Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:23:39 -0800, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>"Rauni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > > > Typical soc.men twisting of the facts, data collected from the
>> >> > > > National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice
>Statistics)
>> >> > > > consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who
>> >> > > > initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be
>> >> > > > injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Still peddling the same ol' shtick here, eh Rauni?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Men are bigger and stronger than women for the most part.  It
>stands
>> >to
>> >> > > reason
>> >> > > when you start a fight with a Mac truck, you lose, and lose badly.
>> >I've
>> >> > > asked you
>> >> > > before to give us some insight into what this might mean other than
>> >the
>> >> > > obvious.
>> >> > > But no, you just keep throwing this out there - kind of like the
>> >soc.men
>> >> > you
>> >> > > accuse of doing
>> >> > > the exact same thing.  Women are hurt more!  This proves
>everything!
>> >> Well
>> >> > > in fact it
>> >> > > does little to prove who initiated what, and it simply reaffirms
>the
>> >> > > obvious:  most men are physically
>> >> > > stronger than most women.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Okay - using your analogy.
>> >> >
>> >> > You have a Mac truck and  a subcompact. Which would you think would
>be
>> >> more
>> >> > risky and potentially damaging to use if you planned to weave in and
>out
>> >> of
>> >> > traffic?
>> >> >
>> >> > Rules of the road (as in all things) apply equally, but practical
>> >> allowance
>> >> > is made for capability (ya don't see too many Coopers at weigh in
>> >> stations -
>> >> > even though highway weight codes technically apply to them as well).
>> >>
>> >> No, but occationally I see one of the fly in front of a Mac, slam on
>the
>> >> brakes, and nearly cause an
>> >> accident.  You see, the Mac truck being built as it is - can't stop on
>a
>> >> dime.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If you're driving a Mac, its a given that you're expected to keep
>that
>> >> fact
>> >> > in mind. If you're capable of putting another person in the hospital
>> >with
>> >> > your greater upper body strength keep that in mind as well.
>> >>
>> >> I see your point, but like I said, there are many variables to
>consider.
>> >> My point was that Rauni's trotting out of that statistic does little to
>> >show
>> >> the interpersonal
>> >> dynamics that exist in violent relationships, or the rate of DV
>comitted
>> >> and/or initiated by both men and women.
>> >> On top of this, men are socially conditioned to 'never hit a woman',
>> >whereas
>> >> the reverse does not apply.
>> >
>> >That is a pretty sweeping statement. I would say that a good many
>cultures
>> >in the world, even in the western world, have the opposite case - that
>> >hitting a woman is acceptable or even necessary.
>> >
>> >Not so long ago there were even rules encoded that sanctioned such
>> >behaviour. The Napoleonic code actually gave rules for proper beating of
>> >wives.
>> >
>> >> Add to this the hundreds of empirical studies that have shown violence
>to
>> >be
>> >> intiated at relatively equal
>> >> rates in intimate relationships, and you have a different picture than
>> >what
>> >> Rauni would like to present.
>> >
>> >Depends how you define violence. I have two very good friends who,
>> >unfortunately, have very different personalities. He clams up when
>> >confronted on personal matters, she screams. When she gets especially
>> >frustrated she throws things (not at him) and breaks things.
>> >
>> >He OTOH, is passive agressive and doesn't respond at all. One time she
>got
>> >especially frustrated at his unwillingness to discuss an issue and she
>> >grabbed him by the upper arm. He took her hand, twisted it, and gave her
>a
>> >severe bruise and twisted wrist.
>> >
>> >Who initiated violence? Debateable. Who lost control? Debateable again.
>But
>> >who was damaged is NOT debateable.
>> >>
>> >> For instance, were the wounds inflicted in self-defense?   If a woman
>> >> punches a man in the face, and he strikes her back,
>> >> as a generalization - who do you think will be hurt more?  Are these
>> >violent
>> >> acts somehow 'less' or 'more' than equal to one another?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Reasonable force to restrain, but what you're talking about isn't
>restraint
>> >but retaliation.
>>
>> I guess he doesn't understand the *legal* definition of self-defense
>> "The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence
>> with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary. "
>>
>> Oh yeah the definition of reasonable "not excessive or extreme; fair
>> Being within the bounds of common sense"
>
>So it's reasonable for her to hypothetically punch him in the face, but not
>*fair* for him

Damn are you trying to be stupid?  I don't recall saying that her
behavior were reasonable. Actually it is stupid. But to defend himself
from what? All he has to do is leave and never be around the bitch
again. He would have to be in immediate physical threat for it to
reasonable for him to return a punch.

>to defend himself by doing likewise?   Seems you are the one who
>misunderstands the definition

I suggest you look up the definition of defense. He is not defending
himself. He will end in jail if he punches back. Same would apply if
he were in a bar and a stranger punched him and he punched back thus
causing bodily harm to the stranger

>of reasonable force.  Reverse the genders, he the aggressor, she the
>defendant, and all of a sudden
>PRESTO *your* view changes.  

Nope it doesn't. The twit needs to leave the man pronto as so as he
becomes violent.

>It becomes acceptable, she can punch to her
>hearts content - no matter how much she
>ends up hurting him.  At least my hypothetical situation is consistent.
>We've got a word for this:  Bigotry.
>
Yawn, more victim mentality. You read between the lines and see things
that aren't written. 
>> >
>> >> You raise an interesting question though.  If men are required to
>restrain
>> >> themselves in violent altercations with women,
>> >> than what are women doing in the military?
>> >
>> >Because the military is all about measured and directed use of force and
>> >violence. I would put it to you that that being the case, some women
>would
>> >be actually overqualified for military service.
>>
>> And the military is *not*  always about physical strength. Most Airmen
>> and Sailors don't see any combat.
>
>Nice to see both of you miss my point.  Whooooosh over your head it goes.

That is because you *don't* have a point other than a lot of whining

>>****I can assure you the enemy makes no such fru-fru distinctions.  *****
>