No. I still read the forums from time to time. There are still some people here whose opinions I value greatly. I draw the line, however, at continued participation. My goodbye was meant to indicate that I would no longer post.
I've spent countless hours prosecuting people who commit acts of violence against women. Much, if not most, of this happens under a cloud of intense pressure. (financial, marital, etc.) To then turn around and yuck it up with a person who punched a woman who was merely "annoying" him... Let's just say that I'm not willing to descend to that level of hypocrisy.
I'm not judging others. I'm just framing my decisions within the context of my life. And it's a life that I choose not to fill with hypocrisy.
By posting today, I just wanted to respond to the accusation that I did not consider both sides of the story. That goes towards my credibility.
So now I'm off into the wild blue yonder yet again.
I've spent countless hours prosecuting people who commit acts of violence against women. Much, if not most, of this happens under a cloud of intense pressure. (financial, marital, etc.) To then turn around and yuck it up with a person who punched a woman who was merely "annoying" him... Let's just say that I'm not willing to descend to that level of hypocrisy.
I was taught that we define the amount of damage from sexual/physical abuse from the frame of mind of the victim both physically and mentally. As Emily responded, she was not dealt serious damage in either category and the incident could be marked up as horseplay at worst if not an accident. I think Kilarney, while he has a very vaild and real point, is blowing the incident out of proportion a little and his actions are a bit rash. I respect his opinion very much and I'm upset that he has decided not to post in the forums anymore because I greatly respect his opinion.
I agree that condemnation of the action is in order, but it seems Scott learned from his lesson and stated he won't do it again. Should this not be applauded?
Everyone, kilarney is going to go away because not enough people believe in prosecutors. But if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you do believe in prosecutors, maybe he won’t go away . . .
I enjoy kilarney, especially during FNPL, when he was doubting the Geek Haus and that the FRC won't be at tight in future years to come. One of my favorite episodes.
The problem I had was that Scott's version of the event appeared to be minimization. Without going into too much psychology, minimization is no excuse.
I have no problem with Scott providing context. And it may be that the context was indeed less egregious than one would assume. However, it is still wrong to hit someone. Especially a woman. And that is what was missing from Scott's defense. To be honest, though, the argument that it was horseplay cuts both ways. If it was just horseplay, then it makes the escalation all the more troubling.
I've actually been in a situation (many years ago) where a female was physically aggressive toward me. So I'm not making a judgment based on speculation. I restrained her so she couldn't harm me, and got help. Not once did I consider fighting back. There was no need.
If Scott acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and was truly sorry it happened, then I would gladly associate with him. We all make mistakes. A judge that I respect once said: "It's not the mistakes that matter. It's what you learn and do after a mistake. After all, you can't turn back the time." But given his current position, I personally choose not to be hypocritical. It's nothing personal against him. It's just that I've got to walk the walk if I'm going to talk the talk.
I didn't mean to drag this up again. I was really hoping it would go away. Trust me, it's not a topic that I talk about with any glee. And for all I know, but for this issue, Scott's the greatest guy in the world. This has much more to do with my moral compass than with his. I'll be the first to admit that I'm extremely sensitive to this issue. That's what happens when you deal with it on the front lines almost every day. It's one of the toughest parts of my job. We don't see too many happy things in my business.
If Scott acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and was truly sorry it happened, then I would gladly associate with him.
I was not aware that I had failed on any level to acknowledge this. It appears that you are the only one here who seems to think I have not. It also seems like other peoples here want you to return. I personally don't care who posts here, and who does not, but as a provider of entertainment, I feel pleasing the fans is my duty. It really won't hurt to reiterate it in plain text, if that is all you need, it costs me nothing to provide.
All violence is wrong, and I am sorry to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of violence, accidental or on purpose, that has originated from myself.
I can understand how you feel, though. I can imagine that if say, I found out Rym was smoking crack, I might react similarly. And I don't even deal with crackheads ever, let alone a daily basis.
Also, Emily probably has a lot to say. However, because she has been posting too much instead of working, she had us take away her posting abilities until a time in the future.
The only issue I take with all this is that somehow male-on-female violence is the problem. Would you have reacted the same way had Scott hit me in the mouth by accident instead?
Would you have reacted the same way had Scott hit me in the mouth by accident instead?
Yes, I would have. What matters is power and control, and the difference in the parties' ability to exercise that power and control.
