23 Sep 07
This can be quite a controversial issue but I feel that in the modern day, women are not as weak and reclusive as they once were and sometimes flaunt the archaic unspoken rule of not hitting women.
For example, in a case I heard about, a gang of kids attacked some guy in the street, he fended off the male members but was too chivalrous to hit the girls and, therefore, ended up losing and being mugged and nearly killed.
I think in this instance, any notion of being gentlemanly should have gone out of the window and he should have socked them like the trash they were but I am sure there will be others who disagree with me.
Of course, I am not advocating the notion that husbands are justified in beating their wife for not cooking the dinner right, but I am saying that in the cases that women go out looking to inflict physical harm on men and expect to receive no retalliation because men 'cant' hit women then the old rules should be rethought.
23 Sep 07
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexThread 77538
This can be quite a controversial issue but I feel that in the modern day, women are not as weak and reclusive as they once were and sometimes flaunt the archaic unspoken rule of not hitting women.
For example, in a case I heard about, a gang of kids attacked some guy in the street, he fended off the male members but was too chivalrous to hit th ...[text shortened]... o receive no retalliation because men 'cant' hit women then the old rules should be rethought.
And some guys will be given a beating from females and deserve it. 😛
Do you have a grudge against females this week, that you feel the need to use humiliation and physical violence against them?
23 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI read the whole thread, so I did see the other postings after your opening of the subject.
No, the rodeo was a different idea entirely and also not my own as can be seen by the number of different interpretations other people had of it, this one is more of a serious issue.
EDIT: Don't you think that your "rodeo" idea could be considered a serious issue? I think it could end in a court as a rape case.
23 Sep 07
Originally posted by Pawn Qweennot really rape because the woman in question would have agreed to have sex with him in the first case. not really a kidnapping since we assume he would let her go if she demanded it.
I read the whole thread, so I did see the other postings after your opening of the subject.
EDIT: Don't you think that your "rodeo" idea could be considered a serious issue? I think it could end in a court as a rape case.
i don't think the law could do anything to him other than a fine for something that fits into the code.
other than the fact that it is totally retarded to even think at what he proposed, i fear he cannot be touched by law.
now that we established he is a complete idiot, let's get back to the issue at hand. chivalry only applies to women that cannot defend themselves. so somebody hitting a defenseless woman(or child, or dog) can hardly qualify as a human being, whatever the motive would be. But when a woman comes at you with a knife or a stick with the intent to hurt you, chivalry doesn't apply. you can and should smack her(don't be stupid it is a matter of survival). As long as you don't cross the self-deffence line and become the aggressor.
last but not least i would like to point again what a retard tyrannosaurwhatsihisname is.
23 Sep 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziSome good points there, others not so good. Perhaps we should look at your credentials, I dont know much about you but your chess record is hardly one that screams out that you are a high quality thinker.
not really rape because the woman in question would have agreed to have sex with him in the first case. not really a kidnapping since we assume he would let her go if she demanded it.
i don't think the law could do anything to him other than a fine for something that fits into the code.
other than the fact that it is totally retarded to even think ...[text shortened]...
last but not least i would like to point again what a retard tyrannosaurwhatsihisname is.
Anyway, less of the debate of my rodeo topic here, lets try and stick to this matter.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziNot sure how it goes in our country, but in mine a woman can say no at any point, if the man continues against her will, then it is classed as rape. What he had planned was not what she agreed to, so that would not protect him. If you read the thread in question, you would see that she would have to fight him off to get away. I didn't say it was kidnap, but it would be classed as a sex offence. 🙂
not really rape because the woman in question would have agreed to have sex with him in the first case. not really a kidnapping since we assume he would let her go if she demanded it.
i don't think the law could do anything to him other than a fine for something that fits into the code.
other than the fact that it is totally retarded to even think ...[text shortened]...
last but not least i would like to point again what a retard tyrannosaurwhatsihisname is.
24 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI don't hit anyone as a rule, but if necessary, I will hit anyone I need to, male or female. I think the man in your story is a dumbass.
This can be quite a controversial issue but I feel that in the modern day, women are not as weak and reclusive as they once were and sometimes flaunt the archaic unspoken rule of not hitting women.
For example, in a case I heard about, a gang of kids attacked some guy in the street, he fended off the male members but was too chivalrous to hit th ...[text shortened]... o receive no retalliation because men 'cant' hit women then the old rules should be rethought.
To me, being from California with it's huge population of effeminate homosexuals (or metrosexuals) as well as our share of old people, I tend to look at it more as a "can defend self"/"helpless" sort of thing rather than a male/female. If someone's attacking me, they are clearly not in the "helpless" category, but there is violence and there is violence. One should not shoot a girl who slaps one for example.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by Pawn Qweensex offence yes, but not rape. at best they would get sentenced as peeping toms. and if they let her go the second she demands it then i dont think they could be convicted of anything harsher.
Not sure how it goes in our country, but in mine a woman can say no at any point, if the man continues against her will, then it is classed as rape. What he had planned was not what she agreed to, so that would not protect him. If you read the thread in question, you would see that she would have to fight him off to get away. I didn't say it was kidnap, but it would be classed as a sex offence. 🙂
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe point is they DON'T let her go when she asks. That's why it's rape.
sex offence yes, but not rape. at best they would get sentenced as peeping toms. and if they let her go the second she demands it then i dont think they could be convicted of anything harsher.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexwell i argue that if you are a good chess player you are not necessarily a great thinker. and the rodeo thread argues my case perfectly. the creator of that thread(hey thats you!) is a sadistic retarded 12 year old.
Some good points there, others not so good. Perhaps we should look at your credentials, I dont know much about you but your chess record is hardly one that screams out that you are a high quality thinker.
Anyway, less of the debate of my rodeo topic here, lets try and stick to this matter.
and since this is a corespondence chess club it is not the same as real time chess.
and last but not least, some chess players simply study hard the theory and recognize patterns. this doesn't make them intelligent, just high capacity computers.
24 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungi didnt read so much in that thread, did he say she isnt allowed to leave?
The point is they DON'T let her go when she asks. That's why it's rape.
Edit "hang on for as long as possible as the girl tries to buck you off and leave in disgust."
yes he did 😀. well just what i was saying, idiotic. well retarded people think of jamming nails into electric outlets many times. thankfully they restrain themselves. i just hope the moron didnt put into practice his bright friend idea. should someone tell him it is illegal what he was proposing? Neah 🙂
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschexthat thread will haunt you for the rest of your days on this site. everytime you put up a thread there will be someone who will search what other threads you have spawned and find the rodeo thread. you might as well make another user if you expect anyone to treat you with some respect.
Some good points there, others not so good. Perhaps we should look at your credentials, I dont know much about you but your chess record is hardly one that screams out that you are a high quality thinker.
Anyway, less of the debate of my rodeo topic here, lets try and stick to this matter.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by ZahlanziI think you're being overly dramatic. This will be quickly forgotten, and even if not, it can easily be passed off as a joke.
that thread will haunt you for the rest of your days on this site. everytime you put up a thread there will be someone who will search what other threads you have spawned and find the rodeo thread. you might as well make another user if you expect anyone to treat you with some respect.