke out. I remember pondering what makes someone be the first to throw a punch at what was previously a shoving match. It's not like there is real danger because no one is going to pull a gun from his college basketball uniform.

    But if your in a real street brawl, things can be different. In particular, if someone shoots you in the arm, it's not like you need to be thinking you should only shoot them in the arm back. Either (1): the danger has passed and you need to let the police handle it or (2): you are still in danger and your shots should be used to disable the attacker. In neither case would be trying to shoot them in the arm.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    12 Sep '14 15:36
    Originally posted by techsouth
    I think the expectation of proportional response applies when there is not really any danger.

    I recall watching a college basketball game when a brawl broke out. I remember pondering what makes someone be the first to throw a punch at what was previously a shoving match. It's not like there is real danger because no one is going to pull a gun from his ...[text shortened]... ould be used to disable the attacker. In neither case would be trying to shoot them in the arm.
    If they shoot you in the arm is it appropriate to call in an airstrike to level their house?
  11. 12 Sep '14 17:25
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    If they shoot you in the arm is it appropriate to call in an airstrike to level their house?
    That does not sound like a useful analogy for any scenario I can think of.
  12. 12 Sep '14 18:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi to Eladar
    there is such a thing as proportionate response. unless you're a sociopath.
    then you would think it is ok to knock out a 40kg woman even though you were in no danger.
    When I first noticed the title of Eladar's thread, I began wondering if Eladar
    was going to excuse Ray Rice for knocking out his fiancée, Janay Palmer.
    (Obviously, Ray Rice's physically much stronger than Janay Palmer.)
  13. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    12 Sep '14 18:44
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Recently I've seen leftists argue that since Hamas is doing so little damage to Israel that Israel has no right to defend itself.

    Even more recently I've seen two stories about football players who have been attacked by women then turn around and hit back. Once again, since the women did little to no damage to the men but the men knocked the women out as ...[text shortened]... ou can feel free to attack with all your might, but if you are strong then you can't fight back.
    Yes, I'm afraid, Eladar, that the days of cavemen dragging women around by their hair whilst carrying a club over their shoulder have long passed.

    Except possibly in Alabama.
  14. 12 Sep '14 19:02
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    If they shoot you in the arm is it appropriate to call in an airstrike to level their house?
    If you shoot someone in the arm and then then level your house, you are as dumb as Palestinian supports if you think people should have sympathy for your disproportionate response argument.
  15. 12 Sep '14 20:35
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    The normal requirement is that proportionate force is used for self-defence. In both the cases you have cited the force used in response was not proportionate to force used in attack.
    The required standard for self defense using deadly force in most States is that the defender must reasonably believe he or someone else is in danger of loss of life, or of great bodily harm. That isn't quite as simple a standard as "proportionate response". Whether a person reasonably fears death or great bodily harm is an individual evaluation of circumstance, somewhat dependent on that individual's ability to respond with alternative defenses.

    The weaker person may indeed resort to deadly force sooner than the stronger, to answer the OP directly. There is a double standard.