I know what you're trying to do. You are trying to trap me into making some sort of sexist claim. It is not based on sex. It is based on the ability of one person to exercise power and control over another. The statistics overwhelmingly illustrate that men are more able to exercise power and control over women. In all likelihood it is a function of both cultural and physical characteristics. But there are exceptions to every rule. That is why sex alone means nothing.
I also have a problem with the boy-hitting-girl taboo. Obviously there are the wife beaters which are another matter but in a normal everyday context i find a lot of girls thing they can just poke (and occasionally hit) me all day just to ''annoy me'' but when i retaliate (after warnings) they come up with the ''you can't hit a girl line''. I'm not hitting them that forcefully and if they wanted to they could hit me back just as hard but suddenly I'm the bad guy.
All violence is wrong but theirs against me is just as bad as my retaliation, and more frequent!
In our culture, male-on-female violence is a much more serious problem than female-on-male violence. Like it or not, those are the cold, hard statistics. To change the culture, one must condone all types of male on female violence.
Like I said earlier, all violence is bad. That's not the issue. However, different forms of violence have much different contexts.
A guys gets punched in a bar fight. A wife is beaten because she doesn't have dinner ready. Let's assume that the actual acts of violence are the same. In my mind, one is much worse than the other. The guy can leave the bar. The woman has to live with the man or choose to leave him. Maybe she has no job. He's probably isolated her from having any friends. Leaving isn't as easy as it seems. It's certainly a lot harder than walking out of a bar.
That's not what happened here - but these issues show why I generally place violence against women in a different category than male-on-male violence.
A guys gets punched in a bar fight. A wife is beaten because she doesn't have dinner ready. Let's assume that the actual acts of violence are the same. In my mind, one is much worse than the other. The guy can leave the bar. The woman has to live with the man or choose to leave him. Maybe she has no job. He's probably isolated her from having any friends. Leaving isn't as easy as it seems. It's certainly a lot harder than walking out of a bar.
That's not what happened here - but these issues show why I generally place violence against women in a different category than male-on-male violence.
This seems very "hate crime"-ish. Punish the action, not context of the action. If assault is bad, then the punishment should be equally bad for all forms of assault. Male on male, male on women, women on male.
Before I married Carole, I was chatting up this girl in a college bar. I don't remember much about what we said, but I sorta started teasing her. It was hard not to because she was wearing this BRIGHT yellow dress that made her look like a banana, and I couldn't resist telling her so. So, as we were sitting at a table on the patio, she got mad and suddenly just hit me in the face with a closed fist.
It was pretty close to closing time, so everyone just decided it would be a good time to leave. I saw the girl right outside the bar and walked over to apologize. As I started to apologize she jumped up and hit me again four times really fast with her closed fist. She had to jump because I'm 6' 2" and she was about 5' 2". I was very worried someone would think I was about to hit her, so I clasped my hands behind my back. So I stood there, hands behind my back, saying, "Please stop that", while she was jumping and hitting me. It was weird because it was like getting hit with a feather (she must have weighed about 100 lbs and I weighed about 230 lbs at the time), but she was wearing a ring that must have had a rough edge because my lower lip started bleeding a little. She saw the blood, got all freaked out, and ran away. Everyone thought it was one of the funniest things they'd ever seen. It took a few years and a move to another town before people stopped teasing me about it.
I agree that Scott did go OTT by punching Emily in the face when she was only poking him. Its not really something to get worked up over. If he really needed to fight back, it should have been with faster more potent pokes.
However, i pose this question. If a girl hits me in the face and she made the first move, do I not have the right to hit her back? The way i see it is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Are we not all equal creatures?
If someone says that I have an unfair advantage in terms of the supreme power behind my punch, then really shouldn't the girl of thought the consequences of her action before she done this? If you disagree with this, does this mean that I can punch any female body builder that is technically stronger then me?
However, i pose this question. If a girl hits me in the face and she made the first move, do I not have the right to hit her back? The way i see it is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
You are allowed to use sufficient force to prevent further immediate harm to yourself. Any excess force lands you in jail, and then you'll be fending off an entirely different type of attacker.
The way i see it is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
That's revenge. Modern civilization does not, and should not condone revenge of any kind, as a general rule. Don't get me wrong, revenge was an effective tool back when we were a more primitive race; It got the job done. We can do a lot better now though.
In our culture, male-on-female violence is a much more serious problem than female-on-male violence. Like it or not, those are the cold, hard statistics. [...] these issues show why I generally place violence against women in a different category than male-on-male violence.
I agree, and commend your candour. I know a guy who volunteers on a mens' helpline, basically counseling them on how to stop abusing their partners. That's not something I could do.
