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.
Originally posted by EladarThe 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.
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.
Originally posted by EladarIf someone steps on your toe you don't bend their kid over, rape it and then chop its head off.
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.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI am not talking about self defense.
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'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.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by Eladarthere 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.
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.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by Eladaroh so what are you talking about? revenge? teaching the attacker a lesson?
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.
12 Sep 14
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.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by quackquackI think you've mixed the comparison up, there.
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.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by EladarI think the expectation of proportional response applies when there is not really any danger.
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 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.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by techsouthIf they shoot you in the arm is it appropriate to call in an airstrike to level their house?
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.
Originally posted by EladarYes, 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.
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.
Except possibly in Alabama.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf 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.
If they shoot you in the arm is it appropriate to call in an airstrike to level their house?
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe 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 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 weaker person may indeed resort to deadly force sooner than the stronger, to answer the OP directly. There is a double standard.