Part of the problem is that the traditional masculine culture discourages men from speaking out against others' violence and pushes everything under the rug. However, I'd like to point out that in this situation, if Scott had seriously assaulted Emily, then it would've been a case of one guy beating up another guy's girlfriend, and in traditional masculine culture that's *not* a case where you're supposed to be silent. The first guy would be out the door, if not in hospital. So I do agree with the comments that your initial response was a bit of an overreaction.
You are allowed to use sufficient force to prevent further immediate harm to yourself. Any excess force lands you in jail, and then you'll be fending off an entirely different type of attacker.
I still fail to see why you place violence into different categories depending upon the gender of the victim/aggressor. Why not make one law/punishment which is applied equally to all people? The statistics may show a disparity between who is the aggressor and who is the victim, but does this mean that we should alter the law to adjust to this disparity? It seem unjust to do so.
You are allowed to use sufficient force to prevent further immediate harm to yourself. Any excess force lands you in jail, and then you'll be fending off an entirely different type of attacker.
I still fail to see why you place violence into different categories depending upon the gender of the victim/aggressor. Why not make one law/punishment which is applied equally to all people? The statistics may show a disparity between who is the aggressor and who is the victim, but does this mean that we should alter the law to adjust to this disparity? It seem unjust to do so.
I believe it boils down to the idea of "with great power comes great responsibility".
If you get drunk at a bar and pick a fight with Chuck Norris and he kicks your ass you can sue him. If you kick his ass he's not going to sue you (you might get a call and a contract offer from Don King). This is because Chuck's hands are deadly weapons. It is his responsibility to inform you that if he hits you he will likely kill you.
When a normal man fights a normal woman the man has the advantage. Therefore it is up to the man to pull his punches because the threat to his body is much lower than the threat to the woman if he attacks her back. Now, with that said, all bets are off if she brings an "equalizer" to the fight.
In the case of Scott vs. Emily... Well... Emily should be pulling her punches.
When a normal man fights a normal woman the man has the advantage. Therefore it is up to the man to pull his punches because the threat to his body is much lower than the threat to the woman if he attacks her back. Now, with that said, all bets are off if she brings an "equalizer" to the fight.
Are you saying that women are naturally inferior to men?
Comments
Nuff said.
Plac, plac, plac, plac,plac.
Oh well. Ha!
I've spent countless hours prosecuting people who commit acts of violence against women. Much, if not most, of this happens under a cloud of intense pressure. (financial, marital, etc.) To then turn around and yuck it up with a person who punched a woman who was merely "annoying" him... Let's just say that I'm not willing to descend to that level of hypocrisy.
I'm not judging others. I'm just framing my decisions within the context of my life. And it's a life that I choose not to fill with hypocrisy.
By posting today, I just wanted to respond to the accusation that I did not consider both sides of the story. That goes towards my credibility.
So now I'm off into the wild blue yonder yet again.
I agree that condemnation of the action is in order, but it seems Scott learned from his lesson and stated he won't do it again. Should this not be applauded?
In other words... DON'T GO KILARNEY! Le tear.
Everyone, kilarney is going to go away because not enough people believe in prosecutors. But if all of you clap your hands real hard to show that you do believe in prosecutors, maybe he won’t go away . . .
I enjoy kilarney, especially during FNPL, when he was doubting the Geek Haus and that the FRC won't be at tight in future years to come. One of my favorite episodes.
I have no problem with Scott providing context. And it may be that the context was indeed less egregious than one would assume. However, it is still wrong to hit someone. Especially a woman. And that is what was missing from Scott's defense. To be honest, though, the argument that it was horseplay cuts both ways. If it was just horseplay, then it makes the escalation all the more troubling.
I've actually been in a situation (many years ago) where a female was physically aggressive toward me. So I'm not making a judgment based on speculation. I restrained her so she couldn't harm me, and got help. Not once did I consider fighting back. There was no need.
If Scott acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and was truly sorry it happened, then I would gladly associate with him. We all make mistakes. A judge that I respect once said: "It's not the mistakes that matter. It's what you learn and do after a mistake. After all, you can't turn back the time." But given his current position, I personally choose not to be hypocritical. It's nothing personal against him. It's just that I've got to walk the walk if I'm going to talk the talk.
I didn't mean to drag this up again. I was really hoping it would go away. Trust me, it's not a topic that I talk about with any glee. And for all I know, but for this issue, Scott's the greatest guy in the world. This has much more to do with my moral compass than with his. I'll be the first to admit that I'm extremely sensitive to this issue. That's what happens when you deal with it on the front lines almost every day. It's one of the toughest parts of my job. We don't see too many happy things in my business.
All violence is wrong, and I am sorry to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of violence, accidental or on purpose, that has originated from myself.
I can understand how you feel, though. I can imagine that if say, I found out Rym was smoking crack, I might react similarly. And I don't even deal with crackheads ever, let alone a daily basis.
Also, Emily probably has a lot to say. However, because she has been posting too much instead of working, she had us take away her posting abilities until a time in the future.
Girl hits Emily = crazy hot chick fight
Emily hits Scott = Scott gets bitched. Emily possibly gets applauded.
Scott hits Rym = meh.
Rym hits Scott = meh.
Scott hits Emily = OMG CALL THA POPO!
Honestly, no one would care as much if it wasn't a guy hitting a girl. Or that's how it's seen where I'm from anyways.
I know what you're trying to do. You are trying to trap me into making some sort of sexist claim. It is not based on sex. It is based on the ability of one person to exercise power and control over another. The statistics overwhelmingly illustrate that men are more able to exercise power and control over women. In all likelihood it is a function of both cultural and physical characteristics. But there are exceptions to every rule. That is why sex alone means nothing.
All violence is wrong but theirs against me is just as bad as my retaliation, and more frequent!
Like I said earlier, all violence is bad. That's not the issue. However, different forms of violence have much different contexts.
A guys gets punched in a bar fight. A wife is beaten because she doesn't have dinner ready. Let's assume that the actual acts of violence are the same. In my mind, one is much worse than the other. The guy can leave the bar. The woman has to live with the man or choose to leave him. Maybe she has no job. He's probably isolated her from having any friends. Leaving isn't as easy as it seems. It's certainly a lot harder than walking out of a bar.
That's not what happened here - but these issues show why I generally place violence against women in a different category than male-on-male violence.
It was pretty close to closing time, so everyone just decided it would be a good time to leave. I saw the girl right outside the bar and walked over to apologize. As I started to apologize she jumped up and hit me again four times really fast with her closed fist. She had to jump because I'm 6' 2" and she was about 5' 2". I was very worried someone would think I was about to hit her, so I clasped my hands behind my back. So I stood there, hands behind my back, saying, "Please stop that", while she was jumping and hitting me. It was weird because it was like getting hit with a feather (she must have weighed about 100 lbs and I weighed about 230 lbs at the time), but she was wearing a ring that must have had a rough edge because my lower lip started bleeding a little. She saw the blood, got all freaked out, and ran away. Everyone thought it was one of the funniest things they'd ever seen. It took a few years and a move to another town before people stopped teasing me about it.
However, i pose this question. If a girl hits me in the face and she made the first move, do I not have the right to hit her back? The way i see it is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Are we not all equal creatures?
If someone says that I have an unfair advantage in terms of the supreme power behind my punch, then really shouldn't the girl of thought the consequences of her action before she done this? If you disagree with this, does this mean that I can punch any female body builder that is technically stronger then me?
If Scott had hit Rym, it would have in fact been an even more serious issue, based on the knowledge we have gleaned from this thread.
As for cold, hard statistics, how about these:
http://www.dvmen.org/dv-35.htm#nimh That's revenge. Modern civilization does not, and should not condone revenge of any kind, as a general rule.
Don't get me wrong, revenge was an effective tool back when we were a more primitive race; It got the job done. We can do a lot better now though.
Part of the problem is that the traditional masculine culture discourages men from speaking out against others' violence and pushes everything under the rug. However, I'd like to point out that in this situation, if Scott had seriously assaulted Emily, then it would've been a case of one guy beating up another guy's girlfriend, and in traditional masculine culture that's *not* a case where you're supposed to be silent. The first guy would be out the door, if not in hospital. So I do agree with the comments that your initial response was a bit of an overreaction.
If you get drunk at a bar and pick a fight with Chuck Norris and he kicks your ass you can sue him. If you kick his ass he's not going to sue you (you might get a call and a contract offer from Don King). This is because Chuck's hands are deadly weapons. It is his responsibility to inform you that if he hits you he will likely kill you.
When a normal man fights a normal woman the man has the advantage. Therefore it is up to the man to pull his punches because the threat to his body is much lower than the threat to the woman if he attacks her back. Now, with that said, all bets are off if she brings an "equalizer" to the fight.
In the case of Scott vs. Emily... Well... Emily should be pulling her punches.